Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's Platform Strategist Speaks On Linux
prostoalex writes "Martin Taylor, general manager for platform strategies at Microsoft, was interviewed by CRN magazine on Linux, open source development, and Microsoft's official stand on it."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
what's next? apple gets sued for music copyright infringement? oh wait...
...but I bet he's against it
Didn't MS just released the source code for Windows a few days back???? ;)
Consensus is good, but informed dictatorship is better
Just because you have a bunch folks out in the community that have the access to look at open-source product means that, by default, it will be more secure or higher quality.
Shouldn't there be a "doesn't" in there somewhere, or is he arguing FOR open source?
We read about Linux on a website called 'Slashdot' where they've been predicting world domination every year for the past 6-7 years, and frankly, we were quite frightened. We finally got around to installing it to see what all the fuss was about, and maybe figure out why they make that prediction every year, and well, we're not really worried any more.
Love, Microsoft.
My eyes glazed over 1/3 of the way through that marketing drek. It's truly unfortunate that the Corporate World has forgotten how to speak in natural language. This shit's almost as bad as legalese.
Pierre
So in some ways, we've got a McDonald's No. 5 super-size offering that costs $2.99 and someone just wants a Diet Coke that costs 99 cents. So do we cut the entire super-size No. 5 down to 98 cents, or do we try to find a way to just give somebody the Diet Coke if that's what they want?
Does that make Linux some kind of free lunch then?
CRN: On the face of it, one could conclude that interest in Linux is the market's way of telling Microsoft that Windows pricing needs to change. What message do you think the market is trying to send?
TAYLOR: I would actually look at a similar construct but a different answer. You have to ask one of two questions. Is it either a) Windows is priced too high, or b) are we offering the right product at the right price point? We position Windows server as a multifunction server that does a variety of things. So in some ways, we've got a McDonald's No. 5 super-size offering that costs $2.99 and someone just wants a Diet Coke that costs 99 cents. So do we cut the entire super-size No. 5 down to 98 cents, or do we try to find a way to just give somebody the Diet Coke if that's what they want?
So Linux servers can't do a number of things and for a lower cost? For free I can turn a Linux box into a webserver, domain server, ftp server, irc server, database server and such. How exactly is Microsoft offering more value? All they are doing is charging more for their product.
CRN: On the face of it, one could conclude that interest in Linux is the market's way of telling Microsoft that Windows pricing needs to change. What message do you think the market is trying to send?
TAYLOR: I would actually look at a similar construct but a different answer. You have to ask one of two questions. Is it either a) Windows is priced too high, or b) are we offering the right product at the right price point? We position Windows server as a multifunction server that does a variety of things. So in some ways, we've got a McDonald's No. 5 super-size offering that costs $2.99 and someone just wants a Diet Coke that costs 99 cents. So do we cut the entire super-size No. 5 down to 98 cents, or do we try to find a way to just give somebody the Diet Coke if that's what they want?
Actually it is more like you (Micrsoft) have a McDonald's No. 5 supersize, and your buddy (Linux) is offering for you to come over to cook barbecued steaks!
So right away he takes a jab at Linux by comparing it to a Diet Coke, while comparing Windows to the full meal.
In credible. Big balls or no brains, you decide.
.sigs are for post^Hers.
Ah crap... when I read his McDonald's analogy I just blew mountain dew all over my "diet coke" workstation.
So in some ways, we've got a McDonald's No. 5 super-size offering that costs $2.99 and someone just wants a Diet Coke that costs 99 cents. So do we cut the entire super-size No. 5 down to 98 cents, or do we try to find a way to just give somebody the Diet Coke if that's what they want?
Linux isn't about offering less for cheaper, it's about doing things differently. In the above metaphor, Windows XX is a super-size BigMac (and it tastes just as gross and makes you just as sick in the stomach), the 99c Diet Coke is the Windows 'light' for Thailand, MacOS-X is a slightly tastier and less ubiquitous In-n-Out burger, and Linux/BSDs/... are a good solid helping of whatever healthy food you can find in good restaurants, predominantly outside the US, prepared by actual cooks and served by actual servers, who all prefer seeing you enjoy your meal than make you pay by the half-gram of beef patty present in the burger.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Microsoft is better for Joe Small Business Owner who knows about as much about computers as he does marketing his crappy product from his parents' basement. Who cares if his system is taken down every 10 minutes? 3 people a year buy his crap.
We're not as good as Linux for bigger businesses because they can afford to hire someone who might actually know something about how to use Linux, and therefore utilize its power. After all, it's more secure and more versatile, and you can develop your own applications for it.
Linux is actually more expensive if you choose to buy one of the commercial server distributions like RedHat or SuSE. We're just going to pretend that someone can easily get another distribution OR this same one for free off the Internet.
