Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Developing Linux Policy, Plan of Attack
Lil' Bobby Gortician writes "This new MSNBC article talks about Microsoft's developing strategy to deal with Linux. They are actually getting some of their sales people certified as Linux experts, and say 1/10th of their test servers now run Linux. My favorite quote? "There's no set architecture in Linux. All roads lead to madness"."
- How can this fellow's opinion turn on a dime like that? Is he really credible to a corporate audience? I don't think people are quite that stupid or so easily manipulated.
The former Slashdot topic icon with Bill as the Borg has never seemed more apt. A quick Google image search turned up this parody.PCB$#
free ipod and free gmail!
It sounds like this Taylor guy should become CEO. As fond of MS as we all are around here, at least somebody there is thinking through strategy and figuring out how to compete. IMO, that was IBM's downfall in the late 80's...they just didn't care because they were on top.
Mind you, that still doesn't mean MS's got it all down. RedHat or SUSE could still obliterate them due to MS's size alone; e.g., it's going to take them till 2007 to get longhorn out...that says to me they're getting too big.
--pete
I read somewhere (probably in a slashdot comment) that the reason the patch is so big is that everything was recompiled on the latest MS compiler (vc2005 or something?) instead of vc6.
Wow, just wow, I'm amazed by these "new" features. It's innovations like these that will allow MS to pull ahead of Linux. I mean:
ssh -l root@myremoteserver init 0
and
Wake-on-LAN
obviously both infringe on MS patents for these pioneering technological advancements. *GRIN*
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
Tell us what Linux does that we can't do
Allow me to see, modify, and distribute the source code *for free*.
I'm sure MS will get right on that.
+5 Insightful? Moderators, don't feel compelled to up a comment just because it sounds worthy. Read it and understand it for what it is -- bullshit.
stability and consistency problem when it comes to competing distros
Insinuating that anything that runs on Windows is more stable than Linux is just too funny to even spend energy debunking.
As for consistency on Linux, as opposed to software that only runs on Win 95/98 and not on NT/2000/XP. Or how about hardware that doesn't work on XP but does on on every other Windows incarnation. Oh, and software that is developed according to LSB specifications will almost certainly run on any LSB certified distro without any recompilation or modification (barring cross CPU platforms).
vastly inflated prices
Tell me you're joking. Let's do a quick test, shall we?
Database server-
Windows:
$ 949.14 - Windows 2003 Server Standard + 5 CALs
$1,389.72 - SQL Server 2000 Standard + 5 CALs
---------
$2,338.86 - Total NOT INCLUDING SUPPORT for either
Red Hat:
$739.95 - Red Hat Enterprise Linux ES Standard
$ 0 - PostresSQL/MySQL Databases
----------
$739.95 Total Support for OS included, not for databases
That is just one example. We could do more, but it will always result in the same conclusion--Linux is less expensive than Windows.
It is doing all it can to portray Linux as not a real operating system, but the hobby of bunch of loony hippies.
.htaccess, but getting that to work against the shell accounts user database is tricky depending on your system and configuration. The different fax packages have different authentication methods. Remote access gets complicated: do you go with a RADIUS solution if you want someone to be able to acces some parts of the system but not have a shell account?
I think they are doing all they can to show the Linux is an ephemeral concept, without a defined architecture. This is a 100% true. It maans you can do almost everything and anything with Linux given time, talent, and resources. The concept from MS's point-of-view is going to be: "wait, why bother with all that, when we can give you 90% of the flexibility with only 10% the time and complexity".
I can't tell you how many Windows techs I encounter who are convinced that there are no GUIs or IM clients for Linux or that it is impossible to watch multimedia content on a Linux box.
I can't tell you how many linux nuts are uninformed about Windows, telling false me things like you can't centralize administration, it's slow, etc. The bottom line is that what people think isn't evidence one way or the other, and that people on one side of the coin don't like switch.
The Free Software and open source communities need to have a global response to this last smear campaign, lest we allow others to define how Linux truly works.
This is a matter of opinion. There is a certain specific degree of truth to what MS is saying. I'll give you a real good example. Implementing single-sign on with a Windows-based system, versus implementing single-sign on on a Linux-based system. A typical small to medium sized business has either a single or a small number of x86 servers. If you are working someplace with less than 50 employees chances are strong that you have a single or maybe two or three servers. However, that hardware provides lots of services: usually hosts file-sharing and printing for the LAN, e-mail, internet and/or external dynamic web sites, remote access for traveling/after hours access, etc. Often there will be FTP access for vendors, clients, employees, etc. That server also most often provides caching, firewall/gateway services, and content blocking. Sometimes they also use the box as a fax server for all the clients. Basically, it's "the server".
