Slashdot Mirror
Ask Microsoft's Martin Taylor About Linux vs. Windows
Martin Taylor is Microsoft's global general manager of platform strategy, but he's best-known as the man the company trots out to refute claims of Linux superiority. Here are links to several interviews he's done in the past two years: vnunet.com; CMP; Computerworld; and one on Microsoft's own site. As usual, please submit one question per post. We'll present 10 - 12 of the highest-moderated questions to Mr. Taylor about 24 hours after this post appears, and we expect to publish his answers within the next week.
Is Microsoft hoping to incorporated any interoperability for using Linux-based binaries? IE, an embeded version of Cygwin for instance.
wdd
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
how DO you say that stuff and keep a straight face?
Botox, maybe?
The difference between spam and poop is that you don't have to dig through septic tanks looking for real food. -- Me
Which OSS desktop do you like best - Gnome or KDE?
More
Notepad or Wordpad? ;-)
Why are we asking him about anything? He should be asking /us/.
On second thought, I do have some questions, which I can wrap into a single bundle:
"Is Microsoft going to pursue a Palladium philosophy in the next 5 years? And, if this the strategy, what guarantees will Microsoft make that protect Free Speech?"
Ratboy.
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
For what purposes? What was your personal experience with using Linux?
Why do you think that Mac and Linux both have a militant following, but Microsoft does not? ( Or do they, but I just don't see them ? )
Did Microsoft consider free software inferior when they released Internet Explorer for free?
Slashdot's first reaction to VMware
Explain why Windows would be a better OS for developing countries where they're trying to keep computer prices extremely low per machine.
"Plans are for fools! Oglethorpe, the plutonian (Aqua Teen Hunger Force)
Regardless of the superiority of Linux to Windows, or vice-verse, it seems to me that the disruptive economic model of Linux cannot fail to displace Windows. As Microsoft itself has proven many time, you cannot compete with free. Do you see any hope for Microsoft?
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Question:
Linux must be doing something right, if one of the largest software companies in the US is devoting money and energy to dismiss Linux. Why can't you be confident in your own product? If you were confident in Windows, you would let the Windows OS speak for itself. So are you making up for the failure of Windows by focusing attention on Linux?
I fully expect Windows to overtake the unix market in 2010, but I also fully expect the linux market to overtake the resulting marketing in 2015. What are your plans to keep this from happening. Do you believe in Gartner's predictions?
Are there any plans for Microsoft on a mainframe hardware? Windows is as well and dandy on x86 hardware, but if I represent a bank and I want a high level of availability on non x86, non Itanium harware, what are you going to provide?
Why doesn't Microsoft incorporate other OSS software into Windows, such as say Firefox or some of the other software listed at http://www.theopencd.org/?
Does Microsoft feel that Linux has any place at all in the IT industry? If so, where?
best-known as the man the company trots out to refute claims of Linux superiority
.doc better than using .pdf or any other open standard and how is Microsoft going to handle this in the future? Any plans on opening it completely?"
This guys is there to refute the claims. I honestly do not expect him to say anything that we haven't heard before.
I would still like to ask "How is using a proprietary
Free XBox, PS2
When Microsoft seems to tout it's desire to facilitate interoperability, do you mean interoperability seamlessly between your operating system and environment with alternative systems (such as Mac OSX, Linux, Sun Solaris, etc...) or do you mean interoperability between Microsoft products?
What applications do you run to protect your Windows boxes from malware (viruses, trojans, spyware, etc.), and what do you pay for this protection per year? How does this cost compare to the cost incurred by other Windows users? How does this cost compare to what you would pay for equivalent protection offered in Debian GNU/Linux?
How do you respond to people who say that the open-source approach and the associated peer-review process inherently create better code?
Dear Martin,
...'". And try to explain what such a sentence means: "We really [wanted] to go dial down the emotion, dial down the rhetoric, have a more fact-oriented approach and dial up the pragmatic analysis of solutions." (see computerworld interview first sentence!)
