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

[savagedome]

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.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[unother]

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...

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[Chuck Bucket]

• 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$#

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[fitten]

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).

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't underestimate the power of stupidity

You misspelled money .

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[dave420]

You're not actually showing why he's wrong, just screaming that he used to be in the linux camp and is now touting MS. It's hardly a good debating tactic (unless you're a republican :-P).

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 ;)

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[flewp]

And a genius would know how to spell ;)

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[Zackbass]

A fat paycheck for talking about how bad Linux is?

Hmmm, lemme think about this...professional integrity or fat paycheck.

Sign me up! It's not hard to see how he came to this conclusion.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[dbIII]

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:

Simple - he's been in sales for some time, and he's pushing a different product with this sales project.

You can't trust the surveys.

Since a video shown to a courtroom by Microsoft had been tampered with, why should we trust their surveys? They hold their customers and the legal system of the country where they are based in contempt.

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

[garcia]

I think the more appropriate statement would have been: Don't underestimate the power of greed, my friend.

Money talks.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[k98sven]

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.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[NanoGator]

"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"."

That campaign wouldn't work if there wasn't a grain of truth to it. You're only kidding yourself if you think things like Sendmail are intuitive to set up without needing to hit the web rather often to figure out the right commands to poke in. In the case of Sendmail, for example, it's a right pain in the ass compared to Exchange to get running.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

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.

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.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[danheskett]

It is doing all it can to portray Linux as not a real operating system, but the hobby of bunch of loony hippies.
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 .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?

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

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[Chuck Bucket]

Ah, my mistake, I was confusing the 'new' windows topic icon (which looks stupid) with the Bill/Borg one. That one is still around, which is a good thing for all of us.

CBV#$#@

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[Anonymous Coward]

Try NIS.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[NanoGator]

"You failed to read my comments closely. I expect a company to hire qualified Linux professionals, not the first monkey that walks through the door... There is no truth to the campaign, period."

You just pointed out the 'truth' of it. (Note: Grain here, grain.) Don't be so quick to deny what I'm saying. There actually is value in making something easy to set up and get running.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[ViolentGreen]

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

Well companies already have lots of people who know how to do things the windows way. Why hire other people to do things differently when you can do things the same way with the staff you have?

As for there being no truth to the campaign, you appear to be living in a fantasy where the linux world is truly as usable as the windows world.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[Kesha]

Have you learned nothing from Dogbert? People are exactly this easily manipulated.

Paul.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[RLiegh]

I disagree. This is an area where MS has full right to complain, and their complaint is valid. I think that MS appealing to the court of public opinion is a great oppertunity for OSS to correct the mistakes of its' core UNIX paradigm. The challenge for developers is to resist the temptation to cover their ears and shout "UNIX IS USER-FRIENDLY IT'S JUST PICKY WHO ITS' FRIENDS ARE" and instead publicly acknowlege its' (sendmail) shortcomings and show tangible results in addressing them.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[LibrePensador]

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.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever, idiot! You have a brain, use it or lose it.

I have been running postfix for one of the big movie studios and it has been running non-stop for close to three years with the only down-time being a couple of 30 second reboots for kernel upgrades every so many months.

System administration is to be done by professionals. How hard is that for you to understand?

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[Progman3K]

Speaking from experience

I switched from Windows to Linux 9 months ago, and yes, it has been harder to set up, configure and all that. OK, I built it from source, so that's par from the course. I know there are distros that are as easy to set up as Windows, so that argument is worthless.

The real point is that in every way I can measure, Linux has shown itself to be more reliable, faster and just a lot more intelligently built than Windows.

Will I ever go back?

I doubt it. I KNOW for a fact that on the SAME hardware, Linux runs circles around Windows.

And with Windows, I'm a powerless grunt, with no say as to the way ANYTHING is. On Linux, if I really care enough, I can do ANYTHING I want.

Microsoft CAN'T give you freedom, they can only try to rob you of it.

I'm SO not interested in Windows anymore.

"Pssst, kid, want a pirated version of this-or-that Microsoft product?"

I have to roll my eyes and pause to wonder why I would ever use crapware like Windows again.

"Nope, not interested"

I don't even read articles referring to Microsoft anymore (excluding this one), as I now consider them essentially irrelevant and I have no time to waste on their dog & pony show.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[LibrePensador]

Yeap, Linux is so hard to use and deploy that that is why all the major web hosting providers use it.

Has it occured to you that ignorance and difficulty are two entirely separate things?

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[maxwell demon]

Actually, if stupidity and money get together, you get the ultimate power.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[v2]

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.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[FauxPasIII]

> 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!

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[Progman3K]

>There actually is value in making something easy to set up and get running.

If that is your grain of truth, then consider this:

ANYONE can decide to write a setup program for Sendmail. Full availability of the source makes that possible.

Let's say you want to set up a Microsoft application. If the setup program is buggy or doesn't properly handle your requirements, tough luck. You get to be ignored when you ask Microsoft to fix it because you're not a "big" enough client.

What are your options?
You don't have any because Microsoft decided not to give you any.

So if the state of the setup tools is the cornerstone of your argument, I can only say - watch the future; Microsoft will progressively restrict what and where you can install, leaving you and your requirements in the cold as Linux continues to grow and embrace EVERY computing platform and possibility on the globe.

It's already over, but the Microsoft-zombie will fight on until someone proverbially shoots it in the head.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[Project2501a]

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.

Hm. My (wild) guess is that if the SCO accusations where real, Microsoft would have bought out SCO. I'm even willing to bet that there was such a clause in the contract SCO && MS singed when SCO recieved all that money from MS.

I don't mean to be a troll or flamebait, but the fact that Ballmer has been known to dance around on a stage like a monkey, does not negate the fact he's a smart guy and he's got other smart guys around him, who keep thinking up ways to debunk non-ms products.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[killjoe]

"Why hire other people to do things differently when you can do things the same way with the staff you have?"

Because you are going to have to train those guys for the next version of windows anyway. When longhorn comes out your entire staff will need to be retrained. Why not take that money and time and train them on linux?

Or maybe you can replace them with unix sysadmins as they quit or get fired. Next time your network gets hacked or viruses fire the sysadmin and replace him with a unix sysadmin.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[Xabraxas]

Why hire other people to do things differently when you can do things the same way with the staff you have?

That's not what happened and that is rarely what ever happens. Small companies don't have their own staff. They hire someone to do it for them. If they hire a MS shop to do a Linux job then that is their own stupidity. It has nothing to do with Linux.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, it's yet another post by the I'm-not-an-MS-shill-but-a-disinterested-bystander. I like the way that you subtly weave the exact same FUD that MS is spewing into your post as if it were objective facts.

It really does seem to work--you're currently at +5. Congratulations!

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[EvilNight]

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.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[value_added]

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.

Err ... at best $1000 might get you a MSDN subscription off eBay that would provide you with developer versions of these packages.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[mindriot]

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.

And MSNBC isn't any better (surprise). Quoting the article:

open-source programming, so called because anyone can examine and make changes to the underlying source code. (The guts of Microsoft's software, by contrast, have long been closely guarded.)

To any not-so-technically inclined reader, this indicates that anyone could tamper with the source code and thereby change everyone's software... open source is dangerous because anyone might change the code, instantly making all the offical packages of that software useless. Yes, I do think that to a non-hacker reading this it helps to point out that anyone can change the software, yet the original software as provided on the project webpage can be trusted to still work.

But then again, I didn't really expect MSNBC to go out of their way to carefully explain what Open Source or Free software actually mean and how it affects the software user.

By the way, my personal opinion is, I don't care what they want to do to Linux/OSS/Free software. The point in Free software is that it's Free. It's completely impossible to do anything against it unless you manage to brainwash each and every hacker to make them stop coding because they want to. MS would have to pay big lumps of money to, say, close down Free software related organizations and companies to actually hinder Free software development. An I doubt that'll happen. Now, for people/companies using Linux etc. just for business reasons, it might work given they exercize enough power to hinder Free software projects and actually churn out a better product for a good price - but for me, personally, and many others there's nothing they can do to stop the growth of the Free software movement. I use Free software because it's free and it works for me, and no one can do anything against it - except developing even better Free software, or maybe gaining power over the whole world by means of a totalitarian dictatorship which forbids free speech and expression as well as free coding...

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[danheskett]

I agree! I am just saying.. there is no default.. you can NIS/NIS+, LDAP, etc etc. Add on top of that alot of web-based apps used their own database and require hacking to get authenticated against anything else, and you start to get the picture.

Do not get me wrong. I run my own Linux system compiled from source (and no, I am talking about Gentoo).. but as a consultant, I'd almost always rather setup a Windows based network. MS can make good hay from the fact that by default things tend to work more than on a "stock" Linux system. The flexibility that you and I love is a selling point for us, but a weapon MS can use against us.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[Xabraxas]

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".

There is no way that Microsoft gives you 90% the flexibility that Linux does. They don't even give you half the flexibility. Where is support for multiple architectures, source code availablity, and multiple competing applications? As for complexity, Linux has a bad rap for no good reason. Microsoft doesn't come close to being even half as complex.

If that really is Microsoft's point of view then they are in for a big surprise when people learn how false those statements are.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[Theatetus]

Wow, you think somebody would have come up with a solution for this by now...

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[callipygian-showsyst]

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.

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...

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[LibrePensador]

Thanks for bringing this out in the open, which is precisely what's going on. Most people here are under the illusion that these shops have full-time admins in house.

They hired the wrong people and got the wrong results.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[oliverthered]

So your saying that your not tied to a system, and that's the problem.

Ahh.. Now I see where Microsoft is comming from, they want eveyone to buy redhat enterprise.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[mcrbids]

You're only kidding yourself if you think things like Sendmail are intuitive to set up without needing to hit the web rather often to figure out the right commands to poke in. In the case of Sendmail, for example, it's a right pain in the ass compared to Exchange to get running.

In this case, I'd agree. But, here's the real kicker... how much of a pain is it to KEEP it running?

In the case of sendmail, I've seen installations with medium volume (>200,000 messages per day) run largely unattended for years. Maybe, 1 or 2 relatively minor incidents per year.

Backups are easy, and self-referential. AFAIK, Windows file locking prevents an Exchange system from being properly backed up without shutting down Exchange during the backup process)

So, it takes another day or so to set up. Then you sleep very soundly thereafter, with uptimes frequently exceeding 200 days, and that only broken by applying planned patches.

How is this NOT a winning proposition?

It all comes down to this statement: "You know what you like, and you like what you know".

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[jimicus]

the Microsoft-zombie will fight on until someone proverbially shoots it in the head

Don't you have to bury zombies at a crossroads with a stake through their hearts?

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[OrangeTide]

Maybe he's an idiot savant?

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[danheskett]

Nope. Wrong.

Check it out.

MS SBS 2003 has all that stuff. A starter kit retails at $599, and I can get them often at around $400. This is for full, retail legal sealed software.

MS's pricing might surprise/scare the Linux people out there. If you spend even 3-4 extra hours configuring that Linux server over the Windows server (when I quote system specs for a new server/small business network the Linux and Windows system come in at almost identical (within $100) price ranges. Setting up SBS 2003 is such a smooth process that you easily save 3-4 hours compared against a typical Linux system - and at $90 an hour..

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[Stinking Pig]

You'd be surprised. I work on the vendor side, have for most of the last ten years. I've spoken with thousands of customers, demoing products, running pilots, and troubleshooting failures. I'd say that about 30% of the American corporate IT world ranges from acceptably to highly capable, 20% is hopelessly incapable of buttoning their clothes, and the 50% in between follows the trade rags more or less as gospel. The 50% don't have staff or time or competence to truly evaluate products, so they trust Ziff Davis as Moses and buy pretty much whatever it says.

By the way, if you recognize and remember who I am, you're clearly in the 30% :)

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[danheskett]

If that really is Microsoft's point of view then they are in for a big surprise when people learn how false those statements are.
You have to look at it from the perspective of what actual people who use are non-geeks who use the software think. What tangible benefit does having a Unix server vs a Windows server provide?

Before you go spouting off on issues like stability or trojans or whatever, put yourself in my cleints shoes. I know exactly what I am doing. My client networks don't have virus problems. They don't have spyware problems. They don't get spam ladden e-mail's. I have about the same number of Linux vs. Windows businesses. I am not bragging, but I do a nice job on the IT end.

So tell me then, when in the hands of a competent administrator, what the tangible business reasons to go with Linux vs. SBS2003 in your typical environment?

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[OrangeTide]

Wait wouldn't that mean he switched the other way around?

Oh. You didn't say "modern" you said modern. I thought you were joking. (I think MS is joking with visual studio, I'm just waiting for the punchline to that big joke).

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[Hooya]

First off, there is no such thing

sorry for making it a little personal, but you must be on some really good crack.

i have a single sign on. from VPN to dial-up to email to smb shares, to domain logins, to web mail/regular-mail. even our in-house app is capable of using the feature. (we decided not to use it for that one thing because of some business logic.) *and* it's all redundent. except of course the file server. walk into the server room and pull the plug on any server and no one is gonna notice except the monitoring devices. and guess what? it's all on GNU/Linux.

it might be educational for you to read up on PAM/LDAP/SAMBA/SASL-Auth/Raduis before spreading the FUD.

granted it's not pointy-and-clicky but i like it the way it is -- configurable to the point where i can get it to work just the way I want it. and you would be right if you said it is hard to setup. but it's also easy as all hell to mantain. i haven't looked at it in about 3 years (going on 4)!

the only reason most things have there own authentication scheme (with really good support for a 'single-sign-on') is that there are times when you want to have boxes with, say, email accounts but no other type of account. ISPs make use of that (ISP admins, chime in here..).

so quit smoking the cool-aid. drink it at least.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[danheskett]

Ahh yes.. very funny.. now let me ask you this:

Which webmail/outlook replacement packages support those authentication packages? Mail server packages? FTP daemons?

It's not all fun and games. What distros set those up automatically as either a client or a server?

How much extra time does it take to get that configured on the server side? On each client side?

Really, honestly, tell me. Give me your best estimates and information.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[mpe]

Well companies already have lots of people who know how to do things the windows way.

What exactly is the "Windows way"? Considering that Microsoft likes to change all sorts of things about the way it works every time they come up with a new version.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[mvpll]

Oh yeah, Exchange is a snap.

Forwarding mail for a "virtual user" to an external address in Sendmail:
add 1 line to /etc/mail/virtusertable

in Exchange 2000/3:
Go to Active Directory Users and Computers,
Create User, give them a password and disk space they will never use *clickety* *click* *click*
Create Contact with forwarding address *clickety* *click* *click*
Go back to newly created user, go to the Exchange General tab (not the Exchange Tasks tab) and modify the mail setting *clickety* *click* *click*
Don't confuse (or transpose) person, user, alias, object, contact, entity and mail identity whilst reading Microsoft's own documentation on how to do this. *curse* *swear* *curse*

Of course, neither of the above methods is intuitive either.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[poot_rootbeer]

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!

OF COURSE it's easy once you find out about the obscure and mysterious utilities!

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[danheskett]

it might be educational for you to read up on PAM/LDAP/SAMBA/SASL-Auth/Raduis before spreading the FUD.
I know about all this. I am specifically mentioned it, if you re-read my post. I am not saying it's not impossible. I am not sayings its very hard.

What I AM SAYING is that for geeks like you the flexibility is a plus. For Microsoft clients, its a negative.

I have about the same number of Linux using clients as Windows using clients. It's within a few either way. I am good sys-admin. These people pay me to help them maintain their systems, and setup their systems. I do it all basically for them. And I can tell you this: I quote the same price for setting up a new Windows network as a new Linux network. That's the bottom line. Even paying MS $1k or so on average, the difference in setup time equals out. And the quality over the long-run equals out. My users dont have the typical problesm that Windows users have - because they have a good admin.

Explain to me then - given that the costs are the same upfront for the users - that they should buy a Linux based system over a Windows based system.

I know all about PAM/LDAP/SAMBA and even NIS. But my point remains that the flexibility you love is complexity that most others try to avoid, and are willing to pay to avoid.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[Xabraxas]

So tell me then, when in the hands of a competent administrator, what the tangible business reasons to go with Linux vs. SBS2003 in your typical environment?

Licensing fees, multiple architecture support, diversity of applications, and so on and so forth. Money is a big issue with small companies and licensing fees can be a huge problem. I have a friend who just opened up his own business and he's spent thousands of dollars already on licensing. Support for different architectures can be important if you have different machines but want a homogenous environment. Applications make the biggest difference though. There are not as many choices of major applications for Windows. On Linux I have a choice of several highly polished applications, where in Windows, many times there is only one, Microsoft's offering. If Microsoft doesn't offer what I need then I'm out of luck.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[danheskett]

No, I am saying that there is virtually no congruency between Linux distros, and that frankly, you can get just as easily locked into a Linux distro as another system. The flexibility is nice, but sometimes, mostly on the part of businesses (aka, a big chunk of MS's business) this is not what they want.

I setup a Linux based network late 1998. It's not exactly easy to upgrade that to a more modern system. I want to migrate that to a Linux system without a big hassle. What do you recommend upgrading RedHat 5.1 to?

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[Grayputer]

ANYONE can decide to write a setup program for Sendmail. Full availability of the source makes that possible.

My grandmother can't, my mother can't, and most 10 year olds can't (OK they can DECIDE, but they're usually not so stupid as to reach that far beyond their abilities). There IS a target market for "point, click, and shoot foot", as long as the damage to the foot is minimal. IMO, linux is not there YET, it gets better every day, but not there yet. The main reason is the lack of bundled apps that crowd needs/wants. Yes, open source alternatives exist for some of them, more each month. But it is not always an "easy to find, easy to install" process for that crowd.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[NDPTAL85]

The entire selling point of Windows is that its easier to use than the other guy's. If you have to "properly" train someone to use an alternative, then the alternative becomes less attractive.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[Etyenne]

What do you recommend upgrading RedHat 5.1 to?

RHEL if you have the dough, White Box Linux otherwise. Interestingly enough, this is what I am currently working on for a client (migrating a RH 5.2 box to WBL).

I am not sure if you imply that this is a Linux-specific problem, but if you do you are wrong. What would you recommend upgrading NT 3.51 to ? Will the upgrade to Win2k3 be entirely seemless and a walk in the park ?

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[danheskett]

Licensing fees
When someone calls me and wants a new system, I spec out hardware, software, and professional services. As I said before, the cost I quote for a Linux-based (Mandrake) vs Small Business Server 2003 is the same assuming a few small things (similiar hardware on the server, under 25 users, etc). Unless we are talking about more than 25 users (very small portion of my client base), the costs are practically the same.

multiple architecture support
But what does this provide for a benefit? I am going to go out and buy a Mac for a server? Business people are price conscious. The bottom line is that for the dollar, x86 gives you the most popular and most often right mix of quality, performance, and affordability. Specifcially, it means I can put together a server that will last 5-years in my typical client environment that will cost less than $1000 for hardware.

diversity of applications
This most often works against Linux. Most business use one or two vertical apps that most often available only for Windows. Having all the great other software is great but not if you can't get the one or two apps you need.

where in Windows, many times there is only one, Microsoft's offering. If Microsoft doesn't offer what I need then I'm out of luck.
Wow. Really? Can you give me three examples of this?

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[Etyenne]

If you consider nsswitch.conf and PAM to be "obscure and mysterious utilities", you are a pretty poor Linux admin. Sorry for the ad-hom, but you can't blame a system for your own ignorance. I would not know where to start if I had to make a Windows network application authenticate against an AD; does that make the process "obscure and mysterious" ?

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[Hooya]

Explain to me then - given that the costs are the same upfront for the users - that they should buy a Linux based system over a Windows based system

sorry i was a little aggrivated when i read your last post. i understand what you mean. but you just answered you own question. consider this:

because they have a good admin

we don't have an admin. i'm a programmer. i'm not even a sys-admin (and i was able to set this all up -- that alone should tell you if it's hard or easy to do). i spent the time once when we were setting it all up. now i don't even have to look at it. we have no admin (we're a small shop with about 40 workstations). and the setup just works. drives fail and we replace 'em (RAID comes handy). apart from the usual apt-getting there is no admin-ing to do. so given that maintainence cost is almost $0, i would make the decisions the same way all over again. but as far as what people should run, i would say, go with what tickles your ticklables. there simply isn't one shoe that fits all. but assuming that setting up xyz is impossible because you couldn't do it is just plain FUD. i realize the same goes the other way too but for me, what i did makes sense. as i'm sure what you did makes sense for you. it would be like me saying you can't compile something easily in windows because i can't get autoconf/automake to work in windows without a hassle (those are the tools of my choice and translating what i know from one platform to another one doesn't make much sense now does it?) different strokes for different folks. plain and simple.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[Entropius]

In my experience the windows way involves lots of the following:

--Rebooting, because you changed something
--Rebooting, because the system hung
--Putzing around in regedit trying to find the key you want in amongst the soup.
--Wishing for documentation. Where are my man pages? Windows Help doesn't count--I don't want to click on eight widgets to find out something.
--Trying to remember if a particular control is under "Settings", or "Advanced", or "Settings" and then "Advanced", or "Configure" and then "Settings"...
--Deleting shit/icons installed with the system that you don't want: Internet Explorer, MSN Explorer, Outlook, and god-only-knows what else. And every time you update something, the IE icons come back in four places!

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[danheskett]

I am working on the same problem, and it's not exactly a walk in the part. It's a big frigging deal actually. Lots and lots of stuff isn't going well. I need to make the switch happen seemlessly in less than 4 hours. I havent been able to get it go smoothly in my test runs yet.

What would you recommend upgrading NT 3.51 to
That version of Windows was released in 1994. That was the same year that the Linux kernel 1.0 was released.

However, I've actually upgraded an NT 3.5 system to Windows 2000, and it went very smoothly. Active Directory properly migrated every user exactly right, passwords, e-mail, the whole package. Surpriningly smooth.

In early 1999 I was installing SBS 4.5.1. By late 1999 I was install Windows 2000/SBS2000. The upgrade to SBS2000 takes less than 2 hours. The upgrade to SBS2003 takes even less time.

But this is another perfect example of somkething Linux users thing is good, but Microsoft can use as a selling point. Linux is evolving rapaidly. Look at its daily progress. But look at the relative difficulty of our projects. Microsoft has platform stability. The systems I am installing today are designed to run for 5 years. What migration path will I have for White Box Linux in five years?

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[DMadCat]

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.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[Bill_Mische]

I agree with you. The only problem with Small Business Server is client access licences.

Basically your starter kit only allows you to connect 5 people. If you wnat to connect more you need to buy CALs in batches of 5 at (in the UK) £399/time. It can drive the price up very quickly. Especially if you've 11 staff. Sore point.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[WhiteDeath]

So?? install XMail and configure it through it's web interface.....

Tools for the job... makes all the difference....

Yes, someone who knows how can probably do wonders with sendmail, but sendmail config files are not something I want to get to know (I have better things to do) - so I pick a tool that does it for me.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[pnutjam]

Single sign-on is one of the major components currenlty missing from Linux.

However, this is being addressed by several companies. One I know of and have experience with is ClarkConnect. Their version 3.0 is supposed to support single sign-on for several if not all of it's components. They have a great product that is pretty much a drop in solution for small business running an NT server.

SUSE Enterprise version 9 appears to be similar. I'm not sure if they have implemented single sign-on, yet. but I'm sure they're working on it. It really shouldn't take them long to implement something similar to their current windows Novell authentication.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[value_added]

Interesting. Thanks for pointing that out. Suprisingly inexpensive, at least at first glance, but still the package the OP was referring to would be more akin to the "premium" edition (it's always the "premium" isn't it?) which starts at $1499, and that's with 5 CALs only. I imagine you're correct about the ease of setup, but I'll leave it to someone else to make the "false economy" argument.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[danheskett]

You are getting ripped off for 5 CALS. I pay on average about USD $40 for them. USD $200 for 5 is average for me. Sometimes more, sometimes less. Wonder why they are so expensive out there across the ocean. You are paying nearly USD $100 for each one.. seems wrong...

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[thuh Freak]

money doesn't talk; it swears.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[dave420]

So, to use Linux, they do need to hire more expensive staff? So, according to you, isn't some of that FUD actually true?

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[danheskett]

The premimum package isn't really needed in most cases. But even still, the cost of my labor installing the Linux equivalents will almost always outweigh the initial licensing costs.

FYI. I have never paid retail for the premimum package. Last time I had to buy a copy for a client i think I paid about $850 for it.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[Theatetus]

Which webmail/outlook replacement packages support those authentication packages?

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.

Mail server packages?

Courier, cyrus, even pop3d. Again, the application doesn't really even need to know it's on NIS.

FTP daemons?

All of them. And anyways don't use FTP; use scp.

t's not all fun and games. What distros set those up automatically as either a client or a server?

Setting up NIS / yp is part of the standard install for SuSE and RedHat.

How much extra time does it take to get that configured on the server side? On each client side?

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.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[_Sprocket_]

Wait a minute. Did you just take a discussion about Exchange vs. Sendmail configuration / setup and apply the Grandmother Argument? You're telling me you expect grandmothers, mothers, and simular stereotypical computer neophytes to be setting up their own email server infrastructure? Heck - my mother has a hard time distinguishing between IM and email.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[LibrePensador]

"It might surprise you to learn that the fact that the free OSes are easy to set up as web servers does not in fact say anything at all about their capabilities on the desktop or shop floor."

Look, an anonymous troll with a condescending attitude that is going to tell us how things are done in the real world. And it isn't true that they need to provide a small amout of functionality anymore. Web hosting is a fairly cut-throat business these days. You have to make it easy for your customers to run LAMP applications, which implies databases, email servers, and more.

Many of the web hosting companies use cpanel or similar software that allows them to deploy servers in seconds and, better yet, allows clients who know nothing about servers to use them productively. But, yeah, Linux is hard to use, does not work.

When do you people give up? How much evidence do you need?

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[RealAlaskan]

I can't tell you how many linux nuts are uninformed about Windows, telling false me things like you can't centralize administration ...

I can't do that with Windows. I don't do system administration, and so I'm not supposed to be able to. But I can tell you that none of the Windows shops where I've worked have been able to do that. I'm sure that you can do it, since you use it as an example, but the Windows admins I have known, including at least one competent one, can't or won't.

Compare to a "typical Linux" system. First off, there is no such thing. There isn't a typical Linux server.

Try Solaris, or one of the BSDs, or AIX, or Debian. They're all Unixes, they're all different, but each of them puts stuff where it belongs on that system. Talking about a ``typical linux system'' is like talking about a ``typical car''. Why, on a typical car, you don't even know which end the engine is on! But if you're talking about an early VW, you know it's in the back.

... implementing single-sign on on a Linux-based system.

On Unix systems, this is usually done via Xterms. There is no need for a single sign-on to multiple computers, because there is no need for multiple computers. Most things that Windows fanatics claim that the Unixes can't do well are foolish workarounds that Windows forces on them. That is, Unixes don't do them well because they're unnecessary. It's like claiming that having two working legs is bad, because they get in the way when you're in your wheelchair.

You may have shell logins, but they do not correspond with e-mail usernames/passwords.

You say that as if it were a bad thing.

I'm not a sysadmin, but my home computers, and my mother's computer, all run Linux because that's easier than Windows for me to use and maintain.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[dave420]

PAM gets very fiddly to set up with some servers. That's the problem. There isn't a standard way to do it, and each piece of software (just take a look at samba 3 authenticating via an AD server) needs its own configurations significantly modified to use it. And some don't use it at all.

There just isn't the continuity you get on Windows. Again, it's not something that can't be changed, but denying it's a problem is just stupid.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[LibrePensador]

Jesus Christ, Slashdot is about to close its doors.

Somebody who gets it. And I totally agree . To be proficent with Microsoft's software and to follow best-practices also requires knowledge. To hear some people here tell it, it just seems like people are born knowing how to "properly" set up Exchange.

And I am all for doing what you are doing. The more technology under your belt, the better off you are.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[dave420]

1. Multiple architectures? Windows supports all the architectures I've ever wanted to run it on.

2. Source code availability? I've never wanted the code to something that didn't provide it.

3. Lots of open source software runs on Windows. How is that not competing?

Linux's complexity isn't an unjustly bad wrap. Seeing as you have to delve into the command prompt to configure most things (or wrap your mind around 200+ line config files), compared to the windows GUI configuration it's positively archaic. It's not a false statement in the slightest. However, every single one of your points is false (except 'Microsoft doesn't come close to being even half as complex' - exactly. it's nowhere near as complex as linux). Surprised?

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[LibrePensador]

No, they were hirinig consultants because Grimaldo does not have in-house techs. They hired the wrong consultants, I submit, on purpose.

This whole thing was staged and the fact is that Microsoft Argentina has now retracted some of the statements they made when the local press began to make inquiries

By the way, in Argentina, you pay about the same for a Linux or a Windows guy.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[DMadCat]

Are you saying that in that five years you won't upgrade your Windows software? Apply patches, upgrade hardware?

Perhaps it's not quite as trivial a thing to do with Linux though I've been running Slackware (for a home network with only a few logons) and I've not run into anything major while keeping my boxes current. To be fair I've only gone from kernel 2.2 to 2.6 on Slack 8.0 to 10.0, which isn't five years, but I really don't see an issue with keeping it up to date over the next three to five years.

As for upgrading Windows 3.51 to Windows 2000, I'll not ask what you were running on it that it went that smoothly. In my shop, we recently went from NT4 to 2000 and while it went fairly smoothly it did take an entire weekend to get everything pu and running and there were some stumbling blocks such as being without email for two days and some other little irritations (try having to go back through Active Directory and manually re-enter user specific information so that it shows up in the Global Address List for over 400 users sometime). Not bad, but not a lot of fun.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[Trelane]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if it's even keel between MSFT and Linux for the SBE Win2k3 setup due to extra install fees from you for Linux (no stock image or config files?! Meh, wouldn't be good for business, I guess.), wouldn't the license savings from using linux add up to over $200/5 client licensed?

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[civilizedINTENSITY]

"That campaign wouldn't work if there wasn't a grain of truth to it."

BEHOLD! The Power of FUD!!!

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[danheskett]

Windows network application authenticate against an AD; does that make the process "obscure and mysterious" ?
That's an interesting point, because from a development stand point, you don't have to do anything to make a Windows application authenticate against an AD domain. There is nothing to do. You can check a few read-only system variables and get the information you may need. If you want to do more advanced things, like lookup other information about other users or services, there is a library/toolkit you'd want to look into.

As far as from a systems administration point of view, you don't have to do anything to setup a 3rd party program to authenticate against AD (assuming it doesnt go the lame route of its user/database, in which case, you are in the same place as on a Linux system: start hacking). The default of apps is to use AD or the internal user database (on standalone machines) to authenticate. That's not the default in Linux.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[TCaptain]

" MS would have to pay big lumps of money to, say, close down Free software related organizations and companies to actually hinder Free software development."

Depends what you mean by "pay big lumps of money", the way I see it, Microsoft could easily hamper Free software development by having their legal department rabidly going after the smaller projects on (likely spurious) charges such as patent infringement and the like...fact is that most projects that have a dozen programmers working part time do not have the money or time to even FIGHT them in court (even knowing the case is bull).

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[Etyenne]

I am working on the same problem, and it's not exactly a walk in the part. It's a big frigging deal actually. Lots and lots of stuff isn't going well.

What is so hard ? Copying users and groups ? Just copy /etc/passwd, group, shadow and gshadow (if your system files are from the pre-shadow era, migration tools exist). Preserving permission on files ? Mount old dir via NFS on the new box, and just copy them. Email ? Copy /var/spool/mail to your new box. What else ? Biggest problem I envision is how I will migrate the old printcap to a new CUPS-based machine. Hardly an insoluble problem.

That version of Windows was released in 1994. That was the same year that the Linux kernel 1.0 was released.

Maybe NT 4 existed when RH 5.1 was out, but it must have been pretty early in it's lifecycle.

However, I've actually upgraded an NT 3.5 system to Windows 2000, and it went very smoothly. Active Directory properly migrated every user exactly right, passwords, e-mail, the whole package. Surpriningly smooth.

Effectively, the easy part of migrating is being covered. Users, password and email is easy to migrate in Linux too, see above. How about the hard part, like whatever application you where running on this server beside the cookie-cutter file and print service ?

Microsoft has platform stability. The systems I am installing today are designed to run for 5 years. What migration path will I have for White Box Linux in five years?

This is the only sensible argument you put forth so far. But there still are a few caveat. Do you have a written guarantee that MS will have a migration path for whatever Windows-du-jour you are installing now ? If not, why do you display so much faith ?

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[I_redwolf]

What are you talking about there are many single authentication method systems that you can employ for Linux/*nix.

1. NIS
2. Kerebos and Ldap
3. A bunch of 3rd party commercial vendors implementations of the above (Vintela, Cisco etc etc etc)

You setup a single authentication server and that's it. Single signon..

Again, another FUD post by you. Moderators take note.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[Xabraxas]

1. Multiple architectures? Windows supports all the architectures I've ever wanted to run it on.

Good for you. You're not the only one in the world though.

2. Source code availability? I've never wanted the code to something that didn't provide it.

Again, your personal preferences are not necessarily representative of anyone else.

3. Lots of open source software runs on Windows. How is that not competing?

A lot does not.

Linux's complexity isn't an unjustly bad wrap. Seeing as you have to delve into the command prompt to configure most things (or wrap your mind around 200+ line config files), compared to the windows GUI configuration it's positively archaic.

Seriously have you ever used Linux? Do you really think that is the norm? If so you are sadly mistaken.

It's not a false statement in the slightest.

Yes it is, you just don't know it.

