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"."

Comments

Not so easily manipulated

[erick99]

Microsoft's strategy so far is to find people who used to be proponents of Linux and other open source products and get them to do a 180, possibly as a result of a very fat paycheck though who knows. Anyway, here is an example from the article:

In January Taylor poached one of IBM's former Linux technical leaders, William Hilf, to test 20 versions of open-source software in Redmond. Hilf two years ago was in front of audiences touting the cost effectiveness, reliability and performance of open-source software. Nowadays he's working the Microsoft spiel: "There's no set architecture in Linux. All roads lead to madness," and "the devil is in the details. This stuff is not easy to run."

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.

Another strategy is to fund studies that are purported to be neutral regarding Microsoft vs. Open Source. Once again, from the article:

Microsoft has funded 13 studies over the past year comparing Linux with its own products. Guess what: All of them come out in favor of Microsoft. The studies are generously referenced in an advertising campaign dubbed "Get the Facts." Can Linux really handle crucial areas such as security and e-mail?

Here is a skeptical customer:

"I'm not sure how relevant this stuff is," says PCMS Datafit's Matt S. Scherocman. One Microsoft customer, ADC Chief Information Officer Jamey S. Anderson, agrees: "You don't know who's paying the bills. You can't trust the surveys."

Of course, if all else fails, try an "SCO" and claim property as yours and sue the hell out of everybody:

At a recent gathering of venture capitalists Ballmer went so far as to suggest Microsoft might own intellectual property in Linux and assured the audience that Microsoft would pursue any violation of its own patents. Before he spoke, a fire alarm went off. "It was eerily symbolic," says a venture capitalist in attendance. "We all scattered." Microsoft denies this, and says it will not litigate.

Once again, I don't think corporate IT staff and managment can be so easily manipulated. I believe that the very health growth in Open Source is proof.

Cheers,

Erick

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[LibrePensador]

Hi Erick.

Microsoft has started the largest FUD campaign that I can remember against open source. It is doing all it can to portray Linux as not a real operating system, but the hobby of bunch of loony hippies.

I guess the fact that the focus of the campaign appears to be foreign governments and businesses means that it has stayed largely below the radar of US journalists and Free Software advocates in the US.

They are taking page-size ads in the most recognized newspapers in Argentina, Brazil, Spain, and Mexico (those are the ones that I know about directly, but I am told that the campaign is global) and they are displaying the stories of people who allegedly tried to switch to Linux and came back running to the safe arms of Microsoft mamma.

And the stories are all very similar. For instance, in Argentina, they used Grimaldi, a shoe manufacturer as the example. When you dig into the story, you discover that the company that was supposed to carry out Grimaldi's migration to Linux is a Windows certified partner and a windows-only shop. The idiots could not get sendmail or postfix up-and-running and thus claim that it doesn't work. They then told Grimaldi, surprise, surprise, not to bother with Linux because it just doesn't work.

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. 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.

In summary, Microsoft has been paying some big names to use them as poster children of their "Linux is too messy and difficult adn thus expensive campaign". We need to create a site where we exposed Microsoft lies and we need to do it soon. Anybody can get a plone site up and running that we can use to debunk these myths?

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[LibrePensador]

Although I much prefer postfix, I can set up a complex Sendmail site with multiple domains and aliases in under an hour. I can do postfix in 20 minutes.

You failed to read my comments closely. I expect a company to hire qualified Linux professionals if they intend to deploy Linux, not the first monkey that walks through the door and certainly I wouldn't hire a Microsoft-shop to do a Linux job.

There is no truth to the campaign, period. What your response tells me is that there are a bunch of fearful Microsoft techs that are spreading vile about Linux because they don't want to take a few hours a week to do a little retraining. Their loss.

But also don't forget...

[Kjella]

...the power of greed. If you can get away with it for free*, it's amazing what great lengths people go to.

*even when said "free" costs you more to achieve than you saved.

