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"."
*sigh* There's another new field, fresh for 'sploits. Nice one, Microsoft. Keep up with the .. errm .. 'innovation! :-/
Alison
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." - Albert Einstein
I don't think people are quite that stupid or so easily manipulated.
Don't underestimate the power of stupidity, my friend. You'd be surprised.
Free XBox, PS2
There plan of attack should include attempting to make a superior product. It will get harder and harder for them with an inferior product as they are now finding out.
It's nice to know they actually have a "Microsoft's top Linux strategist".
And he has realized that "Linux is a different kind of opponent. It's not a company to bash, but a software movement with the backing of the entire tech industry.".
And this is why the Linux community is winning. We are more developers in the Linux scene, we are better skilled and higher motivated.
Understanding this, Microsoft should turn around and start providing Linux support and services as part of their portifolio. There is nothing wrong with selling both Linux and Windows! Software is all about support, not the product, today anyways.
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
I think I'm going to run around high-fiving everyone here, because to me this shows they still don't get it. You can kill SuSE, you can kill Novell, IBM, and Red Hat and you still wouldn't kill Linux.
Microsoft, if you are reading this, you screwed me over once with OS/2. There is no way you will ever take Linux away from me. :)
The more you know, the less you understand.
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.
Plain to see you haven't been in the underbelly of corporate America, my friend...
You mean like OLE? DDE? The Printer Driver interface where everything is standardized, but nothing prints the same?!
No no... all roads lead to madness on Windows programming. I assure you. (Of course, if you HAVE the roadmap...)
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.
Quite easily actually... there's an old saying... there's no greater fanatic than the converted. I've seen staunch supporters of something do a 180 within a day when exposed to something they thought impossible (switching from Windows to Linux or from Linux to Windows... yes, I've seen both).
<pedant>
> 1st they laugh at you
> 2nd they fight you
> then you win
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
</pedant>
This is where the serious fun begins.
You misspelled money .
Instead of looking for behind-the-scenes back-handers, actually stand up and show why he's wrong.
Still, personally, I can kinda see where he's going with his arguments. I don't agree 100%, but there is at least a grain of truth behind them. Of course, this is slashdot, so I'm getting the fire-extinguishers ready ;)
There's no set architecture in Linux. All roads lead to madness
To the newbie this perception is immediately apparent.
First question: Which of the hundreds of distros do I use? Hundreds of different answers.
Second question: If they are all Linux, why will this application run on one but not the other? Development geek speak.
Third question: Of the hundreds of choices of this particular application, which is best? Hundreds of naswers and then a massive flame war.
Microsoft's quote may sound pathetic to you but, when they tell a neophyte to check for themselves, they are "proven" correct. The uninitiated are confused and intimidated by the vast number of choices, incompatibilities and varied advice from a pleathora of zealots. Just ask a technical question about a mail program like Postfix or Sendmail. Half the responses will be to change distributions. Change the OS because of an issue with the MTA???
One could be forgiven for thinking that was intended to describe Active Directory.
I run a mixed network, though mostly Linux these days, for work. I frequently hear about juicy new technologies for MS (I read several of the pro Windows mags) and some sound really good. Mostly, however, as I read the article I quickly find myself thinking "that's nice if you're a company big enough to pay someone to learn this one technology, and you'll really need the myriad options it provides. But for most people who could use that functionality, this is ridiculously complex and over-engineered."
There are also times I curse Linux, often in ways that'd make your hair curl. MTA + spam filter + virus scanner(s) + IMAP/POP server + webmail is all well enough, but give me standard interfaces on each of them or I'll go insane very soon. Then I tried to set up an Exchange demo and, well, suddenly it didn't seem so bad anymore. It's still quite bad, but Exchange also failed to work sensibly by default, was hard to integrate with multiple plug-ins, and generally reassured me that in fact all mail server software is crap (though each may in isolation be quite good).
MS needs to get a handle on the complexity of its own systems before they can talk too loudly about the multiplicity of configurations under Linux and the fact that every admin almost has to be a developer. At least with Linux, I can admin my hideously complex configurations via a collection of individual config files in a consistent place that don't change for no reason, vanish, get corrupted, or get bored and go for a smoke
If Linux distros could offer a consistent config file format (Pick one. Seriously.), some form of config inheritance (eg load
If I could get consistent open and save dialog boxes for my Linux terminal server, I think I'd be in heaven.
Overall, I must say that I see a serious case of the pot calling the kettle black here. They're both awful.
