Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Compares Windows And Linux
Halcyon-X writes "Microsoft is hosting a discussion on Windows and Linux between its two top Linux consultants. Martin Taylor and Bill Hilf talk about the various OSS licenses, focus on the open source development model, competing implementations of administration tools, TCO, and risk assessment. Also available in offline formats, doc (which looks fine in OpenOffice.org) and wma as well."
"...For example, one thing that normally comes up is that Microsoft is anti-open source, and they've used some of our activities as Microsoft versus open source. This is definitely not the case. Yes..."
And that's the point at which Martin Taylor (the MS talking head) confirmed that this discussion was yet another dull FUD exercise and I stopped reading. Seriously, this is getting very old now. They need some fresh new script-writers over at MS, otherwise they're in danger of losing even their most avid fans!
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
Does anyone think there will be real conversation taking place or will it simply be a FUDfest?
-- Scientist: You aren't going to leave me here, are you? Boagh! Thump...
Wasn't there an idiotic TCO sheet running around the internet a while back?
I didn't RTFA but ... I can guess their conclusion: Windows is better than Linux.
Next Slashdot story: Linux enthusiasts come to the conclusion that Linux is better than Windows!
Why do I feel like these "consultants" will favour Windows anyway, and bring examples like how Linux infringes on a ton of stuff and throw in some SCO as well.
"As General Manager of Platform Strategy, I'm responsible for ensuring that our customers understand the benefits of the Microsoft platform."
Does that mean he from the marketing department?
No more I say.
another publicity stunt, ignore them...
Please use the correct title, RMS is rolling in his grave right now.
Oh wait.. he's not dead yet.
-- this sig is a speck of your imagination, enjoy it.
,,,of when my GF compared herself to the x-wife. I knew the outcome from the beginning...who wouldn't?
.../2/d/4/2d4d387b-97af-4923-897d-320fe070e864/...
...friendly URLs.
perl -e 'foreach(values %SIG){$_="IGNORE";}while(){}'
Someone just got finished telling me in another thread (the speil on Vadalia Desktop) that the linux community is all about choice and is not interested in competing with Windows. If that is the case and the truth, why do you even care about a story like this, or care that M$ thinks they are competing with you? After all, it's all about freedom of choice isn't it -- or it is only about choice as long as the choice is Linux?
Finally, an impartial review of Windows vs. Linux. I have no doubt that at the end of this article the Microsoft engineers will recommend the clearly superior Linux OS over Windows Server 2003.
/me goes to RTFM and weep in the corner.
And yes, I did RTFA, so I know that neither Taylor or Hilf, nor Microsoft use the term. They are, in fact, more accurate and honest about what the do. Taylor "[ensures] customers understand the benefits of the Microsoft platform" and Hilf "[leads the] Linux and Open Source Technology Analysis Center" at Microsoft.
Lemon curry???
It ends with a great piece from Martin Taylor on how fantastic Windows Server 2003 is. Then it points to www.getthefacts.com .
That's not really comparing Windows and Linux, it's issuing more FUD, and another attempt at pushing those NT users to 2003 rather than an alternative OS.
Linux/Open Source/Anti Microsoft News
From the article
.doc
We believe the way to integrate software, and the way to get software to work in a heterogeneous environment, is through promoting open standards
Does Microsoft Office ring any bell Mr. Bill Hilf?!
Put your actions where your mouth is and open up
Free XBox, PS2
After reading that I couldn't get the image of Bill and Marty from KBBL out of my head.
Marty: Hey, thanks Bill. Yes having access to the source code or the "building instructions" is evil. And we at Microsoft will keep you save from all the evil stuff.
Bill: That's right Marty. And the next person who rings in will win a months supply of IE updates.
Marty: Watch out Bill, that slashdot crowd is trying to take us off the air.
Bill: That's ok Marty, we have the latest IIS, we are as safe as... NO CARRIER
it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
-
So to give you an example, like I said I've run a lot of Linux shops in the past, I run a lot of commercial Linux here. If we have a particular problem in a certain piece of software, anything from let's say from a Kerberos library to Apache to Samba to any other application that might be on that distribution when we go through that chain of support with our commercial Linux distributor, there is a gap between what they're able to supply and what they have to go back to the open source community to get an answer for to get it resolved. In many cases the response is we need to stick with the version that's available at the time that we purchased that distribution, so for example if I'm running Apache 1.3 on my Red Hat Enterprise server, although I may want Apache 2.0 because it might have new features or it might have some new capabilities, I'm outside of my support model now with Red Hat. This is just an example.
Interesting he talks about this, but don't you usually have seperate support contracts for the OS and your core apps? I have a beast of a box that runs Windows 2000 Advanced Server but I'm free to run any RDBMS or web server I desire on it. I don't like IIS? Fine, I install WebLogic or WebSphere and I don't lose my support of the OS from Microsoft. I am currently running MSSQL Server 2000, but that could just as easily be Oracle 10g and I don't worry about support for either the app or the OS.In fact I don't want to worry about whether my OS vendor will support my web suite - it should be decoupled so I can run the apps I need to run my business whether it's IIS 6.0, Apache 2.0 or WebLogic 6.1.
This should be as unbiased as "Slashdot hosts a discussion between the RIAA and the MPAA".
Hi. I'm Troy McClure. You might remember me from hosting videos of other impartial Microsoft seminars as "Apple: A Scourge or a Mere Annoyance?" and "*BSD: If It is Not Dead It Should Be"
They found Window's was better.
I bet that will be about as fair and balanced as a typical Al-Jazeera broadcast.
I don't think any Windows/Linux discussion from Microsoft worth anything.
Too much FUD already. Why caring about this?
Got Pike?
Some of those efforts are legitimately aimed at making sure a proprietary code base isn't inappropriately using open source code. But it doesn't take much tweaking to try and make OSS look like some kind of virus. An image based on ignorance, but when has MSFT ever hesitated to promote an uneducated view when it suits them?
They're really turning into a sad, pathetic company. It's bad enough they produce bloated, insecure, DRM crippled, overpriced software, but to magnify it by being such low class PR whore is just embarrassing.
MSFT is living proof that no good deed goes unpunished.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
What seems to be missing here is "...and small, new companies that challenge the assumptions of these established players."
Actually, I was trying to be Insightful, not Funny.
Herr Goebbels investigating issues of journalistic integrity in 1940s Germany.
You mean Microsoft produces promotional material that's biased towards themselves? What's the world coming to?
GETPKG - Package Management for Slackware
I'm all for "reading the article", but this is far too long and I have a bit of work to do. Can anyone post a brief synopsis of what they're saying?
Berto
As General Manager of Platform Strategy, I'm responsible for ensuring that our customers understand the benefits of the Microsoft platform. I also spend a fair amount of time doing a level of comparative analysis, making sure our customers understand the differences between Microsoft and some of the key alternatives in the marketplace, specifically Linux and open-source alternatives. Today, Bill Hilf and I will be spending time talking about that. Welcome, Bill.
Roman Kennke
But hey, we're just technologists talking about the best solutions for customer issues...we just happen to agree on everything and lead eachother from one issue to the next.
Discussion = earnest conversation.
Propaganda = The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
( ref. www.dictionary.com )
--"It's Bradford Company, slash your last name, dot your first name"
Someone want to post the cliffnotes to that damn thing? I've got ADD you know.
I bet this will be as unbiased as the IE6 v Firefox comparison a few weeks back:-) ;-)
And the results are posted in nice open formats like wma and doc
It's obvious that Microsoft still does not 'get' key aspects of open source:
"I always ask the question of customers and yes, there's always a free version, there's Debian, there's Gentoo, there's different distributions that they can pull down and use in a different environment, but when you really want to deploy it in a mission-critical way, when you really want to have something that's broader from an infrastructure perspective, they want something that has support"
The freeness of the version has nothing whatever to do with the support. I use a server that is Debian but has commercial support.