SCO has created a lot of negative press, but once eradicated it will turn to positive press "claims found groundless". A lot of huge companies are backing it. And don't pretend MS will be able to use patents at will. They're kinda like nukes - if MS decides to "nuke" IBMs Linux plans, trust me, IBM can "nuke" Windows as well.

Kjella

Re:But also don't forget...

[Xabraxas]

IBM is still larger than Microsoft and IBM still holds more patents than Microsoft.

Re:But also don't forget...

[Xabraxas]

IBM's revenue for 2003 was 89 billion. Microsoft's was 34 billion. I guess it's all how you look at it.

A little know your enemy would be good for OSS

[ShatteredDream]

Anyone who has had to really use Windows XP knows that the current versions of Linux distributions have fallen down miserably in terms of performance and "shininess" in the GUI. Both of those are important if you want a credible, OSS challenge from Linux. For those that question the latter, I would remind them that the "shininess" of a GUI is one of the biggest things that consumers use to gadge as "modern." It's not a good metric by any means, but it is one that must be taken into serious consideration.

A lot of work on Syllable would go a long way toward hurting Longhorn. If enough Linux guys would get involved with the underpinnings so that Vanders and the rest of the team could take a break to work on the GUI system, it'd be a damn good OSS desktop by the time Longhorn gets here. As it stands right now, their labor is too divided to get its hardware support good enough to boot on many systems. Come on people, it'd be a quick investment of time that'd pay large dividends later.

How many quit reading after...

[linuxtelephony]

I read the article, until I found Laura DiDio, or whatever her name is, referenced as a source. Then I just closed the window. If they are quoting her as an authority, then the entire piece has lost credibility and I don't waste my time reading any further. I then realized this is the third time in as many days that I have done that to an article.

So, how many of you read an article until they quote some person as an authority (could be Laura or anyone else) that you feel lacks any credibility, and then stop reading any further? I'm curious.

I was reading something the other day, when someone was quoted spouting some nonesense that I firmly believe is untrue, and then they referred to the name and the "group" she represents. It seems she gets quoted a lot, especially anything remotely anti-Linux related. I would rather read an author's opinions than have that "group's" opinions quoted as facts. Articles carry more credibility with me when the author stands up him or herself, and doesn't resort to pointing fingers, "see, she said it".

Re:How many quit reading after...

[mattr]

There is an interesting press evaluation system called CARMA which does this.. I had to study it once, interesting. It requires humans to manually grade articles on long questionnaires. Well it lets you find out which authors are sympathetic and which are nasty. Presumably it helps you find people like this individual. I suppose Microsoft subscribes to CARMA too..

Linux and XP --- My upclose observations

[Proudrooster]

I've been working with UNIX/Linux for 10 years and was recently sucked into a Windows 95 to Windows XP upgrade/deployment.

In my opinion, Windows XP is a DISORGANIZED MESS! The XP software process works like this.... image a three sided hand-grendade. On one side you have DLL's, on another side you have Registry entries, and on another side you have executables and datafiles. Pull the pin and that is basic method of windows software installation. Also, there is no standard way to install software and people use everything from custom Java installers, Microsoft Installer, Install Shield which makes creating SILENT installations lots of fun. To get an MSCE you should have to package 20 different applications all using different installers to do silent installs under XP. If you still have your sanity at the end, you get the MSCE.

What if something doesn't work? What if the installer fails? What if you have a piece of software that no one can locate the media for, how can you move it from one XP box to another? What if you have old software the requires a CUSTOM environment that conflicts with newer software?

I imagine XP is a great product if you stick to using all brand new Microsoft products and don't try to run your business with older applications from 3rd parties.

Moving on to security.. policies are an overly complex joke. Anyone with even moderate technical skill and intelligence can defeat domain or group policies.