Linux support is harder to come by than Microsoft support! Never mind that the costs between getting a certified Linux technician and an MCSE are the same -- you can call Computer Bob who hangs out down at the local bar and have him service your Windows computer because he picked up 2000 Server for Dummies at Barnes and Noble the other day.
Ad nauseam.
IAALS.
First, I'm not surprised that they position themselves not against the tech, but against SUSE and RH as licensed support vendors. However, it seems to immediately miss the concept that a growing number of home users are exploring Linux as a cheaper alternative to an email/letter writing/game appliance.
As to those "edge servers" that Linux is capturing, he may want to look at where all the tech logic is flowing: "edge servers". If web services and other distributed apps continue to grow for enterprise solutions, Linux is going to house most of those according to his logic. Just by identifying it doesn't seem to answer the issue of "what is your strategy?".
The whole price point comment seems too fluffy. Of course you have to look at what you're doing! Haven't you made up *any* clear strategy yet? If he'd said "we're going to show that Windows can scale, can be as secure and reliable, and that the value-added product it competitave with the leading vendors" I'd appreciate the interview. But he didn't.
Some pretty good tough questions, with some not so direct answers. But still peculiar in the ways noted above. I'm surprised he gave that interview to begin with.
everything in moderation
You don't really do it for free. It takes your time to recompile your kernal if you don't want a swiss-army-knife operating system like Windows. There's free software for pretty much each of the apps you've described, with varying capability and premium software you can buy, too, for each.
The rock bottom difference for me between the two is with Linux I know what I have and can see it all. With Windows I have to have faith in them, because it's a black box.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Red Hat Professional Workstation = $99.95
RHEL 3 - Workstation = $179+
RHEL 3 - Enterprise Server = $299+
RHEL 3 - Advanced Server = $1,499+
The + means you can pay more depending on the support configuration.
HOWEVER, if you aren't interested in RHN and support, buy one and install it on a thousand machines. Fully legal, according to the EULA. Try that with Windows and see what happens...
Charles Hill
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
The biggest laugh of this whole article for me was that he seems to equate security as having an integrated firewall:
"CRN: Do you worry that Linux will gain more traction at the edge because of security concerns about Windows?
TAYLOR: Security is one of those workloads where Linux is getting traction, partly because we don't have a firewall appliance offering today. We have technologies, but we don't have a lockdown, hardened firewall that we can put in."
Sorry Mr. Taylor, but a firewall is NOT what the "security concerns" with Windows are. A firewall is a PIECE of a network security solution, but OS security has to be there first. A firewall won't do you any good if your web server is vulnerable to a trivial exploit.
I guess we can put this guy's comment to the test when XP SP2 ships with the firewall turned on by default. We'll see if the overall security of Windows increases dramatically just because of a firewall. I'm not holding my breath.
That article needs more cowbell!
Anyway, Iw ould like to hear waht you think of the tone of this article
Sigs are dangerous coy things
Well, it's not exactly scientific, but...
$ cat ChangeLog-2.6.1 | grep @ | grep -v " " | uniq | wc
254 254 5702
Does that qualify as an order-of-magnitude error?
I tried babelfish but it made no difference. Is there a web site that will translate that interview into English - or any known human laguage?
They feel threatened by that Linux is free as in beer. So they talk about TCO. And burger meals. And how you can segment the market. The marketeers at MS tries all the tricks a marketeer knows about.
They totally miss "free as in freedom". The FOSS development model is commoditizing software faster than MS can develop itself out of. And gives the control back to the users. That's why Linux will win.
)9TSS
But at least your OS shows whatever.txt as whatever.txt. Not whatever.
In Windows, users can't (by default) see the difference between boobies.jpg.exe and boobies.jpg. The OS hides it from them.
Compounding this - no directory paths, because (in the words of a Mattel toy) "Directories are hard". So it's not always apparent whether you're about to run C:\SOMEWHERE_UNUSUAL\EXPLORER.EXE and C:\TWHERE_IT_BELONGS\EXPLORER.EXE
And last but not least -- even if you turn the directories on and file extensions on, the OS still hides some extensions. Just because you said "Show me the full name of the files and where they live", obviously didn't mean you wanted to see the full name of the files! If it's named BOOBIES.JPG.SHS, it shows up as BOOBIES.JPG no matter what you've done.
There's no deeply-buried GUI option to show .SHS, you have to hack the registry to show the "super hidden" file extensions like .SHB, .URL, .LNK, .PIF, .SCF, and .SHS.
The difference in security doesn't arise because Linux won't let you shoot yourself in the foot -- of course you can. It's that Windows UI designers repeatedly make conscious design decisions that result in the gun always pointing at even the feet of the knowledgeable user, with the user blindfolded, and with a voice screaming "PULL THE TRIGGER! PULL THE TRIGGER! SHOOT NOW!".