However, every single one of your points is false (except 'Microsoft doesn't come close to being even half as complex' - exactly. it's nowhere near as complex as linux). Surprised?

I would have to say every one of your arguments is totally invalid.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[Grayputer]

Actually I was taking exception to the 'anyone can do anything in Linux' mantra that is so often spouted. The grandmother argument seemed the obvious sarcastic approach to the 'problem'. Obviously if you know Linux and sendmail/postfix/qmail/... you are qualified to use it, if you know Exchange, you MIGHT be better using that. The 'you should do it in Linux, because anyone can do anything in Linux because they have the source' mantra is just blowing smoke up people's butts. Not everyone can do everything. Sometimes it is better/safer/more secure to use a tools you know (with limitations you know) that learn a new tool and screw it up.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[jav1231]

So when does Miguel de Icaza start?

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[civilizedINTENSITY]

There is no truth to the campaign as stated: "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.

Your remarks have nothing to do with claiming that "sendmail doesn't work". If you can find grains of truth in outright lies, you must already love the kool-aid.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[jav1231]

Uh...XP Server? And we'er nuts?

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[paragon400]

"Backups are easy, and self-referential. AFAIK, Windows file locking prevents an Exchange system from being properly backed up without shutting down Exchange during the backup process)" This is truely an interesting thread, but this statement is absolutely not true. With the installation of Exchange the backup API is "enhanced" to allow for online "Exchange Aware" backups that perform online backups that also check each database page for corruption before putting it to tape. With the backup API "enhanced" you can use the builtin Windows NTBackup to backup the database to a tape or file while online or use a 3rd party backup app that also uses this extended backup API. This has been how backups for Exchange have worked since the beginning, so I don't know where you got this information from. It is true that the patches that are of a critical nature that come out once a month mean some form of regular monthly downtime, but there are ways to minimize this impact.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[mindriot]

Quite true. That's why the Munich government has held their project... the patents. So there you go: if there's one thing software patents could possibly achieve, it's the destruction of Free software. Although I might want to call that censorship...

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[oliverthered]

I've been runnig gentoo for the past year (that's a migration every week or so)
and it takes as long as a compile and a diff ._cfg0abc abc usually followed by mv ._cfg0abc abc.

So far, next to no problems with enterprise style applications. A lot of the Pre-Alpha user style apps had some configuration problems, and getting everything over to alsa had a couple of hickups, but I stuck it out with an OSS/Alsa Mix for a while.

X has had a few glitches, but XOrg is starting to move towards the hot-plug world. ( I could have paid for SNAP and had no problems at all!).

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[groovemaneuver]

After having received several dozen infected email messages in my inbox this week, I cannot believe that anyone would casually suggest that any yahoo should be able to set up a mail server (sorry, I don't mean your mom or grandmom is a yahoo).

The damage is NOT minimal; look at the reports of worms, trojans, etc., all spread by poorly configured mail servers.

One of Microsoft's biggest security weaknesses (in my opinion) is the fact that they market their wares as being easy enough for a yahoo to set up and run.

I don't know how anyone could feel that their network infrastructure is safe if their IT staff gets nervous at the mention of text files and the command line, and god-forbid, actually knowing what they're doing.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[Knuckles]

There IS a target market for "point, click, and shoot foot", as long as the damage to the foot is minimal

Mail servers are a baaaad example to make your point. Somebody who sets up a mail server should know what he's doing, period

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[ratboy666]

So paint me a shade of confused. What is "single sign-on"?

How does it differ from NIS? Or RADIUS?

Just curious.

Ratboy.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[ThePilgrim]

Einstein was dyslexic and got realy crap grades in school.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[Knuckles]

My client networks don't have virus problems. They don't have spyware problems

Which must be just another way of saying "my client networks don't have users with internet access". I work at a big and rich company with intelligent staff and an ok IT department. One day we decided to run adaware onthe department PCs. Ha! No spyware, who are you kidding?

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[Knuckles]

Don't know, my nephew installed a driver for a force-feedback joystick I had bought him for birthday (XP Home). It then would not reboot. I said that I don't do Win support, mainly because I have no clue about Win whatsoever. A friend of my sis's who is a CS guy working for a very big Windows shop tried for 2 hours, then delivering the verdict: reinstall

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[danheskett]

It depends on the number of users. As long as we aren't talking about more than 25 users it's usually within $50 of each other.

Also, FYI, I have stock install scripts/install images for both platforms. But it doesn't take long to spend $1000 at $90 or $120 and hour (rates depend on the client, my rate for Windows is $90, $120 for Unix usually). If you spend just 1 hr upgrading a single package with a source build, you've spent a big part of the savings by going to Linux.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[FurryFeet]

How can this fellow's opinion turn on a dime

Oh, it turned on a lot more than a dime, I can assure you.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[JCCyC]

"There's no set architecture in Linux. All roads lead to madness,"

Shorter William Hilf:

"Monopoly goooooood. Choice baaaaaaad."

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[ratboy666]

SquirrelMail for webmail (serving). Evolution, (or other client of your choice). SquirrelMail uses IMAP.

As to Mail server? I use sendmail. It uses whatever authentication is available. FTP daemon? Same deal.

As to "distro" -- try Redhat 9 (no, not kidding -- its probably the best base for what you are aiming at here, maybe Fedora Core 2).

Server configuration time? Depends on how much you know. An hour, a week -- anyone's guess. There are GUI tools available. On the client? If set up properly, it's a non-issue.

It would be helpful to have a functional spec from you that I can work against (I don't want to raise the bar too high or leave parts unfinished).

But I'll start with a hypothetical. Simple SOHO LAN, 10 machines. Cable/DSL connection to the 'net.

Configure headless server, running DHCP, Web Proxy, BIND, NFS, NIS -- 3 hours to load OS, 1 hour to configure.

Second headless server, FTP, APACHE, SENDMAIL -- 1 hour to grab basic OS image. 1 hour to configure.

Client -- select applications (we assume OpenOffice.org, Mozilla, Evolution -- may be different). Load OS: 4 hours, (including NIS client configuration, proxy configuration). Duplication to 7 other machines: 7 hours.

Total setup time: 17 hours, or 3 working days.

*NOTES* No "ghost" style utility used, or available. Machines start *completely* blank (no OS). Hardware may differ, but each hard-drive has at least 10GB. Each machine has at least 128MB of memory, and ethernet.

Does this help?

Ratboy

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[Brandybuck]

unless you're a republican

Don't you mean "Democrat"? That's a good two thirds of their debating tactics.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[FauxPasIII]

> No, I am saying that there is virtually no congruency between Linux distros

Sure there is, it's just at a level below where you're looking for it. All linux distros these days have pam and nss.
(note: slackware didn't used to, but I think they do now too) They all have /sbin/init, even though the config structure
for it varies widely. The all run cron, and it behaves the same way on all of them. Sure, any of this _could_ be changed
on an individual system, but the same is true of Windows...

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[offpath3]

I thought ninjas were the Real Ultimate Power...

http://www.realultimatepower.net/

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[Xabraxas]

When someone calls me and wants a new system, I spec out hardware, software, and professional services. As I said before, the cost I quote for a Linux-based (Mandrake) vs Small Business Server 2003 is the same assuming a few small things (similiar hardware on the server, under 25 users, etc). Unless we are talking about more than 25 users (very small portion of my client base), the costs are practically the same.

You don't pay licensing fees for Linux, plain and simple. You pay for support but you can always get your support from somewhere else for cheaper. There is a competitive market for it.

But what does this provide for a benefit? I am going to go out and buy a Mac for a server?

Does it have to be a server? What about clients? What if you inherit heterogenious clients? This is not as simple as just pricing out a new setup in comparison with Linux. Not all companies have IT budgets that allow them to just throw down cash at will. Smally businesses can greatly benefit from Linux.

This most often works against Linux. Most business use one or two vertical apps that most often available only for Windows. Having all the great other software is great but not if you can't get the one or two apps you need.

So if Exchange doesn't suit your needs then I guess you can just choose Sendmail, Postfix, or Exim then. Right? No you can't.

Wow. Really? Can you give me three examples of this?

See above.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[paragon400]

mvpll, This is not accurate. To forward mail for a "virtual" user in an Exchange\AD setup all that is needed is the creation of a contact object. The contact will have the SMTP target address of the external destination (mymailbox@yahoo.com), but will also have an internal SMTP address (mycorpbox@my.corp.com). Sending mail to that "internal" SMTP address will actually reroute the message to the "external" SMTP address. Not as difficult as you illustrated. Only 3 *clicks* and its done.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[Trelane]

M'kay. So what would be your laundry list of things to create for Linux to make it more competitive?

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[HumanTorch]

Don't be so quick to deny what I'm saying. There actually is value in making something easy to set up and get running

There is more than a grain of truth in that statement, my friend. I would go so far as to say there is value in merely having the appearance of being easy to set up and get running. Why would you be motivated to hire a Linux professional when you've got your wife's sisters fiance who claims he can setup Exchange 'no problem'? Fact is, there are a lot more people out there who can setup Microsoft software precisely because it appears easier and less painful (particularily at first). As for you CLI commandos out there: get off your high horse!

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[LibrePensador]

Which webmail/outlook replacement packages support those authentication packages?

Egroupware supports MySQL, LDAP or Unix authentication and does groupware, email, project management.

FTP, can use whatever backend, but as somebody else said, use something a bit more secure.

Stop spreading FUD. This is not the Linux of 1995. This is 2004

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[mcrbids]

I've read in a number of places (no, I don't have links) that what I claimed was so.

Honestly, I'm glad it's not true - putting admins through that kind of pain would just be... vicious.

Although, having an "API" for backups I find curious. Here's the "API" for backups on Unix:

cp -a SOURCEFILES DESTINATION

or perhaps

tar -zcf DESTINATION SOURCEFILES

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[Jungle guy]

I live in Brazil and have not seen these adds in newspapers. Better check you sources.

But I have read in a computer-related website (I am not sure, but I think it was IDG) a frustrated Windows-to-Linux migration story of a small company. The story has simillar points with this one: as a Windows-only shop, they did not had Linux expertise inhouse and had to contract outside consultants. But latter the owner pulled back and returned to Windows claiming "Everybody knows how to operate a Windows server, but Linux experts are hard to find".

The whole story seemed like a big press release feed to the journalist by the Microsoft reseller that made the Linux-to-Windows migration or by Microsoft itself.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[DavidTC]

Develpoers have acknowlodged sendmail's shortcomings (And security flaws.)...that's why Postfix and Exim exist.

Hell, sendmail isn't even a Linux app, sendmail is a POS Unix application laying around since the begining of time. I have no idea how it ended up open source, but I wish it hadn't.

sendmail is crap. Everyone knows it. The single reason that it used to come with Linux servers was inertia. And some people have really stupid mail configurations that require some features. (Again, I invite people to tell me required features of sendmail that other, better designed servers don't have. No, milter isn't it, postfix can do real time mail filtering also.)

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[mouseyMousey]

As a consultant who compiles his own system from source, why don't you make a distro that works out of the box for your needs?

Surely it can't be that hard to make a distro that 'tends to work more' than an off the shelf one?

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[Grayputer]

No, anyone that sets up a mail gateway needs to know what he/she is doing. A departmental mail server that does not directly access mail from the outside world is not NECESSARILY a critical infrastructure resource/risk. (Note: I'm not recommending this, I don't run my network that way, I'm simply playing Satan's advocate here. Oh, and I've seen it before.)

Scenerio:

The organization has a mail gateway setup and run by people with a clue. Internally mail within the organization is routed to departmental mail servers used to shorten network paths for POP/exchange retrieval. All 'internal mail hosts' receive mail only from the official mail gateway and send all outbound mail through the official mail gateway (which scans/slices/dices/juliennes as it is run by the clued).

Advantages: Distribute mail admin to the departments that MAY be less than stellar in the clue department. Run the correct software as that department/subdivision requires (windows dev uses windows products, Unix departments use Unix based products) or has expertise in to maximize the clue factor. Reduce network paths for mail retrieval. Create buy-in at a lower corporate level than then 'corporate network gods/weenies'). Follow corporate culture that typically delegates to the departmental level.

Disadvantages: Possibility that internally generated 'attacks' can spread internally (soft chewy center security model issue). No single 'standard' mail 'server'. More complex environment.

It REALLY depends on your environment. Security is all about risk. Is the risk of my 'windoze admin' screwing up Linux more or less than my exposure from said admin properly configuring Exchange? (Note: risk is not only a virus getting through, it is also the risk of lost email, misrouted email, ability to correctly apply patches, downtime, whine factor, help desk cost, ...).

More importantly, security is all about risk in your particular corporate environment. If your corporate culture is departmental level control, then it is likely that departmental level mail servers are a possibility.

Allowing a departmental level mail server setup that is point, click, and potentially shoot foot MAY be acceptable IF you can minimize damage to the corporate foot at a different level (corporate mail gateway, desktop anti-virus, ...).

So IF you have a mixed bag of department skill levels, a corporate culture of departmental control and a need to be secure; don't rule anything out. Your cost structure may be minimized by allowing certain departments with less than stellar admins to run point and click and use that as leverage to lock down the corporate gateways. That combination with additional toys (desktop AV, EMAIL gateway AV, desktop installed 'spybot') deployed and managed by the clued, may provide a better cost/security ratio than force feeding clueless admins and staffing the help desk.

Sometimes you can't just fire the 'grandmother' running the departmental server you need to work with/around them. They don't know the apps, don't want to learn the apps, can't manage/install the apps, and like to whine about the apps in a Linux environment. Forcing them to do it your way is not always the correct choice, it creates political issues, increases cost, and does not necessarily increase security.

And yes I used the Grandmother/Desktop mantra on purpose. I'd hoped the admin set in their ways and the grandmother set in her ways symbolism would shine through without my being so non-PC as to have to point out that some admins (and instance on using some software) are less than stellar, I'll buy a bigger flashlight in the future. :)

Oh and as a side note, we can explore the Linux specific side of the coin: sendmail vs. postfix vs. qmail vs. ... OR we can agree that 'it depends on familiarity/environment/staff/culture' ;).

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[danheskett]

I am not sure.. it's not my job to find out what the marekt wants.. I know what I want:

1. Common install profiles against multiple distros. Meaning, some people get together and figure out what common things people want to do, and define them in a list. Each distro can use whatever packages they want to get the job done (no need to flame qmail/sendmail/postfix, etc).

2. Binaries. More and better binary package support. RPM isn't cutting it anymore. In the Windows world, you can distribute a product in a single self-installing executable for many versions of Windows. Most of the time it's 95/NT/ME/2K/XP "or newer". I like the idea MS and other has regarding meta installers. How about a nice standard service for Unix that performs installation and uninstallation of binaries? Get some people together and write a standard format. Each distro can choose which implementation of the installer to use. Make it work people. In the Windows world you can see each package installed, and install/change/uninstall them from a single location. In Linux, it's not there yet.

3. Easier configuration. Right now 99% of applications and services have proprietary config files. Not proprietary in the "closed" sense, but in the "different from each other one" sense. Let's get together and create a better way to configure applications. Maybe someone could whip-up some common XML configuration files and some standardized libraries for working with them.. is there any good reason why each editor, each shell, each browser, each media player, etc must have its own unique format for config files? It's own parameters? It's own custom way of doing something? In the Windows world dozens of applications use the Windows "Favorites" scheme. This works good. Samething with Mac. Why can't we do that with Linux? And NO I am not talking about one time converters, I am talking about interoperability.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[Hognoxious]

Quite. Especially as the previous sentence to the one containing "I don't think people are that stupid" mentioned "corporate audience".

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[beakburke]

Slackware uses NSS but not PAM (unless you add it your self or install dropline gnome). Pat still thinks PAM is flawed.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[HiThere]

That's vampires. For zombies you fill their mouths with salt and sew the lips shut. Then, I think (it's been awhile, but just to be safe...) you cut off their head and bury it separately.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[flewp]

Actually, Einstein did not recieve bad grades. He wasn't the best student (conflicts with teachers, etc), but he did not receive bad grades.

Also, it was a joke.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[paragon400]

If the Exchange database files were not active and checking for database corruption was not important, then Windows certainly does work more or less the same way:

xcopy /a source destination

or (my preference):

rar m -m5 destination source

Backing up active\online transactional databases is something of a different beast then normal files. You need to be able to get the database on tape in a consistant state while keeping them online, which for Exchange means being able to incorporate its transaction logs as part of the backup process. Just copying the online database files from one location to another would leave you with an inconsistant db, because a large portion of the transactions are not committed to the actual database files until the server has a low level of activity (or cleanly shut down), at which point it begins committing the transactions to disk.

Having an API allows for the database to be hooked into by a an application to spit that data to a file\external device and while doing it the app checks each database page for corruption before sending that page to tape and process the transaction logs, which in the end gives you a consistant database on tape. The API is required to also tell the app that uses it how to properly restore the database so that it is restored in a consistant state (database + transaction logs).

Just copying files is one thing, backup up databases without bringing them offline is another.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[WitfulThinking]

These are some really good ideas, and in my opinion are things that really need to be addressed as linux moves forward.

A unified method for installing packages like you mentioned would be absolutely great. It would be so much more convienient for programmers and users alike. It does however seem like a huge task considering how patriotic people can be towards their distro of choice.

Your idea about XML configuration files, if implemented, would be an absolute godsend for writing GUI configuration apps. In turn making staying away from the command line a possibility for all users under all distros. Even though coming up with a format and developing the libraries may not be a tremendous amount of work, convincing all the programmers to switch over to this configuration file type would probably prove to be.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[davemabe]

I've started using YAML for config files for anything I write. YAML is far more readable than XML and it's still machine parseable.

http://www.yaml.org

Dave

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[0racle]

How can this fellow's opinion turn on a dime like that?
Linux isn't a religion to everyone. Its just a job, and just like I'd work for Sun and if a better opportunity comes a long, leave and go work for a competitor, I'd leave a position selling Linux to go work for someone selling against linux if it was a better opportunity, he didn't sell his soul here, he took a job. If you think working for MS is selling your soul, then you are treating IT as a religion, and that makes you a very sad person.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[Jesus_666]

I can remember cursing Windows 95 for it's strange interface - far less usable than MS-DOS with Norton Commander. Anything but intuitive.

Now, after a few years of using Windows, it actually is intuitive, but only because I know most of the obscure procedures necessary to make Windows do anything.
I've switched over to Linux recently and most of it is pretty straight-forward once you know the basics. You know how to configure one app, you can configure most of 'em.
Nice.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[mvpll]

Yes, but you can't send to the "internal" address from outside of the internal network, so this won't work as a general redirect.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[WitfulThinking]

After going over that website( I had heard about it before but never looked into it.) I'd have to agree that it is definitely more readable, which lends itself much better to editing config files in a text editor. Is there any specific standard format for config files in YAML then?

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[paragon400]

You sure about that? I just did it on my Exchange 2003 system and it seems to work just fine :-).

Via SMTP...send mail to the contacts "internal" address and Exchange will reroute (rewrite) the message out to the contacts "target" address. This has been done with Exchange since v5.5 and its "custom recipients" (now called Contacts in AD).

This does things like allow an Exchange shop the ability to give a consultant an email address that is tied to the company (as far as internal and external parties are concerned), but have the mail actually rerouted once it hits an Exchange server to an external address. This also allows the company to not give a consultant a security principal in AD, but still give them a company "blessed" email address that routes their mail to an external system. This is one of the primary uses of Contact next to just creating a directory object for them in the Active Drictory so end users can see them in the GAL and they can be added to mail lists.

The ability to send to the "internal" address is only limited by a particular infrastructures design. When a contact gets created it gets a "target" address (external) as well as a number of proxy addresses (internal) that all other mail objects in AD get (such as mailboxes). As long as the mail infrastructure allows down stream messages to the assigned SMTP proxy address name space that the contact gets Exchange will happily rewrite the internal address to the external address as soon as Exchange accepts the message and route it back out to the Internet.

All that is needed to make this happen is one single contact object with a valid external address and the mail infrastructure that allows mail to be routed to the internal SMTP address that gets assigned to the contact (which should be the same SMTP address space used by other mail objects in the Exchange infrastructure).

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[T-Ranger]

OMFG. I cant beleive that someone brought up NIS/YP. You are doing new installs of NIS/YP beyond 1990? Wow. That is insane.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[neds_dead]

"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." I have been using Linux at home and work for 10+ years and after many hours of sendmail setup adventures, I too claim that sendmail doesn't work . rcr

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[xsadar]

Why are you getting your fire extinguisher ready? Remember, this is Slashdot! There's more than just a grain of truth to what he said, it's a quarter truth. When he says, "This stuff is not easy to run," he's absolutely right. I'm wearing a T-Shirt at this very moment that quotes Torvalds saying, "The Linux philosophy is . . . 'Do it yourself.'" According to the cliche "If you want something done right, you have to do it yourself." But who ever said doing it yourself is easy? No moron is ever going to be able to understand Linux, as long as it remains a "do it yourself" operating system. And that's fine by me.

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[Knuckles]

I see your point, but there ar e so many big IFs there that it scares me. And even if a departmental mail server makes sense in a given environment, I would be tempted to use the "can setup a Unix-style config" as a yardstick for which persons are allowed to do it. Mind you, I am not talking about sendmail config files here. But choosing one of the 4 options given by eximconfig in Debian and answering a few questions should be within the skill reach of the person allowed to do the setup :)

Re:Not so easily manipulated

[Knuckles]

First, as another poster already pointed out, you are a racist.

Second, the point made by the parent of my post was that these things don't happen. That it was Apple's FUD that installing christmas gifts could destroy christmas. My example showed that it does happen. And i can assure you that my nephew did not say, "oh these were not MS's programmers, so it doesn't matter". The PC was hosed, no matter what. Plus, the joystick had a "Designed for WinXP" Logo, and the driver was certified by MS. As a consumer, I would take this as proof that MS has tested it, and that it is as good as a MS-developed driver. After all, they stand with their name and brand for it.
I am fairly confident that these things happen much less often in Apple-world, if at all. And in 8 years of using Linux, I have never ever had something like this happen, and I surely have played around with kernel stuff more in Linux than I have in Windows, not always with a clue. And Linux's modules are not all written by Linus himself either.

You have a point with restore points and rescue disk - but then, /I/ didn't install the driver, it was done by my nephew and his dad -- exactly the target audience of Win XP Home, which MS says the Windows is ready for. Well, it is not

Innovation

[Draoi]

[Re. MS innovation,] 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.

*sigh* There's another new field, fresh for 'sploits. Nice one, Microsoft. Keep up with the .. errm .. 'innovation! :-/

Re:Innovation

[tehcyder]

Well if you have laplink or something installed you could do this already couldn't you?

Re:Innovation

[Tim C]

Any network-aware service or program can potentially be exploited; what would you have people do, simply stop developing new network-aware stuff?

Besides, I'm sure many similar comments were made about redsktop, and yet I don't recall any exploits appearing for that.

Re:Innovation

[DarkGreenNight]

So tey'll do #hibernate instead of #halt ?

I remember those old days at university, telneting to do some work on some Sun WorkStations and telling them to eject the floppy just to annoy whoever was there working on them in person (if there was a floppy, of course).

Re:Innovation

[Anonymous Coward]

"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?"

Yep Linux can't handle such things, but Microsoft can! Just look at their flawless track record.

Re:Innovation

[lukewarmfusion]

You make it sound like this is a bad thing, with no possible positive implications.

A project that we're working on right now involves nearly 20 touch-screen kiosk machines - and every night they get turned off by way of a power switch. Every morning, that power switch is thrown the other way and the machines power up.

We're using the power supply feature that allows you to automatically boot on power loss. The client isn't willing to walk to every kiosk and power down (and then power it up again) properly.

I can think of a whole list of other ways to use it. If you can't, I can only guess that you haven't thought about it hard enough.

Re:Innovation

[Draoi]

If someone wants remote power management for their machine, let them add it themselves. It's not primarily something that Granny needs to do at home anyway. Sticking it into the OS 'coz you can is not the thing to do - that's exactly what happened with auto-open email enclosures (another MS 'innovation'). Furthermore, I feel MS shouldn't brand this kind of thing as innovation, as Tim Allchin did.

Re:Innovation

[16K Ram Pack]

You can do this with Remote Desktop as well.

Just do "Start...shutdown". OK, programs won't be running, but that's hardly a feature I've been too worried about.

Re:Innovation

[fubar1971]

We actually would record audio files and then transfer them to the Sun Workstation and play them remotely.

Nothing would beat the reactions of newbies in the lab when their workstation would seem to talk to them and say:

"Newbie, don't do that newbie".

Re:Innovation

[rixster]

err... most motherboards support wake-on-lan already . If the m/board has built in ethernet then no h/ware mods are required, otherwise it's normally just a thin (2 wire?) cable that triggers a remote on event. All you need is the mac address to send the magic packet and you can get your machine to switch on remotely. Google phrases : "wake on lan" and "magic packet".

Re:Innovation

[GoofyBoy]

>let them add it themselves. It's not primarily something that Granny needs to do at home anyway. Sticking it into the OS 'coz you can is not the thing to do

Have you've installed RedHat/Mandrake/other installation friendly distribution recently? They install lots of stuff that would fall your categories.

Re:Innovation

[Nestafo]

In the current versions of Windows this feature is called The Blue Screen of Death.

Re:Innovation

[Draoi]

Have you've installed RedHat/Mandrake/other installation friendly distribution recently? They install lots of stuff that would fall your categories.

They do indeed, which is why I always custom-install.

Having said that, my point still stands; don't put it in the OS unless it adds major value versus risk.

Re:Innovation

[tooloftheoligarchy]

Also, I'm not sure I get where the "innovation" is here. Maybe I'm missing something, but aren't we just talking about wake-on-LAN and a little bit of shell scripting? And what the &*@! do they mean, "there's no innovation on Linux"?! Most researchers that I know do their prototypes on Linux, and a lot of really superb apps have been developed on Linux first and (sometimes) ported to Windows after the fact. Apparently the MS minions are assuming that if they say it enough times, people will believe it. (A tried and true axiom, after all.)

Re:Innovation

[penwing]

Innovative? You mean I can't run stuff through screen (or a session manager for X), detatch it, use su to run halt/reboot and then reattach the session (through ssh if necessary)?

Or is MS saving system state during power off? If so that means rebooting will no longer unclog the system.

Or has Microsoft developed a way of running programmes even whilst the machine is off (and I assume therefore capable of being unplugged and whatnot)?

Alex
x x

Re:Innovation

[FlimFlamboyant]

Innovation? Has Mr. Allchin been living in a cave? Linux/Unix systems have had this capability for years. "shutdown", anyone?

True innovation is something that's becoming exponentially more and more difficult to come by every year. Unfortunately today, innovation seems to be defined by whatever the USPTO will grant you a patent for.

The "battle" between Microsoft and Linux really has little to do with functionality/capability. It even has little to do with security. Yes, Linux is arguably better in terms of security, but what if the roles were reversed, and 99% of the world's computers ran Linux? Put up a bigger target, and it's going to get hit more.

The fact of the matter is, both OS'es have distinct advantages which makes them both very popular amongst the groups that they are targetted at. Windows has mass-market appeal, because it's easy to use. And please, I love Linux, but don't tell me Linux is just as easy. I've never blown an entire day hunting for drivers, fixing dependancies, and compiling millions of lines of code when setting up a Windows machine.

Linux, on the other hand, is FREE. I mean, gee whiz, even the full XP HOME edition is bending people over for $200. It'll soon be more economical to buy a Windows-preloaded PC than to buy the OS by itself, for crying out loud! Linux, however, does *not* have mass-market appeal, because it has yet to fully, and consistently support the things that the mass market wants; ease of use, and entertainment. What it *does* offer is an incredible amount of freedom and customization that Windows never will, which makes it attractive to the group that it is aimed at; professionals, whether they be IT, research, or otherwise.

Re:Innovation

[ModMeFlamebait]

Apparently the MS minions are assuming that if they say it enough times, people will believe it. (A tried and true axiom, after all.)

This axiom has been repeated so many times, it must be believed ;)

Re:Innovation

[PPGMD]

It will probably only be in the Pro edition of the OS, which is aimed at power users and companies, which would like something like that.

Right now there just isn't any descent interface to do network wake ups, shutdowns are easier in AD, but you can't wake the machine up. Many of the larger corporations that I know have techs on site to power up, and get their machines ready for SMS pushes, but if they had some reliable way of powering on a machine remotely, they wouldn't need the techs to be there (maybe they might need one, but certainly not 3 for a 36 computer office).

Re:Innovation

[theendlessnow]

[Re. MS innovation,] 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.

Shoot, mine stops even while programs are running after upgrading to XP sp2 (local/remote doesn't seem to matter). It may be more polished, but they've had this "feature" for years. It's been in Windows since day one. I was hoping this "feature" would get removed someday.

I don't like it.

Re:Innovation

[burns210]

but this feature will likely be turned on by default, dealing with a machine that only has a single Administrator account(as they put together by default) with a weak password(that they allow, and often have auto-login set)...

I don't mind cool new features or network-able crap, I mind that the crap is ON by default in a system that is top-down not secure out of the box, not even a little. It is wide friggin open.

Re:Innovation

[robbkidd]

To continue the quote concerning future innovation: "Searches will extend across all data like e-mail, photos, Word. "We're creating things," he says.

Can't do photos, but I can search across my e-mail, OpenOffice documents and archived web pages of interest...

~$ grep -r -i "find me" *

Re:Innovation

[rikkards]

But I am pretty sure a custom install of windows will allow the installer to skip it.
No difference.

Re:Innovation

[rikkards]

So can I as of 98 (at least):
Start->Search For Files and Folders Type Find me in Containing Text. Search

Re:Innovation

[rotor]

Turning a PC remotely on seems to me like it would require hardware (wake on LAN or a management card). Turning a PC off remotely is as easy as opening an SSH session and issuing a shutdown.

As for the other innovation that they mention:
Searches will extend across all data like e-mail, photos, Word. "We're creating things," he says.

I can search email and most document types with find/grep. Photos? What am I going to search except for the file name? I can do that with find also. And oddly enough, Windows 2000 (hell, even 95) supports this, and Windows XP broke it so it would only work with certain file types. This is innovation?

Re:Innovation

[Minna Kirai]

They do indeed, which is why I always custom-install.

Can you actually instruct RedHat not to install "shutdown" ??

Re:Innovation

[EnderWiggin99]

MS Bob comes to mind....

Re:Innovation

[Attila]

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.

History of Microsoft innovation:

1995: Windows can halt a PC when you're not there and while programs are running.

2000: Windows can reboot a PC when you're not there and while programs are running.

2007: Windows can turn off a PC when you're not there and while programs are running.

Soon to be greatest sigg'd quote evar:

[bigdady92]

"There's no set architecture in Linux. All roads lead to madness" -Microsoft

I can see it now...

Re:Soon to be greatest sigg'd quote evar:

[Otter]

All roads may lead to madness, but some (Conexant modem drivers, Debian installation) provide a much more direct route.

Of course on Windows, just trying to move an Excel or Word document out of that *&$#^$%& cage they lock them in is enough to induce mouse-smashing insanity within an hour...

Re:Soon to be greatest sigg'd quote evar:

[NineNine]

Of course on Windows, just trying to move an Excel or Word document out of that *&$#^$%& cage they lock them in is enough to induce mouse-smashing insanity within an hour...

This should save you some mice... Click on "File", "Save As". Choose a different file type.

Re:Soon to be greatest sigg'd quote evar:

[templest]

C'mon... No one would be so dull as to quote such a lame line, newb.

_______________________________________________
"There's no set architecture in Linux. All roads lead to madness" -Microsoft

Re:Soon to be greatest sigg'd quote evar:

[bersl2]

Genius is often mistaken for insanity.

Re:Soon to be greatest sigg'd quote evar:

[maxwell demon]

I can imagine that Linux makes Microsoft mad :-)

Re:Soon to be greatest sigg'd quote evar:

[templest]

What the hell!? How is that flaimbait? Did you not see my 'sig' underneath that post? It was supposed to be a joke, assholes. :-/

Why don't you mod me down for this too while you're at it?

You probably will too? Won't you? You'll think it's funny too, won't you? You'll laugh 'till your little wee-wee explodes with golden streams of steaming showers and you anus roars with thundering gasses, all the while going 'Hehe... I just modded him down for flaimbait because he sucks at making jokes! Hehehe!'...
...Goddamnit! :mad:

Re:Soon to be greatest sigg'd quote evar:

[CrashPanic]

What are you talking about??

Re:Soon to be greatest sigg'd quote evar:

[jd]

All roads lead to Madness...

Cut to a Windows cluster at a University... For some reason, they are playing "Baggy Trousers"... A tech comes in and tries to upgrade to XP SP2. The music shifts to "Ghost Train". One of the PCs is playing a saxophone.

There plan of attack..

[Embedded2004]

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.

Re:There plan of attack..

[martingunnarsson]

I will probably get moderated back to the stoneage, but in what way do you concider Windows to be inferior to Linux, except the price?

Re:There plan of attack..

[Paladine97]

Try Windows Services for Unix.

Now try comparing them on the kernel level. How is Windows inferior to Linux? Remember, only the kernel.

Re:There plan of attack..

[phats garage]

Much better availability. The Windows kernel comes with so much baggage, I'm pretty well limitted with what I can do with it.

I can shoehorn a recent linux kernel into a 486 with 32mb of ram, and I'll get a decent amount of functionality from that box. I can make that kernel as big or small as I want. That kernel will support all kinds of modularity and security. The availability of that kernel shoehorned into a 486 with two network cards means that I can probably run a cherry install of Windows XP on my hot athlon box and get internet access without an instant pwning of the box, you see, the linux kernel has so many advantages, it even helps Windows users.

