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.

Comments

So, you sold your soul, eh?

[Darren Winsper]

Do you think you could have got more for it on eBay? ;) for the humour challenged.

Re:So, you sold your soul, eh?

[nine-times]

Or: Are you not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not lying right now?

uh huh. And why should we believe that answer?

Re:So, you sold your soul, eh?

[CypherOz]

Have you stopped lying?

and... Have you stopped beating your wife?

Interoperability

[wdd1040]

Is Microsoft hoping to incorporated any interoperability for using Linux-based binaries? IE, an embeded version of Cygwin for instance.

Re:Interoperability

[JessLeah]

Firstly, CygWin doesn't run Linux binaries. One could theoretically build a Linux emulation core around it-- something like WINE, where Linux system calls are actually caught by the middleware and passed along to a rather heavily modified CygWin (which implements many Un*xlike system calls) to execute... However, this would no longer be Cygwin, but a whole new beast.

Secondly, they'd have to release the source to any changes back to the community (presuming they actually wanted to release this "Linux emulation layer" feature ;) ). I doubt they'd do this.

Thirdly, this would raise a big stink. RMS himself might step out to chastize MS if they did something like this.

Fourthly, they'd never do something like this. They already have the (backwardsly-named) MS Services for Unix, and they'll likely stick doggedly to it.


By the way, "i.e." means "that is"; "e.g." means "for example". I think you meant "e.g." (which would also have made "for instance" redundant).

Re:Interoperability

[JessLeah]

*cough* Last updated: May 28, 2001.

Re:Interoperability

[kmmatthews]

*cough* still active:

Date Rank Page Views D/l Bugs Support Patches All Trakr Tasks CVS
15 Jan 2005 3076 ( 81.12 ) 44 13 0 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) 0

from http://sourceforge.net/project/stats/?group_id=220 93

Re:Interoperability

[jarich]

Thirdly, this would raise a big stink. RMS himself might step out to chastize MS if they did something like this.

Oh yeah, that's a great reason! I'm sure that Bill is terrified of RMS! :)

Re:Interoperability

[saden1]

Microsoft eats its own Dog Food. Does this help or hurt Microsoft in the long term? And how is the dog food server doing these days?

Re:Interoperability

[julesh]

Why should it need to be updated? It's an ELF format dynamic loader that shoves out almost all of the work to cygwin to provide the necessary APIs. Sure, if the ELF spec changes, they'll need to update it, but I don't see that happening any time soon.

Re:Interoperability

[julesh]

I wouldn't have thought so. There _was_ a POSIX compatibility layer in Windows NT up to and including version 4; it was stripped out of Win2K though, presumably because MS didn't want to support it for the benefit of the tiny number of people who actually used it.

Re:Interoperability

[CableModemSniper]

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/sfu/

Re:Interoperability

[prodangle]

Oh yeah, that's a great reason! I'm sure that Bill is terrified of RMS! :)

I'm sure he really is!

Re:Interoperability

[Anonymous Coward]

Have some cough drops.

Re:Interoperability

[Lord Kano]

One could theoretically build a Linux emulation core around it-- something like WINE,

Line Is No Emulator

LK

Re:Interoperability

[PixelScuba]

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/sfu/

I read that as http://www.microsoft.com/windows/stfu/

You can see my confusion, as I thought that this was their PR Policy

Re:Interoperability

[Nikademus]

LOL, it's easy for MS to get OpenBSD code and compile it to run on windows to make some interoperability with unix systems. It's ways harder to interoperate with closed proprietary standards, such as those made by MS. But OpenSource succeeds in this fairly well. Look at how MS claims windows run kerberos authentication.. It does not, they just took the name of an open standard, modded it enough to render it useless and poorly implemented it. Is that interoperability?

Re:Interoperability

[ribo-bailey]

SFU is horribly broken :/

Re:Interoperability

[biglig2]

A bit off topic (this is their Linux expert being interviewed), but something I'd be very interested in hearing about.

In my company, we recently modified our version of this statement from "we don't eat our own dogfood, but we do feed our dogs with it" to include the addition "although, if you are poor enough, dogfood can be the basis for a nourishing stew!"

Re:Interoperability

[Pantero Blanco]

I've actually used playing that .ogg as a threat to get kids to be quiet.

Re:Interoperability

[GraemeDonaldson]

The POSIX layer was not removed in 2000. It's still around, even in XP.

Re:Interoperability

[julesh]

Hmmm... looking at it, you're right, it's just that my desktop system has it missing for some reason. Not sure why that might be, could be an installer failure :(

Has Microsoft considered

[Anonymous Coward]

Using an open source code base for a producted. Name, the Mozilla code for an "Internet Explorer 7"?

Re:Has Microsoft considered

[DaHat]

GPLed code on IE? Care to back up that accusation?

Re:Has Microsoft considered

[wangmaster]

IE was based on Mosaic. Which was never opensourced. Sure, source code was available, but that's a far cry from being GPL'ed, or even considered open source.

Re:Has Microsoft considered

[Marxist Hacker 42]

It's more of a suspicion than an accusation- based on the header that a web server recieves from an IE 6.0 browser that mentions mozilla. It MAY be only be a passing nod to the fact that the Mozilla group is the one that created the original HTML standard, and were the winners of the HTML 4.0 standard from the World Wide Web commission- but I've always found the mention of Mozilla in IE code to be rather suspicious. Since IE is closed source, there's no real way of anybody outside of Microsoft having this answer at all.

Re:Has Microsoft considered

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Except- no troll mod has been noted. And if you count characters, including the BR tags, it's less than 120.

Re:Has Microsoft considered

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Ah, ok. that makes more sense....and I could be remembering the browser header wrong as well.

Re:Has Microsoft considered

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a compatibility thing from the mid-90's. Lynx might get one type of page, "mozilla" browsers would get another, etc. "Mozilla" in the header string has nothing at all to do with Mozilla.org. It means "this browser is mozilla compatible"... in fact, that's what the word "compatible" in there is for as well.

Re:Has Microsoft considered

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember reading about this recently. The early Netscape engine was known as Mozilla, long before the Mozilla project. During the time of rapidly chainging web standards, Netscape supported a lot of new, fancy formatting that nobody else did yet. Pages were written to look for "Mozilla" in the browser string, and feed it the formatted page. When IE implemented those features, the fastest way to put them in use was to add "Mozilla" to their browser string so that all the existing pages would suddenly work.

This explanation is now totally obsolete, but that often isn't sufficient reason for change. It does give a possible non-evil explanation.

Re:Has Microsoft considered

[shufler]

It MAY be only be a passing nod to the fact that the Mozilla group is the one that created the original HTML standard, and were the winners of the HTML 4.0 standard from the World Wide Web commission

I find this difficult to believe, considering the Mozilla Foundation didn't exist when the HTML 4.0 standard was passed.

but I've always found the mention of Mozilla in IE code to be rather suspicious.

Perhaps you are confusing Mozilla for NCSA's Mosaic, which IE certainly used code from (Help -> About)

Re:Has Microsoft considered

[rpdillon]

"Mozilla" was an browser identifier string ten years ago. Netscape used it as a codename for some of their code, and it existed as a compatibility identifer long before Mozilla.org existed. Since IE was directly competing with Netscape, they wanted webpages to believe they were "mozilla comptaible", hence the browser identifier, which says as much (last I checked it says it is IE, but tags that with "mozilla compatible".)

When Netscape open-sourced their browser to save the server market from MS's clutches, the foundation that grabbed the source and moved forward with it needed a name, and Mozilla seemed appropriate as any. Rest assured, however, that Netscape and MS were using "mozilla" as a browser identifer string before Mozilla (the browser) existed.

If you want more informaion on the odd world of broswer identifier tags, go into Konqueror sometime and check the tag-spoofing options. Many will say "mozilla compatible", because that's really the standard.

Re:Has Microsoft considered

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I think that last is right- I may be getting the two confused (with some help from Netscape headers which have always been Mozilla internally).

Re:Has Microsoft considered

[NemosomeN]

Honestly though, do you think Microsoft would leave such glaring and obvious evidence if they DID steal source from Mozilla? With access to the source, getting rid of that little scrap of "evidence" would be trivial, and I doubt that, given that they did steal code and "forget" to take that line out, that it would be gone by IE 6.

Re:Has Microsoft considered

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Honestly though, do you think Microsoft would leave such glaring and obvious evidence if they DID steal source from Mozilla?

Well, considering that they DID leave something so glaring an obvious as an identification string from a pirated audio program in WAV files installed on every user's machine, it is POSSIBLE. Whether they did it or not is an open question- and there are at least three reasons given elsewhere in this discussion as to why the word "Mozilla" might appear in the browser identity string that have NOTHING to do with Open Source or GPL'd software.

Re:Has Microsoft considered

[2short]

It's not an "open question". They put "Mozilla Compatible" in their identification string so that pages that scanned this for "Mozilla" (because they were written for Netscape) would find it and give them the content, rather than returning a page that said it only worked with Netscape.
Before you throw wild accusations around, you ought to learn at least a little bit about the history of what you're talking about.

Re:Has Microsoft considered

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Chill, man, this is slashdot- and in the GP I already refered to the history (or rather, to the three separate alleged histories- your explaination being one of the three mentioned in the group along with me misremembering the string and it being "Mosaic" instead of "Mozilla", and "Mozilla Compatible" actually telling the truth about the interpretation of the HTML).

Re:Has Microsoft considered

[Master Bait]

IE was based on Mosaic.

I believe IE was based on a browser named Spyglass, from whom MS licensed and subsequently attempted to cheat (what else is new). From wikipedia:

In 1995, Microsoft licensed Mosaic from Spyglass as the basis of Internet Explorer 1.0 which it released as part of Windows 95. The arrangement for the licence was that Spyglass would receive a quarterly fee plus a percentage of Microsoft's revenues for the software.

Microsoft subsequently bundled Internet Explorer with Windows, and thus (making no direct revenues on IE) paid only the minimum quarterly fee. In 1997, Spyglass threatened Microsoft with a contractual audit, in response to which Microsoft settled for US $8 million.

Re:Has Microsoft considered

[ischorr]

Mozilla was the internal name for the product being worked on by Mosaic Communications Corporation, as the sequel to Mosaic (it was bigger, more powerful, etc). The browser was eventually renamed (externally) to "Netscape", as was the company.

The endearing "Mozilla" name continued to be used internally, and was the basis of the original firebreathing dragon logos that appeared long before the Mozilla codebase was open sourced (which happened years before AOL shut down most of the remainder of their Netscape division and started the Mozilla Foundation).

Re:Has Microsoft considered

[2short]

So since this is slashdot, no one should correct you when you are just plain wrong? You suspect MS is using GPL'd code on the basis of some easily disprovable half-remembered evidence and no one should tell you you're full of it?

Dude, this is slashdot. Finding someone who is stupidly wrong about something and telling them so is the whole reason I come here.

Re:Has Microsoft considered

[FxChiP]

I believe IE was based on a browser named Spyglass, . . .

From wikipedia:

In 1995, Microsoft licensed Mosaic from Spyglass

Emphasis mine.

Care to explain? :) It was a typo, right?

Re:Has Microsoft considered

[IceFreak2000]

I know others have already commented on this, but to quote from the IE6 "About Internet Explorer" dialog (emphasis mine):

Based on NCSA Mosaic. NCSA Mosaic(TM); was developed at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Distributed under a licensing agreement with Spyglass, Inc.

Re:Has Microsoft considered

[NemosomeN]

My post should read that I "doubt it would not be gone". And I was supposing, anyway. I know IE and Mozilla share no code. I was pointing out how ridiculous that was, even with no knowledge of the history.

Re:Has Microsoft considered

[Mortanius]

Mod parent down. Waaaaaay down. Knee-jerk bad. :-P

Re:Has Microsoft considered

[Mortanius]

"Glaring an[d] obvious?" Do you make it a habit to open every WAV file you come across in a text editor? I don't know about you but I prefer listening to them in a media player, I can't get quite the same richness of sound reading it through notepad.

Quality

[nagora]

If Microsoft is so much better why does IE still not support semi-transparent PNGs or CSS fixed positioning while every other browser has done both for literally years? Is it because you don't care or because you can't actually get it to work?

TWW

Re:Quality

[Anonymous Coward]

Lynx supports semi-transparent PNGs now? Sweet!

Also, you should learn about False Dichotomies

Re:Quality

[SiChemist]

I wish I had mod points for you. Unfortunately, I spent them frivolously earlier today :-(

What is Microsoft's problem with fully supporting open standards? I mean, it's not like they have a really usable alternative to semi-transparent PNGs so why not just follow the standard?

Every time I think about how easy it would be to improve web sites with transparency I get worked up all over again.

Re:Quality

[As Seen On TV]

Everybody already knows the answer to this question: Because those two features are simply not a priority for the IE development team. I'd be very disappointed if such an obvious and shallow question made the cut, displacing what might be a more interesting question.

On the PNG issue, use AlphaImageLoader. Works like a charm.

Re:Quality

[letchhausen]

I think that your question needs more detail.

Such as whether you mean IE is a better browser for pr0n viewing than Firefox or Opera or something.

Perhaps your question is whether or not Window's Media Player is the best movie viewer? You might want to suggest what's better.

Or whether under the OS if say, Apple's Quicktime is a better jpg viewer than MS's . Compare it to whatever you use under Linux....

Or whether those sweet, tricked out, fancy-pants Apple Displays are awesome to squeeze the most out of those low res freebies you downloaded, in which case MS doesn't have an alternative not being a hardware company.

Surfing Pr0n minds might want to know, but need to be more specific with the questions.

Re:Quality

[nagora]

Because those two features are simply not a priority for the IE development team.

In other words: they don't care.

I'd be very disappointed if such an obvious and shallow question made the cut, displacing what might be a more interesting question.

Yet, it strikes at the very heart of why so many people despise MS: they don't give a damn about working with other people, even those with no commercial axe to grind, not even with their own users. Why?

On the PNG issue, use AlphaImageLoader. Works like a charm.

As a workaround, it's pretty good and I use it but it fails in some cases where CSS is included from other links, to say nothing of how tiresome it can be in situations where images are read dynamically without knowing their exact dimensions (eg: I did a site where images were uploaded and fitted into a 150x150 box. I did not know in advance if they would be portrait or landscape, but I didn't need to know until IE was reading the page).

Regardless, it's obviously nonsense to need such cruft just to display a standard image format, particularly one as useful as PNG24.

TWW

Re:Quality

[As Seen On TV]

In other words: they don't care.

That's not a reasonable interpretation, and you know it. You a $10 bill in your pocket. You can buy food for your family and pay your mortgage, or you can donate it to the Red Cross. Does the fact that you use that money to buy food and shelter mean you don't care about disaster relief? Of course not. It just means that it's not as on your list of priorities as food and shelter are.

why so many people despise MS

What do you really think is going to be accomplished by turning this interview into a hate-fest? If you dislike Microsoft, don't participate. Take your negativity elsewhere.

Re:Quality

[spongman]

for a semi-official answer, see this blog entry and its comments.

Re:Quality

[NormalVisual]

Let's turn that into a real question then - why is adherence to industry standards apparently not a priority for Microsoft, and why should I believe this attitude is better for me as an end user?

Re:Quality

[nagora]

That's not a reasonable interpretation,

In what way is "they don't care" not a reasonable paraphrasing of your comment that displaying a standard image format or rendering standard stylesheets with their web browser is "not a priority for the IE development team"? That's like saying that working headlights aren't a priority for Ford's car design section!

What do you really think is going to be accomplished by turning this interview into a hate-fest?

Hello? Have you seen who is being interviewed? The man in charge of FUD? Negativity is his job description. He's doing this for the same reason his boss has been lying about Linux security and interopertablity all month: to get the message accross and squash the competition. My question is about why they don't try to fight the competition with quality products instead of bullshit rhetoric. That's a perfectly good question to put to some one that persists in paying for TCO studies that pit MS against RH and then blithly say that it proves that Linux is more expensive. I'm running many Linux servers and desktops and I'm not using Red Hat. RH is not Linux; the TCO studies are not about Linux, they're about Red Hat. Why does he keep on lying about them? Why can't his company just produce a decent product that works? Why do we have to have all these security holes and why do they have to keep telling us that Linux is just as bad when everyone knows it's not? Why don't they compete on quality? Competition is his job; it's a fair question. Except, of course, I know he'll lie through his teeth if he's asked it.

Martin Taylor is looking for a platform to spread FUD. Why are you so keen to let him do it?

TWW

Re:Quality

[Coneasfast]

png answer here

Q: Alpha channel PNGs: widespread support of these will enable web developers to break new ground in web design. IE -almost- supports it already with glitches. Can we expect support for this in the next version?
A: We certainly hear the feedback on alpha channel support on PNG. Again at this stage we can't definitely commit to implementation but we are hearing this consistent feedback. Unfortunately the rendering codebase means this is a little more difficult to implement than you might expect but we aren't afraid to take on the difficult issues :-)

what are they saying, that IE is poorly designed?

Re:Quality

[nagora]

Astounding! He's actually claiming that after seven (now eight) years, that they simply can't get it to work! That it's too hard!? That seems...unlikely, even given MS's general level of programming talent.

TWW

Re:Quality

[As Seen On TV]

Sigh. Again with the loaded questions. This isn't an issue of "industry standards." It's an issue of adding additional support for a seldom-used file format. The support is already there, you just want them to add more support.

Which is an entirely reasonable request. It's just that Microsoft gets lots of entirely reasonable requests, and there are only so many developers to go around.

If you want to make the case that Microsoft needs to go back and implement a fairly obscure feature that's already implemented in a different way, great. Go for it. That's a totally valid opinion. I just don't think this interview is the right platform for trying to do that.

Re:Quality

[nagora]

I don't guess it would do any good if I just asked you please not to participate in this thread, huh?

I take it you've not bothered your bum to read any of this guy's output, so there's little point in discussing it.

He's here to tell us that Linux and OS X suck donkey wab and anyone that says otherwise is an idiot. Read his stuff: that's what he ALWAYS says.

Here's an opportunity for dialogue

MS has turned down hundreds of opportunities for dialogue over the years. I didn't make them, and I don't see why I have the responsibility to keep on extending the hand after all this time.

If they sent anyone else apart from Balmer I'd see your point, but this bloke is not here for dialogue.

Let me guess American?

Nope. Let me guess...astroturf?

TWW

Re:Quality

[cosmo7]

Although this question is a little of the "Have you stopped beating your wife" variety, it does broach a serious issue.

MS can argue that PNG transparency is an optional part of the standard, but there is no good reason not to embrace it. MS has been quite happy to come up with all sorts of crazy IE-only CSS extensions to alpha-mask, blur and drop-shadow images, presumably with the intention of owning CSS. So why not implement something that people actually want?

Re:Quality

[John Courtland]

PNG is not seldom used, and CSS is definitely seldom used. It would not take a long time to add these features so that their browser can actually work properly. It's broken, they cannot claim CSS compliance nor can they claim they properly render PNG images.

Re:Quality

[As Seen On TV]

No argument ... except with your first sentence. Both of these features are quite obscure in the grand scheme of things. It's entirely understandable why Microsoft wouldn't want to invest the time to add support for them. It's a return-on-investment, opportunity-cost thing.

Besides, when somebody accuses you of saying that somebody else's product "sucks donkey wab" (c.f. this troll), how motivated are you to acquiesce to his feature request?

Re:Quality

[john82]

If righthand drive were presented as an open standard, would you also castigate GM, Ford and Chrysler for continuing to sell lefthand drive vehicles?

How much should Microsoft expend to make the supporters of open source happy about such a minor format? And what is the real prospect that adding support for transparent PNGs would result in some bon mots from the denizens of slashdot?

If you want to highlight Microsoft's abuse of standards choose better examples.

Re:Quality

[sarlen]

If Microsoft is so much better why does IE still not support semi-transparent PNGs or CSS fixed positioning while every other browser has done both for literally years? Is it because you don't care or because you can't actually get it to work?

Microsoft has stated several times now that they do not plan on making any kind of substantive update to IE until Longhorn (with security being an exception). Now whether this is good policy or not is up for debate, but it completely explains their lack of fairly recent standards compliance.

Re:Quality

[arkanes]

Probably 75% of IE's features aren't used by anybody. CSS is used by a lot more people, and here's the big kicker - IE's poor CSS support is the major obstacle to CSS support. Period. CSS fixed positioning addressed a common problem that lots of people had. I have no idea why MS decided that it wasn't important for IE, but DirectX based image filters were. Or MS Agent (thats like Clippy) support. If I thought I could get a real answer, I'd ask too.

There is no ROI in IE *at all*. None. It's given away as part of Windows. The only ROI is mindshare and platform locking, and if that's one reason why they haven't put more standards compliance into IE, I'd like to hear them say it. But they won't. And I wonder what your problem is too.

Re:Quality

[nagora]

Microsoft has stated several times now that they do not plan on making any kind of substantive update to IE until Longhorn (with security being an exception).

Ignoring the fact that they left these problems over two full releases, fixing two minor bugs is not what I'd call "substantive updates".

fairly recent standards compliance.

We're talking about 7 and 8 YEAR old bugs here, not recent stuff.

TWW

Re:Quality

[Mr. No Skills]

"Unfortunately the rendering codebase means this is a little more difficult to implement than you might expect but we aren't afraid to take on the difficult issues :-)"

what are they saying, that IE is poorly designed?