I have read a couple of your interviews and I would like to ask you to answer to this one in plain English. Please! Could you avoid silly metaphors (try not to mention ballpark for instance) or sentences such as "So someone asks 'Hey can you guys
It's painful to read and hardly understandable. Thanks in advance.
I'll do it for cheesy poofs.
Do you think Linux and OSS is a real, tough competitor for Microsoft? And if not, why do we see such a big Linux-related marketing campaign? Does MS fear Linux?
-- Patent no.123456: A way to personalize
Q. Do you frequent Slashdot and the other Linux boards to say what your competition's saying about you?
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
- How Linux admins can easily administrate more machines per person-hour, due to the nature of Unix/Linux's remote administration (and don't even get me started on VNC or Terminal Services; they aren't scriptable, they aren't as bandwidth-effective, etc. etc. etc...), than Windows admins?
- The "hidden" costs of lost time due to (A) protecting against adware/spyware/malware/viruses/pop-ups, or (B) actually disinfecting machines that got infected anyhow.
- The "hidden" costs of downtime due to buggy MS software. Sure, F/OSS stuff has bugs too, but when it does, at least the admin can try to fix them. When MS software is buggy, the admin is 100% at MS's mercy to fix the bug (since, being closed source, MS software is often 100% unfixable to anyone outside MS...)
- The "hidden" costs of dealing with "hacked" IIS servers (vs. Apache).
And a further question: Do Linux geeks really pull in that much more money salary-wise than Windows geeks!? find this claim hard to swallow, especially in today's economy. I call BS. Show some proof.Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
Is there any real, actual reason why you (Microsoft) feel a need to use less than independant reviews and tests to attempt to establish Windows superiority? Would it really be so bad for you to let your products stand (or fall) on their own?
Ron Gage - Westland, MI
Can you mention 3 areas where you think windows is better than linux and vice versa.
just because I don't care doesn't mean I'm not listening
To what extent are open source applications on Windows helping it to be more competitive versus Linux? For example, I immediately install OpenOffice.org, Firefox, and Thunderbird over a virgin Windows install.
The world will not get better through technology. We must seek to be better people.
One of the biggest criticisms I have heard of .NET is that it is not portable to non Microsoft/Windows platforms. Microsoft has released Rotor, a CLR/BCL system for FreeBSD systems, that with some work can be made to work with MacOS X. Furthermore, there is the Mono system which provides a CLR for Linux.
My question is does Microsoft have any intentions of implementing a CLR and BCL for any other non Microsoft platforms where applications built under one would be (relatively) easily used under another (provided the application does not rely on P/Invokes of course)? If not... why?
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Can you mention 3 areas where you think windows could learn from linux and vice versa
just because I don't care doesn't mean I'm not listening
Have you actually ever given any Linux distro a fair unbiased evaluation?
"Plans are for fools! Oglethorpe, the plutonian (Aqua Teen Hunger Force)
what aspects of linux/os movement would you like to see in microsoft projects? (i mean both technologic and organizative aspects)
Since Linux is likely here to stay, regardless of current quality, where do you feel Linux will be in 20 years. Especially when compared to where you feel Microsoft's OS will be in 20 years.
Just a boy doing unproffesional IT work that's way above his head.
plz/thnx
Oh, a real question while I'm at it:
Of the Linux distributions you've extensively tested, assuming that you have so that your arguments are based on information rather than conjecture, which do you feel is the most desktop-ready?
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
Mr Taylor,
I myself am convinced that neither Windows nor Linux are superior solutions if one's to have an objective view. In my humble opinion, the "superiority" of a system lies in the hands of the administrator responsible for said system and not with the type of software used, in this case. For example, a good Window system administrator with some good experience and the right tools can easily maintain a server just like a well trained and experienced Linux system administrator can maintain his servers. Quite a few people agree on this and recognize the fact that the skills of the responsible administrator are more significant then the software platform used.
The question is, what is your position on this? Do you agree with the aforementioned idea about system administrator capabilities being more important? Or are you convinced that the software platform used is more important?
Hate me!
