Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's Magical 'Myth-Busting' Tour
Mz6 writes "Microsoft has launched its 'Get the Facts' road show -- the tech equivalent of a political battle bus -- to tour the country and convince the wavering that Redmond is as at least cheap and as secure as its open-source rival and to spread the word that Windows is better than Linux. Nick McGrath, Microsoft's head of platform strategy, described the campaign as 'a reality check we're bringing out', aiming to tackle the 'myths' surrounding Linux. Microsoft's road show will be in Edinburgh on June 17, Manchester on June 29 and Newport on July 7."
"La-La-La-La-Myth-Busting-Tour!
Nick,
This word 'reality', I do not think it means what you think it means.
uhm. Me thinks we need a new definition of cheap here.
Cheap as in heineken ? Or cheap as in Duvel promo ?
When will I end this grieving ? When will my future begin ?
for the internationally-impaired, the tour is in the UK.
I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.
Oh, wait...
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
I'll burn off some Knoppix cd's and Crash the party!
(will they have booth babes?)
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
RJR and Phillip Morris unveiled their plans for a traveling road show to promote cigarettes as an effective weight loss solution as well as a stimulant and antidepressant.
Interociter
-=What do I want? I'm an American. I want more.
I was hoping this was going on in the US...it would be fun to attend. If only to jeer and heckle.
Hopefully some British LUGs will be on the case.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
I'm thinking stuff like .ogg, etc.
OTOH, if we want to play like msft who probably counts ".doc" and ".ppt" as file formats, we should probably count .fvwmrc, .bashrc, sendmail.cf as well. :)
>Redmond is as at least cheap and as secure as its open-source rival
Yes, and I am as at least rich as Bill Gates.
Andrej
Hello,
Windows is the best OS, you know. If you use it, you find it makes your mind processes improve all the time, it teaches you how to temple your nerves when something goes wrong (very often, I mean)... and it's much more beautiful (there's something magical in that funny blue screen, don't you think so?)
Muaaaaaaaaaks
--
You'd stumble in my footsteps (Depeche Mode, "Walking in my shoes")
This is a load of FUD.
Microsoft want you to believe that while, Microsoft software may be more in the purchase price department compared to open source software, it's less in implementation costs or maintenance costs, and its TCO will be lower.
This is, of course, considering the plentiful viruses, worms and other security issues, not the case in reality. The winner in this case is Open Source software.
Open Source software, of the BSD kind and the GPL kind, has totally changed the way we think about and work with software. One day, we will be able to scientifically determine what software we need to suit our needs. We will know ahead of time exactly what limits and what capabilities each piece of software has. IT managers will be able to sort through real facts based on real research, rather than a bunch of shallow articles and biased reports. Software will survive on its merits alone.
The whole industry is going to benefit by this, in a large, large way. The question one day will no longer be "Microsoft or Linux?" but "Which Open Source software should we use, and why?"
Microsoft is severely threatened and it knows it. Pay no attention to it and it will eventually go away.
New definition of wardriving huh M$?
Error: Id10t detected
... and bound to be much more educational than this other one.
Magic School Bus
Besides, Ms. Frizzle be the schnizzle dizzle!
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
Every day, Microsoft employees are physically in CIO and CEO boardrooms trying to convince executives that Microsoft is a better bet than Linux. Even with a large body of evidence to the contrary, this is something Linux is missing - the financial warchest to use the media and "war buses" to convince people to the contrary.
There's no such thing as reality - there's only what you believe. The best ideas in history of gone down because nobody believed in them. The worst ideas in history have flourished because somebody sold it stronger than anybody else.
So yeah, they may be spreading their own version of the truth, but, as is obvious, I think we should be very, very wary of that truth being accepted as reality.
This just in...
Apparently Microsoft's tour bus crashed because of a faulty driver.
Unknown host pong.
...That the tour is taking place in Europe, where they were just slammed with HEAVY antitrust fines, and not the U.S. ?
To organize so that people give away free Linux CDs (Knoppix?) to the people attending these events?
Treehugger? Treehugger... Treehugger!
DEVELOPERS Developers developers developers! I want you to go to Arizona, or New Mexico, or Oklahoma, or Delaware, or South Carolina, or North Dakota. Viva New Mexico!! YIIEEHAAA!!!!!!! -Steve Ballmer
"There is no spoon." - The Matrix
"Our source code is our only intellectual property," said [MS spokesman] Barley
So have all of their thousands of software patents been invalidated, or are they about to donate them to the public domain?
Have you read my blog lately?
Here is more coverage of the event with pictures.
I can't decide if this is a troll or if this is one of those "underground" marketing campaigns Microsoft like to pay for. Hmm, let me try:
I tries switching to Windows 2003, but switched back because the lack of standards compliance, security flaws, and high costs of training made it impossible to justify, even when MS offered to give it to me for free.