Yes, and they are willing to introduce some new security holes and performance issues as they throw the might of their Internet Explorer Rendering Engine division (425 employees, all with a PhD in CS) at the problem.

Re:Quality

[Lillesvin]

This isn't an issue of "industry standards." It's an issue of adding additional support for a seldom-used file format. The support is already there, you just want them to add more support.

'scuse me? A "seldom-used file format"? PNG? Have you been on the web lately? I take it that you've never designed a semi-advanced web-layout before. Seriously, don't you think that alpha-blended PNGs would be used a lot more if MS would make IE support them? It'd make life as a webdesigner so much easier. I've begun designing my personal sites with semi-transparent PNGs and it simplifies the process of designing a site a great deal. IE can't show it... Tough luck, then IE-users will have to go somewhere else...

It's about time you got your head out of your ass and started using it for something more constructive than trolling.

And what support is "already there"? Alpha-blended PNGs?

We are talking industry standards here and you are obvliously to ignorant to get it. It's absolutely imperative that corporations such as MS support stuff like alpha-blended PNGs and CSS or come up with (better) alternatives to those. MS has done neither and their users will have to get used to being last in the line. I reckon it'll only cost MS in the end and I don't feel the slightest bit bad for them. If they don't "feel like implementing the standards", then they'll eventually be left out in the cold by their users. Not today, not tomorrow, but eventually...

Re:Quality

[As Seen On TV]

IE's poor CSS support is the major obstacle to CSS support. Period.

While I think you have a point, it's kind of a chicken-and-egg problem, isn't it? IE doesn't have support for --let's be honest here --a very few, very specific parts of the vast and damn near impenetrable specification because the demand for them isn't there. You're saying that the demand isn't there because IE doesn't support those far-out parts of the spec. There's no easy answer, I think.

There is no ROI in IE *at all*. None.

That's no really true. Internet Explorer is a value-add on top of Windows, and serves to advance the Windows platform. Microsoft adds those features their customers are asking for, while they skip over features that some people want but that the majority of their customers don't care about.

And I wonder what your problem is too.

?? What happened here, did you just decide at the end of your comment to start being a dickhead?

Re:Quality

[As Seen On TV]

Seriously, don't you think that alpha-blended PNGs would be used a lot more if MS would make IE support them?

Truthfully, no. Because Web sites that are designed to include graphics with mattes on them are already being produced, using the very simple workaround I described in another comment.

You kind of make it sound like IE can't display PNGs with mattes at all. That's not true. You just need to put in the right attributes to tell IE how to handle your matted images.

It's about time you got your head out of your ass and started using it for something more constructive than trolling.

Sigh. You're the third person in a row on this site who, in the middle of a perfectly find conversation, decided to be a jerk. What's the deal, is there something in the drinking water around here?

Re:Quality

[Moofie]

If you want a transparent image that's more than 256 colors, your only viable option is .png. A minor format? Are you nutty?

Re:Quality

[Feztaa]

What do you mean MINOR format? PNG alpha channels have lots of uses in web design.

Imagine your website has some kind of pattern as a background image, and you want to have an image with transparency. Currently, you have to do that by making a gif that's only got a 1-bit alpha channel (eg, every pixel is either fully opaque or fully transparent). PNG transparency allows you to have soft edges on your image that blend nicely into the background, no matter where on the background they're placed.

Perhaps you should inspect the PNG Alpha Demo. It's really quite impressive, but don't bother opening it in IE.

Re:Quality

[arkanes]

IE doesn't have support for --let's be honest here --a very few, very specific parts of the vast and damn near impenetrable specification because the demand for them isn't there. You're saying that the demand isn't there because IE doesn't support those far-out parts of the spec.

The demand *is* there. It's not seen as demand because people work around the flaws, so IE still works, because if IE doesn't work people don't view their pages. It *is* a chicken and egg problem. IE, with it's dominant market share, directly affects the usage of new web techniques. If IE can't do something, you either don't do it or you find a workaround.

Also, lets be really clear. IE lacks a lot more than "a few pieces" of CSS support. It has most of CSS 1. It has a tiny bit of CSS 2 (although practically none of the positioning styles). It has none of CSS 3.

Internet Explorer is a value-add on top of Windows, and serves to advance the Windows platform.

There's your answer right there - MS doesn't view IE as a product to market to web users. IE is a platform-lockin tool. Don't forget that MS only got into the browser market as a way to combat the fear that web applications would render the OS irrelevant.

[...]t but that the majority of their customers don't care about.

I think that I'd like to hear from Microsoft exactly why they consider to be their customers and who they actually receive feedback from. I am totally positive that most people who use Windows don't provide any of that feedback. I am equally certain that web developers don't either.

?? What happened here, did you just decide at the end of your comment to start being a dickhead?

No, but I'm seeing a huge chain of posts from you basically flaming anyone for asking Microsoft why, when they could very easily be a leader in driving rich, cross platform, standard compliant functionality on the web, they're choosing not to. Don't forget that features like transparent PNG and CSS 2 support were dropped in favor of features even less commonly used.

Re:Quality

[jackspenn]

Dude!

Re:Quality

[Lillesvin]

You said it best yourself... "... using a very simple workaround ..." and "... just need to put in the right attributes to tell IE how to handle your matted images."

Why does IE require special treatment? Why does MS think their implementation is better (which they must do if they, as you said earlier, actually care about this subject and are also able to implement it)? Everyone else seems to have found a common solution/behaviour (an aspiring standard?) and MS refuses to make IE behave in the same way. Please, give me one good reason for that.

When they don't propose any better alternatives and don't do the least bit to innovate and develop themselves in this field, then they'll have to be prepared to "do as the rest".

You wouldn't make a mail client that didn't conform to any standards and behaved in a non-standard way unless you had a really good reason for it, would you?

You avoided answering my questions before and decided to focus on the wrong subject, namely me telling you to get your head out of your ass. I'm sorry for saying that - it wasn't constructive and I apologize.

Re:Quality

[Daengbo]

Here's an opportunity for dialogue, and you just piss all over it. Let me guess ...American?
Wow. I don't even agree with the American gov't or live there, and I still think you need to grow up.

Re:Quality

[Myopic]

i vote for this question

Re:Quality

[nagora]

Sigh. Again with the loaded questions. This isn't an issue of "industry standards." It's an issue of adding additional support for a seldom-used file format.

Wrong on both counts. Three counts if you include the bit about loaded questions; it is not a loaded question to ask if a seven year old bug has not been fixed because of apathy or incompetance - it really has to be one or the other. Anyway, it is an industry standard and it is often used, particularly behind the scenes to pass graphics between developers in a lossless fashion. Once the graphics are ready, of course, we than have to find ways of displaying them on IE, which is broken.

The support is already there, you just want them to add more support.

No it's not. There is a way of forcing IE to display the graphic by embedding a raw system call in your page, but that's not a reasonable way of doing business.

If you want to make the case that Microsoft needs to go back and implement a fairly obscure feature that's already implemented in a different way, great.

It's not obscure except to people like you who think that the "industry" is defined as "Microsoft", and it's not implimented. It is implimented in IE for the Mac; the windows version does not display PNGs correctly.

I just don't think this interview is the right platform for trying to do that.

Someone is going to talk to us about why MS is superior to all the alternatives. Asking why MS can't fix old bugs that they admit to getting lots of complaints about is addressing that very assertion and it perfectly on-topic. I remind you again that this guy's job is all about "competition" and this is a question about why MS is so much poorer than the competition in one of its core products - the browser. I can only assume that you are afraid of the truth: that MS really does not give a toss about CSS or PNG, any more that it ever has about HTML or any other interopertability standard or protocol.

TWW

Re:Quality

[nagora]

What's the deal, is there something in the drinking water around here?

No. YOU are anoying people by making assertions which are totally moronic and then acting as if everyone else is a fool for not accepting them. IE is broken but you say it's not. The bugs are well documented, MS staff have written about them MS itself said, years ago, that they would be fixed. But you want us all to believe that they don't exist because one of them can be delt with by reference to a system call outside of and completely unrelated to anything to do with writing web pages. And that a file format the whole world is using is "obscure".

And have the brass neck to ask why you are getting insults? I don't think you are trolling, but that actually leaves an even less flattering alternative open.

TWW

Re:Quality

[Lennie]

One would be that mplayer supports aalib.

So you can view your 'p0rn' in ascii. :-)

link to aalib:
http://aa-project.sourceforge.net/aalib/

Re:Quality

[KermitJunior]

Here's an opportunity for dialogue, and you just piss all over it. Let me guess ...American?

Sigh.

I don't guess it would do any good if I just asked you please not to participate in this thread, huh? There are plenty of places on the Internet where you can yell about how much you hate Americans. Do you have to pollute this one particular thread with it, too?

Re:Quality

[SiChemist]

According to Bruce Morgan at the IE Weblog, implementing transparent PNG is "one of the top developer requests"

Re:Quality

[Zphbeeblbrox]

Minor? are you crazy? PNG's are everywhere. Graphic Designers use them all the time. Even on websites since at times they are superior to jpeg even without the alpha support. If it was minor they wouldn't support it at all. I use pngs for non web uses too. video compositing, a way to share images for print. TGA is spotty on mac and pict is spotty on windows. PNG is anything but minor. Their continued lack of support can only mean that they don't understand what really provides added value in their products. Users and Designers alike would benefit hugely by its addition. Microsoft has dropped the ball big time on this one. It's not like people haven't been telling them for a while now. We've been practically screaming for it, for years now.

TCO of Windows vs. Linux

[donnyspi]

I see Microsoft ads in magazines claiming that the TCO a business using Windows is significantly less than using Linux. How can this be?

Re:TCO of Windows vs. Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a note, the Jan. 24 2005 edition of "Information Week" has one such ad on it's back cover.

The ad would have you believe that the cost of Red Hat Linux far exceeds that of windows over the course of 5 years. One interesting part about this ad is that it has a column off to the right which shows Novell's (Suse) Linux offering. Odd thing is (at least for a M$ ad) that Novell's offering is shown to be almost exactly the same cost as Windows Server 2003.

Is M$ trying to send us towards Windows Server or Novell Linux?

Re:TCO of Windows vs. Linux

[pjt33]

I believe they assume that the business already has Windows installed on all its machines.

Re:TCO of Windows vs. Linux

[LourensV]

One of the key points in your Windows versus Linux ads so far is total cost of ownership. You point out to prospective Linux customers that switching from Windows to Linux is often more expensive than upgrading to the next version of Windows.

One way to look at this is to say that Windows is more compatible with Windows than Linux, and therefore a better choice. Another way of looking at it is that Microsoft is exceedingly successful at locking in its customers, and that (as a customer) it is best to get out as soon as possible because it will only get worse.

Do you worry that people will take this second point of view rather than the first, and that the campaign might backfire?

Re:TCO of Windows vs. Linux

[Experiment 626]

I see Microsoft ads in magazines claiming that the TCO a business using Windows is significantly less than using Linux. How can this be?

These studies typically assume that the status quo is Windows, the workforce is already skilled with Windows but not Linux, Windows is currently installed on the machines, etc. and what is being compared is the cost of sticking with Windows vs. switching operating systems, retraining the workforce, and similar expenses. These transition costs make Linux appear more expensive than Windows, even when the Linux solution itself is cheaper to run.

So, to make this into a question for Mr. Taylor, is this an accurate summary of the studies, and can you point to any that are conducted from a more neutral perspective, without making assumptions of one OS or the other enjoying a comfortable incumbent position?

Re:TCO of Windows vs. Linux

[mchawi]

Please also clarify what SIZE of business you mean.

For a small business with one server and a few desktops, vs a medium business with 10-20 servers and maybe a couple hundred desktops, vs businesses with hundreds of servers and thousands of desktops. The businesses at that top tier do not pay the same costs as those at the bottom tier.

In other words, I think it is a good question but I think any TCO analysis that says 'cost is lower' and doesn't quantify lower for what type of business is going to be flawed.

Re:TCO of Windows vs. Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

The TCO for Microsoft do not include anti-virus/spyware software, removal/cleanup efforts, and damage to productivity over the same period of time (i.e. the damage figures caused by the Blaster, etc are not factored into the TCO).

Since trojan/virus/spyware cause a news-worthy quoted figure of billions of dollars in damage/productivity, when will a study come out that properly reflects this risk as part of the TCO vs. a similar Linux solution?

Re:TCO of Windows vs. Linux

[RLW]

That is very much the premise behind any M$FT claim for TCO. They inflate the cost of of switch over, training, and usability iussues for Linux. Then on the Windows side they assume the best possible terms for update pricing.

Re:TCO of Windows vs. Linux

[dubious9]

(Score:0, Offtopic)
Training for a start. Peer Support second.

Offtopic? A direct answer to an on-topic question? The parent's answer is terribly short, unproven, and doesn't make any type of a good argument other than regurgitating oft-repeated FUD. However, there is no Wrong -1 mod option, and there shouldn't be.

There *are* training costs to move to any other computer based system, no matter how simple. There may not be much training needed at all, but that is something to consider. Training *is* expensive. Secondly, there *are* less vendors who support linux than windows. Both are valid points, even if I don't agree that would upset the TCO. The post is still valid though it is obviously flippant.

Is parent perhaps flaim-bait? Sure, I wouldn't meta-mod against that. But offtopic?

Come on people, parent may be a MS fanboy but modding is not a weapon to silence dissenting opinions. If you disagree, say why.

Modding them down is junvinille. And surely there is a better mod than offtopic.

Re:TCO of Windows vs. Linux

[lowe0]

If they're valid assumptions, why not use them to make the study more accurate?

Conversely, if they're invalid assumptions, you should be able to prove them such, and thereby invalidate the entire study (unless parts of it can later be proven to be valid in and of themselves).

Re:TCO of Windows vs. Linux

[unclethursday]

I think there are other reasons to be put in this question, as well.

One point that should be mentioned is the cost of IT personell for the companies. One major thing MS likes to say is that you can save money on MSCEs as opposed to Unix/Linux admins. However, when you consider that a small company could spend a little more in salary for a Unix/Linux admin, they would end up saving money in areas like taxes and healthcare expenses. If a company can have a single *nix admin at a lowball figure of $60k a year, over 2 MSCEs at $30k a year, they actually save money, because the 2 MSCEs require extra money in taxes, and double the cost of health insurance premiums.

There's also the added costs of forced upgrades, both in software and in hardware costs (new Windows/other MS solutions releases typically require bigger and better hardware) in MS solutions, especially with the Licence 5.0 that forces those small companies who have signed it to upgrade when Microsoft says to upgrade, not when they are ready to upgrade.

I think this particular question is important, but needs to be fleshed out to include all the added costs of using a Microsoft solution (Incluing time wasted getting rid of adware/spyware/viruses/other malware) and compare them to the added costs of switching to a *nix solution (training, support contracts, new admins).

I think if really broken down, this would show that Microsoft is really misleading customers in their TCO arguments, because they simply don't focus on the issues that add into the TCO that can possibly be said to be other parts of the business and not the IT department's problem.

Re:TCO of Windows vs. Linux

[arkanes]

In fairness, in most cases, those are a valid baseline. The "Get the Facts" campaigns are targetted toward people who're considering switching, not toward people who're creating new systems. I wonder what percentage of hardware/software/IT costs are for the development of wholy new systems as opposed to upgrades or replacements for new ones?

Re:TCO of Windows vs. Linux

[swimin]

Here's an example of TCO ownership I'd like you to reply to:

I own a small bussiness and Id like to have a ftp site/SMB fileserver. I have an old desktop box in the corner that Id like to use that has fairly standard hardware. Ive decided to put a big fat IDE hard drive to store files on, and everything else is sufficient.

It has winows 98 on it, so It would need to be either upgraded to Windows 2003 Server edition or install a linux distribution on it. Would you actually say that Windows Server has a cheaper TCO than let's say SME?

Does Microsoft actually claim that for a case such as this there is actually a cost benifit for a very small bussiness to use Windows over Linux, In none perfect-for-microsoft situations?

Seriously...

[Sensible Clod]

how DO you say that stuff and keep a straight face?

Botox, maybe?

Which One?

[dsginter]

Which OSS desktop do you like best - Gnome or KDE?

Re:Which One?

[PerlDudeXL]

Xfce

Re:Which One?

[ThousandStars]

Corollary: Don't answer neither, or that Windows is better.

Re:Which One?

[jambarama]

Good golly, windowmaker is the only way to go.

Re:Which One?

[Taladar]

I must answer neither because both are too much like Windows (which is the only Windowmanager/DE I used that is even worse). They try to be too much for too many people.

Re:Which One?

[identity0]

As a collorary, do you feel flattered or annoyed that some OSS desktops seem to be trying to emulate the Windows 'look', down to the themes and widgets?

Do you feel that they actually impove on the Windows GUI with things like virtual desktops, or are they just a poor copy of the original?

Re:Which One?

[SquadBoy]

The answer for me would be neither. Openbox is teh win.

Re:Which One?

[Baloo Ursidae]

As a collorary, do you feel flattered or annoyed that some OSS desktops seem to be trying to emulate the Windows 'look', down to the themes and widgets?

For the same reasons that many OSS desktop environments also tend to have MacOS 9 or MacOS X themes. It reduces culture shock for new users while still allowing them access to the features of the desktop environment. The Windows UI is of itself a hammed up CDE environment, an early example of MS playing catchup with the Unix world.

Do you feel that they actually impove on the Windows GUI with things like virtual desktops, or are they just a poor copy of the original?

Mu. It's a different approach entirely. I would say it's an improvement over the Windows UI, as KDE is almost countlessly more featureful for the user due to significant design differences of the underlying OS that KDE runs on, down to the countless proglets and options and optional components that can be used (or unused or even uninstalled) to add features or slim down the system to exactly what the user needs and wants.

To put it in terms that the world you're obviously living in can understand: If MacOS's window system is white and Window's is black, OSS gives you not only the gray in the middle but the color your world doesn't have.

The one true question...

[stu_coates]

Notepad or Wordpad? ;-)

Re:The one true question...

[outZider]

edit.com. ;)

Re:The one true question...

[millwall]

I'm more used to Edlin ...still included in Windows XP.

Re:The one true question...

[lsmeg]

edit.com

Please. Real men use "copy con". :)

Re:The one true question...

[SharpFang]

C:\>COPY CON: FILENAME.TXT
Only Pussies Use Notepad
Wordpad Suxx!
^Z

C:\>

Re:The one true question...

[Errtu76]

tsk tsk .. edlin! ofcourse :)

Re:The one true question...

[dg41]

No way man, Microsoft Write is the way to go.

Re:The one true question...

[MyLongNickName]

Real programs use COPY CON: FileName.EXE

Re:The one true question...

[dcarey]

>

TextEdit, you MOSX-insensitive clod!

Re:The one true question...

[DoctorPepper]

ViM! :-)

Reviews

[Mr. Sketch]

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?

Re:Reviews

[jxyama]

sorry, but such a question is a waste. we know the answer - rather, we know the answer we want and we know the answer we can expect. they won't match and we end up with nothing new.

questions should be genuine. it shouldn't be used to prove a point, or lack of a point, or to push an agenda or to reinforce what we already know. nor should questions be used to try to push the answerer into a corner to "admit" something. we know it won't happen, it's self-serving and frankly, useless.

Re:Reviews

[Petersko]

questions should be genuine. it shouldn't be used to prove a point, or lack of a point, or to push an agenda or to reinforce what we already know. nor should questions be used to try to push the answerer into a corner to "admit" something. we know it won't happen, it's self-serving and frankly, useless.

For the first time, I wish I had mod points. I've never used any before. I would rate this insightful.

To the person who posed the original question, I ask, "A colleague of mine told me that you're mean-spirited and vindictive. I think you're just not very bright. Which one of us is right?"

Re:Reviews

[BabyDave]

Slightly less loaded question...

Many people have suggested that the TCO studies referenced by Microsoft are inherently biased towards Windows - the infamous example being "Windows on Xeon vs. Linux on a huge IBM mainframe". Do you believe that the studies in the "Get the facts" campaign are impartial?

Re:Reviews

[Grishnakh]

I disagree. It's like giving someone a polygraph test and asking them simple questions you already know the answers to, to get a baseline. If the guy can't even give an honest answer to the completely valid question of why only Microsoft-funded studies are favorable to Microsoft, then how can we expect any of his answers to other questions to be honest? And if they're not honest, then why do we even bother listening to the guy?

Re:Reviews

[jxyama]

in a place like this, with the audience as it is, answers from this guy will be, at best, taken with a grain of salt. his credibility will not improve even if we ask "simple" questions. he will not provide the "answer" we are looking for anyway.

the reason we bother listening to this guy is because he occupies a prominent position at a prominent company of (good or bad) interest. questions would be far better used to probe the company's thought process rather than thinly veiled attempt at establishing credibility, only to be able to say later "ha ha, what is this troll, he knows nothing!"

Re:Reviews

[eno2001]

You do realize that you've completely negated the point to posting any questions as all?

Re:Reviews

[Grishnakh]

Call me cynical, but I think all we're going to get from this fool are more lies and BS. It's just a waste of time.

Re:Reviews

[IthnkImParanoid]

I prefer "So, have you stopped drowning puppies yet?"

Why?

[ratboy666]

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.

Re:Why?

[speedplane]

Palladium is just a mechanism to securely store information on a computer. Securely storing data can mean storing it from malicous hackers, or from the actual user. Palladium does not take anything away from the user. It only gives users the option to download copyright protected material while ensuring that the copyrights are not violated.