1. Linux is the equivalent of a diet coke in the complete meal that is offered by Microsoft.
:D)
:D).
:D
2. Free software is more expensive than software with a price tag. (New MS R&D shows 0.99$ > 2.99$. Oh well
3. To make a modular design, without making the system almost impossible for (professional) sysadmins to mangage, is apperently a very hard problem.
4. Linux has a bit of traction because of the lack of a integrated firewall in windows(in related news...)
5. Almost all people reading the open sourced code, doesn't really understand it. On a global scale, probertly no more of 100 can actually code.
6. Closed R&D work is more likely to still be around in 10 years time(ROFL, a lot
note to self.. never visit CRN again
Good old fuzzy math. It _can_ cost more under certain conditions. Basically buying a HUGE support contract, using expensive commercial development IDE's, and basically being reckless with your money. I read an article awhile back somewhere discussing why some companies end up spending more with linux. The basic conslusion was (which I agree with) those implementations that end up costing more, are usually done by MCSE's who treat linux like Windows. Paying many thousands of dollars for licenses, support, etc. etc.
A good Linux admin does not need support contracts, does not need to pay consultants, does not need "server versions" of linux distro's, _can_ program himself, and does not call a piece of software a solution!!!! (ok, that last one I threw in cause it annoys me).
You are paid to be a network administrator. Maybe instead of pumping your money into easy to use software and support contracts you can just learn how to do your job.
Don't for get educational pricing:
RHEL 3 Workstation - $25
RHEL 3 Advanced Server - $50
No support included though, but all updates are.
A good part of what is driving customers to Linux is the corporate behaviour of Microsoft itself (not just problems with security and pricing -- albeit these aren't helping). It you try to trap your customers, railroad your competition, and blackmail your distributors -- they will all start to look hard hard to see if there is something they can do about it. Quite frankly, if Microsoft hadn't behaved like the very model of 'big-evil-corporation' they wouldn't have fueled so much resentment, and probably wouldn't now be facing rebellion.
buy one and install it on a thousand machines. Fully legal, according to the EULA. Try that with Windows and see what happens...
Um, I did do that with Windows. Is that wrong? And what's this yoola thing you mention?
<sound of BSA crashing through the door>
You really should go read the EULA one more time. No, you can't install RedHat Enterprise on multiple machines and just run it. Not if you have a single support contract with RedHat. If you have original media from RedHat, you have 1 years worth of support that you can't opt out of.
If you have a single support contract with RedHat, then all of the systems are considered "Installed Systems" (as defined section I.A). RedHat has the right to come into your locations, and audit all of your "Installed Systems" (I.4). They can then invoice you for all of the extra systems you have installed. If are over your allotment of installed systems by more then 5%, they are allowed to invoice for an additional 20% penalty (later in I.4).
I'm not a lawyer, and that is my interpretation of it. However, if you took the binaries off the install CD and put them on a different CD (excluding a handful, primarily being redhat-logos and 3rd party stuff), you could install that, invoking the GPL license. However, a number of binaries on the CD, they could claim copyright on (XFree86 and Apache binaries for instance, and anything else which has a source license of BSD-like). I'm not sure what the license on the actual binaries are.
I'm not sure if the license inside of the RPM is the license for the binaries, or the original source. I'm assuming that it is only for the source.
The actual ISO image isn't GPL'ed. They own the copyright on that, so you can't just go give away a copy. They also own the copyright on all of the binaries. They might be compelled to allow you to transfer the some of the binaries, but they don't have to let you do it in the specific structured way they did. In fact they can't, as they have 3rd party software that they can't allow you to transfer.
Finally, whoever owns the support agreement, just agree to these terms, and can't get out of the terms for the first year after purchase (I.1.2). Everyone who has a support agreement, must not install the software on any additional machines. They got around the GPL requirements, by not making it a requirement on the binaries, but by making it a requirement for support (and not letting transferring the binaries to you, until you agree to this). According to the license you agreed to, unless RedHat makes a material breach of the license, or you agreed up front to a different set of terms, you are bound to the support contract for the term of 1 year.
So I wouldn't go around telling people they can violate a legal contract they have agreed to. It isn't a very smart thing to do. Unless you have a different agreement, or you have a sound legal analysis that contradicts this, I'm pretty sure you are committing copyright infringement if you have multiple copies installed.
For that matter, I'm not sure it is legal to use the software without support. There is nothing in the license which grants you rights to use it. (There is nothing saying you can't either, but it's not explicity stated that after the support is terminated you still have a license to use any of their copyrighted materials). However, I'm very doubtful that RedHat will be coming after anyone. That doesn't change the techincal points of the legality or not.