Yeah, definately underground marketing....
You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.
Say what you want about cigarettes, I never wanted to strangle Joe Camel. Clippy on the other hand...
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
Read the report (2.12 MB Microsoft Word file)
Ironically if it wasn't for the pile of open source tools that can read that on my harddrive right now, I would have to go spend about $600 just to read this file (think OS+Office+new machine to run the OS).
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
If I was one of those guys who doesn't know there's anything but windows (who's to say I'm not?). This van strategy, like a lot of recent MS plans, would only serve to remind me that there is competition. Why would the undisputed leader of the software world need a van tour? Because they're afraid of something, i'd think.
Makes it easy to critique a straw opponent when you redefine the terms to mean what you want them to mean. Microsoft defines "free" as in "beer" and anyone who knows much of anything about Linux knows the "free" aspect of Linux that represents the most value, is the "freedom" aspect of the OS, not the purchase cost.
As long as Microsoft is comparing based on cost, they either just don't get it, or think they can bamboozle their audience.
On the other hand, anyone who is interested in a comparison based on the "free"dom-ness of the two OSes, will find the Microsoft presentation a complete non-sequitur.
I bet that their battle bus is really just one of those short yellow buses.
Definitely gotta love...
A) Novell buys a bunch of Linux companies and suddenly their executive is the authority on what open-source "is".
B) Nawwww. Oh, no, there's never any 'let's trash something someone else has done'! Perish the thought!
Speaking of which, Microsoft sucks, SCO sucks, Sun sucks, Apple sucks. Also: KDE sucks, GNOME sucks, Debian sucks, Red Hat sucks, 2.4 kernels suck, vi sucks, emacs sucks, Cowboy Neal sucks.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Hey, I'm invulnerable to those jedi mind tricks!
If things continue as they are, this would only be a small obstacle for Linux and other alternatives.
I think, however, that Microsoft is just using as much marketing as they can to hold of Linux until Longhorn can come out. With .NET's browser apps, if they can just keep most of their current customers for the time being and transition them over to this, lock-in is assured.
Linux really needs a better graphics toolkit and GUI framework. Otherwise, people will be going with XAML a lot of the time. Hopefully something can be done about it. Hardware support is part of the problem, but the glitches in toolkits such as GTK+ and Mozilla XUL are also a big part of the problem. QT is crystal clear and lightning fast, but because of its licensing Sun isn't promoting a PLAF for QT. Too bad.
I think Trolltech should give serious consideration to the idea of putting QT under the LGPL. It would allow their platform to grow a lot, and they could start selling development tools and maybe extra controls instead.
In any case, Microsoft won't switch me, nor a lot of Linux devs over to Longhorn. I could see them making my job tough though.
I ordered a couple copies of the "Windows vs Linux Evaluation Kit".
One for "For Gondor Solutions". My job title in that company is Aragorn.
Another for "Mordor (the Land of Shadow) Development". My job title in that one is Sauron.
I wonder if they'll notice?
MYTH 1) Linux is actually a pleisiosaur from the cretatious period living in a lake in Scotland.
FACT: Linux is an operating system kernel.
MYTH 2) In Mandarin Chinese, the phrase GNU/Linux, loosely translated, means "Bit the wax tadpole."
FACT: Linux is developed by hard working, intelligent programmers who submit their source code to a community repository, where fans of the operating system can retreive, adapt, and download the kernel at their leisure.
MYTH 3) In 1953, a saucer full of Linux crashed landed on a farm in Roswell, New Mexico.
FACT: Linux is used in solutions from many of the top software firms around the world, including IBM and Sun Microsystems. Because of its open codebase, it is easy to adapt to just about any hardware configuration without costly customizations.
MYTH 4) Douching with Linux directly after sex prevents pregnancy and/or veneral disease.
FACT: Linux installations make up as much as five percent of the desktop computers in active use, and as much as 80% of webservers.
MYTH 5) Linux is a quality server operating system but still kind of a shoddy platform for everyday usage due to a number of conflicting desktop standards, graphical toolkits and a tireless devotion to supporting underpowered legacy systems rather than creating a single, modern standard. Attempts to critique this obvious shortcoming are met with an intensely emotional tirade that neither solves the inherent problem nor serves to edify the critic.
FACT: Actually, this is entirely true.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
Linux does have that now. Do you think IBM, Novell/Suse, and Redhat are just sitting around? IBM has gotten a bunch of big installations of Linux done. Novell/Suse just got McDonald's to test changing over it's POS's. Microsoft is not the only one doing this anymore.
http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/facts/default.asp
3 50 - $1000 (no seat limit?)