I also found the following comment very amusing:
"in Windows Server particularly, some of the things that struck me as innovative were some of the server management tools. The ability to take a Windows server and literally dynamically change it from a DHCP infrastructure server to a streaming media server, or more importantly, taking a file/print server and adding a variety of other services, maybe make it a domain controller, maybe also make it a Web server."
Wow! How 'innovative'! Maybe he should look at a tool like 'dselect' under Debian. I can also 'literally dynamically' add and remove services from my server. Anyway, the idea of having a single machine that is nothing more than a DHCP infrastructure server suggests Windows is not the most powerful system.
Honestly. That they would conclude "OSS sure smells sweeter than pushing this ungodly overstuffed OS on people"???
Get Gates and Torvolds at the same table. Then I would be listening. Short of that it's just one-sided banter [same goes if it was say Linus and another developer at a table]
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
This is like listening to two Microsoft employees bashing Linux... Oh wait...
It's simple really;
I've known and used Windows since 1989.
I've known and used Linux since 2000.
And for the last year, I've used linux exclusively.
Linux is better, pound for pound.
Marketing BS won't change that.
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
All I have to say is
9 214&tid=109&tid=218/
http://www.furnitureforthepeople.com/actpat.htm/
-----
"Martin Taylor: Yeah, and I'm hearing more and more customers say that that's one of the biggest reasons why they've continued to use Microsoft and continued to use Windows Server, contrary to what you might read in the media, Windows Server is continuing to grow, and is a very healthy rich platform, both for IT professionals as well as ISVs, to build solutions on top of, and we also offer an incredible level of rich scenario enablement, scenarios around secure identity management, secure mobile access, communication collaboration, application platform, just a variety of different scenarios."
How are they going to compare the two if MioSüKz does not run any other software, only there own...?!?!?! http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/14/18
----------
"Clutch my testes, bloody squirrel humpers!!" -Happy Noodle Boy
I find the whole MS response to Linux really rather funny. It seems to me that they had an opportunity to start making inroads into the Data centre around 1998-2002 when lots of companies were looking for cheaper alternatives to AIX, Solaris et al. They were lacking an enterprise development platform and a secure, scalable version of Windows. But they could have concentrated on improving the security and scalability of Windows and used Java/J2EE to give them the leg-up they needed on the development side. Instead they decided to attack Java and launch their own imitative, which hasn't been a particularly great success, and have missed the opportunity to get into the Data centre shipping the closest thing they've so far produced to a worthy OS in 2003.
In the mean time Linux has set itself up as the low cost data centre OS of choice (thanks in part to backing from IBM).
In this context Microsoft is now trying to tell everyone that Windows is cheaper than Linux. Not better, really, not more secure, but cheaper. There are lots of weak points to attack on Linux (it's a pain in the neck when trying to get it to work with very new hardware, for instance), but its primary strength is that it is very, very cheap. As in free.
The linux community needs to write a lucid response. Calling them names does not win the marketing battle.
From the article "...Microsoft Windows, over a five-year period, offered anywhere from 11 to 22% greater TCO.."
:P
TCO stands for Total Cost of Ownership, right? Surely an 11 to 22% greater TCO would be a disadvantage, right?
PS: Your opinion is not fact.
Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
Microsoft claims TTs are not good for watching, and everyone should use Windows media player instead.
I like muppets.
The link in the article points to http://www.getthefacts/
Spending some karma to get parent modded up. That was some funny shit, man!
There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
In my opinion his opinion is fact.
#include //indemnification, etc
// Note: I did agree with them in that nearly all migrations will require not just an admin, but probably several developers. They did correctly state that this is not what people want to do (pay developers and have to maintain something). I think this is a valid migration cost, and a good point. However, once enough migrations are done, and the developed migration tools realeased, the impact should be nil.
// An obvious lie, because it happens everyday in Linux. Fact: MS can never have the QA testing that linux has, bu virtue of their development models. It was stupid for MS to pick a fight here.
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
If this discussion was so open, why not invite some outside people in?
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
isn't it? LINUX SUCKS! IT DOESN'T HAVE IE! and no Active X either. Bunch of Loonix losers.
The reason Martin Taylor has a job is because MS can't compete with Linux. MS lost the server market, IE is losing market share at an alarming rate, even MS's own magazine Slate had an article telling IE users to switch to FireFox for their own safty. Entire countries are switching. The EU is even taking action against MS and software patents are being questioned in the EU. The point of the article and the redicule it recives is to point out that MS can't compete. Martin Taylor bull shit is all they can produce, not better software. ;) Have a nice day.
#include //indemnification, etc
// Note: I did agree with them in that nearly all migrations will require not just an admin, but probably several developers. They did correctly state that this is not what people want to do (pay developers and have to maintain something). I think this is a valid migration cost, and a good point. However, once enough migrations are done, and the developed migration tools realeased, the impact should be nil.
// An obvious lie, because it happens everyday in Linux. Fact: MS can never have the QA testing that linux has, bu virtue of their development models. It was stupid for MS to pick a fight here.
#include <rhetoric about what you don't get with linux>
#include <disproven and slanted statistics>
#include <(and here's where it gets good) a personal case about a time when one of t he men tried to contribute to an open source app. He got complaints that it broke a particular platform. He was not happy that he was asked to fix what he broke>
#include <blurb about some MS Exchange wizard where he askes how could this ever be done in sendmail and his staff laughs. [Note: they were lauging AT you, not with you]>
#include <plug more MS products>
#include <more rhetoric about mystical TCO. Notibly, include the migration costs in the Linux side, and little or no migration costs for windows side. Quickly Declare windows is cheaper in the first few years, before migration costs are recouped>
#include <testing 4 year old USB drivers is impossible>
If this discussion was so open, why not invite some outside people in?
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Sure:
FUD
Corporate-speak FUD
Slick FUD
Unbelievably clumsy and obvious FUD
Laughable FUD
Bone to the FOSS community
FUD
Conclusion: FUD
"Obviously, Microsoft is incredibly focused on security."
So "incredibly" doesn't mean that much in Microsoft vocabulary!
Back in another age, I worked in tech support for several well-known companies. On page 'one' of every tech support manual every written, it says
Oh, and the point of TS is not to solve problems. It is an arm of marketing, to help PHBs think they're getting value for the money and pacify users. Over 95% of the calls are invariably showing users how to do something. About 4% are because the user doesn't know what he's doing at all and screwed himself, and 1% is due to low-grade bugs that will never be fixed because they don't happen to enough people.
Yeah, right.
In my opinion your opinion that his opinion is fact is fact.
:)
Besides, opinions that are backed by facts make a pretty strong argument.
"You're older than you've ever been, and now you're even older."
You have an x-Wife, that is sooo 1999.
I have an iWife!
I did RTA, and it seems like this "pro-Microsoft" couple is now saying the MS is testing and using Linux making sure that they can get the two to work together blah blah blah. Well of course this is FUD, to me and many other Linux users who have been around for a little.
But one broken chain in the whole server integration model seems to be the admins. I mean how many companies actually employ admins for more than 5 years? If most of these big companies would just pony the extra money to keep the good admins around they probably would not have to spend so much money all the time right?
I mean sure technology moves and software always gets updated but would it not help these big corporations to keep a good loyal staff that actually knows computer and knows the business model?
But I guess the problem gets down to the CIO,CEO,CFO and the other C*Os who have lost the reality foot of the company. It just tweaks me that businesses don't know that there true power comes from the Administrators knowledge of the implement software. But I guess in a country where a company can force everyone to take pay cuts-but get a 10 Mil raise there are other issues at hand.
Any how FUD, BS, and MS has to acknowledge Linux now and they are doing it by trying to belittle it's capabilities by saying that it is a loose knit organization that has no true direction or capability in the corporate world.
This SIG pulled due to lack of funding. (This damn war is costing too much!)
