Slashdot Mirror
Ask Microsoft's Martin Taylor About Linux vs. Windows
Martin Taylor is Microsoft's global general manager of platform strategy, but he's best-known as the man the company trots out to refute claims of Linux superiority. Here are links to several interviews he's done in the past two years: vnunet.com; CMP; Computerworld; and one on Microsoft's own site. As usual, please submit one question per post. We'll present 10 - 12 of the highest-moderated questions to Mr. Taylor about 24 hours after this post appears, and we expect to publish his answers within the next week.
Do you think you could have got more for it on eBay? ;) for the humour challenged.
Is Microsoft hoping to incorporated any interoperability for using Linux-based binaries? IE, an embeded version of Cygwin for instance.
wdd
Using an open source code base for a producted. Name, the Mozilla code for an "Internet Explorer 7"?
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
I see Microsoft ads in magazines claiming that the TCO a business using Windows is significantly less than using Linux. How can this be?
how DO you say that stuff and keep a straight face?
Botox, maybe?
The difference between spam and poop is that you don't have to dig through septic tanks looking for real food. -- Me
Seriously dude, do you believe even half the drivel you say in your interviews? Off the record, of course. I won't tell Bill, I promise!
Which OSS desktop do you like best - Gnome or KDE?
More
Notepad or Wordpad? ;-)
It seems that independent companies tend to review Linux very favorably, yet the only way for Microsoft to get a favorable review is to pay someone for a favorable review. Why do you believe that is?
Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.
To allow himself as an MS employee, to be questioned by the people that hang out on slashdot!
Personally, I would rather go door to door in a Jehovah witness community and introduce them to the wonder that is Budism! It would probrably lead to a bit less realigous zealotry doing that...
Why are we asking him about anything? He should be asking /us/.
On second thought, I do have some questions, which I can wrap into a single bundle:
"Is Microsoft going to pursue a Palladium philosophy in the next 5 years? And, if this the strategy, what guarantees will Microsoft make that protect Free Speech?"
Ratboy.
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
Yeah MS is better like cigarettes are good for your health.
News Reporters Make Tasty Polar Bear Treats!
For what purposes? What was your personal experience with using Linux?
Why do you think that Mac and Linux both have a militant following, but Microsoft does not? ( Or do they, but I just don't see them ? )
I guarantee this guy runs Linux on a box somewhere and secretly LOVES it.
Martin,
It's not healthy to be a closet Linux user...
"The world only exists in your eyes. You can make it as big or as small as you want." - F Scott Fitzgerald
Did Microsoft consider free software inferior when they released Internet Explorer for free?
Slashdot's first reaction to VMware
Explain why Windows would be a better OS for developing countries where they're trying to keep computer prices extremely low per machine.
"Plans are for fools! Oglethorpe, the plutonian (Aqua Teen Hunger Force)
Regardless of the superiority of Linux to Windows, or vice-verse, it seems to me that the disruptive economic model of Linux cannot fail to displace Windows. As Microsoft itself has proven many time, you cannot compete with free. Do you see any hope for Microsoft?
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Question:
Linux must be doing something right, if one of the largest software companies in the US is devoting money and energy to dismiss Linux. Why can't you be confident in your own product? If you were confident in Windows, you would let the Windows OS speak for itself. So are you making up for the failure of Windows by focusing attention on Linux?
I fully expect Windows to overtake the unix market in 2010, but I also fully expect the linux market to overtake the resulting marketing in 2015. What are your plans to keep this from happening. Do you believe in Gartner's predictions?
Are there any plans for Microsoft on a mainframe hardware? Windows is as well and dandy on x86 hardware, but if I represent a bank and I want a high level of availability on non x86, non Itanium harware, what are you going to provide?
Why doesn't Microsoft incorporate other OSS software into Windows, such as say Firefox or some of the other software listed at http://www.theopencd.org/?
Does Microsoft feel that Linux has any place at all in the IT industry? If so, where?
best-known as the man the company trots out to refute claims of Linux superiority
.doc better than using .pdf or any other open standard and how is Microsoft going to handle this in the future? Any plans on opening it completely?"
This guys is there to refute the claims. I honestly do not expect him to say anything that we haven't heard before.
I would still like to ask "How is using a proprietary
Free XBox, PS2
Ask Satan About Good vs. Evil. The top 10 moderated questions will be answered by Lucifer himself.
When Microsoft seems to tout it's desire to facilitate interoperability, do you mean interoperability seamlessly between your operating system and environment with alternative systems (such as Mac OSX, Linux, Sun Solaris, etc...) or do you mean interoperability between Microsoft products?
What applications do you run to protect your Windows boxes from malware (viruses, trojans, spyware, etc.), and what do you pay for this protection per year? How does this cost compare to the cost incurred by other Windows users? How does this cost compare to what you would pay for equivalent protection offered in Debian GNU/Linux?
How do you respond to people who say that the open-source approach and the associated peer-review process inherently create better code?
Dear Martin,
...'". And try to explain what such a sentence means: "We really [wanted] to go dial down the emotion, dial down the rhetoric, have a more fact-oriented approach and dial up the pragmatic analysis of solutions." (see computerworld interview first sentence!)
I have read a couple of your interviews and I would like to ask you to answer to this one in plain English. Please! Could you avoid silly metaphors (try not to mention ballpark for instance) or sentences such as "So someone asks 'Hey can you guys
It's painful to read and hardly understandable. Thanks in advance.
I'll do it for cheesy poofs.
Do you think Linux and OSS is a real, tough competitor for Microsoft? And if not, why do we see such a big Linux-related marketing campaign? Does MS fear Linux?
-- Patent no.123456: A way to personalize
Q. Do you frequent Slashdot and the other Linux boards to say what your competition's saying about you?
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
Give me a break. Do you guys REALLY believe this guy is going to say anything substantive or refrain from spinning the company message? Why do you even bother trying to legitimize this shill?
Why does your company keep releasing such insecure, badly designed crap ?
- How Linux admins can easily administrate more machines per person-hour, due to the nature of Unix/Linux's remote administration (and don't even get me started on VNC or Terminal Services; they aren't scriptable, they aren't as bandwidth-effective, etc. etc. etc...), than Windows admins?
- The "hidden" costs of lost time due to (A) protecting against adware/spyware/malware/viruses/pop-ups, or (B) actually disinfecting machines that got infected anyhow.
- The "hidden" costs of downtime due to buggy MS software. Sure, F/OSS stuff has bugs too, but when it does, at least the admin can try to fix them. When MS software is buggy, the admin is 100% at MS's mercy to fix the bug (since, being closed source, MS software is often 100% unfixable to anyone outside MS...)
- The "hidden" costs of dealing with "hacked" IIS servers (vs. Apache).
And a further question: Do Linux geeks really pull in that much more money salary-wise than Windows geeks!? find this claim hard to swallow, especially in today's economy. I call BS. Show some proof.Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
Is there any real, actual reason why you (Microsoft) feel a need to use less than independant reviews and tests to attempt to establish Windows superiority? Would it really be so bad for you to let your products stand (or fall) on their own?
Ron Gage - Westland, MI
Can you mention 3 areas where you think windows is better than linux and vice versa.
just because I don't care doesn't mean I'm not listening
To what extent are open source applications on Windows helping it to be more competitive versus Linux? For example, I immediately install OpenOffice.org, Firefox, and Thunderbird over a virgin Windows install.
The world will not get better through technology. We must seek to be better people.
... exactly how well do you know your boss?
(Warning: linked photos might be disturbing)
There are lots of things Microsoft does that I cannot understand. There is one, however, that no one can answer. How come Microsoft says all sorts of things against Open-Source but at the same time releases Open-Source projects (the ones on Sourceforge)?
When are you leaving Microsoft?
One of the biggest criticisms I have heard of .NET is that it is not portable to non Microsoft/Windows platforms. Microsoft has released Rotor, a CLR/BCL system for FreeBSD systems, that with some work can be made to work with MacOS X. Furthermore, there is the Mono system which provides a CLR for Linux.
My question is does Microsoft have any intentions of implementing a CLR and BCL for any other non Microsoft platforms where applications built under one would be (relatively) easily used under another (provided the application does not rely on P/Invokes of course)? If not... why?
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
I would ask the same thing. =)
Will it ever be available in America? Also, does Microsoft plan on offering a Starter Edition for Longhorn when it's released or will XP SE be the last one?
Can you mention 3 areas where you think windows could learn from linux and vice versa
just because I don't care doesn't mean I'm not listening
Have you actually ever given any Linux distro a fair unbiased evaluation?
"Plans are for fools! Oglethorpe, the plutonian (Aqua Teen Hunger Force)
If you look at the bottom of the MS link it says: Due to the varying sound quality and subject matter of tapes, the information in this transcript may contain inaccuracies. So what really said was Linux rocks and MS sucks.
what aspects of linux/os movement would you like to see in microsoft projects? (i mean both technologic and organizative aspects)
As a web developer for a Microsoft vendor, I have had the ability to work on both platforms... Linux and Windows. I run my own site on Linux which gets 1.8 millions hits a month (1800 unique IPs a day) and my companies website which runs on a Win2K box gets slightly less (most of which is directly from MS). The problem I have is that while running pretty much identical apps and using an AMP (apache, mysql and php) build on both, Windows consistently is slower by a huge margin.
Why is this?
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
Which would you have more faith running, Windows as root or Linux as root?
/. response predictably rarely rising above the level of pre-pubescent monkeys. If so congrats, I feel you might acheive your goals.
More importantly, why are you doing this interview? What do you hope to gain out of it? Aside from getting predictable questions like the one above or Why does Windoze suck so much?!!11one1, and other predictable childish responses, that can only reflect upon this community in the poorest of lights.
I guess maybe that is the result you wish to gain, to appear rational in your answers, with the
...we put you in the same category as a doctor who smokes?
What is your response to me saying that your TCO studied you keep publishing everywhere (just saw three in Information Week) are full of lies, misrepresentations, and utter stupiditiy? For example, you give many examples that are absurd - your distribution of users, premium service packs, support, etc, are nowhere near equal for each piece of the comparison.
AccountKiller
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
The one with Tux dressed as Umma thurman and holding a Katana.
How Linux admins can easily administrate more machines per person-hour, due to the nature of Unix/Linux's remote administration (and don't even get me started on VNC or Terminal Services; they aren't scriptable, they aren't as bandwidth-effective, etc. etc. etc...), than Windows admins?
Actually terminal services doesn't need insane bandwidth - it's usable over a modem. And you *can* remotely administer services and kick off scripts/processes with command-line tools.
Since Linux is likely here to stay, regardless of current quality, where do you feel Linux will be in 20 years. Especially when compared to where you feel Microsoft's OS will be in 20 years.
Just a boy doing unproffesional IT work that's way above his head.
How would you describe the taste of Bill Gate's man juice?
USA did WTC: http://www.rense.com/general62/shat.htm
plz/thnx
Oh, a real question while I'm at it:
Of the Linux distributions you've extensively tested, assuming that you have so that your arguments are based on information rather than conjecture, which do you feel is the most desktop-ready?
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
Mr Taylor,
I myself am convinced that neither Windows nor Linux are superior solutions if one's to have an objective view. In my humble opinion, the "superiority" of a system lies in the hands of the administrator responsible for said system and not with the type of software used, in this case. For example, a good Window system administrator with some good experience and the right tools can easily maintain a server just like a well trained and experienced Linux system administrator can maintain his servers. Quite a few people agree on this and recognize the fact that the skills of the responsible administrator are more significant then the software platform used.
The question is, what is your position on this? Do you agree with the aforementioned idea about system administrator capabilities being more important? Or are you convinced that the software platform used is more important?
Hate me!
Please tell me you are asking about ME(the horror).
Profanity is the language all programmers know best.
Do you see Windows becoming more modularized for the server market, and is security issues pushing it that way?
For instance, the new sandboxing for IIS, and other such options, becoming part of a greater security push, but ultimatly an example of seeing the system more 'modular'.
What kind of training did you have for this position? Did you and the Iraqi Information Minister go to school together?
Cantankerous old coot since 1957.
If office were priced upon a subscription model (as has been speculated) would it be appropriate to sell and would you try to sell a Linux (any toolkit/window manager of your choice) version in the same way that Office exists for Mac?
:-P)
Does the diversified nature of windowing toolkits for the X Windows system, the current use of both XFree86 and X.org, and the huge effort you have put into you own kernel for MS Windows make it even less likely that a version of any MS software will appear for Linux, no matter how many office desks begin to use Linux? (Is the technical challenge too big for you?
I find it hard to believe that the answers won't be run through Microsoft's PR people before being posted. I highly doubt MS going to let unreviewed answers appear on this site on such a touchy subject without some serious oversight happening.
Especially when the costs of upgrading is recurring.
Do you really think Chuck Barris was a CIA hitman? And is Chuck Woolery a cybortronic-biomech sent from the future to destroy the world using a cunning combination of convoluted dating exercises and word jumbles? And is it just a coincidence that they're both named Chuck?
--I'm not talking about dance lessons. I'm talking about putting a brick through the other guy's windshield.-
Can I have a job?
Please?
As a research economist working in the field of network externalities, I'd like to know a little more about the history of your position at Microsoft. Since when there has been a Platform Strategy division? Do you follow the academic literature on fields like network externalities or produce entirely original theoretical work to support strategical advisory?
How does Microsoft intend to compete with installations of SELinux, where the combination of both normal and role based permissions restricts even would-be hackers with root access?
Microsoft has had finanical dealings with SCO and AdTI when both were making baseless and sweeping claims against Linux. Are there any other groups that you pay to attack Linux that you would like to tell us about before they come out in court?
Linux is capable enough for supercomputers. How many supercomputers run Windows?
when someone sells his/her soul and is assimilated into the Borg, the implant naturally makes them less spontanious.
I'm only partly kidding. I was a contract tester there and the culture was eerily sterile. Even those people who pursued outside interests seemed a little like Data researching humor. Not just nerds not getting social conventions, really missing some fundamental aspect of humanity.
A company newsletter had an article hyping an employee, whose secret for success was "be passionate about what you do" yet her listed projects were the very definition of that which one could not be passionate about: bland consumer crap in the service of an evil goal. I don't remember exactly which ones she worked on, but they were icky.
It was like the original "Stepford Wives" A bot will have no problem staying on message.
Do you still beat your wife, kick puppy dogs, and eat newborn babies?
Please only answer "yes" or "no". No other commentary will be permitted in your response.
Windows Xp has been focussing a lot on making windows easier to use for novice users.
Lots of extra features and visual enhancements have been implemented.
For more advanced users some of those features can be considered a nuissance or even a obstacle.
Is it possible that windows longhorn could include a advanced users mode in which there a few wizards and a stripped down GUI?
perpetually dwelling in the -1 pits
Rarely do I see white papers related to small business that show Microsoft being more cost-effective than Linux for server software. Typically these businesses have one or two salaried IT guys and don't use any customized software. These companies typically need a file & print server, authentication mechanism, basic email, a backup solution and a simple website. All of these things can be had via Linux (and Open Source) for free and require less or perhaps equal system administration to Microsoft products.
How is Microsoft addressing the financial barriers of the little guy?
One of the most vital part of any platforms eco-systems are the developers for your platform. Two of the more popular enterprise level platforms currently for show are probably
With the current fight for brain-share among developers with these two platforms, the main focus appear to be on easy of use/integration (where Visual Studio currently leads) and maturity (where I think Java has a head-start).
How do you convince (1) the developers and (2) managers to put their faith in Windows and the
How do you plan to convince potential customers to use your
[ Monday is a terrible way to spend one seventh of your life. ]
Are we at war with eurasia or oceana? I always loose track.
Seriously, get back to work and get your product down to less than 12 security updates in a month. Once you manage that, then we can discuss a comparison.
STFU & GBTW
So, one a scale of charcoal to black, what color is your cold, cold heart?
(for the oblivious, : ), fits here)
Will there ever be a free (as in beer) version of Windows, stripped bare of everything but IE and without any network server capabilities? That might compete quite nicely with Lunix.
In a situation where any operating system can be chosen, installed and configured (like buying windows from dell), what are the advanages of windows over the following linux distrobutions for mums and dads who want to read email, check their bank balance and read the news:
Debian
Mandrake
Suse Personal (or professional if you like)
Vidalinux
I assume that you must have evaluated Linux to learn its (supposedly) weak points. While doing that, what did you find out about linux that you think is good? Where is Linux challenging MS the most? (except price, of course)
Since Linux is renown for being stable and secure and Windows is renown for ease of use, do you think Microsoft would ever consider combining the best parts of Linux and Windows into a hybrid OS if an acceptable licencing model could be found ?
Name the number one reason why you think Linux will never dethrone microsoft?
Will code a sig generator for food
Wow, was that a loaded question or what. The two potential answers that you gave him are both bad. You're right, there is really no excuse, IE should have supported or renounced these things a long time ago.
Mr. Taylor, how many hours a week do you use Linux ?
I'm believe that a kernel that is compiled for a server-only machine is going to be faster, more stable and more secure than one compiled to run a gui environment on a workstation.
I fail to see why anyone would opt to have to have a Windows gui with IE, Outlook Express, Freecel, Media Player, etc. running on a their server.
Will Microsoft ever become truly serious in the server market and offer an OS that doesn't have all this crap installed by default?
G
One of the security principals that was recommended to me at TechEd last year was that if a component wasn't needed on a system, remove it.
The theory behind this was that if it's not installed, it can't pose a threat. And if you don't need it, why have it installed in the first place?
I would like to ask, then, why are Internet Explorer and Outlook Express not removable from Windows Server 2003? On my Active Directory servers I have no need for a fully graphical email client.
Equally, I have no need for Internet Explorer on the servers. I do not use Windows Update on the machines; I instead test the patches on non-production machines before burning them to CD and deploying them manually. I have no need to view HTML help files on the server.
Since we have seen 11 cumulative patches for Internet Explorer in the last two years, this is a concern for me. I'd rather completely remove these applications instead of 'disabling' them.
I can choose to remove these types of applications from my Linux installs, why can I not remove these unneeded applications from my Windows installs?
If Windows really were a superior OS, with all the profit motives and organization, wouldn't the superiority of MS apps be beyond question? And if so, why wouldn't you just open the MS data formats, to coopt the Linux users, too?
--
make install -not war
Are you scared?
Linux distros allow you to install on multiple machines. With the advent of home networking, why doesn't Microsoft allow a reasonable number of machines to be installed from a single user license (say 5 machines) rather than forcing a home user to purchase multiple copies (or buy inflated license paks).
Since Unix has undergone decades of testing; code review and improvements; and security tuning, do you see Microsoft following Apple's lead and building the next generation of Windows as a GUI under a Unix kernel?
While there are many ways in which Linux and Windows compete, in many ways they can also be complementary to each other.
In what ways could Microsoft see Linux working with windows (or for that matter with other MS products) as opposed to being a competing product.
Linux, as an operating system, seems to have acheived a final stable point -- any future functionality IMHO will be in the form of incremental updates or applications running on top of the OS.
On the other hand, Microsoft comes out with (one or more) new versions of Windows every few years. This forces the home user to frequently upgrade their operating system in order to have a chance of using the newest applications.
With that in mind, do you think that Windows will ever reach a final stable point like Linux has? Will there be a "Windows Ultimate", the Alpha and Omega of Windows OS's, never requiring a complete overhaul of one's system?
If so, when can we expect something like that?
If not, why not?
Most admin tasks on windows can be done via Telnet. Hell, as you well know you can run BASH and SSH if you feel like it. A "good" admin can deal with as many Unix systems as Windows systems.
"The "hidden" costs of lost time due to (A) protecting against adware/spyware/malware/viruses/pop-ups, or (B) actually disinfecting machines that got infected anyhow."
We're talking about servers here. In a well designed domain no one has the rights to the server systems required to infect them with anything.
"The "hidden" costs of downtime due to buggy MS software. Sure, F/OSS stuff has bugs too, but when it does, at least the admin can try to fix them. When MS software is buggy, the admin is 100% at MS's mercy to fix the bug (since, being closed source, MS software is often 100% unfixable to anyone outside MS...)"
Right. Because all Linux admins are realy high level coders that can debug kernel conflicts in their spare time. When software wont work, 99.999% of the time you just wait till the writter fixes it.
"The "hidden" costs of dealing with "hacked" IIS servers (vs. Apache)."
Check the statistics. Apache gets compromised a lot. Whats more there is NOTHING saying you must use IIS if you run Windows. Whats more, all you need to do is delete the cursed front page crap to fix 90% of whats wrong with IIS.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Could Microsoft beat linux/open source software if they had to market their products without using FUD to undermine the credibility or quality of the alternative?
I'm not a smorgasbord.
How do you justify your previous support of closed standards in light of Mr. Gates recent comments about interoperability? How have closed standards and formats HELPED your customers? How can Microsoft make money once it opens up its APIs and file formats? Do you have confidence that your company can maintain security with open APIs? Do you think history supports that confidence? Thank you!
1: Ever try it over a cellular modem? How about another low-bandwidth "for emergency use" device?
2: Give me a script to "find that program I found on LockerGnome last week that I left hanging on the Start Menu somewhere".
3: How about a script to say "If the uptime is greater than 30 days, reboot the machine." And then the corresponding startup script: "Upon reboot, forcibly restart X problematic service which refuses to start correctly the first time. Manually start services Y, Z and A which depend upon X. Send an email to admin@BlahBlah.com with a report on current disk space available, the time the bootup sequence began, the time the bootup sequence ended, and the total elapsed time for the bootup sequence."
All rather trivial in Unixland. Can you do it in Windows-land? Can you do it WITHOUT Services For Unix? How about WITH?