Now let's take UNIX/Linux. It definately has some sharp edges especially if you are trying to run with new or non-standard hardware. However, Linux has some great strengths...
1. I know what package installed what file. (rpm -qf
2. I can move applications EASILY from one system to another without going through the install process.
3. I can backup and restore a Linux/UNIX box from a centralized tape backup system MUCH easier than a Windows server with custom RAID. You haven't experienced IT to the fullest until you tried to recover an older server class Windows NT/2000 box.
4. I can run multiple version of the SAME software by creating custom environments. Trying installing two versions of an application like MS Office on the same Windows XP. The later install typically uninstalls the previous install. Running it under VMWARE doesn't count.
5. Remote adminstration can be done EASILY from the command line under Linux. In XP I've installed Cygwin SSH on XP and have written some VBS scripts. Windows is definately catching up in the area of remote administration, but is still hard to use and books are scarce.
6. Patching for security flaws is a breeze under Linux/UNIX. With Microsoft, install a SUS server and maybe, just maybe if the planets align the patch will saunter down to the PC. I had to write some scripts to slam patches in and reboot. Seems like every critical patch requires a reboot. 7. Figuring out what's going on under Linux/UNIX is pretty simple. You can clearly see what launches applications, what files they have open, what resources they are using etc ... Try to remove some of the newer Spyware from an XP box. You won't get a sense for how much you don't know and can't see on an XP box until you've tried to kill spyware. In most cases it's faster to reload XP than to try and track it down.

I've been using both Linux/XP Servers and Linux/XP Desktops. Handsdown, I prefer running Linux servers over XP or 2003. If I must run XP or 2003 servers, I feel it's best to stick them into VMWARE ESX or GSX so that they are neatly contained and can be easily recovered, moved, and backed up. I know you take a slight performance hit, but the ability to manage the server and keep it up far outweighs it.

For the desktop I prefer Knoppix and a thumbdrive. :) I can work anywhere and even have access to compilers, it's a beautiful thing :) However, for the population at large Windows XP in CLASSIC VIEW is still the way to go for the massess

Re:Linux and XP --- My upclose observations

[Wulfstan]

Uh? You what?!?

> 1. I know what package installed what file. (rpm -qf

Yeah, on one Linux install. On another one it might be dpkg -l. On another one it might be some portage thing with unknown arguments. And what about locally compiled packages?

> 2. I can move applications EASILY from one system to another without going through the install process.

A man who has obviously never been through .so dependency hell. Good luck to you.

> 3. I can backup and restore a Linux/UNIX box from a centralized tape backup system MUCH easier than a Windows server with custom RAID. You haven't experienced IT to the fullest until you tried to recover an older server class Windows NT/2000 box.

Okay, so you can use tar better on Unicies. Point taken.

> 5. Remote adminstration can be done EASILY from the command line under Linux. In XP I've installed Cygwin SSH on XP and have written some VBS scripts. Windows is definately catching up in the area of remote administration, but is still hard to use and books are scarce.

Okay, so remote admin is improving, we can agree on that one.

> 6. Patching for security flaws is a breeze under Linux/UNIX. With Microsoft, install a SUS server and maybe, just maybe if the planets align the patch will saunter down to the PC. I had to write some scripts to slam patches in and reboot. Seems like every critical patch requires a reboot.

What about a kernel vulnerability? Last time I looked you still got to reboot a linux kernel. I agree that segmentation of applications is better on unix, but don't kid yourself; security patching linux requires a lot more effort. And to compare apples with apples here, you're talking about supplying a security patch to a bunch of linux boxes? That's at least as hard as deploying a windows security patch and, in a mixed linux distribution environment, an order of magnitude harder.

> 7. Figuring out what's going on under Linux/UNIX is pretty simple. You can clearly see what launches applications, what files they have open, what resources they are using etc ...

Yeah, right. cat /proc/???? is easy?!? The administrative tools in Win 2k, for example, aren't that hard to use. I would say that they're probably even on that front.

Anyway, just correcting a few biases there....