Great quote from Jesus: "If a blind man follows a blind man, won't they both end up in a ditch?"
Do you have ESP?
My e-mail address is MartinTa m-a-r-t-i-n-"t" as in tom, "a" as in apple @microsoft.com. I'd love to hear from you, as well, if you have other comments, or if your experience has been different than the ones that we're seeing with customers; we always love to hear more from our customers around the world.
Gentlemen, start your engines.
The penguin did it.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Microsoft.
.net) I don't get it..
.. first screen shots I saw kinda shocked me how much it had that KDE look. something is wrong here.
.. oh all your old software will not work. unless you been using dotnet.. oh and we have scrapped support of our older stuff. Its all now about making our new longhorn the futur better.. so come to our seminars I will personal give you a free copy.. (oh its not pir8 its ok there is no licence its fine.. come listen to our hired Linux experts trained in MS FUD. Oh and before you attend our press releases or special events we need to interview you and make sure you are dumb enough to be allowed into our private cough public cough cough event.. to be open about our closed products and how linux is great only for silly things and you should spend your money on licencing for support that well is clue lessthat tell you they will call you back .. and when they do they don't now the answer really and that you oe them some extra cash for the time they sat on there ass picking there nose thinking about it.
.. Yess thats it.. it could not of been written to warn us how evil MS really is..
You care not about what people want. Only what you want.
You want people to invest more Reasearchand development into your product. and you want these peole to sink there own money into it. and you will not lift a finger to help unless they are a massive company.
linux is cancer yet lets study how they do things because they are really evolutionary.
keep your doc format closed because koffice and othere packages will grow. The only way you even have a prayer (if your religious) would be if you gave your product away free. Even if you did that it still would not matter. There is nothing super great about any of your closed source products. Nothing exciting othere then some scares every now and then of serious explotes.
all you do is piss out your FUD on how some silly hardly near worth paying attention to explote for linux is available to your spin FUD masters.
Your idea of cost savings is so messed. How the heck to you expect the average public to believe pay more so they can be locked in (due to the investment) forced to use othere more expensive projects (in your slow
the experienced Linux Guru should have no issues setting up something open with a support contract for what ever you can imagine.
Oh I see we should encourage porting open linux softwares over to make your barely holding together design have the cutting edge nice stuff too.
Longhorn .
I can't wait to hear the
oh for getabout the opensource community and there detailed resonce to your problems..
we will monitor you through svhost (your firewalls will be dificult to block because its part of the intergrated part of microsoft) and we will make sure your personal info is safly sent to us via laASS
and oh
oh
if someon makes a special program to plug up or stop this flow of lsASS we will call him a crimminal and send in the spin masters to make this fellow out to be bad. who cares if he was making a statement about how evil some of your numous hidden process's are.. maybe this program was written to impress his friends
I will go back to watching tv (cable I pay for even though they are local channels I mostly watch) and eat the brand named food, while i spend most of my life scanning downloading updating basicaly living in fear . I will do my best not to move my mouse to fast for fear it will do something MS was not designed for. and above al I will avoid the evil Linux
oh Microsoft when is your next free event I need somemore of your freesoftware with no licence papers. and I need some new stuff cause some of my friends are starting to scare me with there Linux opensource stuff. . they make fun of me.. I will pay money just tell me what I can say..
plus my boss is getting concerned cause he meet some linux people. and he's a
They cannot even get this intarweb thingy correct.
Losers...
1. If I had to choose between a FREE product and a product that I have to pay. What do you think I will do. Grab the free copy. 2. If I choose an OS that is Closed source and software developed for it is Closed source. I am constantly in a fear of breaking a patent/copyright with weird licenses. I will certainly go for an OSS .
Seriously, guys, that's about how credible stuff like this is. (My sincerest apologies to everyone who lost relatives, friends, loved ones etc. in the holocaust, BTW)
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
Now that is something. Goliath calling himself David and trying to make David look like Goliath.
n/t
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
You need more "boings" "buzzes" and to finish it off with Yello's "Oh Yeah!"
Do my eyes deceive me? "Microsoft is hosting a discussion on Windows and Linux between its two top Linux consultants." Things are sure changing in M$-land: they hire Linux consultants!
It's not digitally signed
In my opinion, his onion is flat.
Is that a fact?
Can I get an eye poke?
Dog House Forum
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It lets anyone install anything on your machine and connect to anyone on the Internet so that your bandwidth and disk space is utilized to the limit.
Windows improves US Tech Industry and hence US economy by creating opportunities for every other software company - one keeps on finding vulnerabilites (Security Companies), one protecting it (Symantec , etc)and the other one exploiting it (all those script kiddies making u visit porn sites).
Now, Can you beat that?
>> Techflock-flock onto the best bits of technology
It brings up another interesting misperception that we see a lot when we do this comparative analysis between Unix and Linux, and often we hear customers and folks in the marketplace talk about -- that Linux is Unix.
Straight from the belly of the beast. Doesn't get any better than that. So long SCO... Even your "loanshark" doesn't believe your lies.
In my opinion his opinion is fact.
In my opinion, his opinion is crap.
But you know, just my opinion.
However, if a better design could be submitted to Microsoft for their own system (based on an outsider's view of their own code), then both Microsoft and their customer base could derive benefit.
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
The "right tool for the right job" is a practical excuse for those who don't want tools to improve, or wish to leave the improvement in the hands of others. The joy of Open Source is that tools can be improved, and here's the kicker: they can be improved by anyone with the necessary skills and drive. If you don't have skills or drive yourself; perhaps you can serve as a rallying point!
So, that said: Enlighten us as to the most important features of the Office 2003 collaborative environment. Some may be happy to augment as necessary some Open Source tools to make them more collaborative? Example: I can't count how many times I've read about Sharepoint, without an actual description of what Sharepoint features and does and how it operates and interoperates. There may indeed be some FOSS tool, which could be adapted to the purpose of replacing Sharepoint, but without an explanation of the goal; we'd never identify that tool.
This conundrum of yours is all about scratching itches. If you want us to scratch your itch for you; you need to point with specificity to the itchy spot. Anything more general than indicating the itchy spot merely creates fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the uninitiated, despite, perhaps, being true.
At Microsoft, the real work doesn't include testing.
What was it he said? Redhat's configuration tools wont work with any other distro? Does anyone think it really matters? I find a text editor will solve any problem.
Linus Torvalds and Andrew Morton compare Windows and Linux.
The same problem happens in Linux also with the diffrent glibs/gtk/LIBS
... even with source code... compilation FAILS with different versions of GCC and no I don't want to be a developer and re-write code.. I want something that works OFF the SHELF and is supported by someone other than a bunch of teenagers in sweden that write code for fun.
Please
Hi TeraCo,
You're right; my opinion is not fact, the very same way that theories in science are not fact.
I just have lots of experience that leads me to make my claims.
It ISN'T that Microsoft has not delivered lots of software; some of it was made by some truly great software developers, I'm not arguing that.
In fact, I give MS props for initially making a graphical operating system a possibility on the XT!
If you look at how others in that field were doing at the time, their hardware requirements were already much higher.
My reasons are that I've gotten to know Windows; I bought the original Windows 3.0 compiler and tools and eventually programmed all versions of Windows during many years.
It's exactly because I've seen so much of Windows that I can now assert *nix, especially Linux IS better.
The initial design considerations were much more thought-out with *nix.
Microsoft deserves credit for so many gyrations, of course. All the way from the insanely clever-but-ultimately-unworkable way they engineered Windows 95, throught to the terrific way they designed NT and eventually morphed it into Windows 2000.
To say that there is no talent at Microsoft would be a lie.
But overall, Microsoft's strategy has been to help THEMSELVES, without regard for hurting their users.
Look at how security is a joke on any typical Windows implementation. I'm not referring here to how you might lock windows down and turn it into a server, but rather the typical user's situation when they run Windows.
