Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's Chief Linux Strategist Interviewed
sl0wp0is0n writes "Computerworld has published an interview with Microsoft's chief Linux strategist, Martin Taylor. It's interesting to find out that Microsoft thinks and predicts Novell (SuSE) will be the dominant Linux distribution they'll have to compete against. The interview also has Taylor talking about indemnification, IBM and his realization that customers generally adopt Linux to get a better TCO than Unix, not Windows."
When you're getting something for free, [vendors] get a lot of "get out of jail free" cards. You see [people saying], "Oh well. We didn't pay for it anyway, so we shouldn't care too much about security. We'll fix it ourselves. Oh, there's no regression testing. Who cares? We'll do that ourselves." But once you start writing a check, you now have demands, and rightfully so.
And indeed, for me, this marks the start of Linux having the potential to be a threat. It means that if a commercial Linux is a viable option, then more commercial software will be written.
At least as far as this interview goes, it's all about corporate strategies AGAINST Linux suppliers and integrators. Little to nothing about OSS's/Unix's/Linux's strengths. Again, they are fundamentally missing the point in the interview.
That doesn't mean they aren't using their legal and financial blunderbuss to defeat the Linux vendors/integrators the same way they wiped out Netscape, though. If so, they almost certainly won't talk about it in an interview.
I didn't RTFA though so troll me if you wish.
http://jayceecorder.blogspot.com
Anyone who thinks Microsoft is going to announce its GENUINE thoughts about Linux to the public world is deceiving themselves.
Total cost of Ownership ?
I thought and it was Microsoft and its BSA/SPA satellite that software could not be owned, hence the EULAs.
So, they imply one might OWN a system ?
Trolling using another account since 2005.
they think of Internet Explorer..
No one pays for that, so Microsoft "Get Out Of Jail" for that? I think not...
And also according to those click-through licenses my rights pretty much include "up to but not more than $5".. so that's a comfort is it?
Ahh but to a business it is. I'm not sure if you are aware but most corporate IT groups at some point in their chain of command end up reporting to finance. Accountants could care less about whiz bang technological tricks, they just want to know what it is going to cost.
They're absolutely right. The major migrations in big corporations tend to be replacement of Solaris boxes, with I suppose HP and AIX getting a look in too.
The home user running Mandrake isn't what they're thinking about here, though I'm sure they spend some time on that too. No - they're thinking about datacentre stuff. But don't take my word for it - ask Sun. Ask 'em how their sales are recently, and why they've had to start offering Linux and x86.
Cheers,
Ian
Microsoft's anti-Linux strategist, on the contrary, will probably be recommending more changes to Microsoft networking to put more roadblocks in the way of the Samba people, more file-format changes to Word and Excel to screw OpenOffice, and stuff like that. It's rumored that Microsoft has in the past hired actors to behave like really obnoxious Linux fanboys at trade shows, damaging Linux's image - if it's true, no doubt he'll have a hand in that, too.
Enterprise installations is where all the money is, so don't think they care to much about what distro run on there personal machine at home.
" I don't think IBM completely sees the long-term road map for their Linux embracement, which is the reason why maybe they haven't stepped up to indemnify Linux in the way that HP has and some of the ways that Novell has and Red Hat has."
I guess you can't expect much respect from the company that is funding your biggest headache.
Any other surprises? The surprising thing, a little bit, is how predictable our conversations are now with customers. ... One other thing that's come up more over the last 12 months is this notion of indemnification [against patent and copyright claims]. More and more customers are asking us, "Help me understand what you do from an indemnification perspective versus HP or IBM or Red Hat or Novell." That's weighing into decisions more and more. ... Customers began introducing it and asking me about it more than I was introducing it to them.
The FUD is working, and working well.
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
IBM has had a deliberate strategy of not having its own distro. This guy obviously thinks that is a bad idea. He is implying that IBM has no idea of where it is going with Linux. He seems to like what Novell is doing though. Personally, I think he is totally underestimating the enemy (IBM). IBM has shown that it can totally re-invent itself if necessary.
I'm not sure, but MS Bob probably predates their love of the internet.
When MS first became aware of the importance of the internet (somewhere in 1995), they started up MSN. MSN was supposed to become a "Microsoft Internet", with all content provided by MS. Something like AOL or Compuserve before they connected to the internet.
Unfortunately for Microsoft, people prefered the "real" internet over a proprietary online service [1], and MSN had to be revamped into a regular ISP. Since they couldn't provide a real advantage, MSN wasn't very successful as an ISP.
[1] AOL, Compuserve and other services like them had to do the same.
