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."
As you can see here with this little nugget:
And you can end up with Linux not being Linux, but Red Hat Linux being different than Novell SUSE Linux, Debian Linux and Mandrake, or whatever the case is.
Very nice. His teacher at FUD school must be beaming now.
Oh well, did you really expect a MS Linux Strategist (nice title btw) to say or do anything different then what we read in the article? The same would be expected from a Linux MS Strategist (if there is such a thing) doing spin on Windows.
Circle of life...
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
customers generally adopt Linux to get a better TCO than Unix, not Windows
While that may be more or less true in the US, from what I've read it seems like a lot of foreign countries are switching to Linux from Windows for the better TCO as well.
In the US, it seems like a lot of big Unix companies are switching - but eventually there will be a large Windows to Linux switch here to.
Looking for hardware (Currently need: Large Etch-a-Sketch) Have one? See my journal!
Indeed, My guess is that this started right after you "funded" SCO's litigations and started to pantent every damn thing under the sun.
And you are surprised customers brought up something you brought on? Puhleeze..
-RG.
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.
--
A neighborhood journal
Just unreal. It sounds like he's basically saying that IBM, Novell and RedHat will start stabbing each other in the back, and fuck over customers in the process, pretty much for the sake of stabbing each other in the back.
In the real world, strategic alliances exist because you realize that by co-branding or working with another company, you can make more money, grow market share and benefit customers.
Apparently, that's not how it works at Microsoft.
Buy the President
From the linked article:
When I talk to customers and they say, "Hey, we can get better TCO with Linux," they're not always saying better than Windows. They're saying better than Unix.
Hardly surprising. For a customer migrating from a commercial UNIX version, the switch to the UNIX-like Linux will probably be much easier than the switch to Windows.
In this case, the difficulty of switching to a completely different environment works against Microsoft. But this merely balances out some of the Windows environments, whose owners find the switch to Linux too difficult.
C - the footgun of programming languages
Oh well. We didn't pay for it anyway, so we shouldn't care too much about security.
the funny part is that their so call expert has no clue.
My company is trying to migrate to linux to get away from the nightmare that is windows security. we have the best firewalls you can buy and buy all the software scanners we can yet spyware sneaks into the machines because of the gigantic security holes that windows 2000 and XP has in them. none of this crud should get installed, yet it does, it bypasses the security settings and wiggles in there because of the flaws in IE and outook and Word.
we Had a Regional VP visit here during the last virus outbreak and he saw that the research department was working away without being bothered while we had to run around and fix machines because the patches and fixes would not reliably push out to the windows machines. He asked why, and the response from one of the IT guys was, "Oh, they run linux and are immune to all this."
cince that day he has increased our support in the company for researching linux migration 10 fold.
Companies are looking at linux on the desktop to get away from the nightmare that is computing today.
granted, it's only a matter of time until the spyware and viruses are written for linux, but I'm betting that having the core web-client-tools open source will keep it under control as things will get fixed.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Personally, I think Microsoft is going to underestimate the abilities of Red Hat and their business model (the subscription based thing) the more and more I talk to higher ups from various companies, thats what they want. I mean Novell is definitly going to be a comptetitor, but MS has taken them before, they've never had to go "toe to toe" with Red Hat and they've never had competition that used a different business strategy then they did. As far as I know, Novell uses the typical model, the same one MS follows, the same one that MS has had to crush before. Dealing with RH's model I think will be a bit harder. All of this is in reference of course to budiness related needs. Home users will typically use whatever they work with, but home users won't want to subscribe (or will they? afterall you have people paying for radio now), so novell probably is MS's competition in the home market, but RH is definitly a threat in the business side of things. I think MS is just hoping that RH is the new kid on the block and will lose. They've taken Novell before. MS is underestimating their competition just like they did with Mozilla, they never expected what has happened recently. I have a feeling that we'll see this trend occur more often now.
Regards,
Steve
It's kind of sad to me actually. If customers *are* talking (to Microsoft) about indemnification issues, then any of Microsoft's allegedly behind-the-scenes investments in SCO's legal actions have paid off for... for Microsoft at least. Another FUD issue successfully on the table.