Quite a few of these problems result from illegitimate attempts to tie MS apps into the operating system, and lots of them are because there was no initial attention given to security when designing the operating system itself, and many others are there because the work was rushed.
With Linux, there hasn't been a "We've got to follow hot on the heels of Windows 95, because we need bigger margins!" mentality driving development.
Instead, Linux is designed around different requirements that add up to more stability, greater capacity and even greater freedom for the users.
Maybe because of that it took longer for it to mature, but it IS here now.
I only know a few Linux disributions, but it is a testament to its design concepts that some distros (Mandrake, Lindows) can chase the typical user, while other ports of it can be of use to engineering/research workshops.
And all these may in turn contribute back.
I just can't think of any compelling reason to run Windows anymore.
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
"In many cases the response is we need to stick with the version that's available at the time that we purchased that distribution, so for example if I'm running Apache 1.3 on my Red Hat Enterprise server, although I may want Apache 2.0 because it might have new features or it might have some new capabilities, I'm outside of my support model now with Red Hat."
Is this a bad thing? Does Microsoft do something different? Can I get IIS6 supported on Windows 2000? Can I get Apache2 supported on Windows 2000?
"... if you take a look at Intertrust, the company that filed suit against Microsoft for patent infringement, Microsoft wrote a check for $440 million and our customers did not have to do anything in their implementation of Microsoft technology nor feel the pain, let's just say, of that situation."
If I used Microsoft software (That's a pretty big IF), would anything be different for me if Microsoft DIDN'T pay off Intertrust? Does Microsoft really think that if I don't violate a patent, I can be sued because they did?
"Obviously, Microsoft is incredibly focused on security."
Right... Obviously...
As if AIX or OS/2 were somehow weak. If we follow this logic, Windoze would be GPL because it needs a lot of help to avoid being part of a bot net.
What they don't get is that they have already lost. The entire technical community is fed up with M$ and their BS. One of components that is being offered by others is a cheaper and technically superior replacement for Windoze. No Microsoft publication will change that fact. The closed source development model is hoplessly obsolete.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Linux HAS Total Cost of OWNERSHIP...
MS has no TCO for users. You have TCR (total cost of Rentership / total cost of Licensing / total cost of Usership) Whatever you want to call it... but it is definitely not ownership.
You can buy a car. What you get with MS is a "lease" with huge restrictions on what you are allowed to do with that car and no buy-out option...
Any time MS tries to bring up TCO, free software advocates need to hammer home the point that Linux and *BSD have Total Cost of OWNERSHIP - There is NO OWNERSHIP OF MS SOFTWARE FOR ANYONE OTHER THAN MICROSOFT... Everybody except Microsoft is paying rent...
Do you seriously expect us to believe you? If so, then I will anxiously be awaiting:
When the decision is made to place enterprise data in M$ products, it is hard to avoid the Jim Jones analogy of "drinking the M$ cool-aid" - there is no backing out once it's done.
The M$ attitude on competing platforms has always been slash and burn. The above is slash and burn with lipstick.
p.s. Start using strlcpy and friends, and do so publicly and thank the developers. What is it, 10,000+ unsafe string calls in the base Win32?
It wouldn't surprise me if they're just squeezing the last bit of life from MS Windows, will release the code to the public when their market share hits a certain low point, fired 98% of their work force and live a very, very profitable life off of their extensive patent portfolio.
Pushing FUD over fixing flaws is not a good sign for a product, a company or their users.
"And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
"Less secure, less stable, more expensive" would be a good description of Windows. Then why are these two boobs saying that MS is the low risk, high value alternative? Because they are paid to.
And the customers that they say are supporting their position - notice that they are all governments and Fortune 500 companies? I might agree with them, that for huge risk averse corporations, Microsoft is a good bet. But what about the other 75% of computers out there?
These two pick and choose the examples that support their story, regardless of the real world issues you and I face. The bottom of the story should read, "I'm Bill Gates and I support this message."
Heres one for ya from last night. Had to reinstall windows. not even 5 min after hooking up my nic WHILE on the MS update site I get hit by a blaster variant plus another virus that dumped some ad server into windows. I had IE windows popping up everywhere till I ran out of memory or got the windows is shutting down message. After a LOT fo reading ( on my second computer),swearing and tears I couldnt not get rid of these viruses. So hae ro reformet my Win 2000 again.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
There's one ....
I see another article by Microsoft, on the topic of Linux, and I don't even want to bother with reading it before I say something. But lo and behold, for some reason I decide I have to "gather data to formulate a respectable opinion", and so I scan through it.
It's exactly what I was expecting. But I've just shaved 3 minutes off my life, which could have been better spent masturbating to donkey pr0n. Total Cost of Pwnership, Support, Interoperability, Get The Facts. It's time to come up with something new, Microsoft; this old stuff is just boring.
Tell you what. Put some of those satellite-blimps up over Redmond and startup a new ISP, that only works with Windows. You're likely to get some results with that strategy.
I am pure command prompt. I am prompted to do what ever she commands.
I compare myself to the great porn stars of today. Panelists are my imaginary girl friend and my own dick.
Microsoft's basic strategy in this battle seems predicated on the basic strategy that is payed out again and again in America these days. When lacking a substantive argument, play on fear.
Take a look around at the political climate, and just about every pundit will tell you that fear is by far and away the best motivator for making someone do one thing or another.
Perfect case in point? The Y2K stuff. I was one of the rare few who actually ran into a Y2K glitch (at LaGuardia Airport using a phone) but for mthe most patrt, peoplemade money off the entire deal. There was nothing to be afraid of that couldn't be rectified with advance planning.
Now, a government tosses us into a war, and we don't toss 'em out becasue we are afraid of what will happen if we do. As a people, we fear the unknown.
Linux is for most, the great unknown. For those who understand, there is no fear. For Microsoft, who does understand, fear is there in spades. In fact, they have so much fear that they are willing to spend large totals of cash to trash an OS that hasn't even bit them in the butt yet. It's all about fear
befuddled (noun) 1. Unable to create a pithy sig
2 guys that work for Microsoft talking about Microsoft vs Linux? Please.
We need to get Bill Gates and Darl McBride tag team vs Linus and RMS. All in the same room together with chairs and bats for when the violence breaks out, and we can stream it to the web so the debate can finally be settled once and for all by a giant ass-whooping. Just think, Linus and RMS could throw $20 on the floor and Gates and Darl would scramble after it and fight each other for it, while Linus and RMS let the beatings commence. Yeah, it might not be the most professional way to solve things but it would sure as hell be more entertaining.
Boy the things that pop into your head while reading an article this long...
unzip ; strip ; touch ; grep ; find ; finger ; mount ; fsck ; more ; yes ; fsck ; umount ; sleep
Then, there's the question of why
They also talk a lot about support. In their section on this topic, they mention Debian and Gentoo as typical distributions. They do NOT mention Red Hat Enterprise, SuSE, or any other distribution with on-phone technical support.
NOR do they mention that third-party technical support is actually the norm for most companies. Outsourcing of tech support (though not necessarily overseas) has been prevalant in computing for the last couple of decades at least. It's not new. So the whole argument that certain distributions don't provide support directly is a red herring.
In short, I couldn't find any sensible, mature, rational arguments that could stand the least scrutiny. As such, it was NOT an informative case for why Microsoft was worth considering, it was somewhere between an advert and a propoganda piece.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I'm afraid I have to disagree regarding the issue of MS and open source. They're very fond of open source, and have used open source code in many of their products. Mosaic, zlib, and the BSD TCP/IP stack come to mind.
They don't like the GPL and other free software licenses, though, because they can't take without returning anything to the community.
They're also not as happy when open source or free software start getting big enough to be more than a source of technology and code for their own products.
Once again, MS didn't review what they wrote. They just put it out there.