Win2003 less then RedHat E3 or Suse8?
was it per copy or per seat?
per copy i can beleive
i find it hard to believe that windows won on the per seat.
http://www.redhat.com/apps/commerce/rhel/es/
$
http://www.pricewatch.com/
winServer 2003 5 seats - $150
winServer 2003 25 seats - $1150
so take a small business 100 machines plus servers.
windows - $4600 per server
redhat - $1000 total (for the uber delux edition, just to make it more fair)
The Flatlander
My favorite is comparing the cost of insuring license compliance with Windows compared to Debian (and God forbid you should get nailed with the cost of accidental noncompliance).
KFG
Any of you that have followed my posts know that I'm not exactly anti-Microsoft. I've had good experiences with Windows both as a desktop and a server OS. (On top of that, my first Linux based server was rooted within 2 weeks of installing it. More secure my ass.) Despite that, I still go "yeah right" when the claim is made that Windows is better than Linux.
In the desktop world, the major problem with Windows is the need to reinstall it every few months or your computer gets sluggish. In the server world, though I've had impressive up times (>6 months, for example) you really have to set it up right the first time, then never mess with it again except to install those MUST INSTALL NOW patches.
Microsoft has come a long way. It's pretty darned cool that you can set up a web server or mail server with Microsoft without really needing to get a lot of outside information. (At least up to the point of where you secure it....) Every year, they lock it down a little more. It really is a pity that I can't get Microsoft's interface with linux's functionality/reliability. Or... would a Mac server do that? Does Apple make that sort of machine/OS?
Well I'm just rambling now. Figured some of you might be interested to hear from a not-so-disatisfied MS customer.
"Derp de derp."
would read:
"All your bus are belong to us"
Duct tape is like the Force. It has a light side, a dark side, and it holds the universe together.
Yes, that's subtle, comparing Linux advocates to Al Qaeda and Iraqi rebels. This is after Jim Allchin calling Linux a "destroyer", Ballmer calling it a "cancer" and so forth.
I take it as a matter of faith that Microsoft desires to destroy Linux. Part one is public relations, part two is getting the government to go after it.
It didn't escape my attention that the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution's Ken Brown is saying he's looking into the employment agreements of Linux contributors to see if any of the employers might own the copyright to off-hours work of Linux contributors. I remember a prominent case a few years ago where some developer wrote something after work and his employer sued him later saying it belonged to them even if it wasn't work related. The battle stretches from the workplace, to the government, to big business as far as I can see - the employment agreements wage slaves have to sign due to poor collective bargaining power helps lead to the destruction of Linux (or perhaps just a monkey wrench like the one that stalled BSD for years and years in litigation). It is already having an effect - Linus is spending time worrying about legal nonsense instead of developing the kernel. It doesn't just go away when ignored, Microsoft and company seem to desire some sort of primitive accumulation of the digital commons. The solution is to look into the OSDL and their Linux legal defense fund and that sort of thing. The travesty of employment contracts which comes in to haunt Linux has to be fought in workplaces. These people are playing for keeps. And it has already had an effect if you think about it.
They claim that Windows is more secure because they compare Windows 2003 (new product, not a lot of time to find security holes) to Red Hat 7.2, which has not only been around for years but it's been unsupported for years, having been replaced many times over.
You can prove anything through selective analysis.
-Jem
A LOT of companies have testbed installs out to see for themselves what the TCO is. You would expect them to believe their own results in their own company more than a magic MS fud-bus.
I'm also not so sure that the non-tech managers would appreciate the implied 'you wouldn't know good TCO or ROI if it bit you' message.
I think it's really nice of Microsoft to go out and fund all these independent studies to determine the relative merits of Windows vs. Linux. I mean, because Linux is free and all, the opensource community can't really afford to spend the money to fund these complex studies by high-profile analysts and IT think-tanks.
But fortunately for us, Microsoft *can* afford to do so! It's really amazing how they can spend all this money on marketing, advertising, touring the countryside, etc., and *still* be more affordable than Linux, which has none of these added expenses. How do they do it?
Well, if I were Microsoft, I'd commission a think-tank to study the issues. But since I'm not, I'll just naively assume that they must find a way to pass the costs along to consumers and OEMs.
Come to think of it, that might also explain why it's Bill Gates--and not Linus Torvalds--who is worth billions of dollars. Hmm...
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Maybe it makes sense over a five or ten year span
It certainly does. There is this myth that Microsoft products do not require training. This is just not true. The transitions from NT4 to Win2K or XP, for example, are significant, especially for administrators. For users, the change between different MS Office versions have often been highly troublesome, both in terms of interfaces and add-on/script migration. These are expensive matters. A significant issue for corporate clients of Microsoft is that the licencing and support enforces upgrades.
My point is that over a 5-10 year period, the training requirements enforced by Microsoft licencing combined with OS changes could well be much worse than the cost of migration and training for a Linux desktop; a decision which allows a break from the hardware/software upgrade cycle, and can lead to significant cost savings in the long term.