If users want to illegaly download copyright material, Palladium won't stop them. It is just a means of protecting legal media. The outcry against palladium is not justified. It gives users more options and more freedom, not less.

-No I don't work for microsoft, and yes I use linux on the desktop (laptop actually: eMachines m6811 running fedora core 3... so hot).-

Re:Why?

[nine-times]

In that vein:

What do you view as Microsoft's responsibilities to their customers? In what ways do you believe Microsoft has/does/will fulfill these responsibilities better than other software developers?

Re:Why?

[ratboy666]

speedplan:

I am not making a public outcry against Palladium.

Just wondering how you got that from my post?

Ratboy.

Re:Why?

[MoonBuggy]

Spokespeople for your company have been mentioning 'open formats' and 'interoperability' recently, and Microsoft's superiority therein.

Why do you believe that it is easier to standardise and interoperate across a range of hardware and software platforms with closed, patented document formats such as those used by MS Office rather than open, free (as in speech), soon to be ISO standardised, XML formats such as those used by OpenOffice?

Re:Why?

[hkb]

Why are we asking him about anything? He should be asking /us/.

Why? What the fuck have you done lately?

Re:Why?

[Henk Poley]

Martin,

Did you notice that several not very diffcult to implement improvements to Microsoft Windows were given by the Slashdot readers?

Re:Why?

[ratboy666]

Because Linux is the project ("product?") that has moved to being a "threat" to Microsoft; even though Microsoft has a monopoly of desktop OSs.

How did this happen? What can Microsoft do to retain their position? What do Linux contributors think about Microsoft and Microsofts offerings. What would it take to move Linux developers to the Microsoft platform?

Ratboy.

Re:Why?

[ratboy666]

Yes, Palladium will secure data. One of the aims is to allow "time-sensitive" data, etc. Microsoft, as the platform vendor (for both Linux and Windows) of Palladium will then have control on the keys, and will be able to rescind keys (rendering documents unusable). This may be a "good thing" in that things like child porn can be nipped. But, political speech could be suppressed by the same mechanism.

If a secure system is put into use, by Microsoft, how will Microsoft behave vis. Linux? How will Microsoft behave vis. governments? Is there a plan in place?

Ratboy.

Re:Why?

[charlie_vernacular]

Dear Mr Taylor

If you were to ask six questions of the Slashdot community, what would they be, and why those questions in particular?

Affectionately Yours,
Charlie

Re:Why?

[hkb]

Because Linux is the project ("product?") that has moved to being a "threat" to Microsoft; even though Microsoft has a monopoly of desktop OSs.

How did this happen? What can Microsoft do to retain their position? What do Linux contributors think about Microsoft and Microsofts offerings. What would it take to move Linux developers to the Microsoft platform?

So, back to square one: Microsoft is obviously doing something right, as people continue to use their products and development environments, so why not ask a Microsofty some questions?

What can Linux people learn from them?

And who says ANY Linux developers would want to move to the Microsoft platform? That boggles the mind.

Have you ever used Linux?

[greyfeld]

For what purposes? What was your personal experience with using Linux?

Re:Have you ever used Linux?

[aj50]

and of the problems you came across, how many were due to something being different to the way that its implemented in windows?

following

[TedCheshireAcad]

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 ? )

Re:following

[BarryNorton]

Or: which would you rather be supported by, a noisy, demanding minority who expect everything for free or a quiet, servile majority for whom putting their hands in their pockets is pretty much a reflex?

Re:following

[Alan]

The easy answer of course is that MS bought and stole their following, while Mac and linux earned theirs. When was the last time someone (think joe average user) chose windows with their new computer, or chose ie. MS is what you get when you don't choose something else (from the user perspective anyway).

Re:following

[cortana]

They live at www.winsupersite.com :)

Re:following

[L.Bob.Rife]

There are plenty of PHB's who are militant about MS products. They don't post on message boards and the like though. They stick to company memos and purchasing decisions.

Re:following

[Petersko]

Why ask this question? The answer is, "Because when you are a member of the overwhelming majority, there is no need to be militant about it."

Re:following

[Saige]

Because the "militant following" carries with it an image that is unnecessary and even downright silly when done on the mainstream product.

Many people who use Macs and Linux are proud of not going with the mainstream. Their "militant"-ness is a way of saying "I'm too (cool/smart/knowledgable/hip) to use what everyone else is using, and look at me using it". They're proud of their alternative choice, primarily due to it's alternativeness.

You can't really have that attitude when going with the most popular product.

The more obscure something is, the more militant advocates/users/followers of that thing get.

Re:following

[Anonymous Coward]

It *DOES* have a militant following.

Work in a large server farm which offers both Windows and UNIX hosting. There will be Windows Guys and UNIX Guys, and they will constantly be at each others throats over things which are easy in THEIR environment, but a pain in the ass in the other's.

Re:following

[hedge_death_shootout]

which would you rather be supported by, a noisy, demanding minority who expect everything for free or a quiet, servile majority for whom putting their hands in their pockets is pretty much a reflex?

Be realistic, Mac users arent the majority.

Re:following

[W2k]

This is just FUD. I work in tech support at a technical university where all students are offered to buy laptops at a highly discounted price (and many do). These come pre-loaded with fully set up and working Windows and Linux installations. Linux use is encouraged by many of our teachers and those of us on Windows frequently have to use Cygwin to complete an assignment. Still, Linux users are in the minority by a long shot, and a common request I get when working in support is to remove the Linux partition from someone's system. So your statement is untruthful, lots of people - technically-minded people who are NOT ignorant about these things - ACTIVELY CHOOSE Windows when given a choice. Microsoft has certainly earned its following.

Re:following

[Fancia]

Because people tend to have a greater sense of identity when they're a minority group inside a larger group.

To give a less geeky example, one study my Psychology professor mentioned in class looked at how English people and Scottish people sign hotel registers; they found that, overwhelmingly, the English identified themselves as being from the UK (which, for you yanks, includes both England and Scotland :b), while the Scottish identified themselves as being from Scotland.

Re:following

[GoofyBoy]

Reminds me of flamewars when it was "NT vs. OS/2"

Now those were good.

Re:following

[BarryNorton]

Be realistic, Mac users arent the majority.

Forgot about them... there again, I'm not the only one!

Re:following

[FatherOfONe]

I wish I could mod you up. There are a TON of MS only people out there. Heck just post a job and put one Microsoft product in the "like you to know" category and you will get a 100 resume's of MS ONLY people. The job could have 5 hard core non MS requirements and it won't make a difference. Then "if" you interview them just ask them what other technology they like besides Microsoft and why. You will probably get a puzzled look on their face.

I honestly wish I had a dime for all the times I have seen Microsoft people start a holy war when you mention replacing one of their products with a non "Windows" option. I generally ask them the question above "What other products have you looked at or worked with?" I personally don't care who makes a product as long as it makes my life easier and lets me focus on the business, however I will say that I try and avoid companies that lock me in to their technology, so I find myself trying to avoid Microsoft in some ways...

and as I have always said, Once free software is "Good Enough" then the proprietary software vendor is going to be dead. It is almost impossible to compete with free when free is "Good Enough". You can do it but you won't have 50Billion in the bank and have one of the highest profit margins in the world.

Lastly, my question.
At what point in marketshare would Linux need on the client before Microsoft would start porting their applications over to it?

I ask this because it won't be long before the Linux client marketshare will be greater than the Macintosh...

Re:following

[ptlis]

I would argue that that proves nothing. People are natured to take the path of least resistance, and because most of them will have been brought up using Windows it is much easier for them to continue doing so then have to adjust to a different environment. Being currently at Univerity myself I know how little time I have to spare and if I did not already have a grounding and intrest in Linux I would not be interested in using it when comperable applications are available on Windows.

Now if these were users experienced & comfortable with both Linux/UNIX (as in had used it as much as they had used Windows) and then removed the partitions anyway you would have a good point.

Re:following

[HanB]

Even seen the hordes of astro-turvers that violently proclaim virusses exist for linux or that they will be made as soon as linux becomes more popular? Just banging on all the standard FUD on every forum where people might get a positive idea about linux. No not /. where your default FUD will be debunked before you know it. No, the smaller forums where the less technical savy come.

Re:following

[Torham]

technically-minded people need help removing a partition?

Re:following

[dioscaido]

At what point in marketshare would Linux need on the client before Microsoft would start porting their applications over to it?

I ask this because it won't be long before the Linux client marketshare will be greater than the Macintosh...

Fantastic question! Lets hope the mods don't miss it!

Re:following

[Creepy]

you've been blinded by delusions...

When I tell people I'm working on a mac port of OSS, most Windows people tell me I'm wasting my time (usually in much more colorful language). I get a much better reception if I also say I've fixed a bunch of Linux bugs (and sometimes Windows bugs) or also ported the program to Linux.

Then there's my wife, the biggest Windows bigot out there - she HATES macs (on the plus side, she never touches mine) and dislikes Linux intensely (she thought the KDE interface was "nasty," and derided OpenOffice because it "lacked the functionality and ease of use of Office") and would never think of ever trying Firefox or Mozilla over IE (I switched her browser to Firefox, but she made me switch it back). Ironically, her dad won't touch a Windows or Linux and loves macs - but only macs running OS 9 or earlier (which baffles me...).

Me, I'm happily platform agnostic - I love them all and hate them all for different reasons.

Re:following

[W2k]

It's not the removing of the partition they need help with, it's reinstalling the system (most people want XP, the systems come preloaded with 2k). Now, ordinarily this too would be a simple matter, but they can't do this on their own because we in tech support have exclusive access to the (university licensed) Windows CD's. It's also a free service, by turning the computer over to us for a repartition and reinstall they can spend two hours doing something more interesting, while I reinstall their box earning about $20/hour for a job that lets me surf the web 95% of the time. It's quite nice. :)

Re:following

[btlzu2]

You don't hear them as much because they don't have to "fight the power" like us Linux/BSD folks do. I would say there are a lot more Microsoft militants (or party-line people) than Linux militants. We're just at home here and in the majority HERE, but world-wide we're a definite vocal minority.

Keep being loud though!!! Windows STILL has a LONG LONG LONG way to go to match the flexibility, grace, and power of *n(i|u)x | *BSD.

Re:following

[FatherOfONe]

Your talking to someone who has spend near hundreds of thoughsands of dollars on software for Linux. Yes, some want free software, but others pay.

There are a lot of Mac users who use free software also.

Corps are starting to support Linux more and more, but they pick either RedHat ES/AS or SuSe ES.

Re:following

[Alan]

I wasn't talking about technically minded people though, I was talking about mom and dad and granny. I don't think that a university where laptops loaded with windows and linux is representive of the rest of the country though. I can't walk into a walmart and buy a computer with linux on it (note I said "walk" :), or into a fry's or london drugs or future shop. Last time I checked out the dell laptop purchase options there was nothing other than a choice of windows or windows.

Re:following

[hodet]

Microsoft has plenty of militants. The only difference is that they sit in boardrooms and wear suits and unfortunately have the decision making power.

Re:following

[Blakey Rat]

Ok, but are Linux users willing to pay *enough* to make it worth the support costs required for that platform? You've (perhaps) addressed one part of my argument while ignoring the other part. As a Mac user, I wouldn't want to see the cost of Mac Office go up so that Microsoft could open another huge call center or usability lab for Linux-only problems. And I'm sure Linux people won't want to pay $30 more for Office because of the support requirement, either.

Re:following

[Feztaa]

*n(i|u)x | *BSD

Why not just call them "the unixes"? It'd be a lot easier than typing that mess.

Then again, maybe you should create your own unix-like operating system and call it starniux...

Re:following

[btlzu2]

I'm in school mode and that's pseudo-regex/BNF. That's why. :) My brain is fried!!!!

Re:following

[kbielefe]

Linux requires ten times as much support as any other operating system.

This is the wrong forum to post unresearched comments. Linux is a lot more standardized than Microsoft would have you believe. Let me save some bandwidth and post just one counter-example. Note the conspicuous lack of dozens of different installation programs.

Generally, Linux users don't pay for things. If they can't get it for free, they either pirate it anyway or use something else.

That's why there are so many warez sites filled with Linux software. One of the reasons I stopped using windows was because of the rampant piracy. Everyone who knew I was a "computer guy" kept asking me to copy commercial software for them.

I currently use 4 commercial programs on Linux, 2 of which are freely licensed (like macromedia flash player) and 2 of which I paid fairly good money for, and have paid for various distributions and other Linux software in the past. Even if you don't count the amount of free tech support, bug reports, and patches I have given back to free software at my normal billable rate, I have still paid more for Linux software than most people I know have paid for Windows software, and it was worth every penny. I don't appreciate being stereotyped as a leech because I prefer free software.

Re:following

[Tragek]

What about Paul Thurrott? He's (from what I remeber), quite a hardcore Windows man, about as militant as they get.

Re:following

[corporatemutantninja]

I'm not sure if the answer is the same, but it reminds me of the question: "Why don't Republicans ever march on Washington?"

On second thought, I think the answer IS the same.

Re:following

[daddymac]

technically-minded people

Technically minded people who are unable to delete, resize, or reformat a partition?

Re:following

[FatherOfONe]

You still haven't addressed my question to Microsoft. At what point do they offer it? When it has double the marketshare of the Mac? Triple? Quad? I will agree that "most" linux users want free software, but there comes a point where there is a market. Where is that market? My belief is that it is somewhere around 10%. If they wait much longer than that then they loose the ability to try and lock the Linux users in to Office, and thus back in to windows at a later date. It is my belief that they once the market hits around 10%, getting another 10% won't be that hard and will come quickly. The core reason most knock Linux is the lack of drivers and application support. With a 10% DESKTOP marketshare those issues go away.

So we agree that if Linux has a 2-3% marketshare, the number of paying Linux users does not justify the development and support effort. Now at 6-7% that "may" be enough, at 15% it is obvious that there is enough, if they wait much longer then they sacrafice loosing everything. Not a risk they can afford.

In the end it sucks to be them or any software vendor that has to compete with open source. They can but they need to add value for their cost, and the days of getting 30-50 BILLION in the bank are over. I fully expect to see office professional for under $100 in less than 5 years because of products like OpenOffice now. Another question that would be fun to ask would be:
At what percentage of marketshare does OpenOffice need before you will put filters in to support their file format? 5%? 10% 25%?

Re:following

[808140]

It's a good question, on the surface, but the problem is that you are looking to end users as the source of a software company's primary income. This is perhaps true in the gaming industry, but I see it as being less true in other industries.

Discounting the Macintosh user for a moment, the average Windows user is presented with a large amount of warez and other pirated software and very few seem to have any problems whatsoever installing cracked versions of software they didn't buy. I know essentially no one who bought MS Office, for example. Even Adobe Photoshop is generally only purchased by professionals.

However, sales of software remain profitable -- because the big purchasers of software are companies. They are much more motivated (see the BSA) to make sure that they have legally purchased software, as the ramifications are far greater, and the cost of software, which might be prohibitive for the end user, represents a smaller investment for a company, especially when offset against the fees incurred by unlicensed software discovered in an audit.

Macintosh users are a little bit different. This is probably partly a cultural thing, partly because Macs have classically been more expensive and higher quality than their PC counterparts (suggesting that people that purchase them aren't afraid to pay for quality) and because, due to their minority status, there just isn't as much in the way of easily accessible pirated software (although this wasn't the case at all back in the days of System 7).

Getting around to your point, I think that while some of what you say is correct -- Linux users are spoiled by high quality, free (both as in beer and as in speech) software, and so the average user is reticent to purchase possibly inferior proprietary solutions, and is even willing to make do with inferior free solutions if available.

But this is not the case of a company, and we see here the same situation as with Windows: it is in the company's best interest to buy Oracle, or say, Lotus Notes for Linux (if it existed), Photoshop, or Office. A hobbiest may be willing to risk OpenOffice mucking up his word document, but a company would fork out the cash for MS Office if they had the choice to.

This brings us to your one unfounded allegation -- the rest I think were relatively insightful -- that Linux distributions are equivalent to different versions of Mac OS or Windows.

Actually, a Linux "distribution" is just that: a bunch of software written by other people and bundled by a distributor. In most cases, the distributor conforms to certain norms with respect to filesystem structure, configuration file syntax, and the like. The reason for this is not so much because they are motivated by goodwill -- although this is perhaps also the case -- but rather because the software they bundle was not written by them, and its authors wrote it expecting the system to behave in a particular way. Because the software is open source, it is possible for them to hack it to conform to their own, special setup -- but this takes time and effort and needs to be redone everytime they introduce a new version of their software. It's just not worth it.

So, Oracle and IBM standardize on RedHat, for example; some people standardize on SuSE. But the differences between these two systems are cosmetic, really. I can get binaries designed for these systems to run on my Debian box without issues.

When a vendor says, "This software is designed for RHEL 3" or whatever, what they mean is that it was built and linked against the particular versions of libraries in that distribution's version; it may also mean that they depend on certain versions of utilities present in that distribution. Because all of these are Free Software, I can quite easily go and reproduce that environment, if I want, on any other system. It's really not a big deal at all.

That's why, despite the fact that most proprietary Linux software is released with RedHat in mind, I can find it repa

Re:following

[Daengbo]

So, have you talked to the lawyers yet? JK ;)

Re:following

[strikethree]

>>I don't see much incentive for ANY for-profit corporation porting to Linux, except perhaps for "goodwill."

that post certainly seemed flamebaitish to me. so, is Oracle a for-profit corp?

but, let's assume you meant desktop, rather than server apps. what makes you so sure people who use linux are not willing to buy software for linux? i know many people who do not buy software for windows. those are the same people who will not buy software for linux.

the problem with people paying for software for linux is that it would take a LOT of work to make an app that is better than one that already exists and it would have to let ME be in control. i can easily see a corp making an app that is better than an equivalent open source app, if only because of polish... but i simply can NOT see a for-profit corp allowing me to fully control that software.

really, i guess i just take exception to your implied opinion that all people who use linux are pirates who want to freeload off of the work of others.

strike

Re:following

[W2k]

Please read my response to Torham (it's here). I covered this already. It's not the repartitioning itself that's the problem.

Re:following

[W2k]

Sorry, but I wouldn't consider "mom and dad and granny" to be "followers" of Microsoft. They're simply consumers, they pick whatever's included with the Dell or HP or whatnot. Which OS they choose to use says nothing about that OS. If you only look at the people who actively choose what OS they want to use, you will no doubt find that most choose Windows. Those are the real followers, they've actively chosen to support Microsoft despite all the alternatives.

If your original point was to say that most Windows users don't use Windows because they actively chose it but because it was the only thing available, you're right. However, I think it's far more relevant to look at the people who actively choose Windows even though they're aware of the alternatives and respective advantages/disadvantages thereof.

Re:following

[Archibald Buttle]

Now this is indeed an interesting question, but it hilights a big flaw in Slashdot's system.

Many people here know that there are many rabid Microsoft fans, as has already been pointed out. However this question has been modded up to +5.

Ideally I think for the "Ask ..." topics moderation should be open to everyone, even those who post into the topic. You should just be prevented from modding into a comment tree to which you have already posted. Additionally it would be useful to have moderation levels that go past +5 to help the process of sorting the most interesting questions to pass on to the questionee. This would help the process immedurably, allowing for bad questions to be more efficiently modded down and the most interesting questions to rise above the average.

In the example of this question I have no mod points right now, so I can't mod it down, yet I know it's a waste to pass this question on.

As I post this comment there's over 50 questions (not counting those modded as funny) that have already reached +5. Just how will the final 10 be chosen? Surely the process would be easier if we could all mod?

Re:following

[codemachine]

Wow, too bad this story is buried at a 0 moderation right now. If I hadn't already posted here, I'd mod this up.

Re:following

[codemachine]

Yes, the words "I don't do Windows" do save one from being expected to be the law breaking warez dude for all their friends and family.

And when suddenly they have to pay for their OS (or find someone else they don't know as well to steal it), then Linux starts to look a lot better.

Bets?

[virid]

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...

Free software

[Jon Abbott]

Did Microsoft consider free software inferior when they released Internet Explorer for free?

Re:Free software

[operagost]

Can you see IE source code? No. Therefore, it's free as in beer (gratis) not free as in speech (libre). Microsoft considers "libre" software to be inferior.

Emerging Countries

[Adrilla]

Explain why Windows would be a better OS for developing countries where they're trying to keep computer prices extremely low per machine.

Re:Emerging Countries

[LordNimon]

I already know what the answer is going to be. He's going to say something about how the licensing cost in these countries is really not that much, and that they'll save money in the long run with a lower TCO.

If you really want him to answer questions like this, you'll need to be a lot more specific. Questions like "Linux is free so why would anyone pay for Windows?" are going to get you nowhere, because they're just an invitation for MS to spew out the same canned responses.

How about trying to find a specific instance where a Windows PC was so much more expensive than the Linux equivalent, that no one bought it?

Re:Emerging Countries

[jrumney]

Easy: What self respecting Chinese or Russian would want to use an OS they can't pirate?

Re:Emerging Countries

[fayd]

Explain why Windows would be a better OS for developing countries where they're trying to keep computer prices extremely low per machine.

And when discussing TCO, take into account the fact that labor will be relatively cheap, and the money spent on labor will stay in country, whereas purchasing the computers (and OS/software/etc) will be money leaving the country.