A better benchmark would be TCOUFA i.e. Total Cost Of Unecessary Farting Around. This would cover rebooting servers because they've gone mental for no apparent reason, virus removal, Spyware removal and all the other time sapping annoyances that seem to be absent from Linux but add up to a significant pain in the arse with Windows.
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
It should be noted that FUD can be used incorrectly, when applied as a label to offhandedly dismiss criticism or legitimate debate. One example is if Microsoft issues a statement arguing the superiority of Windows over Linux, and a Linux supporter or group automatically denounces the statement as FUD regardless of its merit. Such an incorrect usage would be a general type of logical fallacy known as Ad hominem circumstantial.
the link at the bottom is great! www.getthefacts g-e-t-t-h-e-f-a-c-t-s.com someone didn't proof read their funky word document! should have used openoffice.org writer! no matter, no one wants to get your facts anyway!
When run through my first-order, Java-based GarbageGenerator, I get this:
Because at any level of our TCO than many customers from Unix is one
of, it does it cost of the right newsgroup to Windows and larger group
that's available off of fully flexible, onto the marketplace and
technology to deliver that as an administrator, that's how
comprehensive support from risk model, we say hey, because no one
piece underneath both of business value to design and that's what
could be hiring it in terms of other thing frequently get by licensing
model that face, what that we hear from the early nineties, such as
how we look at the Unix and the end of saying hey look at the products
both TCO on this is that they've continued to offer an industry-wide
problem.
And so they see maybe give you might read in mission-critical way, so
then Yankee talked about how we quantify, and reference models in way
to decide to work load. Microsoft have more from 25 days between 100
to create value. So, more importantly, one thing frequently get some
other thing get 30% greater TCO and methodology and look how we've
done their pains over five-year period of different than Linux and the
word Linux. So I'm buying then bringing that cost of our architecture,
it's about the Platform Strategy, and testing, when we really
understand how do find areas to grow, and methodology and open-source
model, but that say by products Linux as well we quantify, more secure
identity management layer, what that has been different. There is.
The other thing they're gathering out there that they'd like to be on
non-commission basis where we are there have deployed, Windows. And
maybe you spent lot of software there than something that spoke about
week month outside of the vendor support and spend quite few companies
like hardware and play different open-source technologies, yes, your
software operating system and Open Source Technology Analysis Center
here really this type of people are contributing in terms of tests to
understand all your IT organizations to 20% savings for customer
perspective, security you should be able to say, there is definitely
not just matter of this is definitely not quite different than just
saying the directives are few topics that arise around in this is
continual ways to provide our server.
Martin Taylor think are here in marketplace for security audit, and
the proof point in certain level of software acquisition cost of
integration, support. About how to give some clarity on really selling
is we do find the application that really hire it every single one
thing that we'll be fully understand when we have much burden, think
it. Some of the other thing that as when we talked to customer
environment. Although this isn't just Microsoft. Mainly the things
very excited about that Microsoft has participated and level problem
you're willing to, hardware. So let me how you build anything arise
around just the world on this would not completely sure that suit
against wall full of Unix and development model and know that against
four-year-old USB device drivers. There are and definitely not just
some of technology, Martin Taylor think there are over five-year
period just kernel.org, it's important comparative point that
customers that can get some level interoperability. Commercial
distribution. Some of how they're gathering out of the little wizards
and, both developed, and turn them through promoting open source. That
being said for just matter to happen.
Is it by any chance U.S. companies companies that are building these schools? May the case be that the source of the funding for them is even remotely related to Iraqi oil? Creating tax revenue? Jobs? Strange thing that many non - U.S. companies has tried bidding on the contracts, only to be dismissed?
No flamebaiting whatsoever.
> Martin Taylor and Bill Hilf if they are two top linux consultants, why are their names totally unknown?
I've been working with linux and unix systems for ~10 years and their names don't ring a bell at all
First time I've heard from either of them
http://shit.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/28/2 341214
When it comes down to it, actions speak louder than words. Microsoft talks alot about enterprise class reliability, etc... but I've never seen a Microsoft network that was truly enterprise class. Perhaps I've had a spate of incompetent admins, but every Microsoft shop I've been in has had problems with security.
Case in point: a few days ago I received an email from a friend telling me not to send him emails with attachments anymore (They run Windows exclusively). Apparently, they are having such a problem with viruses that the company has just adopted a policy of firing (without warning, mind you) anyone who receives email attachments. While I don't like it, I'm not surprised; he's told me in the past that virus cleanup has cost this company millions of dollars per incident.
So because Microsoft can't be bothered to write secure systems, his corporate email is essentially useless to the company. How "Enterprise Class" is a mail system which costs the company a additional few million dollars with every virus outbreak? Where's the ROI on a mail system that, for all intents and purposes, doesn't work?
And we wonder why IBM can sell a mainframe with the computing power of a desktop PC for millions of dollars...
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
I read that "transcript" and there are several areas where as usual, they really mis-represent what they're doing. They make so many assumptions like all users of the OS's are strictly business related or some such. Heck I used mine for media production and recording. My kids use it for games.
:-)
I'm still looking at some Linux based solutions now since Microsoft has put so much DRM crap in the thing (XP) through that stupid Windows update, that my Cakewalk software no longer functions. I'm waiting for the mailing to come from Redmond WA requesting that I cease and desist from using, playing or performing with my MIDI based equipment!
Right now Microsoft is not much else than the left hand has not a clue what the right hand is doing, and visa-versa. Fuel to that fire is that they don't seem to have a clue about their target audience. Maybe Microsoft should go back to school..
All content in this message is copyright (c) 2008. All rights reserved. RIAA is prohibited here.
Excellent point!
So, Bill and I are here today to discuss the similarities and differences between Windows and Linux and open-source alternatives. Microsoft believes that customer needs drive the competitive debate. We know the only way we win with customers is by having a much better solution to offer our customers in making sure that we're addressing their pains over and above Linux and open-source alternatives.
Linux doesn't exist to satisfy the business requirements of PHBs or bean counters. Linux exists to serve the needs of users who want to get more out of their computers. In some cases this CAN benefit the above mentioned PHBs and bean counters, but it's not the driving raison d'être of Linux. The needs of the people come first, and business second.
For example, one thing that normally comes up is that Microsoft is anti-open source, and they've used some of our activities as Microsoft versus open source.
This is something we can agree on. Microsoft isn't necessarily anti-open source. The misconception comes from the confusion over the differences between GNU GPL (aka free software: free as in speech) software and open source. Many people think that the primary goal of free software is to provide the course code. Of course this is not completely true, but merely a subset of what free software is. The 'free' in free software means that a user is free to do whatever they want with the software as long as they don't impact other people's freedoms (keeping modified GPL code to yourself if you are making profit impacts other people's freedoms). Microsoft is not anti-open source, they are anti-GPL. There is a difference as much as they want to muddy the waters.
We believe the way to integrate software, and the way to get software to work in a heterogeneous environment, is through promoting open standards that can allow companies like Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, Sun, as well as other types of software and other types of technologies to work together and still co-exist in a competitive environment.
That's why it's possible for me to use a Mac to administer a Windows Active Directory domain? Right? (cue: sound of wind) ;P
It brings up another interesting misperception that we see a lot when we do this comparative analysis between Unix and Linux, and often we hear customers and folks in the marketplace talk about -- that Linux is Unix.
Ask a "suit" a technical question and get a stupid answer. ;P Seriously, Bill and Martin you must be talking to the wrong people. Most technology managers worth their salt know the distinction between Linux and Unix, Free and Open Source, and the various Linux distributions. If you're getting people who think that Linux is Unix, then those companies must be putting you in touch with the golf set and not the real IT folks. There are certainly major differences between distributions, but there is one thing that all of them are capable of that you are overlooking. You can grab the source for many useful programs and compile it for whatever distro you're on. I've been doing this for years now. I want a media player that didn't come with Redhat, Mandrake or Fedora? I just download the source for mplayer or xine and I've got what I need.