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
Need I say more!!
I've a question. Why are you (like so many other big corporations) 2 faced m****** f*****s
" How can you expect anyone to believe you or take your responses seriously, given that it is your responsibility to Microsoft to respond favourably to them, regardless of what the facts may be? "
All these serial number checks, dial-home schemes, registration schemes, digital "rights" management schemes, crippled 'starter' versions of windows, and now all sorts of anti-piracy checks whenever someone wants to patch ther Windows box - Microsoft does spend an awful lot of time and effort deliberately making sure their software doesn't work unless the customer jumps through the appropriate hoops.
Aren't you worried that this continual (and increasingly intrusive) process of deliberately breaking and/or crippling your own software is going to alienate some your customers and make them feel like criminals, particularly since the makers of the 'free software' operating systems that you're now competing against have no need of any of it and can concentrate all of their resources on trying to make their software work?
In my mind, much of the advantage Windows currently gives businesses revolve around change and configuration management tools like Group Policy and Intellimirror. To get equivalent functionality in Linux, much time-consuming scripting is required. Currently, I believe it is far easier to administer clients with Windows servers that it is to administer a large network of Linux clients with Linux servers.
However, I can think of very few other advantages that Windows enjoys over Linux on the server side, especially in the realm of web and file serving. Open-source databases like PostGres and even MySQL"growing up" into real SQL Server alternatives in terms of ACID compliance and replication. And there are even Exchange Server alternatives coming into adolescence.
Will Microsoft adjust to the "commoditazation" of these markets as they did with the low-cost Windows Server 2003 Web server edition? That is, will we see lower costs and/or the elimination of client access licensing to compete with Linux?
What marketshare does an operating system need to have before Microsoft starts making software for that platform? Is it a different marketshare for servers and desktops? Does the Mac OSX marketshare warrant that Microsoft make versions of their software for Mac OSX? Does the Linux/x86 marketshare warrant that Microsoft make software for Linux/x86? What are the marketshare figures you use when you make those assessments? How frequently do those decisions get reassessed?
Microsoft has always produced software for the Macintosh platform. In fact at one time it was thought that half of MS revenue would stem from this platform. Currently the Macintosh has between 1 and 3 percent marketshare. How much marketshare would the Linux desktop have to have before MS would consider producing software for this platform? Even in a closed source form.?
Microsoft has a lot of studies about the TCO of Linux being higher than the TCO of Windows.
Here (Peru) the salaries are lower than in the US, so installation and maintenance costs would be (a lot) lower AND generate jobs, that we need so much. It would also keep the money in the country as it would be spent on saleries instead of spent importing licenses.
Considering that, do those TCO studies apply to third-world countries?
Which is a bigger threat?
Linux servers with intuitive, usable UI tools or worms targeting Windows/security issues?
Who cares what these basement dwellers think? You are kicking their asses in every market.
If you had to have another full time job (could be IT or some other field) and could only program for Windows in your spare time, would you? Do you believe in it that much?
--CJT
I had a flame... but she had a fire.
One of the Good Results of healthy competition is improvements. No product can rest on its laurels in a highly competitive environment.
Part 1:
In your view, what are some of the most important ways Linux, and open-source software in general, have contributed to Microsoft Windows.
Part 2:
Again, in your view, What are some of the most important ways in which Microsoft Windows has contributed to Linux. That is, what features of Linux or other open-source software wouldn't exist, or would not have the quality they have today, if Microsoft had not led the way?
Please give "equal time" to both questions.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I think most Microsoft opponents bring up features or programs that another company/organization incorporates in its software that Microsoft does not.
In the case of FireFox, Microsoft has also claimed that some of these "missing" features are available through a third-party plugin. It's reasonable to assume, then, that Microsoft does have users that want features found only in opensource software. And its obvious that there is a growing demand for these features.
Why not reach a larger userbase by publicly accepting that there are viable features in opensource software that Microsoft should and will implement?
Is Microsoft planning to port any software to linux now that Linux has exceeded Apple in marketshare?
I understand that Microsoft is a major sofware producer for Apple. Considering that OSX has so much in common architecturally (reduced development costs) with linux and the possibility of hitting a larger number users (3.2% vs. 2.9%), this would seem to make a lot of sense.
----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
Mr Taylor:
Is it Microsoft's position that there is no logical place for Linux in any computer market, that as computer users we have no need for anything other than Windows? What are the inherent flaws in Linux that render the various distributions of Linux broken at a single swipe; further, what qualities of Windows qualify the various versions and releases as singularly suitable for use?
Thank you - sumitted by Jonathan Green, Lone Tree, Iowa
Jon Green Cheyenne
There has been a lot of press about Microsoft's stance on Linux and potential negative aspects of Open Source software with regards to security.
How do you explain the use to open technologies such as kerberos and the TCP/IP stack borrowed from BSD and employed in Microsoft products if the fundemental security model's employed in the Open Source community are so flawed?
Isn't it more fair to say Microsoft is against the GPL and open sourced license that require re-release of code rather then against open source software in general?
One of the myths about Windows is that there is a company behind it you can hold responsible for flaws that impact an organization. If you read the EULA of any MS product, even an update, it disclaims any responsibility whatever. They specifically avow that they are not fit for any purpose.
So what's up with that?
Open source licenses usually have the same thing, but those are generally free products. You guys have taken in a couple hundred billion. Plus, we can use the code as we like. So you can't claim any kind of equivalence.
How do you feel your message is generally received by companies, the open source community, and the public at large? Have you found the open source community in general to be open minded and receptive to counter claims?
Additionally, how does your personal opinion of Linux coincide or differ from the Microsoft sponsored opinion?
Having read a few of these questions, do you now have any regrets about agreeing to do the interview?
Has MS evern considered using a unix based kernel in Windows in much the same way that BSD is the kernel of Mac OS X? if not, why not?
So what does Gates taste like?
Hi Martin
I'm an independant contractor with an MCSE that supports a small customer base of companies that mostly run Windows software. I have four development and testing computers at my house, all of which run Linux and free software solutions, this is because I cannot afford to buy Windows 2003 server, Office 2003, dev studio and a lot of other recent releases.
With my cost free Open Source testing platform I have designed and implemented quite a few solutions with software such as Open Office, Open Exchange, Samba etc.
With online activation and licensing restrictions I am not able to run any Microsoft software in a test environment to ensure it is adequately tested and ensure I am able to support it.
This is driving my skill set and support abilities away from Microsoft and squarely into the arms of the Open Source camp. What (if anything) is Microsoft doing to combat this and ensure that the professionals in the field that sell and support your software have access to the resources they require?
Thanks
John the Kiwi
Hello Martin, Would you concede that Linux has superiority in the Web Server department with Apache?
Why is there so much swearing in the Win2k source? Did you not intend young children to read it? -If so; Why?
Can you explain your company's seeming obsession with the new Longhorn product's visual-trick aspects compared to its apparently mere passing interest with its less-visible changes? I won't ask for a roll-out schedule, but it seems that once Longhorn ships, we can look forward to things like flapping, tiltable windows while the WinFS has been shelved.
Now, I'm for eye-candy as much the next guy, but in what way do you feel that being able to turn a window backwards will increase people's productivity more than actual real enhancements like WinFS? Why the push on videocard manufacturers to create absurd specifications when it seems that there is so much work that needs to be done in your own backyard first?
It's difficult not to be jaded and assume that the answer to most of these issues is that you are building a flashier desktop to promote the appearance of being "further ahead" to the developing markets while sacrificing true advancement in the name of flashy bling-bling. Have you got an answer that fits the facts better?
Thanks.
Why are you paying Microsoft employees to attend Linux User Group meetings?
Back in earyly 2004 you said Now, we've done great work with Windows Server 2003 and IIS 6.0 and so I feel very confident that when we get the data back, we'll be in great shape there. However, even with the IIS 5 and the Windows 2000 versus the Apache one, once you tried to do more complex things other than just serving up simple Web pages is where you saw TCO advantages move back in favor of Microsoft.
netcraft reports shows a flat to negative growth curve for IIS while Apache increased several precentage points last year. Do you see this trend reversing in 2005?
I'd like to ask you your opinion on what some would consider the 'rabid fanaticism' displayed by some open source advocates, and whether you believe that it affects the image of the free & open software movement.
As you are probably aware, SlashDot is one of the biggest forums for Linux advocacy and it is not uncommon to see regular bashing of Microsoft products, company policies, etc. It is almost inconceivable for many of the regulars at a number of these forums that good things do come out of commercial software, that there is innovation, and anyone defending (or generally having a positive attitude towards) Microsoft is immediately labeled as a shill or an idiot.
I believe both commercial and open-source software can co-exist in the current market, but I don't think open-source can be taken seriously if we can't be mature in our statements and opinions, and look objectively at the current efforts being done in the public relations arena (or lack thereof).
As so, what would you suggest we could do to 'bridge the gap' and work together for what is really our common goal: the benefit of the end users of our products?
"We'll need 2000 crickets, 4 cans of Easy Cheese, and the fluid from 18 glowsticks for this plan to work...." - ph0n1c
How can customers trust Microsoft's code if they have no ability to see the source code?
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
I forgot to mention that since linux users (on average) tend to be the most technically savy computer users, the support costs for these users should be lower (on average) than that of other platforms.
just my 2 cents
----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
While I do belive to a point that, as a product becomes more and more popular so will more security expliots be discovered. But with the expliots for opensource oses such as BSD and Linux variants have not exponentily grown as there propulary has. So could you please explain in your own words with going off the MS cue cards why this happens to be. As it is making Microsoft programing look 2nd class to the open source movements.
Many people in the industry believe that SCO was essentially paid by Microsoft to attack open-source. Nevertheless, SCO has threatened to sue Microsoft and to sue anyone who uses Microsoft Windows in their business. Do you feel that SCO's attacks are something we should be seriously concerned about, as Microsoft customers and as users of open-source software? Obviously, Microsoft's recent moves toward indemnification would not cover most users in a lawsuit SCO due to EULA restrictions, lack of complete idemnification, etc. etc.
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
This won't get anwsered i'm sure but... If you had to choose between linux and apple for competition over the next decade who would you choose? In other words, do you see Linux or Apple as a bigger threat to Microsoft's share of the OS market.
People often hear from Microsoft that Linux only seems more secure because it is less widely used than Windows. Why, then, are Linux web servers hacked less than Windows servers, despite the fact that they outnumber Windows servers?
Brain kills internet cells.
Why does Microsoft regularly seem to decide to break with open standards and impliment their own version of them?
Silly rabbit
Ask a butcher about the benefits of vegetarian food. I mean, come on, who the fuck really cares what he says.
When will MS start to include all of the normal regular ongoing costs associated with really implementing windows solutions in the TCO calculations ? ( anti-virus, spyware removal )
when will MS start to include scheduled downtime for patch installation as part of the TCO calculations ?
When will MS start to include the regular scheduled server disk defragmentation runs in the TCO calculations ?
Martin Taylor might have 10 years of Microsoft experience(brainwashing) but still does not understand the fundamentals of operating system design that are crucial for commenting on platform issues. In short, he does not know what he is talking about when it comes to Linux because he does not seem to understand its main advantages.
A lot of your customers run Windows simply because they had no choice when purchasing their PC. They are not interest in technical merits of Windows and do not use advanced features. They are still just becoming comfortable with how to use the internet and word processors.
They have experienced problems such as viruses and spyware to the extent that it's costing them money to pay someone to remove it. They see their computer as an appliance that should "just work" because it cost them hundreds or thousands of dollars.
Their operating system could be replaced with a popular distribution of Linux that would ease their virus and spyware problems. It would also create an environment where they did not have to worry about breaking the entire system with one keystroke.
Companies are understanding this market because it has the potential to explode as regular computer users are getting fed up and would be willing to pay someone other than Microsoft for an alternative.
How does Microsoft feel it can keep these customers even though they feel you continually neglects their needs?
If not, do you plan on buying one?
I suppose my first question was really, "Are you fucking kidding me?"
But I didn't think that a giant software monopoly would have much of a sense of humor.
So I guess the question is going to grow out of this statement -- it seems to me that everything tacked onto the kernel of an operating system, while necessary, adds a lot of kruft. That kruft produces instability. In Linux, you have thousands of coders working on the system every day, but you have a system in place for keeping the sloppy shit to a minimum. It's a pretty tight piece of code. On the Mac OS X side of the house, they've started with a proven kernel and started a whole new OS from pretty much scratch, which again, results in a pretty stable, tight OS. The question is: why is a kruft-laden OS like Windows superior to younger, faster, more stable operating systems and is your plan to hold on to a doomed market share and try and survive until Linux and Mac OS X become as kruft-laden as Windows?
blog |
Do you get paid for each FUD or do you get paid in a flat scale?
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
1. OK, no, you're right - only a regular modem. But, as you say, there's always SFU and ssh. And then you've got virtually all the unix tools you'd need. (Or you can build them.) I think there's even a non-SFU telnet service too that'll get you a command prompt.
.lnk until you've got whatever it is you're after.
2. I don't understand the question. If it's a random util you've installed, why do you need a script to dig it out? Isn't it a one-off job it'd be quicker to do manually? But you can find all the start menu shortcuts under \Documents And Settings, and easily pull the string out of the
3. Yep. You'd have to schedule them, but I guess you'd have to cron them on unix too. You can get uptime and reboot tools from sysinternals.com I think. You can easily start / stop services from the command line (net start etc.). Windows manages service dependencies for you can will auto-start X if it needs to. Disk space, sure. Bootup time, OK, maybe not - you might have to force bootlogging in boot.ini and stat the file.
It has been announced that the next generation of XBox will use IBM PowerPC processors instead of Intel. Does this represent a major shift away from Intel for Microsoft? Are we eventually going to see PowerPC based Microsoft PCs?
We've had x86-64 for a while now, but we're hearing that we may have to wait until the first half of next year for 64 bit Windows. It seems as if Microsoft is missing the party here. I can get Linux 64 bit binaries right now. Can this be seen as an example of the open-source Linux out manuvering it's competitors?
"I do a grep for shit, bollocks, and tits before checking in code. I'm professional..." -RECURSIVE_META_JOKE, reddit.com
Can we try to avoid the questions about fighting malware/spam/viruses? The majority of these things are sent via email or installed by end users. If linux were a large enough player it would have to deal with the same things. The comparison is only valid now because linux isn't a large enough player, and therefore isn't targetted.
Not even linux can protect and end user from himself.
Frequently, when an independant analyses of Windows vs. Linux determines that Windows is a better solution, funding for the research can be traced back to Microsoft donations. Do you feel this is a conflict of interest?
If not, how can you make the determination that these research projects aren't merely saying what you want to hear in the hopes of getting more Microsoft money?
Can you point us towards some research that was done without any financial backing from Microsoft where Windows was determined to be more secure and/or to have a lower cost of ownership?
Dear diary: Today I stuffed some dolls full of dead rats I put in the blender.
Is it that profitable to leave Windows closed-source, and thus not benefit from the multiple angle approach that has done so much to boost the quality of OSS to the point that it is seen my Microsoft as a significant threat?
If Windows sales is only a small fraction (15-20%) of Microsoft revenues, why not open it and concentrate to develop applications for many other operating systems and thus ultimately broaden Microsoft's market position?
The base skill level needed to Admin a Unix Box is much higher than that of a Windows Admin. So from that stand point, yes, at an entry level the Unix person WILL make more money. To address this comercial distros have included fairly good GUI based tools to do common tasks. However, I don't think the salaries are much different once you get to a Senior level person.
That being said, I've seen relatively small teams manage hundreds of Unix boxes on a world wide scope. All you need is a few high level people that can impliment the framework and automation.
There may be some cases where TCO is more or less given a certain criteria.
Bottom line, the better Quality your IT people are the more likely the TCO will be less with Unix.
I often hear that Linux costs more to administer than Windows. Would you agree that if the administrator is more familiar with Linux (and other *nix variants), that Microsoft is more costly to administer? Isn't it more of a matter of what the administrator is more familiar with and not the operating system in question?
Sitting here on the Linux side of the fence, and as a part time Open Source developer, I can tell you the things I admire about Windows, both as a platform for development and as a workstation or server. Specifically, the painstakingly preserved backwards compatibility, and the pervasive integration of system are the envy of anyone who has had to use or develop for a wide range of Linux distributions.
What I don't see is the other side - specifically, what does Microsoft see in Linux? What does Linux offer that Windows does not, and what does Linux offer that Windows doesn't do as well, from a Microsoft point of view? Just as important, where is Microsoft headed to close those gaps?
Examples of this come up all the time, when Microsoft quickly releases reactive products such as desktop search, anti-spyware, etc.
Does Microsoft have a plan in the future to innovate and create products on its own? Or will the company continue to follow the leader when a superior product comes out?
The problem with these types of interviews is they are really unable to truly address any real points and every interview of this type I've read has Microsoft coming out on top with either very rational sounding FUD, or just plain one-sided logic.
Microsoft is an amazing marketting machine. They're quite similar to the Bush administration in that they're surprisingly good at defending their point of view, and refusing to truly address the opposing questions. They don't "negotiate with themselves" (as Bush put it).
This guy will have an absolutely perfect marketting response to any question posed, and the fact that the questions are presented ahead of time doesn't allow for follow up questions to deal with specific points.
Just look at the Bill Gates interview that was posted recently. He answered ever question fairly rationally, and without someone truly knowledgeable pressing the point, his arguments come out sounding really good, especially for people who are straddling the fence.
I am genuinely curious and puzzled as to why you agreed to this "interview" given the notoriety of Slashdot's well-documented petty hatred of all things Microsoft and the never-ending stream of childish pointless bashing that originates from this site. Related to this, what would you think would happen if Microsoft sponsored a website whose sole purpose in life is to bash free software day in and day out - the same way OSDN does? Has Microsoft ever considered doing that?
Thanks.
Have you considered using non-Microsoft sources for your IT information?
Are you now, or have you even been, a member of
the Communist Party?
Ruby on Rails Screencast
Can I have a job please?
LOL
Mod this as much shock and awe as you wish.
To answer your first question, ever since Windows Scripting Host came out, a lot of the admin stuff for windows can be done remotely in a script.
Also with Windows 2003 server a lot of the AD functionality can be done using command line tools i.e netdom, netsh, etc.
They have dealt with a lot of the problems of remote access since Windows 2000. You can do most things remotely nowadays.
I have been going through for my Windows 2003 certification and there is a huge difference since Windows NT in the level of complexity and difficulty in the exams. It is a lot more difficult to pass the exams without having some experience outside of cracking the books open.
Braindumps still exist but you would probably still fail if you relied on them.
NT admins were a dime a dozen but getting a decent AD domain set up on a large basis would cost more salary-wise for a decent 2k3 admin than NT admins.
If I took a guess, earlier your typical linux geek was someone who had many years of experience and demanded a higher level in per diem, while with NT getting a domain up was childs play.
Linux is not that much more of a step in administering anymore than Windows (a bit of a different mindset but still not that difficult) unless you have some obscure hardware issues and even then googling or USENET will get you the answer.
Are you a slashdot reader? Do you have a Slashdot account?
We are the Borg...
Certainly, you will be asked a lot of questions for this "interview" but I think the first one any of us should ask and the only one we should be interested in hearing an answer to before we go any further is this:
For what reason should I trust you? You are a Microsoft employee. I'm not suggesting you're a liar. I'm suggesting it is your job to defend Microsoft's position and products. You are not an objective third party. In simple terms, the party that signs your paychecks automatically biases you.
From where I sit, you cannot overcome this obvious truth. Thus, any answer you give to any question otherwise posed is suspect. So, again, why should I trust you?
At a recent LUG I meet a Microsoft evanaglist who was saying that the problem with Linux is that there is no accountablity. That fortune 500 companies do not deal with Linux because there is no one to blame for a failure. They therefore only have RedHat and Novell as possible tier 1 providers, and so the cost of Linux is as great or greater then Microsoft.
As I was still recovering from a 3am virus and spyware purge, (not on Linux) I was so dumbfounded that I couldn't reply. So I'm asking you. Is this the offical MS stand, or is this one persons misguided perception? If it is MS's official stand, how do they justify it, as MS is only one company, and seem to be:
1. Uninterested in fixing core problems which are central to the last 10 years of virus infections (Active X for example).
2. A Single point of failure which (according to the guy) should therefore be blamed for all the problems.
Microsoft has traditionaly avoided following well documented standards such as: CSS, (X)HTML, JS-DOM. Common standards such as: Naming of protocols, file naming paradigms and many others have been avoided.
[q] Will Microsoft continue along these lines of obfuscating standards and common processes in order to distract the users from how the rest of the IT world (*nix) does things?
If I were a PC manufacturer, I would partition the insanely large hard disks we have today and put Windows on one partition and Linux together with lots of free software on the other. That would make an excellent buy for anyone (people can always erase the Linux part if they prefer Windows' polished looks and use the second partition for file storage).
Yet, while there are a couple of PC manufacturers that sell a version of their computer with either Linux or Windows, there is none who does sell a single computer with both operating systems? Is there any financial or legal stimulus by Microsoft that prevents PC manufacturers from offering these attractive dual boot computers?
Bert
I wanted MS split into arms-length companies if only to get the interaction between MS:The OS and MS:The Apps better documented and more visible. Now with MS:The Nets getting more prominence, documented interaction is KEY for allowing differing systems to access into Microsoft products. This isn't an Open-source issue; this makes App/System protocols apparent for software developers.
Its still not too late to unilaterally decide a corporate split-up. Any chance of seeing Uncle Bill on three boards of directors?
