Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's 'Hands-On' Linux Lab
aneroid writes "eWeek has a story on Microsoft allowing a third party to present a 'hands-on lab' that allowed attendees to play with a range of Linux desktop software at its annual worldwide partner show in Minnesota this weekend. It was run by Don Johnson (not the actor), who explained in true MS style how the things that are considered wrong with Windows are planned or an advantage. Whether it's for the desktop or server, wasn't clear. People did get to 'see the Apache Web server in action' and a KDE desktop.Is this more of a preemptive strike where the Linux experience is so bad (slow machines, old software) they wouldn't bother to check it out in the future, thus securing an existing partner/client? Or are they that confident people won't stray if they're invited to sample the competition? According to the Register, 'Microsoft is unlikely to stop developers moving to Linux and open source so its best hope lies in articulating a strategy of co-existence to limit the 'damage' to its business.'"
The parent story is highly misleading in regards to the actual article.
"...who explained in true MS style how the things that are considered wrong with Windows are planned or an advantage."
That's hardly accurate. The article says he was MS-biased. It also outlines tradeoffs between Windows and Linux. It's brief, but it fairly states the differences between Windows & Linux. Those are: integration vs. flexibility; user friendly vs. expert friendly; & propriety or single architecture vs. open architecture that runs on multiple platforms.
According to the article, Don Johnson makes no more assumptions than the parent as to what is "wrong" with Windows and "better" about Linux.
When I teach free computing courses to the community, I often teach that a lot of the frustrations that many of us have with computers are a result of trying to make them user friendly. This is because the original idea of a user friendly computer was that the user should be completely abstracted from the operation of the software (think Mac OS 8). So we are left with an opaque "magic box" and when it breaks we feel helpless because the error messages aren't helpful.* Furthermore, not only did Microsoft completely screw up this concept and impliment it badly but nobody bothered to actually tell the developers that error messages like "This program has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down" don't help users feel empowered about their computers.
When I worked at MS (PSS), you would be surprised how many people calling tech support mentioned that their first reaction on reading this error message was that the police had been notified. Fortunately with ME and XP the inappropriate tone of the error was finally fixed.
Then comes the fact that many versions of Windows allow you to go ahead and destroy your system because there is no concept of permissions (Win 9x) and so users have become quite resonably afraid of destroying their system and losing their work.
Say what you will about Linux and userfriendliness. However, I have found that novices are quite easily able to feel comfortable quickly on Linux. Intermediate users take a little longer. And there have never been any of these alarmist error messages that bring to mind swat teams coming to one's door... I guess the most alarmist error message one can see in Linux is a "Kernel Panic" but for people who spend their lives in X, they never see the text of the error message.
Linux provides a more comfortable environment for learning how to use the computer for many users. I can't tell you how many of my customers are now using it for this reason. My cusotmers know that they can accidently delete their work, but they can't crash their system unless they are logged in as root. So they tend to be more adventurous about learning new things.
* Compare with a transparent system like Linux where often the error messages are very descriptive, but the user doesn't have to know what they mean. But when you call support, it is usually *extremely easy* to pinpoint the cause. For example error messages like "Error in line 156 of httpd.conf: tomcat.so Is this really a valid dynmaically shared object?"
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
There's a good article on Groklaw about Anti-Linux Strategy for Microsoft.
to say such a statement without checking out the competition thuroughly.
Are you crazy? You sure haven't "thuroughly" checked out anything, because otherwise you would know that it's a friggin huge problem. Find out what modems your (non-techy) friends' Windows-preinstalled computers came with and find out how many are Linux friendly. I'll send you a cookie if it's more than half.
The first window manager I saw on Linux (before I even knew of such things) was Enlightenment. I think the distro was probably Slackware. When compared to my Win95 desktop I was used to seeing... I was blown away. I'm not sure FVWM95 is a fair representation.
Granted - some people prefer FVWM95; nothing wrong with that. Although I was wowed by E, I ended up choosing Windowmaker as my WM of choice when I first started using Linux as my desktop. That was sometime around 98.
A study in australia showed that a typical linux admin managed three times more machines then a typical windows admin.
I wish I still had the link but it was reported on zdnet australia web site.
evil is as evil does
I have a 75 mhz IBM thinkpad 365XD which runs linux, slackware 10.1 with Xfce and alsa. This was originally designed for Warp OS2. If I put a good bit of effort into it, I could probably force this laptop to run Windows 95... which isn't supported or even close to resembling secure any more since it has been dropped form MS's radar.
I also have a small development server at my home running Slackware 10.1 with Apache, ProFTPd, BIND, IMAP (etc), which is used from a 395mhz Athlon K6, which barely ran windows 2kPro.
I think a lot of businesses, especially small to medium sized businesses are in the same boat. I have a couple of new-ish computers that run XP, but half of my equipment is sadly outdated. Microsoft targets businesses with brand new servers, brand new workstations, brand new computers, slam full of RAM with uber-processors and an army of people who can barely check their email using Outlook. I would think (in my opinion) that they just don't want their bankrolls, er uh... prospective clients I mean, to see that other smaller businesses without an unlimited budget are using Linux and Unix with success.
Microsoft isn't evil. They're a business trying to make money. No one complains when the Ford car salesman talks bad about Chevy's, or when the Dodge car salesman talks down Hondas. It's part of having a business. You make money by targeting groups of people. Microsoft is doing just that.
Meanwhile... I'll stick with Slack. Not only does it "just work", but it works one heck of a lot better than other OS's on my sadly outdated equipment.
Evil Walrus >83=