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'.
If office were priced upon a subscription model (as has been speculated) would it be appropriate to sell and would you try to sell a Linux (any toolkit/window manager of your choice) version in the same way that Office exists for Mac?
:-P)
Does the diversified nature of windowing toolkits for the X Windows system, the current use of both XFree86 and X.org, and the huge effort you have put into you own kernel for MS Windows make it even less likely that a version of any MS software will appear for Linux, no matter how many office desks begin to use Linux? (Is the technical challenge too big for you?
Especially when the costs of upgrading is recurring.
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?
One of the most vital part of any platforms eco-systems are the developers for your platform. Two of the more popular enterprise level platforms currently for show are probably
With the current fight for brain-share among developers with these two platforms, the main focus appear to be on easy of use/integration (where Visual Studio currently leads) and maturity (where I think Java has a head-start).
How do you convince (1) the developers and (2) managers to put their faith in Windows and the
How do you plan to convince potential customers to use your
[ Monday is a terrible way to spend one seventh of your life. ]
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.
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)
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.
uh huh. And why should we believe that answer?
I'm believe that a kernel that is compiled for a server-only machine is going to be faster, more stable and more secure than one compiled to run a gui environment on a workstation.
I fail to see why anyone would opt to have to have a Windows gui with IE, Outlook Express, Freecel, Media Player, etc. running on a their server.
Will Microsoft ever become truly serious in the server market and offer an OS that doesn't have all this crap installed by default?
G
One of the security principals that was recommended to me at TechEd last year was that if a component wasn't needed on a system, remove it.
The theory behind this was that if it's not installed, it can't pose a threat. And if you don't need it, why have it installed in the first place?
I would like to ask, then, why are Internet Explorer and Outlook Express not removable from Windows Server 2003? On my Active Directory servers I have no need for a fully graphical email client.
Equally, I have no need for Internet Explorer on the servers. I do not use Windows Update on the machines; I instead test the patches on non-production machines before burning them to CD and deploying them manually. I have no need to view HTML help files on the server.
Since we have seen 11 cumulative patches for Internet Explorer in the last two years, this is a concern for me. I'd rather completely remove these applications instead of 'disabling' them.
I can choose to remove these types of applications from my Linux installs, why can I not remove these unneeded applications from my Windows installs?
If Windows really were a superior OS, with all the profit motives and organization, wouldn't the superiority of MS apps be beyond question? And if so, why wouldn't you just open the MS data formats, to coopt the Linux users, too?
--
make install -not war
Linux distros allow you to install on multiple machines. With the advent of home networking, why doesn't Microsoft allow a reasonable number of machines to be installed from a single user license (say 5 machines) rather than forcing a home user to purchase multiple copies (or buy inflated license paks).
Since Unix has undergone decades of testing; code review and improvements; and security tuning, do you see Microsoft following Apple's lead and building the next generation of Windows as a GUI under a Unix kernel?
While there are many ways in which Linux and Windows compete, in many ways they can also be complementary to each other.
In what ways could Microsoft see Linux working with windows (or for that matter with other MS products) as opposed to being a competing product.
Most admin tasks on windows can be done via Telnet. Hell, as you well know you can run BASH and SSH if you feel like it. A "good" admin can deal with as many Unix systems as Windows systems.
"The "hidden" costs of lost time due to (A) protecting against adware/spyware/malware/viruses/pop-ups, or (B) actually disinfecting machines that got infected anyhow."
We're talking about servers here. In a well designed domain no one has the rights to the server systems required to infect them with anything.
"The "hidden" costs of downtime due to buggy MS software. Sure, F/OSS stuff has bugs too, but when it does, at least the admin can try to fix them. When MS software is buggy, the admin is 100% at MS's mercy to fix the bug (since, being closed source, MS software is often 100% unfixable to anyone outside MS...)"
Right. Because all Linux admins are realy high level coders that can debug kernel conflicts in their spare time. When software wont work, 99.999% of the time you just wait till the writter fixes it.
