Slashdot Mirror
Bob Muglia on Longhorn Server, Linux and Blackcomb
An anonymous reader writes "In a wide-ranging interview, Microsoft's senior VP Bob Muglia talks about the work involved in getting Longhorn Server out by 2007. He also gives the lowdown on the next major release of Windows Server, code-named Blackcomb. 'If Indigo (a major feature of Longhorn) took four years to develop, some major infrastructure things inside Blackcomb will also take four years to develop,' Muglia said. On competition from Linux, he said: 'When I think of Linux, I don't think about it as our competitor. I think about Linux as a technology that is used by our competitors to build competitive offerings.' Very different from what Steve Ballmer and Bill Gates have been saying but Muglia says he's trying to teach them a thing or two."
That lazy penguin's no match fro Clippy.
Gee, I wonder how much longer he's gonna be around at MS.
I thought this article looked familiar. It's actually from C|Net's news.com.com.
He's just playing good cop...
'When I think of Linux, I don't think about it as our competitor. I think about Linux as a technology that is used by our competitors to build competitive offerings.'
He realized that it is hard to fight Linux itself, because there is no single company producing it. So he aims at companies offering Linux as an alternative to Windows in order to solve specific problems.
In the first interview question, he not only shows a correct grasp of the marketplace (Linux is a technology used by businesses to produce competing products/services, not a competitor in itself) but also brilliantly spins it ("It was thought of as free." -- love it!).
Why the heck is Ballmer still in charge if they have someone who makes sense? Perhaps if this guy had been in charge of promoting
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
'When I think of Linux, I don't think about it as our competitor. I think about Linux as a technology that is used by our competitors to build competitive offerings.'
Well, that's true enough. Linux does NOT compete with Microsoft, and in fact never did. A Linux distribution company such as Red Hat competes with Microsoft and a Linux distribution competes with a Microsoft product such as NT.
It's like back in the day, Intel sent a sales rep to my (then) employer asking how Intel could help us. We explained the score to him: we don't buy Intel. What we buy is Compaq (i.e. complete systems) and if they happen to have Intel in fair enough, but really, that's Compaq's decision, we don't care.
Thus it is with Linux. The average person DOES NOT CARE whether the kernel on their system is Linux or the NT kernel or Mach or anything else. They just want to run their applications to get the stuff they want to do done.
He goes on to say the main competitors are FIRMS that sell Linux, such as IBM and RedHat. In other words, there is no Linux, Inc. or a single Linux product.
Reminds me a study I read about in an industry rag some months back. It concluded that Windows is n times more pervasive than Linux because that is how much more people spend on buying their OS.
Just the small fact that Linux is FREE and what you really pay for wheny buying a Linux distro such as RedHat or SuSe is support.
I'm sorry if I haven't offended anyone
From the article:
Muglia must keep a long train of updates and service packs for older versions of Windows rolling off the production line
WOAH, slow down with all those service packs for XP microsoft!
If the service packs for XP were actually a train, the would be only one carriage.. but that carriage would be bloody long!
Live in your skin. Keep changing the scenery.
At first they ignore us, then they laugh at us, then they fight us, then we win -Mahatma Gandhi Funny how this seems to be already happening with Linux & MS ... technology used by our competitors ... whatever!
From the article:
> In the last 12 months, about 35 percent of the
> base has moved to Windows 2000. It's accelerating.
> We will see in this calendar year another third of
> the base move. It's a pretty small percentage of
> customers on NT 4.0 -- less than 20 percent. Japan
> is higher than that. The United States is lower.
> But the vast majority of customers will move by
> the end of this year
Based on my own experience, I'd dispute these figures. Over the last 12-24 months, I've worked at several banks, General Motors, General Electric, and large government bodies. Every one of them has loads of NT 4 servers in production, and no plans to migrate a lot of these systems because they just work.
Many of them still use NT 4 on the desktop too. I've got no idea how the licencing for this works, but many many people who work for these companies are logging into NT 4 each day.
If this guy is talking about migrating their customer-facing systems to Win 2000 or 2003, then I'd believe that - these companies roll out new customer-facing systems very quickly and not many *customer-facing* systems more than a few years old are still out there. However, it isn't stated in this interview that he's excluding back-office and end-user systems in these migration figures. You'd be right if you guessed that customer-facing systems make up a tiny percentage of overall system numbers at these sites.
There must be a lot of Slashdotters working at similar large sites - what have you encountered in terms of migration rates, and the number of NT 4 systems still in operation?
While wide-ranging, this guy's answers are really vague. I am none the wiser for it. What the hell does he mean by "We're taking the concept of transferring information across the life cycle of the business application and ingraining it in as part of the process. DSI is all about information transfer between a developer, the operations center and the end user. There are ways to do that on a surface level, and there are ways to build that deeper into the OS, and that's what we are doing."?? Like, are they going to provide a pack of Sticky Notes (TM, did they buy 3M?) with every copy of Longhorn or Blackcomb that they sell so that the developer may leave a note for the user? That's one way of "ingraining" info. And while I'm at it, why is he touting complexity as a good thing? AFAIK the more parts there are, the bigger the chance of something breaking down. New security holes, here we come.