And notice how the TCO issue is spun... "oh the real Linux TCO issue is versus Unix"... so one might overlook the savings one would have using Linux rather than Microsoft. Why do I run Samba rather than paying $1000 for Windows Server? Or Apache rather than $1000 for IIS+Windows Server? Why does Microsoft cripple their software so that "Software Update Services" (which allows me to check from a central workstation if the PCs running on our network are patched to fix *Microsoft's* security holes) so it only works with Windows XP Professional? In a small/medium business, I now have to run around to all the PCs to doublecheck them because Windows XP Professional on every desktop is one more expense we don't need. And one has to take care that all the laptops which come and go at the end of the day get checked. Compare that to remote administration of Linux systems where it's super-simple to login remotely in the middle of the day or scan programmatically...
Linux isn't strategic for businesses because it lets them reduce a few Unix expenses (although any shrewd businessperson will take what they can get)... it's worth pursuing so you don't end up beholden to one big vendor for all your software. Microsoft's prices *do* keep rising over the years you know...
--LP
One other thing that's come up more over the last 12 months is this notion of indemnification [against patent and copyright claims].
...
Yes I wonder who is making it an issue.
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.
Yes because again Microsoft are trying to tie people down with fear that what they will touch they will loose again because the big Microsoft guys will spoil thier fun.
Customers began introducing it and asking me about it more than I was introducing it to them. And I began to say, "Wow. We really stand behind our technology in a pretty aggressive way.
Hahahah yes you are plenty aggressive, like a cornered animal, even the Ministry of Truth could learn from you guys.
We should make sure that we get credit for that compared to Linux in many ways." And it's actually been something that tips the scales sometimes when people are on the fence.
Is that the barbed wire elecrified fence of 10 year supply deal, licensing terms, special backhanders, propriatary formats et al.
Lets all hug this guy. Anyone notice how Microsoft are finding security holes in its own software right when it wants you to upgrade?
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
To make this quick (and hopefully readable/coherent), as long as there are quite a few Linux players (and even *BSD ones) competing with each other, multiplying centers of FLOSS development, M$ will have a hard time dealing with the FLOSS movement, especially if volunteers keep playing a significant role, because Bill & co. just can't wrap their minds around the whole phenomenon (sp?).
As long as the various Linux distros and the BSDs don't play in the "traditional way", in the way that M$ understands, as long as *anyone* can contribute to the FLOSS movement, "we" will stay an elusive, hard to kill target. This was said repeatedly over the years, that what makes GNU/Linux a nightmare for M$ is the fact that there is no single company to buy out or to Netscape (the "cutting the air supply" thing).
The minute you shrink the field to only two (big) companies behind GNU/Linux (doing the bulk of the heavy lifting in development, BTW), you've just ~agreed to play on M$'s terms. M$ understands other, traditional, companies following a traditional business plan and getting traditional results/objectives/whatever.
The minute M$ can understand you, the minute they can "frame" you, you are f**ked.
This is why I sincerely hope that Novell will only be one of many players in a field where the loss of one of these players will not be a significant loss to the FLOSS movement because it will be able to pick up and continue more or less as if nothing happened. The same goes for Red Hat.
I want to go back to a world where I can choose between 4 or 5 shrinkwrapped distros updated at semi-regular intervals, each contributing in his own way to The Movement but not being *the* cornerstone of FLOSS.
If Novell or Red Hat become too important, if they "become GNU/Linux", M$ will simply have to kill them off (which should be easy in the case of Novell, sadly) and simply sit back afterwards, reaping the rewards of having killed off yet another (potential) competitor.
We just cannot let M$ define the playing field and play by its rules. Not to sound too much like ESR, but prior/current behaviour on M$'s behalf leave no room for peaceful coexistence unless they've been kicked in the nuts very hard and brought down a few notches, just like IBM was in the '80s and early '90s. We, nor anyone else, cannot compete in any traditional fashion with M$: they only way to do battle with The Beast From Redmond is gerrila tactics, more or less like the FLOSS movement has done up until now.
