Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Developing Linux Policy, Plan of Attack
Lil' Bobby Gortician writes "This new MSNBC article talks about Microsoft's developing strategy to deal with Linux. They are actually getting some of their sales people certified as Linux experts, and say 1/10th of their test servers now run Linux. My favorite quote? "There's no set architecture in Linux. All roads lead to madness"."
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
http://www.busyweather.com/
*sigh* There's another new field, fresh for 'sploits. Nice one, Microsoft. Keep up with the .. errm .. 'innovation! :-/
Alison
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." - Albert Einstein
"There's no set architecture in Linux. All roads lead to madness" -Microsoft
I can see it now...
Wheel of Time: Book by Book and Sumview (summary review) Bigdady92 style: http://bigdady92.blogspot.com/
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.
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.
Sure.
;-)
And this should be written on all boxes of Windows:
Abandon all hope, ye who are about to open this.
WinXP SP2, anyone?
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
It's nice to know they actually have a "Microsoft's top Linux strategist".
And he has realized that "Linux is a different kind of opponent. It's not a company to bash, but a software movement with the backing of the entire tech industry.".
And this is why the Linux community is winning. We are more developers in the Linux scene, we are better skilled and higher motivated.
Understanding this, Microsoft should turn around and start providing Linux support and services as part of their portifolio. There is nothing wrong with selling both Linux and Windows! Software is all about support, not the product, today anyways.
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
I think I'm going to run around high-fiving everyone here, because to me this shows they still don't get it. You can kill SuSE, you can kill Novell, IBM, and Red Hat and you still wouldn't kill Linux.
Microsoft, if you are reading this, you screwed me over once with OS/2. There is no way you will ever take Linux away from me. :)
The more you know, the less you understand.
I can imagine the cackling laughter now ....
MMMMWWWAAHHHH HA HA HA HA
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
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...)
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.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
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!
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
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.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
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?
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
...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...
||| I still can't believe Parkay's not butter.
<pedant>
> 1st they laugh at you
> 2nd they fight you
> then you win
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
</pedant>
This is where the serious fun begins.
So now the whole world is out to get Microsoft. Isn't such paranoia a classic schizophrenic symptom?
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.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
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.
Curb CO2 emissions: Kill yourself today!
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."
http://www.rustyrazorblade.com
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.
Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated up.
- 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.
I have discovered a truly remarkable sig which this margin is too small to contain.
Does this sound strange to anyone else:
Or how about this?
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.
...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
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
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???
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
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.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
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.
One could be forgiven for thinking that was intended to describe Active Directory.
I run a mixed network, though mostly Linux these days, for work. I frequently hear about juicy new technologies for MS (I read several of the pro Windows mags) and some sound really good. Mostly, however, as I read the article I quickly find myself thinking "that's nice if you're a company big enough to pay someone to learn this one technology, and you'll really need the myriad options it provides. But for most people who could use that functionality, this is ridiculously complex and over-engineered."
There are also times I curse Linux, often in ways that'd make your hair curl. MTA + spam filter + virus scanner(s) + IMAP/POP server + webmail is all well enough, but give me standard interfaces on each of them or I'll go insane very soon. Then I tried to set up an Exchange demo and, well, suddenly it didn't seem so bad anymore. It's still quite bad, but Exchange also failed to work sensibly by default, was hard to integrate with multiple plug-ins, and generally reassured me that in fact all mail server software is crap (though each may in isolation be quite good).
MS needs to get a handle on the complexity of its own systems before they can talk too loudly about the multiplicity of configurations under Linux and the fact that every admin almost has to be a developer. At least with Linux, I can admin my hideously complex configurations via a collection of individual config files in a consistent place that don't change for no reason, vanish, get corrupted, or get bored and go for a smoke
If Linux distros could offer a consistent config file format (Pick one. Seriously.), some form of config inheritance (eg load
If I could get consistent open and save dialog boxes for my Linux terminal server, I think I'd be in heaven.
