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.""
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
... 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
"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
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
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?
For Microsoft, security and stability will be new features.
:::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..."
When I started to use linux, people who worked with windows pretty much accepted that you'd have to reboot several times a day. This wasn't just because of the need to preserve backward compatitibility with DOS. Even NT 4 was pretty buggy before sp4 or so.
I remember telling people that sun servers often stayed up for years without reboots -- no one believed it. Computers crashed, that's what computers do. Microsoft, and to a lesser extent apple, convinced most casual users that's the way computers worked.
But obviously, this wasn't something that was caused by an immature level of technological development, because other companies, like sun, were shipping machines that didn't crash all the time.
I believe that linux is responsible for a huge percentage of the core improvements that MS made to windows. They never felt it was a problem to ship OSs that crashed until they saw an alternative that didn't crash, on the edge of their radar screen. An alternative that people could install on their existing PCs, an alternative that people running ISPs could use to do server work.
Linux's quality, for the most part, doesn't come out of competition. There are efforts to make linux better at doing certain specific things, efforts that are driven by benchmarks. Most of the time, these little competitions seem to be waged with FreeBSD. But it's a historical fact that people wanted to make linux more reliable way before windows had any stability at all.
Microsoft *needs* linux to push it. If linux wasn't out there, does anyone think they'd be trying to tighten up security? Does anyone think that they would have delivered stable versions of windows without the pressure of competition.
My point is that even if you don't use linux, you benefit from it in a big way. In fact, I would say that most of the real benefit that linux brings to the world comes in the form of competitive pressure on microsoft, and those benefits are seen by windows users, not by linux users. Who knows how much they'd be charging, what the net would look like, how often windows would crash, etc., if it weren't for linux.
It's hard to get this across, but every discussion of open source vs. commercial development ignores the effect that open source exerts on commercial developers. The discussions are simplistic for that reason.
If you were going to compare open source development vs. monopolistic commercial development in a realistic way, you'd have to talk about what a horrible job commercial developers did before open source developers started to hold their feet to the fire.
So I'm a pervert. Welcome to the Internet.
I think the fable is really about the danger of complacency, which MicroSoft displayed in abundance until recently.
I agree with you on this, but I think the idea is that slow and steady wins the race. Linux progresses (arguably) slowly, but steadily (not to mention stably). Whereas microsoft _attempts_ to leap forward, but at each leap forward it takes a rest and linux passes it. This is because each leap "forward" seems to introduce countless new bugs and security holes.
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.
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."
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!
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.
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?
A study that had no real statistical methodology and DISCOUNTED all viruses on the Windows platfom. Yeah that's a great study. Let's throw out all the MS breaches. Wow Linux is breached more than MS. Get a clue!
Thalasar
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.
Oh, you're referring to the article that basically excluded data that referred to Windows breaches?
There was a great comment posted in reference to that story, that it basically said, "After discarding all evidence to the contrary,....."
Or did you actually read the article instead of popping up with blind fanboyism about your favorite overpriced OS?
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
...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...
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.
*splutter*
.Net is going to make Melissa et al look like a minor cold compared to the digital Pearl Harbor that is .Net. This thing was built without security in mind, then it was "Oh, we need to secure it!". Cringely had a good column about this just last week.
SOAP (the communication protocol of .Net) was designed to deliberately to bypass firewalls by using the HTTP port by default. That alone is enough reason to shut down .Net. If you cannot block off .Net communication without breaking another (relatively more secure) protocol, you'll either cripple .Net or a lot of companies will be caught with their pants down.
Listen, I know you're all excited after reading the .NET and C# technology papers, etc. But I've been victimized by MS technology for nearly 15 years (Oh dear, has it been that long already??), and I can guarantee you: .NET will not provide half of what they claim it can do.
The bitter lessons of a veteran coder: http://bitterprogrammer.blogspot.com
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
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
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.
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.