If anyone has any analysis that differs from this, I'm all ears. I'd love to be able to buy the first copy, and install it lots, and lots. However, I've carefully read the agreement, and I don't believe I can legally do that. Plus if I don't have the support agreement, I have to build all of my own updates. Really not something I'm looking forward to doing.
Kirby
I've read it a dozen times, though IANAL.
Zip on down to Appendix #1...
"With the exception of certain image files identified in Section 2 below, the license terms for the components permit Customer to copy, modify, and redistribute the component, in both source code and binary code forms."
The software (RHEL) and support services are SEPARATE. Don't buy one, install a thousand times then use RHN -- you're in violation.
Hell, just borrow a copy from someone and install if you aren't going to use RHN or support.
Or am I mis-interpreting Appendix #1?
-Charles
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Q: Is windows too expensive?
A: No, we just need to make stripped down copies for people who won't pay full price
Q: Is Microsoft soul searching?
A: No, of course not. We're categorizing customers to figure out how to customize to their needs and extract as much money as they will pay.
Q: Are you going to make Windows do this automatically?
A: No, we're not that good.
Q: Where is linux successful today:
A: Firewalls, appliances, supercomputers, legacy unix migrations. But we're not worried because the ISVs are not big yet.
Q: Are you worried linux will get more traction?
A: Nope. It's all because we don't have a good firewall, and we're releasing one soon now.
Q: How do you respond to the notion that peer review leads to better code?
A: Very few people read the code, and most of them are idiots.
Q: Is desktop linux a threat?
A: Only in gov't and third world countries. We're working on customizing for them, slashing prices, changing license terms, or whatever other "challenges" are needed.
Q: Why should solution providers use Windows instead of Linux?
A: Microsoft doesn't give a damn about the serice and support business. So you can depend on Microsoft to throw you that bone, year after year. A linux distributor can't reap excessive profits from licensing terms, and they have crappy business models based on giving stuff away for free. In several years down the road they might decide to compete with you and stab you in the back. Microsoft would never do a thing like that its solution providers, honest!
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
While the support and software are separately licensed, you can't get a copy of RedHat's software without support (and you can't duplicate what RedHat gives out to anyone without modification).
I wonder how much trouble you'd get into just making new RPM's that are named the same, and just switching the blue and red bytes in the images.
I'm not sure that copying it and running it, will get you out of the other aspects of the terms "Installed Systems", but I'll buy into it for now. I'd actually have to get a real lawyer to be sure.
For my personal situation, I'd like to have a handful with support, and a ton without it. I'd prefer not to have to prove I did it correctly. Hence, I'm a White Box Linux fan... :-)
In 7 years of running Linux, I've never needed any support from anybody I couldn't get off mailing lists, deja news, and a good search engine. I don't have a problem paying for a copy, I'm just not interested in paying for that many copies for support I don't want or need. I need the support for Oracle (because Oracle could get support from RedHat on my behalf).
I think if you went to the trouble to strip off the RedHat RPM's, it'd all work out okay. Depending on how precisely "Installed Systems" is enforced in the Services contract. My next problem will be getting security updates on a regular basis.
Kirby
Customer: How much for an order of Windows?
... How many bugs do I get with that?
MS: (With a big smile.) $2.50
Customer: $2.50!?
MS: Uhhhhh...About 5 bugs.
Customer: Ahhh... (Counts change.) Well, I guess thats about 50 cents a bug?
MS: Uh yeah, about. But they are some doozys!
Customer: Ok, lemme get 1.
MS: Right on, (calls into the back) 1 order of Windows!
(Back): One order!
Customer: No no...1 bug.
MS: (Smile fadeing.) One bug?
Customer: (Rubs belly.) I sure need a server!
MS: (Calls to back again, smile is gone.) Make that 1 bug in the server.
(Back): One bug?!
MS: (To back.) One bug. (To customer.) What else?
Customer: Do you have any webservers?
MS: (With thinly veiled patience.) One dollar!
Customer: Awww, come on now look out for a brother. Linux costs less than that. Why don't you just let me get some http for 15 cents?
MS: (With anger.) My middle mangers cost more than 15 cents!
Customer: Allright, fuck the http, just give me the source for a dime!
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
Is there a MS spokesman who can give as straight answer? I mean, he talks a lot but says very little. Does he know the words "Yes" or "No"?
Magazine: "Is Windows over priced and is Linux a threat?"
Taylor: "It is like a number 5 at McDonalds, you want it supersized and carrots are in season. If the bun has sesame seeds and they had coke and not pepsi do you get a sprite or just settle for the double decker taco with hot sauce"
After reading the article I was not sure if I wanted to move my windows machine over to Linux or go out and get fast food!
Remember always question someone who answers a question with a question.