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."

Comments

hell hath frozen over

[everyplace]

what's next? apple gets sued for music copyright infringement? oh wait...

Didn't read the article...

[Anonymous Coward]

...but I bet he's against it

Windows OpenSource???

[stonebeat.org]

Didn't MS just released the source code for Windows a few days back???? ;)

Re:Windows OpenSource???

[Open $ource Advocate]

I realize you're joking, but they really should. Open up the code and make it Open Source! Actual license costs for Windows account for a small fraction of the TCO for a company. Along with buying a copy, there's service and support, areas which Microsoft could make a killing on.

And if other companies are offering "Windows distros", this would enable Microsoft to regain a leadership position in the industry. Not to mention that they would get the benefits of Open Source as well -- when you open the code, you get a lot of developers who are willing to work on it. Microsoft could significantly reduce their development staff and have developers mainly organize contributions from the community. With the headcount reduction, Microsoft's share price would soar as they'd save billions on payroll.

It's probably only a matter of time before Ballmer finally grasps the true benefits of Open Source.

Re:Windows OpenSource???

[automatix]

Speaking of... here is a good review of the contents of the win2000 zipfile. Suitable for developers to read (no direct excerpts or specifics), and quite amusing.

Re:Windows OpenSource???

[mangu]

Didn't MS just released the source code for Windows a few days back???? ;)

No, the source code wasn't released. Actually, it escaped, leaving a bloody trail behind...

Re:Windows OpenSource???

[saberworks]

Have you ever used Microsoft's "support?" The Network Operations Center I worked in for a while had one problem that just wouldn't go away. I don't even remember what the problem was, but there were at least 6 guys working on it and nobody could figure out the problem. Microsofts solution: Reboot it every night when not very many people are using it. I can't believe they charge hundreds of thousands of dollars for that. And they were YOUR dollars (if you're an american) because it was government work.

Re:Windows OpenSource???

[neurojab]

>It's probably only a matter of time before Ballmer finally grasps the true benefits of Open Source.

I doubt MS would gain much by Open Sourcing Windows... for a few reasons:

1) OSS would put Windows on the same playing field as Linux and BSD. On the same playing field, Linux is just flat out superior to Windows in most respects.

2) It would be easy to make Windows API clones, given that there could be no more secret APIs. Microsoft would no longer have platform "lock in" to force things like Internet Explorer

3) The code is likely just plain bad. It may need a major rewrite before others in the community could start to contribute.

4) Making something OSS does not necessarily reduce your payroll. Someone has to do the development in OSS, and quite often those people are paid. Witness RedHat, VA, and IBM contributing to Linux.

I don't see MS open sourcing Windows until they're smaller in market share than Linux. Then they'll get desperate, but it will be too late.

Re:Windows OpenSource???

[drsmithy]

Holy cow! From what I read of the comments, it seems that there's a boat-load of code in the WindowsXX OS that are designed to "make my specific old software work with this newer OS." How incredibly wrong is this?

That depends on whether you're an academic or a businessman.

I'm not a software engineer, but it seems to me that the OS should offer a rigid set of services and functions to the programs that are supposed to run within the environment provided to them. Am I wrong about this?

Nope, that's pretty much a textbook definition of an Operating System.

The only catch is it doesn't take into account the fact that program code and requirements will change over time.

Also, that's pretty much how it does work. APIs that programmers are supposed to use are documented. APIs that aren't documented shouldn't be used because there's every likelihood they'll change suddenly and without warning.

If the programs are misbehaving, the programs should be fixed, not the OS.

In an ideal world, that would be true. However, we don't live in an ideal world. Companies go bust. Programs are orphaned. Products become unsupported but remain in use. Developers simply make stupid errors.

In short, it's not always possible to fix the program - and the customers don't care whose fault that is, they just want the software their business relied on to Work Right Now.

I wonder how often "Win32 specs" change with each version of Windows?

There are changes made at least every major release. Sometimes more often.

For that matter, I wonder if the same is true of my beloved Linux?

If anything, Linux is worse. Linus has stated numerous times he makes no effort whatsoever to retain binary compatibility even between minor point releases of the kernel.

But I suspect Win32 standards among others have changed not only to fix broken software but to thwart competition -- example: Samba. You can't tell me that bug fixes in Windows filesharing also happened to break Samba several times as it has. How often has that happened I must wonder.

If Samba relies on known bugs and those bugs are then fixed, then it will break. Similarly, if it relies on behaviour that is deprecated, it will break.

How often this happens deliberately - if ever - is something I'll leave to the conspiracy theorists. I only gamble when I'm going to win.

This Windows source code leak could prove to be QUITE embarassing to Microsoft after all.