In theory, I guess windows XP on a low end pentium of some sort could do this, but if I had a low end pentium of some sort, I'd still rather have the 486 firewall and have that low end pentium do something else, like host some more hard drives or burn cd's while I have my athlon pig out on multimedia. Plus, I'm not big on putting XP on the net after a fresh install.

Re:There plan of attack..

[afd8856]

I know the answer! I KNOW!
Windows is superior to Linux by having a GUI atached to the kernel. Thus, it is very easy to see the hidden blue processes in the kernel.

Was I right, miss teacher?

Re:There plan of attack..

[PPGMD]

Plus, I'm not big on putting XP on the net after a fresh install.

I'm not big on putting a two plus year old OS on the net either, you know like Red Hat 7.1, and 8.

But like with Linux there are ways that you can attach it to the net and not get attacked, it simply means turning on the firewall. Now they did make a mistake with the firewall (making it one of the last processes to start up), but if you simply left your cable unplugged you could update it, and even install SP2 (which is working fine so far in my lab computers).

Re:There plan of attack..

[ArsonSmith]

• Openness
  
• stability
  
• multi platform support
  
• scalability both up and down
  
• resource usage
  
• customize ability
  
• built in development tools
  
• package integration
  
• accessibility (kinda part of openness)
  

just to name a few

Re:There plan of attack..

[ArsonSmith]

People like to argue stability but I work in an environment where we can actually take a large scale measurement. we have over 1k Windows servers and 250 Linux servers. Windows gave us 98.954% uptime over the past year. Linux has given us 100% uptime. Yes that is 0 minutes 0 seconds downtime from Linux over the past year. All these servers are on mixtures of HP and Dell systems with hot swap raid and some random hardware scattered throughout. I have seen Linux crash. I have crashed Linux. I could crash my Linux machine that I am on right now. But in a production environment Linux is hands down far more stable than Windows NT/2000/2004.

Re:There plan of attack..

[Trelane]

But like with Linux there are ways that you can attach it to the net and not get attacked, it simply means turning on the firewall.

Dunno about Red Hat, but Gentoo and SuSE will have you patched up before you even reboot into the installed system. One of the last screens in SuSE is downloading updates. (Gentoo has you sync'ing the portage tree before you even get to installing anything). No equivalent MSFT functionality, tmk.

Re:There plan of attack..

[PPGMD]

Haven't used Gentoo, nor SuSE, but at least with Red Hat you have to boot into XWindows before the Agent will update it.

With Windows you can always Slipstream the service packs and updates to create a relatively up-to-date installation CD. In fact I will be creating a new later this week for SP2. But that is only really worth your time if you are installing it on more than one computer.

Aha!

[rde]

He's been at Microsoft since college and rattles off techie jargon like value proposition and customer sat (short for satisfaction) like any seasoned Microsoftie.

Techie jargon? I think I've found Microsoft's problem.

Re:Aha!

[pjt33]

"Microsofties" talk about customer satisfaction? *blinks* My worldview's falling to pieces.

Re:Aha!

[Gerald]

...because real techies care nothing about getting the most bang for the buck, or making users happy?

Re:Aha!

[mysticgoat]

He's been at Microsoft since college and rattles off techie jargon like value proposition and customer sat (short for satisfaction) like any seasoned Microsoftie.

These are not examples of 'techie jargon'. Tech jargon is limited to words like 'bandwidth', 'optimization', 'standards compliance', and so on-- words that careful programmers use when they talk with each other about making good programs. Buzzwords like 'value proposition' and 'customer sat' are marketdroid crap.

Implying that marketing buzzwords are part of the tech jargon is a kind of 'embrace and extend' that I find loathsome. It pollutes the language.

"It's the smell. If there is such a thing."

Re:Aha!

[sharkey]

Sure they do. Remember, their customers are the click-n-droolers, NOT the those of us that have to admin the shit.

Re:Aha!

[afd8856]

For most users, computing == Windows & Office.
And most users are satisfied that they can speed up working by using computers. I think there is some satisfaction there, if you look at the problem this way.

Re:Aha!

[straybullets]

"Microsofties"

Are these a kind of very small ice cream ?

Re:Aha!

[notwrong]

You're right of course - but isn't that just the point the parent is making?

All roads lead to madness?

[Noryungi]

Sure.

And this should be written on all boxes of Windows:

Abandon all hope, ye who are about to open this.

WinXP SP2, anyone? ;-)

Re:All roads lead to madness?

[Prof.Phreak]

---Where would you want to go today?

Well, madness of course!

Re:All roads lead to madness?

[_Sprocket_]

Abandon all hope, ye who are about to open this.

Ahhh! So you HAVE read the EULA!

Re:All roads lead to madness?

[Noryungi]

Ahhh! So you HAVE read the EULA!

Shoot, you understood the reference... ;-)

MS should start selling Linux

[xiando]

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.

Re:MS should start selling Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Um..so exactly where is Linux 'winning' then?

Not in the servermarket against MS, against commercial *nix yes, against MS no.
Not on the desktop, Linux isnt moving anywhere there either...so exactly where is Linux winning aside from in the delusions of the /. crowd?

Re:MS should start selling Linux

[1000101]

"we are better skilled and higher motivated..."

I don't understand where some people get this from. First of all, Microsoft has plenty of highly skilled and extrememly intelligent people working for them. Secondly, fat paychecks from Microsoft seem to be pretty good motivation for most people. There are plenty of resons to argue that Linux is better than Microsoft, but these two aren't the best to choose from.

Re:MS should start selling Linux

[BlueOtto]

I thought they already were!

mslinux.org
:)

Re:MS should start selling Linux

[truthsearch]

Software is all about support, not the product, today anyways.

Not for Microsoft. Last I checked 100% of their profit comes from licensing Windows and Office. Every other method of making money brings in revenue but returns no profit for them. With about an 80% profit margin why would they switch to a support model? It makes sense to us because we see industry trends from a different angle. But from their point of view product (license) sales = profit.

^5

[maelstrom]

"Before, Linux was this cloud we didn't get, now it is Red Hat, Novell, IBM. We know how to compete with companies. I was high-fiving everyone I could find when Novell bought [German Linux distributor] SuSe. We already won once against Novell."

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. :)

Re:^5

[Judg3]

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.

No, they wouldn't kill Linux, but they would shove it so far out of the public view it might as well be Amiga. I don't think they want to kill Linux completely - just the big players, the ones that matter to the high dollar corporate customers. The ones really stealing sales from MS.

But MS is a tad to late to come to the table, they are trying to crush it after it's gotten to large. If they destroy distro X, another will rise out of the ashes and be just as big (I hope!). 10 years ago, if they'd invested all their energy into it, they might have kept Linux small - but it's gaining momentum now, and it's hard to stop a freight train.

Re:^5

[rokzy]

since when has public view been important to linux?

and linux was doing just fine before IBM et al. hint: they came to linux because they saw great potential, no one cold-called IBM and made a sales pitch.

fundamentally linux is about talented people writing software based on principles. to kill linux you pay everyone money to stop, kill everyone involved with it, or pass a law abolishing rights such as free speech.

Re:^5

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Don't forget, though, this is part of a two-edged strategy. On the business front, they want to turn Linux back into a "hobbyist OS" that doesn't have support from any major corporate users or suppliers. On the legal front, they want to buy legislators who will then effectively outlaw F/OSS with DRM and "security" requirements ... which is only possible if they've removed the corporate support.

I don't think they'll succeed, but don't be too sanguine yet.

Re:^5

[jimicus]

or pass a law abolishing rights such as free speech....

....in every country on the planet with a reasonably reliable power supply and Internet access.

Otherwise all you're doing is cutting your nose off to spite your face.

Re:^5

[GoofyBoy]

>when has public view been important to linux?

To the technical side of Linux, only as far as to get more programmers working on it.

To the religious side of Linux, its the entire battle.

I think you understand this point, from the rest of your post, but maybe I'm just tired of how the vast majority of comments will be on the religous side of things rather than the technical merits. MS might be focusing on this bigger picture;

"Taylor was handed a just-finished study that found Microsoft too emotionally biased against open-source code and blind to customer distrust in its own brand."

Re:^5

[fubar1971]

since when has public view been important to linux?

and linux was doing just fine before IBM et al. hint: they came to linux because they saw great potential, no one cold-called IBM and made a sales pitch.

You just answered your own question. IBM and Novell would IMHO never looked at Linux based stratedgies seriously enough, if Linux was not in a favorable public view. If M$ can successfully beat the linux endorsing companies, they theoretically can put the OS in a bad public light. People will then not trust it, and buy more M$ products, thus reverting the view of Linux back to the hobby it was viewed as 10 to 15 years ago.

Re:^5

[Phleg]

Exactly. With previous Microsoft takeovers, they would buy out the company, and thus own the rights to the code. This is not possible with free software. Whereas most companies would have to build from the ground-up to begin competing with Microsoft, there's already an enormous code base to start that attack with.

Re:^5

[rking]

No, they wouldn't kill Linux, but they would shove it so far out of the public view it might as well be Amiga. I don't think they want to kill Linux completely - just the big players, the ones that matter to the high dollar corporate customers. The ones really stealing sales from MS.

I can understand that, but that doesn't square with the quote from the article.

If what Microsoft is worried about is big companies supporting Linux then Novell entering the market is either irrelevant because they're below whatever threshold Microsoft applies, or else it's a bad thing because a big company is now supporting Linux. Either way, it's nothing to celebrate.

Crushing Novell would at best restore the position before Novell entered the market, but with Microsoft having spent considerable resources in the meantime. Plus there always has to be a risk that the crushing won't work.

If he was really celebrating when Novell entered the Linux market then it was only because psychologically he's happier having someone he can try to crush. It doesn't help him in any other way.

Re:^5

[16K Ram Pack]

There's a whole thing about Microsoft - seems to me they've pissed off any friend they ever had, and this has given Linux a huge amount of corporate support.

Owning the operating system is like being the landlord of a shopping mall. In Microsoft's case, they've got the tenants in, let them bring in customers to grow a business, and then put competitors next door.

Re:^5

[turambar386]

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.

Re:^5

[silicon not in the v]

Remember that because of the license Linux distros are released under, They will never completely stagnate or regress. Let's say Microsoft completely buys Novell. SuSE is still (mostly) out in the open. MS does not get to close the source because it's already been released as GPL. If MS tries to shut it down, people will just take the source they already have from SuSE 9.2, or whatever, and form a group to keep going with it, releasing new stuff on it under the GPL again. That is one of the potentially beneficial aspects of forking. Especially if they are "forking" up Microsoft.

Re:^5

[mattyrobinson69]

They could open up the windows compatibility code from OS/2 that they undisputably own.

I know it would be outdated, but afaik, it worked more flawlessly than windows XP compatibility mode s do.

That would make migration so much easier for business - by making wine far better.

Re:^5

[SpaceLifeForm]

I agree, complacency is a problem. However, the bigger picture is that if bush gets re-elected, the level of corruption is such that MS can buy whatever 'laws' they need to stifle Linux. However, if that occurs, then the revolution will start. It will be much cleaner for the state of the world if bush is not re-elected, because if he is, things will become a extremely large mess down the road.

All roads lead to madness

[Alien54]

So what microsoft is up against is a growing community of mad scientists, inventors, and other innovators in league against them?

I can imagine the cackling laughter now ....

MMMMWWWAAHHHH HA HA HA HA

Re:All roads lead to madness

[DavidTC]

Nothing can or will do photo searches. There are exactly two ways to do them, currently, the first one involving strong AI image recognitation, and, I assure you, MS hasn't suddenly invented it. Their software can no more tell one photo from another than my cell phone can.

The other way, of course, involves you putting metatags on all your files. And there are plenty of programs to search metatags.

"Architecture"!?!

[the_skywise]

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...)

Re:"Architecture"!?!

[dbIII]

I hear it can run on MIPS and even sparc - madness.

Re:"Architecture"!?!

[lpontiac]

"OLE? DDE?"

Sorry, I think you meant to say:

"DDE? OLE? OLE2? COM? COM+? ActiveX? DCOM? SOAP? .NET?"

Re:"Architecture"!?!

[mdielmann]

I think that should be clarified. MS has only one road (or a few, depending on how you look at it), but it still leads to madness.

Re:"Architecture"!?!

[jrumney]

Yes, but they all run on the same architecture - i386. With Linux, you've got the confusion of ia64, ppc, sparc, mips and a whole lot more architectures to deal with. Research conducted by the Alex de Tocqueville institute shows that the highly qualified MCSE system architects of this world do not want to deal with this choice of architectures, and would rather have their decisions handed to them on a plate.

Re:"Architecture"!?!

[atcurtis]

Of course IBM has a few nice cards in their hand...

During the 1990s, IBM and MSFT made a deal where MSFT let IBM use their patents on HPFS and in exchange, IBM would let MSFT use their patents on OLE...

Yes, OLE/COM/DCOM/.NET is based upon IP owned by IBM!

And because of MSFT's effective killing of OS/2, does IBM really need to relicense HPFS?

So, if MSFT were to annoy IBM too much, IBM can deliver many levels of pain to MSFT - think product recall/withdrawal of the entire Windows franchise or perhaps even a $699/seat royalty?

In a snakepit, it is oh so difficult to make friends...

Um, The Windows APIs?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, there's a really startling lack of self-awareness in the statement that there's no set architecture to Linux and that all roads lead to madness.

re: um, the windows APIs?

[ed.han]

incidentally: does anyone really think that it's taken M$ this long to develop a strategy re: linux? they've been saying for the past 2-3 years that linux is their biggest threat, they've almost certainly been thinking it for the past 5-6.

btw: did anybody else find it funny that the article itself cited the campaign as "uncertainty and doubt"?

Re: um, the windows APIs?

[mattyrobinson69]

'UD

roads leading to madness

[pete.com]

All roads lead to madness with Linux?

Tell that to the companies brought down by the slammer worm, either of the nachi worms or the effort trying to keep MS boxes patched in a large enterprise.... that is the road to hell not madness. Although madness is thrown in at no cost.

Madness?

[nagora]

Yes, looking after a network of MS machines is like a real-life Little Book of Calm...

TWW

Re:Madness?

[Stinking Pig]

I recently switched jobs and get to deal with a lot more Microsoft than I've had to in the past six years. Active Directory, NetBIOS, the whole damn shebang. It's really remarkably horrible compared to an all-Linux network. Oh well.

good advice for MS fans

[pohl]

I think Microsoft is setting an excellent example that happy customers (and fans) of Microsoft should imitate: learn everything that you can about Linux. Install it on your PC. Intentionally break your configuration just to practice fixing it. Install new hardware and figure out how to get it working no matter how much it seems like torture. Find free equivalents to software that you would normally run under Windows, and live with them for a while even if it means sacrificing features or quality. Absorb as much of this knowledge as you can, and share it with your other Microsoft-loving buddies. And once you all are as conversant in Linux as are those people who are choosing it over Windows, you'll be able to more effectively lobby against it...beacuse you'll be armed with knowledge. Never mind that you'll be helping the Linux culture to spread. Hey, look over there...it's an angel, and she's giving away free bacon!

They don't get it

[archeopterix]

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

Let me turn this question around: what does Windows do that Linux doesn't? For me, Linux is already there ( on several hundred desktop machines running a java client). So why should I pay several hundred bucks for each license?

Re:They don't get it

[Shillo]

> Games

In most environments where you might expect a visit from MS salesman, 'Does Not Run Games' is considered a feature.

--

Re:They don't get it

[archeopterix]

Games
full functionality IM
Loads of Windows-specific-only business appliactions
Support from all hardware vendors

Let me remind you of the context, namely chosing the OS for an organization.

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.

Re:They don't get it

[ViolentGreen]

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).

Do you have any experience with the corporate world? Once you have a trusted system, you don't patch even one minor component without extensive testing. No company is going to ditch a trusted, working system to rewrite a component from scratch.

Besides the, "Well linux doesn't have that software but you can pay someone to develop an alternative for you" pitch is not going to work.

Re:They don't get it

[imroy]

Watch out for windows-only software. If they're that specific then they'll have trouble adapting to change. XP SP2 is already causing lots of problems for software that was taking advantage of Windows' lax security. And it looks like Longhorn will cause huge changes to the Windows API base. The really flexible software is modular and has platform-specific code seperated from the rest of the application. A change of platform is relatively minor then. Whip up a new platform-specific module, maybe make some minor adjustments, and bingo! one more supported platform.

Companies and developers making win32-only software are dependant on the sole maker of that platform: Microsoft. They must follow and adapt to MS's every whim or become extinct. Their fortune is thus more volatile than the cross-platform companies, even if their development effort would appear to be lower at the start. While the windows-centric world has seen huge growth in recent years, Microsoft's future doesn't look so good or certain. They're facing real competition from Apple and Linux/FLOSS. You can see their desperation in their anti-Linux efforts.

Re:They don't get it

[rewt66]

Um, yeah, actually we are doing it because we can. See, we're tired of Microsoft "leveraging the installed base." That means Microsoft trying to force us to do something we don't want to do. We're tired of Microsoft trying to trap us in a situation where we have to keep sending them money in order to keep our computers working. We're leaving this mess because we can.

And yeah, I personally am still on Windows. But I believe I understand what's driving people to switch. (Why haven't I switched yet? Educational software for the kids.)

Re:They don't get it

[UncleFluffy]

what does Windows do that Linux doesn't?

grep foo *

'grep' is not recognized as an internal or external command, operable program or batch file.

Linux doesn't do that.

Re:They don't get it

[DMadCat]

Oh, right... well there's this thing you have to do with it first... it's called an installation...

Re:They don't get it

[g3000]

This may be slightly OT to your reverse-question, but I think it's relevant to the portion of the article you quote.

When I've quizzed my MS buddies to the tune of "What can you do on Windows that I can't do on [Linux/OS X/Unix/etc.]?", the truest response, among developers, admins and other IT types anyway, is "I can build .Net applications," or "I'm an MCSE." Or in other words, "I can make a lucrative living as a developer or admin for Windows."

I realize there are shades of grey in the underlying truth of such a response, but given that the monopolistic proliferation of Windows is obviously it's main advantage, maybe a more honest question than "What can you do on your platform that I can't do on mine?" in these cases is "How much money can I make with a given platform, and how many jobs, or even companies, does your platform create and support?"

It's a real kick in the teeth that better products run such a distant second fiddle to the monopolistic ones, but it's becoming more clear to me that the only way to catch up with MS going forward is to demonstrate the financial advantages, rather than the purely convenient or practical ones.

So how do you do that? Have platform proponents for Linux, OS X, Unix, etc. done that very well? If so, is there evidence anyone is paying attention?

Sorry /., but they have a point

[duffbeer703]

Linux has a real stability and consistency problem when it comes to competing distros and running binary applications that you do not have the source code to.

Add to that the proprietary modifications and vastly inflated prices of the dominant Linux vendor and you have a confused customer base that is more comfortable with the consistent Microsoft product lines.

Re:Sorry /., but they have a point

[gilesjuk]

Run an enterprise Linux distro such as Red Hat or something from IBM and it's no worse a situation as other systems (including Windows).

Look at the WinXP SP2 fiasco, Microsoft creates many issues with their bug fixes. In fact they upgrade your bugs.

Re:Sorry /., but they have a point

[anaplasmosis]

Consistent? Not tried to open a elderly Word document lately?

Re:Sorry /., but they have a point

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux has a real stability and consistency problem when it comes to competing distros and running binary applications that you do not have the source code to.

Windows has a real stability and consistency problem when it comes to the same version and running binary applications that you do not have the source code to. With Linux, you at least have the option of installing compatible versions.

Add to that the proprietary modifications and vastly inflated prices of the dominant Linux vendor and you have a confused customer base that is more comfortable with the consistent Microsoft product lines.

If customers are confused by that, then the Microsoft product lines were made for them.

I think the most interesting thing in this article is that after finally recognizing that Linux even existed in 1998, they're now six years down the road before even trying to understand it from a technology standpoint. I guess they were accustomed to just waiting around while competitors withered from the environment.

Re:Sorry /., but they have a point

[Anonymous Coward]

"...a confused customer base that is more comfortable with the consistent Microsoft product lines."

Dude - I have been using Microsoft products, in a business environment, since Dos3.3. There is _nothing_ consistent in their product lines apart from having to pay for flakey software.

Re:Sorry /., but they have a point

[rseuhs]

Apple, Amiga and Atari in the 80s:

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.

Re:Sorry /., but they have a point

[duffbeer703]

I think that the most interesting thing about the all MS vs. Unix affair is that Linux has all but killed the Unix vendors and encouraged enterprise users to migrate away from RISC and towards x86 hardware.

Companies don't give a shit about open source. They want cheap. And Microsoft will find a way to present their TCO as being less than Linux.

Linux delivered the last computer market, high end computing, to Microsoft lock, stock and barrel.

Re:Sorry /., but they have a point

[div_2n]

+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.

Re:Sorry /., but they have a point

[duffbeer703]

You can use MySQL on Windows too, so cross off teh SQL Server or add a DB2 or Oracle install to the Linux example.

Also, Red Hat Enterprise ES Server ranges in price from $450 to $1,000 depending on the configuration and features installed. That price includes 1 year of upgrades. Microsoft provides updates for free for the life of the product.

You could do an example with Debian, Gentoo, Slackware or Fedora where the OS cost is zero. But even in that case, you tend to need more skilled (and more expensive) admins to care and feed that environment.

And as far as your binary compatability nonsense goes, tell IBM, Oracle, CA and other vendors about that -- they all have apps that break with minor changes to GLibc and bigger changes to threading libraries.

Re:Sorry /., but they have a point

[div_2n]

You can use MySQL on Windows too

That does not represent a likely business class configuration. People WILL likely use one of the open source variants for Linux. But just for arguments sake, add $749 for a five user version of Oracle and the configuration is STILL cheaper than the Windows equivalent.

Also, Red Hat Enterprise ES Server ranges in price from $450 to $1,000 depending on the configuration and features installed. That price includes 1 year of upgrades.

Wrong wrong and more wrong. Go here for pricing details:

http://www.redhat.com/software/rhel/purchase/

Go here for the extensive list of what support comes with the EL version and price I quoted for one year:

http://www.redhat.com/support/service/sla/rhel3. ht ml

minor changes to GLibc and bigger changes to threading libraries.

So long as software is coded to follow the LSB with no additional external dependencies and changes do not break the LSB, then no binary will be broken. Besides, if you buy EL from Red Hat, they make great efforts to ensure the updates do not break compatibility. Sometimes, you do get what you pay for.

Re:Sorry /., but they have a point

[Dot.Com.CEO]

I actually did, I opened some of my University papers (some 10 years old), written in what I think was Word 2.0 and they all worked fine. Access was different, though. In fact, a VBA program I had written in Excel in 93 and in Windows 3.1 iirc worked fine in Office 2003. What exactly is your point?

Re:Sorry /., but they have a point

[ImpTech]

Bah.

Thats usually only a problem because said application uses some random version of some random library that not every distro will have. Windows has exactly the same problem. How do they get around it? All the dlls you might need get included in the installer. You can do the same for your Linux app if you want. A lot of projects don't because they don't want to bother, but there's nothing stopping them. The OS architecture is not at fault here.

The addendum I would add to that is that there *have* been a few bad cases in Linux history that wouldn't have happened on Windows. Mostly things like glibc incompatibilites, but you don't see that often anymore.

Re: Good Thing there are "Non-Profit" distros

[xiando]

You can't just buy Gentoo Linux, debian or many other distributions for that matter. So even if you buy (out) RedHat, Novell and other (stock listed) companies you simply can not destroy those non-profit organisations.

How would you go about to bring GNU down, even if you were founded by the millions?

No set architechture...

[Thaidog]

...IS A BAD THING? That's one more thing to offer my clients.... Let's see, now you can have the same DAMN system across your entire infrastructure, one easy to understand, free and completely customizable desktop.... don't got Linux for this chip.... go compile a kernel... nothing to stop you! It's free! No contracts or legal agreements! Free good software that will run once again on all your systems... open office is FSCKING AWSOME! No viruses, better security... and damned if it isn't more stable!!! HOW 'BOUT THEM APPLES...

Re:pattern

[I confirm I'm not a]

<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>

Microsoft vs Rest of World

[shoppa]

"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.".

So now the whole world is out to get Microsoft. Isn't such paranoia a classic schizophrenic symptom?

Re:Microsoft vs Rest of World

[gnarlin]

Not when the rest of the world really is out to get them ;-)

Re:Microsoft vs Rest of World

[Barto]

Is it paranoia if they really are after you? In Microsoft's case, most of the software industry is after them.

M$ should live with it...

[bogaboga]

...because Linux is not about to go away and the most important thing is that it is not profit oriented. But as the GPL implies, you can take the code and use it for what ever you want, even controlling a nuclear reactor. Yes, M$ should live with it.

This is actualy good news.

[houghi]

First they laugh at you.
Then they fight you.
Then you win.

I think Microsoft just went from step 1 to step 2. They are acknowledging that Linux is a danger (again). Slowly people will start to realize that Microsoft is fighting Linux. These people will then start to wonder why.

Where people thought that a computer ran Windows 97 and had no idea what an OS was, the marketing machine from Microsoft is now spreading the name Linux. It will cause people to take a closer look.

The rest is up to the Linux community and companies.

Re:This is actualy good news.

[Anonymous Coward]

This has sort of happened, already, with Intel. It wasn't until Cyrix and AMD showed up that Intel decided to make a brand name out of the technology: "Intel inside, ding-DING-ding-DING." And it works. I get family members asking me if "an Athlon is good enough or should I get a P4 instead".

Where Microsoft screwed themselves up was in getting harsh about license compliance at the precise moment when people began asking if there was some cheaper way to do it. Linux has been looming on Microsoft's horizon for six years now and for most purposes, it simply cannot replace Windows. What's got MS scared is that their customers are just waiting until the day it can.

On a related note, please give that old quote a rest. Sometimes they fight you, and you lie bleeding in a ditch for hours.

Re:This is actualy good news.

[16K Ram Pack]

"What's got MS scared is that their customers are just waiting until the day it can"

That's the clincher!

The real hit for Microsoft is going to be if Open Office starts going past them (and I mean end-user features, and not just something like export to PDF)*. Then, people will start switching, and then the game will be really on.

The MSFT shareholders

[w.p.richardson]

would never go for that strategy. How will selling Linux services enhance shareholder return on investment?

A publicly traded company exists solely to make profits for shareholders. This is accomplished by crushing competition (ideally). If you can't crush 'em though, you don't sell their products! This isn't a sound business model.

Re:The MSFT shareholders

[minus9]

"If you can't crush 'em though, you don't sell their products!"

Not even if you get their products for free and then get to keep all the money you make on the sale?

Re:The MSFT shareholders

[schon]

A publicly traded company exists solely to make profits for shareholders. This is accomplished by crushing competition (ideally). If you can't crush 'em though, you don't sell their products! This isn't a sound business model.

Yes, you're right - that's why other publically traded companies like Novell, IBM, Red Hat, and many more have all ganged up to eliminate open source.

Oh, wait NOT THEY HAVEN'T.

How will selling Linux services enhance shareholder return on investment?

BY MAKING MONEY

Troll.

Re:The MSFT shareholders

[stwrtpj]

A publicly traded company exists solely to make profits for shareholders. This is accomplished by crushing competition (ideally).

But it all depends on how you crush your competition. If you crush it by offering a better/cheaper product than your competitor, that's fine, and that is indeed a good business model. Using tactics that MS has done in the past, such as strongarming PC vendors into carrying only MS products to maintain their monopoly, is not (or at least not an ethical one).

"new feature"

[leperkuhn]

Heh, here's a good "new feature"

Allchin points to new features in the version of Windows due in 2007 that will allow users to remotely turn PCs on or off

My dear lord they are innovating at an exponential rate! Quite possibly next they will unleash "a pointer device cabable of interacting with the screen."

Re:"new feature"

[AsbestosRush]

The scary part of this is that if the track record holds true, It'll be triggered by some broadcast bit that will be sniffed and implemented as a DOS attack.

Re:"new feature"

[molarmass192]

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*

Re:"new feature"

[gosand]

Allchin points to new features in the version of Windows due in 2007 that will allow users to remotely turn PCs on or off

My dear lord they are innovating at an exponential rate! Quite possibly next they will unleash "a pointer device cabable of interacting with the screen."

Not to mention that it is going to take them 3 MORE years to do it. Unless the release gets pushed back. Again.

Re:"new feature"

[Sipos]

Although the parent post was funny I felt I should make sure people know the full quote was

"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."

As far as I can see they are basically saying they can suspend a computer remotely. While this is not in any way innovative it is slightly better than just switching on or off the PC. (which I have just realised I don't know how to do in windows - if anyone knows a command to shutdown a windows PC over a telnet connection then could they reply and tell me)

It is unfortunate that although this is an obvious feature to add they will probably be granted a patent (which at least used to require it to be regarded as a new and innovative idea)

Re:"new feature"

[Halo1]

FWIW, you cut off part of that sentence:

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

So it's remote triggering of suspend-to-disk. Still not all that innovative, but more than what your edit implies.

Re:"new feature"

[Alrua]

On windows XP there's a command line tool called 'shutdown', which will shut down the computer. It can even be used to remotely shut down another computer on the network.

In earlier versions of windows nt, this tool was part of a ressource kit, but in windows xp it is bundled with the OS itself.

See http://www.ss64.com/nt/shutdown.html for more information.

Re:"new feature"

[earlgreen]

My dear lord they are innovating at an exponential rate! Quite possibly next they will unleash "a pointer device cabable of interacting with the screen."

Got one of those in my pants, already...

Re:"new feature"

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

Hey, genius, Windows 2000 already has this built in:

shutdown -i

Displays a nice GUI which allows you to add computers, choose the action (shutdown, reboot), warn the users, and place a note in the event log.

You can also use shutdown in a purely command-line mode.

Centralized administration

[Anonymous Coward]

Now I have played with many distributions and it seems to me that what they all lack are some form of central administration(not just user adm). Novell have eDirectory and Microsoft has Active Directory(which I haven't tried).
I know there are different solutions available for this that does some of it. But I think it needs to be integrated more.
I know that part of running Linux servers are the joy of making scripts to automate thing and most Linux people will quickly answer that "you just make a ..... which ....", but if you are buying a server distribution anyway, one would expect to have a some sort of centralized administration without having to code all kinds of scripts.

Re:Centralized administration

[Zeddicus_Z]

If Linux distros could offer a consistent config file format (Pick one. Seriously.), some form of config inheritance (eg load /etc/defaults/[someconfig], then /home/username/.config/[someconfig], then /etc/overrides/[someconfig]) and lockdown (think KDE's kiosk), that would help a lot. Yes, I understand that this is almost impossible given the nature of Linux distros as assemblies of independenly developed software, but nonetheless this would be awfully nice.

cfengine

LSB

Why this silly fight?

[Xerp]

Why do Microsoft always have to be so aggressive? Why can't they let people do what they want to do? If I want to run Linux, just let me run Linux... or Mac OS X. Do Microsoft need more money? Do they need to take over the world? Why not just take a chill pill and concentrate on core business? No one likes bullies. Best thing Microsoft can do? Back down. Not only back down, but actively support and develop Open Source products. OpenMicrosoft for the developing countries anyone? What makes Christmas so great? Its the giving. Come on Microsoft - give a little.

Re:Why this silly fight?

[amigan940]

They are a corporation. 'Nuff said.

Re:Why this silly fight?

[CrazyTiger]

The answer is simple:They're trying to TAKE OVER THE WORLD!*dun dun dun*

Re:Why this silly fight?

[schon]

Because Bill Gates is notorious as a poor loser.

It's not enough that he wins, but everybody else must lose.

MS is built around Gates' ego, and that's why they're fighting like this - because Gates feels insulted by Linux's very existence.

It's a simple strategy...

[ayjay29]

Microsoft are just going to hire about 20 high-class escort girls and covertly target them at the most important open source developers. The costs involved in this strategy will be peanuts compared with the total devastation it will bring upon the open source community, which will be left completely defenseless.

They have already started a trial program. You have been warned.

Re:It's a simple strategy...

[FrankHaynes]

There isn't enough money in the universe to pay those girls to keep them from screaming at the top of their lungs and running at warp speed away from the most important open source developers.

Get real!

hehe

[Tei]

The problem with attacking Linux with lies:

- Linux as real problems :D

This updated strategy will fix this.
And will actually HELP open source, because FEEDBACK is CODING FUEL!

Feedback ist most valuable coding resource. If Microsoft provice feedback about what is wrong with linux, will be easy to fix that and habing a much better tool.

Anyway Windows is a product, and Linux is a tool. Most Linux coders dont really need to sell anithing, but code a usefull tool. So its something different, ...Yes, linux is not a competitive company, is not a competitive product.. too: Its simply a tool. A giant corporation fighting a tool is somewhat ridiculous. But is real for historical reasons.

imHo

From the article

[stromthurman]

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

• A complete GNU/Linux (henceforth: Linux) distribution provides me with source for free (or at a reasonable cost if you buy cds from the distributor), Microsoft does not.
• Most linux distributions provide multiple choices for window managers/desktop environments, Microsoft gives me explorer (though Litestep and BB4Win are available to download).
• In general, with Linux, I have more choices than I need for many things

Granted, some will argue too much choice is bad for the getting Linux on the desktop. That may be, but Microsoft, specifically Mr. Taylor, asked a question, I provided my answer, which does not necessarily represent the views/opinions of others.
If Microsoft can provide a reasonably priced, reasonably secure, distribution/version of Windows that comes with such choices, or if a 3rd party vendor started creating Windows distributions along these lines, I would go with what I felt to be a better value, just as I am right now. And for me, a poor, fresh out of college, person, the better value is Linux.