The x86-PC has real stability and consitency problems when it comes to competing vendors and running different CPUs on different motherboards.
Add to that proprietary modifications and vastly inflated prices of the dominant CPU-vendor and you have a confused customer base that is more comfortable with the consistent Apple product lines.
First off, I did *not* RTFA. This is just how I would approach the issue if I were Microsoft.
....at least that's the strategy I would employ.
I think they should start making Linux applications, providing Linux support, even making thier own distribution or at least a "Windows for Linux" desktop.
Remember when Netscape was the dominant browser and I.E. first came out?. It took a while but eventually I.E. became dominant. They just have a huge financial pool to draw upon. Makes them well suited to corporate "siege warfare".
You want to migrate to Linux, let us make it easy for you. Here is MS Office ported to Linux so you know your old docs will not only work, but be supported by us as well. Worried about migration? No problem, use the Windows for Linux desktop environment.
With their resources, they can shred Linux from the inside and slowly undermine the GPL.
A goal is a dream with a deadline
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.
You're working on the assumption that he either likes or hates Linux, and thus that he either now or before was compromising himself.
Things aren't black-and-white like that. Presumably he just doesn't care, either way. He used to point out pros of Linux and is now pointing on the cons of Linux. It's what is paid to do, and presumably he doesn't think that his personal opinion on the overall situtation is relevant, and so he is not compromising any personal integrity.
I'm a Linux user and OSS developer. And I can talk for quite a while about what's bad about Linux. I wouldn't do it for a living, but hey - that's because I do care about the issue, and have a sense of integrity.
But just because you care, doesn't mean everyone else does.
Microsoft is devoting a lot of internal resources to figure out Linux and how to fight it. The problem is: Linux isn't their enemy. Their true enemy is Open Source. (I've mentioned this several times before)
When they almost missed the Internet boat, it was only because of Gates' annual Summer sabbatical (so it is said) which made him realize they were on the brink of being left behind. The 'net, and more specifically, the web, were not quite on the fast track for bringing in the dough. And this is part of what caused Microsoft to wait. They'll either invest heavily in something which they know will make money in the future (and they can lock it down now (or soon); or they'll hop on the bandwagon and start making money now, even if the software quality isn't there. When the "Information Superhighway" was the vogue term, Gates said, "I don't care what the Information Superhighway looks like as long as I have a tollbooth on it." (we know they've wanted more than that for some time: why rule desktops when you can rule the Internet?)
Back to the topic at hand. Microsoft understands money and they know how to fight it and with it. What they don't understand is how to fight something which doesn't show up on their financial slide rule. '$ofties put in massive hours because they think it's cool and they like to do what they do. Open Source people tend to spend a lot of time doing what they like to do. (and make a lot of money, although they're restructuring^killing their stock system, that may change. 8-10 years ago, you could put five years in, cash out, and leave a millionaire. Not any more!) And [not by default], the bug count seems to be much less because there's the issue of oversight of code by anyone who wants to. This doesn't exist at Microsoft and never will.
Microsoft is trying to brainwash itself internally. They need to hire some people who either know & believe in Open Source or some who don't eat, drink, and sleep it, but are young enough they haven't been indoctrinated by Microsoft's corporate culture. I don't think Linux has anything to worry about.
Windows, where there's a one true way; and it's an expressway to madness?
Honestly, I use both Windows and Linux. There are things I use one for and not the other, because Windows is really good at some things that Linux is not, and vice versa.
You'd THINK that if Microsoft wanted to keep Linux from growing, they'd identify the things that Linux does well and Windows does not, and work on that.
I think they have this idea that Windows is really the best at everything, and people are just using Linux because it's free. Sorry, wrong. I pick my operating systems based on which one does the job the best.
Especially since, as Microsoft would probably rather forget, Windows NT had its genesis in a joint collaboration with IBM. Knowing how insane MS is about backwards compatibility, it's quite probable IBM would have ammunition all the way up into Winders XP/Server 2003.
Searching for Truth, Justice, and the Guy Who Boosted My Wallet a Few Weeks Back....
I love mail servers under Linux. Honest. Really. Like cleaning a boil under my big toe.
... unpleasant.
Admittedly, I honestly do love it once it's all set up and running and the pain is gone, you can just forget it's there and it keeps on working, but the process of getting it there is
Given n MTAs, o spam filters, p virus scanners, q IMAP/POP servers, and r webmail systems, how many different combinations do you think is possible - assuming (naievely and oversimplisticly) that you can only have one of each? Just going by the software I know of in each category, I'm counting hundreds of combinations - and that's with a reasonably common set of software. The worst thing is that many of those combinations require totally different ways of hooking everything together - often badly documented ways.
