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.""
we'll find out
Guess there's nothing to say.
Surely if everyone switched to Linux(TM) the world would be a better place.
The penguin and the....uh.... abstract looking stylized flying window?
The mascot coolness factor alone makes Linux a superior competitor!
"Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." -- Linus Torvalds
Linux is worked on LOADS more than Windows, so how can it be a 'Tortoise to Microsoft's Hare'?
When anger rises, think of the consequences.
Confucius (551 BC - 479 BC)
No matter how many security researchers Microsoft get to look at their source there will always be more looking at linux. The reason: It's open source..
Microsoft can't compete against that so I suspect they'll lose their % of the server market quite rapidly in the next two years.
Simon.
Q: Does the President want to really get to the bottom of the cause of 9/11? If he does, why would he limit his interview with the commission to one hour and for other officials, and, stonewall on documents?
McCLELLAN: I'm glad you brought this up. This administration has provided unprecedented cooperation to a legislative body in the 9/11 Commission. We have worked closely with the commission in a spirit of cooperation. And you only have to go back -- and I would appreciate it if you would report some of the facts of the type of access we have provided to the commission. We have provided the commission access to every bit of information that they have requested, including our most sensitive national security documents. And the commission chairman has stated such --
Q: Well, the commission certainly is not satisfied.
McCLELLAN: -- and as far as the President, the President looks forward to meeting with the chairman and vice chairman and answering all the questions that they want to raise.
Q: Why don't you just open the books and get to the truth? The American people deserve it.
McCLELLAN: Did you not hear what I just said, Helen? Have you not looked at the facts? I think you need to quit reading some of the coverage and look at the facts.
Q: You just said, "all the questions they want to raise." That means he's no longer going to limit it to an hour?
McCLELLAN: Well, that's what it's scheduled for now. But, look, he's going to answer all the questions they want to raise. Keep in mind that the commission --
Q: If they're still asking at one hour, he'll still answer them?
McCLELLAN: Keep in mind that the commission has already had access to all the information they requested, as I just pointed out, including our most sensitive national security documents. That's what I'm talking about when I'm talking about unprecedented cooperation. And the commission has also -- yes, let me finish --
Q: The issue is whether he's limiting it to an hour --
McCLELLAN: Let me finish, Mark.
Q: -- and I'm asking a very simple question. If they're still asking questions at one hour --
McCLELLAN: I think it's important to point out the fact. Mark, let me finish. Mark, can I answer? Let me finish. It's important that we point out these facts when we talk about this issue, because the facts have not been pointed out. The facts have not been pointed out. But the President -- I mean, the commission will be meeting with the President, after having talked for hours on hour with White House and senior administration officials. We've provided more than 2 million pages of documents; we've provided more than 60 compact disks of radar, flight and other information; more than 800 audio cassette tapes of interviews and other materials; more than 100 briefings, including at the head-of-agency level; more than 560 interviews. Dr. Rice met with the commission recently, and even though only five members of the commission showed up, she sat down and visited with them for some four hours.
Q: I appreciate that. You reported all that when you first told it to us. I'm asking --
McCLELLAN: No, I don't think it was widely reported.
Q: Forgive me, I take responsibility for what I report, and I reported it.
McCLELLAN: I understand you -- I understand. But I take responsibility of talking to everybody here.
Q: Okay. All the questions that they have, he's going to answer. If they're still asking at one hour, is he still going to answer?
McCLELLAN: I just said that the President will answer all the questions that they want to raise. I think that's important to point out. I mean, it's important to point out the unprecedented cooperation we have provided to this legislative body. We have worked very closely with the commission.
Q: -- when?
McCLELLAN: Still working on the exact time for that, working with the commission.
Q: Should we expect it soon?
McCLELLAN: Well, I mean, soon. They have to --
... explain this title to me...is the implication that Linux is slow at innovating or something? Or are they focusing on the 'steady' part from the old fable? The analogy doesn't quite seem to fit since Linux is both 'fast' and 'steady'...Besides Microsoft could be better anologized to a 'retarded turtle' that is both slow and disoriented/unfocused whereas linux is much more like a determined 'rabbit' which is both 'fast' and steady/focused.
Some may not agree with me on the 'focused' point but that's ok, they probably are using the 'retarded turtle' anyways.
Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther
More security and stability? You're kidding right? Why would anyone want that in a server? Silly Linux forcing Microsoft to do jump through such unecessary hoops.
give me a break... the only reason microsoft may be a little damp from linux is because the tsunami has already passed by. microsoft is being left behind by linux and the hippies.
We've known since 1998 that Linux has server headway. Microsoft knows this too. They know they have to work on security (hence what's coming in SP2 and later on, Longhorn).
Summary of article--Linux is a good server, Microsoft has to make Windows more secure to compete (this despite the fact Linux was shown to be the most vulnerable OS on the net according to an article Slashdot posted a few months ago).
"Sufferin' succotash."
"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
and Mac OS X is a panther, it can kill both of those.
What? And part with tradition?
Would this mean the new Microsoft ad taglines would be "Now, more secure and stable than ever!"
I can't see that, since they've already played that card and anyone with a lick of sense has seen the results. More likely they'll just trim their profit margins, try to lock down proprietary technology (to bar Linux from having it) and continue to spin marketspeak.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
[Linux is] "going to force Microsoft to spend more time on security and stability, and less time on adding new features."
Not specifically linux, but the market. ANYONE who had come along providing that focus with good functionality would have had the same effect. Linux has rewritten a few rules with the GPL and the way the beast is created and mantained, but ultimately the reason why the market has accepted those is because they provide greater security and greater stability.
Microsoft would have also focused there if they had tried to meet their user's demands instead of telling them they should meet Microsoft's goals.
---- Take the Space Quiz!
Microsoft: Release First Patch Often
Linux: Release when stablish and patch when needed
Well IMHO anyway
Rus
Cheap UK and US VPS
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.
"They're not at all important in the next quarter," Lundstrom said. But "20 years from now, the global center of the software industry will be Asia."
I bet MSFT pays damned close attention to that line right there. Problem is, Asia is already more in love with Linux than nearly anywhere else on the planet, and that may be Linux' ultimate success... and MSFT's ultimate source of destruction.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
LOADS of crap he spews! MOD PARENT DOWN!
For Microsoft, security and stability will be new features.
There are rabbits everywhere. Most tortoises are endangered species.
:::putting on flame-proof suit:::
Microsoft is an enormous innovator and will innovate in some manner to push back the threat of *nix. In fact, they may be one of the greatest innovators in the history of tech companies. They're just not innovating in an altruistic, philanthropic or technical way that most /. readers relate to.
From a business perspective, strategic marketing and business practices can and should be part of the innovation mix. If I'm Microsoft can package technology in such a way that it maximizes uptake, positions it as the de facto standard in the marketplace and raises the cost of entry for competitors, that's massive innovation, as long as you're defining innovation in a way that matters to the company's profitability and the financial success of shareholders -- and that is the only $DIETY Microsoft ultimately has to serve.
Microsoft makes some money when it technologically innovates. It makes one hell of a lot of money when it can innovate through changes in its business practices or (better yet) forcing changes in the business practies of most or all customers and competitors. This is where you'll see Microsoft working hard to combat erosion in its server market.
RMS can rant all he wants. We can wave the banner of free (Speech! Beer!) all we want. We can use the word monopoly all we want.
And Microsoft will still win.
Microsoft will win as long as they understand the whole war and we understand just one battle. The battle we're fighting is technological superiority, lower off-the-shelf cost and (in some cases) the principles of Free Software. Battles matter, but they're not the whole war. The war is market share and mindshare dominance, and "innovation" as simply a name for a whole range of tools that meet that primary business end.