Re:From the article

[stromthurman]

A brief rebuttle:

Which most people have no interest in seeing in the first place.

That's fine, as I explicitly stated at the end of my post, the post was merely my answer to Mr. Taylor's question. I do not speak for everyone, nor do I claim to. I like having the source because it means even if Linux were to somehow vanish, I could still modify the source to suit my changing needs.

How many choices of a simple text editor do you need.

As I stated in what you quoted "I have more choices than I need," therefore, I do not *need* all of these choices. But, I do like having them. Ultimately, my choice in text editor does not come with most Linux distributions by default, but I still like having more choices than I need. Again, I do not speak for everyone, and I do not claim that the "more choices than you need" is a winning strategy for any OS/Desktop Environment vendor. I merely claim that this is what I prefer.

As for reasonably priced and reasonably secure Windows is both. 2k and XP are both fairly cheap (free for most people with computer knowledge as they pirate it)

So, I should give up a product I can obtain freely, which suits my needs, in favor of another product that may suit my needs, but to get it at the right price, I have to do so illegally? I have as little interest in pirating software as I do in purchasing said software for $100-$200.

Also how can you say widows in insecure when nearly all the "virusus" are some variation of getting users to run malicious code.

This is purely straw man, I never once claimed Windows was insecure, or even less secure than Linux. I stated my needs: I want a reasonably priced OS with reasonable security. Windows 2000 meets the second requirement, but it fails to meet the first, hence, it does not satisfy my needs in that area.

You sounded like a zealot. Not in the sense of pushign Linux but in the sense that you are usign it not because it is the right tool for the job but rathe rbecause it is not windows.

I am using the right tool for the job, it's cost effective, it provides all of the functionality I need, it works for me. It provides a stable development environment for my work. Windows very likely does, too. But, it just is not cost effective for me. And the added bonuses of using a Microsoft product are not enough for me to justify the cost difference.

I accept that a fair bit of your post is your own personal preference as well, and that is fine. However, please do not put words in my mouth. In particular, stating that I called windows "insecure" when I did not, and suggesting that I'm using Linux because it's not MS, when in fact I stated a few of the reasons I use Linux in the original post, none of which were "Because M$ is teh sux0r!" or anything of that sort.

Re:From the article

[stromthurman]

As off topic is this is now, no, you're wrong. Think of it in terms of logic:
Microsoft must be both reasonably price and reasonably secure for me to buy it.

If it fails one condition, I do not buy it. It fails the condition of reasonably priced. Thus, I do not buy it.

Proof:
Let A = "I buy", B = "Secure", C = "Cheap".
A -> B ^ C (given statement)
~(B^C) -> ~A (contrapositive)
~B v ~C -> ~A (DeMorgan's Thm.)
Thus, if it is either not secure, or not cheap, I do not buy it. It is not cheap (in my terms of cheap), therefore, I do not buy it.
QED and such.

Re:From the article

[stromthurman]

Ah, ok...I now see your point. And you're right, from your stance, it does seem that I was arguing that it had neither, thus I chose Linux. I think in the future, I should just post in a symbolic logic format as to avoid this sort of situation again.

Also, I don't know if you are the same person who replied to my original post, but if you are, there is another point that I would like to clarify in my post. At the very end, I made the statement "And for me, a poor, fresh out of college, person, the better value is Linux," which implies something I did not intend to. After re-reading it, the statement may suggest that Linux is the better value for a poor, fresh out of college person, and that is not necessarily the case. I should have just said "For me, the better value is Linux," instead of adding some description to it which suggests it's the better value for a broader class of people. This statement does perhaps lend some credit to the zealot claim.

Thanks for the discussion and clarificationis.
- Ian

Re:From the article

[civilizedINTENSITY]

"Tell us what Linux does that we can't do."

Allow free distribution and collaboration: My numerical anal II class used MathCAD. We had a couple computers setup in the Math department, but the rest of the campus used Mathematica. I brought in a CD with emacs and octave (for windows) and offered it to the class. Many couldn't believe it was even legal to be giving out free software. The professor made copies to distribute to everyone, and there was nothing that we did that semester from his MathCAD based handouts wouldn't run on octave. I know of two of those students who dual-boot, now.

Re:From the article

[stromthurman]

No problem, the structure of my English often leaves a bit to be desired, so it's helpful to receive input like this. I apologize if I initially seemed a bit off-putting, and thanks for the time you spent clarifying my mistake. - Ian

Desperate

[JSkills]

I understand Microsoft's concern about Linux's growing ubiquity, but with there current market share of PCs and servers alike, it seems like they are over reacting to the situation and actually making it worse for themselves.

Does this sound strange to anyone else:

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.

Or how about this?

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.

It just sounds so petty and even a little childish. Microsoft would do better to take the high road - and steer clear of lowering themselves in some kind of attempt at a smear campaign. It only makes them look weaker than they are.

Re:Desperate

[ejaw5]

new feature of remotely turning off PCs already exists:

ssh -l user *nix.host
Enter Password:

[user@*nix.host]$ su
Enter Password:

[root@*nix.host]# shutdown -h -t now

Re:Desperate

[latroM]

"There's no innovation. Linux is still in the business of cloning existing technology." True, true. Linux is based on a well known and used monolithical kernel model seen in the unix systems. If you want something new and innovative try the Hurd as a replacement.

Re:Desperate

[An0maly]

has anyone seen the keynote from Steve Jobs at WWDC this year? I recently got my hands on a mac and was able to play with it in depth for the first time in my life. i now realize how archaic a product windows really is. i now realize what a good OS should be like and i must say windows has nothing on panther - let alone tiger.

the version of windows i have right now is the same version i used 4 years ago except they made it look "pretty" with luna. how long were we running windows 95 technology? and wasn't that just more focused on the GUI than win 3.x? sure it had 32 bit software support but it still ran on top of DOS. where's the innovation there?

apple started fresh with their mach kernel and slapped finder on top of it. they basically VM'ed OS9 so people could run their old stuff. why doesn't MS just do that?

instead of reusing the same OS over and over with new "features" just so you can support all of the old software, give me something new. if i want to run old shit let me VM it. just becuase each new release of windows takes more and more power to run doesn't mean it's getting more powerful. it means it's getting less efficient.

I intentionally excluded mention of linux to defeat any chance of being termed a "zealot". linux does have room to grow, but i agree with an earlier post about getting feedback to fix what's wrong/missing. let us have it MS. any deficiency you think we have is just a few cases of Bawls away.

Re:Desperate

[EvilIdler]

Besides, why would you want to turn *off* a computer you're likely
to log into remotely? The worst wear and tear on electrical
equipment is when you turn it on, like lightbulbs, isn't it?

Re:Desperate

[maxwell demon]

Well, MS will provide a much simpler and cleaner interface.

To start with, you won't need to enter any passwords, making the usage much simpler. You just need the remote shutdown client, which will automatically display all Windows machines it finds, and then you can just doubleclick on those machines you want to shut down. There will also be the convenient option "shutdown all", which enables you to shut down all Windows machines at once.

SCNR

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...

[MikeDX]

if MS decides to "nuke" IBMs Linux plans, trust me, IBM can "nuke" Windows as well.

With winuke.exe ?

Re:But also don't forget...

[StealthBadger]

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.

Re:But also don't forget...

[16K Ram Pack]

Which is the biggest computer company in the world?

Re:But also don't forget...

[nelsonal]

It depends on how you measure, by market value MS is, by almost any other measure IBM is. The two are very similar in profit levels. IBM leads in sales, employees, patents, and diversity (of product lines).

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...

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

And still, the only thing that really matters, is who has more connections.

Is IBM's court/DOJ influence bigger? Does IBM have a bigger portfolio of questionable legal tactics?

Re:But also don't forget...

[phildog]

market caps:

MSFT: 299B
IBM: 142B

please define how IBM is "still larger" 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.

Re:But also don't forget...

[Anonymous Coward]

Pulled information from the company websites, in particular these URLs for $ info: Microsoft and IBM

Head counts:

Microsoft 57,086

IBM 319,273 Net Income:

Microsoft US$8.17 billion

IBM US$7.583 billion Revenue:

Microsoft $8.065 billion

IBM $89.131 billion

Looks like IBM is "bigger" in some areas. IBM employs a lot more people and generates quite a bit of revenue compared to Microsoft.

Life guard off duty - Stay out of the shallow end of the gene pool.

Re:But also don't forget...

[phildog]

The stock market rewards scalability. It is cheaper for Microsoft to add customer number n+1 than it is for IBM. Microsoft enjoys higher margins.

Don't get me wrong, I think IBM has a great business too, as does Apple for that matter. But if IBM wanted to buy MSFT they would be out of luck. If Microsoft wanted to buy IBM it would be possible. That is maybe the best way to measure who is biggest.

Re:But also don't forget...

[Xabraxas]

The stock market rewards scalability. It is cheaper for Microsoft to add customer number n+1 than it is for IBM. Microsoft enjoys higher margins.

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.

Re:But also don't forget...

[StealthBadger]

From This site

"1990 - The Schism

In 1990, IBM and Microsoft were still working together on the development of OS/2. Microsoft, however, had found that Windows 3.0 - released in May 1990 - generated more revenue for them and therefore allotted increasingly more resource to Windows and correspondingly less to OS/2.

By late 1990, Microsoft had intensified its disagreements with IBM to the point where IBM decided that it would have to take some overt action to ensure that OS/2 development continued at a reasonable pace. IBM, therefore, took over complete development responsibility for OS/2 1.x, even though it was in its dying days, and OS/2 2.00. Microsoft would continue development on Windows and OS/2 3.00. Shortly after this split, Microsoft renamed OS/2 V3 to Windows NT."

Another rumored part of the split is that MS wanted the GUI wrapped up in the kernel, and IBM thought that was a stupid idea. *shrugs* Who knows?

Re:But also don't forget...

[Rasta Prefect]

Market caps:

MSFT: 299B
IBM: 142B

please define how IBM is "still larger" than Microsoft...

Easy. Look at something meaningful like revenue, rather than Market Cap, which is basically a stock market popularity contest.

Re:But also don't forget...

[antek9]

In German you say the same ('Geld stinkt nicht.'), yet it doesn't mean [b]you must find it[/b] at all, rather, it doesn't matter where you got it from once you got it...

Re:But also don't forget...

[redog]

Yes, but the real question is who has more bandwidth?

Re:But also don't forget...

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

So they start off with patents, and M$ starts to retreat a bit. They go to their pet congressmen and say "Here boy! Here boy, go fetch me favorable legislation!".

"You Honor, we can't possibly seek relief against this guerilla organization, they're stealing our patents and we don't even have anyone to sue. And IBM, long an enemy of poor old Microsoft, is using this opportunity to attack us... you must not allow them to be part of the lawsuit!"

You see it as the number of patents, the number of lawyers. I see it as the number of congressional bribes, the dirty (probably illegal) legal tricks they'll use, and the "morale" of dark side. The kinds of people who don't care, for whom all this is business, they want to be on the winning side, even if that means switching now. Those kinds of people invariably (at least in my personal experience) seem to prefer M$ already, and if they perceive it as the winner... and don't forget they're the people that make all the important decisions.

Even if I'm wrong, though, can you argue that your position is anything other than foolish overconfidence?

Re:But also don't forget...

[T-Ranger]

IBM wrote the book on questionable legal tatics. They once faced DOJ monopoly litigation just as MS has. They have shelved the book, right beside the IBM Songbook, but it is within easy reach.

Re:But also don't forget...

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

It's been over a generation though, since they really tried anything like it themselves. I'm not sure if any of the important flesh-eating lawyers are even on the payroll. More importantly, it's easier to be on the offensive, in this kind of thing... IBM is the one trying to defend things here.

Hope you're right.

Re:But also don't forget...

[Xabraxas]

Even if I'm wrong, though, can you argue that your position is anything other than foolish overconfidence?

Look in the mirror buddy. You're the one who is a little overconfident. Don't you think IBM has some connections too? Is Microsoft the only company with political clout? I don't think so.

Re:But also don't forget...

[Xabraxas]

Battle hardened lawyers : Microsoft jas at least 3 times as many as IBM

I call bullshit. You pulled that one out of your ass. IBM has always had a lot of lawyers. They have many more employees than Microsoft, and their lawyers are pretty battle hardened. They took SCO to school and back again.

Microsoft makes more profits than IBM, even with only a third of IBM's sales.

That's what happens when you sell something that costs nothing to make. It helps when you own the market and can charge whatever you want. Perhaps MS should be putting some more of that money into useful things like security.

Re:But also don't forget...

[True Grit]

More importantly, it's easier to be on the offensive, in this kind of thing... IBM is the one trying to defend things here.

IBM was on the defensive with the DOJ too, back when they were the monopoly, and just about everyone agrees that they *were* guilty at the time, however AFAICT, IBM has the much stronger position in this fight, no matter that they are defending. For SCO to win big, they have to show massive wrong-doing on IBM's part, yet everyone is still waiting for SCO to indicate the "millions of lines" of code in Linux that belongs to them. Getting IBM on a few minor violations won't help SCO, any fine or penalty less than, say, $300M won't effect IBM at all, and it won't hurt Linux either. So if they can't show flagrant and willfull wrong-doing on a grand scale by IBM, they're history.

Re:But also don't forget...

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Technically, I'd be underconfident, since I'm not cheering microsoft on. You guys aren't much for subtly are you? But I'm only underconfident if this situation proves that my caution was overkill. I doubt that will happen.

Read up though, rather than assuming all big companies have more or less equal "connections" and political "clout". Because that's what you've done, isn't it?

Re:But also don't forget...

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Ah, you misunderstand. Yes, they'll win the SCO suit, I have no doubt. That is merely a probing attack though, by a M$ puppet. I'm referring to the hypothetical real thing, where M$ itself sues "linux" one one ground or another, but particularly the patent infringement alluded to in the story.

Re:But also don't forget...

[Xabraxas]

Read up though, rather than assuming all big companies have more or less equal "connections" and political "clout". Because that's what you've done, isn't it?

Obviously you have done your homework since you cited so many sources, or maybe you just read two articles about the US anti-trust case and the recent bundling case in Europe.

Re:But also don't forget...

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

First off, I'm not a professional researcher. So no, I didn't cite any sources. I spend more time than I should on slashdot anyway, and spending 6 hours citing everything, doing it all proper... well, that isn't going to happen. If I did though, would it get me anything like your agreement? Probably not. You'd find fault with my methodology or something. So, wasting even more of my life here, just so you have one less way to attack me doesn't seem like much of a bargain.

Second, I apologize for suggesting that you read things yourself. Obviously, since you'd only be doing so with all your witless pre-concieved notions, it could only prove what you've decided to be true anyway, so there is no reason for you to waste your time either.

Remember this though. Despite some people's suggestions, I am not a M$ astroturfer. I dislike them, maybe even hate isn't too strong a term. If they win, it will only be with the most devious methods, and nothing like a fair fight. I do not want them to win. I will howl and moan each and every time they pull a dirty trick, I'm not even an apologist for them when they might borderline deserve that (though, come to think of it, I don't even know if there ever was such a situation). All that I've said, rightly or wrongly, is only a warning that it may not be a given that Linux will win quickly, easily, or even at all.

Make of that what you will.

Re:But also don't forget...

[Xabraxas]

First off, I'm not a professional researcher.

That's obvious enough.

So no, I didn't cite any sources. I spend more time than I should on slashdot anyway, and spending 6 hours citing everything, doing it all proper... well, that isn't going to happen. If I did though, would it get me anything like your agreement? Probably not. You'd find fault with my methodology or something. So, wasting even more of my life here, just so you have one less way to attack me doesn't seem like much of a bargain.

Second, I apologize for suggesting that you read things yourself. Obviously, since you'd only be doing so with all your witless pre-concieved notions, it could only prove what you've decided to be true anyway, so there is no reason for you to waste your time either.

Your post is typical of someone who has no evidence to support their claims. Personal attacks cannot replace actual evidence though. You can call me "witless" but that doesn't prove your point for you. It just makes you look foolish.

All that I've said, rightly or wrongly, is only a warning that it may not be a given that Linux will win quickly, easily, or even at all.

When the hell were we talking about Linux? I was talking about IBM and Microsoft. Maybe that's where your confusion came into play.

Basically in the end I am to believe that your claims are correct and that I am an idiot, because you said so, without any proof. Forgive me for disagreeing.

Re:But also don't forget...

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Oh, but you never stoop to personal attacks. Haha. Believe my claims? Did I ever prefix a sentence with "You should believe this" ? No. You're supposed to read them, and maybe reconsider your own opinions, think about it, and decide whether they are plausible or not. Only preachers expect people to "believe" what they say.

As for whether it's IBM vs M$ (it won't be), or linux vs. M$... lots of people seem to be confused. Bunch of ijits "IBM will save us, they're our hero!". Something is stinky here though, and they won't be around forever, or they'll give up on the defense. Wait and see.

Re:But also don't forget...

[Xabraxas]

Oh, but you never stoop to personal attacks.

There you are putting words in my mouth again. All I said is that personal attacks don't prove your point. Discussions get heated sometimes and people say stupid things but that doesn't change the facts.

Believe my claims? Did I ever prefix a sentence with "You should believe this" ? No. You're supposed to read them, and maybe reconsider your own opinions, think about it, and decide whether they are plausible or not. Only preachers expect people to "believe" what they say.

You are the one preaching. I only disagreed with the point that MS would destroy IBM in a patent battle. I see no evidence to back this up. IBM has more revenue, more people, and more patents. That doesn't mean they would definitely win but I don't see how it can show that they will lose, and I don't see any evidence provided by you that would alter my opinion, because you have shown no evidence at all. I simply decided that your opinion is not plausible given the facts.

As for whether it's IBM vs M$ (it won't be), or linux vs. M$... lots of people seem to be confused. Bunch of ijits "IBM will save us, they're our hero!".

I never made that claim so you must not be talking about me. I don't expect IBM to do a damn thing for me. I don't expect any company to. They are there to make money.

Something is stinky here though, and they won't be around forever, or they'll give up on the defense. Wait and see.

Sure Miss Cleo, whatever you say.

Your favorite quote

[FreeLinux]

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???

Re:Your favorite quote

[Advocadus Diaboli]

First question: Which of the hundreds of distros do I use? Hundreds of different answers.

Simple answer: Use the distribution that an experienced friend of yours is using.

Second question: If they are all Linux, why will this application run on one but not the other? Development geek speak.

That will also happen to you when you use Windows. While Linux offers you the "dependency hell" Windows invites you to "DLL hell". And in my multilingual family I also had situations in which an extension package for a Windows app that was localized for Germany didn't run on the base package that was localized for Italy. No, the problems are just different under Windows, but they still exist.

Third question: Of the hundreds of choices of this particular application, which is best? Hundreds of naswers and then a massive flame war.

So what's your point here? Is having the choice so bad? If I want to travel from New York to San Francisco I can also do a hundred of different routes... or I do the Microsoft highway and pay the big toll for it while other roads are toll free and even maybe going through a much more beautiful landscape...

Re:Your favorite quote

[moonbender]

The point is that choice has it's problems, apart from all the positive sides it has. I certainly can sympathise with his claims. Take mostly any major Linux application and there will be at least two main software choices any countless minor ones: KDE or Gnome, or one of a thousand small WM/desktop environments? Sendmail or postfix? Redhat or SuSE, Debian or Gentoo? Vim or Emacs, Nano or Joe? Mplayer or Xine? And along with these choices come lots of other aspects: different software distribution schemes in both source and binary form, different core user interfaces, different configuration styles - XML config? GUI? plain? two out of three?

Sure, some of these are inconsequential - I don't think there's any problem with having two l33t text editors and a lot of editors for the rest of us. But for some things it'd be really, really nice if they were standardized. In my eyes, that's first and foremost the packaging system and the configuration, although especially the latter is probably extremely difficult to standardise in a meaningful way - note that "put system settings in /etc and individual settings in ~/.programname" is not a meaningful standard. :)

Re:Your favorite quote

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Which version of windows do I want? ME? 2000? XP? What does "pro" mean? Why won't my software install now? What do you mean, I have to either reinstall my old version of windows, or buy new versions of my software?

Re:Your favorite quote

[sharkey]

Which version of windows do I want? ME? 2000? XP? What does "pro" mean?

Pro means "Add $200" and be licensed for a second CPU.

In XP it also means you can be an Active directory client and can connect to Windows 2000 Terminal Services via the embedded license, but not to Windows 2003 Terminal Services.

Re:Your favorite quote

[sad_]

in the windows world it goes like this:

First question: Which of the hundreds of distros do I use?

i admit there are not that much versions of windows around (yet :P) as linux distros. but just for kicks, ask on any forum which windows is best and which you should use. you'll get nowhere with the answers you'll get there.

Second question: If they are all Linux, why will this application run on one but not the other? Development geek speak.

_might_ be better in the windows world, if you take prebuild binary packages/installers into account only! even so, a lot of stuff doesn't work in certain versions of windows, try explaining your uncle why his favourite app no longer works on his new pc with the latest windows on it

Third question: Of the hundreds of choices of this particular application, which is best? Hundreds of naswers and then a massive flame war.

ok, i though windows had the most apps available? well, that is what you guys always claim, so if you have more apps available, you must have more apps to choose from. same flames as we have on linux, perhaps you don't see them as often, the linux crowd appears to be more vocal :)

Re:Your favorite quote

[MrCreosote]

"Freedom from choice, is what you want
Freedom of choice, is what you've got"

Devo.

Irony Is Wonderful...

[Medusian]

As I was reading this posting, it just so happened that I looked to the banner ad at the top of the page... and what to my wondering eyes did appear? Why, Microsoft "Facts" trying to bend my ear.

Aside from that crappy bit of rhyme, I find it interesting that MS's entire ad campaign for getting the facts has the feeling of a parent talking down to a child, "Dont be silly Billy-the-IT-professional! Windows is the only proffesional choice!" That, combined with Microsoft's inability to understand the fact that just becuase Linux is now grounded with corporate association it dosent mean that they cant bully unix out of existance really urks me. High fiving everyone my ass...

At least they are thinking...

[Aslan72]

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

What plan?

[rseuhs]

I don't see any plan.

Or do you mean by "plan" paing for more studies?

Microsoft tried a lot against Linux already (calling it a cancer, letting SCO claim it's IP is illegal, making TCO-studies and even lowering prices)

So far nothing (including lowering the prices) has stopped Linux. Linux is growing in all branches of IT.

Kind of rich after a 250mb patch

[SmallFurryCreature]

Considering XP comes on 1 cd and a cd can only contain 700mb and reasoning they did not need to patch the "windows tunes or skins or wallpapers" it can reasonably be argued that SP2 replaces 1/3 of the software. That ain't a patch that is a rebuild. Just translate it to say a building or a car. If your car needed 1/3 of its parts replaced after you only got it for 2 years what would you say to the maker?

And it is not like SP2 is doing anything radical, it is just increasing security, so MS'es product was so badly put together that just to add a tiny level of extra security it had to replace so much code and spend so much time.

This can only be the result of extremely bad management and directionless developement of their software.

No this claim by MS shows that somewhere at the top something is really really wrong. They just don't get linux. The weird thing about linux is not that it is by nature that much more secure, I could easily make a linux install that would make Windows 95 look good. I think the real succes behind Linux is that it is not actively trying to stop you from making a secure system.

Plenty on /. talk about how hard linux is to use. They forget that the world has plenty of techies for whom this is merely a challenge.

A formule 1 car is a nightmare to drive and most people with a license wouldn't even be able to complete one lap in it if they even get manage to not stall or crash at the start. That is because the wheels on a normal car are turned slightly in wich causes the car the want to drive straight forward but a race car got them neutral so that it is easier to steer but hell to keep straight.

Linux is harder to drive but once you learned it you are in control, not some marketing weirdo at redmond. That is why I like linux. I can figure it out, I am in control, it is my OS.

MS real enemy is MS. To many people now have a stake in MS being reduced. Who are MS allies? Only those it can buy. Mercenaries are not known for their loyaltie.

Re:Kind of rich after a 250mb patch

[phoenix.bam!]

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.

Re:Kind of rich after a 250mb patch

[Azghoul]

Yeah, that's SO MUCH BETTER!

Holy shit, 15% of my expensive fucking software is broken and needs to be replaced? Yikes!

Re:Kind of rich after a 250mb patch

[LaCosaNostradamus]

Considering XP comes on 1 cd and a cd can only contain 700mb and reasoning they did not need to patch the "windows tunes or skins or wallpapers" it can reasonably be argued that SP2 replaces 1/3 of the software. That ain't a patch that is a rebuild.

You forgot to mention SP1a, which at 125MB makes SP2 the 2nd rebuild.

At any rate, what does it matter? People are eating up SP2 like good little sheep. Heck, they are counting their blessings that Microsoft has deigned to issue them some fixes. Microsoft has thoroughly house-trained its customer base to be their software test department. I just figure that, if we're going to be users AND testers, we may as well run Open Source.

Big Business will Never learn.

[Trizor]

Strategists and Paychecks won't fix your corporate competition problem. Nor will billions of features that no one will use and only bloat your product. Quality and Control. Thats what I look for in a product. Is it high quality? Does it stay stable after and install or require to reboot? Do I the user have as much or as little control as I want? Will the system configure itsself if I don't want to, but allow me to tweak later? Can I get in and mess with the nitty gritty, but have a nice abstraction layer? All roads point to Unix or Linux in this case. Almost apple. Almost.

A brief suggestion

[Anonymous Coward]

To any and all CIOs and CEOs that might be reading this:

Before you listen to anybody's suggestions (maybe even mine here), get a copy of *nix, throw it on a machine or three and beat them up with some sample data. You *will* be impressed. Look at YOUR costs for microsoft CALs and look at YOUR costs for support. Then look at the performance and do the math for yourself. If you're uneasy with the tempest currently swirling around Linux and/or the GPL then use one of the BSDs.

In any event, do it. Your responsibility to the company, its investors and its customers mandates you do this; whatever your ultimate decision.

*cough*AD*cough*

[Craig Ringer]

"the devil is in the details. This stuff is not easy to run."

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 :-P . I can also version changes, which is nice (note to distributors: PLEASE start designing for a versioned /etc .).

If Linux distros could offer a consistent config file format (Pick one. Seriously.), some form of config inheritance (eg load /etc/defaults/[someconfig], then /home/username/.config/[someconfig], then /etc/overrides/[someconfig]) and lockdown (think KDE's kiosk), that would help a lot. Yes, I understand that this is almost impossible given the nature of Linux distros as assemblies of independenly developed software, but nonetheless this would be awfully nice.

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.

Re:*cough*AD*cough*

[AsbestosRush]

Thus once again, proving that the Jargon dictionary knows all... All X Sucks

Re:*cough*AD*cough*

[adamfranco]

(note to distributors: PLEASE start designing for a versioned /etc .)

This is a REALLY good idea! Just think, roll-back your configuration to a known working point, tags, be able to run dated diffs to find out what some GUI config tool changed...

Has anyone tried importing /etc into a cvs repository? I am a little worried that those CVS directories migh cause errors in the rcX.d (and I don't have a spare machine to try it on right now). I guess another issue with cvs would be symbolic links. Hmmm.

Any suggestions on how to achieve this sort of functionality with currently availible tools, or do we need a transparent, filesystem-based, versioning system?

Re:*cough*AD*cough*

[Craig Ringer]

Yeah, quite a few people do it. I'd just like to see it built in to distros, preferably with something bit better suited for config management than CVS, which isn't really designed for that.

There are definitely issues. I do version quite a few of my configs using CVS, I just wish it was easier and nicer to do.

I think you're making a bit of a big jump from "availible tools" to "transparent, filesystem-based, versioning system". I think a versioning and management system designed for managing configuration, rather than concurrent software development, would do quite well enough.

Re:*cough*AD*cough*

[DoctorMO]

I know gentoo has an etc versioning system that means it's portage doesn't scribble over your config files.

although it would be rather good to have etc constancy or at least files that have most of the options in them, or man pages that are verbose as well as the short and sweet.

Ah Linux, you may be a Cutie, but your still just a cobbled together Frankensteins monster.

Re:*cough*AD*cough*

[KozmoStevnNaut]

I know gentoo has an etc versioning system that means it's portage doesn't scribble over your config files.

You still have to go through the updates manually, though, which can be quite time-consuming if you neglect it for a month or so.

Ah Linux, you may be a Cutie, but your still just a cobbled together Frankensteins monster.

Quite true, but it's my cobbled together Frankenstein monster cutie ;)

Re:*cough*AD*cough*

[Craig Ringer]

I'll admit to not having looked into cfengine in detail yet. It strikes me as overkill, for one thing. I do need to check it out, though, you're quite right.

As for the inheritance issue, I think that can ONLY be tackled with cooperation from the application. The day I can set defaults for all users in /etc/default/appname (for example) and see them inherited by all users, or set overrides in /etc/override/appname (again, for example) and see users's control of some settings locked, I'll be a very happy admin. Especially if the app has the brains to use /usr/share/config/appname for it's configuration, and read that before my /etc/default/appname settings.

Yes, I know that the user can get past overrides easily - just use LD_PRELOAD to fake out /etc/override, recompile the app, or probably just run it with --no-overrides -- that's not the point, the point is to prevent (usually accidental, unwitting, or ... witless) config changes. KDE is the only thing I've seen with this ability, and I like the way it does it.

As for the LSB, I would be very, very happy to see some sort of 'libconfig' in LSB if it implemented the stuff I talked about above (and was designed to work well with configuration version managment). We're talking dancing naked in the streets here (trust me, you don't want to see that, so perhaps I should say "promising not to go dancing naked in the streets..."). A close second would be 'libfiledialogui'.

Re:*cough*AD*cough*

[aardwolf204]

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

Re:*cough*AD*cough*

[tal197]

some form of config inheritance (eg load /etc/defaults/[someconfig], then /home/username/.config/[someconfig], then /etc/overrides/[someconfig])

See freedesktop's basedir spec. Being from freedesktop, it's likely to see wide-spread adoption (hopefully soon including the LSB).

Re:*cough*AD*cough*

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

I've been doing this for a while. Running CVS as root is a bit scary though.

Re:*cough*AD*cough*

[mitch0]

Try Subversion. AFAIR it supports symlinks now, and is much better than CVS in general.

a versioned /etc is certainly possible. you might also want to check out tools like rcsvi (should be adapted to SVN, in this case)

cheers,
mitch

Re:*cough*AD*cough*

[grcumb]

"(note to distributors: PLEASE start designing for a versioned /etc .)."

Done.

See, this is why I love Free Software.

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.

Re:A little know your enemy would be good for OSS

[pandrijeczko]

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.

Why is the GUI relevant in this instance? Of course, a lot of people run Linux as desktop systems and Linux has not yet made any real inroads into the corporate desktop environment yet.

Microsoft is currently hurting from Linux displacing Windows in the server environment where the GUI side of things is pretty much irrelevant. In this area, it's about cost, speed and stability, not how the system looks. Besides, when you get to corporate server level, the main criteria is how good your sysadmin people are (whether on Linux or Windows) and a good Linux sysadmin can shell-script a lot of configuration stuff to make any Linux server as easy (or easier) to maintain than a Windows one.

As to the GUI side of things, that's pretty much personal opinion anyway - I don't use KDE, for example, because I consider it as bloated as the Windows GUI, preferring a more sleeker windowmanager like Fluxbox. However, I don't see the functionality of KDE as being much less than Windows these days anyway...

Where Linux does have a weakness on the desktop side is the perception of a lack of applications compared to Windows - in reality, you can do just about anything on a Linux box that you can do on a Windows one (if not more) but you might be reliant on command line tools and scripting to get some of those things done.

Re:A little know your enemy would be good for OSS

[LibrePensador]

Linux is here and it works now. Try MDK 10. Fast, stable and full-featured. Isn't that the kind of OS that we want in the Oval Office at a time of unprecedented change and challenges?

Ooops, wrong speech. :)

Re:A little know your enemy would be good for OSS

[sploo22]

Syllable looks nice, but it's still too Unixy for most people. You said that the GUI is an important aspect; by the same token, lumping all programs together in a directory with a cryptic name like /bin is not a smart move. It's not critical, but it doesn't make a good impression.

Re:A little know your enemy would be good for OSS

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Then we've already lost. No one denies Microsoft makes the prettiest icons. Though, they were sorta candy-assed faggoty looking in XP....

Re:A little know your enemy would be good for OSS

[o'reor]

MDK10 ? In the Oval Office ? Is that not a piece of french software ?

Wooops, sorry, I meant "Freedom Software", of course ! ;-)

Re:A little know your enemy would be good for OSS

[soliptic]

I'm not sure about your obsession with shinyness. I have XP looking just like 98 and I'd rather eat my own leg than have the awful default theme. OS X does nothing for me either. I want to use my computer, it's not a fucking kaleidoscope or lava lamp or explosion at a candy factory.

But I agree, some "know your enemy" would be good from many members of the linux and slashdot communities. First on the agenda: the BSOD joke. Want to carry on undermining your whole claim? Go ahead and carry on with endless jokes about Windows == BSOD. Fact is, I haven't seen a single one since getting this OS - not even when a hard drive died! That's about 18 months, during which the PC has been in heavy use - it's left online downloading most nights, and I regularly run at 90%+ CPU usage for hours on end using music software of various *ahem* dubious origins. The OS has never once blue-screened, died or crashed on me. Apps - frequently. OS - just doesn't happen anymore.