And you have to take a look, Martin, at the ecosystems around those technologies...
Marketroid speak. The whole concept of the "ecosystem" is kind of lame. It's more like a universe. Some things work together and perform a beautiful dance (like solar systems) and other collide and cause major damage (like asteroids and planets or moons). But even that analogy is flawed because the world of computer software is it's own entity with it's own properties. Trying to make analogies to dumb it down for marketing purposes is pointless. Just as we had to get used to cars because they really weren't "horseless carriages", we have to get used to the sof
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Whoever modded my post as Flamebait should observe the FAQ here :
Flamebait refers to comments whose sole purpose is to insult and enrage. If someone is not-so-subtly picking a fight (racial insults are a dead giveaway), it's Flamebait.
My post was not flamebait. It certainly does appear that Microsoft has issued this 'discussion' right at a time where NT users are considering Windows or Linux , and it really doesn't take on any different stance than what Microsoft is promoting in its Get The Facts campaign.
From what I read, it's just purely Microsoft advertising.
Linux/Open Source/Anti Microsoft News
How about we have RMS compare Windows and Linux? That's about as objective and useful as having Microsoft (or microsoft-paid) people doing the same comparison.
All the objective third parties must be posting comments on Slashdot.
There.
As they tried to clear up some misconceptions about Linux they offer up clarifications but what I'd like to hear is how Microsoft compares to Linux in light of the points they make. A couple of examples:
1. Martin claims that Microsoft is not anti-open source and has even contributed to the open source community. He then suggests that other companies such as IBM, Oracle, and CA claim to embrace open source but actually do not. His reason is that these companies see benefit of embracing open source when they really do not have strong platforms in the open source product space. So where does Microsoft fit in? They aren't anti-open source but they don't embrace it either... they do contribute to the open source community but is Martin claiming that Microsoft does have a strong platform somewhere in the open source product space?
2. When discussing support Martin makes a "clarification" that when you get support for a commercial distribution such as Red Hat there is a point where the support staff has to contact a project's community in order to provide support. So the support staff isn't all-knowing. I understand that but I don't understand why this was a misconception. Is the misconception that people think they are getting support directly from the developers or that the support staff at Red Hat knows everything about all software they provide in their distribution? Again, how does Microsoft fit in? When I call MS support I'm talking to a support person, who doesn't know every little detail about the software so there is also a limitation with their support. Yes this may be a clarification but I don't see how this clarification is useful at all when comparing Windows and Linux. From what I gathered Martin is suggesting that support from Red Hat has similar limitations to that of Microsoft.
3. Another one from the support discussion. Martin mentions that, if I have Apache 1.3, although I want to upgrade to Apache 2.0 I can't get support for it because it's outside my support model... So how is Microsoft different? If I own Windows 3.1 can I call up Microsoft and get support on Windows XP, which I do not own?
I would really like to see the Microsoft experts and employees make clarifications about Windows and Linux experts (not Microsoft affiliated) make clarifications about Linux. This article seemed to me to be a couple of Microsoft employees making points about Linux but not providing many matching points of how Microsoft compares with no Linux experts involved at all in this "open" discussion to clarify in areas where Bill and Martin might be out of the know with respect to Linux.
Erik http://yakko.cs.wmich.edu/~rattles
It will be leaps and bounds better than what they were getting before. Which was either no education at all or education about the great Saddam and his regime were.
Linspire:c e/
ftp://130.94.123.237/linspire-4.x-sour
Ok, so where is Windows?
For my own servers, I run Linux, of course. Uptime approaching 1 year -- try that in Windows!
SPAM solution made easy: 1 spammer, 5 cords of rope, 5 hourses, and fireworks. Be creative.
It is amazing how much crap is said. They have several good point but they get lost in the sea of bs. They keep on critisiging some of the linux commercial providers like RedHat and keep on bitching about absolutelly meaningless crap. One of the 2 guys says that you might be stuck to an older version of the software if you want to keep your support. Well as far as I know M$ does not really ever give you a developmental version of anything. Yes M$ does have some good practices that are very beneficial for the commercial and corporate world and yes some of those things are missing from the OSS oriented companies but come one there is not a single company in the world that can compeat with M$ when it gets to the funds that they can throw at you. However, just because you can pay your way out does not mean that you should do so. The whole thing is that once every major company starts using open standards there would be no need for people to pay for some crappy patented thing like say double click or who knows what. M$ has the means to drive the whole computer world back and they seem to do everything in their power to do so. I understand that they would fight with teeth and claws to preserve their customer base but if they quit their bs for just a month and admit that OSS has won is some cases the whole community would respect and like them so much more. And that's what wins you loyal customers.
Whenever a Windows/*NIX comparison is made there should be a mandatory reference to the TCV and TCS for the Windows boxes - which obviously stand for the "Total Cost of Viruses" and "Total Cost of Spyware".
:)
(Yeah, yeah I know the viruses and spyware come free it's the cost of removal and associated downtime that needs talking up
Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
Bill Hilf - formerly from IBM, then eToys, now MS apologist. Martin Taylor - salesman and now GM of Platform Strategy. Never thought salesmen could strategize :-)
On the whole the discussion projects one happy family (Windows) that lunches together and watches TV together. Oh yes, they love their customers and give them good service - sort of friendly neighborhood mom & pop cafe?
Yes, I'd believe him. .net
MS is actually very good at helping clients with Interoperability stuff, as long as you need to interoperate between MS products and other MS products or your own products that need to be written in
Challenge the statement's legitimacy all you like, but how does Taylor's claim that Microsoft isn't anti-open source qualify as a "FUD exercise"? I fail to see how it serves to generate or propogate fear, uncertainty or doubt regarding competitors' products -- the practice which the acronym FUD properly refers to.
SIERRA TANGO FOXTROT UNIFORM
The problem with the whole platform is cost. The primary end-result of the evolution of this commodity hardware is the fact that expensive software is now just obsolete - plain and simple. Ten years ago, there was a justified price premium associated with state of the art software algorithms. I still see these zealots for the DB companies raising these red-herring issues as to why every organization should still spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on expensive DB software. With the evolution of hardware the way it is, any credible SQL DB Engine could run almost any company. Same thing for web and application servers. How can anyone justify paying for these things when the hosting companies prove everyday for thousands of tech-savvy companies that the free solution is just as scalable and more secure. I used to maintain several Windwos servers and finally ported them to a hosted Apache solution - for about 5% of the cost. The sites are always available and the admin tools are web-based and better. And I don't have to hire these guys that want to go to the MS Marketing summit for a week every year so they can continue to administer the "low-cost MS solution approach". If you have any hesitation, make the switch. This stuff is now public domain, don't pay for this stuff. Those days are long gone. In the new model, it only makes sense to pay for software that solves industry-specific problems - not for tools that cost a fortune to maintain and invite tech companies into your business to meddle and start religous wars among the employees. Doug Hettinger www.SoftwareObjectz.com
http://www.softwareobjectz.com
fuck 'em
The reason the Microsoft platform is so over-priced is that it does not solve a business problem. It's generaal technology without an industry focus and business solution. I mean, it's like trying to sell aspirin for five times the price of everyone else. When aspirin was new, it made sense to price it high. Now it's just a commodity that no longer has patent protection. So it's cheap. In the case of software, the Windows platform is no longer the low-cost solution, which is the way it's always been marketed. When it paid for companies to host their own web-servers and apps, all the cool GUI tools meant something. Now that you can pay someone else to take care of this drudgery for a fraction of one or two in-house MS zealots can do it for, why do I care if some admin tasks require a command-line script? www.SoftwareObjectz.com
http://www.softwareobjectz.com
"... and there are a few things that I normally have to talk about that might be top-of-mind for them that they'd like us to get some clarity on."