Martin,
You have said that "UNIX migration is definitely an area of Linux growth" and that "most of the growth [of Linux] is definitely coming from UNIX migration."
While true, your words are hiding the larger issue: every migrated UNIX server is a place Microsoft wanted to be.
What else are you pretending not to see?
Have you ever ben in efnet's #winprog ?
There is a lot of militant MS followers in there, who will paste links to images making fun of Linux all the time. They always say things like "huhuh, lunix is a joke". I can't figure out why they always say lunix instead of linux, because it makes it look more like L(unix), but to them, I think its just like people who say M$ and microshaft or whatnot.
These are the people, who don't work for Microsoft, but believe that C# and
Morphing Software
Why? Why should I use Windows instead of Linux?
I'm a home user and developer that has found it impossible to pay out the money to Microsoft to keep "up to date" anymore. The reason I hear for home users and for corportate users don't convince me. Attractive displays can be had with Linux, full functionality is available... the only problems that come into play are document compatability issues, and that I'm a gamer.
I would also request that you refrain from quoting market studies or other statistics. There are three kinds of lies... Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics. My home boxes are cheap and easy for me to maintain... the ones running Win and Linux.
Why should I use Windows? Convince me, a self titled geek with security and malware concerns, and maybe I'll actually shell out the $$ for XP.
-Steve
Because of this, the figures for Linux always look as bad, if not worse, that that of Windows without the pre-installed applications included.
Why does Microsoft continue to fight this line of attack with false statistics rather than concentrate on other areas of interest?
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
should software be sold as a product or a service ?
Is there any particular type of software ( op sysems/enterprise apps/utilities/research software/etc ) that should be open source ? why ?
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
I don't even think the salaries are much different at entry-level positions.
If you (or anyone else) disagrees, you're welcome to respond to my Calling of the BS...
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
Why is the cost of Windows so high? With as much money as Microsoft makes, why not lower the price to make it more competitive with other operating systems?
hack a day
ALl of his answers to the tough questions are just going to be stock marketing speak. We might as well have an interview with RMS asking him to compare the GPL to UCITA.
In every massively successful market in IT there has been a standard that has driven adoption (802.11 springs to mind).
.NET) which is trying to swim against the stream.
IBM in the 1980s and early 90s tried to buck this trend with elements like TokenRing and a whole heap of proprietary technology. But the ability of companies to have a broad-choice of vendors meant that IBM were doomed to lose that battle.
Linux is a standards based product which is adopted by many vendors. Microsoft is a proprietary stack (especially
Why will Microsoft succeed in forcing a proprietary technology on the market when IBM failed ?
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Yes. In point of fact I'm running a SAMBA based windows domain right now. Oh wait, are you one of those people that think everyone not as rabidly anti microsoft as you must in fact be pro microsoft?
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
The answer to your question is rather apparent; it's obviously because they're pushing their own "extension" and is not in their interest to support the "standard."
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
How much time to administrators have to spend fighting off spyware on Windows systems? Is there a numerical figure for this yet?
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
And if you enable Windows Scripting Host, doesn't that open the door to a whole slew of exploits/viruses/adware/malware/whatever?
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
How does Microsoft feel about Antivirus companies and Spyware companies? These companies exist because of the flaws of your operating system, not because computer viruses exist and viruses exist solely because of a lack security model.
Why hasn't Microsoft taken security seriously? And no, I'm not buying 'We have been serious about security the past 2 years' jabber. Why isn't there an 'Install' mode for applications (ala terminal server) so that this 'One Click Install' can go away?
What you have done is push people like me (Ex pro Microsoftie with Certs) away from your OS. $127 for a Mac OS is leaps and bounds better than $300 for XP Pro is also what I noticed.
if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
While CEOs and other people who get their information from the Wall Street Journal instead of from their technical people who actually know something about computing might be swayed by Microsoft's claims, the rest of us have a much harder time believing what your company says after so many years of being lied to, lied about, and treated as inconsequential. Biased "studies" of total cost of ownership, paid for by Microsoft under the table, and self-serving press releases that ignore the plainly observable facts have left the techie world laughing at anything Microsoft has to say.
How does Microsoft intend to restore its credibility among the technical community?
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
How can Microsoft justify charging more for less? For example, the new Windows version for developing markets has artificial restrictions placed upon it - three applications and 800x600. Windows XP Pro/Home have an artificial limit on the number of processors they support, as do the various versions of Windows Server. So in effect, your company is adding restrictions (and therefore lines of code) but decreasing the price. How do you rectify this differential pricing model with an increasingly competitive market where purchasers want more (Linux) for less (TCO and up front price)?
I understand that Enterprise customers prefer large updates on a long timetable, but consumers tend to want new features now - I don't want to wait three years for a feature that Gnome, KDE or Apple has to show up in Windows. How do you plan on preventing the Windows brand from becoming "stale" when viewed in relation to a community with a much more rapid and dynamic release schedule?
Microsoft's "Get the facts" campaing has been highly publicised in a wide variety of places, and frequently cites figures from studies that seem to show Windows at an advantage over Linux, yet on careful examination of these studies there are often methodological flaws in them.
I recall reading the details of one from the downloadable report on the Microsoft web site recently that compared the throughput of Windows + IIS to Linux + Apache for serving static web pages. The figures showed Windows in a clear lead, yet on closer examination it appears that the Windows installation had been thoroughly optimised (by, e.g., turning off the collection of last access information on the file system and increasing the default filesystem block size, see pages 30 & 33 of the document linked) whereas similar optimisations had not been applied to the Linux system for the test (with default configurations suggested by the distribution installer accepted for filesystem parameters, see pages 30 - 32 of the document).
How would you answer those who are concerned that by presenting these "independent" tests where the testers have followed precise instructions from Microsoft on how to optimise their products but have not (apparently) consulted Linux experts on how to optimise Linux systems as authoritative that you are unfairly distorting the truth and painting a poor picture of Linux? Is it just that you're doing your job the only way you can, because on a level playing field Linux would win? Or is the picture of these reports as unfair to Linux in some way wrong?
"The "hidden" costs of lost time due to (A) protecting against adware/spyware/malware/viruses/pop-ups, or (B) actually disinfecting machines that got infected anyhow."
We're talking about servers here. In a well designed domain no one has the rights to the server systems required to infect them with anything.
Apparently you have not encountered rpc based viruses that infect the server using functions built to run as the system. In entirely too many of these cases the only solution has been to re-install the entire OS, patches, updates, and keep the server off the network till you can get updated patches from Microsoft, or at best current virus signatures from your AV vendor. Then you get to hope that none of the above has caused production software running on top of your platform to start failing.
None of this helps against workstations that have been affected by malware and viruses. This is where a significant percentage of the time a company spends trying to get rid of virus and so on goes. While there is not a lot of talk about the issue of malware and virus activity on Linux Desktops, there is a big effort at several locations to migrate to Linux Desktops, and the cost of dealing with viruses and malware on desktop platforms goes a long way towards explaining that effort.
-Rusty
You never know...
This is not meant to be mean, or a joke, but why does Microsoft need to keep buying or attempting to crush the competition? Isn't 50 billion in the bank enough that you need to keep maintaining the monopoply status?
This is evident by the fact that many reviews of Microsoft products (and not just Windows) complain about stability - more specifically, applications hanging, crashes and bugs. Examples have been in the media centre and the pocketpc and smartphone series. Even today, I had to reset my PocketPC because the SIP stopped showing when I tapped the icon.
What is it that is so unique about the development process at Microsoft that means that these poor implementations are considered "market ready"?
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
Martin,
Many major companies such as IBM and Apple have learned that they can benefit from OSS software by taking an existing OSS product, refining it to fit their needs, and then redistributing the finished product and giving some source back to the community. In this manner, for instance, Apple was able to produce Safari, which is IMO a high-quality and stable web browser, that was produced much faster than it would have taken Apple to write an equivilent product from scratch.
Why has Microsoft not taken similar approaches to software development? I guess that in the past, OSS code has been used in Windows (TCP stack, for starters), but why does Microsoft insist on resisting innovation rather than contributing to it?
"Quoting famous computer scientists out of context is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." - K
I am just dying to get someone from Microsoft to explain the "Liability Two-Step"
1. I like their HIG. It makes my programs intuitive and easy to use, letting me quickly and easily get my work done.
;-)
2. It uses GTK+. I like GTK+ much more than Qt as both a developer (more language bindings, more permissive license, better design idealogy) and user (it looks good, is easy to configure, etc.) Also, all the programs I use (Evolution, Firefox, gVim, BMP, etc.) use GTK+ and many follow, at least in part, GNOME's HIG so they are also nice and user-friendly.
3. It's a GNU project. I, for one, have only ever used one GNU utility that I didn't like, and that was GNU Emacs. Granted, I last tried it more than a year ago so it's likely a lot nicer now, but I'm already used to using Vim, and I'm too stubborn to change
What are the three best reasons that I, as a technically capable user with a reasonable interest in computing, should choose Windows for my own personal use?
Beep beep.
It seems apparent to me that Windows Server 2003 and SQL Server are propped up by third party ISVs. For example, I've done work with small credit unions which use a software system that will only interact with SQL Server, requiring of course, a Windows Server OS as well.
In this situation the software costs for a new server far exceed the hardware costs. Most of these applications have no need for anything beyond a basic SQL db server, yet were written before MySQL, Postrgres, and other OSS db's became viable alternatives to SQL Server. ISVs typically refuse to incur the costs of re-writing their software to no longer use specific SQL Server hooks. This gives Microsoft a huge inertia advantage over other platforms as far as small businesses go. I've spoken with many small business owners and the ISVs and generally speaking they agree that using a cheaper GNU/Linux solution would be preferable.
Given that such flagship products as Windows Server 2003 Small Business and SQL Server 2000 compete with Linux not on it's own merits, but on what ISVs allow you to choose, how do you expect to compete with OSS once the ISVs begin to change their strategy?
Slackware, what else when it must be secure, stable, and easy?
Have you ever taken part in an OSS project? If yes, which one? If no, how can you truely understand the merits of this development model?
When the hell is LongHorn coming out?
Microsoft has displaced IBM as the world's best known computer brand; but also seems to have displaced IBM as the computer brand which generates most hatred and disrepect. Do you believe these positions are irrevocably entwined, and what is MS doing to win over its grass-roots detractors?
...subjecting yourself to a Slashdot interview? You know that this would be the mother of all hostile audiences.
"We really [wanted] to go dial down the emotion, dial down the rhetoric, have a more fact-oriented approach and dial up the pragmatic analysis of solutions."
1) Cool down.
2) Stop using bullshit language (like the untranslated) and speak understandably [he apparently failed this step]
3) Add up pluses and minuses of the problem, disregard emotions.
4) Pick stuff that REALLY will JUST work (as opposed to "fail in the most spectacular and impressive way" [see Windows Media Desktop presentation]")
5)??? [a bloody armageddon against the Marketing dept]
6)Profit!!!
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Why is Microsoft spending so much effort and money engaged in a publicity campaign (spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt) against Linux? Is this a standard business practice?
I would put this akin to Chevrolet SUV commercials touting a much lower flip-over rate than Ford SUVs equiped with Firestone tires. If you believe this an unfair comparisson, please explain why. (Keep in mind that buggy/compromised software could present a risk to human life.)
The cancel button is your friend. Do not hesitate to use it.
When did Microsoft decide to become a monopoly?
Apart from 'integration' much touted by Bill Gates, which lawyers might call 'racketeering', what other functionality did Microsoft introduce?
QDOS or MS-DOS was a copy of CP/M introduced by others.
Windows was a copy of Apple, IBM and Xerox products.
Word was a copy of Wordperfect, Excel a copy of Lotus 1-2-3 etc.
Internet Explorer a copy Netscape.
From the Microsoft hq, mention us a type of functionality that was introduced by M$ and actually has value. Something not copied or stolen from others, something other than illegal business practices.
Many people have criticised the methodology of these studies - for example, comparing TCO of Windows on a PC to Linux on an IBM mainframe. Do you really believe that these studies represent reality? If so, why? And if they do, then why do you have to use such flawed methodologies to show it?
Given that TCO is significantly less for windows than linux[1], are the folks at google morons for using linux?
They use a LOT of computers, and TCO has got to be important in that enviroment.
[1] See MS advertising and "Get the Facts" literature.
I will concede that Microsoft is one of the best companies when it comes to customer support. When I used to use Windows consistently, I had spent much time on the Windows Help line (and I really miss that *very cool* Windows Help radio station, complete with hold times for different apps!).
Since Linux is GPL, there's nothing to stop MS from developing their own superior distribution of Linux (using your already excellent support infrastructure), and charging a modest amount (say, $99.00) to provide ongoing service for a specified length of time (2 years inital contract, 49.99 per year thereafter?)
Given that Microsoft does well with customer help services, do you think that a Microsoft-supported version of Linux would be feasible? If not, why not, and if so, what could it look like?
Thanks for considering my question.
I moved off windows in 1997 when a virus ate my master's thesis. AV vendor was no help. MS was no help. Basically nobody could help me. I had to retype 130+ pages from old printouts. I have yet to have a single problem on Linux, since I moved in 1997. No issuues with malware of any kind. Its been close to 7 years now. All my windows using friends have constant problems with malware - even several of the MCSE sys-admins have such problems. Why should I ever come back to windows?
Rob Enderle's excellent new book: Everything I needed to know about Computer Science I learned in Marketing School
I use Windows on my desktop because I don't want weird Linux issues to get in the way of my productivity. I believe in the lower TCO of Windows for my desktop, even though I'm very knowledgeable about Linux.
My general impression, though, is that Microsoft makes very broad claims about the TCO of their products compared to Linux/OSS. I think that these kinds of broad statements go contrary to many Linux and OSS users intuition. You've got plenty of people saying "I use Linux, it works great, keeping up to date with patches is dead easy, backups are automatic and I never spend any time administering it. So my TCO is almost nothing and how can you claim otherwise?"
Do you think that there is a conflict between many Linux user's intuitive sense of their costs and the MS definition of that cost? Do you have any plans to work on issues like this?
I saw the Memo
Old hackers can never quit being admins. How many linux boxes vs. windows boxes are you supporting for friends and family and what are their functions, uptimes and support requirements?
You have often commented on windows being the right economic choice. You have argued that the support costs are lower and better than through companies like RedHat or SUSE. This is a tech-oriented audience, so I think we want to know how, if at all, you think that Windows is technologically superior to Linux?
Perhaps you should consider reading the question again.
According to the theory of Evolution, what eventually happens to a species that lacks genetic diversity when confronted with new viruses, and how does that apply to operating systems?
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
How come there is no useful information in the Event Viewer logs? At my place of work we have a particularly unstable Windows 2003 server, and whenever it goes down, I can never find any useful information as to why. As for the servers I'm primarily responsible for, I've had one die (due to my own mistake), but I was able to figure out what had happened thanks to the nice ASCII-encoded log files. Is there any hope for something as simple and elegant as this for Windows? I'm tired of the crappy Event Viewer pointing to a KB article, which in turn tells me to check the Event Viewer.
--
Free mini Mac. You know you want one...
Never start vast projects with half-vast ideas.
So, instead of trying to destroy Linux, why not profit from it? For example, release Office for Linux? I'm sure that some people would buy it. Shoot, I might even buy it. I'd definitely buy Linux versions of some of your games. I use Windows. I also use Linux. I'd also use Mac if I could afford it. =0) Different tools for different problems. Can't we all just get along?
Does my butt make these jeans look big?
Currently most people use 3rd party apps to keep their machine virus-free, yet recent moves by Microsoft have led many to believe it is considering a non-free MS branded anti-virus application. Don't you think that if there are holes in the OS that allow viruses to get on the machine, the company should be responsible to fix them and remove any infections for free, as your product is therefore defective?
q: as windows based solutions are infamous for their lack of long term stability ( Microsoft server crash nearly causes 800-plane pile-up [ . . . ] the servers are timed to shut down after 49.7 days of use in order to prevent a data overload ) and general poor design ( Software glitches leave Navy Smart Ship dead in the water [ . . . ] The Yorktown's Standard Monitoring Control System administrator entered zero into the data field for the Remote Data Base Manager program. That caused the database to overflow and crash all LAN consoles and miniature remote terminal units ), how do you justify promoting them as superior to unix based solutions which are famous for their long term stability with uptimes measured in months to years, not days?
The forums on ZDNet are filled with pro-Microsoft trollers. People like "No Ax To Grind", "Mike Cox", and "Loverock Davidson" have become infamous with their bizarre pro-Microsoft, anti-Linux messages. They're so out of touch with reality, they come across like some of the pro-terrorist commenters on Saudi Arabia's official news site about 9/11.
"Once we've identified and embraced our sickness, we'll have strength...and that's when we get dangerous." - John Waters
What are you going to do when you are unemployed?
How can Microsoft even consider charging for their upcomming Spyware removal tool after several years of the "security ?
Conversely, do you see bundling such tools for free with the OS anti-competitive to companies such as Symantec and Mcaffe when it is MS creating the software that is vulnerable?
Besides a Microsoft product, in your opinion, what are the three best applications/OSes and why? How do Microsoft products (if any) compare to the three you just listed, especially in comparison to their relative strengths?
Microsoft Windows, as we all know, requires services, libraries etc, like any other operating system.
However, client software such as email clients, and browsers are not a necessary part of the OS and users sometimes like to change them or even completely remove them.
Are their any plans to allow windows users to have more control over their OS, and do things like remove, and/or replace internet explorer?
I don't mean add an additional browser and remove the IE shortcut, I mean really remove ie, outlook, and all associated libraries required only by the client, so that a spyware cannot install a trojan and turn your workstation into a spam server.
I only use IE and Outlook Express as an example. There could be other things users would like to remove, but can't.
That's one of the strong suits of linux. You have the ability to control what's running on your computer.
Another example is the GUI. If I run a linux server and it's a web server, I have no use for a graphical user interface, so I don't install it. This saves disk space, enhances security, since there are a host of services which become unnecessary once you remove the GUI, frees up resources, since it no longer takes cpu cycles or memory to run it etc. The net result is a simpler server build which is a great deal more secure and efficient because there's no gui.
Are their any plans to de-couple the windowing system from the operating system? On servers, is a gui really necessary?
thx,
AC
Baltimore
Where would Windows be without OEM installs on machines?
What will it take for Microsoft to actually get into the fundementals of Windows to fix the design flaws?
I've worked with Windows NT 3.1/3.5/3.51 and onwards and still find the same problems with permissions today as I did 10 years ago. You can not change your permission set "on the fly". It is still hard to write applications to take advantage of such a rich permission set (the correlary to this is that it is so hard that many avoid dealing with any security at all). Permission "tools" are still confusing. The security in Windows NT and its children *is* rock solid. The problem is most of the tools surrounding it are still as clumsy today as they were years ago.
I've seen Microsoft introduce and refuse to deal with questionable technology of their own design. The first and foremost in my mind is Active X. The design deficiencies in Active X have been known for many years yet it is still here. And as dangerous as ever. Microsoft pushed the OLE idea that "data runs the program" when it turned out that it was a poor idea due to security concerns yet Office still seems to want to do this. Along with this, Outlook Express appears to have *many* issues. The whole application appears to be in a revolving door.
I've always wondered why a 4 machine DB cluster that does nothing in its existence except service SQL Server constantly asking me if I want to install updates for Direct X and Windows Media Player 10. I can't fathom why these are necessary for the operation of a DB cluster. It just makes my life doing maintaince on them harder. Making highly specialized servers that are lean, mean, and exacting in function reduces maintaince. Throwing all of this extra software into the server is not the right thing to do.
In BSD and Linux, if an idea or piece of technology turns out to function poorly or is just plain bad, no one seems to have any qualms about dropping it or rewriting it. What in the world will it take to get Microsoft to either fix or drop these long standing issues? Does Microsoft realize how much time and money is being spent by IT on work arounds for these issues?
This is a brilliant question. The answer will be a list of reasons each is unsatisfactory, before admitting that probably KDE comes closest to approaching modern standards of user interface - for which really only a dedicated investment of hundreds of millions of dollars in user interface, usability, stability, and security research is adequate.
In IE, the list of bookmarks always includes a "links" folder.
What kind of bookmark could I have that wouldn't be a link?
Why was it thought necessary to hard-code a check for the existance of this folder, and replace it if missing?
g_______________________________________________g
o_/_____\_____________\____________/____\_______o
a|_______|_____________\__________|______|______a
t|_______`._____________|_________|_______:_____t
s`________|_____________|________\|_______|_____s
e_\_______|_/_______/__\\\___--___\\_______:____e
x__\______\/____--~~__________~--__|_\_____|____x
*___\______\_-~____________________~-_\____|____*
g____\______\_________.--------.______\|___|____g
o______\_____\______//_________(_(__>__\___|____o
a_______\___.__C____)_________(_(____>__|__/____a
t_______/\_|___C_____)/_YOU__\_(_____>__|_/_____t
s______/_/\|___C_____)FUCKING|__(___>___/__\____s
e_____|___(____C_____)\SHILL!/__//__/_/_____\___e
x_____|____\__|_____\\_________//_(__/_______|__x
*____|_\____\____)___`----___--'_____________|__*
g____|__\______________\_______/____________/_|_g
o___|______________/____|_____|__\____________|_o
a___|_____________|____/_______\__\___________|_a
t___|__________/_/____|_________|__\___________|t
s___|_________/_/______\__/\___/____|__________|s
e__|_________/_/________|____|_______|_________|e
x__|__________|_________|____|_______|_________|x
*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*
Important Stuff # Please try to keep posts on topic. # Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. # Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. # Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. # Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) Problems regarding accounts or comment posting should be sent to CowboyNeal.