Re:A little know your enemy would be good for OSS

[cyclop]

I use Windows XP at work and Linux at home (Mandrake 10) and at my parent's home (a shiny new Slackware 10).
And I never,ever saw a better gui than KDE. (GNOME people,please don't bash me now). Seriously. Not even Aqua. The winxp gui is slow and sucks. It looks like it has been drawn by Teletubbies. No matter how cool (?) skins you put on it. It will suck. Forever. KDE 3.2+ is quite fast (anyway,not slower than XP) and it is much,much more easy and overall aestethically pleasant.

When I let XP people see a Knoppix or Mandrake KDE 3.x desktop, they are simply shocked. "Wow!And they told me linux interfaces sucked...".

I remember it was spring 2003 when I pondered switching to Linux for months. I was almost convinced, but...Then I plugged in Knoppix, and I saw THAT desktop.

I installed Mandrake the day after.

(p.s. - Syllable is a lovely project, but I think that we will be much more rewarded by pushing on X-window desktop interfaces -they're cross-platform,too!- instead of reinventing the wheel again)

the slideshow

[DeusExMalex]

i like how in the slideshow it quotes balmer saying "linux is keeping us on our feet". at least he admits that without linux, microsoft would be dead in the water. i also think it's interesting to note that microsoft keeps talking about technology as if it's a competetion - "we already won against novell" (as if beating someone once prevents them from ever being a threat again (cough cough apple cough)).

there's so much stupidity quoted in this article that it hurts... "don't tell us you're deploying linux just because you can" - but what if i am? what if i am running it just because i can? not to mention the 13 studies paid for by microsoft that all showed *gasp* that microsoft is better in every concievable way, shape and form than $OPPOSITION. who would have guessed that a microsoft study would put microsoft on top?

they are still clueless

[erroneus]

Second to the last paragraph:

Taylor thinks Novell poses the biggest threat to Microsoft. "They have the best opportunity," he says. Through two acquisitions Novell has amassed a hefty stack of Linux-based software that includes a server operating system, desktop and management software. Novell gives resellers up to 15% commissions on top of the usual commission on first-time Linux customer deals.

What is wrong with this statement? I think it's pretty clear. I think what they really acquired when Novell bought SuSE is a bunch of really smart people who can develop the stuff they want under Linux. From my perspective, Apple is to PC as Microsoft is to Linux. That's something Microsoft has got to get a grip on. They can attack Linux vending companies 'til there are no more Linux vending companies any more, but will that stop anything? It might slow things down... some things might need ot reborn, but basically, since no one OWNs Linux, there will always be someone willing to pick up where others left off.

Microsoft? Are you listening? You'd better start writing applications that run on Linux and make your own distro. That's the only way to shut out the competition. They could actually pull it off once they got over their stupid pride issues.

Pointy stick! Pointy stick!

[clickety6]

Allchin points to new features in the version of Windows due in 2007 that will allow users to remotely turn PCs on or off

It's a 5m long pointy stick for jabbing at theon/off button - yay!!!

Re:Pointy stick! Pointy stick!

[oneandoneis2]

It's a 5m long pointy stick for jabbing at theon/off button - yay!!! No, no, no! It's THREE 5m long point sticks for jabbing at the Ctrl, Alt, and Del keys :o)

Re:Pointy stick! Pointy stick!

[Kafka_Canada]

It's a 5m long pointy stick for jabbing at theon/off button - yay!!!

A finglonger?

A man can dream...

Re:Pointy stick! Pointy stick!

[mbourgon]

Is that the proverbial 30 foot pole you wouldn't touch Windows with?

Re:Pointy stick! Pointy stick!

[sharkey]

The fingers you have used to power-off are too fat. To order a special power-button wand, please mash your palm on the keyboard now.

Quotes

[manavendra]

(warning: This is a inflammatory, trollish post. Mods, please mark it that way)

They are actually getting some of their sales people certified as Linux experts

So at least they will be expert in *something*. Some day these very skills may bail them out.

1/10th of their test servers now run Linux

Smart move then! Less down time, less security hassles...

There's no set architecture in Linux

So they accept there are architectures in Linux? Conversely, they acknowledge Linux is smart enough to have different architectures for different components/modules, and understands that an OS is not a straight-jacket one-size fits-all thing?

..All roads lead to madness

Which is why they are embracing that madness and studying it? ...

(aah, this feels good!)

Re:pattern

[smallguy78]

3) their excutives cries

What God Wants, God Gets

[Saint Stephen]

Microsoft will eventually find some unexpected way to counter Linux, if you keep paying attention to them. The best thing to do is just let Microsoft continue to make money hand over first for the next ten years or so, wait for Gates and Balmer to retire, and *still* Microsoft will be around for 50 more years, being all important -- but they'll just fade into the woodwork. Best to keep your mind focused on your work.

Re:What God Wants, God Gets

[pohl]

God wants EULAs
God wants games
God wants shrinkwrap
God wants brand names
What God Wants, God gets.
Don't look so surprised; I'm only joking...

The only way for MS to 'win' ...

[torpor]

... is to build their own Distro, brand it with the Microsoft logo, and get it into distribution channels as far and as wide as possible.

It makes no sense for Microsoft to 'resist' Linux at all. Microsoft are just as capable of doing a kernel.tar.gz and stage1.tar.gz style release as anyone else. Why don't they just do it?

If there were a "Microsoft Linux", then Novell wouldn't stand a chance. Any existing MS-only shop looking to upgrade to Linux would definitely consider an "MS Linux" package over any other option, at least at first.

Seems to me, this article, and a few of the other ones recently from Microsoft on the subject of "Linux", is all a big prep-job to open the doors for a Microsoft-sourced Linux distro.

It could happen. I'd like to see it happen, personally. It'd be good to give people like these guys, and heck, even these guys a bit of competition from Microsoft ...

Re:The only way for MS to 'win' ...

[DeusExMalex]

the thing is, microsoft would, of course, want their linux distro to be closed-source. and our freind mr GPL probably won't go for that...

Re:The only way for MS to 'win' ...

[torpor]

rubbish.

if they played entirely by our rules for 2 years, they'd still have enough cash left over to compete with whoever survived having all open-source revenues robbed from them.

mark my words. if microsoft 'switch' to open source, then the 'open source industry' is doomed. it'll be a strict and stringent reversal back to closed-bins technologies, a sudden boom in impregnable on chip hardware dongle-ization, and microsoft will have both 'open source free' and 'propietary hardware system' markets pretty much in hand.

its foolish to think they won't switch, 'just coz'. they very well could become, in 6 months, one of the biggest Open Source players, defeating all who once thought they had a chance. this story may be the prelude to that ...

Re:The only way for MS to 'win' ...

[Brandybuck]

It wouldn't help Microsoft to do their own distro. While it may keep a few customers from bailing, it won't stop the long term hemorrhage. Replacing a $100-300 operating system with a $50 distro isn't going to help their bottom line.

Their real revenue geneating products aren't operating systems however. They're the applications. Port MS Office, Exchange, Outlook, IIS, etc., to Linux/BSD/Solaris. Then they will still have a project even after Windows is dead and buried. It would be a crapload of work, but if they remove its presence in kernel land, they can even port over their entire desktop.

Re:The only way for MS to 'win' ...

[DeusExMalex]

possibly. but why in the world would microsoft make such a move? anyone who knows what the words "open source" means also knows not to trust microsoft. that's part of the point.

assuming they do make the "switch", however, doesn't automatically make them a humongous player in open-source software. this is because suddenly, they're playing by a new set of rules. if they make a linux distro, then they're playing by the rules of the GPL, and that means they can't say "nope - this is ours, bitches!" and engage in seige capitalism against whomever tries to look at their code.

if a consumer is considering running linux as their primary OS, then they already know why they don't want to be running windows. base language (unix vs dos) won't make a difference in that. no one already in the linux community would touch that with a 50-foot pole, so microsoft would have to rely on those informed enough to know what linux is, yet ignorant of why they would want to use linux. must i point out why this person won't switch to linux, microsoftian or otherwise - let alone exists?

Re:The only way for MS to 'win' ...

[torpor]

assuming they do make the "switch", however, doesn't automatically make them a humongous player in open-source software. this is because suddenly, they're playing by a new set of rules.

If MS Linux was available from Microsoft, hardly anyone would really bother with any of the other distro's.

Especially if it were a decent distro.

Microsoft have one thing that other Open Source companies don't have, and need badly: Capital.

Turn out an MS Linux, and with Bill Gates' $$$-pile, the face of Open Source operating systems could be irrevocably changed, forever...

If Microsoft sells a box-package of MS Linux for $50, or includes it in their 'Server Suite', thats pure profit. They have just as much of a right to sell it as anyone else ... and there are plenty of people who would switch to Linux, if MS Linux was on the roadmap...

Re:The only way for MS to 'win' ...

[man_ls]

All MS would have to do would be make a super-slick Linux that works just like every other Linux, and GPL it. But it doesn't mean they have to GPL their other apps.

A Linuxy Linux with a binary-level Win32 API compatibility, natively, by the people who wrote Win32, would be a killer app. That's all it would take.

Re:The only way for MS to 'win' ...

[DeusExMalex]

would you switch to ms linux if they made a distro? i don't see anything so great about windows apps that would keep me using their crappy systems. and even if they did make ms linux, their unix-dos translation/native linux dos format/whatever would undoubtedly be part of the operating system, and thus part of ye olde GPL. since it would be GPL'd, it would thus be portable to other linux systems, giving me yet another reason to not use ms linux.

Try being a Windows server admin

[Craig Ringer]

Scripting becomes a whole new learning experience if you're moving from *nix scripting. You can do SO much more, but ad-hoc scripting is a screaming f**ing nightmare, so it's often just easier to do it manually, or not automate that task that could maybe be automated.

Then there's handling software that doesn't like to live together on the same server.

I'm very far from deluded enough to believe that Linux is perfect, or even particularly good, and the MS systems do have some serious advantages. On the other hand, I think they have as much of a problem with overconfigurability as Linux, just in different ways. With Linux, I feel like I'm forced to do a lot of the OS engineer's job. With windows, I feel trapped as soon as I try to go outside the bounds of the pre-designed capabilities of the system.

Let's call them both broken and pick whichever is least excruciatingly broken for the task at hand.

Re:Try being a Windows server admin

[Craig Ringer]

COM and DCOM.

[before I continue, note: it's 2:15 AM here now and I can't sleep after a _long_ day at work. So I may not be as coherent as I could be.]

The only thing even close is dcop under KDE, and that's not really implemented on most things that a server admin will be scripting.

Yes, Windows needs COM etc more than *NIX because apps are normally immmense single programs compared to the (ideal but far from universal) many small programs on *NIX, but even so there are times when you can just get "into the guts" of a server in a way you often can't do under *nix. When daemons provide good 'control' programs it helps (think apachectl, rndc) but they never seem to be as powerful or rich as what can be done with COM.

It's a bit of an odd reversal, actually. For once, I find myself cursing the designers of a UNIX app for not designing in ways to use it for things they hadn't thought of, where I can get much more control of a similar Windows server app. The opposite is almost always true. Of course, for things the *nix app designers anticipated, it's a million times quicker, easier and more reliable - I don't /like/ COM on tiny, teensy bit, and prefer to use basically anything else. It's just nice to have it there.

I'd love to see something like dcop move into the *nix server space. Yes, I know there's nothing like that under Windows either (the Mac has the closest with AppleScript). Think 'dcop $DAEMON reload_config' where the script doesn't even have to care what DAEMON is, so long as it understands 'reload_config'.

Imagine if you could write something like this:

for DAEMON in $DAEMONS; do
# Hold any more disk-related activity
# once any in-progress operations like
# mail deliveries have completed. We don't
# want to have anything like a mailbox with
# a delivered message but no updated index
# file, after all.
dcop $DAEMON pause
# Sync all buffers on open files so the
# disk snapshot is consistent at the
# application level.
dcop $DAEMON sync_all
done
# Now take the filesystem snapshot, the
# LVM will do the actual FS->disk sync
# for us
lvcreate -s -n var_snap /dev/OS/var
# Let the daemons resume using the disk
# now that the snapshot's been taken
for DAEMON in $DAEMONS ; do
dcop $DAEMON unpause

LVM snapshots are great, you see, but only cover the lower levels. LVM makes sure that the filesystem is synced, that there are no in-flight writes, etc. It doesn't ensure consistent snapshots at the application level for applications that may be half-way through a non-atomic operation, such as updating an indexed mail folder, though. This is really annoying, as you have to risk possibly inconsistent snapshots or stop and restart all your server processes. Ick. Wouldn't it be nice if there was a standard interface to ask them "please hold what you're doing with your disk storage" instead?

Another use would be getting activity stats out of apps, as this seems to be increasingly neglected these days, and it's often hard or impossibe to build things with support for SNMP or other monitoring.

I prefer the *nix scripting environment (a lot), and usually I can get more done in it. Mainly because I'm not frightened to go near it, and don't have to dedicate a week. (It's worth noting that I'm an _awful_ COM programmer, though). I can get things done with UNIX scripting much more quickly and usually more reliably, but somtimes I do wish for the real ability to get into the guts that COM provides - but on UNIX.

I agree 100%

[microbox]

Linux will never make it to the desktop unless the major distributors agree on a standard package format.

Once that hill has been climbed, then developers only need to create and test one type of package to distribute their software on any Linux distribution.

The old ./configure prefix=, make && make install is too archaic and relies on a good understanding of directory structure. Getting the software off can be impossible, and if you have to type in your root password... how long before that social engineering is exploited by virus writers.

Also, I find it too lengthy a process to edit all those configuration files... most Mac/Windows programs just run. Sygate is a good example of a useable firewall... it requires no instructions to use.

I think this is more important than improving KDE/Gnome etc.

Re:I agree 100%

[Brian Blessed]

The old ./configure prefix=, make && make install is too archaic and relies on a good understanding of directory structure

Gentoo's approach to this is brilliant. It would be great if other distributions were made using (and supplied with) Portage, and then they could still be distributed as binary packages if necessary.
Upgrading or installing a custom version of a package then becomes very easy.

- Brian.

Re:I agree 100%

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

I vote for tarballed source.

You're forgetting one thing, the user shouldn't be installing software on a work machine. This installation method doesn't require some little graphical doodad applet, so it can be done remotely by SSH. The admin can do this, as he should be doing. What's more, it's scriptable and automatable in ways that can't even be dreamt of on Windows. Same for configuration files.

Sygate? Not only do I trust netfilter about 10,000 times more than I could ever trust Sygate, sygate is a toy compared to netfilter. Anyone doing anything custom, unusual, or just plain difficult is only going to be able to do it with netfilter. I do agree that its power makes it complicated though. But if that's your problem download one of the many pre-written rc.firewall's out there...

So in other words, it's the perfect way to do it in a corporate enviroment.

Re:I agree 100%

[Stinking Pig]

And Windows really needs to lose that Program Manager interface, it's terribly clunky to use.

Get with the program man, you can install programs much more simply. Granted there are three or four different systems depending on your distribution, but that's because Linux has this funny thing called competition. You may have heard of it in an economics textbook.

Re:I agree 100%

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

The old ./configure prefix=, make && make install is too archaic

That's hilarious, there are standard package management systems on Linux, and some of them are easier than installing software in Windows. For instance, in Fedora Core I have the choice of using Apt, Yum, or RPM. Installing is as simple as doing a:

$ sudo apt-get install program

And while it's true there are a few packages which are only distributed as source, I'd rather have that, than some binary program that's distributed as freeware. (Anyway, such packages usually find their way into the distribution, so compiling is unnecessary anyway)

even better quotes:

[randyest]

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

Oh, we can hope, right? Holy cow that's nonsense.

Can Linux really handle crucial areas such as security and e-mail?

Yeah, email is tough. Maybe if we study OutLook really hard, we can make something so great . . . sigh.

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

Well, one of the answers is one of the "crucial areas" mentioned above. I bet you can guess which one.

Microsoft is actively sowing uncertainty and doubt among potential Linux customers over who, if anyone, owns the intellectual property behind open-source software.

What, no Fear?

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.

Ruh roh.

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.

Undeserving of a reply.

The strategy may be more insidious than that...

[StressGuy]

First off, I did *not* RTFA. This is just how I would approach the issue if I were Microsoft.

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. ....at least that's the strategy I would employ.

Re:The strategy may be more insidious than that...

[Dalcius]

The problem I see with the "Microsoft should support Linux" strategy is that Microsoft is fighting to keep ground instead of gain it.

Adding support to Linux while keeping away from the GPl and from contibuting to Linux as a whole will be tricky as well.

My Favourite Part..

[catwh0re]

I like two parts. Where the MS exec, describes MS as the innovator, not copying technologies, then listed a few which aren't due until about 2006/2007. (Technologies that are already available in Apple's Mac OS 10.3 & 10.4 Dev Preview.)

Then also asks what linux can deliver that MS can't. I think the short answer to that would be that linux has a social conscience of infinite magnitude in comparison to the 'black hearted' MS corp.
MS offer plenty of stuff, patent lawsuits after agreements that read something like 'we can steal your patents, but don't touch ours'. Also MS can give you all the security updates you need.. 3 weeks after the internet slows to a crawl with Windows worm traffic.
MS can also give you a hefty priced lock in cycle.

MS's fear seems to come from the fact that you can get equal functionality and better quality from something that is free.(With acknowledgment that alot of users aren't interested in buying new hardware, with that, old hardware does exist.)

Why pay excessive amounts of money to fund a company running it's own agenda? Or using that money to unfairly, and with questionable ethics, nail out competition?

MS don't seem interested in developing a better product+service package that compels users to pay for it, rather they look for each companies funny bone and strike at it with lawyers and/or software contamination.

So combining these business 'values' that MS have(in contrast to social values), it becomes clear to me that users would still run linux even if it ran at a fraction of the speed of MS software. The real world difference, (even in MS funded benchmarking) shows minimal difference between the speed of both platforms. This leaving the user to make an ethical choice. This is why MS miss out on future opportunities from the user bases of companies they've assassinated over the years. Note MS's failure to recognise that when they kill a company, it angers that companies user base(creating them more work plus a costly turn over program), who in return will endeavour to not use MS products.)

All roads lead to madness!!!

[On Lawn]

I've got to say though, there is a sort of Mickey Thomson sense of fun and accomplishment on these roads to madness. Like taking a trophy truck across dusty unpredictable roads with many obstacles.

And don't get me wrong Windows is it's own road to madness. But it is for the most part large boring paved highway with no exits (just offramps that say "no exit"), and you are travelling in a very large Buick that seems to only go straight ahead. And while the road seems solid enough the bridges are rickety at every upgrade and fellow drivers seem to pull over randomly to restart their cars all the time.

Re:All roads lead to madness!!!

[LioNiNoiL]

OL: there is a sort of Mickey Thomson sense of fun and accomplishment on these roads to madness

After what happened to Mickey Thompson in 1988, it's hard to think of him in terms of "fun and accomplishment".

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/1-04232004- 288438.html

Re:All roads lead to madness!!!

[On Lawn]

Thats probably one of the real points this analogy really nails it. People die in oversized Buicks every day, but they don't make the news.

Thank you Microsoft... honestly!

[mwvdlee]

Yes, I'm serious. We should all give M$ a big hug for taking the time and effort to give the Linux developers some feedback.
"No set architecture"... thanks, if only all feedback was this detailed but it's well intentioned feedback anyway, where in the bugtracker can I review this feedback?
It may take a bit of time to get this fixed but it should be finished around say, oh... 2007, right before Longhorn?

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..

Re:How many quit reading after...

[wraith0x29a]

I didn't get that far as the page did not display properly in Konqueror. Funny that.

Ehhh...?

[oneandoneis2]

So... MS is spending millions of dollars on finding faults with Linux and explaining why MS is better than Linux.

So, people all over the world who think that Windows is the only OS there is will be finding out that there's a convincing alternative.

Coders who think their software works fine will be reading MS's reports about what bugs it's got.

So MS is, in fact, spending millions on giving Linux free publicity and debugging its software.

This is supposed to kill Linux... how, exactly?

Real world strategy

[gilesjuk]

While no company would like to have to do it, Microsoft really need a back-up plan and need a strategy of how to deal with a vastly shrinking market share in OSes and office software.

They simply can't grow their PC based business any longer and users are less likely to want to cough up hundreds of dollars for Office and Windows.

Their problem is they've been so focussed on boring office applications for so long that they're not exactly that good at other market areas. Buying other companies is the quickest way to gain expertise but when you look at the purchases they have made, they have hardly captitalised on their gains.

Re:Real world strategy

[pandrijeczko]

While no company would like to have to do it, Microsoft really need a back-up plan and need a strategy of how to deal with a vastly shrinking market share in OSes and office software.

I don't think that shrinkage of market share has happened as of yet though.

If you take the Internet backbone and the servers that sit on it and at ISPs, those have always been UNIX servers handling the major mail traffic and web serving - some are possibly Linux but there's also a huge amount of Solaris, HP-UX and other UNIXes out there.

In the corporate environment, Apache has probably bitten into the corporate web server market quite severely - again, possibly on Linux but could be on other UNIXes, even Windows. On the mail server side of things, I guess a lot of corps would like to drop Exchange and Outlook because of the number of worms and resulting downtime - but the fact is that there isn't a Linux mailserver that offers the equivalent level of calendaring, scheduling and other features that Exchange offers. Sure, there are Linux products on the horizon but they're not there yet.

In the corporate user environments, the users are stuck with whatever their IT departments tell them to use - the fact is that working in for a telecoms company myself that provides Linux-based telephony servers to corporations, I am amazed at how ignorant most IT departments are of Linux administration still and how unwilling they are to accept it into the enterprise purely because they are mostly MCSEs with no knowledge of UNIX or Linux. To get Linux into the enterprise needs an assault on the CEOs to get their buy-in to force their IT people to deploy it.

Finally, on the home user side, a lot of people are trying Linux as a dual boot alongside their Windows installations but games are a very big player here and is an area where Linux cannot compete at the moment. That will only change when games developers recognise Linux and port games to it.

They simply can't grow their PC based business any longer and users are less likely to want to cough up hundreds of dollars for Office and Windows.

Unfortunately, this is an area of business that Microsoft is very good at protecting by offering cut-price licenses to keep existing customers from migrating. Remember, it costs a lot of money to migrate corporate users to a different application, even if that application is free.

Their problem is they've been so focussed on boring office applications for so long that they're not exactly that good at other market areas.

It's the fact that market areas like X-Box and embedded Windows that have not done particularly well have been propped up by the OS and Office business which makes Microsoft more determined to keep to those profitable areas. I'm sure they'll continue to go into those and new areas because it can only be a matter of time before there is no money to be made from OSes and applications unless they are very specialised. This is why MS wants to adopt a rental model for everything - to be a utility provider in the same way as you electricity, water and telephone providers are.

Re:Real world strategy

[gilesjuk]

Well their catch-22 situation is that if they fund their in-roads into other markets using vast margins on Windows and Office but then they are forced to discount those product lines, then it will result in less funds being available.

Of course they do have a vast war chest, but how much of that they would like to spend, who knows. They're just too successful and their only options is to grow wider not taller.

Microsoft Is Aiming At The Wrong Target

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Microsoft Is Aiming At The Wrong Target

[faedle]

I think every Open Source/Free Software advocate needs to read Starhawk's "The Fifth Sacred Thing," because it seems to so adequately tell a story similar to what the FOSS movement is experiencing.

We are saying to Microsoft et. al. that there "is a place for you at our table," and all they want to do is destroy the culture we have created, even though it would really serve them no purpose.. and in fact, the existance of FOSS creates a healthy ecosystem that allows everybody to prosper.

It must be sad to live one's life so full of fear and hatred. I actually feel sorry for Ballmer, Gates, and anybody else who can't see beyond their own greed.

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.

Re:Microsoft Is Aiming At The Wrong Target

[OwnedByTwoCats]

Apple had started to realize that IBM wasn't the competition fairly early in the 1990s. Apple released their PowerPC Macintosh Computers in 1994; the Apple-IBM-Motorola Alliance produced silicon in 1993, and began in 1991.

Microsoft has billions because they realized that the low-cost OS would win against others, and so PC-DOS and MS-DOS defeated CPM/86 and UCSD P-System. With the others defeated, Microsoft had their DOS monopoly. They leveraged their DOS monopoly into a Windows Monopoly, and used that to defeat other office apps (123, WordPerfect). And then cement their Office monopoly.

When Linux and OpenOffice change from a thorn to a threat, Microsoft will turn on Open Source with every trick in their book, clean and dirty.

Re:Microsoft Is Aiming At The Wrong Target

[johnrpenner]

> 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.

"In this your Nothing I hope to find my All.

(Goethe - Mephistopheles in Faust)

Re:Microsoft Is Aiming At The Wrong Target

[Marauder62]

You are pretty close to being on the mark. However, MS may be closer to getting a grip on the situation than may would believe. I read an article last month, and I wish I could remember it well enough to quote the source, where a manager at MS said that Linux is not the competition. It's the applications that run on Linux that are the competition. That sounds like the beginning of a strategy. It is also a statement that I totally agree with.

Re:Microsoft Is Aiming At The Wrong Target

[HuguesT]

Play with my daughter, potter in the garden, read some books, play some game, talk to my wife, read my daughter a book, plan some life changes, etc. If you are also having fun at work, what else is there in life?

If you want to play evil overlord and manipulate your large empire be my guest. This is not a guarantee of happiness.

Re:Microsoft Is Aiming At The Wrong Target

[Draknor]

"The Fifth Sacred Thing" - wonderful book! I think that story really describes the situation & trends we're seeing in a lot of ways in modern American culture. I hope that we realize another way before that fiction has become prophecy!

Re:Microsoft is Aiming at the Wrong Target

[dedalus2000]

those are bold words from an Anonymous Coward. Of course if the mods on my post are any indication it's a clan rally and the sheets are traditional.

the same can be said for windows

[discogravy]

no serious system is easy to operate at a server level. some are easier than others but you can't just become a sysadmin overnight and expect to get good results. MS's server products are just as complex as a linux system, and have just as many ways of being exploited and potentially fucked up as a linux or BSD or Solaris or Mac OS X box. The difference being that while the number of exploits against both types of systems is likely the same (have you SEEN the number of exploits available for *nixes?) the ease of pulling them off is heavily skewed to Windows because it's a) more likely to be unsecured and b) more ubiquitous. As more people install and run linux, the numbers will likely balance out. Put a windows box behind a secured firewall and kill all ports except those necessary and you'll cut down risk -- but MS requires a LOT more ports open for basic stuff (how many "ms ports" -- eg 135, 137 -- are hitting your firewall as infected or attacks?).
Linux can be made more secure, all the way down to the software level where you can check source for yourself and see if the software is secure enough for you, and if you want to, you can run a particular piece of software in it's own jail, for added security. MS can't do that.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Best Quote

[BrianWCarver]

From the article:

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

I'm sitting here with my fingers crossed, biting my lip, hoping for that day!

Oh, this message written on Debian Sarge, current uptime: 31 days, 12 hours, 35 minutes.

HA!

Re:Best Quote

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

Windows XP SP2 (beta)

Uptime: 33 days, 22 hours, 12 minutes

Perhaps Linux is good enough to run your home PC.

Let me tell you of a situation:

I set up a Linux desktop for my mother (Fedora Core 1) for basic web-browsing and email. She calls me up one morning and tells me that her monitor has gone bad (it's a 21" CRT that finally bit the dust). I tell her to get a new one, she purchases a 15" LCD. I had set the resolution to 1280x1024 for the CRT. The next day, after installing a monitor, I get a call telling me that her screen was going "crazy".

I have to walk her through getting a console and using vi to edit the XF86Config.

Windows would have detected that the monitor had changed and automatically reverted to SVGA resolution.

As opposed to?

[jridley]

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.

Re:As opposed to?

[4of12]

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 wouldn't think so.

If you've grown as dominant as Microsoft has for the OS API and formats such as .doc, .xls, .ppt it's poor business strategy to try to open up your formats to make interoperability easier.

Interoperability is great when you're growing. After you get big, the profitable strategy is called Roach Motel - customers check in, but they don't check out.

Not until OO.o achieves something like 60% of the marketplace will you ever see MS support an "Export as OpenOffice.org..." button in Word.

What Linux does what MS Can't?

[Larmal]

...Tell us what Linux does that we can't do."

• Save me money.
• Run for years without a single reboot.
• Patch bugs in an efficient and timely manner.
• Not allow my system to be taken over by simply viewing a website
• Give me multiple desktops to work on without the need of adding multiple monitors.
• this list can go on forever...

Re:What Linux does what MS Can't?

[Hassman]

Take days to install, update, tweak, configure, get programs, update again because you're missing the new libraries for the programs you want to install...this is assuming you are knowledgeable in Linux already...also assuming the installation doesn't fail for god knows why (I hate Gentoo, yet I want to love it. Really I do!!)

Not run all the apps I want it to run (MS Money is so helpful, words cannot describe it).

Not work efficiently with my all hardware (historically, not currently)

Allow a user to hack in and do whatever they want whenever they want if my system isn't perfectly patched. (Happened twice in college)

If you are going to be critical, let's be fair about it. Linux is great, it is, but it isn't perfect. There are lots of things that MS does better. For you and me, it is pretty good...for the average user it is a pain in the ass.

Let's not fall into the typical slashdot roll and bash MS because it is MS and prais Linux because it is Linux.

Re:What Linux does what MS Can't?

[Larmal]

fair enough. However, I should point out that I'm no linux guru... fact is, I'm a windows power user who's been trying for the last year to turn over a new leaf. I've played with a lot of distro's, trying to find the easiest one to use that I, as a normal joe blow user, would actually want to use.

I recently installed FC2, and honestly, I find it incredibly easy to use. I installed it as a simple desktop pc, no more, no less. The installation was incredibly painless, updating the system is dumb easy (yum), installing apps that I need that aren't actually already included is a snap (yum, again), and it's worked perfectly with all my hardware so far (except the firewire for my iPod, which I knew it wouldn't work with before installing, that is, without massive tweaking which I'm simply too lazy to do).

In the above sense I believe I *am* being fair about it, since the majority of the windows market is all desktop, and the average desktop user knows almost dick all. My wife, who knows absolutely nothing about computers, has told me that "The new windows you put on is way easier to use." (true story).

If we want to get into servers, and perhaps some oddball hardware (my stuff is all pretty big name brand and has been around for quite a while - SB Audigy, nVidia GF2, etc.) then yea, you're absolutely right, but when it comes to having just a simple desktop used for multimedia, web browsing, email, etc., all my points are valid.

Besides, your points 1 and 4 apply to windows just as much as Linux anyways. ;) And hey, I don't bash Windows because it's windows... truth is I work with it all day at work, and for the most part, I don't mind it. Even at home it's a 50/50 split, but at the end of the day, when I want to be at home and just do what I want to do with living in constant fear of a virus, my system completely crashing, or having to install the 7th critical update this week, I switch to Linux.

just my um, 8 dollars worth of bits

The value proposition

[hey!]

I think, though, that Microsoft is evading the point. The biggest difference between Microsoft and its open source competition is ...

... drum roll ...

The license.

Every time the decision is made to use a Microsoft product, the person making that decision to (a) solve a problem and(b) enter into or modify a legal and financial relationship with Microsoft. Every time somebody makes the decision to use an open source product, that person is making the decision that to (a) solve a problem. Period. So, it really takes more care and concern to choose a Microsoft product over an open source one. It takes a huge commitment to build an initiative around Microsoft.

That is why Microsoft is fond of terms like "architecture" and "road map". Of course there is architecture and a road map for Linux and other major open source projects; however that is not what they are talking about. What they are really saying is that Microsoft's business model fits naturally with the paradigm of top down management and planning, since it makes individual initiative very difficult. Every organization in fact needs some top down management and planning.

Open source fits much more with autonomous and indvidual decision making, where people close to a problem decide to fix it. Well, it turns out that organizations need that kind of problem solving to.

So, the value proposition of open source is that enables greater individual and small group initiative to solve problems that occur on a day to day basis.

There are two ways to learn about things. You can read and research about them, or you can learn by doing. People tend to over-rely on one or the other strategy. Organizations are no different. I don't think open source is a at a disadvantage in the strategic planning arena, except to the degree that organizations that are highly biased towards top down control (which may be a valid style depending on the business ) may find the forbidding aspect of proprietary licenses an attractive way to limit individual initiative.

Re:The value proposition

[archeopterix]

I don't think open source is a at a disadvantage in the strategic planning arena, except to the degree that organizations that are highly biased towards top down control (which may be a valid style depending on the business ) may find the forbidding aspect of proprietary licenses an attractive way to limit individual initiative.

I don't think that the "top down" vs "individual initiative" choice is in any way correlated with the opensource vs proprietary choice. If I were to design a work environment that totally stiffles any individual initiative, I'd run every desktop off a sealed custom CD, which I find moderately easy to do with Linux, very hard with Windows. I'm not even sure whether it's possible without "reverse engineering", which is of course prohibited by the licence.

Re:The value proposition

[hey!]

I don't think that the "top down" vs "individual initiative" choice is in any way correlated with the opensource vs proprietary choice. If I were to design a work environment that totally stiffles any individual initiative, I'd run every desktop off a sealed custom CD, which I find moderately easy to do with Linux, very hard with Windows. I'm not even sure whether it's possible without "reverse engineering", which is of course prohibited by the licence.

Which is exactly my point.

Suppose I am a manager that has some public kiosks. I want them locked down good. I can try to do this with Windows (probably is doable), but one of the first things I have to ask is, "does the license permit this?".

Linux mail servers.

[Craig Ringer]

I love mail servers under Linux. Honest. Really. Like cleaning a boil under my big toe.

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 ... unpleasant.

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.

Re:Linux mail servers.