----- One learns to itch where one can scratch.
Microsoft has had trouble getting some customers to move from older versions of Windows, like Windows NT 4.0.
In the last 12 months, about 35 percent of the base has moved to Windows 2000. It's accelerating.
I wonder what % of that is forced to move due to the unpatchability of NT4 against recent worms like Sasser?
A server shouldn't need to be the most complicated thing ever. Fundamentally, it does a fairly simple job. Making it 'more complex than ever' makes me want to use something else! (I'm a Tech. Director).
Wouldn't it be cool if MS said "Hey this new OS will use half the resources, be 99% secure, and run on a reasonable spec PC, and be simple to use and understand". Don't think we'll be getting that somehow though...
Still, I suppose from a business point of view they have to keep swimming, like sharks.
"This is your life, and it's ending one second at a time."
When i slap together a new LAMP server on linux it sure as heck is taking business away from Microsoft. A DNS, DHCP, Firewall, mailfilter/AV is today only a couple of cd's away for most admins with half a brain. And the best part? It doesnt cost a dime!
Even if Microsft successfully attacks all the companies selling linux there will still be a significant marketshare who is using linux on servers. What Microsoft should do is start selling applications and services to linux, like a full blown emulator for win32 and Office for Linux.
That way they wouldnt have to kill competition to earn money. Sometimes it feals like killing the competition is the goal and making money just a side effect.
HTTP/1.1 400
When I think of Linux, I don't think about it as our competitor. I think about Linux as a technology that is used by our competitors to build competitive offerings.
In other words you think of it as a competitor.
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
This is a first step towards Microsoft deeming open source solutions ready for the market place.
No doubt that Microsoft will start using the linux kernel once they think it will make them more profitable.
the guy says:
"... and we think about software-based solutions to information technology problems and how our software can drive down cost. That's pretty distinct from, say, an IBM that is first and foremost a consulting company. Our focus is how to provide more out-of-the-box solutions that don't require those consulting services."
MS always uses the "low cost - no need for expertise" argument, yet always fails to deliver. windows consultants will always be needed. IMHO, when you make a swiss-knife piece of software, you'll always need an expert to implement that part of the swiss knife you actually need in a specific situation.
i don't think you'll spend less on consultancy, as compared to other solutions such as linux...
What the gentleman is trying to say is "We will try to make the next version of MS Windos as much alike Linux as possible".
That's about as simple as it gets.
O.O
He's opening up the possibility that Microsoft themselves could make use of that technology whereas that would be inconceivable if Linux itself were their competitor.
It's an interesting development.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
Blackcomb, sounds evil. The OS from the darkside, while doing battle surfing on lava against the might of Linux.
need a website?
Do you need a website upgrade?
He's quite right here. Linux isn't a competitor - it's just a kernel. GNU/Linux is a competitor. GNU/Linux with X and KDE is a dangerous competitor. But Linux on its own is not a big problem.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Look, business is a dirty, bare knuckles kind of thing. You find the choicest customer, become his friend, and use that relationship to tar the competitor. With Linux, MS must discredit the very idea of working anybody but MS. True, a lot of customers think this way; but it is a result, not a strategy. MS wants to create this worldview, but it can't rely on it to be stable in and of itself
:)
I wonder if this is a subtle change of policy for MS? By defining Linux as just another technology, that opens the door for MS using it, too. Not that Microsoft would ever release GPL'd software; but my prediction is that they will have a BSD-based Unix on the market around 2010. Apple did it, so they will too...
As a Canadian Linux and OS X user I really wish M$ would stop using ski destinations in British Columbia for their code names. If they must use Canadian based names why not things like "Sea King," Mulroney and Hamilton?
.\.\att Clare
Microsoft has been on the offensive lately. Trying to avoid people from migrating away from their security hole ridden operating system to Linux, Mac OSX and the BSDs. I hope companies don't sit still and stop innovating their own products fearing Microsoft will wipe them out. e.g. Macromedia adoption of Central has slowed down because many people are waiting for Indigo and Avalon.
A very high percentage. It depends on how fast the hardware ships. Any application with a high memory demand will see the advantage of 64-bit.
Sure dude. Because the hardware hasn't already been shipping for friggin months and months...
Liberty.
Surely the dreamers behind the GPL thought to include a non-Microsoft clause?
Linux: Free if your time is worthless.
Interviewer: So tell us what we can expect from the next version of Windows in 2005.
Microsoft Spokesperson: Well, with the release of Nexthorn in the first quarter of 2006-
I: Wait, did you just say 2006?
MS: Pardon?