Important Stuff # Please try to keep posts on topic. # Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. # Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. # Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. # Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) Problems regarding accounts or comment posting should be sent to CowboyNeal.
Do Microsoft employees eat babies?
[Feel free to reword things that would not be good enough English]
One of the biggest Strength in Linux and other Free Open Source Software operating systems is that distributions provide a single repository where thousands of applications can be taken from. This is used for security updates as well for larger updates. This is also used to ensure better compatibility between the applications.
Microsoft on the other side provides Windows Update which is limited to Microsoft products. This forces each single application provider to provide their own update mecanisms, and each user to track various sources for security updates.
Implementing a central system on the Windows side would be harder as applications are not Free. How does Microsoft intend to compete on that particular aspect of Linux ?
Sneak teach kids Algebra using a game
Is there anything in the design path for Microsoft software to decrease "bloat", increase performance, and decrease processor requirements? Will we continue to see software with significantly increasing requirements on performance that renders useless older hardware and feeding the minions of Linux and Beowulf clusters? More importantly when will Microsoft talk openly and in detail about efforts that place performance and security on the front line along with features and usability?
--- Location Unknown
I've been reading the 'Get the Facts' campaign with delight, it really cheers me up no end that a company like yours can spread so much uncertainty about the linux kernel and its capabilities, spend millions on marketing campaigns and still manage to sell a product that in reality shouldn't even be shareware.
What I'm more concerned about is that Microsoft's stance on security - you seem to spend a lot of time disparaging other O/Ss but seem to be unable to keep up with your own security updates.
So, why does Microsoft seem to think that by having a few dozen people working on closed code that cannot be used to integrate with anything else without permission from Microsoft, is more secure than, say Linux - which has the possibility of being edited, reviewed and tested by anyone and everyone that wants to? Is it very difficult for your guys to keep up this charade?
Thanks!
Dug
How have you approached investigating/researching Linux and other FOSS and their pros/cons?
Did you just install a RedHat box and play with it for a few hours? Have you installed multiple different distros (and/or applications) and worked with them each for (at least) a few days? Somewhere in the middle? None of the above?
Thanks for taking the time to answer our questions. Please encourage others to do so as well.
If Microsoft products are truly superior, then why is it that high volume websites such as the new Microsoft search engine, for example, are running on Linux and/or Apache. See netcraft results.
If people point out that Microsoft is really just shipping proprietary versions of what amounts to commodity functionality (kernels, GUI toolkits, Java-like languages, etc.), he is going to make big claims about how "innovative" stuff like the NT kernel, Avalon, .NET, and WinFS supposedly are. If one points out to him that all of that already exists in other products and open source form, he is going to start talking about the billions of dollars Microsoft is investing in research (which they are) and the thousands of patents they are filing (which they are), and just conclude from that that their products must be innovative because, after all, Microsoft is spending so much money on innovation, so they must be delivering innovation. Never mind that Xerox, AT&T, and IBM have managed to demonstrate for decades that innovative research labs don't necessarily translate into a lot of innovative products.
I don't think there is much to be said between the open source community and Microsoft; they understand each other. Microsoft is trying to get away with setting proprietary standards for commodity functionality and staying filthy rich that way, and open source is trying to help users get what they want at a cost that is as low as possible. We'll have to see who wins in the long run; my bet is on market forces rather than monopolies, which means open source.
We've been hearing a lot about the new command-line features that Longhorn
is planned to have. What other geek-appeal features is Microsoft working on,
to help Windows compete with Linux on the tech-savvy user's desktop? Will
Longhorn finally ship with a better text editor than Notepad? DOS used to
come with BASIC and later QBasic; are there any plans to include a flexible
and powerful general-purpose scripting language, such as ActivePerl? What
else does Microsoft have up its sleeve to appeal to people who might
otherwise seek alternatives?
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
What do you see as being "wrong" with linux on the desktop? Are the problems inherent to the licensing regime or is it a technical issue? Is it something like the fragmented environment? (kde v. gnome) Is it poor applications? Is it an underdeveloped user experience? Lack of commercial software development? I have a feeling that your insight on this topic would be very interesting to many in this community.
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
Would you say that Linux users are proportionally more educated about computers and technology in general than people who use Windows exclusively?
If so, does Microsoft have a strategy for promoting computer and technological education in the next 5 or 10 years? How important has the lack of education and user know-how been to Microsoft in the past? Has it posed any difficulties or made anything easier for Microsoft than it otherwise would have been?
If you say that Windows users are proportionally more technologically educated than Linux users, does Microsoft have plans to leverage that education and add more complex security and useablility features to Windows? If so, what sorts of features might you add and/or what sorts of requests might be made of the user in the future?
Light is filtering down from above. Would you like to use DIVE?
Will Microsoft ever compete in price with Linux?
"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
While it is up for debate, it seems that Windows may have a lower TCO right now. But by choosing Windows technology right now, if history has shown us anything, you will be forever locked into Windows. On the other hand Linux software has a history of being able to easily move to other platforms (including Windows), which will allow easy migration to whatever the cheapest route is in the future.
A good businessman should look far beyond the end of his nose when choosing a solution and that in-part means not tying yourself to a single vendor. How does the Microsoft solution help companies down the road, when Microsoft cannot offer the lowest TCO? Will we see affordable migration libraries (like WINE) come from Microsoft to help the transition to future, cheaper, systems should that ever happen? Or do you feel it would be wise for business to spend a little more now, to spend a lot less down the road?
I don't lightly mod people down. So I've decided to let you know why I'm modding you as Troll...
./configure; make; make install. I'm far from ever being a real-life admin, I'm a phone support monkey, and even I've been able to fix minor build problems... forcing it to use an include in an oddball place, things of that nature. I've even been known to try and use strace. If your admins are being paid $70k a year, and can't do this, hire me at half that price.
A) If the person has to run OSS tools like Bash, that tends to say windows is lacking. And running bash on the machine in front of you isn't always enough when you may need the remote machine to be scriptable...
B) In any practical windows domain ever used in real life, each and every one of those servers has been vulnerable. MS SQL Server exploits, RPC, and a horde of other vicious exploits have always been waiting to cause the entire server room to melt down into a puddle of ichorous goo.
C) Most linux users can fix simple things... 99% of problems arise when building something from source, or, for those that use RPM, in that they're too stupid to build from source. But we're talking about "admins" here, as you pointed out. It's not intolerable to expect them to be able to do
D) The statistics show that both IIS and Apache are on comparable (though not equal) marketshares. And yet, over the past 5 years, IIS has catastrophically been vulnerable to all sorts of worms. Apache exploits are few and far between in comparison, even allowing you all the weird modules (php, webdav, etc).
You picked the wrong team. Things will be less painful, once you start using sensible OS's and software. There won't be any frontpage crap to delete, you won't have to worry about installing bash, it will already be there. And you certainly won't have to worry that even things not running as "Administrator" will somehow elevate privs to an account that's *ABOVE* Administrator, such as all the hidden "system" accounts in Windows.
We'll even forgive you for shilling for Microsoft here. Install linux, try it.
What do you feel is the Linux community's biggest failure to make Linux a viable alternative to Microsoft's Windows?
Personally I feel it's the fact that there are SOOOOO many different distros out there.
do you use some terminal regedit or what? I think it would be pretty difficult to start/stop drivers, change config files or network settings trough telnet on a windows server.
Erik Dalén
As Microsoft's General Manager for "Platform Strategy," can you explain what its strategy is without using marketing-speak?
Additionaly, in words, Microsoft's message is often about interoperability and the benefits its products provide in this area. In actions, the message from Microsoft seems to be something more along the lines of "you will be assimilated." Can you explain the discrepancies between Microsoft's words and actions as it relates to computing platforms? Again, without using marketing-speak?
You misinterpreted the folder name meaning. The folder gets replaced together with its hidden contents whenever you remove it because without it, MSIE wouldn't be able to render pages properly, missing its underlying HTML rendering engine which is being placed there.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
nothing more, nothing less. Do any of you expect an honest answer to any of your questions when this guy is paid to set expectations?
Given that, here is my question:
How does your background make you an authoritative source on IT matters? Give me a few reasons why I would want to ask you a question and value your answer?
(Sorry that's harsh, but I honestly want to know!)
Blogging because I can...
im a gamer, as are most computer users these days. i use a linux machine for gaming, with windows emulation, and i find i can often get notably higher framerates and game quality (with a few exceptions for poorly made games). the only thing i can think of to cause this problem is the way windows manages processes, and all the uses, cycle-wasting user friendly crap that makes windows run like shit. will windows longhorn edition fix this disparity? will you be releasing a more gamer-oriented version of windows without the useless "features?"
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
Many times, MS has come out and said that Linux makes users very vulnerable to patent law suits. What about the problems MS has been having with companies suing it for violating a patent? Isn't Windows more vulnerable to this type of assault because the centralized entity of MS has more money to bleed from a litigation company?
Molog
So Linus, what are we going to do tonight?
The same thing we do every night Tux. Try to take over the world!
I was wondering if Microsoft has any inclination to have a "cluster-version" of Windows in a high performance x86 or x86-64bit comptational cluster? If so what would be like.Also what would the high availability be for such a cluster?
Are you still beating your wife?
Mike Rosoft
Windows Times
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
Why do you think that Windows has lost the following of the Geek Culture?
What will Microsoft have to do to win back the most technically compitent group of computer users?
Recently, claims by Bill Gates and other high Microsoft officials have claimed that Windows is better integrated and provides better inter-operability. What does Microsoft base this claim on, as the UNIX architecture (and the GNU/Linux system) and philosophies are heavily grounded in those very concepts--even the KDE desktop system provides full scriptability and concepts such as reflection?
how can you sleep at night?
Microsoft utilizes open source code in it's Windows offerings and has done so for years. When will Microsoft make useful contributions to open source development?
How do you suggest GNU/Linux should approach/embrace the "secure computing" initiative, or is it impossible since it's free software?
Life is Reality
No shit? Really?
Well, DUH!!!!
I have worked for several consultancies, and one of the harshest problems for Windows-based server systems (and desktops), is the short lifespan of any version of windows.
...) is validated/done, which takes from 2 to 3 years, Microsoft is already hyping the right-around-the-corner next version, usually with licenses several more expensive than the original (think NT and SQL server for Web sites ...).
...), and the whole process is quite disruptive.
By the time everything (apps, security, training, hardware
Then my customers are forced to upgrade, because support is discontinued, and nobody wants to run Windows without regular security patches.
My customers don't accept these forced upgrades well, since they don't actually get any extra features (none that they use anyway), the cost is high (licenses, training, partial rewrites
Linux especially lets admins keep running very old versions, because
1- security issues are much less prevalent and
2- support, patches and service are available for quite longer
3- for simple Web, db and mail stuff, Linux or Windows are equivalent
so several of my clients have switched to Linux.
I'm wondering what MS plans to do to adress that issue. "New featuritis" doesn't work: while new features ARE used for new projects, old and reliable servers should be left alone.
Best regards, Olivier
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
What UNIX based operating systems have you used in the last couple years, for how long did you use them, and for what purpose?
Want to see every step I took to start my company? http://www.rowdylabs.com/blogs/pitchtothegods
I'll tell you how .doc is better than .pdf
.pdf is a perfectly reasonable format if you're publishing information in final form to be electronically distributed. That is not the primary focus of Word documents. While it is true that lots of places send around word docs meaning for them to be used in a read-only fashion, thats not what Word and .doc are best at, and most commonly used for.
What pdf editors are you familiar with ?
What PDF collaborative editing and authoring tools are out there?
Also, Apple can get away with making the whole OS work natively with PDF files. Suppose that MS includes good PDF functionality in windows, thus displacing PDF Reader.
Lest anyone forget, everytime Microsoft ads any peice of functionality to the windows platform, there is some 3rd party software company out there thta wants to sue. Or a major government organization.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
Internally, Netscape browsers were ALWAYS referred to as Mozilla.
Back at the beginning of the browser wars, when Netscape was dominant, IE put the "Mozilla" into their useragent string to make sites treat IE as being similar to Mozilla (aka Netscape Navigator).
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
The registry can be edited on a remote system from a local isntance of regedit. In addition there are many command line tools for dealing with services, drivers and network settings. However if you need to mes around with the network settings, what are the odds you can telnet into the box be it Windows or Linux?
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
With Microsoft buying an anti-virus company, attempting to buy a second, plus buying an anti-spyware company. This seems to me that the company is looking more to keeping the holes in the system so income from a subscription service to clean up flaws that shouldn't be there in the first place is gained. If Microsoft begins making money from it's subscriptions, what is the incentive for Microsoft to actually fix the flaws that are causing the problem in the first place? How is the TCO lower here? Excluding lost man hours due to repairs, lost bandwidth due to malware infection, lost productivity due to slower systems, and possibly stolen company information.
And please, we're educated people, no double talk or attempts of misdirection. The simple fact your from Microsoft means, simply put, we don't trust you.
I thought part of your job is to make sure MS cluefully promotes Windows over FOSS. Very recently, Bill Gates once again trotted Communists and Socialists.
Do you think MS will ever be able to promote their products without resorting to tactics such as red-baiting?
s/online/only
Microsoft is quick to point out that with Open Source there is no one with absolute "responsibility." What tangible asset does Microsoft's responsibility give me? In the end, I may be able to point the finger at Microsoft, but your EULA absolves you of any responsibility should your code destroy my data. With OSS I can at least go into the code and perhaps fix the offending bug. Is Microsoft planning to guarantee their code and thus wage "reparations" to up the anti in their campaign against Open Source Software?
It's up on Novell's site here; they're doing a big migration push right now.
Maybe this was just a rumor, but I heard that somewhere between 1/4 and 1/3 of the Windows NT source code base (meaning W2K and WinXP also) was lifted from FreeBSD. It's also my understanding that FreeBSD allows this sort of thing, so I'm not trying to accuse Microsoft of stealing or anything. But as far as I know, that's one big example of them using OSS in the way you describe.
The real question here is, of course, since FreeBSD is a decent operating system, if Windows NT/2K/XP is 1/4 to 1/3 FreeBSD, what the heck did you guys do to screw it up so badly?
Also, they've started releasing the source code to some of their projects on SourceForge, which may be their way of contributing to innovation.
Disclaimer: I am not a Microsoft fan. Actually, I hate their guts. And that's solely because of their low quality, not their business practices. Actually, I find their "predatory" business practices to be sort of hilariously brilliant.
"Once we've identified and embraced our sickness, we'll have strength...and that's when we get dangerous." - John Waters
How do you feel the success of windows, with respect to other platforms, would change if it was fundamentally impossible to pirate a copy of Windows & Office? Or - more importantly - any game or utility?
Having read all the damning evidence on this thread that proves that Windows is hopelessly outclassed by Linux, what do you now expect to be the relative market share of the two operating systems 'on the desktop', in five years time:
Windows will be:
A) still much much much more popular than Linux.
B) much more popular than Linux.
C) 'a lot' more popular than Linux.
D) definately more popular than Linux by a large margin.
And, if I may, a supplementary question:
The coming change in popularity of Windows (or lack thereof) will be as a result of:
A) Populace still brainwashed by Evil Billy Gate$ and Sweaty Ballmer'$ FUD against Linux.
B) People FORCED to use Windows because all their recipes are in evil proprietary MSWord 'doc' format.
C) Everyones broadband internet connections fail due to Windows Malware, meaning no-one can download ISOs for desired linux distro.
D) Excitable portion of the Linux advocate population guilty of exaggerating Windows' shortcomings, juuuust a smidgeon.
Isn't asking this guy about Linux somewhat akin to asking a Southern Baptist minister about Paganism? I mean, regardless, you're gonna wind up with some pretty messed up perspectives, methinks.
How do you plan to respond to the freedom aspect of Free Software? You can try to compete with Open Source with features, better coding etc. but can you compete with freedom which is provided by free software?
There are many cases of Microsoft deviating from accepted standards. The reasons that are normally given for this generally don't stand up to public scrutiny.
Why does Microsoft persist in breaking standards just to lock the competition out? Is it that you are too scared to compete on the merits of your products, the fact that this behaviour has become institutionalised, or some other reason?
Linux continues to grow on the server side, and whilst it's not 100% there on the desktop yet it seems logical that the incrimental improvements will take it there for more and more people over time.
Likewise Windows servers and desktops are entrenched pretty solidly in Schools, Colleges, Homes, and businesses around the world.
How do you expect this to work itself out? Do you think that as time goes on that Linux and Windows will interoperate and coexist in the average home + business?
Or do you think that sooner or later either Longhorn or Linux will nudge the other platform out as a might-have-been?
Obviously you're aware of the growth of Linux - and are working towards the further expansion of Windows but could you imagine settling for a balanced compromise? Even selling value-added pieces of interoperability software to both sides?
How much does microsoft pay per year for your soul?
Why do all of your Windows vs Linux reports compare the latest Windows to outdated/unsupported versions of Linux?
Microsoft has a new "trustworthy computing" policy that seems to imply that we should trust that software from Microsoft will be reliable. Why should we trust Microsoft, given its poor record of security and reliability in software development?
Most admin tasks on windows can be done via Telnet. Hell, as you well know you can run BASH and SSH if you feel like it. A "good" admin can deal with as many Unix systems as Windows systems.
k bi d=884130&product=windowsxpsp2>
</B>
While it is true that it is possible to do some administration of windows via command line, the tools available on windows are rather limited.
<B>
We're talking about servers here. In a well designed domain no one has the rights to the server systems required to infect them with anything.
</B>
<B>You</B>'re talking about servers here. Desktops run Linux just as well as "servers" you know... Heck, what's the difference between a server and a desktop, anyway ? Think a bit about it, and you'll see it's a rather blurry line. All are computers, all can run the same software if needed. The only truly important thing is that these computers will allow their users to communicate with each other. In my broad definition, to communicate would include the process of active communication (obviously), but also all other processes necessary to determining the content of the communication (e.g. ways of processing the data to be discussed).
Since most standards used in the Linux world are open, Linux offers more flexibility, especially when seen in a long-term perspective.
<B>
Right. Because all Linux admins are realy high level coders that can debug kernel conflicts in their spare time
</B>
Kernel conflicts ? Are you trying to be somewhat specific and you're not very successful at it ? Or are you just ignorant and like to use big words you don't understand ?
There's more to Linux than just the kernel. Heck, it would be wonderful if we only had to deal with the bugs in the kernel - then proving that Linux is technically superior to anything else would be a breeze.
Just like there's more to Windows than its kernel. Did you know that Windows also has a kernel ?
Since you brought this up: how many applications does the XP SP2 break (as in, applications that change their behaviour or completely stop working after installing SP2) ?
Here's a link, in case you were curious. Note several big names, including several anti-virus programs and ZoneAlarm.
<url:http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?
Mr. Taylor,
Do you believe that Linux and the open-source community can be stopped - or at least redirected - from writing software which competes increasingly-directly with your company's software, but does so at a price point of zero?
It can be argued that there are hidden costs to Linux, e.g. support costs, setup time, etc. but as time goes on, such costs tend to be ironed out and reduced, if not eliminated; this is the history of technological development (witness the advance from hard-to-use punch cards on mainframes, to command-lines, to easy-to-use GUIs which could control apps, to easier-to-use GUIs which can control everything - the cost in time of managing the OS has plummeted considerably, or alternately, remained about constant as the feature-richness of the OS has risen). Hence, Microsoft's argument that Windows has a lower TCO than Linux, assuming the claim is accurate to begin with, is by no means a guarantee the long-run; it is, at best, a medium-term truth.
Given that it is in Microsoft's best interest to stop the Linux and open-source community from eating MSFT's lunch, what do you believe it will take to accomplish this? Or, alternatively, will Microsoft have to learn to adapt to the new reality of open software development, as IBM and Novell have, as Sun is grudgingly doing?
Do you foresee a point at which OSS developers realize they aren't being paid for their development time (that they are working for free for the profit of others), and an "Atlas Shrugged" occurs, wherein developers largely stop writing publicly-available commercial software (relegating their works to private, in-house developments never released into the public), and thus the only remaining publicly-available software being written is that which is written by hobbyists?
From my perspective, OSS is a sea-change, and cannot, and probably should not, be stopped; I view Linux and OSS as an "adapt or die" situation for those opposing it in the industry.
Yours,
MfN
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
I have a question, is miguel de icaza on your payroll? And how much do you pay him? There is no other reason why somebody would want to port .NET to linux.
mp3's are only for those with bad memories
You know, it's already there, most of what you ask for. It's just that there aren't that much programs written for the Windows NT Native API.
l
http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/info/ntdll.shtm
With all the marketing crap you make up, extorionate prices you charge, and viruses & spyware distributing and infecting users of your operating systems, how do you manage to sleep at night? Dug
Does it not seem a little odd that your company is moving into a industry that is designed to protect against flaws in your software? It is almost like you are making us pay you to supply software to protect against flaws in another, so why not just fix the software that has the flaws?
Voting them all out of office, now that's change I can believe in.
Why does Microsoft refuse to adopt a fully open document format and mail database for all of their office applications? Why does Exchange use a proprietary protocol for talking to the Outlook client? Why is all Exchange and Outlook mail stored in a closed format? Why has IE not been ported to *nix platforms, since many web services are IE and IIS dependant? Why does Microsoft develop all of their web applications using vbscript and Active-X instead of an non-IE-specific technology like Java and Javascript (Think OWA)? And why did Microsoft develop their own non-standards-compliant Java Runtime Environment instead of using Sun's? Are there plans to solidify the monopoly in the works by 'webalizing' the Office Suite, making it IE, ActiveX, and IIS specific, then 'leasing' access to the apps over the web? Why was DirectX created instead of helping to improve upon OpenGL? It seems that these tactics have the sole purpose of preventing competition from truly competing with MS in the corporate environment? I would like to especially point out that in the office application suite arena, most organizations collaborate with MS Office proprietary file formats, barring entry for OpenOffice and Evolution, and similar applications that could otherwise have a legitimate shot at competing with Microsoft alternatives? Unrelated question that just bothers me: How on earth did MS fail to incorporate a spell-checker into OWA 2000?