In this war, it sometimes seems that we're using a gun and Microsoft is committed to using its whole arsenal. Can you win with just a gun? Yeah, if you're a good shot and take out a key leader. But the odds favor the person with more weapons.
"It was a summer's tale: Just a boy, his Linux, and a head full of dreams..."
what the hell is up with the stinking stats at the bottom? and why don't we have 2003 stats in there? give me a BREAK...
not only that, but the stats are based upon licenses SOLD... not number of installations.
this is ass.
This is no real surprise. Linux, even paying for support, is a lot cheaper. And, with blade servers, you can pack a lot more horse power in a lot smaller space.
Back in the Third Age, Sauron was in no danger of being defeated by an attack of an army of Hobbits, no matter how fierce Bandobras Took was. Yet, he fell because of some hobbits. Who'd have thunk?
At the risk of sounding like "I told you so", I for one have been saying this for years. With Microsoft being one to put things off in favor of press releases, it seems like Linux - or for that matter, anything in the open source community - tends to not waste time in getting anything like (say) security updates. Meanwhile, Gates sits on his laurels....
This sig no verb.
going to force Microsoft to spend more time on security and stability, and less time on adding new features
You would actually think that with the resources available to them, that they would be able to do both. Perhaps this is the reason for Longhorn's delay.
Microsoft is not a stupid company, by any means, I'm sure they have several linux labs so they can start gleaning ideas from it. They've never had any problem with seeing something as competition and coming up with their own version of it.
slashdot, news for crazed liberal socialist zealots
You mean Microsoft needs to stop adding features like:
1. BSOD
2. Microsoft Bob
3. Clippy
4. DMCA
5. Palladium
6. Outlook Express
7. Sharepoint
Their marketing focus has too much stranglehold of their development force (or lack thereof).
OOo is fighting an uphil battle here. Should they focus on 100% compoatibility or implementation of the next 'killer app' inside of an office SW suite?
I, personally, believe that adoption by businesses will come through adding of VALUE and USEFUL FEATURES vs. Compatibility. After all, we can always make a migration tool to migrate the documents into a new format, if the value delivered by the new suite equates to a dollar savings (or revenue generation).
So MS is going to spend more time on security and stability, something every user needs, and less time on adding new features, most of which are hardly ever used.
Microsoft could be compared to a race horse. It's moving very fast in the only direction it can see, while those who are open source are moving fast, but in any direction necessary.
Ops, I shuld have usd the prevuwe but in.
The funny thing is, it really annoyed me. Not the being asked part, the being asked three times thing. But then I reminded myself that the alternative is insecurity.
So whereas Linux, et al, has focused on security, Microsoft focused on adding new features. MS is now in the dominant position (always was, really) and now will drag the consumer into security. Linux meanwhile wrestles with TCO, which is a result of Windows dominance, again due to lack of security.
Schnapple
Especially in development, Linux has seen way more speed than Windows. I don't think very much has happened for Windows lately that really matters much in it's usefulness... it only uses up more memory.
I couldn't come up with any better sign....
...great idea!
If they never added features like: 'XP Look', 'Windows Media Player', 'Windows Messenger', 'easy-to-use wizards' to windows, it would be a much nicer OS.
EU backs tighter rules on piracy
A similar US law has led to lawsuits against pop-swappers
The European Parliament has passed an anti-piracy law, covering everything from handbags to music downloads.
Under the law, counterfeiters could face civil penalties, but proposals for criminal sanctions were dropped.
Before the vote, critics said the law was flawed as it applied the same penalties to both professional counterfeiters and consumers.
But a late amendment limited them to organised counterfeiters and not people downloading music at home.
Property price
The final vote on the EU Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive took place in the European Parliament on 9 March. The directive was passed by 330 votes to 151.
The law was drawn up to target professional pirates, criminals and counterfeiters who make copies of goods such as football shirts or CDs.
During the debates, the directive was widened to cover any infringement of intellectual property.
The directive allows companies to raid homes, seize property and ask courts to freeze bank accounts to protect trademarks or intellectual property they believe are being abused or stolen.
Civil liberty and lobby groups feared that the music industry will also use the law to mount raids on the homes of people who swap songs via file-sharing systems such as Kazaa.
The Enforcement directive was compared to the controversial US Digital Millennium Copyright Act by Andreas Dietl, director of EU Affairs for the European Digital Rights (EDRi) lobby group.
The Recording Industry Association of America has used the DMCA to bring lawsuits against file-swappers in the US and EDRi fears the same could now happen in European countries.
The European law was shepherded through the European Parliament by MEP Janelly Fourtou, wife of Jean-Rene Fourtou who is boss of media giant Vivendi Universal.
But late amendments added to the law limited who intellectual property owners could take action against and what penalties they could apply.
One amendment said action should not be taken against consumers who download music "in good faith" for their own use.
Proposals to jail counterfeiters were also dropped from the act.
Lobbyists fear that the law could threaten press freedom in countries, such as Spain, which include confidential information in definitions of intellectual property.
In November, the EU copyright directive came into force in the UK which put many things people are used to doing with music, such as copying tracks to an MP3 player, fell into a legal grey area.
EU ministers are expected to sign off on the new rules against counterfeiting by the end of the week.
Member states would then have 18 months to implement their own versions of the directive.
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.
Who else are you thinking of, besides Linux and Microsoft? Ok, there's SCO, but they're a dying breed as they've given up innovation for litigation. There's BSD (not meaning to troll of inflame but I kinda wad together with Linux, sue me.) There's also Apple (which will no doubt be a major player by the year 3025.) Who else? A few scattered little proprietary or specialty things which will soon be replaced by Linux or Microsoft?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Enough with these stupid stories already!!!!! Seriously : i know this appeals to the slashdot audience (posting linux advocacy stories) but the reality is completely different. The day that the community focuses on real ways to reduce microsoft's monopoly will be the day that linux becomes sucessful.
People were writing these stories 3 years ago. Nothing has changed.
How is this an advantage. Everyone I know that is halfway technically savvy finds this a disadvantage about the Windows line of operating systems. People like having choices when it comes to the products and services they buy. Microsoft is going to shoot themselves in the foot with this line of thinking.
I think a lot of companies that depends on windows would happily buy a lot of boxes of linux and show the bills to Microsoft if that will make windows more safe and stable.
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!
Do what we do, skip the documentation and intergration.
They ought to be damn worried about the desktop and the consumer market as well. The Linux desktop as a drop in replacement for XP Home/whatever is still a ways away, but with advances in (the products formerly known as) Mozilla/Thunderbird, OpenOffice, and KDE/GNOME it's only a matter of time before it really improves to the point where a Linux desktop is truly accessible and does everything that 95% of the mass market wants to do.
Plus companies like IBM can afford to throw full-time devs at it in the hopes of avoiding millions of dollars of MS tax/Windows licenses a year.
Finally they're starting to get a taste of their own medicine (getting their market cannibalized by a free alternative).
-fren
"Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket?"
I disagree, I think Microsoft is just going to push their proprietary stuf harder, in the false name of security. Sure, they'll have to drop the prices, but Linux will have a tough time 'fitting in' when it can't authenticate against the existing Active Directory servers out there.
I'm already having trouble getting Macs and Linux boxes to play nice with Active Directory, who KNOWS what sort of proprietary encryption techniques they'll use to keep Linux and Apple boxes out of the core network.
I can easily see MS dropping support for pre-NTLMv2 logons, which would force Mac users to use MS-controlled authentication modules, that would be rough if they didn't maintain them properly.
Is there a way now to run an Apache/Linux box and have it authenticate web users against an Active Directory?
Is there an open-standard directory service that can replace AD, but windows machines can still connect to? Has anyone written an 'OpenDirectory -> pseudo-AD / NT Domains' gateway?