Bill Hilf not a "Linux technical leader"

[Goonie]

He's a real person, and has been involved in using Linux to develop websites. His speaker bio at ApacheCon 2001 describes him as having developed a number of websites using mod_perl. He has contributed a little to the apache-modules mailing list, with a total of 20 messages the list over a three year period between 1999 and 2001.

However, his name doesn't seem to appear in either the apache httpd or mod-perl credits file, and I can't dig up any evidence of him having participated in any other mailing list. He's never posted to the kernel mailing list, the perl mailing lists (on the basis that somebody using mod-perl might also be interested in Perl more generally), or anything much else.

I don't know what the guy was up to at IBM, but to describe him as a technical leader of the Linux community would appear to be a considerable exaggeration. Somebody who actively adopted Linux for business use, perhaps, but he's hardly Robinson Crusoe there.

It's funny, laugh!

[gillbates]

From the article:

Linux at some point could be good enough to run home PCs.

Yes, but he forgets that Linux could be ready for the home PC as early as 1998. What will Microsoft do then?

No, we're not just a little biased, are we? I've been running RedHat on my home machine since 1998. I've had non-computer-genius friends and family running Linux on their desktops since 1999. If this guy had a brain, he'd be dangerous...

Can Linux really handle crucial areas such as security and e-mail? The Microsoft people are ready with answers...

And those answers would be... "install this patch and reboot..."? Can Linux handle email and security? I mean, really?! Gosh, I just don't know... Of course, to Microsofties, one Linux hole per year makes the OS insecure, but 100 security vulnerabilities a month make Windows "The choice for reliability throughout the enterprise..." As if MS even understood the term "Enterprise computing".

"I just want the decision to be based on facts, not religion," says Taylor. "People are saying, 'It's not Microsoft, so it must be great.'

No, actually, you don't want a decision ... based on facts... - because it wouldn't be favorably to Microsoft. People are looking to leave Microsoft for Linux because of the facts, not in spite of them:

• They want an OS that Just Works(TM) for years on end.
• They don't want to be forced into draconian EULAs.
• They don't want to pay for the same software twice, or in some cases, three times.
• They need something that runs, securely, out of the box. They don't have time to test dozens of "critical security patches", or the risk of applying them to a production server in a mission critical environment.
• They want the ability to simply remove software they don't need, especially when said software has more security holes than swiss cheese.
• They don't want to worry about viruses.

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.

I turn off my machine with programs still running all the time - it's called FreeDOS. But yes, you are creating things - more security vulnerabilities. Why on earth would a home user want to power off their machine from a remote location? What - in your hurry to get out the door you forgot to shut down the computer, and at work you now have the sudden urge to turn it off?

Tell us what Linux does that we can't do. Don't tell us you're deploying Linux just because you can."

Linux can be installed without any risk of violating licensing provisions and incurring unseen financial liability on my employer. But also, the number one reason why I deploy Linux:

• Microsoft doesn't understand Enterprise Computing.

I could go on for hours on this, but I'll spare you. Suffice to say, Microsoft can't build a secure or stable Windows because they lack the mindset to do so.

Amusing!

[polyp2000]

Just as Microsoft has gone through a wrenching transformation from a combative bully to a mature corporate citizen --

You have got to love MSNBC's wording !

Nick ...

Re:Microsoft Is Aiming At The Wrong Target

[The Conductor]

The problem is: Linux isn't their enemy

The situation uncannily reminds me of Apple in the early 90's. They were so fixated on competing with IBM that they never saw the real enemy was Microsoft.

The way things are going, MS could end up like the GE small appliance business. When Jack Welch was asked why he was selling the business even though GE toasters & irons had dominant market share, and thereby seeming to violate his rules of when to buy/sell a business, he answered that market dominance isn't worth anything if you don't get control. The business didn't have any ability to introduce new, more featureful products at higher margins; they were stuck competing on price like everyone else. In a like fashion Microsoft could end up maintaining dominant marketshare, but with Wine facilitating migration from their OS and open-source solutions running on top of their OS, they may wind up unable drive sales of any new profitable producs.