Overall, I must say that I see a serious case of the pot calling the kettle black here. They're both awful.
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.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
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!!!
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
So at least they will be expert in *something*. Some day these very skills may bail them out.
Smart move then! Less down time, less security hassles...
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?
Which is why they are embracing that madness and studying it?
(aah, this feels good!)
http://efil.blogspot.com/
... 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
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
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.
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.
everything in moderation
First off, I did *not* RTFA. This is just how I would approach the issue if I were Microsoft.
....at least that's the strategy I would employ.
I think they should start making Linux applications, providing Linux support, even making thier own distribution or at least a "Windows for Linux" desktop.
Remember when Netscape was the dominant browser and I.E. first came out?. It took a while but eventually I.E. became dominant. They just have a huge financial pool to draw upon. Makes them well suited to corporate "siege warfare".
You want to migrate to Linux, let us make it easy for you. Here is MS Office ported to Linux so you know your old docs will not only work, but be supported by us as well. Worried about migration? No problem, use the Windows for Linux desktop environment.
With their resources, they can shred Linux from the inside and slowly undermine the GPL.
A goal is a dream with a deadline
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.)
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.
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".
. 62,400 repetitions make one truth -- Brave New World, Aldous Huxley
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.
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.
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.
FreeBSD for the impatient.
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!
Like Digital Freedoms? Then donate to EFF before they're gone.
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.
I love mail servers under Linux. Honest. Really. Like cleaning a boil under my big toe.
... unpleasant.
Admittedly, I honestly do love it once it's all set up and running and the pain is gone, you can just forget it's there and it keeps on working, but the process of getting it there is
Given n MTAs, o spam filters, p virus scanners, q IMAP/POP servers, and r webmail systems, how many different combinations do you think is possible - assuming (naievely and oversimplisticly) that you can only have one of each? Just going by the software I know of in each category, I'm counting hundreds of combinations - and that's with a reasonably common set of software. The worst thing is that many of those combinations require totally different ways of hooking everything together - often badly documented ways.
We really need standardised interfaces between the MTA, webmail (OK, so that's mostly there with IMAP + LDAP), IMAP/POP server, and any filters such as virus scanners and spam checkers. At least that way we'd have a massive variety of software to learn how to configure, but wouldn't have to do battle with figuring how the f**k postfix plugged into Cyrus and and mailscanner with spamassassin and clamav (daemon mode).
I don't mind (no, I like) variety, I just wish the variety would learn to read the same configuration for common options, and try to talk the same language where possible.
I've been working with UNIX/Linux for 10 years and was recently sucked into a Windows 95 to Windows XP upgrade/deployment.
... 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 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
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
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.
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.
"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?
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.
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.
"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.....
"Insanity in individuals is something rare, but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule." - Nietzsche
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
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.
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...
"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.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
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).
Allow everyone to download and tinker with the sources... ?
The funny thing about all this is that most people see thru this sort of thing.
:P
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)
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!"
Microsoft already has a Linux version: MSLinux
Ballmer griped that Microsoft's profits have more than doubled in the past six years, but the stock, at $29, is right where it was then. "Linux creates a cloud of uncertainty over Microsoft. Every time Red Hat reports earnings, Microsoft seems to take a hit," says Goldman Sachs software analyst Richard Sherlund.
Hmmm, let's see - it's a 300 billion dollar company with a P/E ratio of 36.19. To get to the point where they are bringing home a 10% return on that market cap (the traditional good rate of return), they would have to more than triple their earnings. They already have the entire market in their primary fields, which means they've got nowhere to go but lateral markets. Looking at XBox, MSN, WMA, and the like, it doesn't look like Microsoft is going to be able to pull a Microsoft in any other market.
Frankly, Steve, if I were you I'd be real grateful for the 36.19 P/E. It doesn't look like you deserve it.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
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.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
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...
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
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.)