I think what he means to say is that some of his customers would like Microsoft to explain some things to them a bit more clearly. However I am sure that the sentence I quoted is really saying that his customers have a lot of things which they'd like Microsoft to understand more clearly.
I am not sure quite how to describe the form of English which IT companies like Microsoft, SCO and IBM seem to be using nowadays, their is definately a similarity in their written and oral style and it's incrediably annoying. I don't know why.
"It brings up another interesting misperception that we see a lot when we do this comparative analysis between Unix and Linux, and often we hear customers and folks in the marketplace talk about ? that Linux is Unix"
This annoys me for the following reasons:
"It brings up" - What brings up ? The previous sentence was about ways of integrating software and doesn't seem to relate to this sentence at all.
"...when we do this comparative analysis..." - When you do what 'comparative analysis' ? They haven't said anywhere what kind of 'comparative analysis' they have done, or are in the process of doing.
"... and often we hear customers and folks in the marketplace talk about ? that Linux is Unix" - I can't see any strong link between this last part of the sentence to the previous part. It also just strikes me as a bad way of saying "a lot of our customers and people in general think that Linux is Unix"
How can we make this stop ?
>>they're easy enough to "install" that a lot of
>>clueless system administrators install it without >>knowing how to use it.
This is pretty much the situation at any 'windows-centric' company i've come in contact with - they use windows products for 2 reasons:
1) the company is too cheap to hire a knowledgeable sysadmin that knows how to admin and setup other alternatives
2) company does whatever the sysadmin says - ie i learned windows at my 10 week sysadmin course so we have to use windows
--------
Of course the fact that microsoft blatantly pays the schools to teach microsoft-only topics doesn't even get considered in the equation.
And of course their anti-trust 'penalty' is providing millions of dollars of software to schools to help perpetuate this cycle even further.
Microsoft 'solutions' are brainless ones, sure, but is this not the core of the problem?
Gekido's Lair
"Another unexpected attribute is that the Exchange server has functionalities which have improved their workflow in unexpected ways"
Your comments are worthless without specifics
""I would agree that some of Microsofts products do provide some value. Would you agree that they also provide vendor lock in?"
"Absolutely. In the short term this can be a good thing, because a person relying on Microsoft solutions will continue to use a familiar platform.""
My good man, are you drunk? Having your options restricted is never a good thing. If a customer wants to 'continue to use a familiar platform' they will choose to do so, however they should never have the option of changing their mind and migrating (easily) taken away from them.
I'm still to see some proof that Bill has ever had anything but the most broad understanding of software in general, and Microsoft software specifically. Initially he bought an OS, licensed it to IBM, made a hell of a lot of cash, hired programmers to maintain and extend the OS, and now he talks very vaguely about the new products he wants MS to come out with. Sounds like a businessman, not a technologist.
I'm willing to bet that I could write a ten line program in BASIC and he wouldn't be able to tell me what it does. And I only spent a few months using BASIC - when I was twelve.
Well, now I'm convinced that Microsoft has really seen the light. There's nothing like a serious discussion between different points of view to settle an issue.
What a relief. I guess MS isn't completely full of crap after all.
this is not a sig
"blah blah TCO blah blah blah TCO blah TCO blah blah blah TCO blah blah blah TCO hold on gotta reboot blah blah blah TCO"
I am no longer wasting my time with slashdot
if MS wasnt trying to destroy linux, this wouldnt be an issue.
"The developers really putting work in open source systems aren't that many; Microsoft can hire more developers to do a better job."
A 56 161-2004Oct23.html"?
Like this?
"http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/
Unfortuantly, Google Desktop doesn't index my collection of PC Magazines, or I'd also be able to quote an article I read a week or so ago about a company who have had a similar product, except designed to search corporate LANs, for almost the last decade.
Perhaps that point should have read:
"The slashdot posters assigning score points to worthy articles aren't really that many; Microsoft can hire more people to collect points and assign them to bollocks like this, thus doing a better job."
This is my problem with windows... above and beyond the security issues... past its susceptibility to virii and other malware which is crippling the internet... microsoft server products allow normal users to run server software... it allows, exactly as the parent states, an 'administrator' who knows nearly nothing, but had a win9x box that he played around with, to become a sysadmin being paid to muddle his way through... I recognize this, my boss is one of them... if the solution doesn't fit into one of the formulas he knows, reinstall the OS... he had 3 AD/DNS servers on a network of less that 30 machines (including printers and other such network devices), then he removed one without demoting it or removing it from the update tree... 8 weeks later we had to pull a 12 hour shift trying to fix the DNS issues caused by this... I had told him after two weeks that something was wrong with DNS, but was unaware of the role being played by the removed server... the only way we got it fixed was 4 hours on the phone with microsoft, with them netmeeting'd into the server in question...
and what really burns my cheese?? they get payed for this!! they are taking money from MY pocket and food from MY mouth (and a Lamborghini from my driveway) because they've flooded the market... all of these 'certified' admins... mcse, mcp, mcsa... they are a joke... the certifications themselves aren't, but the courses that prepare you for the exam are just memorization of questions and answers, there is no test of ability to solve, or even to identify, a problem...
is it wrong for me to expect competence from someone getting paid to administrate a network??
The chains are broken
Loki is free
Ragnarok is at hand...
Compiler Creep: Where a compiler, built to be used for operating system A (OS-A) moves on to operating system B(OS-B) and yet still says it will compile programs properly for OS-A. However, as time goes along, as OS-B moves further away from OS-A, the compilers for OS-B begin introducing calls to non-existent OS-A functions. Eventually, programs compiled under OS-B will no longer operate under OS-A. Manufacturer's solution: Upgrade your system!. User's outlook: Why should I?
One of the problems I am having happen more and more is to try to use a program which is really written for WindowsXP but also says it will work for Windows95/98/NT/2000/ME. Or even just 98se/NT/2000/ME. The truth is that since 98se is so old the current version of Microsoft's Visual Studio will not correctly compile complex programs for the 98 platform. This has been demonstrated several times now to different companies including Microsoft.
It is also one of the things which differentiate Linux from Microsoft. Because I can get to the source code I can recompile everything for my system (and yes - it does take quite a while to do so but it is worth it because I get all of the updates, can stay current, and yet don't have to buy a new system in order to do so which is the point of this post). Not everyone is a multimillionaire. Nor are a lot of the posters on Slashdot people who want to run up their credit card bills even more than they already are just to keep up with the Jones's and their computer buying habits. So Linux makes a lot of sense from that perspective. You get to keep your computer, upgrade everything, get new things, and you do not have to worry about compiler creep. Because the underlying OS reamins stable.
Someone put a black hole in my pocket and now I'm broke.
So you agree that Linux is more secure for the foreseeable future... Or are you making the bold prediction that Linux is on the verge of displacing Windows as the dominant OS?
Myself, I predict that by the time Linux is "targeted more because it's so popular" like Windows supposedly is now, we'll all have flying cars, and they'll run Linux, and they'll get hacked and start falling out of the sky. It'll be quite horrible. But then we'll just send a cyborg back in time to kill Linus Torvalds before he creates Linux and it'll all work out in the end because after the change in the timeline we'll all be running OpenBSD.
"Obviously there's a higher degree of pain with regards to the Microsoft environment" -Martin Taylor
See... it's not all FUD.
I've found that demonstrating the fixing of broken Windows and Linux setups is very instructive to Windows admins. Windows with its wizards and GUI is easy to install and set up. But if anything breaks, you want open source so that you can drill down to the real source of the problem and fix it once and for all. Windows admins can't do that. When they watch me fix a Linux issue, they drool over the visibility into the system and long for the same power.
This is the root of Microsoft's problems. They tried to make it all so easy that you don't have to understand what is going on. And they have been extremely successful from a business standpoint by taking that stance.
The real problem arises when the people who DO understand what is going on behind the scenes create viruses, worms, spyware and adware to exploit the idiots who think they know all there is to know about computers because they can work a mouse.