Re:Emerging Countries

[schon]

He's going to say something about how the licensing cost in these countries is really not that much, and that they'll save money in the long run with a lower TCO.

Or that the MS licenses are driving down the cost of hardware, which makes the computers cheaper.

Remember monkey-boy already came up with this one.

Re:Emerging Countries

[SatanMat]

This is why MS offers a slimer (striped down) version of XP in SE Asia; to help lower even farther the TCO.

Windows is always going to be the better choice because.....

Now, I'm going to go finish that Gentoo install I'm working on...

Regardless of the superiority or not

[Russ Nelson]

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

Re:Regardless of the superiority or not

[ghoti]

Care to give an example where MS lost against a free alternative?

Re:Regardless of the superiority or not

[speedplane]

People make a really big deal out of free. But if one product is better than the other -and I won't argue whether win. or linux is better- than why not pay for it. People pay more for a Porche than a Taurus because a Porche is better. If there was ever a car which was entirely free, people would still pay for the Porche.

The argument shouldn't be: Linux is better because it is free. It should be: Microsoft's higher price is not enough to justify the additional features one gets from it. If someone paid you a hundred dollars to use an operating system and it was really bad, most people probably wouldn't use it. The price, whether it be $-100, $0, $100, or $1000 is meaningless. However weighing that price to the given feature set is what is important.

Microsoft is completly capable of competing against Linux in the long term and writing them off as some ageing dinosaur is not accurate.

No I dont work for MS, Yes I'm running Linux on my laptop, m6811 fedora core 3... hot

Re:Regardless of the superiority or not

[NanoGator]

" As Microsoft itself has proven many time, you cannot compete with free. Do you see any hope for Microsoft?"

Ugh I hate this "cannot compete with free" myth. Microsoft could easily compete and win with Linux, by making Windows a better OS. Ease of Use + Availability of interesting software > Free. Don't believe me? Ask any Mac user, especially those that specifically picked it over a PC.

MS may or may not succeed against Linux, but it's not even close to being a forgone conclusion. Don't forget that your priorities may not necessarily reflect the priorities of the masses.

Re:Regardless of the superiority or not

[Oliver Defacszio]

As Microsoft itself has proven many time, you cannot compete with free.

Sure you can. I'll give you a stale lard sandwich for free, or you can pay for this roast beef hoagie -- which do you choose?

Re:Regardless of the superiority or not

[aardwolf64]

That's a foolish question. I have an "OS" that I've written called OS.bat. I'll pay you a penny to install it. By your reasoning, Windows and Linux are doomed. Pheer my better than free OS!

Re:Regardless of the superiority or not

[Norgus]

Windows is free to a huge number of people who pirate it, or who see it as 'free with the computer' which of course it isnt. The question is - will Microsoft continue to allow piracy of its system?

Re:Regardless of the superiority or not

[As Seen On TV]

I think the question's premise is false. It is, in fact, trivially easy to compete with free. All you have to do is offer a product that is better than the free alternative at a price that the market is willing to bear.

You also assume that the market is a "win/lose" binary thing. In other words, you make it sound like as long as anybody uses Linux, Microsoft loses. That's obviously false. Consider Apple. They've never been a successful company in terms of their percentage of the total market, but for the last five years or so they've been consistently, massively profitable.

Really, I think the problem with this question has to do with the use of the word "compete." Not all computer users are created equal. You'd be hard pressed to find somebody to whom you could say, "Here are Windows, Mac OS X and Linux; choose on price." Nobody, but nobody, is going to make their choice based on price. They're going to choose based on features and capabilities, bounded by price. That is, they'll choose the best product for their needs within the price bracket they can afford.

For most people, the fact that Linux is free doesn't stand up against the fact that Windows is a lot better and only slightly more expensive. Windows does stand up against the Mac, though, because the Mac is a lot better than Windows and a lot more expensive.

(Of course, it's getting to the point where the Mac isn't a lot more expensive. People who are looking to buy a new computer can now get a Mac for the same price or less, so the tide may turn.)

Re:Regardless of the superiority or not

[Russ Nelson]

Microsoft could easily compete and win with Linux, by making Windows a better OS.

Ceteris paribus. In principle, everything Windows can do, we can do better, and I assume we will. When the only difference between Windows and open source is the price, how can Microsoft compete?
-russ
p.s. software patents, but that's a different question for Martin.

Re:Regardless of the superiority or not

[ptlis]

I think the poster is referring to Microsoft bundling Internet Explorer for free essentially killing Netscape Navigator, which at the time you had to purchase.

Re:Regardless of the superiority or not

[NanoGator]

"In principle, everything Windows can do, we can do better, and I assume we will."

In a reasonable amount of time? I know I'm going to get flamed to hell and back for saying this, but this hasn't been well demonstrated. I mean, look how long it took FireFox to become a viable Internet Explorer competitor. MS would be up to IE 8 or 9 by that time if they were staying on top of it. It's not good ending up 'better' if MS is still two steps ahead.

OSS needs to become more than a free carbon-copy of popular products in order to beat companies like Microsoft.

Re:Regardless of the superiority or not

[Citizen of Earth]

People make a really big deal out of free.

That's because in the long term, it has always been price that has determine what technology and products are successful. For instance, PCs displaced mini computers because PCs were cheaper. Microsoft software displaced IBM & the other big boys because Microsoft was cheaper.

And now Linux is technologically superior to Microsoft and OpenOffice is just as good and both are free. They and perhaps some alternate free products will dominate the future of both OSes and office-productivity suites. Microsoft has no future in these markets, because price always wins in the long term. Microsoft can delay its exit with lock-ins, promises, and dirty dealing, but it knows very well that it will need to do something different in the long term.

Re:Regardless of the superiority or not

[Soporific]

Ever drive a Yugo?

~S

Re:Regardless of the superiority or not

[Russ Nelson]

if they were staying on top of it.

You're making my point for me. Microsoft has to limit its resources. We don't. People work on whatever they find interesting, whereas Microsoft has to work on whatever is profitable.

OSS needs to become more than a free carbon-copy of popular products

So does Microsoft!
-russ

Re:Regardless of the superiority or not

[NanoGator]

" People work on whatever they find interesting, whereas Microsoft has to work on whatever is profitable."

Erm. Microsoft has money as a motivator here. OSS has... interest. What happens when nobody is interested in writing the copy and paste function in an app? What about when nobody's interested in making sure bookmark importing does the right thing on a freshly reinstalled computer? What happens when nobody's interested in writing the code to support an old standard?

I'm not making your point for you, you're making mine.

Re:Regardless of the superiority or not

[rtb61]

Men don't buy a porsche because it is better, men buy a hot fast car because they want to get hot fast women into that host fast car. Porsche purchasing decision is all about ego (unless you are using for motor sports).

Choice of software is totally different, real decisions need to be made with regard to long term usability, efficient performace, the ability to distribute the data produced over the long term and how the software will change tommorow based upon your purchasing decisions today.

A choice between Linux and Windows is not just your current preference it will also drive the future direction that developers will take with regard to hardware compatability and the available application base. There may be some ego involved in the choice but not for business, there the decision needs to be made for the long term based upon past performance and cost efficiency and how those have evolved in the past and where they will go in the future.

Re:Regardless of the superiority or not

[Eshock]

I think his point was the economics of open source will push linux to the point where Microsoft has to pay too much to keep up with it to stay in business.

Linux is doing something right

[CypherXero]

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?

Re:Linux is doing something right

[joeljkp]

Because all the Linux users brought it up first. If millions of people were saying that you like to have sex with goats, you either deny it, or you let the rumor grow, thereby making people assume that it must be true.

Re:Linux is doing something right

[Oliver Defacszio]

Hi,

You ARE aware that linux zealots are probably the noisiest faction in the IT world, right? You're also aware that a vast, vast majority of that noise is focused as an anti-Microsoft beam, right?

So, as an obvious linux zealot yourself, why don't you answer the question? Why doesn't linux just speak for itself instead of relying upon a few thousand nasal whines?

Re:Linux is doing something right

[bjtuna]

By mentioning "the failure of Windows" you give him the opportunity to ignore the rest of your question. He will give an answer addressing the issue of whether or not Windows is a failure (it isn't, by the way), not whether or not their anti-Linux marketing reveals a lack of confidance in their own product.

Re:Linux is doing something right

[interiot]

That's a stupid question. Sorry, I'm not flaming... ALL companies have need for a PR department, regardless of "confidence". Microsoft does not have 100% market share. Microsoft would like 100% marketshare, and have everyone be perfectly content with the status-quo. This has nothing to do with how "confident" Microsoft is, and more to do with the fact that a handful of people still haven't come to understand how good and wonderful their product is.

People who answer interviews for Microsoft can weasel out of almost anything. It would be much better to use this opportunity to ask very insightful/thoughtful questions that haven't been asked before (eg. follow-up questions to MS's interview responses where they seemed to have completely weaseled out of the question).

Re:Linux is doing something right

[jrumney]

ALL companies have need for a PR department

Its kind of sad that PR has come to mean dissing the competition. Whether its politicians or software companies, noone seems to promote their own good points anymore.

Re:Linux is doing something right

[Anonymous Custard]

And even with 100% market share, they'd still need to market their new versions as they come out. 100% market share of Windows 98 for the rest of eternity doesn't make them any money (unless they start to charge for patches).

Re:Linux is doing something right

[penguinoid]

Why doesn't linux just speak for itself instead of relying upon a few thousand nasal whines?

So, how much money is Linux, Inc. spending on advertizing? Advertizing == meaningless; word-of-mouth == good. The other reason that Linux people have to tell others about Linux is the simple fact that almost nobody has tried it, and a good many haven't even heard of Linux. (This would be quite similar to me telling you about the cherimoya (also called custard apple), which I think is "the most delicious fruit known to men", though Mark Twain said so first. But I bet you have never tried it so you don't give a shit.)

Re:Linux is doing something right

[Citizen of Earth]

Why doesn't linux just speak for itself instead of relying upon a few thousand nasal whines?

Because, to borrow your term, this is what 'zealots' do. Linux does not rely upon them; it didn't ask for them; and it can't control them.

OTOH, Microsoft has a carefully controlled corporate voice and it is saying "Linux is bad. Do not look into Linux." This sounds a lot to me like "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain." Why would a carefully controlled corporate voice be taking such a serious stand against a trivial passing fad?

Re:Linux is doing something right

[Soporific]

If advertising is meaningless, then the people who pay for it during the superbowl are complete fucking morons.

~S

Re:Linux is doing something right

[oliverthered]

and that would be you everytime you buy a can of coke.

Re:Linux is doing something right

[Soporific]

The point is that it works and is obviously not worthless.

~S

Re:Linux is doing something right

[Kennon]

Linux will continue to grow in the business and home markets the same way M$ beat Apple, I think they recognize that. If it is less expensive and it does the same thing (some would say better), business will opt for it eventually. I still believe that if Macs hadn't cost nearly twice as much as PC's back in the late 80's-early 90's we might be living in a very different world today.

Re:Linux is doing something right

[penguinoid]

Advertizement is not worthless, its meaningless. Just because an item is advertized doesn't mean its good. On the other hand, things "advertized" by word-of-moouth tend to be good.

Re:Linux is doing something right

[oliverthered]

Advertising works for people who buy cans of coke.
The average UK IQ of Internet people who take the IQ test from that advert that pops up occasionally it 115. Lets assume people with an IQ lower than 110 buy coke partly because of advertising (well I don't know why they would otherwise), that's still a lot money from a lot of idots.

Advertising isn't worthless, just like the RIAA isn't worthless. (if you read the RIAA/MPAA crap it says that Advertising and Payola it one of the largest costs of the music industry)

hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Questions

[abrotman]

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?

Re:Questions

[bersl2]

I can probably predict his answer: as a replacement for commercial Unixes.

Re:Questions

[As Seen On TV]

I think the obvious answer is that Microsoft, like practically all companies, wants to stay as far away from Gnu as possible.

Of course, that doesn't explain why they didn't take the Apple route and adopt truly free software. That might simply be the difference between UNIX and Windows. It might be a heck of a lot more work to port some things from one UNIX (like Linux) to another (like the Mac) than it is to port them from UNIX to Windows.

Re:Questions

[Henk Poley]

Or possibly a better question, why is there still no apt-get* alike MSI download backend where you could subscribe to repositories and have updates announced, etc.? Microsoft could do free hosting of small webinstall MSI packages, and ask a fee for full packages. The software producers who want something bigger, could host their own repository server. btw, I'm not talking about command line interface online.

Liability is the problem for Microsoft? It would be a free service, make sure to everybody that 'for free' here aren't any availability promises. On the other end, these would all be all static files, simple to serve in a distributed manner.

* Yes I know there are similar package managers, but apt-get is just well known.

Re:Questions

[lachlan76]

Personally I'd prefer a simpler ports-like system, or one based entirely on another server (Big DB with everything, so it doesn't hit the disk)

Paint me cynical

[savagedome]

best-known as the man the company trots out to refute claims of Linux superiority

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 .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?"

Re:Paint me cynical

[Soko]

This guys is there to refute the claims. I honestly do not expect him to say anything that we haven't heard before.

I started composing a question, then I came to my senses. Mr. Taylor's job is to spin issues into marketing plusses for Windows, not have a real, frank discussion on what problems we techie types have with Microsoft, Windows or whatever. In fact, some smartass will be able to sum up the reply thread this way:

Mr.Taylor: /*Marketing Spin!!!!/*

and not be innacurate. Microsoft's culture is one of paranoia, where if another vendor gets a single cent from selling a competing product, Microsofties take it as a threat to thier existance. I don't expect him to say anything except "Hey, linux is great, but Windows is better /*Marketing Spin/*, which is what he gets paid to do.

I think I'll pass on this one.

Soko

Re:Paint me cynical

[1u3hr]

I would still like to ask "How is using a proprietary .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?"

1) doc is much easier to edit (as long as you have MSWord -- and Acrobat is pretty expensive, BTW)
2) PDF is proprietary, though open
3) MS has free Word viewers (for Windows)
4) He'd probably also mention XML

But you need to say "better for doing what" to get any answer more than the above. doc is fine to compose and print from; has some useful features for collaboration; sucks for presentation and archival use.

Re:Paint me cynical

[julesh]

Did you miss the story about them opening the schema for WordML up? You're playing right into his hands if you ask that question...

Re:Paint me cynical

[magefile]

Mr.Taylor: /*Marketing Spin!!!!/*

Hey, you even managed to get a bug in there - very appropriate!

Re:Paint me cynical

[jrumney]

doc is much easier to edit

I thought you were listing its good points. Many companies release documents in PDF format for this very reason.

and Acrobat is pretty expensive, BTW

So use OpenOffice, or Ghostscript, or one of the many other free tools that can output to PDF.

Re:Paint me cynical

[Tet]

How is using a proprietary .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?

Actually, the question is misleading. The .doc file format is documented on MSDN[1], and is just as open as PDF. The two also serve different needs. PDF is effectively a page description language, albeit one with some nice interactivity features like forms and even animations (although few people use them). The .doc format is intented for editable documents, and stores various metadata along with the content. PDF is not and doesn't.

But it does lead nicely to another file format related question. Last week, Bill Gates claimed:

But the solution that has proven consistently effective - and the one that yields the greatest success for developers today - is a strong commitment to interoperability. That means letting different kinds of applications and systems do what they do best, while agreeing on a common "contract" for how disparate systems can communicate to exchange data with one another.

Common file formats are the contract by which office applications can exchange data with each other. Given Bill's commitment to interoperability, when can we expect the Visio file format to be documented so that other diagram editors such as Dia of Kivio can interoperate with Visio, as Bill desires?

Similarly, the Exchange wire protocol is the contract by which mail clients communicate and exchange data with the MS Exchange mail server. I take it that we can look forward to documentation for that, too, so that the myriad email clients in use today can talk to an Exchange server?

Another example would be the W3C standards, the contract by which a web developer sends markup information to an end user for viewing in a browser. The rest of the world is happily using CSS to provide rich presentation of information to end users. Yet as developers, we are forced to break that contract because Microsoft's IE browser doesn't honour the contract, and our web sites don't display in the intended manner. Will MS commit to bringing IE up to scratch so that it interoperates with the rest of the world?

Will MS start making versions of Word that use standard UTF-8 character encoding, rather than a Microsoft specific one that produces output that doesn't interoperate with non-Microsoft platforms (and even, as we found out this week, with newer versions of IE, which correctly ignore the MS character set!)

Or was he merely referring to making Microsoft applications interoperable with each other, a move which reduces customer choice, and prevents them from picking the best solution available for the task because it may not interoperate correctly with existing Microsoft products?

[1] At least, it was. I don't know if that documentation has been kept up to date with the latest versions of .doc

Re:Paint me cynical

[1u3hr]

>doc is much easier to edit
I thought you were listing its good points. Many companies release documents in PDF format for this very reason.

I've heard that argument before (from a former boss, actually), and it's pretty stupid. If one needs to edit a PDF, one can just use the right tools -- Acrobat as I mentioned, many other high end publishing tools. A PDF provides no guarantee against tampering. You need to use some form of digital signing, which you can do as easily on any document, down to plain text.

>and Acrobat is pretty expensive, BTW
So use OpenOffice, or Ghostscript, or one of the many other free tools that can output to PDF.

I said "edit", not "create".

Re:Paint me cynical

[JanusFury]

FYI, OpenOffice.org (at least 1.13 that I have installed here on my Windows box) inserts Smart Quotes by default, just like Word.

Copy-Pasted from OpenOffice:
"Hello"

Copy-Pasted from Word:
"Hello"

Their output looks exactly the same, both in the input box here on /. and in the editor.

So, if the 'Smart Quotes' feature is such a problem, why does OpenOffice enable it by default?

Interoperability...

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Interoperability...

[Ubergrendle]

Follow up...

Does Microsoft consider open standards, intended to facilitate interoperability, to be beneficial or detrimental to overall system security?

e.g. Closed vs open product development models.

Protection against malware

[ProteusQ]

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?

Code Review

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you respond to people who say that the open-source approach and the associated peer-review process inherently create better code?

Re:Code Review

[batemanm]

By covering his ears, closing his eyes and repeatibly shouting "I can't hear you, la la la".

Plain speech

[lovebyte]

Dear Martin,

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 ...'". 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!)
It's painful to read and hardly understandable. Thanks in advance.

Re:Plain speech

[Zwack]

"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."

We didn't want to use emotions and meaningless arguments, instead we wanted to use facts and realistic analysis of solutions.

Pity that they still seem to be using flawed arguments. For example, RedHat is a lot more expensive than Windows (when you are buying the most expensive version of RedHat for a lot of servers just so that you can get 24/7 telephone support for the OS)... Yes this is true, but the proviso is not my experience of the way people pay for RedHat. Instead people seem to buy a more reasonably priced version (10% of the cost) and live without being able to call RedHat in the middle of the night. This argument in favour of Windows is not true of all Linux distributions (their own study shows Suse is cheaper over three years than Windows). Nor does it take real world behaviours into account. Where I work Linux is being used as a replacement for low-end Unix more often than for Windows. But for large mission critical systems we buy large, redundant, clustered systems... Not Windows and not Linux. Z.

Re:Plain speech

[Fancia]

I think you're mixing up the Victorian and Elizabethan periods. ;3

Re:Plain speech

[rhizome]

i think this is actually a good question!

Re:Plain speech

[benna]

That may be the most ironic sentence ever written.

Fear?

[cyclop]

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?

Do you read Slashdot?

[GillBates0]

As GM of a major corporation, you must be expected to be aware of your competition, it's products and what they're saying about you, etc. Linux is different from routine competition, in that you don't have any single company to listen to (press releases, etc) to figure out what they're up to.

Q. Do you frequent Slashdot and the other Linux boards to say what your competition's saying about you?

Re:Do you read Slashdot?

[Jon Abbott]

And here I thought you were Bill Gates in disguise, (due to your username)... My hopes have been dashed.

Re:Do you read Slashdot?

[magefile]

No. If it was called Dotslash, then it would suggest that. As the FAQ says, it's because of the pronunciation: "aitch tee tee pee colon slash slash slash dot dot com".

Re:Do you read Slashdot?

[sharkey]

Q. Do you frequent Slashdot and the other Linux boards to say what your competition's saying about you?

In other words, Astroturfing. Do you really expect him to admit that visits forums, weblogs, etc. to pretend he is Microsoft's competition and say things on behalf of said competition?

Re:Do you read Slashdot?

[magefile]

Yes, I do. Oops. Well, in my defense, slashdot.com does redirect to slashdot.org, and .com is what I used when I originally discovered it.

*Roll eyes*

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

How can you take seriously the "Lower TCO" claim?

[JessLeah]

I've yet to see a MS-sponsored (or MS-endorsed...) "study" on the TCO of GNU/Linux-based systems versus the TCO of Microsoft Windows that factors in such things as:

• 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.

Competition

[rongage]

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?

Re:Competition

[SharpFang]

No, try to ask something that gives insight. Don't try to test what if a viper bites its own tongue - that won't happen. You CAN'T have this question answered in a honest manner by a Microsoft representative.

Want a real answer?
1) Yes, $$$.
2) Yes. More profit from moron 20% of the potential customers believing the lies and paying for crappy product, and remaining 80% seeing through them and leaving, than 99.9% believing the the truth and turning away, and 0.1% despite all the facts still buying stuff.

The products can't stand on their own, and letting them fall would be a huge financial loss.

