Slashdot Mirror
Linux the Tortoise to Microsoft's Hare?
LukePieStalker writes "TheStreet.com is running a story by Ronna Abramson that makes a case for Linux cutting into Microsoft's server business and forcing Redmond to trim margins. A particular vulnerability is seen in overseas markets, but the heat should be turned up everywhere once Unix replacements are pretty far along by then end of next year. A quote from one CTO: [Linux is] "going to force Microsoft to spend more time on security and stability, and less time on adding new features.""
"Slow and steady wins the race"?
Sheesh. Don't people read Aesop any more?
Dlugar
Computer Go: Writing Software to Play the Ancient Game of Go
This is a good start
Haryana(State in India) signs pact with Sun Microsystems
The Haryana government has signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with Sun Microsystems to adopt open source office productivity tool, the StarOffice 7, for departments and educational institutions.
Linux may carve out bigger niche in desktop PC market
On Feb. 4, it announced the sale of 10,000 copies of its StarOffice desktop suite to United India Insurance, one of India's largest insurers. StarOffice can run on Windows or Linux desktop PCs. Sun aims next to persuade United India to replace 10,000 Windows PCs with Linux-based Java Desktop PCs.
I've always been a Microsoft guy, but last year when I had to standardize on a single OS for our applications, I went with Linux. Not because it was better, but because it was free. It is that kind of decision made over and over again that is hurting Microsoft.
I think everyone confused about the title should go read the following fable: The The Tortoise and the Hare.
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
I thought this paragraph was most telling, the 1st one on the last page:
Taylor also said the company is countering Linux's unbeatable price tag by commissioning studies that show the total cost of ownership over the life of the software is higher with Linux than Windows.
Taylor is Martin Taylor, Microsoft's general manager of platform strategy.
Basically, they are admitting to paying for studies that show the results they want.
I'd love a direct quotation of his answer -- it'd be a great rebuttal when MS publishes another "Windows costs less" study.
This is a common misconception. Linux is more secure than Windows because it's a lot easier to micromanage your system. But it also places a lot more of the responsibility for security on the administrator's head, which means if you have a Linux admin who doesn't know how to properly secure a box *and maintain that security*, it'll probably be more insecure than a Windows machine. Most hacks for Windows aren't widely exploited until after a patch is released anyway, whereas on Linux it's often in reverse (though the patches are usually available within hours.) Linux just better allows you to micromanage things than Windows, which can either be a good or a bad thing depending on the skill of the admin.
Do they even sell servors?
No, but they do sell servers!
Clearly you have never run a larger scale software project. I would love LOVE MS to do that. Why? Because that project would be one enormous sink hole of MS resources and focus. You cannot throw 20,000 engineers at something and have it work. Read the Mythical Man Month for a great example of how throwing more resources at a project can cause it to run off track. . Keep in mind that would represent roughly 1/3 of MS's workforce. MS already has a server OS, it's called Windows XP. MS wants to have a single OS so that they don't have to support the multiple OSes they do now.
Thalasar
For what it's worth, removing the username:password parsing from URL's, brings Windows in line with published RFC standards. It was never intended to be used as an authentication mechanism for HTTP URL's.
Section 3.3 of RFC 1738, which defines the format of HTTP URL's, explicitly states, "No user name or password is allowed."
Let me repeat that, in capital letters with bold, so that it is crystal-clear:
THE STANDARD STATES THAT NO USER NAME OR PASSWORD IS ALLOWED IN HTTP URL'S.
This what the standard says, and Microsoft is now adhering to it, at the cost of breaking sites that didn't follow the standard. Microsoft *fixed* Windows by removing this ability from HTTP URL's. Note that FTP URL's still support this feature.
Why was this modded up? Just mindless MS bashing with no facts to back it up.
.net (which is pretty much Microsoft's take on Java/JSP/Servlets). I've been using .net since the beta days and I can guarantee you, while I haven't been using MS stuff as long as you, it DOES provide half of what they claim it can do for Web Applications; it does MORE than enough and then some.
.net is a step in the right direction. While c# isn't as good as traditional c++, it's sure as hell way more powerful than VB, *almost* as powerful as c++, and way easier to program in. The downside.. not cross platform, but when you design applications for MICROSOFT solutions, it's excellent.
Look, I dislike Microsoft as much as the next person, but the argument you used with SOAP is just way off. I'm not even sure what you're trying to say. SOAP is as insecure as the developer allows it to be. It wasn't DESIGNED to bypass firewalls. It was designed to provide a standard format in remote computing. It's no more insecure as requesting an XML feed or a web page. If you want it secure, then pass along a user & password to validate each function via SSL.
I know it's popular opinion to bash MS, but if you're ASP/PHP designer, then you know the benefits of
Like it or not,
Now, if I were to design a Linux-based solution, that's a different story.
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!