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
going to force Microsoft to spend more time on security and stability, and less time on adding new features.
Doing so definitely cuts into their marketing ambitions. This is a big deal for any company looking to make money and continuing to do so.
The problem is, how do you achieve the balance between writing good code and making deadlines? I think this question goes beyond the problem MS is facing and extends to all of us in small shops too, where we are expected to write amazing code but are never given the time to do The Right Thing (tm).
CTO: [Linux is] "going to force Microsoft to spend more time on security and stability, and less time on adding new features."
(short-term) mission accomplished.
It is worth noting that somehow an operating system created just for the fun of it and never intended to take on Microsoft's product line is doing just that.
When was the last time one of your educational endevours resulted in taking on a major corporation?
I don't need no stinkin' sig!
"going to force Microsoft to spend more time on security and stability, and less time on adding new features."
That's exactly what Microsoft has been doing for some time now. We're 2.5 years out from the release of Windows XP; in this time there's been a fairly significant update to Windows Media Player, Movie Maker, and Messenger, and umm... that's it for features, folks! Pretty much everything else MS has released as updates to XP in that timeframe directly addresses security and stability. XP SP2 will be more of the same: all the binaries have been recompiled with stack corruption checking mechanisms in place, the firewall will be turned on by default, automatic updates will be pushed harder than ever, IE will get additional ActiveX security controls, there will be better integration with third-party AV solutions, RPC has been thoroughly worked over to improve security, etc. etc. Even Athlon 64 owners will get additional security in the form of the NX protection.
There's very little in the way of new features that aren't security-related. The closest one I can think of is the pop-up blocker, and that could even be considered a "job security" feature.
It's o this CTO's discredit that he has had his head in the sand for so long that he hasn't actually noticed this going on!
Seems to me Linux/Unix has the advantages of good fundamental design (SMB, anyone?) and pretty solid stability/security. Microsoft has flash and convenience. Given the lackings of both parties, who can fill in their gaps more easily?
What I really meant to say, though, is that all of Microsoft's innovations in business practices, bundling, contracts and price structures don't change the fact that they are trying to achieve customer lock-in to a mostly-inferior architecture. If they achieve that, congrats to them, but shame on their customers.
That's predicated on the assumption that Linux can offer an organization a competitive advantage. If not, what good are we?
John.
Is that why Slashdot reported that Linux was the most breached operating system on the Internet?
Slashbots will remember things from eight years ago like Windows blue-screens, but conveniently forgot a study that points out the flaws in Linux posted not two months ago.
To say Linux will "always" beat Windows, when Linux is #1 in breaches, reaks of blind fanboyism. Let's accept what is.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Getting lauded by thestreet.com is the kiss of death. They are an excellent contrarian indicator. When they say "buy", sell. When they say "sell", buy. That is the path to riches.
When they said to buy MSO @ 36, I sold short. Thanks guys!
One thing that's always driven me batty is the manic-depressive nature of Microsoft's feature development. On day, they announce some new technology with a commitment that seems more impressive than wedding vows, six months later they quietly kill it off in favor of another announcement of some other, newer, technology.
I'm not against new innovations, but this cycle should be more like 3-5 years, not 6-18 months, they shouldn't be unsupported and obsolete until 5-7 years, minimum. Between a new technology announcement and a real deployment can be 9-18 months depending on a business' needs and budgeting and planning cycles. Replacing it right when you want to deploy it is pretty insane (although I know they want you on the upgrade treadmill).
And their "new" innovations should in some way be improvements (with perhaps some backwards compatibility) so that they seem to have a coherent, long-term *strategy* and not just a short term marketing idea.
We'll see if they're capable of being that kind of company.
Yet ANOTHER security hole in Linux:
2 29 11
http://internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/33
Sloppy... typical shoddy work of OSS developers too much in a hurry to hurt Microsoft instead of focusing on the details. Sound familiar?
I'm listening, now. Had I known how easy it was to install Linux and use it, I would have done it a long time ago and had better hardware. I haven't paid for an operating system in quite a while, now. Windows has it's uses, but they are getting fewer and far between for me these days. If it weren't for my companies dependency on Outlook, I probably wouldn't even use it there.
Ops, I shuld have usd the prevuwe but in.
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.
Why do idiots^m^m I mean "industry analysts" like the writer of this article always quote insiders at Microsoft but never talk to ANYONE within the open source movement... not even someone like Linus Torvalds or the CEO or red hat? Why do they get ALL their information from the corprate world and NEVER even THINK about getting information from inside the open source world?
I am not going to take any of these types of reports seriously unless they can get outside of their little corporate biosphere at least once in a while and understand that there is a world outside. I am tired of seeing reports on TV and on bignamed media sites act like anything that is outside of corporate-think is odd, alien, and totally not worthy of mention.
Why don't you embrace your slashbotness instead of living in a dreamworld?
I always see people saying this, but it doesn't really seem to help. We've still had kernel vulnerabilities and exploits. How many people are really looking at the source? It's not like the whole world suddenly is poring through all the code--it's still a core group of hackers, just like at any company.
Microsoft licenses Windows source code out to many companies and universities. They have probably just as many "eyes."
"Sufferin' succotash."
with both sides working to improve their product, hopefully the big winner will be computer users.
For this to be considered a 'race' you have to establish and end goal. So what's the goal here, smarty-pants? If your end goal is profitablility, the turtle lost a long time ago. Looking at the sheer amount of profits MS has created, it's doubtful Linux will EVER make up that margin. EVER. We're talking billions here. If your end goal is user-base, again MS has slaughtered Linux several times over. Unless they do something radically didfferent than what they're doing now, they'll never have the user share MS enjoys now.
Being a Tutrle implies that by a slow steady pace you'll beat the Hare's constantly distracted state. You may have noticed that MS has the focus of a freakin laser beam, regardless of how much you don't like them or how bumbling you think they are. When they fixate on soemthing, they tend to hammer away until it falls. So your saying MS has the speed (being a hare) while history shows they have focus against a focused, slower opponent (the turtle). So either you just pulled that parable out of your ass to sound smart/cool, or you're actually saying MS is a sure-fire win.
Which is it?
You need a FREE iPod Nano
Bill&Co. has something like $40 billion with a capital B in cash and liquid assets ready to put against the army of Linux programmers. Legend has it that the more programmers you throw at a late project will make the project even later, but what if you have more money to swim in than Scrooge McDuck ever imagined?
Bet on the money.
"The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance."
Setting the security to not run "signed" ActiveX controls resulted in every spammer and spyware product getting "signed" with a timestamp signature, and allowed to run as if signed by a real certificate.
For now, I've just turned off ActiveX controls entirely. As a nice side effect, Flash ads no longer work. On the downside, neither does Windows Update via the browser.
Slashdot has been running these articles about how linux is gaining ground and Microsoft is losing ground for about 8 years. Every week these guys run a story about how linux is going to put the final nail in Microsoft's coffin soon.
Why hasn't this happened? Why has the exact opposite been happening?
Asking you three times didn't make anything more secure, it just annoyed the mouse-driver, who is often the least qualified to answer the question (not in your case).
Everybody's a libertarian 'till their neighbour's becomes a crack house.
The Windows logo is seen by hundreds of millions of people each and everyday they boot up.
/. joke here) but the rest of 'everybody else' has no clue about computers, much less Linux.
Are you actually suggesting that the Linux Penguin is a better known mascot/logo? Get serious. 95% of the world doesn't even know Linux exists.
Remember, if you read slashdot, you are in that educated 1% of populace that knows a lot about computers (insert obligatory
That won't happen until Mac OS is ported to other machines. Macs cost way too much and you have to buy one of their machines to run it. Do they even sell servors?
Ops, I shuld have usd the prevuwe but in.