[infra-red]

As a mail admin, this to me would be like saying, why can't python, perl, gcc, php all just read the same source file and work. I mean, fundamentally, they all do basically the same thing.

The features that make them unique are in the config files. I know lots of people who despise sendmail because the config is incredibly complex. The way I look at it, sendmail is like an interpreter, and the config file is the script.

Re:Linux mail servers.

[Craig Ringer]

Agreed. The contrast between sendmail and postfix, for example, is pretty shocking - you couldn't configure them using the same files. I wouldn't mind seeing more standard file locations and default paths, though - /etc/mailname is a good example of what we could use more of. Yes, that and most other things break down for vhosting, but a somewhat less painful out-of-the-box setup wouldn't hurt.

On the other hand, one /could/ try to standardise on their interfaces to other parts of the mail system a bit more. LMTP is helping a _lot_ there, but there's a lot of room for improvement when it comes to configuring the order of the delivery chain (MTA->spam->virus->POPd/IMAPd/local_spool ). I'd also love to see the ability to have a message pass through the LMTP chain without having to be repeatedly written and flushed to disk, by the final delivery program notifying the MTA when the message has been safely delivered. Less disk thrashing would just be peachy ;-)

When it comes to standard interfaces, I'm more interested in seeing a 'mail filter' interface that can be used with all MTAs without needing glue or wrappers. The requirement for messes of (usually Perl) glue to messily stick a virus scanner, spam filter, and MTA into a working unit seems ... unfortunate to me. I'm excepting Sendmail here, because if you use milter everything "just works" ... so long as all you need is sendmail.

Meh. It's really late over here (Western Australia), I'm tired, and I'm probably not making much sense anymore.

Re:Linux mail servers.

[dodobh]

To start with, get rid of mailscanner. It doesn't play safe with Postfix.

To configure a Postfix + Cyrus + mail filtering system:

Understanding the component interation:
Cyrus Imapd accepts mail from the network via LMTP over a Unix socket, or a TCP port (often 24).

Postfix has a built in LTMP client.

Your webmail should speak IMAP/POP3 to the IMAP/POP server and SMTP to Postfix.

Use amavisd-new for filtering This is a daemon written in Perl which acts as a SpamAssassin and Antivirus wrapper. It understands both SMTP and LMTP on the server side, and SMTP as a client. There is a README.postfix file in the documentation, from where you need to copy and paste two entries into the master.cf file.

It needs a few Perl modules to be installed. Use CPAN for that, or you could build your own RPMs/Debs/.tgz files.

Cyrus IMAPd is the most painful of the lot. It depends on Cyrus-SASL for authentication, and that is not exactly a friendly bit of software.
My normal trick with SASL is to tell it to use saslauthd which then talks to pam which uses whatever password store you like.

Setup Postfix:
Set the hostname of the system to a FQDN in myhostname in main.cf.
Set the trusted networks in mynetworks
If you have compiled Postfix to support SMTP AUTH, optionally set that up as well.
Add the destination domain to relay_domains.
Set a transport_maps entry for the domain telling Postfix to relay it to Cyrus via LMTP.

Enable content filtering (content_filter = lmtp:[127.0.0.1]:10024 in main.cf)

I like Squirrelmail for webmail, but go with whatever rocks your boat.

You can now start all the components.

Re:Linux mail servers.

[Craig Ringer]

To start with, get rid of mailscanner. It doesn't play safe with Postfix.

Hmm. I should clarify at this point that that was only an example - I do not use mailscanner, though I several others who do.

I currently use Postfix on my internet-exposed mailhost. It does some basic checks (address in the LDAP directory, alias valid, source domain valid, and not a relay request) then forwards it to our internal Sendmail box. That machine uses mimedefang (which in turn calls out to spamassassin) and clamav-milter do do our checks and scanning. The message is then delivered to Cyrus IMAPd over LMTP where it's processed by sieve and delivered. Phew.

Our mail system works very well and wasn't _too_ excruciating to set up. Putting postfix on a front end has made things run a _lot_ smoother, too :-) . However, I do wish it was possible to do away with bits of glue like amavisd-new - IMHO the fewer components in the mail system the better, especially if there are components that only exist to make other components able to talk.

Regarding Cyrus IMAPd, I agree that getting SASL authentication going the first time is a little prickly. It's really not that complex though, and works really well. Most of the problem comes down to the traditional CMU *cough*documentation*cough*.

I'm currently using

sasl_pwcheck_method: saslauthd

and running saslauthd with -a pam, so it talks to my LDAP directory that way. I'm planning on moving to auxprop with ldap soon though, as all the users are now in LDAP.

Be aware that if you use saslauthd with "-a pam" you need to be careful what PAM modules are being used. Some leak horrifically, and will do very unpleasant things to saslauthd. The mysql module seems to be particularly bad according to folks on info-cyrus. A workaround is to run saslauthd with -n 0 to force saslauthd to fork a new process for every auth request, but this isn't desirable on busy servers.

I've been meaning to write up some docs on the Cyrus Wiki on "common SASL setup recipes" that also ccovers "WTF is SASL" and "So how does this nightmare web fit together anyway?". It's just a matter of finding the time - I've done a fair bit of docs work on that wiki already. I've done up a map of the various possible SASL authentication "paths" (which is scary, by the way) but it still needs polishing and some proper explanation to go with it. *sigh*.

I do wish it was a little simpler to just install an MTA, an IMAP/POP server, and a mail scanner/filter and have them all work sensibly in a basic configuration out of the box. That's really all the frustration is about - I'd like to be able to spend my setup time configuring it to our environment, not trying to coax the packages to talk to each other.

Re:Linux mail servers.

[Brandybuck]

I would rather have that one time pain of lancing the boil in my big toe, than the constant low-level never ending pain that is Microsoft's arthritis in your big toe.

Re:Linux mail servers.

[Craig Ringer]

Agreed - I used an NT based mail server before we migrated to Linux+Sendmail+Cyrus. It never did work right - used to lose mail in some invisible queue until it was restarted, used to make the whole machine unstable, and used to thrash nearly to death whenever we got spamflooded. *shudder*

Postfix (which is on our Internet-exposed front-end), Sendmail and Cyrus work like a dream - they just never, ever go wrong.

Still, it'd be nice to reduce the initial setup pain a bit too, would it not? One could get on with configuring things for the specific site rather than trying to make the various parts of the mail sytem talk to each other. What a thought.

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

[mikael]

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.

Re:Linux and XP --- My upclose observations

[Anonymous Coward]

Try APT for RPM or Yum next time. For RedHat and Fedora distros, FreshRPMS is a good starting point

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....

Re:Linux and XP --- My upclose observations

[swb]

> 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.

Gak. I wouldn't trade tar for a stable Windows backup environment.

I think the parent poster's issue isn't so much with getting data off the tapes, but with the fact that most x86 boxen with RAID cards aren't just an empty disk drive you can dump raw data once it's been formatted, unless you're using one of the "image" restore systems.

My take on this is to keep AD servers and others who are a nuisance (but not impossible) to restore on their own hardware, with extra redundant disk setups.

Ordinary "member" servers have their data on a seperate partition (seperate logical disk if I can swing it). A cooked Win2k system takes only nominally longer to restore the OS than trying to dump OS+DATA at the same time. Since it has no particularly special OS configuration qualities, restoring the OS and rejoining the domain is trivial, and the real time is spent restoring the actual data from tape.

Re:Linux and XP --- My upclose observations

[PitaBred]

In reference to your 6th point contention, wouldn't it be equally, if not MORE difficult to roll patches out in a mixed Windows environment, say with some Win98SE, WinXPand Win2k machines? You're comparing apples to oranges. Besides, in a corporate environment, you're going to want to standardize, one type of Linux or one type of Windows. It's cheaper for small companies to roll out the same Linux across all their machines, anyway. No point for you.
Secondly (seventhly?), /proc isn't easy, but it's better than the alternative. It tells you everything about everything. Windows admin tools usually tell you something about a few things. With /proc, you only have to learn where to look to find what you want.
Now for the real secondly, as for .so dependency hell, that's usually because you use a library/app from another distro. If the application was compiled for your distro, it'll just work. Not to mention that you can version your .so's much easier than versioning dll's.
Just re-correcting a few counter-biases there...

What's Really Going On

[Donoho]

...his real job is to better understand Linux so Microsoft can do a better job of crushing it. In 2001 Microsoft Chief Steve Ballmer likened Linux to "cancer." Now, says Taylor, "Linux is going to be around forever. We've got to understand it.

After all the marketing people have gone home...
After all the white papers have been published...
The fact is, there are and have been people at Microsoft, dedicated to truly understanding Linux. Taylor gets it. Linux IS going to be around forever because anyone with a computer and a decent internet connection (or lots of patience) can get their hands on it. Difficulty of mastery is neglegable when entry is free. For the first time, in a long time, I think they're being forced to think outside of their box.

Microsoft has crushed it's competition in the past with superior marketing (not necessarily something to be proud of...) and ease of use (at the expense of security). The MS corporate cultures biggest achilles heel (besides the IDIOTS that go through the Win2K Server install wizard and think they're done) has been it's overconfidence and sincere belief that it knows what's best. This attitude has allowed them to justify their questionable and litigatable tactics and ignore for far too long true innovation from it's competitors.

MS will improve in product strengh, quality, and reliability. They have the money and now the motivation, so it's only a matter of time, but it will not be free. The greatest strength of Linux is the community. I look forward to increased ease of use from the Linux platform, allowing increased growth of that community, but not at the expense of the quality and stability of the platform. The quality and dedication of the individuals in the community shuold not be sacrificed for greater numbers.

Hail Eris

[Jesrad]

There's no set architecture in Linux. All roads lead to madness

And That's Beautiful !

functionality is not the only meter of quality

[latroM]

Free Software has one major benefit which non-free (Microsoft etc.) hasn't: freedom. If we teach people to value their freedom to their software, no functionality enhancements will get them back to M$ from GNU/Linux. M$ speaks about "Open Source" and says that the GPL is an "Open Source" license because they don't want people to think in terms of software freedom.

You don't have to use lawyers

[zogger]

it's TOTALLY legal to represent yourself in any court of law. You have to learn a bit of legal procedure, but it's doable and a lot easier than learning how to program or play the latest complex videogame. If you think you always have to use a 200$ an hour lawyer, you have defeated yourself in advance.

And yes, been there, done that, won both times, once against literally a flown in expert lawyer hired by a consortium of rich dudes. I won't go into specifics, I will say it was hard,scary at times, even to the point of getting death threats from people I know had already murdered people in an arson for profit scam, but I started from scratch, got some good free advice and ran with it and kicked boot-tay. The main thing is, you got to KNOW you are in the right, if you are, then it's just procedure, lining your ducks up, and going for it. It's doable, even moreso now that you can use the internet for research. Thousands of people out there are working their own cases now,websites exist for the purpose of helping, the monopoly guild just doesn't like it and would like to make it illegal, but so far it's still *legal* to do so.

Corporate arrogance

[Anonymous Coward]

"Don't tell us you're deploying Linux just because you can."

And what kind of corporate arrogance assumes "because I can" is an insufficient reason for not choosing their products?

This is hilarious...

[schon]

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.

Re:This is hilarious...

[Weirdofreak]

• Protects me from hackers
  
• Lets me update for free
  
• Runs on crappy hardware
  
• Eject the disk drive via command prompt (it can proably be done with DOS, but I don't know how)
  
• ls instead of dir - my keyboard will last that much longer
  
• Change file permissions (once when I was on a Windoze server I was writing a Perl script to update the main page. I couldn't write, so I contacted customer support. In the end, I had to backup everything, let them wipe it all from the server and re-upload just to let me write files via Perl)
  
• Increases my geekiness quotient
  
• If I don't like something, I'll be able to fix/bypass it somehow
  
• It's insulting term is crappier - Linsux just sounds dumb, Windoze doesn't
  
• Firefox on Linux has alt-enter in URL bar to open in a new tab
  
• A heavier wallet

Re:This is hilarious...

[runderwo]

WTF are you talking about? Name the last time the syscall interface changed. I believe it was in the 1.x days. That's the only place binary compatibility has broken with respect to Linux.

With gcc 3.x, C++ linkage was changed from 2.x to comply with the standard C++ name mangling. The benefit is that GCC-compiled object code can interoperate with object code from other vendors. The drawback is that binary compatibility was broken and required all C++ shared libraries to be updated. This is not a problem with Linux, this is a problem with the GNU toolchain which also affects *BSD, etc. But everyone got on the bandwagon and called it a Linux problem for some reason, propagating an incorrect assertion.

WinXP SP2: Fifty-five percent is being replaced.

[Futurepower(R)]

The i386 folder on the Windows XP SP1 Corporate CD is 504,563,416 bytes. Windows XP SP2 is 278,927,592 bytes. Fifty-five percent is being replaced.

Microsoft is Aiming at the Wrong Target

[FlutterVertigo(gmail]

Microsoft is focusing on Linux, thinking that's the competition. It's Open Source. Microsoft doesn't understand this because they only understand battles involving money, or power involving money. Open Source doesn't necessarily map into that philosophy so Microsoft overlooks it and focuses upon the end product(s).
It's no different than the Internet. They almost missed the boat (until Gates' infamous Summer sabbaticals where he isolates himself for two weeks and thinks. The reason Microsoft didn't hop onto the Internet were twofold: 1)the Internet was "The World's Biggest Secret Club" where the only way to know about it is if you were on it. I know some (or more) at MS knew about it, but why weren't they pushing it internally? 2) No one at Microsoft saw a way to turn a profit using it. Once the light bulb lit up and the business opportunities presented themselves, Gates' was quoted (and I heard it in person), "I don't care what the Information Superhighway[1] looks like as long as I have a tollboth on it."

Again, Microsoft doesn't understand OS and until they do, they're chasing their tails. The best part is they're devoting resources to chasing smoke. The next question is: How much more money are they going to invest in SCO to keep the fight alive?


[1] "Information Superhighway" was the vogue term at that time, just as Gore claimed to have invented it.

Cheap knockoffs

[NiceGuyUK]

"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.....

Re:Cheap knockoffs

[Chester K]

Sounds eerily like a "cheap knockoff" of Dashboard to me.....

Where exactly do you think the author of Dashboard got the data-consolidation sidebar idea from?

This is fantastic

[M.C. Hampster]

I've never been a strong Linux user. I use Windows at home and at work. I'm a developer for the Microsoft platform. But I love to see Microsoft competing. Not because I have some religious problem with them, or because I hate their business practices. I just know that competition from Linux is only going to make Microsoft products stronger (and vice versa).

Honestly, with this kind of competition, everybody wins.

I like this one:

[jlar]

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

I guess MS is just one of those bullies who never grows up - and ends up in jail as an adult. Not that I would shed any tears if that happened.

Work already on progress

[kilimangaro]

Allchin points to new features in the version of Windows due in 2007 that will allow users to remotely turn PCs on or off

The "off version" part of the project is code-named SASSER

Emotional bias on both sides

[mec]

Taylor was handed a just-finished study that found Microsoft too emotionally biased against open-source code and blind to customer distrust in its own brand.

That cuts both ways.

All right, so we are living the dream. FOSS is competing toe-to-toe with the world's largest software companies across many, many markets.

So compete. Make FOSS better in terms of what customers want. Acknowledge that our competitors are legitimate organizations with legitimate products.

Microsoft is rapidly growing out of the mentality that everything they do must be perfect, and that FOSS can't possibly be serious competition. I'd like to see the free software community and open source communities do likewise.

Re:Emotional bias on both sides

[pandrijeczko]

So compete. Make FOSS better in terms of what customers want. Acknowledge that our competitors are legitimate organizations with legitimate products.

The only way you compete properly is to have a vibrant sales force going in and snapping up any available business that it can. Microsoft has this, Linux has it in a more fragmented fashion through front end sales and support companies like Red Hat and Novell (SusE) and consultancy services as offered through the likes of IBM.

I don't see this as a problem because I don't see the main aim of FOSS as being to trash MS - it's prime aim is to provide high quality free software, end of story.

However, this is counterproductive to truly competing with MS because an end customer's expectation would be to be delivered a specific level of functionality in an application within specific timescales - using FOSS is like going into a huge supermarket and having a myriad of products that you can pick off the shelf and assemble however you want but the fact is that there may be items you want that they don't stock.

I hate MS with a passion but I really have little interest in what they do as long as my rights not to use their products are maintained. A great proportion of the FOSS community has a similar attitude, I believe.

As a result, if you want to an MS-trashing organisation to exist, you'll probably have to go create it yourself - otherwise Linux will just continue the way it is going, keen to maintain open standards and having little interest in business politics.

Re:Emotional bias on both sides

[out_of_ideas]

I really have little interest in what they do as long as my rights not to use their products are maintained. A great proportion of the FOSS community has a similar attitude, I believe.

I couldn't say I care if MS will crush Novell's, IBM's, or whoever else's Linux bussiness (well, I would feel sad to see the linux vendors out of bussiness). Corporates can fight all they want (and from the article it seems that that's what's cooking, really), it's the community that matters, and they can't fight that. And yes, the feeling of belonging to a community does make you emotionally biased, but is that bad ?

Re:Emotional bias on both sides

[pandrijeczko]

And yes, the feeling of belonging to a community does make you emotionally biased, but is that bad ?

No, of course it's not bad and I do have very strong feelings towards a community that is achieving something simply because "it is the right thing to do".

Analysts and financial bozos measure "success" in terms of profit and market penetration - they, therefore, are the one's trying to put Linux in competition with Microsoft and whichever the one achieves 51% or more of the market share will be deemed to be the success while the other is the failure.

However, it isn't that black and white at all. For starters, there's a wealth of OSS software on Windows, not least Firefox, OpenOffice, The GIMP, etc and nobody is saying you have to use any of them - merely that you have a choice to use them.

To me, Linux (and all free software) will be a success if it simply manages to ensure that information exchange is always free & open and that standards are never closed source.

For example, if the pressures that Mozilla is putting on IE forces MS to restart browser development, that is a good thing provided that it forces MS to truly adopt the W3C and CSS2 standards - that means that web developers are forced to conform to those standards and hopefully we end up with all of us having the ability to surf any web site with any standards compliant browser.

What the Windows community seem to refuse to accept is that MS is doing it's best to suck them dry of money in the future - closed standards and a rental model forcing you to pay subscriptions to keep what you previously had freely. If and when that happens, it makes information exchange more difficult for all of us so it's in everyone's interests to push back on that now.

Re:Emotional bias on both sides

[fishbowl]

"The only way you compete properly is to have a vibrant sales force going in and snapping up any available business that it can."

This is exactly what IBM is supposed to be doing for Linux.

There vs. Their

[Macka]

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 .. you even got it wrong twice!

Microsoft learning Linux

[unit01]

Microsoft are making quite a big show out of learning linux. He has Microsoft's salesfolk taking exams to qualify for certification as Linux experts. How many linux users and developers would consider themselves quite expert at microsoft products? I'm sure there are alot of certified microsoft engineers that favour linux.

I've not been keeping up with the news

[Anonymous Coward]

"just as Microsoft has gone through a wrenching transformation from a combative bully to a mature corporate citizen "

When did this happen? I must not have been reading slashdot on that day.

Talking points

[mdemeny]

What they really need is a Republican strategist to come up with talking points:

-Linux is a flip-flopper (is it command line or GUI? Could they make up their minds already?!)

-Eclipse sounds French. VisualStudio is a good, strong American sounding name.

-Linux starts with the same letters as liberal.

-These damned hippies always want a free ride (and they keep talking about 'free as in beer' - are they alcoholics?).

Of course, we at Faux News are only reporting on what other people are saying about the leftist-pinko-commie operating system. We're totally fair and balanced on the issue of non-patriotic, foreign-made, non-capitalist operating systems.

Re:Talking points

[ImpTech]

Don't forget:

-OpenSSH and GPG support terrorism.

-Free Software hurts the economy by destroying important American programming jobs. Outsourcing is a red herring.

-blah blah family values blah blah blah won't somebody please think of the children?!

Re:Talking points

[metachor]

-Eclipse sounds French. VisualStudio is a good, strong American sounding name.

"Eclipse" does come to English by way of Old French, but it is actually derived from Greek. "Studio" also comes by way of Old French from Latin. An interesting comparison:

"Visual" comes from the Latin visus (sight), from videre (to see). Studio derives from Latin studium, from studere (to devote oneself, study).

"Eclipse" comes from Greek ekleipsis, from ekleipein (to omit, fail, suffer).

By the name alone, which sounds better suited to the task of project management? To see devotedly or to omit and fail?

Re:Talking points

[System.out.println()]

Not to piss on your parade, but "Faux News" would not sound like "Fox News", but "Fo News". If BET started a news program, that would be an appropriate pun. :D

"Watch us Fo' News, yo!"

IBM stands in the way

[OmniGeek]

Small problem for that strategy: IBM sees Open Source as a strategic tool of some importance, and they have, shall we say, rather a lot of money to purue that strategy with. It will be hard to categorize Linux as a hobbyist OS with IBM giving it the kind of support they are currently providing.

The software-patent side is more problematic, but IBM can be of some help there as well, and it's likely they will do so.

Re:IBM stands in the way

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Oh, I agree with you, which is why I'm hopeful for the success of Linux (and F/OSS generally) in the long run. I'm just saying that the "do not worry if they crush our allies, Comrades, the Revolution will continue" attitude that seems to prevail among a lot of F/OSS enthusiasts is unrealistic. Linux came to prominence in a legal, as well as technical and economic, environment that has already changed considerably -- and will no longer exist at all if Microsoft et al. have their way.

Re:IBM stands in the way

[gbjbaanb]

In many ways, I think that MS has won, if everyone thinks that IBM will come charging to the rescue.

IBM has spent a lot of money on F/OSS software.. but not out of the kindness of their hearts, but to keep their position as a consultancy. Linux is free, we give it away, but the consultant charges....

So, really, in this environment, you've a choice between buying MS software, or Solaris software, or.. buying IBM's free linux software.. it'll all cost you.

Sure, the benefit to the hobbyist is great, but in the corporate world, nothing much has changed except market share percentages.

history repeating?

[NeedleSurfer]

It's funny, as I was reading the article I couldn't shake off my head the idea that the strategy employed by Microsoft here is somewhat the same that Apple use against them; "it's complicated", "it's unfinished"... and Apple lost the consummer market...

Plus, Apple coulnd't compete with "cheap" and Microsoft will loose to "free"...

on a side note:

Ease of use is a very bad argument, it doesn't seem to attract people for a very simple reason, if it's complicated or buggy it gives them a socialy acceptable reason "not to" (finnish a report, complete a homework, do something). The entire IT industry is based around this concept, without bad products ITs wouldn't be that many (conspiracies aside this is still a fact). Apple want to succedd they should start making their OS buggy, virus prone and badly designed, IT's would switch in droves...

Too blind to notice Unix architecture

[Morgaine]

"There's no set architecture in Linux. All roads lead to madness" -Microsoft

The article is full of meaningless statements about Linux, words used for effect and without any attempt at reason or logic. The poetic "All roads lead to madness" really highlights how they've pretty much abandoned technical arguments and are now invoking defensive political rhetoric.

That statement is pretty funny though when you think about it. Linux and the BSDs all have the architecture of Unix, and that's by far the most elegant and powerful O/S architecture available outside of academia at the present time. The fact that they can say something as laughable as "no set architecture in Linux" just shows how divorced from reality they really are.

Re:Too blind to notice Unix architecture

[pfleming]

Was he referring to the development road or the file structure road? Either one could be argued as having no set architecture, any vendor/coder is more or less free to set up the file system any way they want. Most would tend to want a standardized file structure such as the LSB.

still not getting it?

[flacco]

Taylor is fond of pointing out that the battle against Linux is an increasingly familiar one. "Before, Linux was this cloud we didn't get, now it is Red Hat, Novell, IBM. We know how to compete with companies. I was high-fiving everyone I could find when Novell bought [German Linux distributor] SuSe. We already won once against Novell."

the "cloud" is still there, my friend - and it's that that you're competing against; not IBM or Novell.

Good morning MS

[Fuzuli]

When i used to work with MS guys for some of the projects i've done, always the same thing was worth noting: most of the time, the sales people, and sometimes tech guys (consultants mostly) don't know much about alternative technologies. When discussing something with these guys, they usually come up with an applied pattern, built on MS technology. In this case, try to talk about an alternative, Linux, java whatever.. You'll see that most of the time any remark you make will be answered with : "is it so ?". Some of the guys were my friends and i told them, look i know there are things you are obliged to do as a MS employee, but how can you sell something successfully, if you can't compare it to alternatives, from different aspects ? Just learn about the things, and you'll know the cases where MS is good (i'm sorry but there are cases like this), and you'll know when to shut up, so that you don't look like a pure marketing idiot, and instead give the impression of a pro working for MS .
Now MS is doing this. It's really interesting to see that they have waited for so long. Most of the linux guys will know about what sucks about a particular subject in MS world. The same must work for MS too, or they can't fight with some memorized words (total cost of ownership, open source not secure, bla bla).

I'd hate to stick up for Linux but....

[NullStream]

"There's no set architecture in Linux. All roads lead to madness."

There are no clean solutions in Windows. All roads lead to madness.

If Microsoft is really wanting to learn from it's 'competitors' it should take a good look at OpenBSD. Clean interfaces, extremely well documented, and safe.

Validating Linux kills Microsoft's revenue stream

[Anonymous Coward]

If Microsoft puts out Linux anything, it validates Linux in the minds of the masses, and really starts the "Gee, why the hell should I pay $200 for WinXP and $450 for Office Professional when Linux stuff is free?"

Of course, anyone with half a brain thinks that already, which is why Microsoft is so damn desperate about Linux (yes, all you MCSE's better start working on your RedHat certs...)

Er...

[Quixote]

Tell us what Linux does that we can't do.

Allow everyone to download and tinker with the sources... ?

Microsoft is legitizing Linux.

[Anonymous Coward]

The funny thing about all this is that most people see thru this sort of thing.

I mean people that were pro-MS will be pro-MS after this propaganda. And people that were pro-linux will be pro linux after this, too. (except those that get fat paychecks from MS) :P

What it goes to prove is that Linux is a legitament competator with MS. After all if Linux was a bunch of Loonies then why MS would go thru the trouble of funding dozen or so "independant" studies to prove that MS is superior? Why all this effort?

Wouldn't the superior worth of Microsoft be self evident as businesses that use Linux collapse under the strain of their IT infrastucture, getting replaced and bought out by company after company running Windows?

The fact that MS can't dismiss Linux anymore is proof that Linux has come of age.

After all, Linux is displacing the old Unix strongholds. Places that MS couldn't touch because of the reliability, scalability, and usability of their offerings. People that wouldn't touch W2k and wouldn't trust their data to anything less then the most expensive IBM or Solaris hardware are now turning to "white boxes" running Linux instead of w2k3.

In many people's minds Windows is fine, and it's easy to find cheap workers to support it since everybody and their mom is forced to work with it. But Windows is cheap and it can only take you so far. If you want to play with the big boys you are just going to have to run a real computer OS: Unix and.. er... Linux.

Before Windows was used because it was just plain cheaper. That's why. Unix was nice but expensive.

Now with Linux you can have your cake and eat it too!

And the legions of MS followers chant: "Wayward soldiers marching on! We are cheaper, know the fud!"

Re:Microsoft is legitizing Linux.

[narcc]

The fact that MS can't dismiss Linux anymore is proof that Linux has come of age.


Yeah, when the 800lb gorilla looks around for somthing to hit you with, you know you're not so small yourself.

Then again, how long ago was it that the first halloween documents appeared?

For Your Information

[pdamoc]

Microsoft already has a Linux version: MSLinux

Been wondering for years...

[jsmcd20]

What is Slashdot's Microsoft icon? Is that supposed to be a cyborGates, or is a planet smashing into his head?

Yes, but... there *is* a legal agreement.

[Chris Tyler]

No contracts or legal agreements!

Mostly true-- but remember that in order to get the benefits of an Open Source license you must comply with the terms of that license. You don't sign a contract, but you do have obligations. Very, very light obligations -- easy to keep -- but obligations nonetheless.

MS Stock Price

[Bob9113]

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.

They already have....

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux will never make it to the desktop unless the major distributors agree on a standard package format.

The major distributors already have agreed on a standard package format. Mandrake, RedHat and SuSE all use RPMs. You did say "major". The rest are "minor" distros. Regardless of what distrowatch claims... these are the three major ones in actual corporate/govt/edu installed production use outside of the hobbiest user base.

Re:They already have....

[microbox]

RPM is the tool, but you can't use Mandrake RPMs with a SuSE install etc...

Doing soo just leads to problems

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.

Re:Bill Hilf not a "Linux technical leader"

[Goonie]

My definition of "Linux technical leader" is somebody who has shaped, in a substantial way, a major, widely-used open source project. Bill Hilf may well be a highly competent individual. But that's not what the post was about.

my favorite part

[subzero_ice]

"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."

Firstly it might be true the other way round, that Windows contains code from Linux but we have no way of telling. We know they got the ftp program from BSD.

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."

Isn't this the primary business of microsoft these days. Don't innovate clone (Attack of the M$ clone :) ). The search engine, blog and the list goes on and on.

Human stupidity

[rvw]

Einstein said once: "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." And I'm afraid he's right...

Re:Human stupidity

[earlgreen]

Einstein said once: "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." And I'm afraid he's right...

Yea and "It is impossible to underestimate the intelligence of the American people" -- though that Twain, or HL Menken or someone like that.

Re:Human stupidity

[Frizzle Fry]

The quote you are looking for is "no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public", which is attirbuted to PT Barnum. However, he never exactly said that. The real quote from him was the same but with "good taste" rather than "intelligence".

1984

[Anonymous Coward]

He claims to have shed a tear the first time he saw Microsoft's most recent TV spots featuring kids dreaming of being future astronauts and painters.

"Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother." - 1984

largely below the radar of US journalists

[dpilot]

Pretty easy to do when most of the US news media is 0wn3d. Unfortunately, today's media, at least broadcast media, is at the forefront of corporatism, and they Stick Together. (Try searching /. for Ted Turner, if your memory is short. I don't even have to get into coverage and non-coverage of the political season.)

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:It's funny, laugh!

[mihalis]

I love Linux as much as the next guy, however just being able to do '98-era desktop tasks is not enough, what I expect from my desktop (or laptop in my case) has moved on.

Nowadays I want to connect any digital camera to my machine and it "just works" (can get photos, recognizes the type of camera etc).

I also want to attach a mini-DV camera via Firewire and it "just works" then I want to import the footage in real-time, edit it right there, author a DVD and burn it, then have it "just work" when put in just about any old living room player.

For me it's Linux (or Solaris) on my servers, MacOS X on my desktop/laptop, and that's how I see things continuing for a good while. If I couldn't get Mac OS X, I expect that my next best experience for the stuff I mentioned above would be Windows XP, NOT Linux.

Sure, I can get most (all?) of these things to work on my Linux box, but it's too time-consuming. I tried. I think I gave up the last time I tried to find Freeamp. Oops, it's gone. Oh no, now it's Zinf. Ok, let's install that. Can't, it needs MusicBrainz. Fine, get that, oops it doesn't build. Next thing you know I'm pondering autoconf and M4 macros. I could fix that shit too, but I have better things to do with my time.

What are they? Well, you know, wife, daughter, job, and when it comes to supporting free software, I run the server for Nick Atty's Canalplan AC service" - again, Linux is best on servers, in my opinion.

Martin Taylor's immature attitude.

[pandrijeczko]

We already won once against Novell.

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.

Okay, let's have some /. fun

[ScytheBlade1]

This is kinda off-topic (?), but I have this urge to start a debate.

I'll say that for large networks of computers, a microsoft solution is the best solution out there. Why? Because it enables me to provide secure network logins, and each login carries all user prefrences/data with it. In addition, group policy enables me to update all software on several hundred computers within minutes. A distributed file system (DFS) with File Replication Somethingiforget (FRS) provides the ability to have several file servers all accessed on a single load-balanced location. This also provides fallover support, in case one server goes down, a client will switch to the next automagically without issues, without the client noticing.

Now I don't want a typical /. response, I really want to see what some *nix gurus can come up with here. More or less, provide me with ways that I can setup a linux server that..

A) Provides logins, universal across a network, and that carries user data with it. An added plus would be that all user data is kept on a DFS root and synced with the client computer, meaning that the files are on the local client for speeds, and kept in sync with those on the server.
B) A way to update (or remove, or install new) a specific piece of software on many many computers at once, limited only by the physical data transfer limits
C) The method described above, with the DFS/FRS system and total transparent fallover support.

Now, see, this is where I see that linux isn't "up to par" with windows yet. Also, these are some serious selling points for microsoft.

Hopefully, thought...someone can come along and do the same with linux....;)

Re:Okay, let's have some /. fun

[static0verdrive]

X has had these abilities since the 70's, except maybe the local files crap, which is extra network activity for nothing anyway. If you really needed it these days - that sort of functionality could be added in no time.

Re:Okay, let's have some /. fun

[ScytheBlade1]

Mind, uh, telling me how? Or maybe a place where I could RTFM?

Re:Okay, let's have some /. fun

[kellererik]

man nis
man nfs
or if you don't have a *NIX box to do that, google for it.
BTW: the local files thingy can be done in more than one way on *NiX, most people don't bother, though. NFS is usually fast enough. Trick here is to use a protocol that's not bloated and you have to eliminate the port 135 broadcasts, makes the net go faster, you know.
If this is to complicated, use a Mac. Everything you're asking for is provided with a nice GUI running on top of BSD.

my 2 cents

Fifty-five percent was just replaced.

[Futurepower(R)]

"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.

