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."
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?
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
It's not about caring. It's about the fact that they are recognizing it as big enough force to start swatting away the arguments in their own way.
/. pretty often. It goes something like 'First they ignore you. Then they make fun of you. Then they fight you. Then you win'.
What is that quote from Mahatma Gandhi that I keep reading on
Its at 'Then they fight you' stage.
Free XBox, PS2
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.
I guess Microsoft doesn't accept something as existing unless they do it themselves so everything they do is "innovative" to them.
Yeah. Reminds me of a description on their website of Object-Oriented features in VB.Net as 'innovative'. Considering those features were in Simula 40 years earlier, I found this amusing.
"yet another dull FUD exercise"
I'm finding it amusing how easily everyone is dismissing this rather than paying attention to it and gleaning important points.
Martin for example quite rightly points out that IBM, Oracle etc. are not throwing their lot in selflessly and wholeheartedly with Linux, they're augmenting a customer solution with open source products where their own proprietary software is lacking (they need an OS stack on which to run websphere, for example).
These kinds of points are strong, not because they're obvious, but because they indicate that in a lot of respects, adopting an open source operating system does not mean embracing free and open software. There is always cost and propriety.
Another point which isn't often raised and which Microsoft is hammering on is yes, their solutions are at times more expensive, but do they provide more value to the customer, and this is the point which is most often dismissed as FUD, although it's valid.
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). Whereas for enterprise level services such as public web services, e-mail, border security, I'd place more value in UNIX-based systems.
The foregoing is not FUD. It's "the right tool for the right job". Microsoft doesn't strongly compete in top-level enterprise services like border security, and it doesn't do a great deal of business replacing UNIX systems or placing itself in environments where UNIX would ordinarily be. Why? Because it doesn't provide as much value. But at the workgroup level, they're a competitor and everyone just has to deal with that.
// -- http://www.BRAD-X.com/ --
You are making very specific points about specific products and services being better then others and the most logical choice.
Office 2003 is an excellent collaboration suite.
Server 2003 is an excellent turn-key workgroup server.
Then you comment on having the right tool for the job. I truely do not think you believe that though.
How can you state the specific products above are the right tools for the job but never actually state or define what job they are being used for? In your nameless scenario where you suggest Office and 2003 server is the best and most logical solution, could you explain why Samba and Open Office would not be an option?
I have installed and serviced quite a few small businesses and I have used a variety of solutions including MS servers, Samba, Novell, MS Office, Word Perfect, and Open Office, various data backup methods, and various remote administration tools. What was used was not determined until we discussed what they need, want, and what they currently have. I do not use a hunch that assumes one choice is always better then the others. I'll admit though that given the choice (the company does not know what they need or does not care), I will suggest the Samba/OO route. The only time that becomes an issue is if they later decide they want MS Word installed. Not for functionality, not for stability, not for ease of use, but only when compatibility with others becomes a limiting factor.
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
There's a difference between actually setting something up and dumping the image on the hard drive. One of the things I hate about Windows admins is that a lot of them don't learn anything about the fundamentals of what they're using; they just learn which buttons to click that will end up yielding the "Congratulations! You've just installed [mission crittical app]" page in the install wizard.
There's something to be said for systems that are designed to be minimal, small, and efficient, are easily scripted, and actually require you to know what you're doing.
This definately doesn't apply to end user desktops--since, for example, making device installation removal automatic helps everybody. The power users just need to be able to tweak it, but everyone more or less wants the same functionality. Windows servers, however, tend to breed really clueless admins.
That being said, I've met some really good ones in my day as well. And, sadly enough, the number of Linux admins who are getting to be able to get a basic vanilla install of a lot of complicated services up and running without learning how both the software and Linux work is increasing.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.