Story about linux is posted, half say closed source is bad, half say it is good, we all agree to have a sexy party. I feel... I feel like I've experienced this somewhere before...
There's a chart at the bottom of the article that shows Market share and sales....
I don't know how accurate it is, but if you look at the asterisk note, you'll see they say the statistics are based on sales for those years.
Can you really count sales when talking about Linux? What about all the people who download the software for free and implement it? I'm sure SuSE and Red Hat didn't count how many ISO downloads they had each year. Granted, most enterprises pay for their Linux distributions, but the fact of the matter is that many smaller organizations might not. And that's the market that's going to be most critical for Linux and Microsoft. That's where the growth is and that's where the trench fight will occur. You can't count $$ sales when talking about Linux. That's the hardest part for Microsoft to deal with. It can't actually measure the extent to which Linux has spread at this point, or at any point for that matter.
setting: secret hollowed-out volcano lair
... or is it the snake to my mongoose? I never was good with analogies."
Bill Gates, with pinky held up to lip: "Linux is the mongoose to my snake
I just notice that at the bottom of the article, where they 'inform the reader' about Linux's rising popularity, they measure it in the amount of money made. HAH.
Of COURSE our server revenue and PAID market share is lower. We're cheaper/free!
I [may] disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
...the reality of the situation is thus:
;).
Either IBM/SUN/Other serious development companies step in and totally embrace Linux and commit to an acceptable Open Source policy that makes everyone happy, or Micro$oft can quite literally re-invent themselves to be Linux killers.
For example, and this is horrifying, imagine that M$ purchases SCO's 'rights' (whatever the hell those actually are) and produces a Unix clone and puts 20 THOUSAND engineers on it. Imagine they do it right. Everything written to be secure, everything modularized, the ultimate desktop, et cetera.
This is a REAL possibility. Sadly, I think Apple is the one who showed them the possibilities. OSX was a huge slap in Redmond's face and I bet many of them said "Why don't we have something like that."
Can you imagine a (borg like) future were Microsoft has (like it does now) two product lines, the client line and the server line. The server line is Unix based, the client line is (who knows what) based.
Linux in all this? Gets marginalized.
In essenece what I'm trying to say is "Do not count on Micro$oft letting us slowly chew away at their business. They will come out with guns blazing and the only way to beat them is to do it with their own game, the throwing of literally billions of dollars and tens of thousands of HIGHLY organized engineers at a problem."
Look how quickly they crushed Netscape when they really put an effort into it. It's, quite frankly, terrifying. 40 billion in cash, tens of thousands of (despite what many of you think) quality software engineers, a first class research group. They're some scary mothers.
I sure wish SUN and Oracle would just suddenly go ALL LINUX. That'd scare the piss out of old Bill
Loading...
GW Bush has been given a free pass because he professes to believe that Jaysus is Lord!
These people aren't going to be swayed by mundane things like facts, they've got their faith.
Perhaps 2004 will not be the year when Linux makes it big. Maybe not 2005, 2006, or even 2007. But it is becoming clear to every honest observer that Microsoft is running out of time. Their business model sits smack in the middle of that part of the software ecology that has become commoditized. They are selling ice in an age of cheap refrigeration.
It's hardly even worth asking 'when'. Frankly, who cares whether it's next year or in 10 years.
The only interesting questions are, IMHO, (a) how can Microsoft survive (and it ain't gonna happen by producing TCO studies!), and (b) what will happen to the software world if MS does not survive. Open Source software is a threat only to some classes of commercial software producer, and it's a boon to every single software consumer.
Attempts to polarize this debate into "opinion" and "zealotry" miss the point: it's about technology curves and the way they change the economics of doing business.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
I guess it depends on how seriously you take Microsoft's "security" initiative. If you think it's for real, then yes, Microsoft has been focusing on security for two years. If you think it's just marketing nonsense, then Microsoft has been sitting on its ass for two years except when prodded forward by security vulnerabilities. It's a toss-up for many.
Take some of the things MS does to improve "security". Back in 199x, they had a problem with viruses being sent as attachments, because it's too easy to convince people to run foreign executables on Windows. So, do they fix the bug? No, they remove the feature. No attachments for you! Now it's 2004 and they have a bug in their HTTP URL parsing that allows people to phish. Fix the bug like Mozilla did? No, remove the feature--no usernames/passwords in URLs for you! It seems that Microsoft has learned nothing. Got a bug in a feature? Remove the feature, because fixing bugs is hard.
And then there's Oxymoronic statements, like "ActiveX security". You know what? ActiveX is a generic technology with no concept of program INSTALLATION with restricted user permissions. Using it as an Internet-exposed browser plugin technology was a quick and easy but extraordinarily insecure decision. The best Microsoft can do is throw up a lot of locks in front of the control, because once a user clicks "Yes" (and trust me, users do!) the show's over. The ActiveX control has complete control. Not so on Linux--I install plugins without root access, and they only apply to me, and can only damage my home directory. Home Windows users regularly run as administrators, not because they are dumb, but because they need to do things that Windows won't let them do unless they're administrators. Install browser plugins, fonts, change file associations. Linux users can do all of these things as unprivileged users.
Yes, I believe people at Microsoft believe they are working on security. I believe many Microsoft customers believe Microsoft is committed to security. And I also believe that the truth or falsehood of those beliefs is irrelevant. This is a PR blitz, nothing more.
This is largely because Linux administrators demand higher salaries than Windows admins, which is at least in part because Linux administrators usually have real experience actually adminstrating a system rather than simply having a certificate under their belt that one can get at any tech institute.
Feel free to mod me as -1 troll if you think the above is bullshit.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Rather than post story after story speculating that Linux is going to kill MS, why doesn't Slashdot just wait until it actually happens and then it can be the first to break the news.
I sure hope that they (M$) have less time to spend on their features. Because as far as I'm concerned, when I saw Windows XP, and saw some of the "features" that they added (gosh-awful nasty blue theme, big bloated icons, clueless stupid puppy dog to help you search in files, a hundred billion built-in useless wizards, retarded file views, and completely meaningless 'helpful task list things' on the left side of folders, to name a small few), I was awe-struck...and not in the good way either. It was that kind of awe like "what were you smoking, and where did you find the clueless idiots who designed this piece of software"?
In my opinion, it's time for the tortoise to whoop some ass.
java guy, tech blog...
It can kill it. Actually, aren't all MacOS X names based on big cats? They will eat hare and tortoises easily if that is true. ;)
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
What you're missing is there will be a fix for this within 24-48 hours. If this was in windows the fix would be kept quiet for who knows how long and if the hole goes public then it would take 1+ months for MS to put out a fix.
How long did it take them to put out a fix for the IE URL Spoofing Vulnerability? Read up bud: IE URL Spoofing Vulnerability
Changelog:
2003-12-11: Linked to test. Added information regarding variant, which makes it possible to spoof URL in the status bar as well.
2003-12-14: Microsoft has issued a knowledge base article concerning the issue. This also reports that version 5.x is affected.
2003-12-19: Scams mails exploiting the vulnerability are now circulating the Internet.
2004-02-02: Microsoft issues patches. Added CVE reference.
Almost 2 whole months for people to get exploites in the SPAM e-mail.
Because of design decisions, MS can never compete fully on security and stability. All the have are features and marketing.
Linux is becoming a commodity OS, leaving vendors to compete on service and support. MS will always be behind. They just have a tremendous market share to wither away over a long time.
This is becoming less true as time moves forward. Linux is slowly creeping into the enterprise I work at, and the two people there with Linuz skillz (myself and one other guy) are also highly Windoze-skilled. The Linux machines are typically configure-and-forget about, they're so stable, so TCO is negligible.
You are not the customer.