- Have you ever noticed that the more you learn about technology, the more stupid you sound trying to explain it?
FUCK YOU!
Mr Taylor:
The loaded gun argument goes as follows:
"Guns aren't unsafe, people makes them unsafe"
Is Windows MS a loaded gun?
Thank you.
- these are not the droids you are looking for -
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If you had to chose a flavour of Linux to use on your desktop, what would it be? What do you have experience with? What do you like/dislike?
...Ok, and Gnome or KDE?, Konqueror or Mozilla?
Back in early 2003, Microsoft helped keep the SCO Group afloat by purchasing a UNIX IP "license." Along with Sun's license purchase at about the same time, this enabled SCOG to proceed with its lawsuit against IBM and the Linux community. And, later in the year, Mike Anderer apparently brokered a deal that involved Microsoft, to enable the PIPE financing of SCOG by BayStar.
Mr. Taylor, do you feel that these moves by Microsoft are permissable competitive tactics?
Shithead, Why do you think that every application and network service can be run on the same operating system without removing or adding anything in? Isn't this extremely inefficient as unused services have to be loaded and working for MS Windows to work? Go suck a cow, Dug
When will tab-completion be enabled in the Windows command line interface by default or a simple menu item choice, rather than as a registry hack?
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Ok, so just a simple question:
How come, that in 2005, the Windows installer still does not
I ask this because it happened multiple times in the last ~1 year that I had to install Windows on machines _not_ having floppy drives (I don't own or have one for about 6 years now). And it was a real pain in the ass to hunt for a working FDD.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
When will Microsoft Office ship with read/write support for the StarOffice/OpenOffice.Org/KOffice file format?
Will Microsoft open the Windows source code and if not, why not?
I work in a technical environment (chip design) on
linux, and the only reason I use Windows is to work
with documents from Microsoft Office. Will Microsoft release a version of Office for linux,
and if not, why not? It seems to me a major opportunity for consumer choice was lost when Microsoft was not broken up into independent OS and Applications companies.
What is the point of this 'interview'? You are asking questions of an entity that will not give you a straight and honest answer. This isn't just Microsoft. It's like asking Bush what his biggest mistake of his first term was.
A proper interview would have someone calling for clarification or BS when the interviewee dodges or speaks mistruths. Either that, or you need non-offensive and insightful questions that transcend personal issues. IOW, don't back the interviewee into a corner.
"The area of penetration will no doubt be sensitive." ~ Spock
Well, I though, maybe I would like to ask this guy a question... but after reading some of his crap on the microsoft website, I think he's just a fucking illiterate. For example:
Reliability is an interesting one, because we're
finding that it's more and more about people and
process and less about technology at the kernel
level. As you move up the stack, it becomes more
about technology. And so we're working on a few
different scenarios to help customers understand
that.
And that's his entire take on reliability comparisons between Linux and Windoze. What the fuck is that? He's barely sentient.
The original question is:
It seems that independent companies tend to review Linux very favorably, yet the only way for Microsoft to get a favorable review is to pay someone for a favorable review. Why do you believe that is?
The question makes the erroneous assumption that Microsoft has no independent favorable reviews, and asks that he proceed with that assumption. I'll bet he can pick from any number of actual independent favorable reviews and refute that claim. What exactly makes this a baseline question that everybody knows the answer to?
Storm
When are you guys going to release longhorn?
Recently Bill Gates sent a letter out to all corporate customers telling them that interoperability should be in every firms thinking. I couldn't agree more. Despite agreeing in principle I believe that Microsoft's track record shows that they've established proprietary and undocumented file formats and protocols which do not play nice with others. Many GNU/Linux users feel that the biggest interoperability problem faced by Linux is with proprietary Microsoft protocols and file formats.
If Microsoft really had interoperability as it's prime objective shouldn't it share the file formats and protocols so that *everyone* could use them?
Why do we need 3rd party applications like Dirms* to keep NTFS defragmented? Of course there is no silver bullet, but some on-the-fly defragmentation wouldn't be that difficult to build into the OS. Mac OS X does this too already.
* Warning, ugly site, good program.
get 512MB or 1GB with my Mac mini?
You have just satisfied my goal of one cool new find per day. Based on the lack of visibility for this via a google search, your post should be modded 'Informative'. I wouldnt hold my breath though
I am a partner at a software development company and one thing that is really shifting my company over to the use of Linux is the quality of developers seems to be higher. It seems that Linux and Java are make great in-roads in the educational institutions and that "top geeks" are all using non-Microsoft based operating systems. I'm a best tool for the job kind of person but it seems that the talent pool is driving us away from using Microsoft. So my questions are: Do you think Microsoft is doing enough on campus to train the next generation of developers? What is Microsoft doing to ensure that it does'nt lose a generation of new developers to Linux?
-_-
I've been looking with interest at Monad, the new .Net based Microsoft shell/scripting language (video demonstration here and another one here). I'm an avid Unix and bash user, but I'm still excited by the demonstration of this shell. It seems to have a lot of new functionality I even hadn't imagined before, and if it's as good as its demonstration in real life, it'll be a very powerful tool.
My question: I find it very interesting that you're enhacing the power of the command line in future versions of Windows, and even improving and inventing new and unexpected functionality. Since most Unix sysadmins does much of their work on the CLI, and the dependence on GUIs for even trivial tasks keeps many of us Unix guys from Windows, does this also meen that future versions of Windows will come with remote login such as SSH, and that more software can be automated and managed from the command line?
Recently, Bill Gates has stated that Open Source Software has poor interoperability, and that Microsoft would be a better choice. Does this mean that Microsoft is willing to work towards interoperability such as documenting common Windows protocols like SMB or popular formats like .doc?
What benefits do you feel there are to leaving such popular file formats closed to the rest of the world except through MS software? Wouldn't it make more sense to work towards universal file formats for things suchs as word processing files and spreadsheets? With said open formats, people would be free to choose the software that they prefer, and the market would decide which software packages sink or swim. How would such a scenario not be better for the consumer than being locked into a certain software package to access their data?
I would request that he not answer in the form of a question.
With superior integrated Apple products being released on the market for consumers at prices they can afford, and more cost effective and stable Linux distributions available for scientific, development and server applications (and breathing life into older machines for such purposes), I am moving my desktop systems over to Mac Minis, and my backend servers onto Linux.
What would you say to stop me from migrating off of my current Windows solution in this environment?
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
.. but I have to say - neither. I don't like both.
And this is a reasonable answer regardless of
whether one's affiliated with Microsoft or not.
3.243F6A8885A308D313
Under what competitive or technological circumstances would Microsoft consider releasing its own linux distribution?
(would it use the minix filesystem? j/k).
Amazing magic tricks
For experienced computer users, the clear separation between the different parts of the operating system, the hardware drivers, and the applications makes a system running Linux feel cleaner and more organized. The inherant transparency in the system makes it easier to secure a Linux machine and keep it secure, but in addition, it is reassuring to the user, who can feel a greater degree of control over their computer.
In Windows, there are user-level applications and drivers intertwined with the base operating system. In what ways do you think this is beneficial or detrimental to the user and the system as a whole? Regarding software design at Microsoft, what is the importance of creating or maintaining system transparency and modularity relative to other things like useability, speed, interface homogeneity, and the like?
Many would argue that the latest incarnations of Windows are not as modular or transparent as a GNU/Linux system. Is Microsoft planning to place more of an emphasis on transparency and modularity in a future version of Windows? If so, in what ways?
Light is filtering down from above. Would you like to use DIVE?
Microsoft is always claiming Windows is cheaper than Linux, so I would like to know how Windows is cheaper when you instantly save £100 for retraining on the box price (Linux is free, Windows is now). Most office workers wouldn't know the difference between the two systems and as long as you renamed the icons correctly they would know what to do. So how do you back up this claim and what evidence can you show us which proves Linux has cost a company more in a 5 year outlook then Windows (Including a full system update and any tech support required through the latest security hole).
I like muppets.
I don't think it's suitable to have to disconnect myself from the Internet while installing Windows XP (original release), for fear of being hacked in minutes. When do you think Microsoft will be able to release an OS that one year later won't be hacked upon logging onto the Internet?
In your October 2004 interview with VNUnet.com you deny that Microsoft must compete with Linux in your operating systems, going so far as to say that 'nothing could be further from the truth.' With this in mind, why does Microsoft not aid in the development of API's designed to enable Linux-based operating systems to run Microsoft applications? If the Linux community and Microsoft are not competitors, as you claim, it seems to follow that collaboration on such projects as Wine (Win32) and Cedega (DirectX) would do nothing but benefit the community overall, and do much for future interoperability.
With Linux corporations coming along with much cheaper alternatives to the Windows and Microsoft solutions, has Microsoft reviewed it's Windows Licenses price range for the general public, or will it ever happen?
---- I am certain of only one thing : I know nothing else.
Microsoft has remained the dominate player in both the server OS market and the desktop OS market. With technologies like LAMP becoming popular in Internet development, many of the server applications becoming commoditized due to open-source projects, and many enterprises concerned with security of Windows, is the strategy remaining the same? Many of the exciting NOS features of Longhorn will be delayed, there has been the creation of a low-cost desktop Windows, and the promised features for R2 Windows Server 2003 update have slipped; all this seems to show a shift. Is Microsoft circling the wagons around the desktop? Is the desktop dominance more important?
Because of its free software and UNIX roots, Linux (and most free software designed for it) has been designed with modularity, portability and standards adherance in mind. Modular and portable software design is more often than not the hallmark of a good programmer. How do you think the relative lack of emphasis on modularity and portability has affected the quality of software written for Windows compared to that written for Linux, if at all? Do you think Windows developers would benefit if Windows was redesigned from the ground up to be more modular in the way Linux is?
A quick follow-up:
If modularity, portability and standards adherance are the most important aspects of software design to UNIX and Linux developers, what aspects are most important to Microsoft at the present time, and which aspects do you think will be the most important to Microsoft and Microsoft developers in the future?
Light is filtering down from above. Would you like to use DIVE?
Microsoft is always claiming Windows is cheaper than Linux, so I would like to know how Windows is cheaper when you instantly save £100 for retraining on the box price (Linux is free, Windows is not). Most office workers wouldn't know the difference between the two systems and as long as you renamed the icons correctly they would know what to do. So how do you back up this claim and what evidence can you show us which proves Linux has cost a company more in a 5 year outlook then Windows (Including a full system update and any tech support required through the latest security hole).
I like muppets.
Mr. Taylor,
Will you be answering all of these questions by yourself, or will Bill Gates have his hand up your ass making your mouth work?
an ill wind that blows no good
We are a medium sized school with approximately 250 windows 2000 or XP workstations (OEM licensing + office XP) and 100 or so staff and student laptops.
We're looking at migrating off our aging NT servers to new backend logon and file servers. We already have several linux 'edge' or special purpose servers; firewalls, backup, web, email, pxe+dhcp, dns etc, and we have a decent amount of in-house experience in both windows and linux.
Given our desktops must remain on windows because of office and windows-only education software we priced up both windows server 2003 and linux replacements. Sticking to the same hardware for both costings, we came to some worrying conclusions.
Redhat Enterprise ES would set us back £700 a server, with free client access and 3 years of upgrades, and we've also got the option of a completely free system like debian. We'd use samba+ldap to largely replicate our existing setup, but with beefier hardware and security updates.
Windows 2003, at £30 a seat for new Client Access Licences, would set us back nearly £22,000 for current and next year projected licence requirements, just for authentication and file sharing, with extra costs in the thousands for every extra server we might add later.
Given that implementation will be done in-house regardless of our chosen solution, I'd like to know if:
a) I'm missing something obvious with regards the licensing costs for windows server 2003?
b) If I'm not, whether you expect such a large mismatch on up-front costs to seriously impact on Microsoft's server business in the education and other cash-strapped areas?
Even assuming the windows implementation is more efficient and quicker to deploy in itself, the linux system would be far simpler to integrate our existing single-purpose servers with (direct access to the ldap user database, for a start). With the CAL licencing savings alone, we could buy an extra server and 20 workstations.
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
Who did you have lunch with yesterday?
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
Somebody explain to me what's the use of this. Any answers to good questions are going to be spin meister excercises and you've given the devil a stump to preach from.
The current industry trend in hardware is commoditization; how will Microsoft continue to compete now that operating systems and software is becoming commoditized in price and features? What is your five year and ten year strategies to stave off software commoditization?
Hello. Since you are being asked about Linux vs Windows, should we take for granted that you are partially a linux user, or at least you have tried Linux enough to reliably back up your arguments? If yes,what distributions have you tried? Do you have a personal preference?
What would you consider the most interesting easter egg to be placed in a piece of Microsoft software?
Well it is easter...
To me, the business side of things seams clear: Linux is winning for thin clients, Windows will continue dominating for information workers (because of Office), and the server arena is going to be a battle field for the foreseeable future.
The real challenge is the consumer side of things. What if Comcast or AOL decide to give away free desktops (or charge ~$5/month) with their ISP services, ala cell phones and cable boxes. I think this would be a very attractive model for consumers (not requiring upfront capital investment), and it is only a matter of time until major ISPs are pressured to do this.
Take the example of two of my family members: I had to help both my mom and brother get PCs recently. I went to Best Buy and got HPs for both, as I had to make a purchasing decision, get the computer, and set them up the same day (thus eliminating the possibility of Dells). They both make a good amount of money, but still didn't like dishing out $1k+, when they had just done the same 3 years earlier. Granted giving the hardware away with the service wouldn't be for everyone - I'm not giving up my G5 iMac - but for my brother or my mom, it would be ideal.
So the question is why would Comcast or AOL choose Windows over a locked-down version of Linux? It seems Windows, at $30 for bulk licenses, would be too great a part of the cost structure for Comcast to go with it. All consumers want or need now is a browser, PIM app, music/photo management, basic Works type functionality, and malware management. If they gave away a Linux distribution with those things preconfigured and didn't let the user do anything else, I think it would satisfy a vast majority of users and be quickly adopted.
So the biggest threat as I see it is not Linux in the hands of Red Hat, Novell, or commie hackers (sic), but Comcast Linux or AOLinux. Is the age of Windows on home users desktops going to become a thing of the past, or are there new innovations or price structures in store that will keep everyone wanting and paying more for Windows?
Spyware has become the greatest threat to M$ dominance of the client.
Would your company consider replacing the IE rendering engine with Gecko, and abandoning ActiveX?
The alternative seems to be an ever-larger stream of customers who leave Win32 behind.
p.s. The UNIX community would feel much better about you if you released UNIX clients for your larger applications and protocols. How long do you think Oracle could get away with supporting their db client only on Win32? This is exactly what you do with SQL Server. Sometimes, you are your own worst enemy.
I've been reading several Microsoft backed case studies, particularly those concerning Microsoft Office. The studies usually concluded that Microsoft Office can save the company thousands of dollars in productivity and use it as a blanket statement without giving any warnings.
So my question is, would you be willing to offer a productivity-bound license with my company so if my company doesn't see the increase in savings, I would be refunded the cost of the license.
And also, whats with MS calling the OS community communists? And when is IE going to support tabbed browsing?
Taylor rose through the ranks, and for the past 18 months was director of business strategy for CEO Steve Ballmer. His latest mission was helping Microsoft develop a way to measure customer satisfaction with Microsoft partners.
In his platform-strategist role, Taylor succeeds Peter Houston, senior director of Microsoft's Windows Server Strategies, as chief Linux watcher.
From here
While the need to upgrade from Windows 9x to Windows 2000/XP was obvious, due to various flaws in 9x, what reasons are you going to give to people to pay to upgrade to Longhorn, considering that 2000/XP (with security software) are perfectly adequate for most people?
In a recient "leaked memo" published in Wired magazine, Linus was talking to Gates about a project called Winx, where the Windows desktop and standard GUI were ported over to Linux. If Linux where to take over a large part of the Desktop market, do you think microsoft would ever consider such a tactic?
I have to ask is why does Microsoft feel the need to branch out into so many different areas(i.e xbox, mp3 service, msn)?
It seems to me that Windows operating system suffors because more effort is being made to tackle realms maybe Microsoft has no business being in the first place instead of addressing user concerns in current os' in an timely matter and getting longhorn to be released some time this decade, minus all the features such as a new file system of course.
Is the profits from these other tasks worth the while to abandon the very thing that got Microsoft where it is in the first place, it's user friendly os?
For people who use a desktop just to check e-mails and browse the internet, do you think that a linux system provides a better TCO?
How do you (Microsoft) try to balance the insistence of the public that some things should be part of Windows, (eg: Firewall, AntiVirus), and yet not end up in another EU Media Player bind. In short how do you balance integration vs monopoly accusations?
Where were you in September 1993?
what can be done to give power to user-level accounts and services, while keeping potentially malicious code out of ring zero?
I don't want this to seem accusatory, so I'll preface it by saying it's really not. This is actual curiosity talking.
It has been oft stated by those speaking for your company, both employed by Microsoft and simply advocating your software, that if Linux had the same market share as Windows then a similar number of vulnerabilities would be found and a similar number of viruses written, etc. In short, that the current lack of strong security of Windows based systems is due largely to market share.
I also know that this claim has been disputed by studies comparing things like bugs-per-line and things like that. I am skeptical of such trivial arguments.
My question is, have there been any studies done on this proposition, and if so, what were the specifics of those studies?
adam b.
Ever been to ActiveWin or NeoWin? NeoWin certainly has better news but there are plenty of zealots on the former, and quite a few on the latter.
Actually 2 questions:
1- Will ever slashdoters will be able to interview Bill Gates?
2- Why MSN were sending malformed HTML only to Opera browser?
DNA in your Linux: DNALinux
With MS claiming most of the market share on most of its flagship products, how you plan on making significant improvements over the next few years which will justify buying a newer version of said products? How do you intend to handle distribution as the product matures and no longer demands many new features?
As a follow-up, how do you see the MS vs. Linux debates panning out as both operating systems obtain relative equality in terms of usability and capability?
Furthermore, once operating systems become commodities, how will MS survive with the decline in value of its main product?
I could see a distro-based platform based on Windows once it loses monopoly status, including home edition with games, office edition with business apps, and developer edition with server software and development tools. Unfortunately, legal issues concerning software bundling hamper MS from making such builds today.
Fill in the blanks.
Blaster and Sasser both used buffer overflows and required no user intervention (other than negligence) to spread. how can MS prevent future worm outbreaks?
Fedora Core 3 Linux installed and worked just fine, but a test install of Windows 2000 showed that it could not deal with the 250 Gb hard disk, being able to only use 137 Gb. It failed to cooperate with the normal routine of installing Windows first, install linux second, and use grub as the boot manager.
I decided to purchase Windows XP to resolve the problem, with no certainty that it actually would, however. For some reason I had in my mind a price of $90, which I was only grudgingly willing to pay due to the lower cost of many commercial Linux distributions, to say nothing of my freely downloaded copy of Fedora. I was flabbergasted to find that Windows XP Professional costs $300, or $200 for an upgrade version. No compilers, no office suite, no multimedia suites, almost none of the many applications that come with Linux, for $300.
This seems to constitute a punitive measure against those who do not purchase pre-installed versions of Windows. It may also have the effect of pushing a certain segment of the market out of the Windows world. I am currently investigating means of running the commercial Windows programs I own under Cedega or Wine.
How does Microsoft justify charging more than $50 or $100 for this product?
With the amount of patches, spyware and vireses in the computing enviroment. Does MS have any plans on opening up their management solutions to Open Soure or outside applications? As it stands if you want to be able to control systems (Desktops and servers running windows) in an enterprise enviroment, you have to incorporate MS solutions from end to end. If you have a mixed enviroment like Linux and Novell, that makes it even more difficult. There are a number of very good management solutions that allow for remote management of patches, spyware and overall network monitoring, but they require addition of MS solutions to work properly with MS clients. Is MS ever going to move to a more industry standard to allow for this, like the usage of SNMP has already shown. One of the nice things about these other solutions (not just Open Source) is that if you want to connect two systems together, it is not impossible because of closed enviroment like MS has.
Mr. Taylor,
Putting aside the technical issues, I prefer the Linux platform over Windows because it respects my freedom. The license allows me to share the software with others without requiring anyone's permission and I can modify it to suit my needs (or hire someone to do so if I wish) without having to sign an agreement (like the Shared-Source agreements) that forfeits my freedom.
Obviously, it is important for companies to produce profit. However, there are many creative ways to do so in the software industry.
My question:
Do you feel it is appropriate to generate revenue for Microsoft at the expense of computer users' freedom?
Thanks,
Peter.
(http://gnuosphere.blogspot.com)
that OSS isn't as popular so there aren't as many attacks. They will just cite some BS about this, and not take into account any extra security features or inherant protection from any features in GNU/Linux.
This is merely an opportunity to allow MS to respond and refute in public the "true voice of the OSS crowd" or whatever they may paint any of your responses as.
First of all, you're expecting answers from the wrong guy. Second of all, you're expecting answers and not PR.
This guy's a spin artist, and you're giving him legitimacy, validation, and a voice.