Linux will increase significantly in viability against Microsoft systems because it has rapidly increasing support from companies who have the resources to ensure that it does: Companies like Sun, Novell, HP and RedHat are putting huge resources into making Linux an even better desktop system.
they are all in Englandshire, well, except Edinburgh, which is in Scotlandshire, and Newport which is in upstate Cymru. You will find Englandshire on your map, just off the coast of New York
For a few admins, possibly. For the majority of users? No, it doesn't follow.
MS's answer - I'm not saying it's true - is that OS acquisition cost is a very small part of the total cost of ownership (TOC) of a computer.
Hardware, OS, applications and lifetime support all need to get rolled into the cost. Since they have proof (in the form of studies they conducted) that Linux admins cost more than Windows admins (find, train, and employ) they can argue that the TCO of linux is higher.
This argument moves the fight from one they cannot argue (we are cheaper) to another arena, where they can hold thier ground (linux admins are highly paid and rare.)
This discussion ignored how many linux admins are required per captita vs how many windows admins would be required, and ignores the additional application cost - most office suites, graphics packages and utilities would also be gratis under Linux.
Linux Users' Groups should follow the bus passing out CDs for free (or even just the cost of the CD). Challenge Microsoft to give out their OS. The LUG members should also hand out contact info and meeting times for their meetings - that way they can find out where to get good support as well.
Signs such as "Windows is CHEAP, Linux is Inexpensive." should be used liberally as well.
Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but copyright will always protect me.
MS Rep: Microsoft is now more secure than ever, not to mention our proven track record of security in the past.
Person 1: Hasn't your security been laughed at in the past?
MS Rep: Microsoft's NT and 2000 platforms set the ground work for our current XP OS.
Person 1: Maybe, but hasn't your Windows 95, and 98 OS's been nothing but trouble?
Person 2: Yeah and what about Millenium?
MS Rep: Windows 95 and 98 are just older and so are not supported anymore, I have no idea what this Millenium is you speak of.
Person 2: What are you talking about of course you do I have a install disk righ there.
MS Rep2: We don't know what you are talking about, security please escort this man out.
Person 3: Hay what about the bug reports on IE that occur every week.
MS Rep: Ok will security please escort out all the slashdot and wired readers, thanks.
MS Rep: So what do we think of MS now?
MS Rep2: I think its great
Ave Molech Setting
When I try to load the Get The Facts site in IE, it loads just fine.
When I try to load it under Mozilla Firebird 0.7, I get redirected to http://www.microsoft.com/info/customerror.htm, with the error "We're sorry, we were unable to service your request. As an option, you may visit any of the pages below for information about Microsoft services and products."
Doesn't only showing the page to the people using your product kind of beat the purpose?
If there's one thing that Reagan has taught us, is that truth always beats falsehoods.
I don't remember that.
Not that I particularly mind MS shooting itself in it's foot, but I really wonder if Microsoft is doing itself more harm than good by bringing so much attention to Linux. I know a lot of people who completely dismissed Linux prior to Microsoft making such a big deal out of showing it's competitive. I just wonder if microsoft is inadvertently drawing attention to the competition.
Famous Last Words: "hmm...wikipedia says it's edible"
Thanks Microsoft, this will raise the profile of Linux and bring it to the attention of more people, which is exactly what we need!
Hit the road Bill. And don't ya come back no more, no more, no more, no more. Hit the road Bill, and don't ya come back no more.
There used to be a site called alldas.de where crackers submitted links to the sites they defaced. Apache had, and still has, at least three sites in the web for each site based on a Microsoft server. Yet, when I checked, Microsoft had four defaced sites for each defaced Apache site in alldas. So, the practical reality says Microsoft is about twelve times more insecure than Apache.
...Microsoft has announced that FUD 2004, their flagship product, is almost ready for launch.
The U.S. Constitution needs to be ammended with a "separation of business and state" clause.
I've put up my own site on MySQL and Access, at: http://enthalpy.homelinux.org/MySQL/
:)
I've got a couple of pages on setup instructions and code examples, and finally a cost comparison with a full Microsoft stack. The full Microsoft stack doesn't exactly come out on top... If anyone has any comments on the figures, feel free to respond - I want it to be at least as free of bullshit as Microsoft's "Get the Facts" campaign
not to disagree, but the GPL is viral. this doesn't necesarily mean its bad - it just tends to force others to either love it or despise it.
Don't worry - its just stigmata. Pass me a napkin and don't you dare tell my mother.
I'd say the odds were pretty much zero.