WWTTD?
See for yourself:
R.I.P.?
I really find the opengl to be a far more worrying story, who will get linux for free, and pay EXTRA to play games on it because Microsoft want to huddle in opengl.
Someone should rule that Microsoft cannot buy openGL, just like big company ABC might not be able to buy other big company XYZ if they become to big.
Shocking.
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
In far too many ways, he is right! From a commercial software perspective, supporting "Linux" is almost impossible...because "Linux" means so many different things...Redhat, Fedora, SUSE, Debian...which release of Fedora...which version of Redhat? It makes a big difference when your commercially distributed builds need to touch different versions of glibs or different kernel versions. It runs on Redhat 7.3 but not on Redhat 8.
Honestly, as a big Linux advocate, this is the biggest problem I see for the future of Linux. Casual changes to glibs break so many things...requiring new builds, new distributions to customers, etc. In my view, it is the demagogery of the Open Source advocates that are making this happen. The "well, if you code was open source, you could just relink" argument will get you laughed at...and your platform dropped from the supportted list.
This is a big problem and it needs to be fixed. But that can only happen if the Linux community starts all going the same direction...or for one vendor to emerge as the clear Linux distro "winner" that commercial customers can all standardize on.
It's sensible in a 'spin' interview like this to focus on persuading people that windows is better than what's currently out there.
.NET API, Office/music/video DRM, putting increasing resources into the .NET versus Java battle, dropping the price of windows to emerging markets and encouraging the use of non-standard MS technologies by bundling new API's and apps into windows at every opportunity.
I'm sure they also have an anti-OSS strategy internally but this is likely to be very sensitive information. Probably their anti-OSS strategy includes creating new standards for the Web via Avalon/Indigo that become reliant on having the windows
These are the kind of strategies that are neccessary to discourage linux adoption. Every change to windows that makes it less easy to migrate to linux must be hidden as either eye-candy, ease-of-use or a DRM "feature".
Matt
To some extend they miss the point focusing on Linux only.
Firefox, OpenOffice on MS-Windows are very good mid term alternative on the road to the linux operating system.
Once a user is used to these FLOSS tools on MS-Windows, the cost of change towards Linux as the OS becomes marginal.
You clearly don't understand TCO.
Let's look at the acronym itself: Total Cost of Ownership.
That means the cost of the system goes beyond the initial purchase of the software and hardware. It includes installation and maintenance of the system, the REAL cost of any system. Claiming that Linux is free (as in beer) because the software doesn't cost anything is a naiive and uninformed stance.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Anyway, he's saying that Linux is fragmenting/fragmented. This is true to a certain extent but I think the general trend right now is to try and reduce needless differences. For instance while Red Hat still heavily patch their kernels, Fedora is trying to reduce the number of downstream patches to a minimum. Likewise with desktop infrastructure, a lot more is being done upstream these days.
What his statement fundamentally misses, though, is that a lot of customers adopt Linux to reduce their dependency on a single, proprietary, monolithic, control-freak of a "business partner" who has their own greed (oops, I meant profit), rather than the customer's best interest at heart...if they have a heart at all.
What's worth remembering is that many Unix vendors (*cough*Sun*cough*) fit this mold as much as Microsoft.
Didn't read the FA, but doubtful he gets this point anywhere else in his interview.
Linux is doing so well not so much because it's free. It's more because it's free. Linux is about control, choice, freedom. I have yet to see a useful measure of those items rolled into a TCO analysis.
Microsoft's patches have been known to create quite a few problems, you would hope that a company with the resources they command would be able to perform a relatively compentant test of a patch.
I'd guess that this focus will end up biting MS in the ass, in the end. Currently, Microsoft is trying (well, still trying) to get Windows on servers, datacenters, etc. If it's not a desktop, Microsoft is trying to put Windows on it. Why? Because they've saturated their growth in the desktop market (that came about as a result of the mass computer buying of the 90s). The only way to continue their growth is to diversify. And the biggest and most successful brand name they have is Windows.
The problem is, while they're busying trying to still penetrate the server market, which Linux is doing a nice job at expanding into (at the expense, mostly, of Unix machines), Linux has the real potential to encroach on the desktop market. I'm sure Microsoft realizes that. I'm sure they also realizing that "circling the wagons" to "weather out" the Linux threat won't work. That's the whole point of Longhorn. The fact that WinFS *still* isn't coming in Windows is a real disappoint/problem, though. It's both a sign of a core problem (backwards compatibility, both in the outside appearance but also in the code itself which is surely a major reason it was put on hold) and a sign that Microsoft's strategy of adding in tons of features (vapor or otherwise) isn't working.