How do you feel about the fact that almost all of the internet is run by free software? Do you think that Microsoft products will ever make a serious impact in this Open-Source domain? (excuse the pun :P)
The true problem with windows is the pain of license management. Most companies would love to spend the extra bucks for a full site license, or go to linux wich doesn't have a limit to the numbers of users using the license. License management is the true hit to the TCO of Windows vs Linux. There is the down time of waiting to get a new license if you used your all up. Administration time of recording and auditing the licenses. Companies want to expand and grow but Windows Licenses are like a chain pulling you down. I understand your need for profit but strictness of windows licensing is the biggest problem in keeping honest people honest. Sure for up to 20 systems it is OK but other companies have hundreds if not thousands of Systems each one has a licences that needs to be accounted for.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
With Open Source software I can usualy have a chat with the developer about the problem I'm experiencing, most of the time with positive results for both sides. Are there any plans for having something like that in the Windows consumer support infrastructure?
WTF?!? All modded-up questions are the same as the ones asked by any other website, these questions just ask him what he wants to be asked of him. Any hard questions are being modded down. That interview by that german magazine is the best one I've seen and even that acted like a pussy.
Thank you. Linux and open source leaders have painted a very bleak picture of the closed source economy. RMS was talking about soup lines. And ESR was talking about closed source economics being on the verge of collapse. Yet in the same breath they say that GNU/Linux is rock solid and there's no crisis there. How are you going to work -- you've said you are going to reach out to these people -- how are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?
There have been many 'studies' funded by MS to prove that Linux TCO is higher than Windows.
If one had to convert their operation from a total MS solution to a total Linux solution I can see that the re-tooling and re-training would take quite some time to be absorbed into any possible lower support costs. Given that Linux upgrades are 'free' for the download and installation (minus the manpower costs to do it) how can Windows claim a lower TCO when upgrades have a sizeable cost per seat? Do you actually believe that IP support costs (manhours times cost per manhour) is less with Windows than with Linux? IE: do support engineers charge MORE per hour for Linux support than for MS? Or does Windows require LESS manhours to support than Linux? Or BOTH?
Do you actually believe that Windows has fewer support 'incidents' than Linux (for bonifide software problems and NOT user training issues)? Do you think that the 'learning curve' for a user to become proficient with the system is larger for Linux than for Windows (assuming a user starts with ZERO computer experience)?
Mod parent up!
Light is filtering down from above. Would you like to use DIVE?
If Windows had >1% of the market share like linux instead of its current market share, what, if anything, would Microsoft do differently?
what can be done to make Windows even easier to own than ever? i'm envisioning an XP SK (script kiddie) Edition complete with nmap, exploits archive, and a terabyte of porn.
Why are your contracts with companies like Dell, HP, etc structured so that *every* PC and server sold (regardless of OS installed) sends Microsoft some revenue? Would you ever consider changing these contracts (especially in light of your court losses regarding being a monopoly) so that they are more fair to the consumer by only providing revenue to Microsoft when a Microsoft OS is *actually* installed?
Why do you force (per contracts) that every web page selling a PC must have statements like: "Dell recommends Microsoft Windows XP" when the server is being sold with (lets say) Netware, or Linux??
Please don't try and tell me that it's Dell that's doing that, they are smarter than that.
Thanks!
If this truly is the Microsoft philosophy, will new versions of Windows Media Player offer the user the option of overriding the DRM if they know they are behaving legally (making legal backups, copying the material to other devices owned by the same user, etc.)? Is Microsoft willing to make the DRM truly just a "reminder"?
If not, does Microsoft have any plans to stop calling DRM a "reminder" and start using more accurate words to describe it?
Windows will always be overshadowed by UNIX. Always. It's been around longer, it's been maintained and cared for all these years. What makes Linux great is I and every person who uses it actually owns a piece of it. As far as the OSS community is concerned this is the not only our OS, but the world's OS. We take pride in what we create, we want people to use it, and we want feedback from our users. We take ownership and pride in what we create. Hard work and sweat given away for free. Because undivided accessibility is important. So I pose - where's Microsoft's sense of pride? Where's your community?
Gates equated the ever-increasing open source movement to communism. Since Windows is a monopoly, would it be fair to equate Windows to Fascism?
Best regards.
At some point, as Microsoft's market share falls, it would seem inevitable that they will have to port their applications to Linux, or release a distribution of Linux with a Windows-style desktop environment bolted on top.
Has anyone within Microsoft considered this option? If so, how far has it gone?
Has Microsoft management ever considered creating an open source Windows which could take advantage of this resource? Restated, has Microsoft considered cultivating a "community" of volunteer developers with access to Windows source code.
Well, I'm proposing this question in an attempt to get evidence about this. If so, it could be abuse of a monopoly, which should warrant governments (EU or elsewhere) to act upon that. One can make a harder case with a member of parliament if it is based on evidence rather than hearsay. After all, politicians don't want to lose face (and neither do I, apart from not wanting to accuse someone of something that is not true).
Bert
Only if you give users admin priviledges and don't lock down the system to a certain degree.
If the workstation was configured by your typical NT paper mcse then chances are the user has admin privileges. A properly locked down workstation will not allow the user to do a whole lot. All this can be done using GPOs through AD or by applying security templates prior to creating a sysprepped image.
Just ask Jorge Lopez ;)
Microsoft has a deal with Spyglass so that they could use their Mosaic browser software, but Microsoft needs to pay a royalty per sold item. So when they dropped the price to 0 there is no need to pay Spyglass anymore.
I'm sure you've noticed that many in the free software camp feel a moral hatred - an odium theologicum , if you will - towards Microsoft's "evil" behavior. Do you see a lot of Microsoft supporters detesting Linux people in the same way?
Most admin tasks on windows can be done via Telnet.
No wonder Windows servers are getting hacked, if the "clueful" admins are using Telnet to remotely administer the boxes. In case you missed the memo, Telnet is completely and unfixably insecure.
Is there any chance that Windows 98 may become open source?
An open source Win98 might become a viable competitive product with Linux in the client market
What is your opinion on free licensing (GFDL, Creative Commons, voluntary public domain in the spirit of open source) for non-software content? The freely editable Wikipedia, for example, is a definite success in terms of the amount of information it contains, regardless of whether it contains inaccuracies or not. Do you think that references, works of art, research, even video games, etc. should be openly licensed?
What is your opinion on the state of the US Patent Office? What do you think about Microsoft's aggressive patenting strategy?
What do you think about the DMCA and the recent extension of copyrights? Is the public domain a benefactor or a detriment to innovation?
I am a senior at a top-ranked computer science department. With the countless hours I have spent in our lab, I am yet to touch a Windows machine for any kind of researching or software development. Almost every computer runs Linux, and not because it's just cheaper. Microsoft is also at the receiving end of countless jokes by almost all of my professors. This seems to be the case across all the major CS-schools throughout the world. It seems like the public opinion of your company has taken a very negative turn. It can't be good that all your future engineers are being raised in this environment. What does Microsoft need to learn from Linux to change its public image?
a) I'm missing something obvious with regards the licensing costs for windows server 2003?
Yes. You're not comparing apples to apples. You could replace your Windows PCs with Scientific calculators for a fraction of the cost but, as with Linux, you won't be able to run Office XP on them, will you?
And of course, he's my boss -- so there's not much I can do to change his mind!
Except of course, keep mail bombing the Exchange Server.
Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm
It would seem obvious that a software monopoly can only ever be detrimental to the world as a whole. From this, is it possible for Microsoft to learn to embrace other technologies, such as Linux, rather than fight against peoples right to choice? Can we expect to see Microsoft applications for Linux? What are the reasons for the decision?
Attractive to whom besides yourself and other Linux zealots? Something that requires extra work on my part to remove it is not attractive. Adding a Linux partition will generate a large number of support calls as people try to find out how to remove Linux from their systems. Dual boot machines serve no purpose except educational. I wouldn't buy a dual boot machine unless it was priced cheaper than a single boot. The time and money spent reformatting the hard drive wouldn't be worth it.
I haven't seen any insanely large hard disks for sale with new machines. The standard size is still 80-120GB which is quite small.
I would find out either a) why MS UK (I'm assuming UK) would have different pricing for you, or b) why your vendor is ripping you off.
Canadian Pricing for Academic Edition CAL:
R18-00210 Windows Server CAL 2003 English OLP NL AE Device CAL 2003 Non-specific 10.00
R18-00209 Windows Server CAL 2003 English OLP NL AE User CAL 2003 Non-specific 10.00
That price can be found pretty close from a number of Canadian (I'm Canadian, so I'm presenting my rebuttal from that view point) web sites, some as much as $12-13 for the same CAL. Now, I don't sell a lot of licencing, but that would certainly seem to be the right CAL for "Open Licence Program", "No Level", "Academic Edition".
Last I checked $12 (which is where I've found it online) CAD is 5.24 GBP. For 250+100 units, that's 10,500 GBP. I'm assuming that some of the difference between that number and the 22,000 number is the cost of the "Server" licences themselves. The mention of "thousands for every server we'd add later" is strange - if you're using "Per Device" CAL, then its what used to be known as "Per Seat". You don't need more CAL's to access additional servers, just a Server Licence - or about $200 CAD / 87.38 GBP.
Why is your vendor charging you a 500%+ markup on your products? Granted, the MS solution does have a cost, and that debate is fine. But the prices you're quoting are absurd - which may be the fault of whoever is providing you quotes.
Of course, I'm only going from some high level information, and might be way off base. There is a lot of information here that sounds far less like MS did something wrong, and more like your vendor is overcharging you.
Now I realize that Microsoft makes free development tools available on the internet (in the form of CLI compilers), but why doesn't Microsoft (at least as an option) provide a development environment as an option during install (the above mentioned programs would suffice), or try to make the avaialibility of those tools more well known?
I must say that because much of my early programming was done under Linux, I've gotten quite used to and familiar with the various GNU tools and prefer to use them. I can't help but wonder if those kind of things were available on Windows when I started programming (without having to buy seperate packages like CodeWarrior, Visual Studio, and others) that I may prefer that environment.
If you are interested in programming, it simply seems easier to start on Linux or OS X because the tools are already there and that fact is well publicized. Does Microsoft have any plan to try to remedy this situation?
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
250+100 units @ 5.24GBP is 1834.00 GBP. Dunno what I was smoking when I made that calculation above.
Linux will blah blah blah...
what he is actually thinking:
Under a mountain of air patent lawsuits. BUHAHAHA
Why does Microsoft insist on keeping VBScript around? (I realize WSH allows for other languages, but JScript and some Perl support isnt' enough) Why no adopt Python, Ruby, or Lua as the "official" Windows scripting language? This would go a long ways towards convincing me of Microsofts dedication to developers.
Neural Nets in Python
How many operating systems does a healthy market need? How can Microsoft contribute?
So you recommend using a server to run Office? I wish you were the admin at my company - I would probably be able to get away with a ton of shit. Unfortunately, we have a guy that knows what he's doing...
Have you ever used redhat? If so for how long?
This simple question is definitely a double edge sword.
As a web designer, I'm fairly aware of the browser market. I know, for example, that IE is missing huge portions of W3C standards such as CSS 2 and XHTML 1, and the parts it does implement are often buggy; that it has been plagued by security problems; and that it is missing many feaures included in browsers such as Firefox, Opera, and Safari.
As far as I can tell, the only benefit of using IE is the ability to use ActiveX controls, which are part of IE's security problem and which Firefox can do with a plugin anyway.
In light of these issues, why does Microsoft believe users should choose Internet Explorer, rather than one of the free or advertising-supported alternatives?
Hey, you try to find an open nick these days!
One of the recurring themes that Microsoft representatives focus on is that of accountability.
Could you please expound upon how exactly Microsoft's accountability differs from that of Redhat or Suse?
Furthermore, how is Microsoft's campaign of accountability consistent when its EULA explicitly absolves Microsoft from said accountability?
From the EULA:
"Microsoft and its suppliers provide the Product and support services (if any) AS IS AND WITH ALL FAULTS, and hereby disclaim all other warranties and conditions, either express, implied or statutory, including, but not limited to, any (if any) implied warranties, duties or conditions of merchantability, of fitness for a particular purpose, of reliability or availability, of accuracy or completeness of responses, of results, of workmanlike effort, of lack of viruses, and of lack of negligence, all with regard to the Product, and the provision of or failure to provide support or other services, information, software, and related content through the Product or otherwise arising out of the use of the Product."
(bold formatting added by me)
I'll tell you why, Microsoft strong arms it's competition. I should know, I used to work at the number 1 pc company in the world. We wanted to change a simple config within windows that was generating a lot of phone calls.
Microsoft said, "Sure you can change that, but we won't let you sell Windows or any other Microsoft products anymore." There's no WAY Microsoft would ever let any big OEM sell computers that dual boot.
If they'll strong arm the biggest PC manufacture in the world, they'll strong arm anyone.
That was the very moment I became "anti-microsoft".
Do you believe that Microsoft is practicing its right to innovate and serving the consumer when, as part of sizeable MS OS license discounts (again), it requires computer manufacturers not to offer Linux or other OS software on the same model of computer that the MS OS is offerred? This is current practice.
If such things are not innately good for the consumer, what can Microsoft do instead to help the consumer?
Sincerely,
Bryan Seigneur
KLAATU, BORADA, NIh*ahem*
> However if you need to mes around with the
> network settings, what are the odds you can
> telnet into the box be it Windows or Linux?
Hmm.. considering I do all administrative tasks via SSH on my Linux/FreeBSD boxes, I'd have to say the odds are pretty high. I have changed IP addresses, routing tables, enabled/disabled services, upgraded the entire system, adjusted how bandwidth is utilized, yada yada yada... all via ssh on my linux and freebsd boxes.
Is it true that if I name any file with a .com or .exe extension, that your operating system will think it is executable? Is that really true?
"Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
--Tom Schulman
Exactly how much source code is Microsoft going to use from the Open Source World and call it their own (i.e. LDAP, TCP/IP, and the like) on the next Windows project? And then throw their market share around like a big stick to scare everyone into using their product?
> We're talking about servers here. In a well
> designed domain no one has the rights to the
> server systems required to infect them with
> anything.
I guess assuming the server in question is not running any critically flawed software (ie the ASP.NET vulnerability that allows bypassing security mechanisms..) -- Given the huge amount of critical security advisories that Microsoft puts out that impacts a significant portion of their user base coupled with the fact the majority of these still require a restart, I'm just not buying that its better than a non-Windows box.
Does that mean between MS applications with MS file formats on an MS platform, or what?
However windows is missing from this segment entirely. Can you comment on where live CDs fit at all in the Windows strategy?
I've been thinking about this a lot lately .Net to coincide with Longhorn. Then they'd only have one codebase to maintain, while the lucky consumers will get to run the same version of Office on Windows, GNU/Linux and OS X (especially if Mono's System.Windows.Forms implementation can be Aqua-fied.)
Hopefully they'll port Office to
The US Army: promoting democracy through unquestioned obedience
Will windowing ever be removed from the Windows (yes, I know it sounds odd) kernel so that an older machine might run Windows sans graphics? To me, this is one of the great benefits to UNIX/Linux. "What are we going to do with that old box in the corner?" "Eh, just put Linux on it and have it run a small website." You don't need a windowing environment to serve webpages.
IWARS.
People, in general, disappoint me. Politicians even more so.
Microsoft's volume license forbids the OEMs to put anything but windows on a computer. Just ask BeOS guys about it.
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
And the cost of audits, since audit cost falls upon the licensee if a violation is found, and we all know that corporations with hundreds to thousands of applications and hundreds to thousands to tens of thousands of desktops and servers find it impossible to track every application on every computer.
And once those violations are found, how about factoring in the costs to settle with the BSA? Tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands if their press releases are to be believed.
Do any of the current TCO studies on the Microsoft web site take licensing and audit compliance and license violation penalties into account? If not, why not?
How much does a year-long investigation cost a company in employee time costs and legal fees?
Do Microsoft TCO studies include twice quarterly audit costs? The tools I've seen online for figuring out costs of upgrading to Windows 2003 from 2000 take into account all kinds of labor costs, yet nothing on audit compliance costs that I've seen. Did I miss a page?
Time-consuming? Does Microsoft figure time-consuming tasks as free from cost? Or does Microsoft figure time-consuming audit compliance costs into TCO studies?
Is above paragraph included as part of TCO in Microsoft's TCO studies? If not, why not?
Many companies now have expectations of longer life cycles out of their IT systems. In my own area of engineering computing we have faced a number of costly challenges over the years due to product obsolecence. Compared to public domain products, does proprietary technology inherently face more life-cycle risks because of changing marketing goals (& often bankrupcy/mergers) of the original vendor?
How do Microsoft expect to compete with Linux (or even pirate "versions" of Windows)when, in a country like Brazil, people have to pay $220 for Windows XP Home (and even more for the professional edition)
That's twice as expensive as in the US (and actually something like 5x more expensive if we account for all the factors)
how long until
POSIX systems are, and have always been, inherently built upon open standards (in particular ASCII file formats). As such, almost all programs that run on POSIX don't need extra work to be interoperable. They are interoperable by default since they all communicate through the same standards and interfaces.
On Windows, however, there's nothing of the sort of common standards for programs interoperating with each other. For that reason, Microsoft must work manually for interoperability between programs. Microsoft has only lately begun to look at XML for similar levels of interoperability (which I have also commented on before).
For the casual sysadmin (the one that either doesn't know how to connect UNIX programs, or expects the original developers to do it for him), it may seem that Microsoft is much more on the "offensive" for interoperability, while the POSIX system vendors think that they don't need to do anything about it, since it ought to be so simple to interconnect compliant program anyhow (like "after all, it's been done in the same way since UNIX was first invented, why should we even have to tell anyone about it?").
Isn't that the (pseudo-)benefit customers see in Microsoft and interoperability?
Linus Torvalds, in response to a question about strategy against Microsoft, said plainly, that he doesn't care what Microsoft does. "Let them have their operating system and the world. I just want to work on my kernel."
Why not employ a live and let live stragedy?
You really need to understand academic volume licensing better. Microsoft only charges $3 for a server CAL and $55 for the server software. MS offers a Microsoft School Agreement Estimated Retail Price Calculator you can find here.
http://www.microsoft.com/education/default.asp?I D=SACalculator#Estimate
While the piece is more than a little far-fetched, it raises an interesting question - has Microsoft ever just considered applying the "Embrace and Extend" philosophy to Linux and Open Source Software? Has it ever been considered that Microsoft actively pursue the competition by taking steps such as:
I realize this is a lot to consider, and is a grand departure from the current business model, but these tools do not need to themselves be free software, or even open source. Many companies see the value of both Microsoft products and Open Source software. We would love to leverage both together, instead of feeling compelled to make a choice. I doubt there is any question in the minds of Microsoft's shareholders that these products would sell - there is certainly an appetite in the market.
All being said, my question - simply put - is, "Has Microsoft considered 'eliminating' the competition by extending into their space?" and "Why/Why Not? When can we expect the see the results of or a change in this thinking?"
Thank you for taking the time to answer our questions.
"Adventure? Excitement? A Jedi craves not these things."
If I look into my windows 2000 preview guide,
it still lists a lot of features win2k has,
but linux still has not or only a much weaker
version. Still I never saw any advertisement
by microsoft mentioning these differences in
features. Is it that nobody cares about them?
Or could the additional complexity associated
with those features (think of all the replications on domains and forrests for exmaple) make people even more aware of the
hidden cost they have, even if not used at all?
We as consumers like options. Why should I not be able to choose to install IE, File explorer, Windows media player, and all that other software that comes with windows. Why does Microsoft not give us the options to strip out components that comes with standard installation much like Linux does? Linux is modular and thus more flexiable. I dont want my staff surfing the net on with IE or watching movies on it. And you cannot say, "Well they should not be doing that." It is just like the moon or Mt. Everest, since it is there we had to climb it. One last question? Why dont you have a robust command line inferface or something other than telnet?
Deserving got nothing to do with it.....shuffle
I post this as anonymous coward for the simple fact that anything asked that in the least questions Linux ends with being modded as Troll, Flamebait, or Offtopic.
My question to the Linux community is as follows:Is Linux really, truly, more secure that Windows? or does Linux have the same problems as similar M$ products but because of the lower market share, the problems don't get the same publicity?
I also ask:If Linux surpasses Windows in market share, how long before the adware/spyware/malware/virus/pop-up writers start coding for Linux?
for firefox to defeat IE in browsers popularity ?
Is Microsoft ever going to have the guts and vision to reinvent itself as an open-source company or will it wait until it is forced to do so by people and companies adopting superior alternatives?
As an owner of a DEC Alpha, I would like to know if the slow adaptation of Windows to run on x86-64 has any connection to the difficulties of running NT4 on the Alpha processor? If this project was not scrapped so many years ago, would Win64 be as far behind FOSS OSes as it is today? In any thoughts of resembeling the cross platform (Alpha, MIPS) teams of old to enable targeting hardware of new?
<humor>
Imagine a port to the PowerPC, labeled Power Windows. Copyright it, and sue auto manufactuers for royalties, trademark infringement, and false advertising. This should easily pay for development costs alone! (How many x86 owners would buy it and wonder why it wouldn't install?)
</humor>
I have used Unix and latterly Linux for some 17 years. Recently I bought an IBM ThinkPad laptop with Windows pre-installed. I installed my o/s of choice to dual boot, and set the crystal clock to Universal Time as reequired by it. Out of curiosity more than anything else I booted into Windows (XP-Pro + IBM's extras) and last month had my very first Windows experience ever. (A mass of flashy do-dads and pop-up messages urging me to cope with some trivial task or other every couple of minutes. How anybody gets any real work done with all those seemingly pointless interruptions going on is beyond my comprehension.) Anyway after I had finished evaluating Windows I found to my horror and annoyance that my crystal clock had been altered by some eight hours! This happened surreptitiously and completely without my permission. Are you aware that tampering with other people's computers in this way while they are online is illegal in many juristictions? Why do you risk prosecution and penalty like a gang of common criminals? I'd be interested to know exactly how putting the Microsoft Corporation at risk of prosecution increases the value of your shareholders' stock?