Linux will never be able to catch up... The best it can hope for is is to be within .0000000000000001% of Microsoft.
if you think this is a flame, then you need to do some research
Microsoft to spend more time on security and stability, and less time on adding new features.
... let some apps developer write them!
... this is SlashDot, after all.
- from the article
Thank God! Thank God!
Windows does not need more features. It's got plenty of features already! Any "features" it doesn't have
No need for me to go on about "security"
-kgj
-kgj
Wouldn't it be nice if OS designers realized what wonderful features stability and security really are?
UNIX is truth, the Console is life. Use Evolution to send e-mail and not virii.
Not to mention the XP T-shirts that say "Yes you can." (Thanks for the permission by the way ;)
The new slogan for Longhorn should read:
"Yes, you must."
-kgj
-kgj
people "inside the open source world" are just like you - abrasive, irrational jackasses.
Funny, small but cute characters don't seem to be a problem in Japan.
Quit taking such a US-centric view of the market. Given the realities of the declining economy, and the increasing trend towards humanization of technology interfaces, perhaps a penguin is the right move after all.
"But always she's the spectre of uncertainty I first endured, then faded, then embraced..."
Yeah, and that happens much more often than it does with the Penguin.
No it doesn%@#^^^^++++++CARRIER LOST.
If you've ever been invovled in hare coursing (hopefully as a sab) then you'll know that hares run in spirals to escape the snarling teeth of the hounds.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
I don't believe that the press should continue to say whether Linux will win over Microsoft or hurt them. Both are good operating systems (shhh...Linux is better) but it will be the software that is available to the operating systems that may turn the tides. Right now, MSFT wins in the desktop space because you can go into any store, buy software, and it will work in Windows. However, in the server space, MSFT doesn't have that many good products. Besides products like SQL and ISA, the other server apps are really behind the times. CMS, Project Server, SharePoint - yeish. The open-source counterparts blow them away. I think organizations will begin to see that it won't be an OS war but organizations will want to use products like MySQL in which they can clearly save money and have high ROI. Bottem line: I feel it's not MSFT vs. Linux it is MSFT vs. open-source. Which is a battle they will not win.
Windows nothing else. Granted I never had a virus or worm on MY windows machine but spent plenty of time fixing other peoples machines.
Personally I have a hard time believing in statistics. I go from personal experience. Your personal experience will be different.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Desktop and mobile apps, a little different story. Wait, I should say Windows apps. That's a breeze in DotNet. C# is nice, VB.NET should be outlawed. The downside is going from DLL Hell to DLL Version Hell.
MS can bite my butt. The strength of OSS is that it rarely feels the need to re-invent itself. It just gets better and better one generation to the next. I'm not sure it's complacency as much as a different philosophy.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
So while the Hare is out partying, the tortoise is approaching the finish line. Then this truck comes along, and the tortoise is too slow to get out of the way. SPLAT! The hare sends word, "I don't see why I should be made to finish the race, since the tortoise obviously can't win. Please send the prize money."
His prognostication is late.
IMHO, Linux is the single most important reason that Win2K was as good as it was relative to previous offerings to Redmond.
So good, in fact, that knowledgeable customers aren't convinced there are any valid technical reasons for migrating to XP or successors. The cost benefit ratio just isn't compelling.
In it's effort to stave off the force of commoditisation that Linux and free and open source software is bringing, Microsoft is working furiously to add features that make migration away from Windows less attractive.
The Outlook/Exchange orbit is a prime example of that strategy.
But this kind of feature lock-in is only a good strategy for existing customers that are already heavily invested in Microsoft's products. It's not a good strategy for growth of new customers, particularly cost-conscious customers.
And, even though the recession is over, the cost-cutting activities in businesses are not over, which really puts the spotlight on Microsoft's high-margin products that have "good enough" low-cost alternatives in the free and open source world.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Remember when Microsoft helped commoditize hardware in the 90? IBM can now get their revenge by commoditizing the operating system.
love is just extroverted narcissism
"Back in 199x, they had a problem with viruses being sent as attachments, because it's too easy to convince people to run foreign executables on Windows. So, do they fix the bug? No, they remove the feature"
.exe file, how is the OS supposed to know if it's evil or not?
What "bug" are you referring to? If a user runs an
And they're off
Look at that Bob, the Apple panther rapidly overtook both the MS Paperclip and the Linux Penguin... this race is in the bag
But, wait... the panther is stopping. No, now it's crouching. It seems to be waiting for something. Ah, the paperclip is catching up and the penguin is right behind it...
Oh horror, the panther has attacked the paperclip. Look, it's biting and bending it. Oh, the poor paperclip. Meanwhile, the penguin is slowly but surely gaining ground.
The panther seems to be having some problems now... yes, the panther has eaten the paperclip, and now it's choking. It seems that the clip is just too much bloat for the panther to handle...
Zeno's Paradox requires that the quantity in question ("remaining distance" in the canonical form) be infinitely subdividable. An installed base of computers is necessarily discrete.
The point of the old fable is that rushing doesn't necessarily make you faster - consider that Microsoft rushed out a bunch of products in the 95-2000 period which really weren't properly designed, and now they're "out of breath" trying to fix all the problems with their previous products. In contrast, the Linux 'turtle' has been slowly puttering along and is now in some areas surpassing Windows. (Consider how long Linux was in development before it was ready for commercial systems, for example.)
What really makes Linux a 'turtle' is the whole "when it's ready" philosophy. The time between finished, *stable* versions of OSS products or Linux can indeed exceed the 'standard' commercial timeframe of 18 months. So from the perspective of a consumer who uses only stable products, Linux development is sometimes comparatively 'slow'. But, now that MS is "out of breath", Linux is starting to move ahead faster than they are. =)
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.
Maybe linux admins make more- I'm not sure. But I do know that a competent Linux admin can maintain hundreds of boxes - whereas a Windows admin probably can't...
Yes they are working on it in the worst possible way. Issuing patches, while nice, is still not a very good way to ensure security in software. How many patches do I have to install to make it secure? How many patches will break something else? How many people really care to install all these patches? In short, very few users, but hopefully more sysadmins.
Security needs to be designed into the software from the beginning, not as an afterthought, implemented in patches, which rely on people caring enough to install them.
BananaWare: Software which ripens after purchase.
It's stupid... but true.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Add a rolex to one of its wings and you would have a high rank professional :)
That much is true... but most businesses can't or just won't look at it that way... They only look at how much the employee is demanding for salary... that the more expensive guy can get 10 times the work done for only twice the cost doesn't matter to them if they don't feel they have enough work for that person to justify the expense in the first place.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Fedora Core 2 release : 3 May 3, 2004
Windows Longhorn release : 2004^H5^H6^H...er, we'll get back to you. Meantime, try Windows XP-ME!
The question is, when they get around to releasing it, will we be blown away by its features and ease of use, or just the upgrade price?
Lets see yours...
And IANAGP, but I think that the grandparent was remarking that Linux seemed (to him) to be progressing faster, which would undermine the allusion.
Anyway, maybe you're right, if all the Slashdotters found your comment informative.
.NET applications are totaly invincible to security holes? .NET app use to render HTML?... the IE browser component... no security holes there at all. ;)
What does a
"We've also been very clear that the open source and free software model is a threat to all commercial software vendors. ... It's a threat to everybody."
I hear this a lot lately. How open source and free software will kill economics/capitalism/everything! What is being ignored is the fact that commercial software vendors make up only a small part of the economy. For the vast majority of business and people in the world, computers are not an end in themselves; they are tools that they use to get non-computer type stuff manufactured/distributed/grown/whatever.
What I think the popularity of open source software should be telling Microsoft et al is that the cost of doing business with them is simply too high! It is brought out in the article with the mention of customers using Linux to bring Microsoft's pricing down. Even company concerns with security are a reflection of this; recent Microsoft security breaches have probably cost companies more than the original software purchase price.