3 areas

[jcarte01]

Can you mention 3 areas where you think windows is better than linux and vice versa.

Re:3 areas

[kaustik]

I run linux myself, but if you are trying to argue that it is easier to install software in linux than in Windows, you are completely out of your mind. I know that there are cool new tools out there like urpmi, yum, and apt-get, but they don't always work out of the box.

Open Source Applications Helping Windows Compete?

[Doug Dante]

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.

Mr. Taylor ...

[ggvaidya]

... exactly how well do you know your boss?

(Warning: linked photos might be disturbing)

.NET Platform Portability

[DaHat]

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?

Re:.NET Platform Portability

[DaHat]

True... but then why did they submit the CLR and C# specs for ECMA for standardization?

Specificly...

Standard ECMA-334: C# Language Specification
Standard ECMA-335: Common Language Infrastructure (CLI)

Re:.NET Platform Portability

[SilentChris]

"One of the biggest criticisms I have heard of .NET is that it is not portable to non Microsoft/Windows platforms."

I think "not portable" is a bit strong of a phrase. It certainly is portable: the CLR is elegant, well-documented and easily could be rewritten (except for maybe Windows Forms). The problem is that MS isn't going out actively to port it like Sun did with Java. They're relying on 3rd-party developers to do the work.

I guarantee you when Longhorn launches, and Avalon (on top of .NET) becomes the default standard for windowing, there will be a much great rush to get the CLR ported.

Re:.NET Platform Portability

[julesh]

. It certainly is portable: the CLR is elegant, well-documented and easily could be rewritten (except for maybe Windows Forms).

Definitely except for Windows Forms. There's no way to implement the method Form.DefWndProc without having an underlying implementation of the entire Win32 USER module.

Re:.NET Platform Portability

[pNutz]

The CLR is ported to OS X, Linux, FreeBSD, and other Unices, along with most of the framework.

Much work has been done on the port of Windows.Forms on top of GTK, Cairo, and Quartz ( magnitude in that order ). ...for several years now.

Re:.NET Platform Portability

[bushidocoder]

Microsoft has indicated that the entire macro system for future Office versions is being reworked to run on the .NET framework so that it can have a consistent security model with the rest of the OS - I can't see how they would be capable of continuing to sell Microsoft Office for OSX without releasing an official build of at least a portion of the CLR for Apple.

Re:.NET Platform Portability

[SilentChris]

I think what the original poster was referring to was OSes outside the *nixes, like Symbian and other embedded OSes that run Java.

Re:.NET Platform Portability

[Altus]

what makes you think they will continue to develop office for the mac? Apple is releasing its own office suite isnt it?

Re:.NET Platform Portability

[bushidocoder]

Apple's office suite is geared to a very different audience. Although very well done, Pages is a very streamlined word processor in comparison with Word, aimed more at consumer than business customers. Also, they don't have an answer to Excel, which some people consider more important to Office's success than Word.

Microsoft makes a killing selling Office for Macs, and no one is trying to intrude on that market. They'd lose a ton of money if they dropped Office for Macs, and they'd risk attracting back the attention of the Fed.

Re:.NET Platform Portability

[Altus]

my understanding was that the rest of the office suite was still in production... ie... there will be an excel competitor down the road.

i dont doubt that apple and microsoft could both produce office suites for the mac and both be profitable at it... but microsoft is no longer obliged to produce office on the mac and could very well stop producing it if they wanted to.

im not saying they will discontinue it, but I wouldn't totally surprise me if they did... or if they de-prioritized it considerably.

thing you mentioned that might compel them to continue making office for the mac should the face real competition there is the possible negative attention from the feds... and that would depend heavily on the political climate at the time.

Re:.NET Platform Portability

[DaHat]

FYI: Microsoft has the largest Mac development group outside of Apple. It is unlikely that they would shut it down because of Apple making competing software.

Re:.NET Platform Portability

[Altus]

that is true... and it may not happen right away if at all... 5 years down the road who can really say...

after all... didnt they stop making new versions of IE for the mac?

Im not expecting microsoft to pull out of the mac business but i would not count on them being there forever. Also... they could go the 90s route and just half ass all of the office products for the mac... the would still make a substantial amount of money but would be investing less in development.

Windows Starter Edition

[Loadmaster]

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?

3 areas (re-phrase)

[jcarte01]

Can you mention 3 areas where you think windows could learn from linux and vice versa

Re:3 areas (re-phrase)

[tsmithnj]

1. DVD Player (Linux could learn from Windows) I know there is one of Linux, but it's not legal.... shall I continue?

Re:3 areas (re-phrase)

[dubbreak]

Excellent. That is basically forcing something positive about linux and admitting something where windows could "grow". We already know he will spout many wrong things about linux but lets here what he does think is good about it.

Re:3 areas (re-phrase)

[marsu_k]

FYI there are several DVD players for Linux. Legal, well, yes if you don't play encrypted discs. Legality of DeCSS depends on your geographical location. However, the players are region free (and this is something that Windows could/should learn from Linux).

But do continue, please. I'd like to hear some real arguments.

Re:3 areas (re-phrase)

[F34nor]

Can you mention 3 areas where NT used code from BSD?

Re:3 areas (re-phrase)

[codemachine]

Please note that there are legal Linux DVD players available (or if you don't live in DMCA-land, every decss DVD player is also legal). I believe Linspire has one in their click-and-run warehouse, and I'm sure there are others you can buy.

But really, do you think that there will ever be a lawsuit filed against someone watching DVDs using decss? Not bloodly likely.

A simple question

[Adrilla]

Have you actually ever given any Linux distro a fair unbiased evaluation?

What he really meant to say..

[outriding9800]

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.

linux prerogative..

[S4t0r1]

what aspects of linux/os movement would you like to see in microsoft projects? (i mean both technologic and organizative aspects)

Web Development

[Foofoobar]

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?

Re:Web Development

[Bert64]

Because apache mysql and php are competing with microsoft products, it wouldn't be the first time that ms os's have hindered the performance or functionality of competing products... They did it with DR-DOS, Novell, wordperfect, netscape etc

Re:Web Development

[Eneff]

I can answer that one.

Apache and Php were largely written and optimized for (GNU/Li|U)nix. (I can't say, but I expect the same for MySql but would have to see benchmarks.) This makes sense, as there are still more LAMP than WAMP users.

Were they written with Windows in mind and ported to Linux, you would likely see the same result.

Re:Web Development

[Foofoobar]

I'm curious to see what the response would be and whether it will be a sidestep dodge or whether they have an 'honest' answer. Frankly my money is on the sidestep dodge.

They could claim it's cause they are built for Linux but this isn't the case; They are built for a variety of platforms.

They could claim that the binaries are poorly put together but you can always do your own build too which makes the argument moot.

I was just wondering what their point of view was since they constantly knock Linux but I don't see them switching off Akamai's load balancing either which is solely Linux and pulls their butts out of the fire every time they have a major patch or DDOS.

Re:Web Development

[Foofoobar]

Not relevant. They have released builds for native environments and the codebase can be tweaked and recompiled so it should run equally well in an equivalent architecture.

Apache takes into consideration Windows way of doing things and the build is geared for it.

Windows unfortunately has background processes that you really can't do anything about and Linux can be run without X-windows unlike Windows. As such, that has been my experience as to why one machine can handle more requests than the other. Most Linux web servers run without X-windows.

Re:Web Development

[Foofoobar]

In an older time, this might be an answer but even with that in mind, the speed variance would be minimal considering the resources of modern servers.

Besides, Apache, MYSQL and PHP for Windows are system specific builds. They take into consideration the Windows platform and requirements.

Re:Web Development

[Foolhardy]

What does having a GUI idling in the background have to do with performance? It's not doing anything, so no cpu usage. It'll use a little memory for a while, until it's paged out. It's not like IP packets go through the user interface. Running an idle X server on the server will have no effect on the system's performance. Having an idle Win32 GUI server won't affect it either.

Apache's work distribution model is not well optomised for Windows. Apache creates a large amount of threads on startup, (at least 100 for a serious server) one for each potential client. This is a lot better than a seperate process per user, but when a lot of clients try to connect, this causes context thrashing.
A better optomized design would take advantage of NT's asynchronus IO and work item model by creating a completion port queue for all IO and work operations with one thread per CPU that never blocks on anything in a single proc system (and only resource locks in a multiproc system). The threads are either using the CPU or waiting on all pending IO.
Apache was designed to use the old UNIX process-per-client method, which translates into threads fairly easily. A unified work queue, which would be more efficent in Windows, would require a lot of changes.

Re:Web Development

[Foofoobar]

Extra processes running are extra processes running. In a windows environment, you cannot separate out certain processes that are unnecessary and they will always be running in the background.

Apaches threads can be modded. The entire conf can be changed. If you think a default install is all there is to maintaining a server, I'll send you a ticket to reality so you can visit us sometime.

You windows guys crack me up.

Re:Web Development

[Foolhardy]

Extra processes running are extra processes running. In a windows environment, you cannot separate out certain processes that are unnecessary and they will always be running in the background.

Unnecessary processes? Like what?
Besides, it doesn't even matter what processes are sitting around in the background if they aren't doing anything. By definition, they aren't using any CPU time and any memory will be paged out. These processes aren't affecting Apache, so how do they matter?

Apaches threads can be modded. The entire conf can be changed. If you think a default install is all there is to maintaining a server, I'll send you a ticket to reality so you can visit us sometime.

The amount of threads can be changed. For a heavy server, you still need a large quantity, since it represents the maximum number of concurrent connections. From the Apache 2.0 on Windows docs:

ThreadsPerChild: This directive is new. It tells the server how many threads it should use. This is the maximum number of connections the server can handle at once, so be sure to set this number high enough for your site if you get a lot of hits. The recommended default is ThreadsPerChild 50.

What can never be changed without a major rewrite is the inefficent one-thread-per-client service model that Apache uses. There's nothing in the conf files that can change this. Apache will always be slower on Windows as long as it uses a poor threading strategy for Windows. This works fine for UNIXes, but poorly on Windows, which was the original point: Apache and certain other ported UNIX software doesn't run as fast on Windows because they are designed for the wrong architecture.
Windows software that used async work queues heavily would not run as well on a UNIX.
The architectures are compatible enough, but optomization methods are quite different between them.

Re:Web Development

[Bert64]

Your point would be valid, had MS never done anything like this before.. But they have and it's been proven in court.. Therefore i'm just making assumptions based on established past form, these are not baseless accusations but are based on established fact and the likelihood that someone who has previously committed an illegal act will do it again.
The police work the same way too, a previous conviction for a crime, especially a related one, will be counted against you if your suspected of another.

Re:Web Development

[Foofoobar]

Unnecessary processes? Like what?

Well just do a ctrl-alt-del and take a look at the mem usage on all those idle apps. Those look like valuable resources that could go elsewhere and over half of them cannot be turned off at any given time.

Hell I can run a http daemon on Linux that runs off a potato! I can install a web server on a usb memory stick! It is so lean on system resources, it's not even funny. :)

As for threads per child, this is ideal and is one of the reasons it IS faster! The faster you can spit out data, the less time the person will be on your system hogging resources. Would you prefer them to hang around on the system for a few seconds longer? Well if you are an IIS developer, it sure would seem that way.

You don't have to sell me on how crappy Windows apps run on Unix environments though... they don't even run that well in their native environments. :)

Re:Web Development

[Foolhardy]

I have a Windows 2000 workstation over here not doing anything at the moment. There are five processes, not including task manager to see what's running. Since Apache likes to make two processes, putting it on here would bring the total up to 7. All that's running is:
The Session Manager (smss.exe): it's like the init process
The Win32 subsystem server (csrss.exe): Apache would need this since cygwin uses Win32
Winlogon: so I can log on at the console
The Service Control Manager, Event Log, and user mode plug+play services (services.exe): I guess I could disable these if I really wanted to, and use a different method to start and stop Apache, but they are pretty light weight.
In total, they've committed 30MB of memory, and even without any memory pressure only 12MB of that is currently resident. If Apache needed that memory, what's left would be paged to disk. The only thing that can't be paged is memory in the kernel's non-paged pool, currently 2MB. This machine has 128MB, so 128-2=126 available for Apache, or anything else I decide to run.
Yeah, I guess a stripped-down Linux could do a little better than this, but I consider this so low that it doesn't really matter. Cygwin will waste way more memory by not doing proper copy-on-write forks.

As for threads per child, this is ideal and is one of the reasons it IS faster! The faster you can spit out data, the less time the person will be on your system hogging resources. Would you prefer them to hang around on the system for a few seconds longer?

What does a thread per client vs non-blocking work item queue have to do with thread collection?
Apache's so-called optomized design needs to have 100 threads laying around all the time if you ever expect that much peek usage. No wonder it wastes resources.

Re:Web Development

[Foofoobar]

Apache doesn't need cygwin. Who the hell told you that? I run an install just fine without CYGWIN; you only need CYGWIN to use system calls. If you don't use them or find an alternate method or approach (which there are several), you don't need cygwin at all. :)

And Apache does not need 100 processes. I swear you Microsofties have some sweet crack over there that you guys are smoking to keep spitting out all this bullshit.

Regardless, it's still faster and more stable on Windows than IIS anyday :)

Predictable Questions

[frankthechicken]

Which would you have more faith running, Windows as root or Linux as root?

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 /. response predictably rarely rising above the level of pre-pubescent monkeys. If so congrats, I feel you might acheive your goals.

TCO

[hoborocks]

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.

agents of microsoft on slashdot?

[flacco]

does microsoft have agents on slashdot whose job is to sway opinion, blunt criticism, etc. with regard to microsoft/windows etc?

Re:agents of microsoft on slashdot?

[soulhuntre]

"does microsoft have agents on slashdot whose job is to sway opinion, blunt criticism, etc. with regard to microsoft/windows etc?"

Dude, all /. >IS is a group of people who have made it their lifes work to sway opinion about Miscrosoft.

Oh... and pirate music / movies in the name of "freedom".

What do you think of the "Kill-bill" t-shirt?

[Spy der Mann]

The one with Tux dressed as Umma thurman and holding a Katana.

Future...

[JossiRossi]

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.

Re:Future...

[smittyoneeach]

More specifically, Mono.
When Mono is 'ready', and MS Office is ported to C#, do you foresee marketing GNU/Linux binaries of Word/Excel/PowerPoint/Access/Visio/Project?
My suspicion is, sure, for MS has always favored profit over prophesy.
Domo.

Re:Future...

[kaustik]

Good phrasing there. This was one of the only comments I could find that didn't outright bash Windows, which would immediately put the man on the defensive.

Re:Future...

[latroM]

It's GNU/Hurd which we all are using after 20 years

more humor: objective preference confirmation

[EvilAlien]

I have heard rumors that you, in fact, prefer the taste of babies to chicken. Can you please confirm whether or not you eat babies,and if yes, your individual preference in terms of taste compared to the other white meats? (chicken = white meat, pork = the other white meat, babies = the other other white meat)

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?

Re:more humor: objective preference confirmation

[F34nor]

Geese are dark and gamey. They are also a crap shoot as far as eating as anything older than two years is going to taste like a "old bird." No I don't mean gray pelt you filthy cube rats. I also think we should expand the definition of a gaggle to include groups of eleventeen year old girls.

Re:more humor: objective preference confirmation

[EvilAlien]

No. The level of pigment in the skin is irrelevant to the color of muscle tissue. What you should have said to not appear like some knee-jerk political correctness harpy was something along the lines of people being red meat. Then you'd just seem like some freak cannibal... ;)

Disclaimer: I don't actually know if babies are the other other white meat or red meat, but I hear that we taste more like pork than chicken.

Re:more humor: objective preference confirmation

[Bush Pig]

"Geeze" is one Australian spelling for "Jesus" when used blasphemously. (There are others: "Christ on a bike!", "Jesus fucken Christ!", and so on.)

"Geeze" is generally used in contexts like that of the grandparent post, where the speaker is pointing out an error, or something. Australians will know what I mean, even if the rest of you don't.

Re:more humor: objective preference confirmation

[Pantero Blanco]

It's the same way over here in the United States; he was just being a smartass.

Skills of the responsible administrator

[Dark Lord Seth]

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?

Re:Skills of the responsible administrator

[SharpFang]

My vote: "against". A yes/no question giving no real insight and trying to trick the opponent into saying something that will sound silly. The problem is the difference of platform quality will show when the administrators are both equally skilled on their respective platforms. And schools of administration of Linux and Windos are so different, that it's impossible to compare skills of the two, it's impossible to tell whether they are "equally skilled" - the factors you CAN measure are compound ones - i.e. how smoothly the systems run (downtimes, reboots, intrusions etc) and if you take two system-administrator sets that run equally well, it's still impossible to tell if that's because of the admins or because of the software.
So, answer 1) "I agree admin skill is essential" - "so why do you claim Windows is better than Windows then?"
Answer 2) "I disagree, software is the ultimate factor" - "so you say Windows administered by a crappy admin will run better than Linux with a good admin? What a piece of crap!"

Re:Skills of the responsible administrator

[Henk Poley]

And Mr Taylor,

What kind of system would you recommend to the "home administrators" -the Joe Sixpacks or Aunt Tillies of the world- and why? Please make sure to show you've looked at the other options. Or can actually administrating a personal computer be made easier or even unneeded?

Re:Skills of the responsible administrator

[LesPaul75]

In general, questions of the form

"I think that... yadda yadda yadda... Do you agree?"

don't make for very good interview questions. Why not just ask

"Do you think that the choice of operating system really makes a significant difference in an system administrator's ability to maintain a server?"

or something along those lines?

Security and Modularization of Windows

[whackco]

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'.

Training

[HisMother]

What kind of training did you have for this position? Did you and the Iraqi Information Minister go to school together?

Office?

[wild_berry]

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?

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? :-P)

So who's really going to answer these questions?

[ip_freely_2000]

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.

Windows TCO vs. Linux TCO

[RailGunner]

Why do you claim Windows has a lower Total Cost of Ownership, yet you do not add the costs (not incurred by Linux / FOSS) of a Virus Scanner, Microsoft Office on the desktop or IIS / SQL Server on the server, plus the damage that is done by such worms as the Blaster and Slammer worms?

Especially when the costs of upgrading is recurring.

Re:Windows TCO vs. Linux TCO

[deitel99]

Because that would push the apparent TCO of Windows up?

Because those figures were meant as advertising and not as serious research?

I mean, come on. He'll just make up some excuse, which will benefit you nothing. There are far more interesting questions you could ask.

Re:Windows TCO vs. Linux TCO

[k2enemy]

why should these applications be included in the TCO of windows?

i run windows on one of my boxes and i use openoffice, apache and mysql rather than ms office, iis and sql server.

A Simple Question

[BurritoWarrior]

Can I have a job?

Please?

"Platform"

[Knights who say 'INT]

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?

Re:"Platform"

[Knights who say 'INT]

Tsk. I don't have as much as a M.Sc. yet, and while I'd love such a job in four years or so, I'm not in the market yet. You sure don't seem to realize that there's more to the success of technology than technology itself in the computer business, and that affects long-term perspectives for everyone, even the tech-loving freaks.

Have you seen people pining for the innovations present in BeOS that have died? Well, that's why understanding the economics present -- which is more than heed to software patents defenders' schumpeterian pleads or ESR's opensourcian preaching -- is important.

FUnDing

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

It's the Implant

[JimmytheGeek]

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.

Re:HOW DOES IT FEEL TO BE PWNING LINUX IN ALL AREA

[essreenim]

You're assuming he's not on the same medication you are

Please answer only "yes" or "no":

[jmulvey]

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.

Small Business Linux vs. Windows

[crimoid]

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?

.NET platform strategy

[johnhennessy]

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 .NET and Java.

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 .NET platform ahead of Java (with Linux/Solaris/whatever).

How do you plan to convince potential customers to use your .NET implementation and not an implementation (that would run on Linux) by a third party ?

I've lost track....

[pcguru19]

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.

Heart

[OO7david]

So, one a scale of charcoal to black, what color is your cold, cold heart?

(for the oblivious, : ), fits here)

Free version

[sosume]

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.

Re:Free version

[neurojab]

That might compete quite nicely with Lunix (sic).

Good question, but I'd cut out the last statement. The market where Linux has the biggest impact is in the network server space. Most Linux distributions come with Apache, dchpd, advanced routing capabilities, samba, etc. Linux comes more equipped than the highest tier windows offering, so stripping Windows down does not make it at all more like Linux, except maybe in price.

Re:Free version

[InfallibleLies]

Seeing how they're a business, which is trying (and are apprently very successfully) to make money, I highly doubt any free versions of Windows will become available. The only reason IE is free is because it only runs on their $250 OS.

Re:Free version

[penguinoid]

Will there ever be a free (as in beer) version of Windows, stripped bare of everything but IE and without any network server capabilities?

They have always had a free version of their products since MS-dos. Pirated Windows (TM) is officially frowned upon, but not to the extent that people who would get linux rather than a legal copy of windows would be forced to go legal.

Re:Free version

[DrugCheese]

I don't think they can can they? They're a monopoly, proven in the court of law. They cannot give away their product at a loss to compete with another product, even if the other product is already free. But I'm sure they won't be called on it if they do.

They're already brib.. err lobbied for it I'm sure.

Re:Free version

[sharkey]

Better yet, Windows without a shred of IE in it.