"The "hidden" costs of dealing with "hacked" IIS servers (vs. Apache)."
Check the statistics. Apache gets compromised a lot. Whats more there is NOTHING saying you must use IIS if you run Windows. Whats more, all you need to do is delete the cursed front page crap to fix 90% of whats wrong with IIS.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
I believe they assume that the business already has Windows installed on all its machines.
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?
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?
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.
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
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?
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?
This won't get anwsered i'm sure but... If you had to choose between linux and apple for competition over the next decade who would you choose? In other words, do you see Linux or Apple as a bigger threat to Microsoft's share of the OS market.
People often hear from Microsoft that Linux only seems more secure because it is less widely used than Windows. Why, then, are Linux web servers hacked less than Windows servers, despite the fact that they outnumber Windows servers?
Brain kills internet cells.
Why does Microsoft regularly seem to decide to break with open standards and impliment their own version of them?
Silly rabbit
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.
We've had x86-64 for a while now, but we're hearing that we may have to wait until the first half of next year for 64 bit Windows. It seems as if Microsoft is missing the party here. I can get Linux 64 bit binaries right now. Can this be seen as an example of the open-source Linux out manuvering it's competitors?
"I do a grep for shit, bollocks, and tits before checking in code. I'm professional..." -RECURSIVE_META_JOKE, reddit.com
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.
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?
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?"
Are you a slashdot reader? Do you have a Slashdot account?
We are the Borg...
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
should software be sold as a product or a service ?
Is there any particular type of software ( op sysems/enterprise apps/utilities/research software/etc ) that should be open source ? why ?
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
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?
The answer to your question is rather apparent; it's obviously because they're pushing their own "extension" and is not in their interest to support the "standard."
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
How much time to administrators have to spend fighting off spyware on Windows systems? Is there a numerical figure for this yet?
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
I understand that Enterprise customers prefer large updates on a long timetable, but consumers tend to want new features now - I don't want to wait three years for a feature that Gnome, KDE or Apple has to show up in Windows. How do you plan on preventing the Windows brand from becoming "stale" when viewed in relation to a community with a much more rapid and dynamic release schedule?
Microsoft's "Get the facts" campaing has been highly publicised in a wide variety of places, and frequently cites figures from studies that seem to show Windows at an advantage over Linux, yet on careful examination of these studies there are often methodological flaws in them.
I recall reading the details of one from the downloadable report on the Microsoft web site recently that compared the throughput of Windows + IIS to Linux + Apache for serving static web pages. The figures showed Windows in a clear lead, yet on closer examination it appears that the Windows installation had been thoroughly optimised (by, e.g., turning off the collection of last access information on the file system and increasing the default filesystem block size, see pages 30 & 33 of the document linked) whereas similar optimisations had not been applied to the Linux system for the test (with default configurations suggested by the distribution installer accepted for filesystem parameters, see pages 30 - 32 of the document).
How would you answer those who are concerned that by presenting these "independent" tests where the testers have followed precise instructions from Microsoft on how to optimise their products but have not (apparently) consulted Linux experts on how to optimise Linux systems as authoritative that you are unfairly distorting the truth and painting a poor picture of Linux? Is it just that you're doing your job the only way you can, because on a level playing field Linux would win? Or is the picture of these reports as unfair to Linux in some way wrong?
Martin,
Many major companies such as IBM and Apple have learned that they can benefit from OSS software by taking an existing OSS product, refining it to fit their needs, and then redistributing the finished product and giving some source back to the community. In this manner, for instance, Apple was able to produce Safari, which is IMO a high-quality and stable web browser, that was produced much faster than it would have taken Apple to write an equivilent product from scratch.
Why has Microsoft not taken similar approaches to software development? I guess that in the past, OSS code has been used in Windows (TCP stack, for starters), but why does Microsoft insist on resisting innovation rather than contributing to it?
"Quoting famous computer scientists out of context is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." - K
What are the three best reasons that I, as a technically capable user with a reasonable interest in computing, should choose Windows for my own personal use?
Beep beep.