Newsflash, people - it's a GOOD thing to understand what's going on behind the scenes, especially if you are in charge of network infrastructure.
If all consumers were properly educated, Microsoft would have no competition.
Actually, closing the Microsoft Re-Education Camps was one of the few things their US Antitrust conviction actually hit them with.
Windows has no real competitor on the workstation market.
Yes. This was established in court and they were further found to have abused this position.
MS isn't all that worried about the browser market, as it doesn't generate much revanue.
IE is little more than a selling point for windows.
Microsoft decided the browser market wouldn't generate much revenue because they believed they could use it to leverage themselves into positions to reap larger rewards. While they have been wildly successful, I really doubt that they believe that continuing their hold will be anything but beneficial to them and is therefore worth keeping.
Linux/UNIX development is slow.
After longhorn matures
I just love this juxtaposition. Clearly Longhorn is a major undertaking, but...
Objectively speaking (objectivity being in short supply in this environment) some Microsoft products do provide better value in terms of functionality. From my point of view, Server 2003 is an excellent turn-key workgroup server, Office 2003 is an excellent collaboration suite (spare me the Linux banter about samba and OpenOffice.org, it's not the same).
;)
I'll only pick on the OpenOffice.org statement first. Lets start with the most obvious point that always makes my blood boil, how many people use Office beyong the capabilities of Wordpad, seriously I have NFI on 90% or the fuctions available to me in word, and would never need to use them. As for Spreadsheets I have yet to find a need for VB scripting, and beyond adding,subtracting numbers, I only draw a few charts, again more than adequately covered by OpenOffice.
Yes OpenOffice isn't as polished as Office yet, but I challenge you to find an average user who can't drive it, nor use it for all their daily requirements. Sure your legal secutaries and accounts might have a few gripes, but Joe Public office worker wouldn't hardly notice.
Now for Outlook, I use Evolution at home and Outlook 2003 at work, not being the power user must know every thing about a product type, I'm buggered if I can find any differences.
In all honesty, most office workers only use Powerpoint to open novelty mail attachments they have recieved. Only marketing types use Powerpoint anyway.
Now as for your comments on Server 2003, yes Joe Office manager can install Server 2003, but can he really administer it, or does it take someone with knowledge, in which case it doesn't really matter whether it is Linux or Windows. Sure there are more "Windows Experts" out there, but I ask you do they really know how to lock down a server properly? Blaster would suggest not! I think the question to be asked here is, which camp are you more knowledgable in.
(I was trying to get the greater than symbol to work and having no luck and accidentally hit submit instead of preview. And apparrently I was trying way to hard since it's just > even with html tags.)
So -1 is better than -4 but not necessarily a higher number?! Oh no!! All mathematicas is going to hell!
1>2 since clearly 1 is a more pure, perfect, and better number than 2. Since 1+1=2, we can substitute to get 1>1+1 and then subtract 1 from each side to get that 0>1. Therefore, it is obvious that 1 is a negative number. Similarly, -1>-2 since -1 is better than -2. Or we can subtract 3 from each side of our initial equation to get that -2>-1. See what happens when we use greater=better. Maybe we should go back to greater=/=better so math will not be broken.
I always wonder why people assume that "windows admins" are "clueless admins".
I suppose a "clueless admin" doesn't know how to troubleshoot Active Directory replication failures over a VPN? I'm sure that a "clueless admin" wouldn't have the slightest clue that Kerberos authentication is failing because the VPN tunnel is dropping UDP packets. And i'm REALLY sure that "clueless admin" wouldn't know how to tell Windows 2003 server to use TCP instead of UDP for Kerberos Authentication to make it work over the VPN.
I admin both windows and linux - they are both technically challenging in a complex heterogeneous environment. I resent being thought of as a "clueless admin" because I admin windows boxes.
The Linux/Unix community needs to come down out of their ivory towers if they are to EVER take serious marketshare from Microsoft.
-ted
". . . when you really want to have something that's broader from an infrastructure perspective, they want something that has support"
I love Microsoft support. It doesn't matter what your problem is, they tell you to format and reinstall.
With friends like these. . .
TCO = Total Cost of Ownership, right? But one doesn't own software these days, one licenses it. Surely the acronym should be TCL (Total Cost of Licensing)?
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
Will anyone be surprised at the outcome?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Coca-Cola reviews pepsi edge with coke's leading bottleists.
http://www.vanillaafro.com - take me seriously and I will shoot you
Windows users tend to get and spread viruses. Ever hear of protection?
Linux seems to be taking market share from commercial Unix. I don't see many small and medium size businesses migrating away from Windows to Linux. Too many SMB software packages like accounting, patient managment, inventory control, and point of sale require windows both on the desktop and on the back end.
Ask Sun and SCO how Linux has impacted their businesses.
Sure, someday Linux might eventually have enough market penetration to make it profitable to develop SMB software on Linux, but by that point i'm sure we'll all be complaining about "clueless Linux admins".
-ted
There was one point in the article I've hit a lot in real life that doesn't get mentioned much here
think, Bill, that's exactly the decision criteria that customers need to understand. And I'm hearing more and more customers begin to hit that fork in the road saying, "Wow, I want something that's fully supported; however, I also want this broad flexibility of being able to do different things with my distribution." They're beginning to realize now that you can't have both of those worlds together, necessarily. You do have to either move more towards the side of fully flexible, open-source projects, which means you don't have that quote unquote award-winning vendor-level support, or you have more of a packaged software, commercialized software scenario which is a bit more like in the lines of how Microsoft distributes software that can be fully supported in a broad-based way.
I think Martin is absolutely correct here. As people move to "enterprise" distributions designed to provide binary compatability long term they will lose many of the major advantages of Linux. They will be back in the rigid world where they don't have control.
I see this all the time. For example to get a custom MySQL implemented on RedHat enterprise 3 we needed a custom Apache. The custom apache created problems with binaries like Oracle (yes we needed both, why is off topic). There was talk of a custom kernel, and while I though the custom kernel made a great deal of sense it totally killed the point of going with an enterprise distribution once you change the kernel no one is going to give you any meaningful support......
"And I'm hearing more and more customers begin to hit that fork in the road saying, “Wow, I want something that's fully supported; however, I also want this broad flexibility of being able to do different things with my distribution.” They're beginning to realize now that you can't have both of those worlds together, necessarily. You do have to either move more towards the side of fully flexible, open-source projects, which means you don't have that quote unquote award-winning vendor-level support, or you have more of a packaged software, commercialized software scenario..."
Amazing, this guy has just described
<a href="http://www.progeny.com/">Progeny's Componentized Linux Plataform</a>.
If GM had an article comparing their cars to Fords, how many people would read it? Yet people like you think this kind of article is interesting? Are you nuts?
Happy New Year, Theo!
[sigh] And yet again, we see obviously knowledgeable folks on Slashdot advocating clickable links, in direct contradiction to Microsoft's most serious advice on the matter.
Remember kids, never click, type 'em in. Microsoft said so, and they certainly know their own browser best!
For those of us who choose to use Linux (or just hate WMA), here is a Q3 vorbis version (15.8MB): http://kitsunet.org/misc/TechNet_Radio_Open_Discus sion_on_Windows_and_Linux.org
It isn't an either-or situation.
If I need more flexible software in some context, I might choose to use a non-commercial version of that software and either support it myself or contract out the support to a third party.
There's absolutely no reason why a commercial costumer can't mix and match the two. That's why I said that the presence of commercial distributions provides more options, not fewer. The original set of options still exists.
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
Although one could certainly use open source software as part of a "costuming" business if one wishes... :-)
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
nobody's blaming Microsoft because OOo doesn't translate .rtf correctly. Right?
The problem we blame Microsoft for is that the .doc format is a secret, so the OOo people don't have a full understanding of what they need to do to correctly import all .doc files. Right?