Re:Free version

[john00]

Well if you consider current windows distributions, they are 'stripped bare' already. Precisely what do you get on them apart from a shoddy web browser and a couple of basic applications (calculator, notepad etc.) that would merit any mention compared to a fully fledged GNU/Linux distribution?

Re:Free version

[NotFamous]

Window's M.E. on a store-bought PC. Wheee!!

Here's one

[mattyrobinson69]

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

What is Linux doing right?

[Askadar]

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)

Re:What is Linux doing right?

[OneFix at Work]

You'll probably get your question answered, but watch him say something about "TCO" and how Microsoft is really beating Linux on TCO and that is the "real price"...of course you won't get an honest answer from him on this...

Best of both worlds ?

[JeremyGL]

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 it

[nnnneedles]

Name the number one reason why you think Linux will never dethrone microsoft?

Wow

[suso]

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.

Re:Wow

[nagora]

Wow, was that a loaded question or what.

Not loaded in the normal sense: after all this time it can only be one or the other. IE has been patched to bejesus for security reasons, so it's not like they couldn't put these into one of those fixes. SO, they must either not care or can't get it to work for some odd internal reason.

TWW

Re:Wow

[suso]

There is another option, which would fit with Microsoft's history. They might just not agree with the transparent png standard and implementation of CSS and be silently protesting their adoption. It wouldn't be the first time they've done this. They've done it with J++, Outlook, etc. Choosing to ignore protocol or industry standards simply because they didn't agree with them and they are an 900 lb gorilla.

Re:Wow

[erikdalen]

but most other browsers (even IE for mac) has had it for far more than 1.5 years. so even that isn't an excuse.

Re:Wow

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

This kind of behavior is generally known as arrogance.

Question about time on Linux

[2.7182]

Mr. Taylor, how many hours a week do you use Linux ?

less is more

[gregm]

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

Re:less is more

[wild_berry]

I suspect Windows Server 2003 was a response to their being embarrassed on their own hardware (x86) by a free piece of hobby software that has grown up.

Doesn't your question also rely on the assumption (fair or not) that server management has to be text-based, not visual?

Re:less is more

[Eneff]

You know, except for IE, you don't have to put any of those on the machine. There are install options to both not install and uninstall them.

Re:less is more

[gregm]

Yeah and almost every friggin time you do a windows update it'll re-install outlook express. I imagine it does more than that but don't know for sure. Does it really hurt to have outlook express installed if you never run it? Probably not.

My point is when I build a server i put on just what I need to operate the thing nothing more and that's a really good way to run a server or a workstation for that matter.

Re:less is more

[gregm]

or web-based like webmin but that's opening up another can of worms. 2003 server was a definite step in the right direction.

Re:less is more

[plague3106]

Their UI implies that you can 'remove' IE as well. What actually gets removed though, I'm not sure..never tried it.

Re:less is more

[Puggs]

afaik, the shortcuts on the desktop, quick launch & start menu, nothing else, especially not iexplore.exe

Re:less is more

[PyroMosh]

2K3 Server does this (except for IE, I'd imagine). By default everything is either not installed, or in the case of services, not turned on.

You go in and just turn on the stuff you need.

I mean, the thing asks you to cite a reason every time you want to reboot, it's a serious server OS.

I'd still prefer Apache on BSD (for a server), and have to contend with running apache on Linux because of some legasy code I run that doesn't quite get along with BSD (something to do with how crypt is seeded, I think) but that's me. Don't bash based on FUD, it's just dumb.

Re:less is more

[Peaker]

Contrary to common belief.. Random bits "installed" on the hard disk do not affect operation of the machine, unless explicitly accessed.

In other words, you don't have to run those programs!

Re:less is more

[PyroMosh]

Nearly as good. Thanks, I never tried to fire up a web browser in 2K3, and I no longer have access to it to do so. Thanks.

Re:less is more

[codemachine]

Linux a hobby?

So our scientific clusters for bio-informatics, physics, and chemistry are a hobby? Our networking research lab is a hobby? Our webserves, fileservers, print servers, application servers, computation engines, workstations, desktops, and laptops aren't for real work?

That is all news to me. Sorry to say, but around here, Windows is the hobby OS. Windows XP inside is a translation for "lets play some games on this thing" - nothing more than a glorified and insecure gaming console.

Not that Windows can't be used for anything serious either, but you're really out to lunch if you think that Linux is still some pet project that is just a toy for geeks.

Internet Explorer and Outlook Express on Servers

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

big difference

[Doc Ruby]

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?

How about allowing multiple home installs?

[drizst 'n drat]

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).

Re:How about allowing multiple home installs?

[Kumochisonan]

Nothing gets my hackles up more than the intentional mis-spelling of Pack.

But of course, I am a spelling nazi

Unix Kernel for Windows?

[Omega]

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?

Re:Unix Kernel for Windows?

[wild_berry]

People say that the NT kernel is actually quite good. Are there any plans to do the opposite of the parent post and buy in a stable and attractive user interface for Windows?

Re:Unix Kernel for Windows?

[Eneff]

Remember, they're old VMS guys over there ;)

Competition

[phorm]

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.

Re:How can you take seriously the "Lower TCO" clai

[Kenja]

"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?"

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.

FUD

[Herbmaster]

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?

Re:FUD

[penguinoid]

FUD? What FUD? I don't see any FUD.

Closed Standards

[steelem]

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!

Re:How can you take seriously the "Lower TCO" clai

[JessLeah]

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?

I got a question for you ass hole!

[essreenim]

from the TCO-studies-prove-whatever-you-want-them-to dept.

Need I say more!!

I've a question. Why are you (like so many other big corporations) 2 faced m****** f*****s

easy

[Phil246]

" 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? "

Microsoft - breaking it's own software

[Aim Here]

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?

Desktop vs. Server revenue

[Thundersnatch]

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?

Embracing platforms MS does not own.

[monkeyboy87]

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.?

Third-world country's Linux TCO

[beathyate]

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?

Re:Third-world country's Linux TCO

[penguinoid]

Along the same vein, the only costs associated with linux are training and salaries of admins, whereas the costs of Windows include money sent to Redmond. Since for a country, saleries have only an oportunity cost (rather than a monetary and opportunity cost), would the TCO of Linux for a country be less than that for Windows? How does the opportunity cost of Linux support compare to actual money paid to other countries for Windows itself, an AV, and paid support?

Which is scarier?

[ednopantz]

Which is a bigger threat?
Linux servers with intuitive, usable UI tools or worms targeting Windows/security issues?

How much do you believe in Windows?

[bucktug]

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

How has Linux improved Windows and vice-versa

[davidwr]

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.

software ports

[willCode4Beer.com]

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.

No place for Linux at all?

[womanfiend]

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

OSS security

[jtshaw]

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?

When will MS products be "fit for any purpose"?

[JimmytheGeek]

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.

Re:When will MS products be "fit for any purpose"?

[batemanm]

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.

They are just telling it as it is.

Open Minded/Open Source?

[Krondor]

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?

Using a unix based kernel in Windows?

[monkeyboy87]

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?

Licensing for Technicians

[John the Kiwi]

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

Re:Licensing for Technicians

[musikit]

i never really looked at the details however i heard from someone that MCSE got a subscription to the MSDN as long as they remained licensed. which AFAIK requires a test every year or so.

those MSDN subscription should allow you to install Windows on as many machines as you want for dev/testing purposes.

Re:Licensing for Technicians

[bwy]

This is true. MSDN is the way he should go. I believe it was designed specifically for his type of situation.

Note that other vendors, like Oracle, let you download and install Oracle server for free if you're just a contractor building out an app for someone with no intention of actually running the production system yourself. That is pretty cool I think. Smart too from a marketing/market share aspect.

Re:Licensing for Technicians

[JKR]

Easy answer - Microsoft Action Pack (server platforms + multiple client licenses) costs about £200. Go to the partner program website for details. For developer tools as other people have said you want the MSDN.

Jon.

Re:Licensing for Technicians

[tidge]

John, look into the Microsoft Action Packs and see about becoming a Registered Partner/ISV.

Web Server

[reclusivemonkey]

Hello Martin, Would you concede that Linux has superiority in the Web Server department with Apache?

Consider the Children

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is there so much swearing in the Win2k source? Did you not intend young children to read it? -If so; Why?

Re:Consider the Children

[m50d]

You get that in any largish program. I was rather surprised after getting the Homeworld source when I came across FalkosFuckedUpTutorialFlag accidentally. A grep/wc shows there's swearing every ~100k of source. I think it's just a normal thing for programmers.

Longhorn vs Linux

[MerryGoByeBye]

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.

webserver tco and growth

[Camel Pilot]

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?

Dear Mr. Taylor...

[Swift Kick]

Thank you for taking the time to answer our questions.

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?

Trust vs. Transparency

[G4from128k]

How can customers trust Microsoft's code if they have no ability to see the source code?

reduced support costs

[willCode4Beer.com]

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

Question for the MS Jackass.

['Wee' Robby Snyder]

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.

SCO

[yamla]

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.

If you could eliminate one

[JordanAU]

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.

Security through obscurity?

[Knnniggit]

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?

Open standards

[Jane_Dozey]

Why does Microsoft regularly seem to decide to break with open standards and impliment their own version of them?

Ask a butcher about the benefits of vegetarian foo

[melted]

Ask a butcher about the benefits of vegetarian food. I mean, come on, who the fuck really cares what he says.

Well I guess this is my question..

[Stevyn]

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?

Do you own an iPod?

[yarook]

If not, do you plan on buying one?

Question Time!

[superdan2k]

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?

Your pay...

[Anita Coney]

Do you get paid for each FUD or do you get paid in a flat scale?

Shift away from Intel?

[MojoRilla]

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?

Windows 64 Bit?

[aarmenaa]

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?

Re:Windows 64 Bit?

[LearnToSpell]

That's pretty silly. MS may not admit to it, but that's exactly what they do. What did Win2K ship with, 20,000 known bugs or something? How about XP? Probably the same. Do you install the first version company-wide, or do you wait until the first couple of "service" packs are out?

Not that I'm saying that's a bad method for finding bugs, but at least OSS admits to it, and people are generally ready for breakage.

Note to mods/editors

[ballwall]

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.

Independant Analyses

[ThePolkapunk]

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?

Is closing Windows that much profitable?

[Pig Hogger]

What percentage of Microsoft revenues is due to Windows sales?

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?

Re:How can you take seriously the "Lower TCO" clai

[Kagato]

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.

Cause and Effect

[Bilzmoude]

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?

What do you want that Linux has?

[erikharrison]

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?

Why does MS discourage innovation?

[kingjosh]

It has long been a known stance that Microsoft avoids innovation, prefering to be reactive to customers's needs instead of creating new and innovative products first.

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?

Resistance is futile.

[wangmaster]

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.

Why

[The Bungi]

Mr. Taylor,

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.

Mr. Taylor please answer for the record

[Ridgelift]

Are you now, or have you even been, a member of
the Communist Party?

Just one question...

[bungley]

Can I have a job please?

Can we also get...

[theendlessnow]

Saddam Hussein to talk about WMDs and the future of the United States of America? Seems about as useful.... shoot, I think I'd rather hear that than anything Martin Taylor has to say.

Mod this as much shock and awe as you wish.

Re:How can you take seriously the "Lower TCO" clai

[rikkards]

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.

Do you read slashdot

[Anonymous Monkey]

Are you a slashdot reader? Do you have a Slashdot account?

The first and foremost uber-question

[killmenow]

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?

Re:The first and foremost uber-question

[Master Bait]

Before you came to Microsoft, did you work for the tobacco industry? How about an asbestos firm?

Single point of strength/weakness

[iplayfast]

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.

Re:Single point of strength/weakness

[paulatz]

3. From 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.

Standards Compliance - Documented and Common

[JPyObjC Dude]

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?

Unavailability of dual boot Windows/Linux computer

[kanweg]

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

Any regrets not splitting Microsoft into Subtlets?

[KJSwartz]

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?

UNIX migrations

[cosjef]

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?

efnet/#winprog

[Ark42]

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 .NET are great, and everybody should stop programming in C++, think only IIS is a viable web server, and always brag about the latest Longhorn or VS.NET 2005 beta they have.

Why?

[sekohnke]

I have what I think is a rather simple question for Mr. Taylor.

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

Security

[Mr_Silver]

When Microsoft compares the number of security related incidents, it always uses figures for Linux that includes the applications that come pre-installed.

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?

product or service ?

[savuporo]

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 ?

Re:How can you take seriously the "Lower TCO" clai

[JessLeah]

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...

Windows Price

[SpongeBobLinuxPants]

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?

Commoditisation v Microsoft

[MosesJones]

In every massively successful market in IT there has been a standard that has driven adoption (802.11 springs to mind).

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 .NET) which is trying to swim against the stream.

Why will Microsoft succeed in forcing a proprietary technology on the market when IBM failed ?

Re:How can you take seriously the "Lower TCO" clai

[Kenja]

"Have you considered using non-Microsoft sources for your IT information?"

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?

It's because... (WAS:Quality)

[Lead Butthead]

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."

Re:It's because... (WAS:Quality)

[nagora]

The answer to your question is rather apparent; it's obviously because they're pushing their own "extension"

Which is?

TWW

How has the rise of spyware effected your TCO?

[geoffrobinson]

How much time to administrators have to spend fighting off spyware on Windows systems? Is there a numerical figure for this yet?

Re:How can you take seriously the "Lower TCO" clai

[JessLeah]

And if you enable Windows Scripting Host, doesn't that open the door to a whole slew of exploits/viruses/adware/malware/whatever?

3rd Party Software

[Ucklak]

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.

Credibility, or lack thereof

[Jay Maynard]

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?

Release timing

[bushidocoder]

Bill Gates has said that in ten years, there will only be two operating systems - Windows and Linux. Given that Microsoft has officially recognized that Linux is its principal competition, how do you plan on combatting the release schedule of open source software? As a Gnome user, every six months I'm treated to incremental improvements and features - As a Windows user, I have to wait years for a single large batch of improvements to Windows.

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?

Re:Release timing

[garethw]

As a Gnome user, every six months I'm treated to incremental improvements and features.

Heh. Obvously you don't run Debian...

Re:Release timing

[Blakey Rat]

Bill Gates has said that in ten years, there will only be two operating systems - Windows and Linux.

Source...?

Re:Release timing

[808140]

Jesus Christ.

Honestly, are you just totally daft? Your (relatively) low UID suggests that you've been around for a while, but it apparently isn't an indicator of resourcefulness. You do realize that we have the web and google, right?

Or was asking for a source just a half-assed way to indicate your belief that the OP's story was apocryphal?

I put "bill gates ten years two operating systems windows linux" into Google and got this link as the first hit.

That's fewer characters typed than it took you to write your completely moronic post.

Someone on here was saying a few days ago that people on the internet that ask for a cite couldn't give a rat's ass about the veracity of the information they're calling into question. At the time, I thought he was just being overly cynical, but now I'm really starting to wonder.

This has been ten minutes of my already too-short life wasted. I sure as hell hope you appreciate the link that you could have gotten in ten seconds if you hadn't been so god cursed lazy.

Re:Release timing

[strider44]

Google for sources: "Fast forward ten years, the two leading OS technologies will be Windows and Linux"

"Get the facts" campaign

[julesh]

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?

Re:"Get the facts" campaign

[serialhex]

i want this one asked... if i could mod - i would mod++

Re:"Get the facts" campaign

[rastos1]

Please, please, please choose the parent!

Re:How can you take seriously the "Lower TCO" clai

[rusty0101]

"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

Platform stability

[Mr_Silver]

It is well known (and more importantly demonstrated) that Microsoft's platform quality is below par to that of other providers.

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"?

OSS Contributions

[carpe_noctem]

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?

Why?

[Realistic_Dragon]

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?

Small Business Servers

[Alan Hicks]

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?

The OSS Development Model

[formal_entity]

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?

Translation:

[SharpFang]

"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!!!

Honest question about FUD

[DrWho520]

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.)

Re:Honest question about FUD

[Citizen of Earth]

Why is Microsoft spending so much effort and money engaged in a publicity campaign (spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt) against Linux?

Or, you could rephrase this to: Why is Microsoft spending so much money and effort to campaign against an inferior costly trivial passing fad?

Re:Honest question about FUD

[jnelson4765]

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?

It is. Especially if you are fighting an innovator. And you are an entrenched industry giant. Ever see the movie Tucker?

Related question

[rewt66]

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?

Re:Related question

[JessLeah]

The average Windows "power user" (and the average Windows "admin") has some vague notion of "Unix" (and by extension "Linux") as something you run on a mainframe.

They can't comprehend the idea of Linux running on a cheap $299 eMachines box. Let alone a laptop, a palmtop, an embedded system...

Are google morons?

[augustz]

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.

Re:Are google morons?

[yagu]

Not to mention the decision on the part of amazon.com to also vest heavily in linux technology.

Why should I come back

[gov_coder]

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?

Re:Why should I come back

[AWoroch]

"I moved off windows in 1997 when a virus ate my master's thesis."

I'm not sure how it matters if it was a virus or aliens from outer space - you lost your thesis because you didn't have a backup when "something unexpected happened".

What would your complaint have been if it was a hardware failure? Would you have bitched about the manufacturer or the fact that you failed to do a backup, especially on data that had importance to you?

Re:Why should I come back

[Blakey Rat]

I'm not sure how it matters if it was a virus or aliens from outer space - you lost your thesis because you didn't have a backup when "something unexpected happened".

No joke. Plus the criticism that the parent's question is a pretty crappy interview question... what the hell do you expect him to answer? "No, you should never use Windows again! No soup for you!"

Re:Why should I come back

[F34nor]

It is also as simple as "user experience.

User's enjoy the uniformity and consistancy of the MS user look and feel... bla bla bla.. Once you are comfortable in a different system what possible reason would you have to come back. I agree this is a usless question only modded up for the "kick em in the balls feel good feeling of the linux users."

A better questions would be.
"Why didn't you add virus protection ten years ago."

"Why did you feel the need to acuire a virus company rather than starting from scratch?"

"Given MS products long history of gross failure why don't you build in a more robust data recovery system?"

Re:Why should I come back

[gov_coder]

Point taken.

Still, I'm pretty confident I'm not the only person who has lost important data due to MS security holes. And I see no evidence they've gotten any better at security since 97.

Have you?

Re:Why should I come back

[Hitmouse]

I'm sure when/if virus-protection is added, the slahdot question becomes "Why did you seek to eliminate competition in the antivirus field by producing your own"?

Re:Why should I come back

[gov_coder]

A better questions would be.
"Why didn't you add virus protection ten years ago."

"Why did you feel the need to acuire a virus company rather than starting from scratch?"

"Given MS products long history of gross failure why don't you build in a more robust data recovery system?"

These are all good questions. But how are these not ball-kicking questions?

And why shouldn't he get a kick out of the questions?

Re:Why should I come back

[Seq]

I wish I had mod points for you

I've often wondered why microsoft doesn't have a simple backup utility. Easy enough for mom and dad to use. A simple wizard that runs asking for "Important files", or a tray icon asking users to drag important files onto it. Or hell, simply grabbing the whole My Documents/Desktop combo if it fits on a single disc.

The reason I'm curious about this, is that standard support procedures from manufacturers tend to include recovery from included media, which MS tends to support. It is to the point where many people I know accept data loss due to the above as an accepted part of life.

Re:Why should I come back

[rastos1]

A better questions would be.
"Why didn't you add virus protection ten years ago."

The solution is not to built in a virus protection.
The solution is to built system that does not need it in first place. Would clamav or amavis exist if there were no outlook clients?

Re:Why should I come back

[gov_coder]

Actually I had what I thought was good virus protection at the time. Memory is a little foggy but I am certain it was Macafee. Another detail which I didn't mention was that I actually did have a backup - on a zip disk that somehow died on me. It made a clicking sound and just wouldn't ready the media when I put it in the zip drive. Should I have taken more precautions to protect my files; sure - and I have already conceded that. But I still maintain that the windows platform seems no better now, with regard to malware, than its was in 1997. I'd even say a strong argument can be made that it is actually worse.

Re:Why should I come back

[F34nor]

Well they are not crafted for the sole purpose of making MS look bad, I really want to know. The parent was just a astroturf.

Re:Why should I come back

[F34nor]

So why not make a Document a mini-raid of 8 files all linked by a pointer. Make sure the file is spread over the hard drive in multiple locations so even a physical impact can't corrupt the whole file. User Manchester encoding to make it recoverable and there we go, no more lost files. Sucks to have hardware failure in there too on your story. At that point sending it to a data recovery house even at hundreds of dollars and hour becomes more reasonable. I wonder if you can add that to your student loans.

intuitive sense of TCO

[hgilde]

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?

How are the plans to hire Linus Torvalds coming?

[hawks5999]

I saw the Memo

Technological Superiority of Windows?

[Noksagt]

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?

Immunity

[CODiNE]

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?

Event Viewer

[mrmagos]

I am primarily a *nix admin, however I have had to assist Windows admins from time to time, and my biggest question is this:
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...

Why not profit from Linux?

[bleatingedge]

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?

Responsibility for anti-virus protection

[SpartacusJones]

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?

superior marketing, inferior technology

[edward.virtually@pob]

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?

See their militant following on ZDNet

[ulatekh]

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.

Charging for Spyware/virii removal tools.

[GryphonTech]

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?

Re:Brave Fellow

[operagost]

Who's Bud?

What Will It Take To Effect REAL Changes?

[EXTomar]

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?

why does IE insist on a "links" bookmark folder?

