Meet Microsoft's Linux Lab Head Bill Hilf

morcego writes "Yahoo News has a very interesting interview with Bill Hilf, Microsoft's director of Microsoft's platform technology strategy group, who in turn works for Martin Taylor, Microsoft's general manager of platform strategy and Linux point man. From the interview: '"I am a non-Microsoft guy working at Microsoft," Hilf said.'"

Comments

So why no interoperability

[MountainMan101]

They have a load of *nix servers and PCs, yet frequently new M$ products fail to work with 3rd party clients/interfaces/servers. It sounds like he Microsoft's gimp for building systems that their engineers can write software to NOT work on.

Re:So why no interoperability

[petrus4]

Because Microsoft's profit model depends on the unique selling point philosophy, i.e. the idea that a customer will only buy from you rather than another company for as long as you've got something which no other company has. The unique selling point philosophy is the main thing in opposition to interoperability...it's the entire reason why companies do not in fact want standards, despite paying lip service to the contrary. It's because they like the idea that if a customer wants feature X in software, and only one company has software with feature X, then said customer will *have* to go to that company, and that company only in order to buy it. Exclusivity/uniqueness of offerings gives companies a lot of control, which they want.

I'm wondering, maybe MS will get it

[WhiteWolf666]

What would the world look like if MS figured out that they might be able to produce Linux apps, and have their Windows monopoly, too.

MS Desktop Environment. An X window manager, and the ONLY way to run MS Office and MS Visual Studio on Linux.

MS GUI for Samba. Runs in MS Desktop Environment. Opensource backend, closed source front end. Heck, if it runs on a proprietary MSDE, it could even be opensourced!

Same for IE. Maybe even an IIS than runs on Linux.

Weird thoughts. Not sure if they make business sense, or the traditionally sociopathic MS could think such thoughts.

I could see them doing it, and somehow managing to maintain a 'detente' with the open-source world. All-in-all, it might be a good thing for the market, and for consumers. You can get Windows (whatever edition), or you can get Linux, and run an interface on top of it that looks and acts like Windows.

Both will cost you $199. Both will run your MS apps. Pick and choose whatever you like.

Feels like an MS strategy to me, and you know what?

I can live with it. Just make sure it still uses some Opensource stuff as backends (CUPS, SANE, SAMBA), and I'll even buy it;

Especially if MS would use its immense market power to force Adobe and other top vendors to release their apps for the MSDE Linux environment.

Re:Good to know

[dioscaido]

I'm a dev on Longhorn, and believe it or not, at least for our project, we have a lab running linux and OSX machines, as well as tons of other networked appliances, to make sure our new stuff communicates with succesfully with their stuff. Plenty of us run linux servers at home.

MS-only Linux environment

[KMSelf]

To what end?

I discussed and dismissed this possibility years ago. The problems with implementation are these:

• Microsoft can't own the kernel, within legal compliance of GPL. So any modifications they're doing are going to be restricted to a layer running above the kernel, and the possibility of restricting this in a way as to only allow the "Microsoft World" to run is low.
• If it's anything running on X, then other X apps will run. Very little win.
• If it's a customized X environment, incompatible with standard X servers, then at the worst users are restricted to running two displays on their system, and toggling between them.
• As you might notice, most of these options imply a significant loss in functionality, which raises the question of why anyone would choose such a product (this does assume, of course, choice...).
• If there's one thing Linux excels at, it's running worlds within worlds. Xnest, VNC, VMWare, Xen, UML, and remote access all provide ways of accessing multiple environments simultaneously, whether hosted locally or remotely. The ability to lock-in the user on a given environment (among Microsoft's key success factors) is exceptionally difficult to attain.

My summary of this scenario, posted in 1998, read:

• Microsoft can supply a Win32 API to Linux.
• They can probably not integrate it with the OS due to the GPL.
• They can probably not deny simultaneous access to alternate APIs on the same machine.
• Without the OS/API/machine stranglehold, MS loses its leverage over the PC and the computer industry.
• MS can participate in the Linux market. They cannot do so on the terms they have become accustomed to in the past decade.

I don't see anything that's changed in 7 years (other than the lines in my face getting clearer....)