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
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:
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.The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
I really felt very reassured when I read this one statement by Mr Taylor because I now realise that this is nothing more than Microsoft settling some old playground dispute with Novell (and IBM no doubt) rather than actually developing a proper strategy to deal with the competition.
Emperor Billy didn't manage to trash the Novell rebellion with his Death Star first time around - now he's really sore and is sending out Darth Taylor in Death Star II to finish the job...
Sounds to me like a few MS CEOs need to get some maturity, forget about "revenge attacks" and just deal with it in a mature business-like fashion.
Maybe then they'll start to realise that Novell (IBM, Red Hat, etc.) are competent allies for Linux to have but are nothing more than the customer-facing front-end of the FOSS movement.
Destroy one of those and, like the hydras tentacles, another will just grow in its place.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
"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.
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?
Microsoft would have never reached the level of penetration they have to date. Keep in mind that everything that was done in personal computing in the mid- to late-80s was easier on a Mac than on a WinTel platform - hands down, no argument.
The same arguments used against Microsoft's platform are now wielded as a weapon against their enemies. I remember the constant flame-fests between Mac and DOS users and how each of their respective platforms were "the best". Unfortunately for Microsoft, there are still things that are easier to do on a Mac than on WinTel PC - hands down. This is true despite hundreds of millions of dollars of investment by Microsoft.
So the usability argument has proven to be an historically inaccurate guide to whether a particular operating system will gain prevalence.
Microsoft proved it.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
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.
"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
Gamers Europe - Gaming News. Reviews.
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.
Please, keep the prez out of this.
Infuriate left and right
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?
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!
Best Buy can have you arrested
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.
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
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
But Microsoft would have to understand Open Source. Not from a marketing point of view, but in their gut, kidney's & toes. And to make a 180 degree turn, they'd have to totally change their company culture, views, and convince their own customers. And that is the hard thing.
So Microsoft's real enemy is the one within: themselves.
I suspect that, other than techies, nobody cares much for what OS they run, Windows or anything else. They want the applications that use the OS services. MS now does a better job on the desktop with applications.
For servers it's a different matter. Once, long ago, I was with a company that ran overnight builds from MS client machines with source on an NT server (Pentium 100, 6G IDE, 10Mbit/sec). For a test we put together a Samba server (you don't care about the OS, remember) with (386/25, 4G IDE, 10Mbit/sec) and the builds against it completed in 2/3 the time. Samba is very good.
Linux, or any flavor Unix or look-alike)succeeds in the server market because the server applications tend to do a better job with the added benefit of much lower cost. That's true of file services, print services, database services, and so on. The glaring exception at this point in time is an open-source MS Exchange server killer. Build that and MS seriously loses in the server market.
The ease-of-install argument is not appropriate for servers. Techies (mostly) install servers. For them, open is good, closed is bad, and the gui may get in the way. Install of Linux or whatever Unix is no big deal, maybe easier than MS, with better diagnostic tools to get at problems. Though MS's knowledge base and tools are outstanding, the collective community for open source is arguably better.
Client systems are a kettle of fish of a different color.
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.
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.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
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.
"What the superior man seeks is in himself; what the small man seeks is in others."
- Confucius
So it appears that Microsoft realized its initial approach was not going to work so well. And this resulted in them changing their approach. Is anyone else not suprised?
Microsoft may have gotten to where they are though questionable means, but they are not stupid. Far from it. If they were stupid, they would just stick their head in the sand and pretend that Linux was not a competitor worthy of notice.
END COMMUNICATION
I don't don't where you got you pricing structure, but you ain't buying all those M$ products for LESS the $1000.00. I haven't checked the prices in awhile, but the last time I bought W2K server it was $11280.00 with ONLY 10 client licenses. That was just for the server software. Last I checked MSSQL was around $3200.00 with ONLY 10 client licenses. Lets say you have just 20 people in an office and they all need a connection the to DB well then there is more money invloved. My MySQL DB doesn't care how many connections and it is faster and more reliable. My files server doesn't care how many connections ti has either.
