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

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

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.

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....