In the past, the FUD/vapor of a perspective product launch, even if it kept being pushed back, would end up killing or crippling the competitor's product. Instead, Linux really hasn't done anything but slowly grow in the desktop space. Without an actual strategy to combat Linux, a sudden burst in people using Linux could severely cripple the Windows money stream for Microsoft. Then, Microsoft will have to use its massive cash reserve to try to come up with a way to continue to make money.
Of course, if Microsoft develops another highly profitable department, this becomes less of an issue. But, the only thing that's even close to that is XBox. Maybe that'll keep Microsoft alive, but then Microsoft will only be known as a #2 or #3 console maker. I don't think the CEO of Microsoft would like that too much.
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
Bah, pay no attention to him. He's looking at linux through corporate eyes.
The way I see it, the Linux distributions out there are members of a bicycling team. Each distro has a different role to play at any given time. Redhat starts a sprint to wear the competitors (create brand recognition). Debian stays back and steady in case RH crashes (to support the user base). Gentoo attacks on an uphill, pulls Debian (consolidates the lessons learned from other distros and helps them keep up). Suse and Mandrake offer protection to the contenders on the team (making commercial software vendors warm up to support Linux).
This guy just can't tell which team is winning, Linux or Microsoft. He's used to Microsoft's go-it-alone-one-gorilla-on-a-tricyle approach. So one of Linux' cyclists is gaining fast on his Gorilla, and the others seem to be holding back and doing completely different things.
So basically he's saying he's afraid of bicycles. Or something like that.
Yeah, I read Lance Armstrong's books over the past couple of days. So blame my analogy on him.
You are checking your backups, aren't you?
That's because Novell has withstood the onslaught from Microsoft and still managed to eke out a survival. The folks at Novell know how to fight back against Microsoft.
Or perhaps thats how they want it to be. One big target is much better than many small ones.
Think Napster. Its was much easier to sue Napster (they even disrupted the service), than to sue individual users in decentralized p2ps.
So, they probably expect one linux vendor to dominate the market, so then they hit it (patents, advertisement, whatever), and damage linux image (because whatever they do, we will always have non commercial distros).
This isn't true.
If you are in an enterprise setting, you either have on staff the IT people that put the system together so they know what is what and what goes where...which is really a simple job, it's not rocket science. Or you're in a service contract with an outside company that knows what is what and what goes where. Either way, there is no application out there for Linux that can't be worked in with minimal effort...if any at all.
I've heard this argument before but I think it's on the line of "Linux isn't ready for the desktop" false-hoods also. I belive that people say these things because everyone else is saying these things because everyone else is saying them. They take on a life of their own but when you actually shine light on the matter, there's nothing there.
For instance, I'm running Gentoo Linux. It's not a Redhat or Suse or even Debian off-shoot. Yet I can run all the programs they do without...how did you put it...specify glibc 2.234, Make 43.23, autoblah 23.. etc. Applications are being built and distributed and run on many many many different distros out there every day.
So I'm sorry, this is a straw-man that the competition loves to throw out there to of course, spread FUD. It's almost a non-issue.
But please, if I'm wrong, give me SPECIFIC examples and links to these examples...I'm always willing to learn and see valid points on the other side.
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
While i'm not disagreeing with you, I got the impression that his business was very small so it was better for him to do it himself. If the business was a whole lot bigger then I think your answer is applicable. But if it is a small operation then he is better of doing it himself and only spending his time on it and probably with a few other things, his TCO will be lower than getting somebody to do it for him. If he set it up then he knows what he is doing where the server is concerned and if he has a problem then he can DIY.
Jonathanjk.com
The MS guy was comparing what novell offers "stack-for-stack" to what MS offers. Novell has things like Directory Services (NDS) and ZenWorks that are as good or better than MS's Active Directory stuff. With the acquistion of Suse and Ximian they get things like OpenExchange & Evolution that also potentially challenge the Exchange-Outlook team. Add in the fact that Ximian's Mono could help break any MS stranglehold over .Net. The question is whether Novell can get their act togather and integrate all these *potentially* great things into a coherent and polished suite that would let you run a complete "Novell Shop" with a Novell server-OS (e.g. Suse), Novell manangment solution (e.g. ZenWorks/NDS), and Novell application servers (e.g. OpenExchange) in the backroom and a Novell client-OS (Suse Desktop) and applications (Evolution) on the desktop. Add in the ability to itegrate a "legacy" windows enviroment and tie it all togather with Mono. That is Novell's potential. We will soon see if they can live up to it.