The only thing that could save MSFT now is a fully operational death star.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Funny thing is, there are people who say "you Linux zealots are always bashing Windows, but you never try to learn how to configure Windows right". Truth is, it costs less to train people to do basic Windows support, compared to doing basic Linux support. But for advanced support, such as getting it to work correctly and reliably, instead of just getting it to work, period, it costs about as much as training Linux people. Besides, there's another factor, you need less people to support Linux. Most of the support you need for Linux is to get it installed, after that, it runs with far less support than Windows. And, if you have a large number of machines, then it's easier to replicate a Linux installation than to replicate a Windows installation. It's much faster to write a simple script that, given a network address, writes all the required files in /etc than going through all the required mouse clicks in a Windows installation.
I'm not sure I agree with you about basic support training. Recently I had to add a new users to a RedHat machine. It was /usr/sbin/adduser, followed by passwd. I had to add users to a customized Win2000 server. I found the icon eventually. It was probably something like start/control panel/system/adminstrative tools, and then something about local accounts. Almost everything under recent versions of windows seems to require a non-inutitive path through GUI tools (different in each Windows version), or else a registry edit, whereas the equivalent procedures under Linux are one or two command line statements.
I would add that Linux admins are usually well able to figure out (eventually) how to configure Windows because they tend to be adaptable. However, put a Windows admin in front of Linux.....
"It doesn't mean bees can't fly, or that engineers say they can't fly. It just means that insect flight is very complicated and, even with computers, our fluid dynamic modeling techniques aren't yet able to quite handle such a complicated problem. Then there's the problem of verification. If you can't measure the pressures and velocities around a wing, how can you verify your calculations?"
At least says Dr. Galapagos
Contrast that to Microsoft's EULA for their Mobile Internet Toolkit code which prohibits you from combining their code with ANY open source code, regardless of license. Forget the distribution clause, Microsoft's code can't even be combined with open source code in house.
As is oft said about the GPL, if you dont like the license, write your own damn code. MS is well within its rights to specify what you can and cannot do with its code, just the same as Gnu can with the GPL and code under it.
But when it comes to Linux and free software, Microsoft wants you to think that if you even look at GPL'd code then your whole company could be "infected." And forget about downloading open source programs -- once their in, you might as well file chapter 11.
This also happens the other way round, many many times you hear people say "Dont look at proprietory code, you can be considered tainted if you do" when talking about opensource, the recent leak of the MS windows code brought many such cries on slashdot. Its basic Cover Your Arse.
Im no MS fanboi, but also Im no Linux fanboi, Im starting to hate the "Us and them" attitude spread by the Opensource factions, I can understand it when MS does it as they have shareholders to keep happy, and OSS is another competitor.
Looking at the costs/benefits of linux vs windows realistically, its easy to see where M$ gets some of their flawed conclusions, because they aren't entirely flawed, just not the complete picture.
The initial software cost is much higher for windows that linux.
However, *nix systems generally require more technical skill than windows systems to manage.
That means *nix admins demand higher salaries.
Long term, the increased salaries are going to be more that the savings in software costs.
Unfortunately, this is where Microsoft's analysis stops.
In terms of the man hours spent, Microsoft probably assumes the use of every available centralized management tool that they provide, and assumes it to work correctly. In the real world,
administrators rarely make use of such tools for
servers, except in extremely large scale enviroments. They are too complicated to set up initially, too difficult to learn, and they break frequently, because there is almost nothing for windows thats designed to be unattended.
The nature of a typical linux enviroment however, makes centralized administration much easier, *IF* the administrator sets the systems up properly to begin with. Thats where a large portion of the cost savings for linux comes in. If you are managing more than a handful of servers and don't have central patch & software distribution, configuration management, and central monitoring set up, you are probably wasting time and money.
Now, lets look at the security issue. Out of the box, linux and windows are arguably equally insecure.
*nix administrators work deeper into the guts of the system, and have a better understanding of how things interact. Linux, and other *nix systems don't have the black box mentality of windows, so with someone understanding both the system and the security issues, a VERY secure configuration can result, all the potential exposures can be understood, and risks can be kept minimal.
On the other hand, with windows, you see what microsoft wants you to see. With their history of hiding security flaws, and with the complexities of the system hidden behind a pretty GUI, its quite possible that there are less than a handful of people even at microsoft that know how it works and really understand how things interact. (Keep in mind that Microsoft has reportedly employed a highly compartmentalized development process, with very few people being allowed to see the whole of any project. They apparently don't even know whats going on with their own software.)
Bottom line from a cost factor, if all you have are one or two servers running windows, and you don't have a compelling reason to switch, don't. On the other hand, if you have a large number of servers to manage, you may be able to find a reason to switch, but look at the costs and benefits REALISTICLY, and plan well so that you actually save money.
From a security factor, every piece of software will have flaws. Those risks are easier to manage under linux, but they will be there. If you expect linux to be a magic bullet that makes all your security problems go away, it isn't.