It seems apparent to me that Windows Server 2003 and SQL Server are propped up by third party ISVs. For example, I've done work with small credit unions which use a software system that will only interact with SQL Server, requiring of course, a Windows Server OS as well.
In this situation the software costs for a new server far exceed the hardware costs. Most of these applications have no need for anything beyond a basic SQL db server, yet were written before MySQL, Postrgres, and other OSS db's became viable alternatives to SQL Server. ISVs typically refuse to incur the costs of re-writing their software to no longer use specific SQL Server hooks. This gives Microsoft a huge inertia advantage over other platforms as far as small businesses go. I've spoken with many small business owners and the ISVs and generally speaking they agree that using a cheaper GNU/Linux solution would be preferable.
Given that such flagship products as Windows Server 2003 Small Business and SQL Server 2000 compete with Linux not on it's own merits, but on what ISVs allow you to choose, how do you expect to compete with OSS once the ISVs begin to change their strategy?
Slackware, what else when it must be secure, stable, and easy?
Have you ever taken part in an OSS project? If yes, which one? If no, how can you truely understand the merits of this development model?
Why is Microsoft spending so much effort and money engaged in a publicity campaign (spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt) against Linux? Is this a standard business practice?
I would put this akin to Chevrolet SUV commercials touting a much lower flip-over rate than Ford SUVs equiped with Firestone tires. If you believe this an unfair comparisson, please explain why. (Keep in mind that buggy/compromised software could present a risk to human life.)
The cancel button is your friend. Do not hesitate to use it.
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?
Given that TCO is significantly less for windows than linux[1], are the folks at google morons for using linux?
They use a LOT of computers, and TCO has got to be important in that enviroment.
[1] See MS advertising and "Get the Facts" literature.
I moved off windows in 1997 when a virus ate my master's thesis. AV vendor was no help. MS was no help. Basically nobody could help me. I had to retype 130+ pages from old printouts. I have yet to have a single problem on Linux, since I moved in 1997. No issuues with malware of any kind. Its been close to 7 years now. All my windows using friends have constant problems with malware - even several of the MCSE sys-admins have such problems. Why should I ever come back to windows?
Rob Enderle's excellent new book: Everything I needed to know about Computer Science I learned in Marketing School
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?
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.
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.
How have you approached investigating/researching Linux and other FOSS and their pros/cons?
Did you just install a RedHat box and play with it for a few hours? Have you installed multiple different distros (and/or applications) and worked with them each for (at least) a few days? Somewhere in the middle? None of the above?
Thanks for taking the time to answer our questions. Please encourage others to do so as well.
If Microsoft products are truly superior, then why is it that high volume websites such as the new Microsoft search engine, for example, are running on Linux and/or Apache. See netcraft results.
We've been hearing a lot about the new command-line features that Longhorn
is planned to have. What other geek-appeal features is Microsoft working on,
to help Windows compete with Linux on the tech-savvy user's desktop? Will
Longhorn finally ship with a better text editor than Notepad? DOS used to
come with BASIC and later QBasic; are there any plans to include a flexible
and powerful general-purpose scripting language, such as ActivePerl? What
else does Microsoft have up its sleeve to appeal to people who might
otherwise seek alternatives?
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
What do you see as being "wrong" with linux on the desktop? Are the problems inherent to the licensing regime or is it a technical issue? Is it something like the fragmented environment? (kde v. gnome) Is it poor applications? Is it an underdeveloped user experience? Lack of commercial software development? I have a feeling that your insight on this topic would be very interesting to many in this community.
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
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.
nothing more, nothing less. Do any of you expect an honest answer to any of your questions when this guy is paid to set expectations?
Given that, here is my question:
How does your background make you an authoritative source on IT matters? Give me a few reasons why I would want to ask you a question and value your answer?
(Sorry that's harsh, but I honestly want to know!)
Blogging because I can...
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?
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?
Does it not seem a little odd that your company is moving into a industry that is designed to protect against flaws in your software? It is almost like you are making us pay you to supply software to protect against flaws in another, so why not just fix the software that has the flaws?