Microsoft equips a lot of these machines. For less than a $1000 you can get the software you need from MS to this: Windows Server, Exchange with Outlook clients, SQL Server, the whole package. Out of the box each user has one password, one username. For e-mail (remote and locale), desktop logins, remote access, for desktop fax routing, ftp, web publishing, etc. Single-sign on.
Compare to a "typical Linux" system. First off, there is no such thing. There isn't a typical Linux server. By default, access is controlled in specific ways for each service. You may have shell logins, but they do not correspond with e-mail usernames/passwords. Why? Well the various mail servers you choose to implement do not necessarily jive with the idea of a shell login. Controlling access to parts of the internal/external website becomes tricky. The easiest way to do things with
The implementation does get tricky. I have a friend who runs a small webhosting setup. He has a MySQL database with a master user database he implemented, and various scripts to syncronize mail accounts, shell accounts, web-admininistration panel accounts, news server accounts, ftp accounts, etc. It starts simple, and gets more complex. That's just for one server. It's actually much easier to get it all to work just right when you have one server. Now if you have two servers, things get tricky. How do you keep them in sync? Do you keep them in sync? Do you run an LDAP service as your master authority, and write/configure the necessary
there: a location other than here; that place; "you can take it from there"
their: of or relating to them or themselves especially as possessors, agents, or objects of an action
Games? Obviously not important.
Full functionality IM? I don't know what you mean by full functionality - Jabber/Gaim/whatever do well enough in the office environment.
Loads of Windows-specific-only business applications? Yup. This can be a problem, but when you save umpty thousands of bucks on Windows licences, you can pay for having an application written from scratch just for you (or having an existing opensource app customized). OpenOffice/Mozilla does the rest.
Support from all hardware vendors is seldom an issue - corporate desktops run on standard hardware. Ok, if you've got a hundred machines with nonstandard hardware, then you have your OS options limited.
1. I know what package installed what file. (rpm -qf
On the down side, installing one rpm sometimes requires you to trawl around world trying to find obscure and unknown rpm's.
For example, to install kde-multimedia, I *had* to install the 'musicbrainz' server access libararies rpm. The only site where I could find a server that had the latest version that I needed was in Russia. And I'm still trying to find qt-styles.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Don't forget too that Novell has open sourced previously proprietary parts of SuSE. This means that even if Novell is forced into bankruptcy, the SuSE distro will still be out there for others to continue.
Exchange admin here. Your right, Exchange looks nice on the surface, but once you start actually using it for a while you realize that its not much better than the unix equiv.
I've got a broken web interface for my spam filter (McAfee Spamkiller == spamassassin); a desktop client which serves up a java applet to config it.
I've got a special application to config the anti-virus (Trend Micro ScanMail) filters, whos interface looks like a cross between eudora and outlook 2000.
But on the MS side of things, I've got DNS, Active Directory, Certificates, Event Manager, Message Tracking Center, Exchange, IIS, and Services all in one package I call Admin Console.msc. Just start > run > MMC and File > Add consoles to your hearts content. I can administrate almost any aspect of all 5 servers from one console, including defrags and registry edits,
but if I want to change a setting on the Spam Filter, or the Anti-Virus software, I've got to TermSvc into a box and get at some funky software with a GUI designed by an idiot. Please, give me MSC files to administrate my 3rd party Exchange tools, for the love of God, there is nothing special about your software, just tie it into M$'s standard MMC. It doesnt matter whos right, whos prettier, I just need to plug everything into one tree and relax.
Signed, Pissed off Exchange Admin
Im dreaming ofa big bndwdth, That can resist the
Try NIS.
I agree and postfix is very easy to set up. It's just a text-file that you modify. Once you have done it a few times, it is really, really easy and it can be done remotely.
And if you need even more handholding, have a look at the open source version of SME server. You can DNS, SMB, Mail, LDAP up and running in about an hour.
http://contribs.org
Setting up an email server is meant to be done by a professional, that is my whole point. You should have some knowledge of what you are doing and it really isn't terribly difficult.
Good day.
Pragmatism as an ideology is not particularly pragmatic in the long term. Keep it in mind when you dismiss Free Software
Try APT for RPM or Yum next time. For RedHat and Fedora distros, FreshRPMS is a good starting point
"In my opinion, Windows XP is a DISORGANIZED MESS!"
The i386 folder on the Windows XP SP1 Corporate version CD is 504,563,416 bytes. Windows XP SP2 is 278,927,592 bytes. Fifty-five percent of the disorganized mess just got replaced.
What amazes me is that there is plenty of evidence of just plain sloppy programming in Windows XP. There have been 102 vulnerabilities and 1,777 viruses affecting Internet Explorer.