Finally, if you decide to embark on ANY migration, do your homework. Make sure you understand what your network and servers are doing, and what buisness processes they support. Be prepared for unexpected dependancies, such as users storing files on network shares where you don't expect, or applications that have to talk to a program running on one of your machines. Most of these interactions won't be documented properly, even in a tightly controlled network.
Plan your deployment carefully, and implement centralized controls from the start, so that you avoid having to micromanage each server on a daily basis. Set up maintainance schedules. Don't neglect backups. A well planned linux deployment will save you money in the long run. A poorly planned one will be a bottomless financial pit.
It's how filesystem corruption happens, when something causes the data to be written incorrectly, somewhere along the line.
If Microsoft is telling the truth about the end result of a business choosing their products is security and TCO equal to or better than Linux - the bottom line, so to speak - what a business will actually experience - then I fully support an individual's right to choose whichever software platform they think is best for themselves or for their business.
But if what happens here is that some data gets fed to potential customers, and those potential customers choose to choose Windows, and then five years later they realize that their TCO and their security was not what they thought it would be - the bottom line, that is - then the customers will realize that the data they were fed was wrong, and Microsoft will lose customers.
So in a sense, this is an experiment that will take perhaps a decade. If this information is not suitable or not of the accuracy and appropriateness necessary to help businesses make informed decisions about security and TCO -- the bottom line, the end result for the business -- then while Microsoft might make a sale today, the word of mouth and customer experiences in the future will do significant damage to Microsoft's reputation.
You see how so many people already don't take them seriously and how everyone makes fun of this already. If those folks are correct, which as it has been pointed out, the studies are comparing apples and oranges, then this situation is only going to get worse, and the computer illiterate will begin to not trust Microsoft.
So while it might be easy to fool a computer illiterate person once, it is going to be next to physically impossible to re-gain that person's trust once that trust has been lost. And if you think about it, I don't see how we can expect there to be only one major OS vendor in the world anyway. Maybe when computers were a new thing, when computers were just a new-fangled toy, but as computers become a part of our lives, and as computers become something similar to cars, something that we use every day and something that is a serious part of our everyday lives, I just don't see how we can move forward, given this widespread adoption of computers, with having only one proprietary OS vendor dominant. It's simply unrealistic.
It appears that MS is, unbeknownst to itself, laying the groundwork for a massive alienation of its own customer base. The way that they can prevent this, or at least mitigate it, is to tell the truth. But what IS the truth, and can they even say it?
"Switching from Windows to Linux Prohibitively Eexpensive, Extremely Complex"
I did this 2 days ago. Rebuilding a fried box, reinstalling Windows took about 3 hours (including a 45 minute search for my legitimate license key), I had to constantly babysit the computer for a each prompt, and when it was finally complete, did not work properly. Rather than waste the rest of the night trying to troubleshoot the damned thing and get it all working I gave up, stuck in the Lindows cd I got for free, clicked I agree and started smoking a cigarette. Before I was done smoking the install was completed and was waiting for me to reboot. Now all I have to do is apt-get the programs I want to use (already using the windows version of just about every GNU/Linux software anyone needs on a pc) and I'll be done.
I'm kinda lazy and cheap, but not stupid.
Do I pick Windows (Pain in the ass to install, Hell to operate and protect, and expensive to buy and get support for, which needs to be periodically reinstalled when it stops working for no apparent reason)
Or do I pick Linux (easy to install, free to get, and millions of developers that give you the info you need to keep things going for free on a stable platform that can be trusted not to inexplicably decide not to work)?
-Yeah, I know I picked Lindows in this example, but I've tried installing other distros, and they were all easier and faster than the Windows Reinstall Hell I've been through many times.
-Yes I do still use windows, they have some of my important data locked up in some of their apps that I can't use without their platform. I've learned from this mistake and am going through the painful transition of RECREATING the info in opensource formats.
-Damn. That last one let me know that Microsoft is right. It really is a complicated, expensive and painful procedure to transition from Windows to Linux: Complicated because you have to free your info from their locked-down shitty closed source applications-usually fixing a crapload of errors generated by these same apps, wasting a lot of time(=money), and wishing you never made the mistake of using Microsoft crap in the first place (painful).
1.Netcraft confirms:In Soviet Russia all your base welcomes a beowolf cluster of CowboyNeal overlords. 2.? 3.Profit!!1!
Well. Here you have it. A perfect opportunity.
Disclaimer: I don't like Linux much. The only reason I pay attention is the thorn in Microsoft's side that Linux represents. No matter how you slice it, it's darn difficult to compete with free.
The problem: Linux has usability holes you could drive an aircraft carrier through. Luckily, Windows is bad enough that even that doesn't matter as much as it should.