In very real sense, Microsoft has priced themselves out of the market. And it isn't necessarily all monetary; the costs of insecurity I've already mentioned and there is a very real cost to vendor lock-in in terms of forced upgrade cycles and incompatibility with existing tools. There is a cost associated with Linux even though it's free; it comes in terms of learning/training, more limited hardware support and longer, more complicated configuration.
Whatever the reasons, companies are now deciding that Open Source software may allow them to save money and be more competitive. Companies that do that will offer better products at cheaper prices to consumers. Surely that isn't a "threat to everybody"? No, the only threat I see is to commercial software vendors in general (and Microsoft in particular) and any chance that "business as usual" will continue to make tham scads of money. They will adapt or die.
Linux is more secure than Windows because Linux started out with a security model. Multiple simultaneous user logins were a criteria from the beginning.
Windows started out as a single user system, then, woah, let's add multiple user capabilities (although only one at a time) and then, woah, let's add multiple simultaneous user access (but still only one log in...and.....well, Citrix finally made multiple user logins viable around 98/99 I think, but a single bad app with a bad GDI call will still BSOD the whole damn system, or used to. And then wait, let's add some "security"
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
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.""
So... this is supposed to be a bad thing?
Assuming what you say is true, then we do at least have to commend Microsoft for *trying* to improve stability and security in their software. On the other hand, they still aren't providing the source code, so how am I supposed to be sure that it really is secure, since I can't examine it myself or find a trusted third party to do it? I'll stick with open source, thanks.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
See here http://lkml.org/lkml/1998/7/28/161 ;-)
Paul B.
There was a long discussion on LKML if beer-drinking Tux on boot-up screen is 'politically correct'
Not forgetting .NET, SQL Server 2003, tablets and smartphones. Microsoft have been doing plenty.
Now that Linux is Good Enough, here come the hanger-ons wanted to sell it under the premise it's something it isn't. Market it! Productize it! Rebrand it!
Fuck it - most of the people who did the grunt work to get it this far don't give a shit if some middle-aged exec in a random office thinks the boot logo is "unprofessional". Many of us don't have a vested interest in selling more systems. The Tux logo is part of Linux history and culture. If people have a problem with it, they need to change not the Linux community. And if a logo is enough to inhibit adoptance of a better system, then again that ain't our problem or our loss. Of course, you're free to go and produce your own penguin free distro, and to produce your own penguin free marketing material, but something tells me you won't go to all that work...
Rebranding is masterbation. If you want executive compatible "professionalism" that badly, go and use Solaris or something and stick a Gnome desktop on it. Except maybe that Foot is a bit cartoony too, eh?
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
Considering they sat on a known, serious security bug for 6 months, I'd say that it's mostly about lip service and self-protection.
You've just made my day. A Microsoft fan preaching the gospel of standards.
> That's exactly what Microsoft has been doing for some time now. We're 2.5 years out from the release of Windows XP; in this time there's been a fairly significant update to Windows Media Player, Movie Maker, and Messenger, and umm... that's it for features, folks! Pretty much everything else MS has released as updates to XP in that timeframe directly addresses security and stability.
I'm on a project this year that has me using Windows for the first time since my Windows95 days, and as for stability all I can say is What the f**k has Microsoft been doing for the past nine years???. I use pre-1.0 versions of free software that are more reliable than Microsoft's version 7 products.
As for XP itself, in the past two months there have been three times I've had to pull the plug on a system that was hung in such a screwball state that it wouldn't even shut down cleanly.
These people aren't interested in stable products; they're interested in maintaining their cash flow.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
"EMACS isn't a great editor, but it's an excellent operating system" --RMS
Except the flaw in Xeno is that half the distance is covered in half the time, not constant time. Therefore you can catch up in finite time.
How inappropriate...however it would be cool if the parent post got modded "+5, Troll" as it is a masterful example of trolling.
.NET eliminate a "whole class of security vulnerabilities" from Windows. Are you referring to buffer overflows and such? Seems to me that lately that's been the LEAST of problems in the windows worm-fest (almost none involve security breaches related to overflows).
.NET except in that it seems to be "Java done right (according to Microsoft)". Pray tell me, what does the "integrated security environment" do to make Windows inherently more secure than anything else?
.NET applications. Do you mean that since it is a uniform system it will be easier to secure and as such more people will secure their systems. "Security by Simplicity" if you will--make it too hard and people will give up or incorrectly secure the system and leave it vulnerable, hence a simpler setup is more secure. Is that your argument?
.NET architecture seems to force all applications to rely on the integrity of the .NET framework and security environment. The apps are all .NET CLR "managed code" but low-level drivers and code in the .NET framework itself at some level are going to rely on C and assembly I would think. What happens if there is a vulnerability there? A security bug in the .NET Application Framework somewhere wouldn't just make IIS or Outlook or IE vulnerable, it could make EVERY DAMN .NET APP vulnerable! "Central" and "Intetgrated" security model seems to me to translate to "single point of failure".
.NET is the MS Saviour of security. About all I've seen is a change in philosophy to "services closed by default" etc but nothing MEANINGFUL. And we still have to wait at least TWO YEARS until Longhorn to see it working to it's fullest advantage (thatever that is). How is something that's realistically that for out on the horizon fix the very serious flaws in the platform that have to be dealt with today?
Sincerely, HOW exactly does
I am not extremely well versed in the underlying architecture of
Seems to me it's primary benefit would be to streamline the process and provide a common security layer for ALL
Seems like a good theory but one that can bite a gigantic chunk out of your ass if you aren't careful. The whole
Maybe I'm just missing something here, but I really don't see how
Security and stability are features, no?
2GB RAM limits and /3GB hacks in Windows have reached their limit for a lot of server uses. When doing VM style systems or large databases...
How does Windows complete? To get 'official support' from Microsoft for more than 2GB of RAM you have to purchase the very expensive Server Enterprise Edition. We aren't talking $500 (Windows 2000 Server) vs. free, we are talking $1,500 vs free.
64-bit Windows is still 'beta'... I think Microsoft has already let the door open... They were ahead on Itanium but now behind on the AMD.
Giving up the 64-bit Alpha might proove to be the mistake that Microsoft made that lead to this...
Just some thoughts.
i didn't know the penguin had hair loss... better call avacor. ohhhhhh HARE! not H-A-I-R. duh... nevermind.
----
djzooky.com
I Like Cheese.
I think that the IT sector is overflowing with boring logos and stylised names. And if I see another logo with a meaningless eliptical sweep around the company name, I swear I'm gonna scream!
Drill baby drill - on Mars
THE STANDARD STATES THAT NO USER NAME OR PASSWORD IS ALLOWED IN HTTP URL'S.
Ooh look, he's shouting, he MUST be informative. Seriously, I'm trying to hold back the flames here, because I wholeheartedly think you deserve them as a representative sample of "loud, smug, abrasive and uninformed" that seems to dominate every time discussion of standards comes up. Oh, I guess I did flame, my bad.
RFC1738 is obsolete. In fact, it's obsolete by at least a couple revisions. Read RFC2616, then come back.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
...bases its IT infrastructure descisions based on what the product logo looks like then the world is clearly going straight to hell in a handbasket.
However, I'm sure that affixed to the handbasket in which we are riding will be a label with a slick, professional logo that was heavily tested by a leading marketing agency using a large number of diverse focus groups.
*whew* That makes me feel better...
I think those in the Open Source community are ignoring this 64bit issue...
In many ways Microsoft outdid IBM by playing the platform change. Why? Well, because backward binary compatibility. It is one thing to do the API's, but thunking kills you.
In open source -- hello - the future of Linux is Gentoo. we are talking (on this Slashdot story) SERVERS HERE, people who are willing to compile... FreeBSD and OpenBSD have demonstrated that.