There are a tremendous number of half-truths and misstatements in what is, in reality, a very short interview.
From bringing up indemnification, to the implication that IBM can only implement Linux because it has so many wonderful techs to throw at a problem-child operating system, through the implication that IBM, Novell and Redhat will begine infighting over the code, this interview is pure Microsoft FUD. It's a rather well-done piece, though, and it is easy to get confuzzled by it all.
I'd just like to point out that this is a mighty interesting trio of players Microsoft is whining about... IBM, Novell, and Redhat... Gee, where are those three tied together again?
The only surprise, really, is that there was no sniping against Autozone in this piece.
It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
"which release of Fedora...which version of Redhat?"
Which release of Windows? 98SE? ME? 2000? XP? Pro? Which servicepacks? With what patches?
You're inventing a problem that frankly isnt real. Most commercial non-opensource Linux programs run as well today as they did five years ago.
The trick, if you're desperate to avoid system update conflicts, is called static linking and it works just fine.
It's not like shared library version issues is a new or linux-only problem.
And if you're talking actual enterprise-level 'we'll help you fix this' support, that's never a problem. You support what's profitable to support and ignore any segments too small to sell profitable support to.
That's zero out of three, not one outh of three. Note that one _must_ include cost of opportunity in TCO. When you have to dedicate very good people to fixing MS software, then they are not available for other far more productive work. The shoddy security and reliability of MS software itself are far more of a danger to MS than competitors are. It costs blood, sweat, and tears to keep an MS shop reliable and secure. The fix of the day mentality with one fix breaking another DOES NOT HELP. Please fix your software, MS, so that we can work on our problems, not yours.
better is the enemy of good
Step one, ignore Linux.
Step two, bad mouth Linux.
Step three, file patent suits against anyone who uses Linux.
BTW, we're at step two now.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
another angle on this that i don't see mentioned often: the nature of the man-hours component of TCO are different between windows admins and linux admins.
windows admins spend a lot of time patching machines, doing windows "refreshes" (ie, clean wipe and reinstall of the OS and applications - interesting that this process actually has a *name* in the windows world), exterminating virus outbreaks, following MSKB documents step by step, etc.
meanwhile, linux admins spend a larger chunk of their TCO man-hours on setting up systems and software packages. they often have to have a better understanding of the underlying technology to get the package optimally configured for their particular platform. once it's set up and configured, it just runs and runs and runs.
so, it seems to me that:
i wonder if MS figures this waste-vs.-investment differential into their TCO calculations. somehow i doubt it.
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
Oh, ok. Nothing to worry about, then. In fact, no point in having a high-paid "Linux strategist" on the payroll - get rid of that guy, it's a waste of shareholder profits.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Yes, the lower TCO of Linux versus Unix is a valid argument. I agree that Linux adoption is seen as a means to lower the cost of providing services on Unix systems. However, these services are generally provided on Unix systems in order to provide sufficient power, at a lower TCO than a suitable Windows system. So, ultimately , Linux is just a cheaper Unix, which is cheaper/more capable than Windows.
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
That's because Novell has withstood the onslaught from Microsoft and still managed to eke out a survival. The folks at Novell know how to fight back against Microsoft.
While I agree that Novell has proven their tenacity in withstanding Microsoft in the past, I think Microsoft is considering Novell's market position as a whole. Novell has a level of experience, an infrastructure, and a market position with which no other distribution vendor can compete--and now they have an excellent, well-established product.
Novell has a customer base and a positive reputation developed over the course of more than 20 years. Can Mandrakesoft or any other distribution vendor claim that? Even more importantly, the other vendors have already competed and, apparently, failed to impress Microsoft--from Mandrake's quasi-Chapter 11 to Red Hat's disavowal of the desktop market. (If IBM acquired Turbolinux or a robust Debian-like distro, they might get Microsoft's attention, too.)
If I may revert back to high school, "No, duh!" Man, it is totallly revealing how clueless that Microsoft is regarding Linux that it took them this long to figure that out. It was obvious to me about four years ago, despite ALL of the industry rags saying otherwise (i.e. saying Linux is a threat to Windows) that Linux's first victim would be flavors of Unix that had ossified and weren't innovating but were charging huge fees.
.NET). The biggest threat to the current installed base of Linux is generally recognized as .NET. Linux developers need to develop a competitive offering (Mono, Java, whatever) as a purely defensive move to maintain share, assuming .NET allows developers to do things that they cannot do on any other other platform for a comparable price.