My advice? Go to the road show. Learn what it is that they think they're better at. Learn which of those things are the most important to their customers. And then, get to work: Do it better, preferably by the next day or so.
I see an opportunity. I hope you take it, because if you do, the day you can convince me (and lots of others like me) to become interested in Linux will draw measurably nearer.
Back to your regularly scheduled discussion of whatever it is that this post is about...
I find it highly amusing that Microsoft chose to use PDF files on this particular page when throughout the rest of their site they've pretended that Word documents are some sort of universal standard. Finally an admission by Microsoft itself that Word isn't the best format for publications you acually want EVERYONE to be able to read.
Go to the tour stops, and act responsibly while you pass out flyers, cds and hurl tough questions at the speakers...
Dont act like a bunch of idiots that came to heckle.
We all have a chance to make OSS look good and make a useful statment.. on Microsoft's dime!
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Just in case this latest tour doesn't work, I'd like to offer some suggestions for Microsoft's marketing department for future promotions:
g ineer certification, which is in effect, a room where they strap people to chairs a la "A Clockwork Orange" and show them a never ending stream of Steve Balmer video speeches.
* Produce a study that reveals "Linux users have smaller penises"
* Include free Windows 2000 server license in new McDonald's Happy Meals.
* Purchase one of the Internet backbone providers and start refusing to process packets from non-Microsoft networks.
* Offer Microsoft-Certified-Linux-Professional-Systems-En
* Release "Windows For Linux" desktop which at first appears to be a window manager, but actually removes Linux and installs Server 2000.
* Start rumor that Linus Torvalds is a member of Al Quaeda.
* Get patent on common sense and free thinking and charge all Linux users with IP infringement.
* Update scripts of upcoming Star Wars and Harry Potter movies to show that Darth Vader and Valdemort are "powered by Linux."
Nothing says 'oh shit, we're in trouble' like a big high-cost parade to make a system sound safe when it can be owned at the click of a hyperlink. Really, I don't see this doing anything but making it look like they're on their knees begging people not to use the systems that are kicking their butt. Sure, the public's gullibility is wearing off and Microsoft is clearly going downhill, but I think they just hit the accelerator.
I am NOT a number! I am a - oh wait, I'm number 761710. Look! 761710!
One funny section from 'The Soul of a New Machine' (Tracey Kidder, 1982 Pulitzer Prize for non-fiction) details how IBM instructed their sales staff to warn customers about Data General.
According to staff at Data General this was the best advertising they had ever had (and they had some good advertising). As they told the story, quite a lot of IBM's customers straightaway came over to chat, saying, "IBM warned us about you guys; you must be doing something we ought to know about."
As Kidder put it, it was like: "Where is this 'Data General'? -- so we can be sure not to go there. What's their phone number? -- so we can be sure not to call it!"
If I was running a big commercial site I'd want something that allowed load balancing and high availability. I'd also want something that allowed scalability without increasing licensing costs. Plus the server (and its underlying OS) would need to be robust, and responsive under load.
Perhaps one of the biggest single companies using web servers is google. Guess what they use.
Nothing some Laughing Cow cheese and mescaline can't solve.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
Name one other computer business that's used a bus tour.
1. First they ignore you,
2. then they laugh at you,
3. then they fight you, <--- you are here
4. then you win.
- Mahatma Ghandi
Steve Browning http://www.sbrowning.com
Except all the reports I've read show UNIX admins administering several times as many machines as your MCSE point-and-click mouse monkey...so your $80 UNIX sysadmin is actually being paid the same as four or five $50K mouse monkeys...
Oh, wait, you can script in Windows? Wonder why nobody does...
Maybe it's because it's so "command-line-like"?
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
So far as I know, no GNU/Linux advocate has been convicted in a court of law of bending the market to their will in illegal ways.
This sig space intentionally left blank.
He said this "jihad about technology" between rival operating systems ignored the bigger problem that IT is badly regarded in the boardroom. "We need to better communicate the value of IT to business," he said.
Wow, he's admitted that his company's hype and poor performance has pissed on everyone.
Other than that, these "open and honest" Microsoft debates have the stink of a fake town meeting. The USSR had a few after Chernobyl and Bill Clinton never stopped having them. They were staged affairs with ringers in the crowd called to ask "insightful" prearranged questions. These questions were answered by a few talking heads who would blither on with distracting and meaningless abstractions, on the order of "wouldn't it be awful if we nuked the plannet." I can imagine the M$ equivalent, "we see your potential," (hand over your cash!) and, "Linux is Hanson's dissease."
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
This is a short write up of the event. Alain Williams wrote it & .
...
received comments from Phil Hands and Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
The MS announcement
http://www.microsoft.co.uk/events/Ms EStdEventDisp. asp?params=fHx8fDB8bXNldmVudHN8MHww&EventID=80 61
****
All that you ever wanted to know about Linux but were afraid to ask.