We have head much on Microsoft's stance on Linux and the numerous qualities Microsoft feels are advantages over Linux. What do you think are the biggest advantages that Linux has over Windows and why?
the only reason you bought windows was to use office. Will microsoft offer office for linux, so that you do not have to give them more money for windows? I doubt it. "Lets spend money porting office so that we'll make less money". While a linux port would be benefit for linux, I don't see how thats in microsoft's intrest. Better question, will microsoft publish information on office so that other office suites won't have to reverse engineer your documents? This could help make microsoft look less monopolistic.
http://illhostit.com/ - Webhosting
I don't have proof, but I do have a company using both Windows and UNIX/Linux to look at. The conclusion here is simple: on average, they do. The reasons also are simple:
Remote administration. Windows requires more support people because they spend more time walking around for fixing silly little issues. Silly little issues are preferably fixed by less-qualified and cheaper personel. Especially as they spend much of their time walking around.
Dump users. Windows has many more and much more dumb users (at least as far as computers are concerned). Thus, it again requires more support people because they spend more time walking around for sorting out silly little user problems. Silly little problems are preferably fixed by less-qualified and cheaper personel. Especially as they spend much of their time walking around and dealing with dumb users that don't have a clue what they're doing.
Linux user since early January 1992.
- What are the advantages that gnu/linux has over Windows for the typical user / software developer / corporation?
- Why is gnu/linux better suited for open standards than a proprietary operating system?
- Why would you recommend using gnu/linux for publicly funded government projects?
- What are the best advantages of using Free Software (read: GPL) in third world countries?
- What aspects of Free Software licenses do you feel are particularly well suited to speed up scientific discovery, program development, teaching etc. in an academic environment?
- How do you feel that Free Software can benefit mankind as a whole?
- Finally, please list any advantages proprietary licenses have over Free Software licenses.
Feel free to keep the answers short as some of them are quite obvious to someone well versed in how Free Software works. Thanks!Liberty.
Martin,
Please help me understand why I'm at work late applying patches to my Windows server enviroment.We have to do this once per month on Windows servers. The patching isn't the problem the extra tools we bought achieve this very well, albeit at a large cost. It's the memo's meetings and justifications we need to produce each time we want to take a production server down every month. The business just can't believe i need to patch so much. They are getting crazy and are suggesting things like 'using enterprise ready Operating systems' in the enterprise. they want to know how many 9's i can give them. OUr HP-UX team gives them 5(9's) and i just feel a little silly. Please help me understand why I'm still at work at 9pm.
Thanks.
PaulMost of you can't even write a complete sentence, let alone create a polite and insightful question.
Questions here are all jaded, biased, and bitter. They reflect very poorly on the objectivity and perhaps even the intelligence of this website's userbase.
Mr. Taylor, thank you for being available for questions.
Play devil's advocate for a minute. What is OSS/Linux doing better than MS/Windows?
Judging by your apparent lack of understanding as to what functions a Windows 2003 Server performs, and your apparent inabilty to read and comprehend English, it's probably just as well you've got a "guy that knows what he's doing" where you work, because if you where the admin you'd probably all be better of using scientific calculators.
Martin:
One frustrating aspect to running Windows desktops is its vulnerability to "malware" (worms, trojans, spyware, etc.). Linux is not without its vulnerabilities, however, the Linux kernel developers and the Distribution companies, do not require the end user to purchase or procure third party solutions to their security vulnerabilities.
My question is, why does Microsoft, with all of its resources, not correct their fundamental vulnerabilities to unwanted executables? Why does MS purchase Antivirus and Anti-Spyware companies and threaten to charge extra for fixing the problems that should be addressed at the root cause?
With Linux, though far from perfect, there has been tremendous effort to avoid white-washing over problems. I don't know of any viruses or trojans for Linux that are so easily executed. Though it's sometimes troublesome to manage each modular package that may be installed, there are no hidden costs and much effort has been made to simply updating (up2date, apt-get, etc.) While Windows update addresses some of these vulnerabilities, it seems to never be enough and without 3rd party anti-virus software, it surely isn't.
How is Microsoft supposed to expect its user base to respect and/or trust its secure computing initiative if the users have to spend extra money to plug the holes that shouldn't be there in the first place? It isn't as if these problems are new.
If the answer is Longhorn, I think the MS user community deserves better than a promise this time.
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
Martin, Bearing in mind your background and this forum's background let me say that the silent majority of readers here actually welcome your comments and are pleased that you will be addressing our questions. Although I'm a reasonable open-source advocate (about mid-way between a atheist and a fanatic) I must say that I've noticed that open-source is often a me-too operator. Open-source has (comparatively) no marketing, research or useability budgets. Open-source seems to follow the big successful infrastructure pieces from big vendors. Microsoft is known in the industry in many areas as being a 'fast follower', i.e. Microsoft allows a 3rd party to invest in developing a new market, after which Microsoft quickly moves in with a competing product. Open-source is sort of a 'slow-follower'. We don't have the cash for speed, but our price will eventually be right. (ease-of-user, maturity, dollars etc). Do you see any other parallels between Microsoft and Open-source? At the risk of sounding cheeky, do you have any advice for open-source? Many thanks, AC
I'm afraid I don't have the actual costings I made previously to hand (I'm at home, documents are at work :) but I'll try and rework them.
.5 licences per client (because of lower usage)
NT CAL's used to be ~£5 last time I bought some, 5 years ago elsewhere (this is the first time I've really been involved in the big financial purchases at the school, I'm the techie not the manager). About 6 months ago, I'm told viglen quoted us £50,000 for two servers + licences. About half that was for windows licences, the rest for other licencing costs, the hardware and assistance in reimaging the workstations.
A couple of weeks ago I looked at Dell's UK site,
to do some costings, on their public sector area and small business area (we're a private boarding school, so I'm not certain which camp we fall in, licensing wise)
Ignoring hardware, we're at £461 per server for windows 2003, and quoting Dell,
Additional 5 Client Licenses for Microsoft Windows Server 2003 (+£149)
i.e. ~£30 a CAL.
That's in both sections.
We're looking at 3 servers for geographical reasons (we're split into a prep and senior school, plus boarding houses). We've just implemented wireless across much of the site, we're implementing access in the boarding houses, and we're looking at a plan to subsidise student and staff laptops. We're also adding up to 100 workstations during the next year.
Note, that 100 laptops is the total connected at any given time, not the total number of private laptops.
If we go with per-server licencing, i.e. one licence per concurrent connection, and split the
user accounts up across them, we're looking at
125 existing fixed stations in each school, going up to 175 (ish), which will access their primary server and sometimes a shared resource server. (The workstations reach 100% usage at peak times)
We'll assume that the main servers will need 1 licence per client, and the shared server will need
That's 175 licences per server. Now we add current laptops, plus projected laptops, minus students using laptops instead of workstations.
Rough estimate 200-250 licences per server in use at any given time. Say 700 licences total.
(700-15) * £149/5 = £20,413
+ 3x server licences @ £461 = £1,383
total = £21,796
the -15 is the CAL we get with the servers.
Now lets go with per-device licensing instead.
We already know about the 'will be' 350 workstations, which are in up to 100% use.
Add 100 laptops.
Now factor in the laptop subsidy program, students plugging their own machines in their soon to be internet-wired boarding houses, a big growth in wireless, and that there are more laptops in the school at the moment that are in use at any one time, and presumably a lag period between a device licence being able to be reassigned to another device, and I can easily see us hitting that 250 total devices needing CAL's at any given time above known fixed use in the next year or two.
, i.e. 700 devices.
Thus, nearly £22,000 again.
This mode would make more sense, as then the servers would be much cheaper, as no more CAL's required, except for if we add more new devices over the next few years
Since I don't know how long a device keeps a CAL for (permanently or not?), and also knowing how hard it is to get additional smaller licence blocks through funding approval, I have to consider if we go with per-server licencing; we would need more CAL per server, say 200 per server, with 200 * 149/5 + 468 = £6,428 a server.
It all comes down to the 5 CAL for £149. Which is why I asked if I was making a silly error.
Maybe the UK licences are more expensive than canadian, maybe we CAN get them at an educational price of £5.24. So far, I've yet to have a vendor quote me that price. As far as I know, we're not in any existing software licensing program. If you know a good hardware and software vendor that sells to the UK (google turns up no lower prices than £149 for 5, not that I can find anyway) then I'm certainly interested.
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
As a former Linux advocate who has changed his stance for money, how can you look at yourself in the mirror in the morning?
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
I've done a further break down of the costs I could work out here I must admit, the price seemed high. However, we are a private boarding school, not a state funded one; NT CAL used to cost ~£5 5 years ago; and I'm told we'd have trouble with arranging funding if our licences require annual subscriptions and/or requires us to buy new windows and office licences in the next two-three years, or requires us to buy licences per person rather than just CAL for expected use/devices. We also have no plans to run exchange. I'm having trouble finding that calculator for UK pricing, and I'd be the first to admit I don't understand which particular microsoft licensing scheme applies to us. I'd certainly appreciate any further light you can throw on it for me.
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
Is it physically possible to remove your head from your ass?
I mod down all the "free iPod"-sig losers.
If Linux administrators make more money than Windows administrators, wouldn't it be better for me to train to become a Linux administrator?
There are MS Office clones available for Linux, you don't need MS product at all. Go to www.openoffice.org or www.sun.com and look for Star Office.
In my humble opinion Linux is built entirely on small but very stable blocks whereas Windows has become a to big and bloated for its own good. Many other companies are developing specific well tuned products (Google, Mozilla) and customers are loving it. This is what made Microsoft successful with DOS and early versions of windows.
Do you think Microsoft will ever attempt a back to the basics approach with it operating system? Or is it the goal of Microsoft to blur the line between OS and application so much that Windows will the only product need on a PC?
I worked at PSS for three years, and was involved in many of the conversations regarding how to compete with Linux. Many of my substantive suggestions were acted on by other teams both while I was there and after I left (1 1/2 years ago).
One of the things that I found very troubling was the way in which people at Microsoft seemed to have blinders on regarding Linux. People seemed to think that Exchange Server and Sendmail were competitors, and that there was no economic basis for open source. Do you see yourself in conflict with this element of corporate culture? Do you seem yourself as breaking out of it? Or is that culture changing?
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
You've got a single user OS there.
TCO comparison premise is that the same number of systems, OS installs, and admins are required to do the same work.
How do you justify this premise?
I was writing a thesis on the PC, and it was, like, beep, beep, beep, beep, beep. And then, like, half of my thesis was gone. And I was, like heh. It devoured my thesis. It was a really good thesis. And then I had to do it again and I had to do it fast so it wasn't as good. It's kind of a bummer.
To my understanding, a licensed copy of 2000 and XP already contain a CAL. If you are licesnsed and running Windows 2000 Server or Server 2003 for the server(s) and the client systems are running Windows 2000 Pro or XP Pro, no CALs are needed at all.
Greetings,
A simple, honest question that I care about a lot.
Is there a point in marketshare that Microsoft will consider porting their Office suite to Linux, possibly starting from their Mac OS X codebase?
Can you give us any hints about where that point is?
You've got a hard job. Best of luck with it.
-- Morgan Schweers, CyberFOX!
Check out cioview.com's software TCOnow! for Windows and Linux. The software takes into account every major factor in a TCO analysis to give you a side-by-side comparison. Feel free to send me an e-mail if you have any questions (dlauer AT cioview dot com), or would like to see a demonstration.
First.
.NET's features.
Quite a few people make a switch towards a OSS platform, such as GNU/linux, today. There will be more in 2006 when longhorn is scheduled to be released.
In the meantime, GNU/linux will have improved, as will desktops such as GNOME and KDE. Indeed, much of MS's perceived advantage in user-interface will have eroded. Also, platforms such as mono will have largely copied
What exactly is your strategy when that will happen? Moreover, how will you win back the people that have switched before that day?
Second.
One of Linux' (and in much more ways: *BSD unix) main advantages in a server enviroment is that the system will run on a multitude of cpu architectures, such as SPARC, PowerPC and x86.
Is there any MS strategy considering other hardware platforms, such as the PowerPC line, SPARC, or the Cell processor line to name a few?
Any of the above will bdo.
This is the second time I spot a Linux advertisement on Microsoft's territory
.NET Code Magazine.
(Why Linux? Why Power? Why Together? - IBM)
First time I recall was an ad about Linux and OpenOffice Migration Books -
advertised on Microsoft's own
Surreal!
Seriously? No, no, i mean.. Seriously?
Please help me understand Microsoft's commitment to creating the features that their customer base needs...
Why does Windows still not come with a built in spell-checker?
-Z
Rarely have I seen such a high profile interview that gave any kind of meaningful answers or insights as to what the interviewee is actually doing/thinking/feeling. It's just a game of lipservice and wordsmithing: just like politicians, when asked a difficult question, the answers are always vague and nonspecific. God forbid any recognizable figure actually speak their mind!
As interesting as this interview could potentially be, I'm afraid that the OSS/Linux community really won't gain anything from it. But Microsoft will benefit: they'll get to go around talking about how they are "cooperating" with the Open Source community.
I have always thought it would be interesting to have live, face-to-face debates between Microsoft (represented by Gates, Ballmer, senior management and engineers, etc) and some prominent OSS figures (who to send would be a debate in and of itself, but you get the point). The debates should be broken up by topic, i.e. economics, security, innovation, marketing, etc.
These PR types are pretty much all the same. Their job is just to make their company/product look good---they don't even need to know anything about it. Take the top PR guys from ten random major corporations, and shuffle them around to different companies. I bet they only need one day to resume their pace. Why? Their job is totally formulaic: when asked a difficult question, (1) restate the question, but downplay its significance, (2) cite an example of where you did something good -or- talk about some initiative to stop a (minor, unrelated) problem, (3) make really general statements that are true, but don't really have any meaning. Repeat steps (1) through (3) until the issue has been clouded enough to talk about how great your company/product is, and how your high-level goals/initiatives support this right behavior.
Back to my original point: given that I think we ought to be able to predict Mr. Taylor's answers, here's my crystal ball:
Slashdot: If Microsoft does not see Linux as a threat, why has such an investment made to discredit it?
Taylor: Laughing. Microsoft has a commitment to its customers and stockholders. In that regard, it is our obligation to constantly assess market conditions and provide the best value to our costomers. We listen to our customers. And a lot of customers have been asking about Linux! We cannot affect customer curiosity, and we certainly encourage competition. Therefore, all we can do is educate our customers, to make sure they make the best decisions. Numerous case studies have shown that Windows has a lower total cost of ownership than Linux; in many cases it is also more secure and better performing. We simply want to dispel the myth that Linux is a legitimate alternative.
Slashdot: Microsoft has recently made statements suggesting that it is an interoperability champion; even moreso than Linux. How can you achieve such a great deal of interoperability with closed, proprietary standards, and threats of patent lawsuits?
Taylor: Interoperability is an increasingly important aspect of technology. Microsoft backs its products with a greater degree of customer support than any other software company, guaranteeing the greatest deal of interoperability. We believe strongly in intellectual property protection because we've made huge investments in the innovation we've brought to the market. The open source community does not respect intellectual property rights, and as such, our products must be protected accordingly. However, we have the most competitive and exhaustive collection of licensing options for third party developers who wish to use our technology in their own product. The same cannot be said for open source, which offers neither support nor idemnification.
Slashdot: With the proliferatio
Since Windows XP is an unreliable operating system by design, I was forced to migrate to Linux. Will future MS operating systems change in this regard? I am using the word unreliable in its strict sense. I cannot count on being able to reactivate a XP system 3 years from now after a system crash. Maybe I can and may I can't, but I have found nothing to show that I can count on being able to.
tell me how microsofts firewall is superior to any type of iptables that linux can support(properly configured of course). because if you want a decent firewall for windows its definately not the built in one with sp2. also tell me how mysql is in anyway superior to postgres
What's the most reliable way to stop Microsoft's Internet Explorer from ever running?
Windows XP lacks many useful features from the command line. For instance, tools like find, grep, the many features in ls, symlinks ("shortcuts" aren't nearly as versatile), and many others have no Windows equivalents.
Many times while attempting to connect to a wireless network I have wished for the simplicity of iwconfig.
This makes Windows much less attractive than Linux from a "power user" standpoint; it is easier for me to type a few commands than to go fishing in menus to find what I want.
Does Microsoft have any plans to modernize the command-line support in Windows?
http://www.microsoft.com/uk/education/how-to-buy /where-to-buy/aer/
Academic pricing is around 10% of retail.
The 10 highest moderated questions are now available. To access the questions please logon to www.fsf.org, using a standards compliant web browser.
Once you have accessed the www.fsf.org home page, just click on the prominent "Get a clue" link. Hint: to access the information you will first be required to purchase a prohibitively expensive license, the software key provided may or may not work, there are no warranties conveyed, expressed, or implied; and several restrictions apply. Have a great day!
With security patches to Windows nominally requiring a reboot, how is it supposed to be trusted for a mission-critical system?
Obviously some Linux users are willing to pay for something, or Red Hat (and indeed other distros like Suse!) would not still be around.
As another Mac user, I wouldn't imagine the price would go up because then more people would switch to things like Abiword, or Pages (even though it's not really a Word replacement), or NeoOfficeJ. In fact I bought Office X and while it is nice, for day-to-day stuff I use NeoOfficeJ and it really works just as well (though it's uglier, or at least the version I'm using is). As an interesting acid test one day I broke the hinge on my laptop with Office on it, and my girlfriend who had only ever used Word up to that point was forced to do a fourty-to fifty page document in NeoOfficeJ (OpenOffice). Her only complaint? She would see the autocompleteion but could not figure out how to do the completion - once I showed her she was happy.
Basically the cost for support centers would have to come out of Linux sales, perhaps subsidised to some extent off the backs of ther company divisions. But I don't think the market for Office style products can take much of a hit without people seeking other alternatives. That's really Microsoft's dillema right there. The theory is that they would want to subsidize the cost though to keep people using Office, if the Linux desktop space gets big enough.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
How would Microsoft change if Linux takes away a significant share of the Windows desktop market?
You are apparently named after two of the leading makers of quality acoustic guitars.
Do you have an electric cousin named Fender Gibson?
It seems that Microsoft is a strong believer in putting all the eggs in one basket. Only one division of the company is in charge of producing operating systems, but it seems that everyone else (with the exception of Mac Business Unit) seems to follow the strategy of releasing their products just for one OS.
Do you see possible Linux versions for any of the following Microsoft products:
- Streets & Maps, MapPoint
- Encyclopedias
- Games
- Office applications
- Server applications, such as Speech Server and Live Communications Server
Would you trust crypto software you couldn't inspect yourself (or have done on your behalf)
I am the Barber of Seville.
Thanks for the 10% tip. I've already gone through a couple of AER (that's where I got the pricing from the in the first place)
I'm thinking we need the open licence (assuming we qualify), given we don't want to end up with software assurance, but I'll try and get hold of our previous purchases and see if we do have an existing agreement that nobody knows we have. (Gotta love changes in management), then I'll go back to our vendors and try and clear this up, to make it a fair comparison.
Damned annoying not being able to find an actual price without going through a reseller though.
Thanks for the advice.
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
I think these are on no matter what. You can hide the icons, that's about it. Otherwise, you are talking root canal.
One of the huge advantages of unix/linux for a system administrator is the powerful shell, text processing tools, command-line system maintenance and control tools, and plaintext configuration files, output, and logs, that can be strung together to perform complex and precise tasks in a matter of seconds . This is all available with the cygwin environment, but obviously only works with other unix-style applications that have been ported to that environment, and can hardly be called a part of the operating system itself. Is windows ever going to have functionality like this, or will we always be stuck spending days writing VB interfaces for any custom configuration or diagnostic tools we want to make?
WARNING: there is a trojan on your
I know this probably never happen but Nevertheless: I ask for a native bash shell for Longhorn (and better porting support for compilers of *nix like source code). What would be the reason for Microsoft not permiting this?
16,777,216 comments ought to be enough for any forum!
Why not just use wine or crossover office If you rearly need it that bad.
I think crossover office is by codeweavers? also not sure if its free..
I only use it for my CV every so often.. otherwise its vi or openoffice.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire
...a scathing, yet insidiuosly rhetorical question, please ?
Over the last ten years, hard drives, ram and microprocessors have become much less expensive per unit of power.
While computers can do much more than they could ten years ago, the vast majority of the improvements have been made outside of the operating system and office applications.
Would consumers be getting more value and faster improvements in technology if they were paying less for the operating system and office suite?
How do you measure the rate of improvement of Microsoft products over time and are you satisfied with that rate?
How would you address an argument that Microsoft's success is at the expense of the rest of the computer industry?
Having configured Windows computers for various companies I've always been underwhelmed by its technical merits. Is it possible that by its agressive business practices and monopoly status, Microsoft has managed to retard technological advancement? What (if any) is the impetus for excelling (if any) when your competition makes up less than 5% of the desktop market?
When do you expect that executive staff will stop paying for FUD and start paying attention to what customers want? Why do Bill Gates or Steve Ballmer have to insult people who prefer a different brand of operating system? Who told Microsoft that insulting intelligent people was a way to increase sales? Why should my kid be forced to have the money collected for his school go to pay a god$%*& Microsoft license for fricking software that I don't want him to be forced to learn when I can teach him better than that? When will Microsoft really grow up and behave like adults and not spoiled brats?