The primary reason is that the people supporting these ossified Unixes already had the skill (for the most part) to support Linux. As Linux gained the requisite features it was a relatively simple substitution for the Unix in question.
In order to switch from Windows to Unix, all of your admins would need to be trained or replaced and their salaries would go up. The cost of salaries can in some cases (especially in small to medium sized deployments) add more to TCO than the licensing. That's why some of the first companies to switch to Linux from Windows were huge companies that were paying millions of dollars in licensing fees. They couldn't care less if they were paying a few hundred thousand more in salary when they were paying millions less in licensing fees.
Of course, this begs the question of why they were using windows at all, but it may relate to the cost of development on windows. It is still easier to develop on Windows than on Linux or Unix. That's why many developers prefer Windows and that's why Windows is so appealing. It has tons of software available. Therefore more people are willing to deploy it. That's why Billy Borg Gates is always saying "it's the API, stupid."
Anyhow, Windows will only move upmarket where Unix and Linux rule now, if it can lower its licensing fees, which it is doing (note Malaysia Thailand, etc) or get such a critical mass of software developed on its platform that customers feel compelled to deploy it, which it is doing (note
If Linux wants to eat Windows' lunch, it has to become easier to develop on. An IDE needs to be developed that is comparable to Visual Studio. Once the software is easy to develop it will start to happen. It also needs to be at least as easy to use as Windows 2000. People can point out all of the flaws that they want about 2000, but it is good enough and it wins on ease of use for most people. Linux is getting there on ease of use, but it's not quite there yet.
Although, I have to admit that ease of use is less of an issue than getting developpers. Incidentally, this is why Apple hasn't grown share. There is nothing special about MacOSX other than ease of use and that is not enough to get it in the door of any corporation. Apple hardware and software are more expensive and in many cases cannot do as much as the competition or are simply comparable and not significantly (i.e. order of magnitude) better.
So, in sum, it's not Linux that will kill Microsoft. It is the insular, narcissistic, navel-gazing culture that has its blinders on to the rest of the world. They were blind-sided by the Internet, then Linux, and most recently by the "search paradigm". Linux just needs to not fall into the same trap. It can't be just software written by geeks for geeks, assuming people want Linux to succeed, where succeed means being ubiquitous and spreading freedom to everyone. Of course, on technical grounds, Linux in itself is already a success, but so was the DEC Alpha. Listen to the customer!
It's obvious from the first 2 sections. You know it's FUD when Microsoft executives start telling us what "the customers" are asking them...
:-/ This is categorized under the Uncertanty part of FUD. Uncertant about all the positive press Linux is getting with regards to being cheaper than Windows.
First he says that it's about Linux TCO vs UNIX and not Linux TCO vs Windows. He tries to solidify this point by saying that when customers are telling them they're getting better TCO with Linux, that it's not always about Windows. Why would a Microsoft customer, say to Microsoft that they are getting better TCO on Linux vs UNIX? Remember also, they don't have to prove any of this and can make it up as they go. Heck, they do that in court too.
Next was how he was saying that MICROSOFT CUSTOMERS are asking Microsoft about protection from patents and copyrights. Is SCO going after Microsoft or something? This just seems silly for a Microsoft customer to be asking them. Especially with all the Microsoft licenses they have to agree to in order to use the software. IMO, this is another on of the "the cutomers are asking" PR stunts to try and add credence to the SCO vs Linux issue. ie, the Fear part of FUD.
I could go on, but it's pretty obvious this is just a PR presentation and ComputerWorld offered up their stage for it.
That part about Novell just means they now have a target they can shoot at. Especially since Novell is once again going after the desktop OS market( Ray Norda started this back in the mid 1990's. With Linux too! ). Anybody else notice how they've been using 'birdshot' in their PR gun against Linux/OSS the last couple of years? They are no better off today though. IMHO.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
He says the conversations are predictable, he says they are saying those things.
THIS DOES NOT MEAN IT IS HAPPENING EVERYWHERE.
Just because this guy says there is a trend toward these FUD items, does not make it so. What else is he going to say?
Don't get me wrong, I think the FUD is having a negative effect. However, you can't simply take his word for anything really. He is a paid spin doctor. The first interview posted here demonstrated that.
Blogging because I can...
LRC, the best-read libertarian site on the web
What a softball interview. When he started talking about analysts doing studies of TCO, wtf didn't the interviewer call him out on that bogus study that was recently condemned in Britain as false advertising? The one where they showed Linux costs more than Windows, but failed to mention in the advertisement that they included the hardware costs and had Windows running on a dual Xeon system and Linux running on a huge IBM mainframe?