[JimmytheGeek]

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?

Re:GNOME

[temojen]

Somehow I don't think whether or not it's a FSF project will be a concern for the interviewee.

Windows Update

[Pastis]

[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 ?

FWIW 5

[selil]

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?

MS's Security vs. Open Source's Security

[duguk]

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

Research Approach

[Tocano33]

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.

Netcraft

[Tarlyn]

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.

What's the point?

[jeif1k]

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.

Making Windows more geek-ready...

[jonadab]

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?

Re:Making Windows more geek-ready...

[SuiteSisterMary]

are there any plans to include a flexible and powerful general-purpose scripting language, such as ActivePerl

What's wrong with Windows Scripting Host?

Re:Making Windows more geek-ready...

[jonadab]

> What's wrong with Windows Scripting Host?

I don't rightly know, in detail, but I do know that I've never seen a single
example of someone in an unrelated discussion (about, say, how to solve some
arbitrary problem) pop in with a Windows Scripting Host solution. You see
that all the time with Perl, frequently with PHP, sometimes with Python or
Lisp, *occasionally* with Visual Basic, ... once I saw someone post a Ruby
solution in an unrelated discussion, and a couple of times I've even seen
AppleScript solutions posted. All of these unless I am quite mistaken are
much less widely distributed than WSH, but you hear about people actually
*using* them. And it's not that people don't talk about Windows solutions,
because you hear about people using batch files from time to time, and
registry hacks with pretty good frequencybut I've never heard boo about
WSH, except in the occasional security bulletin, and that doesn't count.

For all I know, maybe it's a great, flexible, general-purpose language, and
all it's lacking is mindshare, but I was talking here about ways to make
Windows appeal to geeks more, so mindshare is pretty important. Maybe what
WSH needs most is for more online tutorials and discussion forum posts to
talk about doing this or that with it.

Re:Making Windows more geek-ready...

[SuiteSisterMary]

WSH, like so many other Microsoft things, is largely untouted, aye.

If you want to take this off list, I can send you some examples, but the wonderful thing about WSH is the COM objects; everything in Windows, after all, exposes a COM interface, and WSH can use it. Want to query an ADODB datasource? Go nuts. Want to post form data to a webpage and parse the results? No problem. Futz with your Exchange mailboxes? Easy. Deal with Active Directory? Good old ADSI. And so on.

Re:Making Windows more geek-ready...

[jonadab]

> If you want to take this off list

Is there a particular reason you don't want to discuss it in public?

> the wonderful thing about WSH is the COM objects

Sure, okay, but how is it *as a language*?

> Want to query an ADODB datasource? Go nuts. Want to post form data to a
> webpage and parse the results? No problem. Futz with your Exchange
> mailboxes? Easy. Deal with Active Directory? Good old ADSI. And so on.

There are modules on the CPAN for all of those things, of course, and they
are obviously useful, but you've answered a somewhat different question from
the one I meant to ask. You're talking about specific applications for it,
and I was talking about *general* usefulness of a language, the ability to
solve *arbitrary* problems easily. If all of its power comes from the
ability to interface with extant apps, it would only be able to do the
things your extant apps can do (albeit, somewhat more automatically). How
is it when you need it to do something *on its own*, something for which
you don't have an application?

Perl has, to put it mildly, geek mindshare out the royal wazootie. Windows
is the *only* major operating system left that *doesn't* ship with it. It's
used so much on Linux that most major distributions consider it part of their
non-optional must-install core. There are *dozens* of applications on my
desktop that require it. In short, it gets *used*. It gets used quite a lot.

When was the last time you downloaded a Windows application and discovered
it was written at least partly in WSH?

Microsoft would do well to partner with ActiveState and ship a Windows that
includes Perl OOTB. It would significantly improve the overall attractiveness
(to computer geeks and technical types) of their product.

Sure, people who think "Microsoft XP" is their web browser (or possibly their
internet service provider, if there's even a difference between those two
things) would never notice or care, but those aren't the people Microsoft is
currently fighting to keep and worried they might lose.

If Perl is unsavory to Microsoft for some reason, pick another one -- Python,
Ruby, heck, they have the resources to roll their own, or buy one. WSH has
no mindshare and isn't cutting it with the geeks, and the lack of good geeky
tools is one of the main reasons geeks are jumping ship, a trend Microsoft
ought to show serious interest in counteracting. Retaining computer-savvy
users means the less knowledgeable users can get help from friends and
relatives and coworkers, and that ought to be worth some investment in
bundling geeky tools. It's not even the developers we're talking about here;
developers will do the 100-yard belly crawl nekked over broken glass to
develop for your platform if that's where the users are. It's free tech
support we're talking about, really.

A large percentage of home users will buy whatever software their tech-savvy
friend/nephew/whatever recommends and shows them how to use, especially if
said geek is willing to fix it occasionally when something goes wrong. I
have half a dozen people a month ask me what brand and model of computer to
buy. What happens if I start saying, "Get an iMac"? I don't, but what if
I did? I could single-handedly quintuple the number of Apple users in this
small town in half a year. Do you see where I'm going with this? I'm not
unusual. Many geeks are in this kind of situation. No computer vendor can
afford to ignore computer geeks. You don't have to base every decision on
them (indeed, that's worse), but you can't ignore them either.

Re:Making Windows more geek-ready...

[SuiteSisterMary]

Is there a particular reason you don't want to discuss it in public?

Well, other than /. not exactly being a good 1 to 1 discussion forum, not to mention not all that suited to posting large amounts of source code, no particular reason.

Sure, okay, but how is it *as a language*?

About what you expect; variables, conditionals, loops. Everything else is negotiable, or available in an object somewhere.

Perl has, to put it mildly, geek mindshare out the royal wazootie. Windows is the *only* major operating system left that *doesn't* ship with it. It's used so much on Linux that most major distributions consider it part of their non-optional must-install core. There are *dozens* of applications on my desktop that require it. In short, it gets *used*. It gets used quite a lot.

Well, yes. UNIX/Linux/Alikes are text based; therefore, the languages that tended to develop for them are heavily text/string based.

Windows, OTOH, is an object-based OS, therefore the languages are strongly tilted towards running objects.

I also object to the notion that just becuase Perl is popular/useful on UNIX it should ship anywhere else. The right tool for the right job and all that.

When was the last time you downloaded a Windows application and discovered it was written at least partly in WSH?

Well, to a very large extent, you can take pretty much any ASP code, change Server.CreateObject to CreateObject, and Response.Write to Wscript.Echo, and you're done.

But to more directly answer your question, not very often. However, again, most Windows programs are GUI based, and for RAD they always pushed Visual Basic. Once Windows networks started getting larger, and people started clamouring for more scriptability, out came VBS/WSH.

If Perl is unsavory to Microsoft for some reason, pick another one -- Python, Ruby, heck, they have the resources to roll their own, or buy one.

Don't forget that WSH is more-or-less language independant; there's nothing stopping somebody from building a Perl component, if that's not what ActivePerl is already. The two main ones, though, are VBScript and Jscript, and this is intended to leverage skills already possessed in Visual Basic and ASP.

But again, Microsoft wants to leverage it's own perfectly good technologies. And you keep intimating that it has a small mindshare; amoung Windows admins, I'd say it has a perfectly good mindshare.

What's wrong with Linux OTD?

[briancnorton]

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.

Re:What's wrong with Linux OTD?

[rhizome]

why are you asking microsoft what's wrong with linux? a better question for microsoft is, "what's right with linux?"

that said, i'm sure he'd agree with all of your assessments of linuxes weaknesses, so why ask a question that can be answered with "all of the above, and becaue they're not more like microsoft".

Re:What's wrong with Linux OTD?

[caswelmo]

Why do we care what he thinks is right with Linux? Personally, I'd rather here his top five bad things and start pounding out solutions right away. One "right" thing about Linux is the ability of the community to respond practically instantaneously to any problems or faults with the OS. Why not leverage that?

How educated?

[bitwiseNomad]

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?

Will Microsoft ever compete in price with Linux?

[at_slashdot]

Will Microsoft ever compete in price with Linux?

What about the future?

[mini me]

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?

Linux community

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:How can you take seriously the "Lower TCO" clai

[erikdalen]

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.

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.

Re:why does IE insist on a "links" bookmark folder

[SharpFang]

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.

This guy is nothing more than a paid spin doctor

[PotatoHead]

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!)

linux gaming rox

[biryokumaru]

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?"

Liability

[molog]

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

Windows on Computational Clusters

[a3217055]

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?

How does microsoft keep doing it?

[briancnorton]

Every time I see a new Microsoft product, I say to myself, "Wow, good luck topping this" but sure enough the next year there is always a new version with over 500 improvements and a cleaner, more streamlined interface. How does Microsoft continuously make their already great products better and better?

Mike Rosoft
Windows Times

Cultural Reference

[Elenyon]

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?

Ideologies for Integration/Inter-operability

[Slicker]

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?

i got a question

[Errtu76]

how can you sleep at night?

Contribute to the source

[RLW]

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?

Secure Computing

[cronius]

How do you suggest GNU/Linux should approach/embrace the "secure computing" initiative, or is it impossible since it's free software?

Windows short life = problems for companies ?

[obarthelemy]

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.

By the time everything (apps, security, training, hardware ...) 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 ...).

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 ...), and the whole process is quite disruptive.

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

Hmmmm?

[gte910h]

What UNIX based operating systems have you used in the last couple years, for how long did you use them, and for what purpose?

I just had this discussion the other day

[bmajik]

I'll tell you how .doc is better than .pdf

What pdf editors are you familiar with ?

What PDF collaborative editing and authoring tools are out there? .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.

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.

Mozilla was Netscape's codename for Navigator

[Andy Dodd]

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).

Re:How can you take seriously the "Lower TCO" clai

[Kenja]

"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."

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?

Gaffe Prevention

[dmaxwell]

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?

Hitting the wrong button..

[Henk Poley]

s/online/only

Re:Hitting the wrong button..

[strider44]

yep, you were meaning to hit the 'y' but ... oh whoops! You accidentely hit the 'i' then the 'n' then the 'e'!

he he

Martin,

[jav1231]

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?

Re:Martin,

[rhizome]

You're falling for the language game. Responsiblity implies property, which implies ownership, which implies rights, which reinforces Microsoft's worldview. Microsoft's worldview does not have room for community ownership. I would suggest this be rephrased as:

"What does the Microsoft EULA offer the end-user that the GPL doesn't?"

Re:Martin,

[Joel from Sydney]

Not trolling or flaming, but the correct phrase is to "up the ante".

Anti and ante are two very different things :)

I thought Windows NT code was ~1/3 FreeBSD?

[ulatekh]

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.

Re:I thought Windows NT code was ~1/3 FreeBSD?

[Money for Nothin']

My understanding is that Windows 2000/XP's TCP/IP stack is mostly based off of the BSD implementation, and I do know that their FTP client (ftp.exe) is basically a straight-up BSD implementation (complete with the BSD license in the executable code! Run "strings" on it for words from the BSD license), but beyond that, Windows has little in common with BSD.

You might be thinking of OSX, which at least uses FreeBSD's userland apps, but even there, the kernel is a Mach kernel, not a FreeBSD kernel...

Pirates & Windows

[segal_loves_pandas]

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?

Question

[hedge_death_shootout]

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.

This is news?

[faedle]

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.

freedom

[latroM]

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?

Breaking standards to prevent interoperability

[Builder]

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?

What do you see in the future?

[stevey]

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?

cost of soul?

[sdriver]

How much does microsoft pay per year for your soul?

Trustworthy Computing

[macosxaddict]

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?

Re:How can you take seriously the "Lower TCO" clai

[aav]

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.
</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?k bi d=884130&product=windowsxpsp2>

Do you think Linux/FOSS can be stopped?

[Money for Nothin']

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

Payroll

[The Slashdolt]

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.

It's already there

[Henk Poley]

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.

http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/info/ntdll.shtml

How do you do it?!

[duguk]

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

Microsoft's Move into Anti-Virus/Spyware

[DarKnyht]

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?

Open Document Format

[Devi0s]

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?

Silent PC.

[cabazorro]

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

if you had to pick one

[Luxifer]

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?

Microsoft for EVERYTHING

[duguk]

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

On a related note

[Andy Dodd]

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?

simple things

[l3v1]

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.

Re:simple things

[pe1chl]

Still does not what?

Specifically

[roystgnr]

When will Microsoft Office ship with read/write support for the StarOffice/OpenOffice.Org/KOffice file format?

Open source code

[BiDi]

Will Microsoft open the Windows source code and if not, why not?

When will Microsoft Office be availible on Linux?

[will-el]

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.

Point of interview?

[n3bulous]

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.

Answer isn't as clear cut as you think.

[Petersko]

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?

Re:Answer isn't as clear cut as you think.

[trewornan]

I'll bet he can pick from any number of actual independent favorable reviews and refute that claim

I doubt he can find many gunuinely independent favourable reviews - although I'm sure he can find hundreds of supposedly independent ones. Microsoft does seem to be remarkably inept at hiding it's hand when commissioning distorted reports from it's shills.

Re:Unavailability of dual boot Windows/Linux compu

[tempest69]

Microsoft will remove the vendors software discount for pulling this little trick. BeOS was actually giving away their OS as a dual boot option to laptop makers. Microsoft had a little chat, and the dual boot never got out the door. I figure that M$ would have an identical stance about linux.

Storm

File formats and protocols and interoperability.

[xutopia]

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?

From a similar viewpoint:

[Henk Poley]

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.

Re:From a similar viewpoint:

[Henk Poley]

Ehm, and why would you need to run an ever restarting defrag program that doesn't play well with other programs resources and leaves gaps between consecutive files when there are better, simpler solutions?

(aka, when a file is accessed, try to partialy defrag it.)

Re:From a similar viewpoint:

[jackspenn]

That "builtin defrag" you are referring to is an intentionally crippled version of Diskeeper and it is incredibly slow.

Worse, I had it scheduled to run at 4 AM every Friday on Windows 2000 Professional back in the day. It only took one time when I happened to be working on the machine when it started ... BOOM!; defrag started in the middle of a Netscape 6 installation and corrupted my registry. I had just enough time to see the icon appear in the task bar and think to myself ... "Oh sh" and it was to late.

I use Windows, Linux and Mac for various things. I still cannot determine why fragmentation is so high under Windows and MS doesn't seem motivated to resolve it. I mean it is one of the biggest reasons users experience slow machines.

Re:From a similar viewpoint:

[KermitJunior]

So did win98, but guess what... they all suck. Run the "Built in" version of defrag and then a decent defrag program like diskeeper demo. You'll see. Not to mention the built-in can't degrag the swap file.

Thanks

[AnotherEscobar]

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

Developer Brain Drain

[TempusMagus]

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?

Mondo MSH

[joeykiller]

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?

Iteroperability

[Capt. Murphy]

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?

Moving to Apple and Linux...

[Lodragandraoidh]

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?

I'm not I Martin Taylor nor am I an MS advocate ..

[apankrat]

.. 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.

ms linux?

[rnd()]

Under what competitive or technological circumstances would Microsoft consider releasing its own linux distribution?

(would it use the minix filesystem? j/k).

Useablility

[bitwiseNomad]

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?

Question

[Turn-X Alphonse]

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).

1 Year Challenge

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Competition and Interoperability

[The Bubble]

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.

MS Licensing & OSS licenses

[Goeland86]

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?

Desktop, Server or both?

[w0lver]

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?

How has software design been affected...?

[bitwiseNomad]

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?

Question - fixed

[Turn-X Alphonse]

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).

Whose voice?

[amightywind]

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?

TCO of Windows vs. Linux (more detailed question)

[arkhan_jg]

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.

Lunch?

[slapout]

Who did you have lunch with yesterday?

What's the use?

[mersy]

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.

Software Commiditization

[theblackdeer]

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?

for how long (if at all) have you been a Lnx user?

[antonakis]

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?

Business and Consumer

[mpest]

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?

IE7 core... Gecko?

[emil]

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.

Longhorn

[rpozz]

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?

Re:How are the plans to hire Linus Torvalds coming

[Neuroelectronic]

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?

Shit of Focus

[megarich]

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?

Linux better for desktops?

[nghate]

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?

Integration

[darshiva]

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?

power to the people

[xmp_phrack]

what can be done to give power to user-level accounts and services, while keeping potentially malicious code out of ring zero?

Security Vulnerabilities vs Market Share

[Onimaru]

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?

Re:Security Vulnerabilities vs Market Share

[nsayer]

My question is, have there been any studies done on this proposition, and if so, what were the specifics of those studies?

... And of those, how many of them are truly unbiased, rather than being paid for by an interested party on one side or the other?

What about interviewing B.Gate himself

[stm2]

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?

worm food

[xmp_phrack]

Blaster and Sasser both used buffer overflows and required no user intervention (other than negligence) to spread. how can MS prevent future worm outbreaks?

Price

[Un pobre guey]

I have just custom-built a computer based on the Pentium 4. I chose to build it myself in order to save quite a bit of money in comparison with similar commercial models. I planned to dual-boot Windows and Linux.

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?

Mangement and Interoperative uses of MS

[Lynzzu]

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.

Question

[Gnuosphere]

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)

Internet?

[MrDrBob]

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)

Second choice?

[redelm]

If you had to, what non-MS operating system would you put on your personal computer?

License Nightmare.

[jellomizer]

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.

Martin, [bis]

[Henk Poley]

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?

Re:Martin, [bis]

[zenpiglet]

How much coding do you think MS developers would get done if they had to act like support engineers for Windows, Office, etc?

If it was a simple matter of each guy answering the odd email, then there would be no problem, but it isn't. That is why Microsoft have a huge support infrastructure with staff who's job it is to help with problems - do you think they'd pay for this if they didn't have to?

If you are one of Microsoft's major customers (so called "premier" customers) or partners there are mechanisms in place to quickly involve developers in support incidents, though this is usually not needed as the support staff can resolve most issues before this point.

This won't scale to the consumer space as there are way too many Microsoft customers there and, knowing such "home users", given the chance they would insist that they need to have the DNS developer on the line just because IE has a "DNS Error" message, meanwhile some huge corporation has lost all name resolution and business is down and losing millions, but the dev is too busy to help.

WTF?

[northcat]

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.

Question from the pool...

[bataras]

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?

TCoO

[scharkalvin]

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)?

Eek! Good question!

[bitwiseNomad]

Mod parent up!

If the market share were different

[bmortimer]

If Windows had >1% of the market share like linux instead of its current market share, what, if anything, would Microsoft do differently?

Digital Rights Management and "reminders"

[Glomek]

In several interviews, Bill Gates has referred to Digital Rights Management (DRM) as "reminding" the user that they should respect copyrights.

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?

Ownership and Community

[praetorius242]

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?

MS Linux

[zenmojodaddy]

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?

open source Windows

[confused one]

One of the perceived benefits to open source projects, such as Linux, is that the "community" is able to respond quickly to serious bugs or security issues. This often results in a patch being released within hours of the problem being found. This community of volunteers work in parallel with an army of professional programmers. This provides not only a sense of accountability and professionalism; but also guarantees a thorough code review.

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.

Re:Unavailability of dual boot Windows/Linux compu

[kanweg]

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

Re:How can you take seriously the "Lower TCO" clai

[rikkards]

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.

Why Internet Explorer went free

[Henk Poley]

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.

Hatred?

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

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?

Re:How can you take seriously the "Lower TCO" clai

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

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.

Win98OSS?

[bluyonder]

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

Information wants to be free

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

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?

Linux/Windows in Academia

[jgold03]

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?

Sad story

[fishdan]

I work at a university and Exchange had crapped all over everyone AGAIN. In our emergency meeting to stop this from happening a 4th time, I suggested that perhaps we get rid of Exchange, and replace it with Sendmail or Qmail or James. With a straight face the CIO told me (and I am the software architect) "That's absurd -- there are no major universities that don't use Exchange." The mindless zealotry was astonishing -- and even more so because that is of course completely untrue -- universities were using sendmail long before there was an Exchange.

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.

Re:TCO of Windows vs. Linux (more detailed questio

[AWoroch]

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.

Development Tools for New Users

[MBCook]

I've always been interested in Computers and this naturally brought me towards programming. When I first tried Linux I was very suprised to learn that development tools were free and so easily available, the same is now true on the Macintosh also (in the GNU software today, and in the HyperCard demo in days of old). But Windows has never (to my knowledge, at least Win 95 or later) shipped with any development tools, even as an option to install.

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?

Re:Development Tools for New Users

[nsayer]

This point needs further amplification... The free dev tools you can get from OS X are equivalent to Visual Studio. XCode is, in fact, bundled with the OS (as an optional package, yes, but it's on the CD), along with the CHUD tools (an amazing suite of debuggers). Maybe you can download some CLI compilers for free from Microsoft, but they hardly compare to what Apple ships for free with OS X.

Re:TCO of Windows vs. Linux (more detailed questio

[AWoroch]

250+100 units @ 5.24GBP is 1834.00 GBP. Dunno what I was smoking when I made that calculation above.

VBScript

[Sam Gibson]

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.

Sound Market

[netchhe]

Choice is a important indicator of a sound consumer oriented market. Indeed consumer choice is one of the great achievements of our economy. In one of the most important markets today, the consumer has very little choice: the desktop system, previously the pc. y

How many operating systems does a healthy market need? How can Microsoft contribute?

PLEASE mod my question High!

[superpulpsicle]

Have you ever used redhat? If so for how long?