Note: I used to use your software, but I really won't now, unless forced to. The insults from your paid pundits has put me off your software, and made me really dislike your company. Until that changes, I don't foresee a day that I would look forward to working with your software ever again.
All Ad hominem replies happily ignored as the sender shall be deemed to lack the faculties to comprehend the equation.
I'd like to hear what he has to say.
Which O.S. would you prefer in the following situations and why: 1) A CT scanner must enable and disable a powerful X-Ray tube reliably and precisely while simultaneously capturing all of the the data. 2) Your credit card number and social security number stored as a text file in the home directory of a computer connected to the internet.
Out of curiosity, what exactly did you want to change?
Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.
By garnering the attention of the Linux community and focusing that voice, stripping it of its many facets, into a 1 on 1 interview with an MS PR person, can only mean that MS will be able to characterize and make "official" said voice from the OSS community.
This is merely an opportunity to allow MS to respond and refute in public the "true voice of the OSS crowd" or whatever they may paint any of your responses as.
First of all, you're expecting answers from the wrong guy. Second of all, you're expecting answers and not PR.
This guy's a spin artist, and you're giving him legitimacy, validation, and a voice.
I've read a lot of nonsense lately about how Microsoft products are superior to Open Source offerings, because Microsoft is committed to interoperability. Unfortunately, from my personal experience with Microsoft products this seems to be absolutely contrary to reality.
When I used Outlook and Microsoft's IME to send e-mail in Japanese, I was absolutely unable to import my saved e-mail from a previous version of Outlook to the (then) current one...Outlook refused to recognize the files. The solution? Use Netscape's mail client to import my mail from the old version of Outlook, then export it for Outlook.
At work we've tried repeatedly to use a data merge between Word and Excel (on Windows 2000 and XP) to generate forms in Word, and in two different versions of Office, we continually get random cases where, instead of having the integer that is in the Excel spreadsheet appear in the merged Word document, it picks up a random decimal, usually to about 9 decimal places. Yet when I create the same merge at home, on my Mac, it works almost flawlessly...as long as I replace any dates in the Excel spreadsheet, as they become an apparently random month and day, years in the future.
It's also been my experience that Word documents are notoriously incompatible between Word on different platforms and versions of Word, despite having identical copies of the font(s) used on each machine.
Yet perhaps the most interesting example of incompatibility has to be Internet Explorer. Without testing pages that use standards that IE refuses to support, I've seen the same HTML be misrendered in ENTIRELY DIFFERENT WAYS on each version/platform of IE tested. If IE for Mac breaks the page in one way, IE 5 and 6 on various versions of Windows can be counted on to mis-render the page in exciting and new variations. Yet Mozilla's family of browsers can be counted on to render the same code consistently, regardless of platform.
How exactly do you rationalize Microsoft's claims for interoperability?
KWrite is the intuitive answer...
Help us build a better map!
Statistics shows that the growth of Linux will reach a 30% marketshare by 2007, far exceeding that of the Macintosh. Since Microsoft develops software for the Macintosh, would it then be possible to develop software for Linux, clearing having the largest marketshare?
If the marketshare of Linux doubles every year, and many Linux users dual-boot both Windows and Linux, wouldn't it make sense to support Linux instead of bashing it? It would, after all, allow Microsoft to sell two copies of MS-Office, etc for both platforms.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
Instead of fighting Linux, Java, etc., Microsoft should embrace them. Instead of trying to dictate what the customer uses, foloow their lead.
Face it - Microsoft will never kill Linux. But, there's potentially a lot of money to be made supporting it. Imagine a Microsoft bundle of Linux - with Microsoft support. You'd get a lot of business you'll never see otherwise.
Then, consider the concept of cross-platform software. There's really no reason why Word isn't available on more platforms than just Windows and OS X - why not Linux as well? If you write your core software platform-neutral and wrapper the UI nicely, you'd gain market share for very little extra costs.
If Microsoft was more open to this sort of thing, I think people would be as hostile to the company. Right now, every thing you guys do is so tighly bound to Windows you alienate many folks who otherwise might be customers.
I personally don't like Microsoft or Windows - until I got my new box with hyperthreading, it was possible to a single program to lock up the box by maxing out the CPU, and I'm not impressed with the stability or security - but I DO have a Microsoft keyboard - because it's the best I've ever used.
People WILL buy a product if it's simply the best. But if it's shoved on them as a result of market monopoly (and the quality is only moderate), they'll look elsewhere.
MS has discontinued support for "Windows" operating systems prior to WinMe and, last I heard, also Win2k (I don't know if this is true). Also, MS feels the hot breath of Linux on it's back, and tosses about all manner of FUD regarding TCO, ease of use, etc.
Additionally, MS wants to break into the third-world markets, so it's shipping a stripped down version of XP around the globe--except in America. MS, and indeed Mr. Gates, keep telling us they want to make a better future for our children, yet the consistently SELL computer science to those it claims to help. Sure, you'll give 'puters away, but you make people pay for software and development tools, usually exorbitantly, and don't provide any kind of sample code to teach quality design. (Mind you, I don't think paying for software is bad, but $300/WinXP is a huge chunk of change for someone who wants to learn computers on his own given the time required to lock it down and *really* learn it, especially for underprivileged kids.)
Finally, with the ever-climbing security threat to personal data, and now major institutional data, promulgated by "open source" malware writers (virii, spyware, etc get shared in the underground), it seems to me MS could mitigate huge amounts of bad press simply by Open Sourcing code that pre-dates the "NT" code on which you base your current operating systems.
So why haven't you?
Don't you think MS could hugely benefit from the good PR that would follow such a move? Consider these benefits too:
1)People that learn computer science from an open-sourced windows 98 would "move up" to the more capable/secure WinXP when they outgrow the '98 limitations.
2)Those that move on would be able to better code "the microsoft way," increasing developer base and MicroSoft supporters;
3)MS could wholly abandon the earlier OS's, without outcry, with the simple explanation "Other people support it; now we can better spend our resource improving "longhorn." (this also creates a better reason to upgrade vis a vis the oft repeated MS saw against Linux: "you don't know WHO had their fingers in there!)
4)An exposed windows will be easier to patch for the windows "DIY," coder and help create safer/more secure network;
5)Regional tweaks--Time zones and map colorizations--provided by open sources can be incorporated into modern MS OSes. What better way to serve your customers than incorporating what they, themselves, deem important?
6)lower over all computer costs for third-world markets (after all, your limited XP OS presumes these markets don't require/can't afford the hardware it needs).
7)Unexpected Interface improvements.
Really, the list of good things that can come from this is limitless. The downside, for MS (as I see it) is vindication for the MS critics (code quality, integrations) and the realization among the learned that XP really isn't that different from prior MS offerings, raising the issue "Is XP really an improvement, or is it prettied up vendor lock-in.
So, In case you missed it, the question is: Why don't you open source earlier MS OSes to counter Linux?
Pete
bad dreams perhaps?
I don't feel like it...
After using Linux almost exclusively for five years now, only seeing a windows box on weekends when 'repairing' a friend of a friends virus/troj/malwared computer or five, what has MicroSoft done to out innovate Linux in the last half decade or so, and why should I switch back. Although I am just a desktop user who does not work in the field, I either have a knack with Linux that I do not with Windows or my perception that Windows is not ready for MY desktop is accurate. Or have things changed in the last 5 yrs?
It seems like the Monad shell will incorporate some of the advantages of Bash and I am curious to know what else is planned. For instance, we will see programs optimized for their architecture? Will we see an ultra-minimal Windows install? Customizability to the degree Linux has? Will LaTeX be integrated into MS Office? A Live Windows CD? Other Microsoft and third party software available through Windows Update with an apt-get like command? Alternative GUIs or built-in Qt/GTK+ toolkit emulation?
What kind of a moron are you?
Working for Gates AND insulting Linux?
Why don't you
This is less important than Whil Wheaton's questions...
Why not submit a list of questions to George Bush, while you're at it? Or maybe Karl Rove, since Bush needs a radio receiver to answer his own questions...
Why not submit a list of questions to Kim Polese at SpikeSource? She at least looks good and can talk the OSS game.
Talk about ASKING for Microsoft FUD...
Morons...
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Spot on. Too bad many folks don't see it that way.
Blogging because I can...
Note that by not using Active Directory you're giving up a *substantially* better tool for centralising desktop management - Group Policy.
Even assuming the windows implementation is more efficient and quicker to deploy in itself, the linux system would be far simpler to integrate our existing single-purpose servers with (direct access to the ldap user database, for a start)
Active directory *is* LDAP. It's not difficult to get unix machines authenticating to AD.
On a Microfsoft Bulleting board I saw a question about installing 2 bootable partitons of Windows XP.
The answer concluded with "but remember that, under the EULA, you have to buy an additional license".
I had a similar situation, being advised that installing Office on a 98/NT dual-boot system would require two licenses.
How do you defend the requirement to buy 2 licenses when, obviously, only one can be used at a time?
Better yet, what on earth do you see as being "right" about a desktop on a server?! I've wondered since the first time I saw one, quite why exactly Windows Server editions are, in effect, just the standard edition with some extra services running. Surely the point of having a dedicated server is that it be dedicated to running network services. Given how much of a systems resources windows requires, would it not have been a better idea to develop a nice command line based server solution, and have all the back end services running on that?
That doesn't matter. You're not Martin Taylor. I wouldn't be surprised if he said something similar, but nonetheless, you're not Martin Taylor. Let Martin Taylor speak for himself.
// file: mice.h
#include "frickin_lasers.h"
When will you stop beating your wife?
in the past six months, suse has crashed and frozen on my comp once- xp pro crashes about once a day.. comments?
Mr. Man, I noticed in the Microsoft Watch article that you want to work from the facts in dealing with open source questions. Do you and the company recognize that there's more to the movement? It's also a social and political thing, and do you believe you can change those deeper rooted attitudes with facts?
Turns out, like in most things M$, that you cannot re-share a share that is visible on your Win box. Why? Because it would make SFU actually useful. Plus there was no real easy way to map UnixWinblows permissions and user ID's.
Another set of below-the-par M$ tools with unintuitive Win32 GUI on top. Looks good on paper I'm sure.
'Once scientists, even the dim-witted social scientists, get muzzled, the Western Civilization is finished.' - oldhack
Based on the quality of some of your other posts I'm going to bother replying.
What possible reason could I have for trying 2003 server?
Maybe that warm and fuzzy feeling I've gotten thinking about Microsoft's great security since I started using Windows3.1 and connecting to the net via trumpet winsock?
When they came out with NT we were told that you couldn't play games on it because it was a serious os that wouldn't let apps access the hardware. I thought wow they're getting serious, cool and I signed up... a few updates later and you could make doom run on it.
How about the fact that even the newest versions of Windows can run on older/cheaper hardware? Oh wait nevermind.
How about that price... isn't it great! I'll tell my 16 person accounting office client how much they'll save by replacing their rock-solid Linux PDC with a Windows2003 server.
Or how about the way Microsoft has bought these anti-virus companies and that spyware company so they can help us work around these little problems for free? oh wait I've been hearing that subscription word, haven't I?
I could go on and on , but you completely missed the argument I was making so I'll try again.
Why in god's name would anyone run a web server with KDE installed and running, samba installed but not turned on, nfsd installed but not turned on, ntpd installed not but not turned on, alsa loaded but no speakers connected, cups installed but no printers, 3 different web browsers installed, 5 different mail clients installed 7 different news readers installed and about 30 hokey games installed on their server. Why that would be just stupid wouldn't you agree?
But at least with Linux/BSD/Solaris you can stop the gui, unload all the unused modules from the kernel, compile in only those modules you need and not allow other modules to be dynamically loaded. Delete the fucking kde/X folders (I used the word "folder" for your benefit) and still the machine will serve.
If you must use a gui to edit you zone files then fine but the focus should be on being a server not on making changes to the server's config. Why does the gui have to run all the time?
Why couldn't Microsoft spruce up Windows3.1 and you type win.com from the console (err I'm sorry, from dos), edit your files and then shut the gui off. Make the gui not network aware, not listen to any ports, just make it be a fancy regedit.
I write this post uisng Firefox on a dual-headed Windows XP Pro box. I only have 1 *nix workstation in the building and never use it. I have 1 old Sparc Server 630MP running Solaris 2.51 which is just serving up some mp3's because it's a cool old box, 4 Athlon web/email servers running debian, 1 dual P3-450 debian server for experimentation, 3 Windows2K workstations and 2 more Xp workstations. So as you can see I'm not a fanboy of much of anything and my head isn't in anyone's ass.
bah
"How Linux admins can easily administrate more machines per person-hour, due to the nature of Unix/Linux's remote administration (and don't even get me started on VNC or Terminal Services; they aren't scriptable, they aren't as bandwidth-effective, etc. etc. etc...), than Windows admins?"
They can't. If you'd ever used group policy, MMC, or the other numerous Windows administration tools, you would know that Windows administration doesn't mean "log in with VNC".
"The "hidden" costs of lost time due to (A) protecting against adware/spyware/malware/viruses/pop-ups, or (B) actually disinfecting machines that got infected anyhow."
I'll give you this one. I'd like to see a real study on this. Remember, though, that Linux-based companies must take many of the same measures to protect their businesses. At my company, we have a hardware-based firewall and antivirus solution (Sonicwall) that's pretty effective.
"The "hidden" costs of downtime due to buggy MS software. Sure, F/OSS stuff has bugs too, but when it does, at least the admin can try to fix them."
That's not at all realistic. Unless you're an admin at a *really* large organization, you probably don't have time to hunt down bugs in OSS apps. Not to mention that you have to track the changes unless you can get your fix accepted as a patch - and that requires even more work.
"When MS software is buggy, the admin is 100% at MS's mercy to fix the bug (since, being closed source, MS software is often 100% unfixable to anyone outside MS...)"
And, when OSS software is buggy, most people in the real world aren't going to run their own fork of RedHat to solve the problem. It's a logistical nightmare to develop and deploy patches without the help of your distro vendor. Unless you want to run a completely non-standard environment (try getting support from RedHat once you tell them that you changed some packages), you're SOL.
"The "hidden" costs of dealing with "hacked" IIS servers (vs. Apache)."
IIS 6 (http://secunia.com/product/1438/) has had far fewer security issues than Apache 2.0 (http://secunia.com/product/73/). It also has fewer unpatched issues. No reported issues for IIS 6.0 have allowed code execution. The only outstanding issue is one which could allow cross-site scripting with the web-based administration tool (e.g. a website could use Javascript to hijack the admin tool). This attack does not work if the administration is done on a system with the IE enhanced security configuration (on by default in Windows Server 2003).
You can complain all you want about IIS, but, as of version 6.0, it's a very capable, secure web server.
What can we expect in the future for DRM, trusted computing, and user registration?
Do you personally have anything against Linux and the open source philosophy of open code and standards, or is it simply a fantastically-paid job for you to execute Microsoft's corporate strategy where even the most benevolent of global trends of sharing knowledge is deduced into a plain faceless threat to be annihilated?
Should invading one's peaceful neighbours be opposed, or rewarded with trade deals?
Martin Taylor, Do you own an iPod and if so, does your boss know?
additionally, question was 'which of those two you like better' - so in this case cuch an answer might mean that they both are equally good (or bad).
Rich
Note that by not using Active Directory you're giving up a *substantially* better tool for centralising desktop management - Group Policy.
Yeah, I know. Had an active directory running an a test win2k server to see if we could handle an inhouse migration of our accounts, group policies etc (our vendor wanted to wipe it all and just give us a clean system). I must admit, I wouldn't mind seeing the back of NT group policies, and going to GPO, they're more flexible.
That said, as we pull down a fixed group policy to most machines, and we use mandatory roaming profiles for each user group - and it's all worked for some time now without needing anything other than very minor modifications to the set policies. That I can just as easily run on a samba system as an NT ones.
Oh, and I know I can auth the nix servers off a windows AD using samba and kerberos (as we currently do to NT) but it's a bit of a kludge. (samba talking to NT hasn't been totally reliable for us, while samba to samba is perfect, and client to samba is also fine). Plus in a pure ldap setup I think it'll be a lot easier to tweak to contain other data, such as a custom address book data that's easier to get to.
Still, I'll probably migrate us to samba AD when it supports it, assuming I go with the linux backend.
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
Are you a microsftie?
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Thats what people say in "Linux is better because its free". Not that you dont have to pay, but that you have freedom.
That means, among other things, that you can change/improve what you need (and yes, there are real needs for this in big companies, and people able to do it), and that a migration from FS will be easier, as everyone has access to the internal representation of data.
Moreover, the strict adherence of standards allows you to interoperate with whatever OS you choose (and sometimes, you have to choose a certain OS because its tightly attached to the Hardware - think big iron-). I have never had any trouble mounting NFS volumes between AIX, Solaris, Linux and *BSD.
virgin Windows install
:-) Back to the questions.
That had me cracking up picturing a young nubile Windows...OK OK.
Why, oh why, did you agree to this interview? Is there a tradition of masochism at Microsoft?
Open source is the art of letting other people write your bad code.
The windows GUI requires *minimal* resources, and it's a huge selling point for them. A windows server can be (and often is) administered by people with no real experience with windows beyond the desktop. Simple administration is part of what keeps MS's TCO "low" (heavy sarcasm, but you get my drift)
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
Recently, Microsoft security specialist David Keppelmeyer implied that businesses that adopt the Firefox browser and migrate away from using Microsoft Internet Explorer cause the fewer remaining IE users to bear a heavier brunt of attacks (fixed number attacks/number of IE users). That is, migrating away from IE is a selfish and callous measure towards the community of IE users.
Keppelmeyer also implied that black hat writers of exploits for IE deliberately used open source browsers to protect themselves from IE exploits. In the mind of readers, Keppelmeyer's qualification that "not all open source users are necessarily creating malicious software" does leave open the possibility that perhaps only 90% of open source users create malicious software.
Do you agree with Keppelmeyer's assessment?
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Are there any parts of Linux that you see as possible to be incorporated into Window? Apple did this in a large scale way but are there any features that you feel could make windows better?
Pc vendors should create a line of PCs meant for the experienced user. Would include:
VMWare or equivalent
40 flavors of linux
Windows XP
Windows 2000
Each Os should have a 5-10 Gig partition and the remainder of the drives set up as storage available to all of OS's installed.
Dave
Adobe implies that it has some kind of copyright control over implementations of the PDF specification and conditions its permission on "reasonable efforts" to enforce authorial restrictions. (This doesn't seem to conform to US case law about interoperability, but calling that bluff could be expensive.) Still, it's substantially less restrictive than what Microsoft currently offers; if the output of any version of MS Word is fully and freely documented, it's at least two completely incompatible formats and nearly a decade behind.
Of course, you know as well as I do that many MS Office users, Microsoft included, use the Word 97/2000/2002 format to publish documents better suited to something like PDF, and that there are other open formats suitable for editing.If the unthinkable happened and Steve Jobs started working for Redhat and brought Linux to the desktop, would Microsoft use its patent portfolio to reduce the threat?
May the Maths Be with you!
How would your responses to this interview differ if you weren't getting a paycheck from Microsoft? Why should anyone listen to a shill?
If it were today, I imagine IE as the default OS is something that people would like changed. Not sure what would've been a sticking point in the past though.
arkhan_jg I work in UK education too. Drop me a line and I can put you in touch with our software suppliers. From the prices you quote you may be being overcharged for Linux as well as MS software. matjday@noSpam.hotmail.com
Mmm I dont know if gratis is a french word also, but it certainly is a spanish word (i am a native spanish speaker). Google's translator doesnt seem to understand gratis@french.
And just to make an additional point about memory availability.... do that control-alt-del again and take a look at physical memory and kernel memory, and look at total, available, paged, etc. Notice that the numbers are alot smaller than they should be? Go ahead. Take some time to do the math, I'll wait.
:)
Done yet? No. Well I guarantee you will notice a shortage. Why? Where is that extra memory being used? Hmmmm I wonder. Where oh where could a GUI based OS be putting all that extra memory? You can't shut down the Windows in Windows my friend.
Thanks for playing. Feel free to get back to your pipe.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
When are you going to port Office(any version) to Linux?
mybox# apt-get install msoffice
RHEL != Linux
Why didn't Rob follow up and ask what he was doing BEFORE those?
Did he not run any anti-spyware software before Microsoft bought it? If not, why not?
Did he not run any firewall before Microsoft put it in sp2? If not, why not?
It couldn't be because spyware and such wasn't a problem, otherwise, why would Microsoft have included the firewall in sp2 and picked up anti-virus / anti-spyware companies?
Most of the "TCO" "studies" end after a 3 year cycle so they only charge once for a Microsoft contract instead of every few years as would be the real case.
If they extended their "studies" out for 5 years, Linux would stomp Microsoft every time.
Way to setup a situation where the guy (or ANY guy) can say NOTHING that you would ever possibly bother to pay attention to if it does not already conform to your narrow world view.
There has to be a word for people like you, actually there are several, none flattering.
This is wrong. Be, Inc. fought for and WON the right to place the OS there without MS reprocussions. The reality was that NOBODY GAVE A SHIT ABOUT BeOS! I mean really, it was "neat" and completely worthless to virtually anyone buying a computer at the time.
What is Microsoft's opinion on Firefox being bundled with most Linux distributions? Do you feel Firefox a threat?
Get an account and post here again, and I'll be happy to discuss my "worldview" with you.
Blogging because I can...