We are a mixed shop here. Both Windows and Linux servers. With the Windows servers getting less and less in here. Yes Linux and most of its is for the most part harder to set up. It takes about 2.5 hours to set up a W2K box. It takes me about 4 hours to set up a RedHat box. This means that I have spent 1.5 hours longer on the set up. now if I pay $1280.00 for W2K and either got Fedora for free or paid (I think) $150.00 for RedHat Enterprize. Haven't I saved money? Maybe took a bit longer. Then comes the license issue? RedHat doesn't care how many clients I have hanging on my server M$ does! Then we have the security issues (Oh yea I forgot my 34 item security check list for basic server configuration on W2K another 2 hours) A basic Rehat Load everything is turned off. Yes it takes longer to turn on what I need, but isn't this easier and better than with MS going and turning OFF everything I DON'T need or even want? Hell somethings you don't want that comes with M$ you CAN"T TURN OFF!
It isn't that I'm a zelot about any system. I am a Systems Engineer I use what works and is reliable, and cost isn't that big of a factor. If I could find a reason to pay M$ prices for a BETTER OS I would. The reason I don't pay and use Linux is that it is better, more reliable, and more secure. If Windows was better I would pay the price and run it. As an engineer what I know is I spend more time working on the M$ boxes that the Linux boxes. This is what my customers look at too. They like to pay me as little as possible. Time sheets don't lie. Some may say "Oh you spend more time on the Windows platform because you don't know it." WRONG!!!! I have work with NT since 3.51. I have that worthless piece of plastic too. I am the first to admit it that yes I do know Linux as well not near the knowledge that I have on Winders. Yes Linux does take me longer sometimes because of my lack of knowledge on it but this isn't the fault of the OS. It is a matter of my training. Once whatever it is to learn is learned it is simple the next time. I don't bloat the time sheet because of my lack of skill and blame it on the OS. Hey we can't know everything, but I can learn.
Yes single signon is "tightly intergrated" into the Windows OS, but it is right there in the Linux CD too! You just have to load it and turn it on! NIS works quiet well
Is Linux read for Joe User? NO! One day it will be.
First, I think a patent counterattack is our last line of defence against a MS patent war. This is what you do if everything else fails. IANAL, but I don't think that failure to include such claims in a countersuit would prevent you from pursuing them later.
A better strategy would, upon any announcement by Microsoft, begin a distributed search for prior art. The SCO suit has been particularly informative regarding how much community participation can be leveraged, and I think such would also be heavily leveraged in a patent suit as well. Perhaps moreso.
Failing that, one might be able to force Microsoft to license patents under antitrust laws. Such licenses would have to be compatible with the GPL.
Either of these strategies could be successful at mitigating any risk of a patent and would seriously weaken Microsoft's general position. Furthermore there is a good chance, I think, that both these strategies could be successful for any given patent.
The final strategy I see that of a distributed patent counterattack where various parties begin to launch patent suits against Microsoft in an attempt to force them to substantially re-engineer Windows and pay damages. IBM could try to nuke Windows, but it woudl be more effective if you have 10 or 20 suits such as Eolas as well.
The final strategy should I think be employed with the re-engineering of the open source software in question to avoid these specific patent restrictions. I personally do not think that there are likely to be defensible patents in Linux that cannot be easily worked around. Samba is a different story of course, but Samba could be replaced in corporate settings using CUPS, OpenLDAP, MIT Kerberos, and OpenAFS.
As a final thought, such a litigation campaign by Microsoft would be very bad for them. It would destroy the reasonable goodwill they still have from many customers as they would probably be suing their customers (not generally recommended) given the ubiquity of Microsoft products. Furthermore the possibility of having the courts overturn patents or force them to license them to open source projects free of charge may indeed cause them many serious problems. I don't think that they will... Yet....
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
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
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.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
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>
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
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.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.