Given the intensity with which it is probably being scrutinised, I'd imagine any "obvious" embarassments would have already surfaced by now.

Taylor says...

[agm]

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?

Short version....

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Short version....

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, my grandma just called to ask for the compile flags for kde 3.2

Monetizing, workloads, Super Size

[phoneyman]

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

Re:Monetizing, workloads, Super Size

[Gorath99]

It's bloody worse. At least there is some structure to legalese. The only function of this crap is to confuse customers to the point where they loose all common sense and just buy whatever the marketer is selling.

food

[frogsarefriendly]

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?

Re:food

[NanoGator]

"Does that make Linux some kind of free lunch then?"

It's more like a cow and some un-peeled potatoes.

Some ridiculous comments

[MysteriousMystery]

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.

Re:Some ridiculous comments

[GMFTatsujin]

I think he's saying the future versions of Windows will dispense Diet Coke, but I could be mistaken.

Re:Some ridiculous comments

[MySt1k]

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, Windows is compared to McDonalds ? True : Both leave a bitter taste just thinking of it and both are owned by a clown !

Re:Some ridiculous comments

[flossie]

Try calling up Debian and getting them to answer some questions.

I don't have a phone number for Debian. I do, however, have e-mail access to the package maintainers, as well as the ability to e-mail the coders direct if I have great difficulty with something. I have direct access to the Debian bug tracking system, so I can see for myself if the problem has been encountered before. I can also see exactly what is being done to solve my problem.

I have had detailed technical conversations (via e-mail) with Debian packagers that I could never hope to have with the support staff on the other end of Microsoft's phones. Nor do they try and convince me that I just need to buy solution X to solve all my problems.

Support is one are where free software/open source far exceeds the standard proprietary equivalents.

Better analogy

[CB-in-Tokyo]

From the article

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!

Monoculture metaphors

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

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.

Re:Monoculture metaphors

[Zcipher]

Actually, I'd think it's more apt to describe it as:

Windows: McDonalds: Crappy food, Crappy service, but everyone knows where to find it and there's probably one close to your office. Still, it's usually easy enough for users to find, so they stick with it because they aren't willing to go the extra mile for a better experience.

Mac: A nicer burger joint; good service, great food, but still a resteraunt, so you still have to put up with stuff like "no shoes, no shirt, no service," and occasional mishaps from the waitstaff and chefs that make things less pleasant than they could be. Also, it's difficult to get anything but burgers, because they're a smaller chain.

Linux: A big potluck in the park, where a whole bunch of people gathered together to provide food for everyone. Food is good, but there's no menu, so you often have to wander around looking for what you really want. And you can bring your own if you'd like; if it's better than what someone else brought, theirs gets thrown out and you get their spot at the table, or if it's something new, they'll make room.

Yeah, I know; the metaphor now officially out of control. Somebody call the JDF!

-Z

Translation of article

[Lane.exe]

From MS Marketspeak to plain English:

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.

Re:This guy should be a politician

[savagedome]

I think he is saying that if a customer is ordering a super-size offering and a Diet coke, the customer is as stupid as ever :)

With respect..

[ackthpt]

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.

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.

Re:Does Red-Hat cost more?

[chill]

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

Security == Firewall for MS?

[ErnieD]

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.

Change of Tone

[peripatetic_bum]

I read the fine article and I have to say. The interesting thing to note is the change in tone. This guy, while I dis-agree with what he says, is saying it in measured tone. No longer is MS just saying this stuff is lousy and we wont demean ourselves to play on the same level of linux, but that linux is now being looked at as a real competitier that customers understand is a real alternaitve and now MS is attacking linux in a mesured way the way they attack other competitors (other than stomping them with their monopoly)

Anyway, Iw ould like to hear waht you think of the tone of this article

Translation Please

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

This is why Linux will win

[pesc]

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.

Re:PR guys need a clue

[Tackhead]

> Hell, I could chmod my whatever.txt to +x and try it!! It will actually attempt to run that way! Not smart.

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!".

So what we learned today is....

[dmouritsendk]

1. Linux is the equivalent of a diet coke in the complete meal that is offered by Microsoft.

2. Free software is more expensive than software with a price tag. (New MS R&D shows 0.99$ > 2.99$. Oh well :D)

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 :D).

note to self.. never visit CRN again :D

Re:Does Red-Hat cost more?

[MyHair]

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>

Re:Does Red-Hat cost more?

[ComputerSlicer23]

Here's a copy of the license you had to agree to

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

Re:Does Red-Hat cost more?

[chill]

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

PR to English Translation

[pjrc]

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!

I'm Gonna Get You Linux

[yoshi_mon]

Customer: How much for an order of Windows?

MS: (With a big smile.) $2.50

Customer: $2.50!? ... How many bugs do I get with that?

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!