I: Nevermind. Go on.
MS: Well, after the initial release, slated for the last quarter of '06-
I: Hold on. What did you just say?
MS: Er, well... Where was I? Oh yes, a new technology code-named Indigo will be a major feature in enhancement with the 2007 release of Window-
I: There! Stop! You just did it again?
MS: Did what?
I: Just now.
MS: Just what? What'd I do?
I: You keep changing the date.
MS: No I'm not.
I: Yes, you are. I just heard you. You said "2007".
MS: Couldn't have.
I: What? Why not. I just heard you say it.
MS: No, I said "2008".
I: [pause] Okay. I apologize. Please continue.
MS: Allright then. Indigo will up the standard for OS design in 2009...
Fred
"A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
-RMS
I am not a Linux fanboy. I used what is good for my productivity. My primary desktop is a mac running Mac OS 10.3, that, alas, blows Windows out of this world. My production servers run Linux Debian.
My regular computer runs a web and a database server. I process graphics applications and run resource hungry software on it. I restart it only when it comes to software updates.
The real problem with Windows is that M$ never learns from its mistakes. They keep producting crap they call Windows without looking at other options. Apple has learned that with certain Open Source technology it could revive itself and create some room for developers. What about Microsoft? Instead of creating, innovating and developing the next big thing they dump millions into law suits.
Microsoft - Your innovation, our patents
MjM
XKCD:Xeric Knowledge Comically Dispen
So to get around UI centric thread scheduling, and poor transaction management, MS is building indigo to "fix it." I can't help but think it's the wrong approach. Transaction monitors have been around a long time and there are people who know how to build them correctly. For those who say, "but look at TPC benchmarks!" Well guess what, they're using Tuxedo wrapped in COM+ and SQL Server has an custom embedded C component to improve performance.
Can you scale windows? Sure you can if you use tested technologies like transaction monitors and wrap them with COM+ and you write a high performance C module for Sql Server. Don't take my word for it. Go read all the HP full disclosures to see how they achieved those numbers.
A misconception that I see over and over is that there exists a competition between Linux and Microsoft.
This is a misunderstanding.
Some people believe that Linux and more generally, Open Source Software, has a goal of becoming the operating system of choice in all venues.
This is false. And this is why
Microsoft is a Corporation in the United States of America. The Microsoft Operating System is a computer program.
Linux or OSS is a computer program. It does not belong to any Corporation anywhere.
Microsoft (the corporation) wants to be the king of the Operating Systems. Microsoft Operating System (the computer program) can't tell one way or the other.
Likewise, Linux or OSS, doesn't care if nobody uses it. Ever. It is a computer program, and lacks the Corporation that seeks to dominate the world.
Open Source Software belongs to no-one. Most importantly, it does not belong to a United States based corporation. Indeed, much or most of the Open Source Software I use is developed outside the borders of the US.
Linux doesn't compete with Microsoft.
It doesn't need to!
On the other hand, Microsoft IS THREATENED by Open Source Software. Microsoft wants to convince the Companies of the world that it CAN compete with OSS. And so it spreads the misconception that Linux (and OSS) competes with Microsoft.
Open Source Software will prevail.
Ten years from now, there will still be OSS. It cannot die. Even if it is outlawed in the US and Europe, it will survive on the thousands of computers outside this realm. MS, on the other hand, could be just a shadow or a memory in ten years, having suffered declining revenues and a shrinking customer base.
OSS will never die
Long live OSS
After all, clicking the "Go away" link is so damned hard.
Meanwhile, there's an ANNOYING light bulb in OpenOffice that appears every ten seconds...
Here is my take. MS simply takes too long to release new features and capabilities into the Windows line. Come on, WinFS is a file system. Its going to take them until the "end of the decade" to release a file system? Slack off the world domination lockin strategy of uber-integration and technology dependencies, and release a more modular OS.
Linux has the opposite problem. The pace of development and modularization of the system is excellent. But, the integration by the distributors is poor. From a clean vanilla install of any of the major distros too many pices do no work correctly. If the distro installs it off the media it should at least be tested and working.
I'm getting frustrated with both camps atm.
That makes financial success less of a given.
Innovators dilemma.
MS has the people and money to do pretty much as it pleases.
It would not please it to undermine Windows by selling Office for Linux, in particular.
Yet, if Linux continues to grow and MS wants to be a part of the software vendor marketplace it has to be able to offer compelling products on whatever the customers are using.
I think they could sell a lot of copies of Office for Linux right now.
But they'll wait because they don't want to be part of the movement putting a knife in the back of Windows. Office for OS X isn't so chancy because they feel comfortable that Apple has a relatively slowly-changing market share.
The problem is that by the time they decide Windows the underlying OS has been marginalized by a "better commodity", the Linux users will have adapted and made due with OpenOffice, StarOffice, etc.
"Provided by the management for your protection."