Something smells

[Quest9876]

The imbecile nature and ulterior motive in this article (or should I say PR) is obvious. Microsoft has no intention of playing friendly with Linux. They have every intention of crushing it. Becuase Linux is so popular, it's bad PR to attack it so they act friendly while they quietly plan an intellectual property search and destroy mission. By the way the MS in MSNBC stands for Microsoft -- get it?

If Ease of Use Were The Only Criteria

[geomon]

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.

Re:If Ease of Use Were The Only Criteria

[DMadCat]

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.


No argument there. Microsoft beat out the Mac because it ran on the cheaper x86 hardware.

The cost of hardware these days is irrelevant. The cost of software, however, is becoming increasingly relevant.

Are you seeing a pattern here? Let me draw the lines in... Mac was easier to use than Windows but Windows was cheaper to run. Windows is supposedly easier to use than Linux but...

Re:If Ease of Use Were The Only Criteria

[geomon]

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.

No argument there. Microsoft beat out the Mac because it ran on the cheaper x86 hardware.

The cost of hardware these days is irrelevant. The cost of software, however, is becoming increasingly relevant.

Are you seeing a pattern here? Let me draw the lines in... Mac was easier to use than Windows but Windows was cheaper to run. Windows is supposedly easier to use than Linux but...

I'm already with you. I think one of the remarkable things about that line of reasoning is that the 'better' system hardly relies on what the user finds easier to use. It is cold, hard economics.

The Third World will hardly consider ease of use a compelling reason to chose an operating system in their march to the global economy. These are societies that still use shovels and picks to do work where bulldozers and backhoes clearly are much easier to use.

On that score, the Industrialized World is already at a disadvantage for being so Microsoft-centric. In order to adapt the financial systems of the developing countries (where labor is cheap) with the financial systems of the G8, a lingua franca of operating systems will eventually become necessary.

I can't see Microsoft's market dominance making any difference in that economic analysis at all. Forcing developing countries to spend more on software that ensures interoperability while simultaneously eraseing the economic advantage that they have in labor is a non-starter.

The developed world will eventually start using open source software to merge with the developing world, not the other way around.

Microsoft is dead

[mysticgoat]

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.

It may be one road...

[the_skywise]

But it's always under construction with lane restrictions.

A thick seam of comedy here...

[ProudClod]

"Can Linux really handle crucial areas such as security and e-mail?"

pffffffffffft........... One word. Windows?

"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"

Blaster!

"In some number of years my job shouldn't exist"

Well yes, we can hope. Probably not with the same outcome you're talking about though :)

eurrghhh

[ewe2]

I can't decide what nauseated me more, the article or the banner ad above it: Walt Disney World offering a free vacation kit. With a real CD and stuff!

I'm sure the folks at Disney think they're really being helpful. Just as helpful as young Martin Taylor who's known nothing but Microsoft, yet thinks he can counter Linux by competing with Novell.

But more sickening was Rob Enderle's SCOforum keynote address

Remember Netscape

[borroff]

Does this give anyone else a feeling of Deja Vu? Remember when there was a browser company called Netscape, that owned a significant portion of the market? Bill Gates stood up and made beating Netscape the main priority of the company, just as they had earlier with Wordperfect, Jazz, and 1-2-3. I can think of very few cases when, once the dinosaur finally awoke, it didn't trample the competition (with the possible exception of IIS).

This particular competitive conflict might be different in that we're talking not about an application, but a platform. Microsoft eliminated the previously mentioned examples by coming out with their own alternative apps, which they made attractive to businesses and leveraged with the Office suite, or integrated into the OS.

In the case of Linux, they've already got an alternative (Windows 2000 Server, Windows Server 2003). It's not doing too bad either - the problem for Microsoft seems not to be lost business to Linux (though there is some), but rather that they cannot consume and obliterate the *nix market. The continuation of a real, viable alternative stands in the way of their maximizing the profit potential of related applications, such as Exchange, Biztalk, Sharepoint, SQL Server, etc.

In short,the analogy I see is that the don't just want the printer market, the want the cable, toner, and paper markets as well. Linux interferes stands in the way of that goal.

hear the bell ringing ?

[krayfx]

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.

that's the scary part. i am sure this is by far the most convincing attempt, and what microsoft believes needs to be done to get at linux. in another section taylor mentions "linux is going to be around forever", and that would mean, every other compititor around doesnt matter.
methinks, its equally important for everyone in the open source to start an anti-FUD, cleaning up missions to check if the shoelaces are untied. groklaw's already begun it...but i'm afraid that's not enough to stop the economic might of the MS.

Let's not degenerate into a political discussion

[A nonymous Coward]

Please, keep the prez out of this.

Microsoft reacts by... actually innovating.

[Theovon]

I know it's hard to believe. I'm not sure I still believe it'll happen. But we know that the only way for Microsoft to compete now is to ACTUALLY innovate, something they haven't done in a LONG TIME... since the early 80's in fact. They're very rusty. Looks like some parts of Microsoft are starting to try to scrape off some of the rust.

Microsoft may be evil, but they're the industry leader, and this is good for everyone.

Of course, I'm never going to like two legacy aspects of Windows filesystem: drive letters and backslashes. :)

Re:Been wondering for years... ***[OFF TOPIC]***

[narcc]

It's Gates in a BORG outfit. You know, "resistance is futile" and all that Star Trek jazz.

http://www.paulsjusticepage.com/images/cyborg.jpg for a better image.

10% of Microsoft test servers run Linux!

[Anonymous Coward]

i think we should be thanking microsoft for beginning their migration to the GNU/Linux platform. i'm sure when they see the lower TCO, stability, and security of their GNU/Linux test servers, they'll move the rest of them over too!

is it unfair to have a headline: Microsoft migrates to Linux?

Innovation

[hundalz]

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?

I switched from FreeBSD to Windows XP

[callipygian-showsyst]

"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."

This was my experience, too! I ran Linux in the early days, and stopped because I couldn't get the performance I needed for high-end network tasks.

Then I went to FreeBSD. I was pretty satisfied (there's a standard distribution, and the networking code is a lot better), but there wasn't enough desktop support.

When Windows XP came out, I discovered I could run nearly all of the Unix stuff I used to with cygwin, and that the Windows API had everything I needed. I really like the way Windows Update works (no kidding!); it's much easire than applying patches and recompiling. And, of course, there are tons of applications available.

But what really did it for me was the .NET architecture. Microsoft's C# and .NET, combined with Visual Studio are by far the best programming environment I've ever used.

In the 23 years since I graduated from college with a CS/Math degree, I've programmed in just about everything.(And, yes, I've programmed on NexTStep and Mac OS-X with that cruddy Objective-C and crashy development environment). And NOTHING beats C#/.NET for general application programming.

Linux isn't even in the running!

Re:I switched from FreeBSD to Windows XP

[ainsoph]

Maybe you should start writing for MS's channel 9!! Yer a suck up just like that crew.

Why is Objective-C cruddy and C# da bomb?

Re:I switched from FreeBSD to Windows XP

[callipygian-showsyst]

Here's why I abandoned the Mac OS-X environment and Objective-C

• The language lacks true support for exceptions and exception types
• The Objective-C language lacks first-class support for Events
• The Apple development environment crashes all the time
• Apple has no unified API. Some things are QuickTime, some things are Cocoa, some things are carbon
• Objective-C has no garbage collection
• For a compiled language, Objective-C is very S-L-O-W because of the late binding. I get MUCH better performance from C# even though it's JIT compiled. (Why do you think that Final Cut Pro is written using C++ and CodeWarrior?)
• I like C#'s support for XML serialization of objects, with tags and attributes that you control and that relate to the structure's type
• The C# compiler is VERY fast and stable. In fact, it's available FREE from Microsoft
• The Visual Studio environment is very powerful, has a wonderful class browser, has syntax directed editing that really works, and integrates with source code control.

That's a start!

Re:I switched from FreeBSD to Windows XP

[0x0d0a]

I ran Linux in the early days, and stopped because I couldn't get the performance I needed for high-end network tasks.

You're a bit behind the times, then.

When Windows XP came out, I discovered I could run nearly all of the Unix stuff I used to with cygwin

I've used cygwin. It's an amazing technical accomplishment, but frankly, using it sucks compared to being on an *IX box. It's quite slow (possibly because Windows lacks copy on write?)

Windows API had everything I needed.

Well, yeah, I'll buy that. What platform API lacks something that you need?

I really like the way Windows Update works (no kidding!); it's much easire than applying patches and recompiling.

Then you'll *love* any of the modern binary package distribution systems on Linux, like apt, yum, or yup, all of which don't require any recompiling to get updates, work across your *entire system* instead of just on Windows itself, actually have a concept of dependencies (Windows Update lets you break dependencies by installing things in the "improper" order), are fast and can be scripted or automated, and can be easily set up to run off local mirrors.

And, of course, there are tons of applications available.

There's an awful lot of software available for Linux, too. What functionality hole are you trying to fill?

But what really did it for me was the .NET architecture. Microsoft's C# and .NET, combined with Visual Studio are by far the best programming environment I've ever used.

I can't comment -- I haven't used C# or .NET, though I've used Visual Studio and was pretty underwhelmed -- I can't figure out why so many Windows developers rave about it.

Could you give any specifics as to why you like .NET so much?

Re:I switched from FreeBSD to Windows XP

[callipygian-showsyst]

I've used cygwin. It's an amazing technical accomplishment, but frankly, using it sucks compared to being on an *IX box. It's quite slow (possibly because Windows lacks copy on write?)

I'm sick and tired of paid agents who work for Apple Computer coming here and spreading LIES about Microsoft's API.

While Windows 95 didn't implement copy-on-write, EVERY MICROSOFT OPERATING SYSTEM since then does, and Windows NT had it even earlier (1992). (IIRC, in 1995 Macintosh didn't even have virtual memory!)

Here, for example, is documentation explaining about Copy-On-Write in the 1992 Win-32 API for Windows NT.

For Windows XP, there are even more options. You can map ALL of Posix onto Win-32 with no problems.

Re:I switched from FreeBSD to Windows XP

[0x0d0a]

I'm sick and tired of paid agents who work for Apple Computer coming here and spreading LIES about Microsoft's API.

Me too. If you find any, you let me know.

While Windows 95 didn't implement copy-on-write, EVERY MICROSOFT OPERATING SYSTEM since then does, and Windows NT had it even earlier (1992). (IIRC, in 1995 Macintosh didn't even have virtual memory!)

Well, son of a gun. You're right that XP does have copy-on-write. You're wrong about everything other than 95, though, as 95, 98, and ME all lacked copy-on-write.

I guess it just took until two years ago for Cygwin to get copy-on-write fork(). [shrug]

For Windows XP, there are even more options. You can map ALL of Posix onto Win-32 with no problems.

No kidding? May I ask how you've convinced cygwin to handle mkfifo()?

Re:I switched from FreeBSD to Windows XP

[ainsoph]

Interesting.. thanks!

My experience with XP and Fedora

[speedbump]

I read the article, which was fine until the MS droids started claiming they are as flexible in their pricing as they always have been.

*Snort*! Ask vendors like Dell, Micron, Gateway, and IBM if Microsoft was EVER flexible with their licensing policies. No, actually, MS would aggressively PUNISH any vendor who sold alternate operating systems on their hardware by increasing the per-box fee.

Anyway, the FUD from MS is just so much fart gas. My real life practical experience with XP is that if I connect it to the internet, I can't keep viruses off it. I waste more time trying to slap a condom over my system with XP. This OS is leakier than a Saudi terrorist holding cell.

Fedora: I haven't had to delouse it once. I haven't had to reboot or reinstall. It just works.

They lie. Period.

"Innovation"

[Anonymous Coward]

Searches will extend across all data like e-mail, photos, Word. "We're creating things," he says.

http://www.apple.com/macosx/tiger/spotlight.html

Tiger due this year. Microsoft due 2007. I hate you, Microsoft.

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 ...

Remember and repeat:

[David Gerard]

Linux is Microsoft's Vietnam.

Re:Remember and repeat:

[talks_to_birds]

Linux is SCO's Vietnam...

t_t_b

Re:Remember and repeat:

[narcc]

South Vietnam is North Vietnam's Vietnam...

Re:Remember and repeat:

[talks_to_birds]

Proposed corollary to Godwin's Law:

Any thread that references more than two "x ix y's Vietnam" selfdistr

Re: Good Thing there are "Non-Profit" distros

[afd8856]

hihi, then wars won't be started for control of oil fields, or stopping political expansions, wars will be started for only for "hosting terrorist software". I hope I will not live these days...

Re: Their true enemy isn't Open Source either

[Alwin Henseler]

Linux nor Open Source is Microsoft's enemy. If Microsoft would jump on the Free/OS train today, make a 180 degree turn, pour billions into Free/OS projects, they'd be welcome to. Linux, Open Source would profit from that (even when huge amounts of crappy code would be poured in OS; natural selection works quite well), and it wouldn't hurt their own customers either. Customers are always willing to pay for something that suits their needs, even if it's built using freely available stuff.

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.

Re:pot. kettle. black.

[polyp2000]

Dont know who modded you redundant but that is a very valid point. If I had moderator access i'd mod you up. Id also go so far as to say that Microsoft is in the process of cloning existing technology.

Does this look like psychological projection?

[antispam_ben]

My favorite quote? [from Microsoft] "There's no set architecture in Linux. All roads lead to madness"."

NIS

[SpooForBrains]

Active Directory does nothing that NIS doesn't do, and NIS ships as standard with any good linux server offering and has (I believe) been around longer than AD.

BAD PUN WARNING

[MarkusQ]

It's not a company to bash,

Of course not. It's a movement to ksh.

-- MarkusQ

Linux has no chance...

[MiniMaul]

of beating Microsoft. Linux is like a Chevette trying to catch a supercharged Corvette. Linux needs to go for the Ultra-COOL factor. Make it really cool looking, kinda like what Jaguar did for Apple. Hell, put some "twinkies" on that old Chevette, and I'd say "fsck that gas waisting, piece 'o' shit, Corvette".

Holla

Oh My, How Nice

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Your sig

[gibson_81]

Heard of FreeNet? http://freenet.sourceforge.net/

Its not a 250mb patch

[jamesl]

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.

Incorrect Assumptions

[SpooForBrains]

This is all assuming that instead of buying Windows Server 2003 you slap on a copy of Slackware linux. This is not what any open source advocate with half a brain would suggest to any company. No, you replace Windows Server 2003 with a copy of SuSE Linux Open Exchange, or Novell Groupwise or any of the other fine products in this area that are well documented and do exactly what you've just said they don't do, and all that without having to dick around with a single configuration file.

Or, you know what? You buy a few days of ME, or one of my esteemed colleagues in the field, and we deal with all those pesky config files instead.

Either of those options will still generally work out less that the Microsoft option, and even if they don't, you end up with more control than what you would have over a Microsoft solution.

For a few million bucks...

[donbrock]

I might be persuaded to use Windohs also.

O No, not again.

[Retep Vosnul]

Microsoft
FACTS 3.0 (tm)

New msf3.0(tm) awfully much looks like real truths even better then before.

Powered by Extreme Muckup Lies. XML

Forbes connection?

[19years]

Note that the article is written with MSNBC partner
Forbes. That's the same Forbes that's the home
to David Lyons, who has written several other
unfavorable to Linux articles, as noted at /. and
groklaw.

Multiple apps

[Craig Ringer]

Yeah, I know what you mean about multiple apps. Our NT4 server now only handles file serving (well, it also runs Sybase 5.1 DB server but that's near zero load and barely counts). It runs for months and months without even being looked at. Eventually it goes a bit funny and has to be rebooted, but it usually ends up beating the Linux servers' uptimes.

On the other hand, our core Linux server runs 12 LTSP thin client users, our mail hub (inc Cyrus IMAPd for IMAP/POP), increasing amounts of our Windows and mac file services, several intranet web applications, DHCP, DNS, two databases (mostly used by said intranet web apps), and probably more that I can't remember right now. Would I like to split out some of the functionality - hell yes, downtime on that box gives the horrible cold shivers. On the other hand, it runs very reliably and reasonably fast (given it's slow disk subsystem) and hasn't tried to nosedive yet.

The fact that I have off-site disk snapshots, nightly tape backups, critical data mirrored on other machines, and a cold spare helps the sanity, too.

From experience, I know that doing that many things on NT4 ... well, it really doesn't work. I can't speak for newer Windows servers, as I haven't spent enough time working with them in production to really have the knowledge.

Stupidity beats greed.

[Anonymous Coward]

Any day, hands down.

There's simply no comparison.

Not everyone is greedy, not everyone can be greedy, even willfully. But the wisest of the wisest has its moment of foolishness.

There's a reason it is said "a fool soon loses his gold" instead of "a smart guy gets a fool's money".

Re:pattern

[atcurtis]

Microsoft wasn't ignoring Linux...

They were simply too busy dancing on OS/2's grave to notice.

Brain Surgery

[4of12]

Linux has a temporary advantage in the early phases, just as Microsoft did in the early 1980s.

The enthusiastic, the technically adept, the patient, the intelligent people are adopting Linux, using it, showing their prowess by bringing up umpteen zillion servers with fantastic uptimes and remote ssh serviceability over slow intercontinental networks.

Some of that advantage is due to Linux, but some of it, too, must be attributed to the people currently using it.

As the distro makers start encroaching into Microsoft's territory, BrainSurgeryMadeEasy.com, then there will be tougher slogging.

I hope that FOSS programmers are up to the challenge of keeping true to principles of security and technical excellence and we don't start seeing kernel modules and browser plug-ins that sacrifice principles for WhizBang features that marketing advocates.

Re:Brain Surgery

[True Grit]

I hope that FOSS programmers are up to the challenge of keeping true to principles of security and technical excellence and we don't start seeing kernel modules and browser plug-ins that sacrifice principles for WhizBang features that marketing advocates.

[Before y'all flame me, keep in mind that I'm a Linux user and fan...]

Technical excellence won't be the problem for the FOSS people, that seems to be a point of pride with them. FOSS's achilles heel is a lack of concern of ease-of-use issues. FOSS developers are programmers writing programs for themselves first and to a lesser degree other programmers, non-programming end-users simply are not a big concern for most of them. Yes, you can find some FOSS projects that are exceptions, and there are "FOSS" projects that are really being supported by a commercial company which is specifically seeking that end-user market, so they do concern themselves with UI and ease-of-use issues, but I simply don't see this in the rest of the FOSS community, nor do I see this changing any. The casual, home computer user is still out of reach for Linux, and frankly, may always be.

I tend to agree with microsoft

[zardinuk]

Have you ever sat in #linuxhelp on efnet for about three hours? I tried to help a guy get his wireless ethernet driver working last night and he was so stupid, he couldn't grasp the simplest of concepts. There is nothing so perfect as windows for people like that... And you'll notice that is the direction linux desktops are going. Simple to set up, easy to use.

Re:Your sig

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

No, golly gee. But now that I have, I will give up my own totally different idea that solves somewhat different problems. Thank you. ;-)

Dont be suprised that Microsoft is not stupid.

[LordZardoz]

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

Where are you buying your software?????????

[heybo]

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.

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.

Re:Where are you buying your software?????????

[yuri benjamin]

Is Linux read for Joe User? NO! One day it will be.

Wrong question. People always ask "is linux ready for Joe User".

The question should be "is linux ready for Jane Admin?"

Joe User, in a corporate environment, shouldn't notice much difference between KDE or Windows. My wife finds OpenOffice Writer and MS Word very similar.

The user will use whatever the admins sets up for them. The admin's job is to make it painless for the user. This is possible with any desktop linux distro. Joe user wouldn't even notice the difference between a workstation running KDE locally and a thin client running KDE over a fast LAN.

In the end it comes down to whatever the admin finds easiest - ask two different admins and you'll get three different opinions :-)

Not just fanboy optimism

[einhverfr]

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....

But are they wrong?

[briancnorton]

Ok, so their "studies" came out a little one sided. It's really easy to cry foul and blast "M$ Winbl0ze" but did those studies have a point? If nothing else they should provide some sort of direction for future development.

I have run both Windows and Linux desktops and servers, and I KNOW that I spent at least 3x as long getting linux to work right, and 10 minutes worth of maintainance on windows took an hour on linux. I never calculated TCO, but I bet they weren't THAT far off.

Re:But are they wrong?

[pe1chl]

This depends on your background and on the problem you are looking at.
There are Windows problems that I have never been able to completely understand and solve, mostly because of the black-box situation you find yourself in.
And there are many tasks that you can solve in a few minutes in Linux, and take hours of RSI-inducing clicking in Windows.

Competition ??

[microbox]

Competition is good sometimes, however, sometimes it's better for people to collaborate and find a best way of doing things.

Imagine a world where every province/country/state uses different train guages...

They're staple, not standards

[microbox]

RPM is a package management staple. Apt-get is great, and in many ways superiour. Urpmi is an excellent wrapper on RPM. All of these things are staples, but not standards.

If they were standard, then I wouldn't need to distribute a .deb and half a dozen .rpm files as well as a .tar.gz file when I distribute my latest killer app.

That's just too much effort to make sure that it works on all those systems. It's simpler on windows, even with the clunky package management interface.

If there was a real standard... people could still make different front ends and distributors could still distribute different versions of the same packages, and end users could just double click and install any linux package, that they get form rpmfind, tucows or whatever.

That would be ideal.

Why cant linux be easy?

[earthstar]

Dear friends,
jus why cant linux come in a Single Cd where running a set up file will install it in 30 minutes,jus like windows 98? ( dont say knoppix )
iam sure linux will be even more popular,if installation was easy....
Why should it be default "difficult"?

MSFT's approach to Linux

[HangingChad]

Is exactly what you get in an organization when the problem is dictating the solution.

Re:Validating Linux kills Microsoft's revenue stre

[_Sprocket_]

If Microsoft puts out Linux anything, it validates Linux in the minds of the masses, and really starts the "Gee, why the hell should I pay $200 for WinXP and $450 for Office Professional when Linux stuff is free?"

I completely agree. And it goes deeper than perhaps the parent post implies.

Microsoft's ability to call the shots in the IT industry is strongly anchored in their dominance of the commodity desktop. Microsoft can leverage this dominance to introduce de-facto standards and create demand for proprietary infrastructure. There is certainly a financial motive to this. But it also makes it a lot easier to simply get your ideas adopted if you get to drive the standards rather than compete with everyone else for adoption.

Keep in mind that a huge part of Microsoft's success is the emergence of commodity hardware. This process created a market effect that almost swamped proprietary hardware leaders like Apple and IBM. But Microsoft rode that wave, taking a payment on each device sold no matter who sold it. And at the same time, it helped give them a presence in the majority of businesses and, in turn, homes with a computer.

Linux threatens this whole process. Linux is the digital embodiment of the next phase in the IT Industry; the commodity OS. What happened to IBM could be about to happen to Microsoft. Sure - IBM is still around. They're a major player. But they no longer set de-facto standards like they used to.

If Microsoft adopts or supports Linux, it risks strengthening Linux and the associated meme that the OS is a commodity. This erodes Microsoft's influence in the market. And that will quickly lead to a more difficult path for both its business strategy and its ability to implement its technical vision (if one can separate one from the other).

Re:But also don't forget...Astroturfing?

[deck]

Shure sounds like a paid shill.

Re:Let's not degenerate into a political discussio

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:But also don't forget...Astroturfing?

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

I wish. Unemployed at the moment. Besides, I'm sure you won't understand this anyway but, as I said, for me the person/team/whatever I want to win isn't necessarily the person/team/whatever I think will win. Try thinking a bit, instead of reacting, I know it's painful. Has there ever been a conflict/competition/war where you wanted one side to win, even though you know they couldn't? That's what this feels like to me. I don't go into "gee, that guy will win mode" as soon as I decide I like him.

Linux deserves to win. It is legally justified in winning. It is the technically superior (well not just that, practically so, too) product. More people should use it.

All that said, I'm hardly optimistic when it comes to the looming war that Microsoft will make of this. You'd think there'd be more people who would appreciate my perspective...how helpful will all the "rah! rah! rah! linux is great, it's unbeatable!!!" people be when you're in the thick of it?

Re:pattern

[DavidTC]

Yeah, let's randomly quote Gandhi out of context.

Here's what Gandhi actually thought about the situtation. Notice that, while 'violently' anti-violence, he conceeded that, if there ever was a just war, WWII was it, simply because of the genocide attempted by the Nazis.

And, duh, his quote is exactly what he did, against the English. He dared them to shoot him. That was the entire base of his passive resistence movement. He wasn't advocating mass suidcide because he disliked Jews, he was advocating it it was the logical extension of his non-violence policy: Allow your enemy to kill you while you do absolutely nothing wrong, and let the world watch.

Re:Let's not degenerate into a political discussio

[Master of Transhuman]

Which Bush is he twenty times as rich as? George CIA who is actually running the country or George Numb-Nuts who is taking the orders?

As for supporting troops, George Numb-Nuts has retrograded every pay increase, benefit increase, and US military support function there is. These fucks wouldn't even increase the death benefits to families of US troops killed in combat from a lousy 6K to a lousy 12K.

Not to mention getting a thousand of them killed in Iraq for NOTHING - and threatening to send them to North Korea where FIFTY THOUSAND of them will get killed for NOTHING.

Not that Kerry plans to do any better, I agree. So I suppose in that sense you're correct.

I can already remotely shutdown my linux box...

[Phil John]

...it's quite simple really:

ssh my.box.address
login as: myusername
myusername@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx's password:
Last login: Tue Aug 10 13:36:34 2004 from xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[myusername@www myusername]# su root
[root@www myusername]$ shutdown -h now

Easy, huh?

Re:I can already remotely shutdown my linux box...

[Col Bat Guano]

Microsoft are working on allowing you to shut your computer down and have programs -continue- to run by migrating to another computer. Quite a nice idea really.

Re:I can already remotely shutdown my linux box...

[redog]

pfft
ssh -t myusername@my.box.address "sudo shutdown -h now"

Wrong company name: it's Grimoldi, not Grimaldi

[juanjoc]

The name of the shoe store in those ads is Grimoldi.

Know thy enemy

[SCHecklerX]

Seems like a good idea. Too bad for Microsoft that most linux admins already know windoze inside and out and can already speak to the benefits of one system over the other. Microsoft, once again, a follower and not a leader.

Your argument is false

[schon]

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?

And this is different on MS how?

Oh yeah - with MS, the more components you add, the lower your chance of anything working.

Nice to have astroturfers around.

[jotaeleemeese]

Don't insult our intelligence please.

If you are going to deploy a technology you are not familiar with you hire an expert. Period.

If you don't you are the one to blame, lets not go rounds pretending otherwise.

Linux is truly usable in many levels above Windows that is not funny.

The command line, that many astroturfers like yourself attack so vehemently, is perhaps the most important tool in Linux: you can create reproducible results that you can document and automatize. YOu have no idea how important this is becoming in today's enterprise. Windows does not provide facilities for this, Linux does and does so free of charge.

That is impossible with a point and click interface, be that Windows or any other, since you, as an user, are tied of hands constrained only to the options presented by the manufacturer nad can't script the results to replicate them elsewhere.

A simple directory search in Windows is an absolute pain, with the Linux command line you can be as expresive as you need to be to solve a problem.

You forgot...

[gillbates]

1. Plug in your digital camera and watch the machine freeze for a few minutes....
2. Start to download your pictures, only to find that about halfway through, "This program has performed an illegal operation..."
3. Curse when you realize that your vacation pictures no longer exist - the files weren't saved, and your camera marked them for delete when the download started.
4. Curse even more when you discover that you're just another victim of Crappy Drivers Syndrome(TM). Keep cursing as you realize that Crappy Driver Syndrome seldom happens to Linux Zealots.
5. Generally come to realize that there's a good reason why Linux drivers were never written for the device... Perhaps the hardware is crap? Or maybe the manufacturer doesn't want you to fully utilize the device (DRM in driver software?)...

Yes, we know that almost all devices "work" with windows - as in, you can plug them in, and load drivers for them. But I've found that this is irrelevant; I could care less whether Big Buy's Bargain Basement Webcam "works" with Linux. Cheap hardware is cheap for a reason. What good is having a Windows driver for your cheap hardware if the driver crashes your machine?. Yes, I've had this happen on more than one occasion. The reason why I use Linux is because I can be reasonably certain that if there aren't Linux drivers written for the hardware, it's probably crap. I don't have to worry about some shoddily written driver crashing my machine so much with Linux as I do with Windows.

Re:Bush didn't want to invade Iraq all along....

[StealthBadger]

Yes he did.

> because during his campaign he said, "I will not engage in nation building."

As opposed to what he is doing now, which is setting up a government, peacekeeping operations, army/police force building & training, rebuilding a national infrastructure, brokering construction contracts, etc. That's not nation building, naw.

> And if he had intended to attack Iraq all along, given that Iran helped the 9/11 hijackers into the United States, and cover their tracks, and *is* developing nuclear weapons, well that would make him evil, and a traitor to our country. As opposed to a moron.

I'm waiting to hear how any of those things are mutually exclusive. ^_^

Uh, I AM using it 'because I can'

[JimmytheGeek]

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

Linux gives the BSA/SPA the finger. Linux immunizes us from external gestapo-style license audits/raids. Linux frees us from total dead-weight, lost-effort, pure-cost license tracking.

How many businesses buy licenses for pc's that came with them? More than a few. It takes less time to just cut a PO covering the number of seats than to collect all the little printed EULAs (which turn out to be useless in an audit anyway!).

Plus - the terms of the MS licenses have gotten absolutely draconian and, to me, unacceptable. They sum up as "All your base..."

I don't care if Windows could match the security and features of Linux, much less the value proposition - the license provisions are a non-starter.

There are sayings...

[gillbates]

Anything worth doing is worth doing right...

If don't have time to do it right the first time, you'll make time the second...

I understand that configuring Linux is, quite frankly, a chore. However, it only needs to be done once.

The "Just Works" argument runs both ways - I've had more problems getting some hardware to work under Windows than under Linux. And then, there's the quarterly, preventive maintainance of backing up and reinstalling Windows. Yes, I suppose I could let them go for longer, but experience has taught me that when it comes to Windows, it's often easier just to reinstall at regular intervals than attempt to recover from the inevitable crash. Win2k is a little better, but not by much.

And in spite of this, I can't just plug and play with a Windows machine. I've had numerous pieces of hardware which, at first "appeared" to work with Windows, only to have drivers which later "disappeared", or refused to work entirely. Hence the growing collection of "Windows only" hardware gathering dust in the closet. Granted, it isn't Microsoft's fault that shoddy hardware vendors can't write stable drivers, but then, when I want something that Just Works:

1. I can run Linux. I have to restrict my hardware selection to what it supports, but at least I can be reasonably certain that it will work. I spend a considerable amount of time on hardware selection and setup.
2. I can run Windows on cheap hardware, and suffer stability problems because of buggy drivers. I now spend my time reinstalling Windows and drivers, trying to find a configuration in which there's no driver conflict, or stability problems.
3. I can run Windows on expensive hardware. I spend less time setting up and configuring hardware, but I've still got virus and security issues to tend to (patching monthly, etc...). Additionally, I've trading the increased price for a reduction in the frustration I'll have with hardware issues.

Simply put, there's no easy way out. You're either going to spend a lot of time or a lot of money, or a little bit of both getting a good system these days.

"we're creating things" - sewer gas

[JimmytheGeek]

Let's see - the "killer apps" for home computer use:

web and email. MS both had dick to do with the development of either. The heritage of Linux is much more closely tied.

Instant messaging. IRC was a command-line Unix phenomenon before AOL took over.

Word processing - MS Word was a(n inferior) clone until the advent of Windows. In any event, they didn't pioneer anything.

spreadsheet - they invented this, gotta admit. (*cough* Visicalc *cough*)

GUI operating system - nope.

Network operating systems - oh, wait. Nah, they haven't contributed jack shit here, either.

Directory based network management - nope. AD is a cheap ripoff of NDS, which is itself an evolution of Banyon Vines, which was the result of some deep thinking by standards bodies.

What the hell have they created besides virus vectors? I can't think of a single thing they pioneered in software. Business practices and licensing terms, sure. But actual inventions? Significant departures? I come up empty.

The history of humankind is the triumph of the unworthy (and perhaps its progress in spite of that triumph).

For revenue, you've made a mistake re:Microsoft

[haruchai]

You've listed their revenue for the most recent quarter vs IBM's ANNUAL revenue. So the true difference in revenue is a factor of THREE not a factor of TEN.

Brain surgery difficult?

[UpnAtom]

Why does everyone assume that brain surgery is difficult? You give local anaesthetic, displace a bit of their skull & dura, make sure the bits you want to cut out don't do anything really useful (ask the patient) and then cut & sew.

Rocket science OTOH - wouldn't have a clue.

TCO is total garbage. really.

[FireBook]

The main point regarding TCO is the people who will USE the platform, and, in my experience at least, the phantom 'cost' which supposedly increases TCO is people needing retraining/tooling for the switch to the new apps/os environment. However , as most users I experience are equally incompetent, windows or $osName, there is no difference between them using a desktop environment built on OSS, or proprietary. If you're going to specifically train people to use the os properly anyway, so that they are able to use the everyday apps that they need to use to the best of their abilities, wheres the difference in TCO? specific END USER applications/ standard computing task (email, web browsing) are a moot point here, all require training unless you like the monkeys with typewriters effect in your business.

Amazing article

[mnmn]

Newsforge has been putting up some nice articles.

This article was not a comparison of Linux versus Windows. It was just an insight into the mind of a Windows salesman from the heart of Microsoft. The guy cries for Microsoft ads on TV.