PAM provide a standard way of interfacing different types of user directories. There are LDAP modules for using a common LDAP server for all user authentication. There is also a winbind module to authenticate against Windows networks. No kludge scripting required.
Also, companies like SuSe, RH etc. provide tools for configuring such integration. We geeks do these things ourselves, but they are also available enteprise-style.
> He has a MySQL database with a master user database he implemented, and various scripts to syncronize mail accounts,
> shell accounts, web-admininistration panel accounts, news server accounts, ftp accounts, etc. It starts simple, and
> gets more complex.
Only if you don't know aobut nsswitch, which your friend apparently doesn't. Everything in Linux makes more sense once you
know about pam and nss. I have linux systems here authenticating against an NT domain, it's easy!
25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
Yes, they still don't get it. Microsoft is dying.
All this talk about "competing". Linux and FOSS isn't about competition. Linux and FOSS are about cooperation. This is about win-win approaches where developers help each other along. Everybody measures their progress not by how many wrecks they pass or whether there is anybody between them and some imaginary finish line, but simply by how many miles they've travelled so far. Cooperative people spend more time looking around at the scenery than staring at the ass of whoever happens to be in front of them at the moment. Coperative people pick the fruits of their labors as they move along.
Competition is too engrained in Microsoft's corporate culture for them to change. They can't even talk about cooperative development efforts without using competitive terms, and those terms just don't fit. So those few at Microsoft who do get it don't have any way of telling the others about it. They either learn to shut up or they become ostracized and shunned beccause their funny ideas make their coworkers uncomfortable. Or they leave.
Microsoft is dead. It just doesn't get it. Like some multi-ton dinosaur that can't adjust to changing conditions, it is going to stagger around for a while. Watch it's tail; it still packs a wallop.
Microsoft will continue to compete with Linux and FOSS until it exhausts all the fat it has hoarded up over the years. But it will never win, because Linux and FOSS don't do competitions. Open source is all about cooperation, and those who do get it are simply going to move over, let Microsoft rampage off into the distance, and get on with picking the ripe fruit and helping each other along. The closest thing to competition that Microsoft is going to evoke from them are complaints about the messes it makes and the fruit trees it damages. And Microsft, in its tunnel vision focus on the ass end of whoever it thinks is ahead of it at the moment is not even aware of the nature of these complaints. For it is already mostly brain dead.
Microsoft is dead. It just doesn't know it yet, and it takes quite a while for a big old dinosaur to finally keel over.
Microsoft is dead. Mind its tail; those dirt encrusted barbs still pack a wallop.
From TFA:
Windows group chief James Allchin accuses Linux of being a cheap knockoff: "There's no innovation. Linux is still in the business of cloning existing technology." Allchin points to new features in the version of Windows due in 2007 that will allow users to remotely turn PCs on or off, with programs still running. Searches will extend across all data like e-mail, photos, Word. "We're creating things," he says.
This has yet to be the biggest crap of all time. Linux (or technically, the distribution) has always had remote shutting down, # shutdown now, once logged in. So, who's cloning existing technology now? In fact, one can remotely suspend a machine as well.
Infact, there are not many things that Microsoft has actually innovated, most of the time they use thier financial position to break existing markets (or duplicate technology). Does anyone know of a good product that Microsoft innovated, i.e. one that was a first-timer in the market?
EXACTLY!. And by spewing false facts about your competition, you lose credibility. I'm consulting for a Big Media Company now and we always wince when we have to deal with a Linux shop because they always tell us nonsense things about our Windows XP servers. Things that just aren't true.
It's why the Apple "switch" campaign failed (you don't see any more "switch" ads, do you?) You really won't ruin x-mas if you try to plug a digital camera into a PC! It'll work just fine. All those ads did was make Windows users distrust Apple even more...
Best Buy can have you arrested
From http://www.docuverse.com/blog/donpark/EntryViewPag e.aspx?guid=145b9d07-3e65-42de-8116-2704c8ce1a83 (Don Park's daily habit)
BTW, binaries available via BitTorrent and direct download are about three times bigger (270MB) than what you would have gotten via Automatic Updates (AU) because AU downloads only the components your system need.
horde or squirrelmail will for webmail. Evolution and thunderbird will for outlook "replacement". YP/NIS is just a different way of doing authentication; it's invisible to the clients -- all they know is they're being authenticated.
Courier, cyrus, even pop3d. Again, the application doesn't really even need to know it's on NIS.
All of them. And anyways don't use FTP; use scp.
Setting up NIS / yp is part of the standard install for SuSE and RedHat.
I don't know, an hour total maybe?
Incidentally, you seem to be implying that Windows Active Directory works "out of the box" without taking time to install and configure it: it does not. You have to configure the server and the clients.