Change tactics, start playing the traditional game and see your dreams go down the drain.
>Linux doesn't even come close
That is until you put in n+1 active configurations. We went from a shop of purely big iron, SGI Origin 2000, Sun 6800, HPUX, Sequent. And have replaced it with Linux and have a higher overall stability, scalability and performance.
Compared just 1 linux to 1 big iron the big iron will beat it, but all I've got to do is buy 1 or 2 additional linux box and my availability is better (and been proven better over the past 2 years in our environment) than just 1 big iron box and a much better capital price point.
And I disagree with you about MS support. It is very much NOT OK. I've had the misfortune of trying it a few times. Godawful comes to mind. I have found that on all but the MOST bizarre of issues it is easier to fix a problem with a Microsoft product by avoiding their tech support than by using it. (There's always the wipe+reinstall answer, eh?)
I will grant that one time (ONCE) I called Microsoft for a problem with SQL Server and IMMEDIATELY REQUESTED ESCALATION. I refuse to talk with the first level techs as they 99.999% of the time cannot help me. I did get to a third tier support level and at least found the person knowledgeable. It appears to me most of their tech support personnel are just perusing TechNet and the knowledge base the same as I can do myself and offering suggestions from there.
Sun
Apple
Red Hat
Also have there fair share of issues
The frequency of problems is the lowest on the Red Hat side, but the others are no better than Microsoft. Business practises are another matter, and the reason I won't touch their stuff with a barge-pole.
Microsoft commissioned analyst firms to do reports to help you "get out the facts" about Linux. Are you still doing that? If someone says, "Hey, Customer X says, 'If I had this data, it will help me make a decision, comparing Microsoft to Linux.'" And I basically hop on the phone with all the folks [at the analyst firms] and say, "Hey, I talked to four or five customers in the last two months, and they all care about x versus y. It's something that I think people care about. Can you guys go do something?" And sometimes they come back and say, "Yup. We've heard that, too. We're going to go do some analysis." Or, they come back and say, "Actually, it's not that interesting to us, but if you care about it, we'll use our methodology and stand behind it, but you have to fund it, because it costs money to get the samples, get the customers, get everything." That's going to continue to be my process. If there are facts or things that are needed, I'm going to hope that I can entice the analyst firms to go do it on their own because they think it's also important. But if they don't, then I'll commission it.
I have an enormous amount of difficulty believing this guy when it comes to his answer to a question on Microsoft's FUD tactics. Him claiming that Microsoft is nice and easy going about the methodology used in Microsoft commissioned analyses and that Microsoft doesn't use financial pressure (or that Analyst firms don't offer to cook the report in exchange for cash) on analyst firms strikes me as a total lie.
For example, the most well known example of Micorosoft's lower TCO claim (and the one displayed prominently on MS' website) was made by comparing Linux on a mainframe vs. Windows on cheap x86 commodity harware. There was no mention of the reasons a customer would go for a mainframe (reliability, bandwidth, scalability), just the FUD about Win2k3 on a dell box.
I think this is just the new (old) MS tactic of pretending to be nice in public and fucking everyone over in private.
According to Red Hat
According to Microsoft You can get Windows 2000 Advanced Server cheaper with certain licenese deals, though you can do the same with Red Hat. The standard edition should be fine for most companies that don't need 24/7 and will save a boat load of cash per server. Even the premium is $1,500 less per server then Windows 2000 Advanced Server.MS Windows Server 2003 std with _only_ 5 CAL's is $999, while the comparable version for Red Hat is Red Hat Enterprise Linux ES and costs $349. Even though Red Hat may be the most expensive Enterprise Linux offering, they are still close to 25% - 50% less (depending on support hours) then the MS Server offerings.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
I work at Red Hat doing QA. You just made me smile ;)
It'a a pretty common strategy. Intelligence agencies do it all the time. You plant a few shills to fan the flames and to goad people into acting out.
MS has done this brilliantly on online forums (and yes here too) and there is no reason to think they haven't done it with actors too.
evil is as evil does