My favorite quote was where they asked what Linux could do that Microsoft couldnt. Another good quote was where he high-fived everyone when Novell bought SuSE. A few comments:

Linux can do things Microsoft cant. Try configuring the Linux kernel's networking part, and try the same on Windows2000 Server. Compare VPN solutions. Last but not least, check out the drivers in Linux. My Arcnet (ancient pre-ethernet) cards worked well on Linux, had issues on Windows. Next check out the security options in Linux. Enough said.

Novell did lose to Microsoft, but even in the Windows95 days we were installing Netware 4.x clients on Windows to keep them working with the Netware servers. Look at all Ethernet drivers, they still have Novell parts in them. Novell pretty much gave birth to consumer networking as we know it, Microsoft didnt. Novell just made a few bad mistakes along the way, and learned lessons. However it now has a piece of Linux. Just one distro.. a good one mind you. Kill Novell and RedHat, Linux will still be getting patches from various groups around. Someone else will getup and start some company to provide support.

Theres a great push for Linux everywhere. I dont think Taylor has realized that yet. We run 6 Windows servers at work, and all the IT people we've had, the president and vice president all have shown interest in moving everything to Linux. Our ERP system, and lotus notes are both Windows-only, which is whats holding us back. Notes is IBM, so we are expecting good Linux clients, and the ERP software has a few beta parts made in wxwindows for Linux/X11 already. Engineering runs Autocad, I expect that to run on Linux in a few years too. If not, we will move to a CAD system that will.

So while Microsoft has more than 90% of the market share, 90% of their sysadmins are looking for reasons and ways to get to Linux. That means 90% of the market has already been SOLD, but there are obstacles that will almost certainly go away. I'd be cashing my MS stocks if I were Taylor.

Its amazing theyre running 50 servers testing Linux, and certifying salesreps on it. Hotmail must be running on one of those servers. How does it feel to work at a company with good pay selling bad products. How can you face customers asking you about the superiority of Linux you tested in your labs, and lie to their faces? Hard to have any pride in your work. Hard to have passion in technology if youre supposed to hate free software.

For this reason I think selling Windows costs Microsoft much more than selling Linux. Anyone skeptical of Linux imagines it as a collection of companies or a text-based UNIX copycat. "Linux" in these articles increasingly means Linux + GNU software + other sourceforce software / *BSD. They can damage the Linux kernel group, but its free and someone else will pick up the pieces and continue. They will have to go after every single group of GNU and the sourceforge collection. What can you do to a kid in a basement using free compilers on his own computers making programs and giving it away for free? Buy him out? Or get more of your $80,000 per year 40 hours per week programmers to do a better job than a million eyeballs? Linux is here to stay, and in my opinion will be around 10 years from now, 50 and 100 years. Free software like samba, gaim, winex, firefox, thunderbird, will be able to cover Microsofts functionality in days of the release of the software, and improve upon it by leaps and bounds. Its a different beast than good ol Novell.

Re:Amazing article

[0x0d0a]

Linux is here to stay, and in my opinion will be around 10 years from now, 50 and 100 years.

I dunno about Linux itself -- it's not impossible that someone, maybe a researcher, will redesign OSes from the ground up. Or that a move to closed platforms will allow control over the OS (say, WebTV or X-Box gradually replacing PCs in people's houses).

But operating systems on general purpose computers will be open source from now on. That's just how things will work. It's a one way door, and it has too much drive, is too hard to stop, and provides too many benefits for people to reject.

Re:Your sig

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Speed will always be an issue, but I'm hoping the same forces that took the regular public networks from 300 baud to cable modems over 20 years might do the same for my own.

We don't have it big enough at the moment, to get anything more than a guess at what latency will look like for the most distant hosts. On our 3-6 hop expanses, we're seeing sub 500ms pings most of the time. Anyone that is interested is welcome to check it out...

IBM's invincible Maginot line of patents.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Redmond has been scheming to destroy linux for how many years? I truly don't know if they have any intelligent coders, but their lawyers on the other hand... I keep wanting to say "intelligent like the raptors in Jurassic Park" but it's probably more like "queen alien from Aliens" intelligence. In all those years, you don't think they have came up with something already? You don't think that preparations have been made? I don't watch Cspan or anything, but somewhere in the millions of pages of useless laws that they create, there is a rider somewhere that tweaks "patent reform". To those suspicious of it, it's probably described as "fixing software patent absurdities" or maybe "a law designed to keep large companies from abusing smaller ones seeking relief for patent infringement". And this is just my dumb example, it's likely more insidious than that.

And if I make it sound like a single item, then forgive me. Because I should be pointing out that they're attacking this from all angles in Washington, among the congressmen, and even among their fellow weasel/lobbyists. Can't just bribe the senator, have to make sure Disney's man is onboard... didn't we help him out with that copyright extension thing?

IBM will never get an injunction against windows installations everywhere... don't you think Microsoft has a slightly better shot at getting injunctions against IBM linux installations?

I just hope I'm wrong. Maybe Microsoft is full of mouth-breathing, slobbering morons who can't sell food to a starving man without resorting to thuggish threats.

Re:IBM's invincible Maginot line of patents.

[einhverfr]

I used to work at Microsoft and when I did, I was involved in competitive discussions. I am not violating any NDA's or anything when I tell you that litigation was never discussed in any discussion I was a party to. The discussions I was party to did however lead to features being added to products, marketing shifts, etc. Some of these were made on my suggestions.

The problems for Microsoft have very little to do, IMO, with a direct patent counter attack and more to do with general market dynamics and the ability of the community to undermine any patent claims that Microsoft brings forward. In my original post, I outlined a few options for such defence. Each such victory would significantly weaken Microsoft, and so they would be more likely to raise FUD (Balmer says "We'll Sue," Microsoft releases a statement saying "That is not our intent" etc).

Every trick in the book (and some out of it)

[leonbrooks]

When Linux and OpenOffice change from a thorn to a threat, Microsoft will turn on Open Source with every trick in their book, clean and dirty.

They're scraping the bottom of the barrel already.

Microsoft have never had to fight a competitor like FOSS before, which metaphorically plays its poker with all of their cards face-up on the table and wins anyway. Having half of the cards in play faced up makes it very difficult to cheat in the traditional ways, and the elimination of half of the bluff radically alters the game.

The other terrifying aspect is that in order to play poker at this table, Microsoft needs to face not one or two other players, but countless thousands. Their pin-striped suit and expensive jewelry isn't impressing the other players as much as it ought to, and it's hard to keep track of all of those other hands despite their all being faced up.

There are a few "enemy concentrations" which they can focus on and kind of play against as a collective, like Samba (they've been seriously down about the mouth on Samba for the last year or two), Linux (the FOSS poster child) and OpenOffice ("they wrote what?!"), which between them attack most of the profit avenues represented by the two cash cows, MS-Windows and MS-Office.

However, MS had kind of saturated those two markets, and needs to break into new markets - and guess what? Wherever they turn, FOSS is already there. So Microsoft have turned to peripheral areas, hardware and patents and social/political stuff that's difficult for FOSS to directly compete on.

Hardware is not much of a problem for FOSS, Microsoft has conventional competitors there to keep them in line as long as they can't leverage a Palladium-like monopoly.

Patents are a problem, but I think the whole patent arena is sliding out from under the cover of being merely sublime, and even conservative lawmakers are going to have to take notice of that soon.

This leaves the more nebulous area of social/political manipulation. Traditionally, Microsoft has used its massive presence, advertising and schmoozing budgets to leverage its core markets, together with the implied access to a lot more back doors (and we're not talking BackOrifice here). If they find a more direct way to turn all of that power into a cash-flow, the world is in trouble.

Good old "oops, we forgot to renew the domain - and the other domain" Passport is gradually jamming a foot into that kind of door, in the same way as constantly waving MSIE and MSN in people's faces has saved those items from the total obscurity they deserve. Watch out for Microsoft jamming levers in elsewhere.

Nevertheless, the FOSS community in general refuses to take Microsoft as seriously as MS'd like, and they often react in unpredictable was and predictable ways at the same time, which must cause endless ulcers in Redmond because they can never be sure that the predictable responses from the FOSS crowd aren't masking the launch of unpredictable responses (such as handing out FOSS CDs at Microsoft conventions, a tactic which Microsoft seems to be reciprocating by flooding FOSS_friendly websites with their ads).

</ramble>

Re:Every trick in the book (and some out of it)

[The Conductor]

Patents are a problem

Yes, they are, but patents are not as effective as a tool for producing customer lock-in as copyrights are. The reason for this is that patents require enablement. With the current state of copyright law, MS sells OS software and nobody knows what it does, so oops, you as a customer find yourself dependent on features that come from only one supplier, hence the customer is tricked into being locked-in. Patented features must be publicly disclosed in an understandable way (called enablement). That makes it harder to trick people. (It also makes SCO-like FUD more difficult, but that's another story.)

Also patents are harder to get than copyrights, so there are fewer of them. That reduces the accumulated weight of feature-dependency lock-in.

Regardless of the political PoV...

[leonbrooks]

...the GP really, really did walk into that one! (-:

Yes, Beowulf can do this

[0x0d0a]

This is called process migration. It's a common feature of distributed systems. A Beowulf cluster can do this.

What this guy means is that in 2007, Windows might be able to do something that has been done on Linux for years. Damned if I know why he chose to use this for an argument against Linux.

That's impressive!

[leonbrooks]

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.

Um, PostFix works by default. They'd have to stop it from working in order to not get a positive result.

Take a typical Mandrake Linux install. You select "PostFix" as one of the packages to install, from the servers section under "Mail and News" - after the installer has asked you for a hostname, and the obvious one is mail.grimaldi.com.ar.

The PostFix service is started by default if it's installed, and it figures out from the hostname that it's doing mail for grimaldi.com.ar. You'd have to turn it off by hand to stop it from working at this point. Morons!

If you go to www.grimaldi.com.ar and look at the source for that placeholder, I think it tells you all you need to know about the competence of Grimaldi's IT section. The page is one centred line of plain text on a plain background, but it is delivered through a frameset (and those are referring to a fixed IP address). Surprisingly, they do actually have a <noframes> clause, and it's more informative than the main page.

No, it's easier than that.

[leonbrooks]

What?!!! You have to look at a text file?!!

Well, actually, no. As I point out above, PostFix works by default out of the box. For the Microsoft Channel Partner involved (anyone smell a rat, there? anyone...? :-) to have failed to get it working, they would have had to break it themselves.

...at midnight on a full moon...

[leonbrooks]

FOAF living in the US (we live in Oz) kept getting bats infiltrating their garage, and they also keep their meat freezer in the same garage. One day, wife (who loathes bats) asks husband to do something about them, "and while you're out there, can you grab a couple of steaks?" Husband responds, "to drive through their little hearts, dear?" (-:

I agree that MS-Windows zealots will continue to do their thing until some years after Microsoft implodes and running their software ceases to be an option.

Broad is the way that leadeth unto destruction

[leonbrooks]

That's like noticing that Fred seems to be doing fine at shuttling stuff around for the company with his ute, so it's OK to seat him in a semi-trailer (without training), load it up with sixty or seventy tonnes of gear, and send him out the gate.

At the first tight corner, your mistake will become obvious from the sounds of street furniture being destroyed, and when Fred gets to the highway your mistake will be backgrounded with the wail of accumulating sirens as the emergency vehicles arrive to free the survivors and cart away the dead.

Getting computer services right can be a lot more complex than piloting a long, heavy, unresponsive vehicle - although getting PostFix right for a single domain is usually a matter of selecting the right hostname and doing the occasional update.

TCO

[leonbrooks]

It's worth adding that if the Linux guy is twice as expensive as the MS-Windows guy, it's because they have less than half as much work to do. Linux admins, in the case of small shops, actually get to leave again, where an MS-Windows admin will almost always be back every week or two.

Files. That's the secret.

[leonbrooks]

Just copying files is one thing, backup up databases without bringing them offline is another.

With a typical Unix MTA, there is no practical difference.

PostFix uses databases by default (for efficiency reasons) for some of its config (like mapping email addresses to mailboxes) but these change very rarely (typically months to days between changes) and almost never after hours when backups are typically done. Even so, you could use flat files for the job and it would work fine. Everything else is just a file. Queues, spools, mailboxes etc are all just flat files.

This also means that access control etc is universal and consistent. MS had to write separate access controls for MS-Exchange (have a look at the origins of that one day, you'll be amazed that it works at all), and again for the Registry. Each set is different and complex, each set required work to set up, and work to maintain, and offers a separate opportunity to screw things up. Exchange has never been KISSed. (-:

Re:Files. That's the secret.

[paragon400]

I am well aware of the origins of Exchange. I have been working with it since day one. Where Exchange was then and where it is today is a totally different situation. As far a access controls, you are right, the OLD version of Exchange had separate access controls. This is no longer true. As to being amazed that it works, I am not amazed at all. The current version (Exchange 2003) is a highly stable, efficient, and powerful mail application that is well written and widely accepted by Microsoft's customers. There are definitely some areas that need work and believe me, Microsoft is aware of it. The road map for Exchange\Windows has some very interesting things coming out in the not so distant future that will show that Microsoft is truly learning from its competitors (today I would say that would be the *NIX space, whether you talk about Novell, SCO, IBM, or Open Source initiatives).

As much as I enjoy the debate as to which mail app is better, I prefer to leave that to the market to decide. *NIX MTA's work great in many environments (many of which I have been a part of...including now), but Exchange also has its niche (if you want to call it that..as its quite a big niche). With companies such as Cisco, EBay, ChevronTexaco, Qualcomm, etc...using Exchange as a primary mailhost this shows how scalable\powerful Exchange is. These companies do not put Exchange in house due to some religious\political belief. They do it because the technology under the hood provides them with something that other available mail apps don't. I recently read a paper that detailed a disaster recovery analysis was done at Ebay and they concluded that it costs EBay $700k for each minute their mail system is down. Why would a company such as EBay risk that on Exchange if there are so many flaws in its architecture and if there was something better out there?

Postfix, Sendmail, Qmail, etc....all have their niche\place. I have yet to work in an Enterprise environment that did not have Sendmail boxes out there (normally on the Internet gateways). I definitely would like to see some of these MTA's (and some others) be used more by "Corporate America", but until they can provide what Exchange is currently (or better yet...something totally different that Exchange doesn't that "Corporate America" needs) this will not happen. Innovation is the key to challenging Exchange's dominance in the mailhost industry, not replication.

Upgrading Red Hat 5.1

[leonbrooks]

If I seriously wanted to upgrade software that old, I'd cross-grade to Mandrake Linux 6.0, then upgrade by x.0's from there. You might get away with upgrading in one jump, but your odds are not good either way.

IRL, I'd copy off the config and any databases, do a fresh install of a recent distro, then feather the config changes back in by hand.

Once you get up to Mandrake 9.0, a distro upgrade is a matter of destroying your old URPMI sources, defining new ones, updating the bits needed for RPM and URPMI, updating everything else, updating your kernel and you're done. I've done this on live (non-critical) servers.

Debian and APT is also that good, only you're not going to have as much luck with that first upgrade step (packaging system is completely different, filesystem structure is significantly different).

An equivalent question is "What would you upgrade Windows 3.1 to?"

Maybe.

[leonbrooks]

If that rebuild-from-source allowed you to do something difficult-or-impossible-or-expensive in MS-Windows land, it would be well worth it.

Recent case-in-point, if you want email virus scanning for 200 users, a .src.rpm fetch and "rpm -bb" of clamav would be a top investment even if you had to sit and watch it instead of going about your other business when you look at the cost of (for example) Sophos or Norton for 200 seats.

Another one, hunting down dependencies for AMaViS is worthwhile (my preferred distro, Mandrake Linux, has them all and it's just "urpmi amavisd" but this customer's site was running Red Hat) if you can discard mail containing semi-broken ZIP files (as sent by mutating MS-Windows viruses) where the commercial packages' attitude seems to universally be "can't read it, therefore it's not really a ZIP, therefore it's safe". Having this crap cut out at the gateway meant that the customer's internal MS-Exchange server could then handle the remaining load. Usually.

Some done, some doing

[leonbrooks]

In the Windows world, you can distribute a product in a single self-installing executable for many versions of Windows.

I think that's called "Stable API - at least where it matters most". If I click on an RPM in most of my web browsers or file managers (but usually Konqueror) it will offer to install it, and usually succeed. It's not yet reasonable to expect that to work across platforms (click on a .i586.rpm from a PPC machine and have it work).

MS-Windows packages generally wrap everything that they're likely to need, which can make for DLL hell, and can result in you running multiple copies of a facility, some of which are easy to upgrade and some of which are not; Linux package managers are much more granular, typically relying on the PM to find any needed dependencies and so getting them all from one place. This gives the administrator much more control over the app, particular quality control WRT dependent libraries, but until the Linux PMs all learned to resolve their own dependencies it had meant that the admin had to chase down other RPMs to bridge any gaps. Hooray for the march of progress. I'd expect the next generation of Linux package managers to be even more ambitious about hunting for dependencies, and to be intelligent enough to be able to find dependencies for and build from a .src.rpm if no suitable binary is to hand (or if you're an optimisation freak). Gentoo, of course, already does most of this.

Right now 99% of applications and services have proprietary config files. Not proprietary in the "closed" sense, but in the "different from each other one" sense.

Generally true. There is, however, a growing degree of consistency in where apps look for those files; in the case of a service it's usually /etc/nameofservice.conf or /etc/nameofservice/section.conf, in the case of an application it usually goes /usr/share/appname/appname.conf; ~/.appname.conf (or ~/.appname/section.conf). Systems like KDE have extended this to a tree of ~/.kde/share/apps/conf/appnamerc for KDE-aware services, and have internally done a lot of the homogenisation which you seek.

Re:Some done, some doing

[danheskett]

Generally true. There is, however, a growing degree of consistency in where apps look for those files; in the case of a service it's usually /etc/nameofservice.conf or /etc/nameofservice/section.conf, in the case of an application it usually goes /usr/share/appname/appname.conf; ~/.appname.conf (or ~/.appname/section.conf). Systems like KDE have extended this to a tree of ~/.kde/share/apps/conf/appnamerc for KDE-aware services, and have internally done a lot of the homogenisation which you seek.
The problem is that is just for KDE. What about all the people who use a mis-mash of KDE app, GNOME apps, and other apps? Back to the same old mess.

I am familiar with the packaging of both Linux and Windows apps. The bottom line for Windows is that 99% of users can download a self-installing .EXE, run it, and install the app. That's why when you go to the Firefox download page there is "Windows", one .EXE, one link, and a tar.gz. for Linux that has never once worked for me. I know its because I dont have all the stuff I need, but I *always* have to build from source.

Wrong!

[leonbrooks]

Wrong, wrong (just), wrong!. (-:

Most of the useful Linux packages can be found (albeit sometimes a bit crippled) for MS-Windows (or nicely packaged for the Mac). What you don't usually get is smooth integration, full-throttle performance or regular updates. OTOH, very few attackers expect to find, for example, EXIM on MS-Windows, so attempts to priv-escalate to root don't work all that well. (-:

The advantages of Linux which my cutomers see (all of my customer sites are either Linux or planning to be Linux soon) are that I can quickly and cheaply set it up and then more or less forget it for a couple of years until a fan or hard disk fails (and yes, I do have and have had systems with years of continuous uptime on them); it's flexible enough to readily do a lot of stuff which is difficult-to-impossible (and usually clumsy) under MS-Windows; you don't need to worry about licensing; and it's never had a CodeRed or MSBlast equivalent. Different customers have additional different reasons for liking it, but that's all pretty much common ground. Cheap, reliable and flexible.

I don't see how the GP can price MS-Windows and and Linux systems at about the same on the same hardware, since the sites I share with MS-Windows all (bar one, who is ultra-careful about everything he does and visits the 40-seat site maybe every fortnight) have the MS techs constantly visiting to fix stuff up that should never break.

Re:Wrong!

[Xabraxas]

Most of the useful Linux packages can be found (albeit sometimes a bit crippled) for MS-Windows

Are you serious? I'm talking about a real replacement, not some half-working crap. Does anyone actually use those mailers?

Linux Certs Prepare MicroSerfs for their Future

[craXORjack]

Taylor records quarterly "drive-time CDs," a quasi-inspiration tape for Microsoft resellers to listen to while driving to visit customers. He has Microsoft's salesfolk taking exams to qualify for certification as Linux experts.

I for one, think it is very responsable of Microsoft to train its current employees for their future careers. If a bunch of spoiled eggheads were suddenly cut loose when the company's fiscal viability collapses in on itself like a black hole, well, that could be bad. Just think of all those poor microsoftites who worked for peanuts for the last six years under the false pretense that their stock options would grow. If they suddenly all had to take menial jobs to make payments on their two bedroom ranch houses, you might hear a new mantra at the Seattle-area fast food joints. Instead of 'Would you like to supersize that?' you may be asked 'What would you like to eat today?'

Windows XP Server?

[leonbrooks]

we have to deal with a Linux shop because they always tell us nonsense things about our Windows XP servers

What? Like "it doesn't exist?" Bwuhahahahahaaaaa! (-:

You probably mean either MS-Windows 2003 Server, or MS-Windows XP Pro running somethign as a service. And you probably wonder why you have trouble understanding what the fellas from "the Linux shop" tell you.

Turkey. (-:

You really won't ruin x-mas if you try to plug a digital camera into a PC!

Well, hey, something like that worked for Bill, why not for you? (-:

Digital camera here

[leonbrooks]

My book-keepers installed a driver for a digital camera, and Windows ME stopped booting until they booted the machine from an install CD instead, hit F3 and used COMMAND to rename a system file. No reinstall, at least, but unquestionably outside the expertise of a typical computer user to fix.

Searching through photos might take a while...

[leonbrooks]

...what with the required OCR and all that. Your search would work if you were searching for EXIF tags rather than pixels, which is what I expect MS to be doing, probably in a grossly inefficient and resource-intensive way.

I'm scared

[quadfour]

I am worried that Microsoft may actually yet keep Linux from spreading everywhere. I think that Linux's growth relies on credibility and the fundamentals of its proven design. My biggest fear for Linux is that Microsoft will understand why Linux is a threat to them, but not the ideals behind it. This article suggests that Taylor has done this. With this understanding Microsoft, could develop tactics to combat Linux without improving its products or answering for its software's severe flaws.

I use Linux because Microsoft have done some very bad things to the IT industry and the people that are involved in it, thats not to say they havn't done anything good. Microsoft only exists for the $, not to improve the IT industry.

I would really like Microsoft to know that there are plenty of people like me that will always be here to demonstrate why Linux is the better choice for IT and almost everyone in it, and to try to ensure that Microsoft cannot harm the IT industry again.

It's a sham, as usual

[earlgreen]

"This was a real wake up call for us. We just had to talk competitively, which we hadn't done since the WordPerfect days. I knew we had to deeply understand the technology," says Taylor.

And they're doing that by getting certified as Linux engineers? Yea, right, this is all bluff and bluster to diffuse the perception that they're running scared.

"I was high-fiving everyone I could find when Novell bought [German Linux distributor] SuSe. We already won once against Novell."

They are deluding themselves if they think the battle against linux is familiar just because it involves Novell again.

Take the two quotes above plus the claim that Taylor "shed a tear" at the stupid new commercials and it's pretty clear this guy is a real nitwit, corporate style. What will they try next?

Re: Their true enemy isn't Open Source either

[msobkow]

They don't even need to go OSS.

Buy out the SCO nightmare, spend some of that cash reserve, and have the existing Windows kernel engineers turn the SVR code into something that scales and performs.

Don't try and cobble the Windows APIs on the kernel -- stick with Windows.net and other "clean" APIs. Let the crud die -- no more untyped pointers, multifunction entry points, etc. Those are the crux of the Windows security problem, and the only way to clean it up is get rid of those APIs.

Port DX if you insist, but leave it a Ring 1 or outer service.

Microsoft has a lot of good UI work in Windows that can easily be carried over via the Windows.net or whatever proper class-based APIs they've been working on for Longhorn.

But it's time to stop pretending Windows is "secure". It's not. Hundreds of thousands of regular infections costing literal millions of dollars in lost staff time, tech time, restore time, and overtime to catch up from the latest Windows security breach for hundreds of corporations is too much to expect society to tolerate.

99% of the data center servers in North America run a full or close to full POSIX stack that handles real-time pthreads, system resources, etc. Coupled with ANSI C/C++ it's the standard for data center systems. Even AS400, OpenVMS, and mainframes can deal with POSIX.

It's time for Microsoft to face up to the fact that they lost the war. Windows will not be running corporate infrastructures, and until Microsoft accepts that they will be forever relegated to the "security jail" of firewalled desktops and departmental servers.

Microsoft could just as easily do it with OSS, such as a Linux kernel.

Microsoft's biggest enemy is Microsoft and their asinine refusal to support industry programming standards beyond the minimal level required to slap a sticker on their box and claim compliance for government project bids. It's Microsoft that refuses to abandon a security nightmare of spaghetti code, even though they can't maintain it properly any more and have to keep pushing back service packs farther and farther while they try to get it re-stabilized for shipment.

Bad for industry, bad for Microsoft, bad for everyone. Let the Windows kernel die already.

SMB-Linux Survey.... UK

[urbaer]

A survey with a smaller sample size (200) and conducted in UK in Sept 2003 "shows 26% - or one in four - SMB respondents currently use Linux. Of those not yet using Linux, 15% said they are likely to use it in the future while a further 26% remain undecided".

"The main reasons for moving to Linux given were:
* Lower costs (38%)
* Performance (23%)
* Security (23%)
* Reliability (23%)"

Don't see hating Microsoft there... :) I assume the research done done by Yankee Group was done in the US... so maybe US SMB is just different?

Real issues are IT-policy and Corporate courage

[O2dude]

We all know that getting rid of MS software is a doable thing in most 'corporate' environments. Large scale desktop deployment, remote management, security, backups etc. is all easier or saner under some form of *NIX.

The real issues are:

- Moronic set-in-stone corporate IT-policies introduced by the recently fired 'MIS Manager' (pun intended) after he came back from some 4 day Microsoft training seminar.
- Fear of making a mistake with large financial reprecussions that will make you look silly at the friday beer-bash, which in turn will cause you to lose your job as an overpaid MIS Manager.

I have yet to see somebody that knows his/her stuff f*ck up a *NIX installation. All the people that I know and who understand their stuff get the job done quicker and smarter and have more fun doing it.

Beyond these two items the main threat to Free Software is the ever looming threat of Software Patents, but that's another story.

Microsoft plans 8 a day for the rest of this year

[leonbrooks]

Probably pursuant to this statement from Trey:

If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today.

Evidently, Trey now wants the industry at a complete standstill.

Yes.

[leonbrooks]

Given that the alternative is MS-Exchange or some block-box guiltware from TuCows, I'd be delighted to run EXIM if it had to be on MS-Windows.

OS2, Basic, C, JAVA, HTML, e.t.c.

[mr. spike 2]

Standard/classic microsoft strategy:

1. get compatible,
2. get most of users by ads and rumours
3. get less compatible, causing problems around
4. get everyone on their proprietary crap, by the magic for FUD
5. get uncompatible with everybody else, so everybody will use ms stuff, to be able to interact and exchange with programs and data with others.

c'mon -- it worked on everything, including os2 file formats, C, JAVA, Basic, HTML, RTF, Dos, e.t.c (and even text DOCs). Why shouldn't it work on OS like linux? creating mess in opensource will create demand for preoprietary, but unified and all-compatible-with-everyone solutions.

All those around You are droids. They do what ads in magazines tells them to.

MOD PARENT UP!

[XnR'rn]

nt

I pull a .src.rpm from Cooker and rpm -bb that

[leonbrooks]

No sweat. But most admins prefer a stable system and so will rely on upgrading with the distro to stay moderately current.

Sure, you could do a one-size-fits-all Linux package for FireFox, but it's better to let the distros add their own touches, like Mandrake and its menuing system, Gentoo and its optimisation. The end result will have better fit and finish.

The only reason Microsoft gets to be so externally consistent (and, my goodness, isn't there some frantic pedalling going on behind the scenes to make it so despite some immense internalised differences?) across "distributions" is because they're not really distributions. Win32s is kind of like a cut-down LSB, and MS-Windows developers target it. As more Linux developers and distributors target LSB, so will their efforts better integrate. LSB hasn't been around for anything like as long as win32s. Linux developers are generally less willing (and rightly so, IMESHO) to bundle libraries and link things statically because it erodes Linux's native ability to manage shared objects better than MS-Windows.

The bottom line is that the convenience of one-size-fits-all is nice, but I think we should target it differently to the way Microsoft has done. In actual practice, this is what's happening, and perhaps what we really need is talking heads from the half-dozen most popular distros to sit down and agree on some authoring and packaging standards. I don't mean forcing everything to RPM, but including common meta-information from which various styles of RPMs, DEBs and other packages can be conveniently and automatically built.

Most distributors already run build hosts, and MVP-equivalent external (not in-house) developers are often granted access to them. All that's really needed is meta-information that can be tossed into the pot with the application proper, from which the build host can construct a .spec file or similar, and build the package to suit the distribution. As long as the application's maintainer (Mozilla Org in this case) keeps the meta information correct, the process could in principle be totally automated. App provider announces new revision, distro build hosts bustle in and pick up source, a rebuild happens and is announced, then the finished RPM is picked up by the app provider and integrated into their download page. It would be a trivial matter for an incoming downloader to identify their distribution, version number and architecture in the User-Agent header.

Interesting

[Pan T. Hose]

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.

A very fat paycheck, you say? Where do I sign up?!

Good idea

[Pan T. Hose]

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.

That's a great idea. I know, let's call it Slashdot! It would be great to finally have such a site.

I think I’m lost

[Pan T. Hose]

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."

I think you lost me with your analogy... Maniac is a Mac, right? And Gee, what, GNU?

Re:I think I’m lost

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Reading way too much into it, dude.

Irelevant

[Pan T. Hose]

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 .. you even got it wrong twice!

This is completely irelevant. The point is that Gates and Ballmer with they're billions in the bank are atacking Linux right now. We should of already been prepared for that, but no, we waste our time on stupid nickpicking and grammer NSDAP bullshit. Don't you care about Linux and it's future at all?

MS Linux

[Pan T. Hose]

MS should start selling Linux

They already have. (In November 2003.)

Too much?

[Pan T. Hose]

Possibly, but nevertheless I admire the robot/reboot pun. Trully brilliant.

DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS!

[Austin Milbarge]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The only way I can see Linux actually beating Microsoft in the desktop market is if some major corp takes control of the reigns and develops "useful" utilities and development tools for the system. Tools like vi, gcc, automake and ddd just don't cut the mustard anymore when it comes to developing serious, graphically complex user interfaces. The current Linux development environment as it stands only discourages new developers from migrating to system. Linux needs a SERIOUS development IDE!

The other problem is that of a GUI library. QT, GTK+, wxWindows, Lesstif, etc. Pick one already! These incompatible and often incomplete (minus QT) toolkits create a barrage of incompatible, third rate applications. Concepts everyday Windows users take for granted like cut & paste, object embedding, drag & drop, automation and binary compatible controls become impossible to implement when applications can't communicate because they were all written by a different library.

This is why I don't think open source is the answer. "Too many cooks in the kitchen". Eventually 3 or 4 big companies will take control of Linux and the cottage industry you see now will diminish. Thats the only way Linux will be taken seriously enough to hurt Microsoft. But then what are you left with? An Ologopoly consisting of a few companies insisting their Linux is the best and purposely making their system incompatible with the others, until finally one wins and what are you left with? Another Microsoft.

I think you mean four? :]

[Xenographic]

You forgot Daniel Lyons of Forbes.

Other than that, yes, I do tend to evaluate the source of the claims. But I also validate them against those things I can readily establish (e.g. if Lyons is talking about SCO's legal claims, I compare what he says to SCO's actual legal filings).

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Sadly, Enderle, Lyons & co. have a somewhat worse track record...

Sorry, but you pressed a hot button.

[leonbrooks]

PLEASE don't use -ing \ where you mean /

It brings back the bad old days of programming in C and using abortions like "C:\\\\\\\\MSDOS\\\\\\\\COMMAND.COM" to make sure it survived enough layers of C, MS library and command-line parsing to actually work. If Microsoft hadn't made that -ing stupid choice just to be different and broken what would otherwise be a de facto standard, nobody except programmers would know that \ existed, and users wouldn't inevitably stop and ask, "do you mean the question-mark slash or the other one?" multiple times in the simplest instruction sequence.

What did EBay see in MS-Exchange?

[leonbrooks]

Usually, the justification for it is the calendaring features - which then sit around essentially unused forever. Many times, I have seen MS-Exchange-based sites using a different calendaring system. Size can't be the issue, there are heaps of MTAs which are at least as scalable and reliable, much less demanding on hardware, and considerably cheaper to roll out.

The reason you see PostFix et al on so many gateways is in large part due to MS-Exchange's vulnerability and/or processing demands. I have put in several PostFix-based mail gateways which were explicitly emplaced to either defend an MS-Exchange server from external attack, or pre-process out the viruses and spam to reduce the MS-Exchange server's workload, and maintain another two sites at which QMail was already installed and providing both of those functions.

As to MS-Exchange's gross (as in obvious) features like calendaring and group contact lists, Kolab and a few other different FOSS MTA systems are already providing those. What has not yet happened is the awakening of decision-makers to this fact. If MS-Exchange does have some new killer features just around the corner (and by "killer features" I don't just mean Yet Another Obfuscated Authentication Method designed to put a stick through competitors' spokes - or some frobnule that MS bolted on just because they could - but genuinely useful features), then well and good, for it will spur innovation in the whole market as its competitors have been doing for so long.