With open source you can recompile all you binaries and not have any need to mix modes. If you have to run 32bit combined with 64bit, do it over the network... not on the same machine.
Microsoft will have to support binary compatibility... and that will hurt...
A 64-bit native Linux running Wine as a 'compatibility box' sounds a lot like OS/2 2.0 'windows mode' was during the bridge to 32-bit. Too bad IBM didn't know how to market their product...
Linux users, are you listening?
While Microsoft is drawing lines from here to there, Linux is performing a flood fill.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
Can someone help out here? The following stats are provided in the article:
Market share*, 2002 23.1% 55.1%
Market share, 2001 22.4% 50.5%
indicating that MS has approximately twice the market share as Unix/Linux.
Netcraft's site says something different, however:
Apache 67.20
Microsoft 20.88
Here, Apache over has three times as many deployments as MS. Anyone aware of why there are differences between the two sources?
The Death Penalty: Killing people to show others that killing people is wrong.
The only way I would learn is if I could afford the machine. Since I can't, I won't. When I can run a Mac OS on my PC, then I will learn. As to the server thing, I was asking because I didn't know. You tell me to learn, but then I am flamed for asking.
Ops, I shuld have usd the prevuwe but in.
They threw out user-run executables.
Repeat after me: USER-RUN. User-run worms do not count as operating system security holes. Get a clue. This is typical of the selective memory that Slashbots have, and the hypocrisy--user-run executables = "NEW M$ HOLE!" while Linux being the most-breached on the net = "NO STATISTICAL METHODOLOGY!"
"Sufferin' succotash."
Now you've given MicroSoft the cute animal mascot it's been withering without in the battle against Tux: RetardoTurtle. Fine, just GIVE the battle away to Redmond, you quisling turncoat!
Windows XP SP2 told me to install third-party software that prevents viruses and protects stability... I chose Ubuntu
RFC2616 is the HTTP/1.1 spec. It explicitly defines itself as an update to the original HTTP/1.1 spec, which clarified some issues.
Have a look at section 3.2.2. It defines the HTTP URL syntax as such:I believe that pretty clearly supports what I said in my earlier post. There is no mention of username or password here (or, as RFC2396 defines the term, 'userinfo').
RFC2396 , which updates RFC1738, and is pointed to by RFC2616 for the generic definition of URI's, indicates thatNote that it said "Some URL schemes". Also note where it says "NOT RECOMMENDED" and "security risk". This is a pretty clear message to implementers (e.g. Microsoft) that support for this should be as limited as possible.
Finally, the IETF has not declared RFC1738 to be obsolete. Go check their datbase at www.rfc-editor.org, and you'll see that I'm right.
Oh, I guess a Japanese guy didn't come up with Mario, the mascot to beat all mascots?
People like to believe they are empowered. Most people do not use the best product, they use the product that makes them feel the best. So what if Excel is not a database. The last place I worked full time for had so many excel spreadsheet databases that two people sitting beside each other could not agree on what a property's address was.
MS has the market for dumb users at the moment. Unskilled users can be brilliant at other things (like marketing, real estate, contracts, etc.) but they have no clue (or worse, little clue) how to work with data. They use MS products though and can get a small thing going, so they think the next step is just another click and drag away. Linux lacks this fundamental smoke screen.
The reason this race analogy is so beautiful is that Linux is slowly creeping up on MS's GUI ease of use and unskilled user empowerment. The key really is to allow people to do damage to themselves easily, then it is their choice. As Linux develops the ease of use, and ease of getting stuck that Windows currently has, then the rest of the world will start to flock to it. After all, these are most of the same people who download music, games and movies without paying. Then, they will not have to pay for the OS or the Office software.
Microsoft might be able to compete with that, but I doubt they can through legitimate means. After all, GNU applications and Linux development do not have any of the marketing, h/r, accounting or other costs associated with running a company. Pure development without the taint of beancounters or marketers.
InnerWeb
Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
It's the password part of userinfo that's been deprecated as a security risk, not the userinfo field. But there it is in the HTTP RFC, host and no userinfo. I'm developing a taste for crow.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
Of course you definitely can't say the same thing about *nix desktops...
Shift happens. Fire it up.
they want their flame war from 1997 back
The point that the vast majority of the flamers on both sides seem to have missed is that a respected business publication thinks linux has a chance.
Most of us that were around when Linus made his quip about world domination never in our wildest dreams expected it would really happen, and here is an article saying it might. And articles like this have actually become common!
We now return you to your regularly scheduled flame fest.
If I had any mod points left over, I would +1 parent. It might be interesting to point out that almost all of my friends, yes, including those who do not necessarily know much about computers, do know what Slashdot is, and do know what Linux is. Having a large knowledge base in computers does not correlate participation (reading, commenting, etc) on Slashdot or knowledge of Linux. Of course, the result of my friends knowing about /. and Linux might just be because of me.
They are Slashdot fanboys who need Linux to be #1 so they can troll Microsoft IRC channels without shame.
They are pointing out a legitimate flaw which you have yet to refute. What is your basis for calling them IRC trolls?
given Windows' popularity, you don't think virus authors would be using tricks involving, oh, the new kernel vulnerability listed in my sig, for instance?
I have sigs switched off. Name a single Linux mail client that allows users to run executables. How often is that feature actually a useful thing, and how often is it a liability?
Repeat after me--that has nothing to do with the security of the operating system and everything to do with the dumbness of the user.
A properly-designed system takes the dumbness of the user into account. Like, for example, expecting people to run malicious payloads from email and making it more difficult to make that mistake.
This is to all the other replies below me. Maybe...just MAYBE...Linux isn't the 100% perfect golden OS you're making it out to be?
Please point out where somebody stated that Linux was perfect. Or are you attacking a straw-man argument again, troll-boy?
BSD users are laughing and laughing.
Weren't you the one that suggested a unified alternative desktop based on Linux? Oh, but it's a different article now, so you have to troll in the other direction, don't you?
difference!
An interesting analogy. But would American Revolutionaries, the Viet Cong, or Al-Queda agree with you? Even more appropriately -- would Gandhi (the man who won a war without ever firing a shot)? How about the Iraqis when Britian invaded them in the early 20th century?
The complacency of the superior power often nullifies its own advantage. I do not see Microsoft deviating from this venerable axiom.
======---=======
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
You right about "resolv.conf" and "umount" commands... they look a little weird. :P
But the truth is than marketing and names don't care when you are looking for good software.
However... linux keep evolving... every time better... and free althought SCO vampires cry
My official title is 'SQL Server Guru' and I am responsible for 5 servers at a retail mega-corp. If I am not relearning how to create a better wheel in .Net (from having previously known VS6), I am preparing for countless migrations. SQL7 to SQL2K, WinNT to Win2K, IIS whatever to whatever, not to mention countless security patches that all seem to break more than they fix. Not to mention dll hell and what happens when MDAC gets replaced with an older version. All this crap masquerades under the banner of 'Windows Interoperability'.
Take in contrast the AIX box I have that runs Apache (IBM's flavor) and uses perl and php to connect to Amazon.com. Our admins load whatever they want, if it breaks they back out their changes. I have a cd with all my code that I can deploy to any system I want, tweak 2 files and I'm back in production. We even had to rewrite parts of Curl to handle nonstandard headers. This machine has to be available 98% of the time. It has been up since November. My mission critical Windows machine has been up since middle of February.
It is more important to me that with a text editor and an internet connection I can fix ANYTHING. Than to be sold on software components that have a 3 year lifecycle.
Wow, that rant was better than therapy. Back to my damn migration plan.
PS: It is easier to run an enterprise with no Microsoft components than it is to run one with nothing but Microsoft components.