Voting them all out of office, now that's change I can believe in.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If you had to chose a flavour of Linux to use on your desktop, what would it be? What do you have experience with? What do you like/dislike?
...Ok, and Gnome or KDE?, Konqueror or Mozilla?
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.
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.
With superior integrated Apple products being released on the market for consumers at prices they can afford, and more cost effective and stable Linux distributions available for scientific, development and server applications (and breathing life into older machines for such purposes), I am moving my desktop systems over to Mac Minis, and my backend servers onto Linux.
What would you say to stop me from migrating off of my current Windows solution in this environment?
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
.. but I have to say - neither. I don't like both.
And this is a reasonable answer regardless of
whether one's affiliated with Microsoft or not.
3.243F6A8885A308D313
For experienced computer users, the clear separation between the different parts of the operating system, the hardware drivers, and the applications makes a system running Linux feel cleaner and more organized. The inherant transparency in the system makes it easier to secure a Linux machine and keep it secure, but in addition, it is reassuring to the user, who can feel a greater degree of control over their computer.
In Windows, there are user-level applications and drivers intertwined with the base operating system. In what ways do you think this is beneficial or detrimental to the user and the system as a whole? Regarding software design at Microsoft, what is the importance of creating or maintaining system transparency and modularity relative to other things like useability, speed, interface homogeneity, and the like?
Many would argue that the latest incarnations of Windows are not as modular or transparent as a GNU/Linux system. Is Microsoft planning to place more of an emphasis on transparency and modularity in a future version of Windows? If so, in what ways?
Light is filtering down from above. Would you like to use DIVE?
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.
Mr. Taylor,
Will you be answering all of these questions by yourself, or will Bill Gates have his hand up your ass making your mouth work?
an ill wind that blows no good
We are a medium sized school with approximately 250 windows 2000 or XP workstations (OEM licensing + office XP) and 100 or so staff and student laptops.
We're looking at migrating off our aging NT servers to new backend logon and file servers. We already have several linux 'edge' or special purpose servers; firewalls, backup, web, email, pxe+dhcp, dns etc, and we have a decent amount of in-house experience in both windows and linux.
Given our desktops must remain on windows because of office and windows-only education software we priced up both windows server 2003 and linux replacements. Sticking to the same hardware for both costings, we came to some worrying conclusions.
Redhat Enterprise ES would set us back £700 a server, with free client access and 3 years of upgrades, and we've also got the option of a completely free system like debian. We'd use samba+ldap to largely replicate our existing setup, but with beefier hardware and security updates.
Windows 2003, at £30 a seat for new Client Access Licences, would set us back nearly £22,000 for current and next year projected licence requirements, just for authentication and file sharing, with extra costs in the thousands for every extra server we might add later.
Given that implementation will be done in-house regardless of our chosen solution, I'd like to know if:
a) I'm missing something obvious with regards the licensing costs for windows server 2003?
b) If I'm not, whether you expect such a large mismatch on up-front costs to seriously impact on Microsoft's server business in the education and other cash-strapped areas?
Even assuming the windows implementation is more efficient and quicker to deploy in itself, the linux system would be far simpler to integrate our existing single-purpose servers with (direct access to the ldap user database, for a start). With the CAL licencing savings alone, we could buy an extra server and 20 workstations.
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
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?
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.
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?
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.
And of course, he's my boss -- so there's not much I can do to change his mind!
Except of course, keep mail bombing the Exchange Server.
Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm
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
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.
- What are the advantages that gnu/linux has over Windows for the typical user / software developer / corporation?
- Why is gnu/linux better suited for open standards than a proprietary operating system?
- Why would you recommend using gnu/linux for publicly funded government projects?
- What are the best advantages of using Free Software (read: GPL) in third world countries?
- What aspects of Free Software licenses do you feel are particularly well suited to speed up scientific discovery, program development, teaching etc. in an academic environment?
- How do you feel that Free Software can benefit mankind as a whole?