We really need standardised interfaces between the MTA, webmail (OK, so that's mostly there with IMAP + LDAP), IMAP/POP server, and any filters such as virus scanners and spam checkers. At least that way we'd have a massive variety of software to learn how to configure, but wouldn't have to do battle with figuring how the f**k postfix plugged into Cyrus and and mailscanner with spamassassin and clamav (daemon mode).
I don't mind (no, I like) variety, I just wish the variety would learn to read the same configuration for common options, and try to talk the same language where possible.
and "the devil is in the details. This stuff is not easy to run."
While I can't explain the 180 easily, this line here says it all. Is brain surgery easy for a brain surgeon? Somewhat. For me? Impossible. Should brain surgery be easy for me? Only if I want to take the time to be a bain surgeon.
Most people don't. Microsoft claims they can make brain surgery easy, with their "Windows Brain-Surgery-Made-Easy robot", and sure sometimes it works. Those initial incisions, cutting with the bonesaw... and then it slices the cerebrum into ribbons like a maniac. And people say "Gee, I hope when it's my turn to have the tumor removed, it get's it right."
It's nuts. But then maybe this guy realizes that there will be a need for more computers, than there can ever be clueful people to use and maintain them, and this is his justification. Since they're clueless anyway, it doesn't matter... and it's better to be on the winning side.
"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." ... Searches will extend across all data like e-mail, photos, Word. "We're creating things," he says."
Sounds eerily like a "cheap knockoff" of Dashboard to me.....
Ballmer griped that Microsoft's profits have more than doubled in the past six years, but the stock, at $29, is right where it was then. "Linux creates a cloud of uncertainty over Microsoft. Every time Red Hat reports earnings, Microsoft seems to take a hit," says Goldman Sachs software analyst Richard Sherlund.
Hmmm, let's see - it's a 300 billion dollar company with a P/E ratio of 36.19. To get to the point where they are bringing home a 10% return on that market cap (the traditional good rate of return), they would have to more than triple their earnings. They already have the entire market in their primary fields, which means they've got nowhere to go but lateral markets. Looking at XBox, MSN, WMA, and the like, it doesn't look like Microsoft is going to be able to pull a Microsoft in any other market.
Frankly, Steve, if I were you I'd be real grateful for the 36.19 P/E. It doesn't look like you deserve it.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
I really felt very reassured when I read this one statement by Mr Taylor because I now realise that this is nothing more than Microsoft settling some old playground dispute with Novell (and IBM no doubt) rather than actually developing a proper strategy to deal with the competition.
Emperor Billy didn't manage to trash the Novell rebellion with his Death Star first time around - now he's really sore and is sending out Darth Taylor in Death Star II to finish the job...
Sounds to me like a few MS CEOs need to get some maturity, forget about "revenge attacks" and just deal with it in a mature business-like fashion.
Maybe then they'll start to realise that Novell (IBM, Red Hat, etc.) are competent allies for Linux to have but are nothing more than the customer-facing front-end of the FOSS movement.
Destroy one of those and, like the hydras tentacles, another will just grow in its place.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Microsoft would have never reached the level of penetration they have to date. Keep in mind that everything that was done in personal computing in the mid- to late-80s was easier on a Mac than on a WinTel platform - hands down, no argument.
The same arguments used against Microsoft's platform are now wielded as a weapon against their enemies. I remember the constant flame-fests between Mac and DOS users and how each of their respective platforms were "the best". Unfortunately for Microsoft, there are still things that are easier to do on a Mac than on WinTel PC - hands down. This is true despite hundreds of millions of dollars of investment by Microsoft.
So the usability argument has proven to be an historically inaccurate guide to whether a particular operating system will gain prevalence.
Microsoft proved it.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
You don't even need to buy Microsoft services for a lot of that, as the open source equivalents will readily run on Windows in most cases, and plug directly into the windows system using its own authentication. This lets you have single sign-on from Microsoft without paying for all of the premium packages. You simply pay for the Active Directory (a couple of servers) and the desktop operating system. The rest can be done freely taking only a small hit in quality that most users won't notice or care about. Samba is unfortunately not suitable for the backend yet because it only supports signon... which is only one of about fifty good features of a windows server that are included in the price.