This simple question is definitely a double edge sword.

Why use IE?

[This Is Ridiculous]

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?

Accountability.

[krunk7]

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)

Innovation

[Anderlan]

Do you believe that forcing computer manufacturers to exclude competing programs from the computers they sell as a condition to receiving discounts on Microsoft OS licenses is innovative or good for the consumer? What about when a majority of consumers are demanding a particular program? (A computer manufacturer would only be serving their customer, doing their job, by providing the competing program pre-installed.) This is what Microsoft was proven to have done as described in the DOJ findings of fact for its action in 1998.

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

Re:How can you take seriously the "Lower TCO" clai

[naelurec]

> 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.

Hey Martin!

[Master Bait]

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?

Re:How can you take seriously the "Lower TCO" clai

[naelurec]

> 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.

Will there ever be a Windows Live CD?

[accident]

Live CDs are becoming quit popular in many different areas like office apps, games, demos, dianostics. Anywhere a user doesn't want to risk their current setup to do something else.

However windows is missing from this segment entirely. Can you comment on where live CDs fit at all in the Windows strategy?

Re:When will Microsoft Office be availible on Linu

[Phantasmo]

I've been thinking about this a lot lately
Hopefully they'll port Office to .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.)

Console-based windows?

[carambola5]

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.

uhhm, yes!

[RelliK]

Microsoft's volume license forbids the OEMs to put anything but windows on a computer. Just ask BeOS guys about it.

Proprietary systems a threat to system life-cycle?

[echusarcana]

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?

Pricing in diveloping countries

[JamesP]

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)

Microsoft does work more for interoperability.

[Dolda2000]

In the webcast transcript on Microsoft's site, Taylor said this:

Roughly about 72 percent of 800 IT professionals in North America all said that Microsoft has done the most versus any other vendor to offer interoperability.

I'm certain that that is true. What I suspect is that UNIX/Linux vendors don't do much as much actual work for interoperability, because they don't need to.

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?

Why does your company hate Linux so much?

[dooglio]

Why do you perceive Linux as such a threat, why all of the caustic remarks about open source, and why not port your premiere apps such as Microsoft Office and Internet Explorer to Linux?

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?

Re:TCO of Windows vs. Linux (more detailed questio

[burnsy]

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

The estimated retail price for your School Agreement coverage is below (USD).

PRODUCT SELECTION ESTIMATED PRICE PER UNIT TOTAL ESTIMATED RETAIL PRICE
Windows Server CAL $3.00 $1,050.00
Windows Server Standard Edition $55.00 $55.00
Estimated Total $1,105.00

Microsoft's Plans to "Embrace and Extend" Linux

[soren42]

There is an interesting piece in latest issue of Wired consisting of a fake "from the future"-style memo purporedly from Linus Torvalds to Bill Gates. The memo is set several years in the future, and speculates about Linus' concerns in the company's direction after working at Microsoft for several years.

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:

• release a Windows-like, MS-managed window manager for Linux,
• release Office for Linux,
• create a Linux compatibility layer for Windows, and/or
• create a Microsoft-managed Linux distribution?

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.

noone interested in features?

[tolonuga]

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?

Choices, we like options

[toolshed7]

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?

how long it will take

[3cpo]

for firefox to defeat IE in browsers popularity ?

My $0.02 Question

[benjamin_pont]

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?

Crystal Clock

[chris_sawtell]

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?

Advantages of Linux...

[jimmytango829]

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?

Re:When will Microsoft Office be availible on Linu

[calyptos]

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.

Re:How can you take seriously the "Lower TCO" clai

[mce]

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.

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.

please don't refute the claims

[7-Vodka]

Since your job usually entails describing the advantages that your license model and windows operating system have over other license models and OS's, you should be quite familiar with these topics. Therefore I would like to turn the tables on you in the hope of some honest answers:

1. What are the advantages that gnu/linux has over Windows for the typical user / software developer / corporation?
2. Why is gnu/linux better suited for open standards than a proprietary operating system?
3. Why would you recommend using gnu/linux for publicly funded government projects?
4. What are the best advantages of using Free Software (read: GPL) in third world countries?
5. 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?
6. How do you feel that Free Software can benefit mankind as a whole?
7. 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!

Re:please don't refute the claims

[serialhex]

this set of questions gets my vote... i really wish i had some mod points! mod++

Please share my pain.

[Paul Fallon]

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.

Paul

Devil's Advocacy

[zztong]

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?

Added Features vs Expected Functionality

[catdevnull]

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.

Re:TCO of Windows vs. Linux (more detailed questio

[arkhan_jg]

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.

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 .5 licences per client (because of lower usage)

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.

Don't you feel like a turncoat?

[Tough Love]

As a former Linux advocate who has changed his stance for money, how can you look at yourself in the mirror in the morning?

Re:TCO of Windows vs. Linux (more detailed questio

[arkhan_jg]

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.

head from ass?

[_randy_64]

Is it physically possible to remove your head from your ass?

Re:How can you take seriously the "Lower TCO" clai

[Aspherical Cow]

If Linux administrators make more money than Windows administrators, wouldn't it be better for me to train to become a Linux administrator?

Back to basics?

[pablonhd]

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?

Re:Question for the /. crowd

[The MESMERIC]

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?

It is ... inheritably way more secure.
Even Sun Microsystems (a competitor) acknowledges that.
Most Unix-systems are ..

Goes without saying even Microsoft uses Linux webservers (akamai) to fend off DOS attacks to their site.

If Linux surpasses Windows in market share, how long before the adware/spyware/malware/virus/pop-up writers start coding for Linux?

That will take a long time because Linux is not so easily exploitable. There is a bureacracy of permissions, policies and layer restrictions in Linux that makes the environment quite hostile for such exploits. That can also be offputting for the user.

Nothing is impossible but :
1. It would take extremely talented hackers to write such malwares.
2. Whatever exploit holes appear they should be closed almost immediately unlike what happens with Microsoft.

The commercialization not the popularization of Linux could make it less secure. Because people prefer to double-click executables rather than going through a whole series of procedures to install the application.

Best advice is to try a live-CD such as Knoppix or Slax for yourself.

Don't believe anything you read (pro or anti Linux) - but try and research for yourself.

Question from a former microsoftie...

[einhverfr]

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?

Re:I think what you meant to say is...

[man2525]

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.

Market penetration vs. Office port

[Cyberfox]

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!

Re:TCO of Windows vs. Linux (more detailed questio

[thelordx]

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.

A Few Questions

[dogfull]

First.

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 .NET's features.

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.

Hahaha! A Linux ad on a Microsoft site!

[The MESMERIC]

This is the second time I spot a Linux advertisement on Microsoft's territory
(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 .NET Code Magazine.

Surreal!

Seriously?

[clambake]

Seriously? No, no, i mean.. Seriously?

Microsoft's commitmant to customers.

[Zaphod-AVA]

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

Anticipate the replies...

[raw-sewage]

It would be interesting if we anticipated Mr. Taylor's replies, and posted them on a site somewhere--- before the actual interview.

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

Re:Anticipate the replies...

[The MESMERIC]

bravo!

Here is the biggest question of all

[rossayoung]

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

Lack of command-line functionality?

[Entropius]

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?

Re:TCO of Windows vs. Linux (more detailed questio

[burnsy]

Check here...

http://www.microsoft.com/uk/education/how-to-buy /where-to-buy/aer/

Academic pricing is around 10% of retail.

How does Red Hat survive?

[SuperKendall]

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.

Martin Taylor

[poot_rootbeer]

You are apparently named after two of the leading makers of quality acoustic guitars.

Do you have an electric cousin named Fender Gibson?

Microsoft as application vendor for Linux

[prostoalex]

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

That's easy: All crypto things

[fleppir]

Would you trust crypto software you couldn't inspect yourself (or have done on your behalf)

Re:TCO of Windows vs. Linux (more detailed questio

[arkhan_jg]

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.

Re:Linux = communism; Windows = Fascism

[randori82]

HERE HERE!

outhouse express and network connection wizard

[JimmytheGeek]

I think these are on no matter what. You can hide the icons, that's about it. Otherwise, you are talking root canal.

got shell?

[ca1v1n]

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?

Bash shell for longhorn

[Baikala]

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?

Re:Bash shell for longhorn

[chiok]

Longhorn's shell Monad seems to have a lot of bash features.

Re:When will Microsoft Office be availible on Linu

[towaz]

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.

Hmm, Can I ask..

[OneSmartFellow]

...a scathing, yet insidiuosly rhetorical question, please ?

Has the monopoly retarded technology?

[An dochasac]

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 will the execs stop the FUD?

[!Squalus]

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.

GOOD QUESTION!

[jimmytango829]

I'd like to hear what he has to say.

The right tool for the job?

[An dochasac]

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.

Re:Unavailability of dual boot Windows/Linux compu

[PyroMosh]

Out of curiosity, what exactly did you want to change?

Agreed

[Anonymous Coward]

As I posted elsewhere:

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.

Justify MS claims on interoperability

[KURAAKU Deibiddo]

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?

Duh!

[Baloo Ursidae]

KWrite is the intuitive answer...

A question, on Microsoft and Linux, if you please.

[Orion Blastar]

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.

A new paradigm...

[dbullard]

Has Microsoft ever considered repositioning themselves from a Windows company to a software company?

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.

Has MS Considered Open Sourcing?

[solune]

Okay this might seem like a trick question, but really is well thought out (and long):

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

Do you sleep well at night?

[namekuseijin]

bad dreams perhaps?

Linuxizing Windows

[chiok]

What do you think are the advantages of Linux over Windows (if any) and is there any plan to incorporate those advantages into Windows?

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?

Simple, Bottom Line, Nothing Else Matters Question

[Master of Transhuman]

What kind of a moron are you?

Working for Gates AND insulting Linux?

Why don't you /. morons submit a list of questions to Bill directly? Why waste time with his flunkies?

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...

Yep...

[PotatoHead]

Spot on. Too bad many folks don't see it that way.

Re:TCO of Windows vs. Linux (more detailed questio

[drsmithy]

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.

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.

Dual Boot, Dual Pay

[IchBinEinPenguin]

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?

Re:I'm not I Martin Taylor nor am I an MS advocate

[ndogg]

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.

just to echo most of the other questions...

[BigBadPete]

When will you stop beating your wife?

frozen to pieces

[Mahamadmustafa]

in the past six months, suse has crashed and frozen on my comp once- xp pro crashes about once a day.. comments?

Just the facts

[amyloo]

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?

SFU is flawed

[Werrismys]

I had this great idea of getting rid of the buggy and crappy SMBFS and the not-quite-mature CIFS and use a Windoze box as a proxy: -mount the shares on the wintendo box -then share them with NFS.

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.

talk about a fucking troll

[gregm]

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

Re:How can you take seriously the "Lower TCO" clai

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

"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.

As a person, or part of a combative corporation?

[Anonymous Bullard]

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?

iPod

[chuckrey]

Martin Taylor, Do you own an iPod and if so, does your boss know?

Re:I'm not I Martin Taylor nor am I an MS advocate

[richlv]

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).

Re:TCO of Windows vs. Linux (more detailed questio

[arkhan_jg]

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.

Who are you ?

[rtb61]

Are you a microsftie?

The big deal is freedom, not price

[nnappe]

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.

Re:The big deal is freedom, not price

[yuri benjamin]

You've reached the limitation of the english language.
Time to switch to french which has the useful distinction of gratis vs libre. The english modifiers as-in-beer and as-in-speech do get across the general idea, but not as well as gratis vs libre.

Disclaimer: IANAF

Re:The big deal is freedom, not price

[AdjustableTool]

Actually it's gratuit vs libre, not gratis.
But I agree 100% with your point: the grandparent post about "free" confuses freedom with zero financial cost in the word. Can't imagine which boneheads modded him +5 insightful.
There are a lot of MS shills on /. apparently.

Re:The big deal is freedom, not price

[yuri benjamin]

By grandparent you mean speedplane? nnappe hit the nail on the head. I was backing him/her up by offering some extra vocab. I see no reason why english can't borrow a couple more words. Just anglicise them a bit and add 'em to the rest :-)

Re:The big deal is freedom, not price

[AdjustableTool]

Um... (/me counts back the posts) Ah, sorry, I should have called it the "great-grandparent post". :)

Agreed about nnappe.

Lawrence Lessig is a lot more concise in French too, when he's talking about logiciel gratuit versus logiciel libre.

I guess if the French had won control of the USA in the 18th century from the British, we wouldn't be having this discussion. :)

Re:The big deal is freedom, not price

[speedplane]

From the replies I've seen to my post, it seems that people have been taking my Porche analogy a little bit too seriously.

In my post I was not arguing whether a Porche is better than a Taurus, or Linux is better than Microsoft. I was saying that Microsoft is capable of competing against Linux even if Microsoft's software costs money. I just don't see Microsoft going anywhere in the long term. I also don't think that its fair to say that the only way they will last is by being anti-competitive and evil. (As a caveat to that statement, I'm sure they will be evil sometimes.)

I was ambiguous when I said that Linux is "free". The "freedom" part of Linux can be considered an additional feature of the platform. However freedom with software doesn't get you anywhere if the software is complete crap, you might as well write it over yourself. The freedom has to be coupled with great software to properly compete.

Re:Open Source Applications Helping Windows Compet

[amran]

virgin Windows install

That had me cracking up picturing a young nubile Windows...OK OK. :-) Back to the questions.

Why?

[CCRancor]

Why, oh why, did you agree to this interview? Is there a tradition of masochism at Microsoft?

Absolutely not

[briancnorton]

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)

Firefox Users Are Selfish Worm Writers

[4of12]

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?

Question

[spacecamel]

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?

Re:Unavailability of dual boot Windows/Linux compu

[leutzdb]

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.

Suitably small values of open

[Kaseijin]

The .doc file format is documented on MSDN[1], and is just as open as PDF.

Documentation for the Word 97/2000/2002 binary file format, the version everyone has had to deal with for the past several years is available under under license to "bona fide governmental entity customers... for certain internal, non-commercial uses", "qualified Microsoft customers... for use in the development of internal-use software solutions... and to complement Microsoft Office", and "qualified software developers... for use in the development of commercial software products and solutions... and to complement Microsoft Office" (emphases mine). The Office 2003 XML formats require a patent license.

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.

The .doc format is intented for editable documents, and stores various metadata along with the content. PDF is not and doesn't.

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.

Windows command-line functionality

[Kaseijin]

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.... Does Microsoft have any plans to modernize the command-line support in Windows?

A number of command-line utilities were introduced or improved in WXP and WS2003, and Longhorn will have a novel shell called Monad/MSH. NTFS supports hard links and 'junctions' akin to directory symlinks. Cygwin and Windows Services for Unix both offer Unixoid environments for Windows, including tools like find, grep, the many features of ls, and usable shells; they also provide file symlinks, but only within their respective environments.

Patents

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

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?

Re:TCO of Windows vs. Linux (Educational pricing)

[MS Bunny]

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

gratis vs libre

[nnappe]

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.

Re:gratis vs libre

[yuri benjamin]

My first language was dutch (but I've lived in English speaking countries since I was 5 so I speak english better).
The dutch use "gratis" for "free-as-in-beer", but I always thought it was borrowed from french. Maybe I was wrong.

Still smoking crack, eh?

[Foofoobar]

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. :)

Re:Still smoking crack, eh?

[Foolhardy]

Apache doesn't need cygwin. Who the hell told you that? I run an install just fine without CYGWIN; you only need CYGWIN to use system calls. If you don't use them or find an alternate method or approach (which there are several), you don't need cygwin at all. :)

And Apache does not need 100 processes. I swear you Microsofties have some sweet crack over there that you guys are smoking to keep spitting out all this bullshit.

Regardless, it's still faster and more stable on Windows than IIS anyday :)

No, you're right. Apache doesn't require Cygwin. Sorry. That's just the version I had laying around.

I never said that Apache required 100 processes. I said that it requires 100 threads to support 100 potental connections, even if nobody is connected. Did you even read the docs I quoted? On a fresh install of Apache 2.0.52 for Windows, it wants to have 250 threads by default. That's ridiculous. I start Apache, and sure enough: it has 252 threads sitting idle for no reason. Surely Apache could create new threads on demand, up to a limit rather than allocating them prematurely? Having large quantites of threads scheduled in a round-robin order is not an optomized strategy in Windows, which is was the original point. Yes, I can turn the amount of threads down, but that would leave clients with too many connections errors if I set it any lower than peak usage.

Who said anything about IIS? This is about software designed for UNIX not performing well on Windows because the architectures are different.

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.

Task manager doesn't exactly have a super detailed memory report. The performance monitor is better.
Available Bytes (free + zeroed + standby) 87187456
Resident kernel bytes (aka cache bytes, not to be confused with system cache) 19628032
Nonpaged kernel bytes 2404352
Total process working sets 21241856
Total process paged pools 220040
Total process nonpaged pools 274408
Total shared bytes 3261584
Total bytes accounted for 130956144
128MB = 130956144 bytes
I don't see any missing memory.

The GUI is part of the Win32 subsystem. The subsystem server and video driver owns all the shared state for GUI apps. Since NT4, the Win32 subsystem server runs mostly in kernel mode from win32k.sys, so all of the GUI's memory is reflected as part of the kernel's paged pool. You can use the driver verfier's pool tracking hook to see how much memory win32k has allocated. Let's see here: win32k has 626952 paged and 6160 nonpaged bytes allocated. Can I run XF86 and a window manager with 630k of memory? ntfs.sys alone is using more than three times that.

You can't shut down the Windows in Windows my friend.

Actually, you can. The GUI is an optional environment subsystem. Unfortunately, the GUI is connected to Win32, and Apache depends on Win32. If Apache knew how to make native syscalls instead, it'd be no problem to run only Apache. Just rename it smss.exe :)

Re:Still smoking crack, eh?

[Foofoobar]

Actually, you can. The GUI is an optional environment subsystem.

If it's that simple then why doesn't everyone do it? Hmmm? Why aren't all programs optimized for that and enabled to run at a command line? You'd think everyone would want this right? Faster apps, better functionality.

But I don't see it happening. What part of the equation is being left out? Licensing costs? More than likely.

And unless you are running a version of Apache from 1984 (or a version for AIX on windows), it never required cygwin... NEVER! In which case it begs the question: what the hell kind of comparison are you trying to make by comparing a recent version of IIS to a version of Apache thats 10 years old?!!

Seriously dude. Objectivity isn't my strong point but at least I don't try to act like it is. Try testing out a recent version for a truly objective critique.

Re:Still smoking crack, eh?

[Foolhardy]

And unless you are running a version of Apache from 1984 (or a version for AIX on windows), it never required cygwin... NEVER! In which case it begs the question: what the hell kind of comparison are you trying to make by comparing a recent version of IIS to a version of Apache thats 10 years old?!!

I'm sorry I ever mentioned Cygwin. The version that wastes threads is the most recent release I could find: 2.0.52, from here. Also, I'm not comparing it to IIS or any other web server. I am comparing Apache's threading model, one that is efficent on UNIX to one that would be much more efficent on Windows.

If it's that simple then why doesn't everyone do it? Hmmm? Why aren't all programs optimized for that and enabled to run at a command line? You'd think everyone would want this right? Faster apps, better functionality.

The reason is that almost all software for Windows was written for the Win32 API, which is integrated hopelessly into the GUI. The alternative is to use NT's native API. Almost nothing is written for it because Microsoft's documentation of it is poor (there are several good third party sources, however) and almost all libraries depend on Win32. If even one library or one program needs Win32, the whole GUI needs to be loaded. Using only the native API is possible, but there is so little software that only uses ntdll, it usually isn't practical to exclude Win32. Most of Windows's own components even depend on Win32, but if you don't need them it isn't a problem; such as running Apache and nothing else. XP has maybe 10MB of user mode binaries that don't depend on Win32.

Re:Still smoking crack, eh?

[Foofoobar]

So in other words, it's Windows fault. Even if someone wanted to do that, it would be darn near impossible due to lack of access to the underlying code base.

My point still stands. Windows makes itself slower and regardless of what app is on it, they will always run slower unless it is integrated into the OS.

Office?

[bondjamesbond]

When are you going to port Office(any version) to Linux?

mybox# apt-get install msoffice

Why didn't Rob follow up on that?

[khasim]

From TFA:

Roblimo: Next question, from ProteusQ, Slashdot user no. 665382. He's asking about protection against malware and he's asking you Martin Taylor, "What applications do you run to protect your windows license from malware (viruses, trojans, spyware, etc.) and what do you pay for this protection for a year? How does this cost compare to the costs incurred by other Windows users and compared to what you would pay for the equivalent protection offered in Debian?

And the reply ...

Martin: Got it. So first of all I actually run, obviously, Windows XP. I run XP SP2. I also have downloaded the beta of the spyware product that we recently, one of our recent acquisitions, into a combination of XP SP2 and spyware product that I downloaded. That's pretty much how I protect in running both my desktop pc or my laptop I use here at Microsoft as well as the 3 PCs that I have in my house - a very similar configuration.

Both of those are VERY recent developments.

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?

Actually, most don't include the update.

[khasim]

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.

Firefox

[Michael Krenzer]

What is Microsoft's opinion on Firefox being bundled with most Linux distributions? Do you feel Firefox a threat?

Want to actually discuss this?

[PotatoHead]

Get an account and post here again, and I'll be happy to discuss my "worldview" with you.