- Finally, please list any advantages proprietary licenses have over Free Software licenses.
Feel free to keep the answers short as some of them are quite obvious to someone well versed in how Free Software works. Thanks!Liberty.
Martin,
Please help me understand why I'm at work late applying patches to my Windows server enviroment.We have to do this once per month on Windows servers. The patching isn't the problem the extra tools we bought achieve this very well, albeit at a large cost. It's the memo's meetings and justifications we need to produce each time we want to take a production server down every month. The business just can't believe i need to patch so much. They are getting crazy and are suggesting things like 'using enterprise ready Operating systems' in the enterprise. they want to know how many 9's i can give them. OUr HP-UX team gives them 5(9's) and i just feel a little silly. Please help me understand why I'm still at work at 9pm.
Thanks.
PaulMartin:
One frustrating aspect to running Windows desktops is its vulnerability to "malware" (worms, trojans, spyware, etc.). Linux is not without its vulnerabilities, however, the Linux kernel developers and the Distribution companies, do not require the end user to purchase or procure third party solutions to their security vulnerabilities.
My question is, why does Microsoft, with all of its resources, not correct their fundamental vulnerabilities to unwanted executables? Why does MS purchase Antivirus and Anti-Spyware companies and threaten to charge extra for fixing the problems that should be addressed at the root cause?
With Linux, though far from perfect, there has been tremendous effort to avoid white-washing over problems. I don't know of any viruses or trojans for Linux that are so easily executed. Though it's sometimes troublesome to manage each modular package that may be installed, there are no hidden costs and much effort has been made to simply updating (up2date, apt-get, etc.) While Windows update addresses some of these vulnerabilities, it seems to never be enough and without 3rd party anti-virus software, it surely isn't.
How is Microsoft supposed to expect its user base to respect and/or trust its secure computing initiative if the users have to spend extra money to plug the holes that shouldn't be there in the first place? It isn't as if these problems are new.
If the answer is Longhorn, I think the MS user community deserves better than a promise this time.
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
I worked at PSS for three years, and was involved in many of the conversations regarding how to compete with Linux. Many of my substantive suggestions were acted on by other teams both while I was there and after I left (1 1/2 years ago).
One of the things that I found very troubling was the way in which people at Microsoft seemed to have blinders on regarding Linux. People seemed to think that Exchange Server and Sendmail were competitors, and that there was no economic basis for open source. Do you see yourself in conflict with this element of corporate culture? Do you seem yourself as breaking out of it? Or is that culture changing?
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
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!
First.
.NET's features.
Quite a few people make a switch towards a OSS platform, such as GNU/linux, today. There will be more in 2006 when longhorn is scheduled to be released.
In the meantime, GNU/linux will have improved, as will desktops such as GNOME and KDE. Indeed, much of MS's perceived advantage in user-interface will have eroded. Also, platforms such as mono will have largely copied
What exactly is your strategy when that will happen? Moreover, how will you win back the people that have switched before that day?
Second.
One of Linux' (and in much more ways: *BSD unix) main advantages in a server enviroment is that the system will run on a multitude of cpu architectures, such as SPARC, PowerPC and x86.
Is there any MS strategy considering other hardware platforms, such as the PowerPC line, SPARC, or the Cell processor line to name a few?
Any of the above will bdo.
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
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?
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
One of the huge advantages of unix/linux for a system administrator is the powerful shell, text processing tools, command-line system maintenance and control tools, and plaintext configuration files, output, and logs, that can be strung together to perform complex and precise tasks in a matter of seconds . This is all available with the cygwin environment, but obviously only works with other unix-style applications that have been ported to that environment, and can hardly be called a part of the operating system itself. Is windows ever going to have functionality like this, or will we always be stuck spending days writing VB interfaces for any custom configuration or diagnostic tools we want to make?
WARNING: there is a trojan on your
Statistics shows that the growth of Linux will reach a 30% marketshare by 2007, far exceeding that of the Macintosh. Since Microsoft develops software for the Macintosh, would it then be possible to develop software for Linux, clearing having the largest marketshare?