The real problem with linux is the backend. Linux is missing (or has poorer implementations of) a lot of enterprise-level software that is taken completely for granted in the Microsoft world. Poorer here means that overall, Linux becomes more of a headache to manage than Microsoft, for a wide variety of reasons, but I assure you that lack of understanding of both platforms is not among them.
This is one area where Novell can kick Microsoft right in the junk. Novell has a lot of the enterprise level management software that linux is sorely lacking. What's more, Novell's enterprise architecture has had years (decades!) of wildly stable and successful deployment, it has well understood standards, and there is a large technical user base that understands how to support it. Hooking the myriad linux services into a Novell backend would be easy... not trivial, but certainly no major headache. Not moreso than hooking other open source apps into windows, anyway, and that's the target.
I really hope Novell doesn't go the greedy proprietary route here. If they convert and open-source their entire enterprise management suite, Microsoft is in for butthurt like they have never had before, because one of their biggest advantages will be eliminated instantly. There are many of us who would be only too willing to convert to linux to avoid Microsoft (mainly due to their horrific license agreements and prices), but only that kind of enterprise management on linux can make Microsoft into the lesser of two headaches. Contrary to popular opinion, Microsoft's problems are easy (nearly effortless, in fact) to mitigate if one has a proper understanding of the software and how to manage it.
Once that is done, desktop use will skyrocket, and so will desktop development. Linux is going to own the corporate desktop long before it makes any real dent in the home user market. People will use it at work and then decide they like it, and the IT department can give them a free copy to take home. It'll sound almost too good to be true.
Hell is being intelligent in a world full of idiots.
But Microsoft would have to understand Open Source. Not from a marketing point of view, but in their gut, kidney's & toes. And to make a 180 degree turn, they'd have to totally change their company culture, views, and convince their own customers. And that is the hard thing.
So Microsoft's real enemy is the one within: themselves.
I suspect that, other than techies, nobody cares much for what OS they run, Windows or anything else. They want the applications that use the OS services. MS now does a better job on the desktop with applications.
For servers it's a different matter. Once, long ago, I was with a company that ran overnight builds from MS client machines with source on an NT server (Pentium 100, 6G IDE, 10Mbit/sec). For a test we put together a Samba server (you don't care about the OS, remember) with (386/25, 4G IDE, 10Mbit/sec) and the builds against it completed in 2/3 the time. Samba is very good.
Linux, or any flavor Unix or look-alike)succeeds in the server market because the server applications tend to do a better job with the added benefit of much lower cost. That's true of file services, print services, database services, and so on. The glaring exception at this point in time is an open-source MS Exchange server killer. Build that and MS seriously loses in the server market.
The ease-of-install argument is not appropriate for servers. Techies (mostly) install servers. For them, open is good, closed is bad, and the gui may get in the way. Install of Linux or whatever Unix is no big deal, maybe easier than MS, with better diagnostic tools to get at problems. Though MS's knowledge base and tools are outstanding, the collective community for open source is arguably better.
Client systems are a kettle of fish of a different color.
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.
What?!!! You have to look at a text file?!! You mean to tell me you actually have to read?!!!
Sounds to me like you actually might have to do a little reading to set up a linux box properly.
As someone who is in the midst of getting his MCSE (however reluctantly) through self study, it seems to me the ones blubbering about Microsoft products being "easier and more intuitive" are probably the same ones who sat in an actual classroom learning how to use it or did a whole lot of reading to get it to work properly (and to get those nifty certifications).
So why then do all the MS techs (including my bosses) all balk at anything that might involve a command line and a different approach to the same tasks?
Frankly I put it down to ignorance born of laziness.
Oh, and to answer anyone who has asked (can't count the number of times) why they should use Linux when Windows is so much easier? Check your wallet. The difference is in there (or if you're using Microsoft, it's not in there).
Ignorance isn't cheap.
So it appears that Microsoft realized its initial approach was not going to work so well. And this resulted in them changing their approach. Is anyone else not suprised?
Microsoft may have gotten to where they are though questionable means, but they are not stupid. Far from it. If they were stupid, they would just stick their head in the sand and pretend that Linux was not a competitor worthy of notice.
END COMMUNICATION
I don't don't where you got you pricing structure, but you ain't buying all those M$ products for LESS the $1000.00. I haven't checked the prices in awhile, but the last time I bought W2K server it was $11280.00 with ONLY 10 client licenses. That was just for the server software. Last I checked MSSQL was around $3200.00 with ONLY 10 client licenses. Lets say you have just 20 people in an office and they all need a connection the to DB well then there is more money invloved. My MySQL DB doesn't care how many connections and it is faster and more reliable. My files server doesn't care how many connections ti has either.