It's several bugs, actually. Thanks for asking, by the way.
First, Windows hides file extensions by default, so executables can be made to be visually identical to known "safe" file types. Secondly, Microsoft's mail clients don't take advantage of NTFS's execute permissions to prevent executables from being run until they are marked as okay to execute.
Hope that helps. For what it's worth, try any other operating system on the planet. It'll give you a good perspective on how many ways things can be done differently than on Windows.
I haven't implemented it myself, but I *think* OpenLDAP can do what you want, in conjunction with Samba...
Important info:
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net
http://dieoff.org/synopsis.htm
http://www.peakoil.net
I say different versions use different species of penguin. Check this out. Tons of species with rather business-friendly names. King, Emperor (doesn't the middle one make you think "Godfather"?), as well as penguins with that corpate-ish look, like the Rockhopper, Erect-crested, Snares, and Fiordland. My personal vote is for the Rockhopper, or perhaps a more true-to-form (fatter, taller, and smaller head) Emperor penguin.
Of course, there is also the Jackass penguin, but I'm not sure anybody will go for that.
You got that right. The cluetrain was ahead of its time.
I can't understand why people still think that "professional" must mean putting on a boring, impersonal face and communicating in corporate monotone; Google is proof otherwise. It's so sad to see small businesses -- who still have a soul -- attempting to emulate their souless idols.
--
Power to the Peaceful
appleWare: it'll cost you an arm and a leg but it works pretty damn well.
(sorry, just wanted to continue on the fruit-topic thing)
"going to force Microsoft to spend more time on security and stability, and less time on adding new features."
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
That is a complete myth. Windows admins are not significantly less expensive to hire than Linux admins. Not even when you consider people of similar skill level (admins that are Windows-only typically are far less skilled than those that are Linux-only or know both). And especially not in this job market where there are loads of people applying for every admin slot that opens up. It is an employer's market, and employers can pretty much name their price, especially for highly desireable positions like a Linux admin.
If you don't believe me, you haven't been involved in the hiring process lately and/or haven't looked around on the job boards.
I remember when Japanese cars started becoming popular in the US. American-made vehicles were prettier and more comfortable, but the quality was terrible. Japanese cars were too small and full of unattractive plastic bits, but they ran well and had far fewer problems.
It only took a few years before the Japanese cars were also attractive and confortable, but it took at least a decade before Detroit even started to catch up in reliability.
Wow, lots of bad karma in the first couple posts.. [gossip]Anyway, so Microsoft fell asleep on the job.. [pipedream] Linux is surely going to take the purdy blue ribbon for rock-steady. I wonder when the optimal time to start teaching my friends' kids is.. [/pipedream][/gossip]
Read; Write; Execute
Wouldn't it be easier for Microsoft to simply re-brand Linux or *BSD by changing the icons for the window managers?
Let's see if I can explain myself a bit better. See, the thing is that the market wanted more secure and stable software, but MS just ignored that (features FEATURES!!). Linux came along and changed that, but the same effect could have happened if someone else had decided to go for that same market, be it IBM with a new OS, someone taking over a new BSD variant, you name it.
Granted, as the AC said, the fact that Linux is gratis and free probably helped too (as well as the fact that the primary goal for the creators was not necessarily profit). But with MS ignoring the market like that it was just creating the opportunity.
---- Take the Space Quiz!
You mean like Reddy-Kilowatt, Mr. Zip-code, The Exxon Tiger, Ronald McDonald, the AOL man, the GOP elephant, the Demorcatic donkey, the Maytag repairman, Ask Jeeves, or any other persona or charicature?
I guess you don't quite understand what it means to market a product. For each of the examples, aside from the political parties, they are trying to market to end users, consumers. I can just see a multi-million dollar company signing up with AOL to be their sole provider of internet access and email. And I can absolutely envision that same company taking out their most important client for McDonalds. Don't forget about gassing up their LearJet at the local Exxon station. The subject of debate (the only one that it could be) is how to market to business professionals. Because it costs considerably more money to set up an office with the latest computer hardware/software than it does to by some freakin' batteries, the major decision makers want to know that they are dealing with a serious company. They do this because not only are their jobs at stake, but potentially the jobs of everyone else at the company, not to mention the money of their investors. It's called professionalism and I think that we all learned a little bit of it back in the dot com crash..at least, I'd like to think we did.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, go into business for themselves.
The article was good in that it recognized that commercial linux figures were only the tip of the iceberg of total linux usage, but it failed to realize that this means Linux is not playing the same game as Microsoft (or any other vendor).
Comparing revenue growth is meaningless. Even the effect on MS's bottom line is secondary to MS. They're more frightened about the mindshare. People don't want to upgrade to XP. People have lost faith in the Software Assurance program (if they had any to begin with). There's no serious money in PC hardware at the moment, but people are seriously revising their upgrade needs for when the time comes.
I'm still wating for the killer web-based tax/accounting application (eg postgres+php). That would give the tortoise a wriggle-on.
insecurity asks the wrong question irritation gives the wrong answer
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."
Actually Microsoft's previous lack of focus on security is going to make Microsoft spend more time on security. Too late to shut the barn door that horse is long gone.
There's no shame in being a pariah. -Marge Simpson
(goes to bottom of page and clicks to "PLAIN OLD TEXT" immediately)
4000? Strange... I remember MS press releases saying two factoids: that they took 500 man-years to create win2k, and that they had a staff of over 200 developers on the win2k team. Now, keep in mind this is strictly developers, not support, admin, QA or etc.
4000 for IE, vs 250 for the whole OS?? If anything, what you're saying PROVES Brooks' theorem. Incidentally, you obviously haven't read the Mythical Man Month. His examples involve companies like IBM and GE. They've occasionally done some big projects, I hear. Had microsoft existed when he wrote the book, he'd have mentioned them. Read the book. Really.
Back to your 20,000 number: if Microsoft hires 20,000 *developers* on an OS and doesn't fall victim to the flaws resulting from an infinite committee (unlike the infinite monkeys concept, an infinite committee results in a black hole of productivity, where NOTHING ever is created again... like that? I just made it up!) they'd be spending a third of their manpower on engineers. That's a bunch of nontechies that'll be out of work, considering the balance at Microsoft is nowhere near 30% engineers right now. Also, at 100k apiece, not counting overhead, Bill Gates would be seeing 20,000 x 100,000 = 4 BILLION a year spent on crushing a free alternative that admittedly hasn't caught up with microsoft yet on most issues.
After a few years of spending like crazy and seeing the Linux realm keep up... it'll start to look like a poor investment.
After a decade, they'll have spent a sizeable chunk of Microsoft's market cap. If they stop, linux will still catch up. Press on!
After another decade, the money's run out. Let's say Microsoft's still in the lead in this ficticious scenario. But they've gotta stop. Once they do, linux advances again.
Don't underestimate Microsoft? Indeed. Apple, Oracle and Netscape all needed a profit motive to win. Linux just is. And twenty years from now, it'll still be just as free, just as flexible. And anyone that wants to lend a hand is free to do so. That's the concept that shouldn't be underestimated.
Do you notice that all these things are done in India. The result will be that all people in India will be unable to work with Windows, whereas the rest of the world will be.
The endresult will be that it is impossible to outsource to India and we all have to pay higher prices. The prices that Microsoft will dictate. It is all a scam from Microsoft, I tell you. All a scam. Don't trust them.
(It's a joke, now mod me down)
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
If I said "what product brand is Penguin" to almost anyone in the UK, they would say "a chocolate biscuit" (they used to have a massive ad campaign with the slogan "P-P-Pick up a Penguin"). I think very few people would name the book publisher, if only because Penguin Books don't advertise nearly as much as McVities/United Biscuits do.
Linux is the Torvalds to Microsoft's whore.