If the marketshare of Linux doubles every year, and many Linux users dual-boot both Windows and Linux, wouldn't it make sense to support Linux instead of bashing it? It would, after all, allow Microsoft to sell two copies of MS-Office, etc for both platforms.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
Instead of fighting Linux, Java, etc., Microsoft should embrace them. Instead of trying to dictate what the customer uses, foloow their lead.
Face it - Microsoft will never kill Linux. But, there's potentially a lot of money to be made supporting it. Imagine a Microsoft bundle of Linux - with Microsoft support. You'd get a lot of business you'll never see otherwise.
Then, consider the concept of cross-platform software. There's really no reason why Word isn't available on more platforms than just Windows and OS X - why not Linux as well? If you write your core software platform-neutral and wrapper the UI nicely, you'd gain market share for very little extra costs.
If Microsoft was more open to this sort of thing, I think people would be as hostile to the company. Right now, every thing you guys do is so tighly bound to Windows you alienate many folks who otherwise might be customers.
I personally don't like Microsoft or Windows - until I got my new box with hyperthreading, it was possible to a single program to lock up the box by maxing out the CPU, and I'm not impressed with the stability or security - but I DO have a Microsoft keyboard - because it's the best I've ever used.
People WILL buy a product if it's simply the best. But if it's shoved on them as a result of market monopoly (and the quality is only moderate), they'll look elsewhere.
MS has discontinued support for "Windows" operating systems prior to WinMe and, last I heard, also Win2k (I don't know if this is true). Also, MS feels the hot breath of Linux on it's back, and tosses about all manner of FUD regarding TCO, ease of use, etc.
Additionally, MS wants to break into the third-world markets, so it's shipping a stripped down version of XP around the globe--except in America. MS, and indeed Mr. Gates, keep telling us they want to make a better future for our children, yet the consistently SELL computer science to those it claims to help. Sure, you'll give 'puters away, but you make people pay for software and development tools, usually exorbitantly, and don't provide any kind of sample code to teach quality design. (Mind you, I don't think paying for software is bad, but $300/WinXP is a huge chunk of change for someone who wants to learn computers on his own given the time required to lock it down and *really* learn it, especially for underprivileged kids.)
Finally, with the ever-climbing security threat to personal data, and now major institutional data, promulgated by "open source" malware writers (virii, spyware, etc get shared in the underground), it seems to me MS could mitigate huge amounts of bad press simply by Open Sourcing code that pre-dates the "NT" code on which you base your current operating systems.
So why haven't you?
Don't you think MS could hugely benefit from the good PR that would follow such a move? Consider these benefits too:
1)People that learn computer science from an open-sourced windows 98 would "move up" to the more capable/secure WinXP when they outgrow the '98 limitations.
2)Those that move on would be able to better code "the microsoft way," increasing developer base and MicroSoft supporters;
3)MS could wholly abandon the earlier OS's, without outcry, with the simple explanation "Other people support it; now we can better spend our resource improving "longhorn." (this also creates a better reason to upgrade vis a vis the oft repeated MS saw against Linux: "you don't know WHO had their fingers in there!)
4)An exposed windows will be easier to patch for the windows "DIY," coder and help create safer/more secure network;
5)Regional tweaks--Time zones and map colorizations--provided by open sources can be incorporated into modern MS OSes. What better way to serve your customers than incorporating what they, themselves, deem important?
6)lower over all computer costs for third-world markets (after all, your limited XP OS presumes these markets don't require/can't afford the hardware it needs).
7)Unexpected Interface improvements.
Really, the list of good things that can come from this is limitless. The downside, for MS (as I see it) is vindication for the MS critics (code quality, integrations) and the realization among the learned that XP really isn't that different from prior MS offerings, raising the issue "Is XP really an improvement, or is it prettied up vendor lock-in.
So, In case you missed it, the question is: Why don't you open source earlier MS OSes to counter Linux?
Pete
Martin Taylor, Do you own an iPod and if so, does your boss know?