We are a mixed shop here. Both Windows and Linux servers. With the Windows servers getting less and less in here. Yes Linux and most of its is for the most part harder to set up. It takes about 2.5 hours to set up a W2K box. It takes me about 4 hours to set up a RedHat box. This means that I have spent 1.5 hours longer on the set up. now if I pay $1280.00 for W2K and either got Fedora for free or paid (I think) $150.00 for RedHat Enterprize. Haven't I saved money? Maybe took a bit longer. Then comes the license issue? RedHat doesn't care how many clients I have hanging on my server M$ does! Then we have the security issues (Oh yea I forgot my 34 item security check list for basic server configuration on W2K another 2 hours) A basic Rehat Load everything is turned off. Yes it takes longer to turn on what I need, but isn't this easier and better than with MS going and turning OFF everything I DON'T need or even want? Hell somethings you don't want that comes with M$ you CAN"T TURN OFF!
It isn't that I'm a zelot about any system. I am a Systems Engineer I use what works and is reliable, and cost isn't that big of a factor. If I could find a reason to pay M$ prices for a BETTER OS I would. The reason I don't pay and use Linux is that it is better, more reliable, and more secure. If Windows was better I would pay the price and run it. As an engineer what I know is I spend more time working on the M$ boxes that the Linux boxes. This is what my customers look at too. They like to pay me as little as possible. Time sheets don't lie. Some may say "Oh you spend more time on the Windows platform because you don't know it." WRONG!!!! I have work with NT since 3.51. I have that worthless piece of plastic too. I am the first to admit it that yes I do know Linux as well not near the knowledge that I have on Winders. Yes Linux does take me longer sometimes because of my lack of knowledge on it but this isn't the fault of the OS. It is a matter of my training. Once whatever it is to learn is learned it is simple the next time. I don't bloat the time sheet because of my lack of skill and blame it on the OS. Hey we can't know everything, but I can learn.
Yes single signon is "tightly intergrated" into the Windows OS, but it is right there in the Linux CD too! You just have to load it and turn it on! NIS works quiet well
Is Linux read for Joe User? NO! One day it will be.
First, I think a patent counterattack is our last line of defence against a MS patent war. This is what you do if everything else fails. IANAL, but I don't think that failure to include such claims in a countersuit would prevent you from pursuing them later.
A better strategy would, upon any announcement by Microsoft, begin a distributed search for prior art. The SCO suit has been particularly informative regarding how much community participation can be leveraged, and I think such would also be heavily leveraged in a patent suit as well. Perhaps moreso.
Failing that, one might be able to force Microsoft to license patents under antitrust laws. Such licenses would have to be compatible with the GPL.
Either of these strategies could be successful at mitigating any risk of a patent and would seriously weaken Microsoft's general position. Furthermore there is a good chance, I think, that both these strategies could be successful for any given patent.
The final strategy I see that of a distributed patent counterattack where various parties begin to launch patent suits against Microsoft in an attempt to force them to substantially re-engineer Windows and pay damages. IBM could try to nuke Windows, but it woudl be more effective if you have 10 or 20 suits such as Eolas as well.
The final strategy should I think be employed with the re-engineering of the open source software in question to avoid these specific patent restrictions. I personally do not think that there are likely to be defensible patents in Linux that cannot be easily worked around. Samba is a different story of course, but Samba could be replaced in corporate settings using CUPS, OpenLDAP, MIT Kerberos, and OpenAFS.
As a final thought, such a litigation campaign by Microsoft would be very bad for them. It would destroy the reasonable goodwill they still have from many customers as they would probably be suing their customers (not generally recommended) given the ubiquity of Microsoft products. Furthermore the possibility of having the courts overturn patents or force them to license them to open source projects free of charge may indeed cause them many serious problems. I don't think that they will... Yet....
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
That has exactly what to do with how large a company is?
If Microsoft wanted to buy IBM it would be possible.
I highly doubt it.
The whole point I was arguing with the parent was that Microsoft cannot just take on IBM and their patents and win. It's not going to happen. IBM has many more patents. IBM has many lawyers. IBM pulls in a lot more money. than Microsoft every year. No matter who is bigger, depending on what statistic you are looking at, they are both very large companies and if they get into a patent war with each other, IBM has the upper hand. This is the total opposite of what the parent was saying.
Time makes more converts than reason