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/
"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.
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.
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...)
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.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
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...
<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?
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
...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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
Uh? You what?!?
.so dependency hell. Good luck to you.
...
/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.
> 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
> 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
Anyway, just correcting a few biases there....
--- Nick, hard at work
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 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.