Officially called:
20:20 Seminar Series: Microsoft Windows and Linux An open and honest technology discussion
How is MicroSoft presenting Linux to its customers ? We need to know so that we can be ready for
the challenge. MicroSoft is an important competitor, we cannot afford to ignore it, we cannot
just dismiss it with a smile of smug superiority
The undersigned were at the above MicroSoft presentation in London, England on 10 June 2004.
This is not a literal report, more an attempt to extract the ideas of what was said as sound bites.
There were some 300 delegates, about 90% wearing suits. MicroSoft was well aware that many
Linux types were present.
This was a carefully scripted event with someone acting like a TV chat show host. The banter and
'off the cuff' jokes (it is a good idea to keep your contact list of girlfriends protected from your wife)
were well rehearsed.
First part: presentations
Philip Dawson - Senior Program Director - Meta Group
. Open Office is incomplete and incompatible.
. Have to repackage when the kernel changes.
. Difficult to replace MS support with Linux equivalent
. Cost of ongoing integration & support
. Desktop:
* lacks ecosystem (exchange, active directory, office, 3rd party divers & apps)
* lack of admin tools
* requires ITO to do something
* desktop is about breadth, Linux is narrow
. Much of Linux uptake is Unix -> Linux migration, little Windows -> Linux
. The costs between Linux and Windows balance out when you buy RedHat/SuSE (Debian is
not suitable for the enterprise because there is no support).
. Should focus on services
. Problems with the different Open Sources licenses - if you want to base an app on Linux
you need to understand all the different licenses otherwise you will get into trouble.
. The Operating System is not comoditised, the battle is on the application stack, this
is where the focus is.
. Beware the corporate IP threat:
* You may loose control of your own written applications
* Liabilities from use of open source (eg SCO) (I think he said this)
. If you deploy Active Directory do not deploy Samba
. Moving shell scripts Unix -> Linux is difficult (ie so why not move to Windows)
. There is no hardware saving if you deploy Windows or Linux - ie the same number of boxes needed.
. He dismissed, as largely irrelevant, all hardware platforms other than Intel compatible ones.
. There were several other cheap jibes that showed ignorance but which would be taken
as true by many who are not familiar with Linux.
. Don't look at the TCO (Total Cost of Ownership), look at the ROI (Return On Investment).
. MySql is incomplete and does not scale. Don't compare MySql to MS-SQL, but it would be rude to MS Access
to compare MySql to it.
Nick Barley - Directory of Marketing - Microsoft UK
. Boardroom Boredom. Most boards don't really care about IT, they regard it as a cost that
never really delivers on what it promises.
. Why MS ? : "We make the complex simple"
. MS provides simple packages apps.
. "Its free v MS" is a not true headline, you need to look at the TCO.
. Linux cost has moved to the same as the MS model - RedHat charges now
. Ecosystem buzzword was used again, MS has a lot of partners: integrators, ISVs,
. With MS you get the software all from one place, with Linux if comes from all over,
he quoted Larry Ellison (I think) ''if you saw an airplane with wings made by differ
"TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 12 > Sec. 1201.
1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems
(a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures. -- (1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."
The title being 17, in other words, this applies to any technical measure on any copyright work.
Which includes CSS on dvds.
If you read further in that section you'll see the librarian of congress can exempt works, the librarian exempted these and only these (hint to save 30 seconds of your life, dvds under any circumstance are NOT on the list):
"(1) Compilations consisting of lists of Internet locations blocked by commercially marketed filtering software applications that are intended to prevent access to domains, websites or portions of websites, but not including lists of Internet locations blocked by software applications that operate exclusively to protect against damage to a computer or computer network or lists of Internet locations blocked by software applications that operate exclusively to prevent receipt of email.
(2) Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction or damage and which are obsolete.
(3) Computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have become obsolete and which require the original media or hardware as a condition of access. A format shall be considered obsolete if the machine or system necessary to render perceptible a work stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace.
(4) Literary works distributed in ebook format when all existing ebook editions of the work (including digital text editions made available by authorized entities) contain access controls that prevent the enabling of the ebook's read-aloud function and that prevent the enabling of screen readers to render the text into a specialized format."
Since you seem to be incapable of looking anything up on your own. The burden is on you to show ME where in the DMCA it says that decrypting (using something other than the licensed algorithm, thus circumventing the technical measure) a dvd for playback on your computer without authorization to do so, is an exception to this.
I'll help. You'll find Title 17 of the US Code Here at Cornell. Or you might prefer to look at it at the US Copyright Office. Or Brits might trust Oxford a bit more.
Have a good day.
P.S. I'm sure your fingers will heal and you'll be able to verify or fail to verify whether or not things you read in slashdot comments are true all by yourself next time.