All's true that is mistrusted
False false false!
Where the hell do you get your information. This is all a matter of public record. He has voted *for* nearly every military expenditure in recent memory *and* voted for pay raises for our troops *and* to improve their health benefits!
Treatment of Iraqi Prisoners - Adoption, Bill Number: SRes 356, Issue: Military Issues , Date: 05/10/2004, Sponsor: Bill sponsored by Senator Frist, R-TN
Roll Call Number: 0086, Bill Adopted, Senator John Forbes Kerry did not vote.
Use of Force-Passage, Bill Number: H.J.RES.114, Issue: Military Issues, Date: 10/10/2002 , Sponsor: Bill sponsored by Hastert,R-IL
Roll Call Number: 237, Bill passed, Senator John Forbes Kerry voted YES.
FY 2001 Defense Auth.-Military Retiree Health Benefits, Bill Number: S 2549, Issue: Military Issues, Date: 06/07/2000 , Sponsor: Motion sponsored by Johnson, D-SD, Point of order sponsored by Gramm, R-TX, Amendment sponsored by Johnson, D-SD, Bill sponsored by Warner, R-VA
Roll Call Number: 0118, Motion rejected, Senator John Forbes Kerry voted YES.
Military Pay Increase - Passage, Bill Number: S 4, Issue: Military Issues, Date: 02/24/1999 , Sponsor: Bill introduced by Warner, R-VA.
Roll Call Number: 0026, Bill passed, Senator John Forbes Kerry voted YES.
National Missile Defense - Cloture [Sept. 1998], Bill Number: S 1873, Issue: Military Issues, Date: 09/09/1998 , Sponsor: Cloture motion introduced by Lott, R-MS; bill introduced by Cochran, R-MS.
Roll Call Number: 0262, Cloture motion rejected; 3/5th vote required, Senator John Forbes Kerry voted NO.
Gays in the Military - Presidential Determination, Bill Number: S 1298, Issue: Military Issues, Date: 09/09/1993 , Sponsor: Boxer, D-CA
Roll Call Number: 0250, Rejected, Senator John Forbes Kerry voted YES.
Presidential Notification of Covert Operations-Passage, Bill Number: S 1721, Issue: Military Issues, Date: 03/15/1988 , Sponsor: Bill sponsored by Cohen
Roll Call Number: 0052, Bill passed, Senator John Forbes Kerry voted YES.
Terrorism Insurance - Conference Report, Bill Number: HR 3210, Issue: National Security Issues, Date: 11/19/2002 , Sponsor: Bill sponsored by Oxley, R-OH
Roll Call Number: 252, Conference Report adopted, Senator John Forbes Kerry voted YES.
Anti-Terrorism Authority-Passage, Bill Number: HR 3162, Issue: National Security Issues, Date: 10/25/2001, Sponsor: Bill sponsored by Sensenbrenner R-WI
Roll Call Number: 0313, Passed, Senator John Forbes Kerry voted YES.
Aviation Security-Passage, Bill Number: S1447, Issue: National Security Issues, Date: 10/11/2001, Sponsor: Bill sponsored by Hollings D-SC
Roll Call Number: 0295, Passed, Senator John Forbes Kerry voted YES.
Anti-Terrorism-Passage, Bill Number: S1510, Issue: National Security Issues, Date: 10/11/2001, Sponsor: Bill sponsored by Daschle D-SD
Roll Call Number: 0302, Passed, Senator John Forbes Kerry voted YES.
Anti-Terrorism Authority-Roving Wiretapping, Bill Number: S1510, Issue: National Security Issues, Date: 10/11/2001, Sponsor: Tabling motion sponsored by Dascle D-SD, Amendment sponsored by Feingold D-WI, Bill sponsored by Daschle D-SD
Roll Call Number: 0300, Motion agreed to, Senator John Forbes Kerry voted YES.
Airline Relief-Passage, Bill Number: S1450, Issue: National Security Issues, Date: 09/21/2001 , Sponsor: Bill sponsored by Daschle, D-SD
Roll Call Number: 0284, Passed, Senator John Forbes Kerry voted YES.
Use of Force Authorization-Passage, Bill Number: SJRES 23, Issue: National Security Issues, Date: 09/14/2001, Sponsor: Joint resolution sponsored by Daschle, D-SD
Roll Call Number: 0281, Joint resolution passed, Senator John Forbes Kerry voted YES.
Terrorist Attacks-Passage, Bill Number: SJRES 22, Issue: National Security Issues, Date: 09/12/2001 , Sponsor: Resolution sponsored by Daschle, S-SD
Roll Call Number: 277, Joint Resolution passed, Senator John Forbes Kerry voted YES.
FY 2001 Defense Authorization-Nu