Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Continues Anti-OSS Strategy
MacDaffy writes "Microsoft's General Manager of Platform Strategy, Michael Taylor, continues Microsoft's press blitz against Open Source in general and Linux in particular in a CNET Interview. He says of Linux: 'You can build it, design it, and it will work great. The trouble begins when you want to add things to it...(due to) the brittle nature of the platform, when you do that, other things break.'"
"The trouble begins when you want to add things to it...(due to) the brittle nature of the platform, when you do that, other things break." The words 'pot', 'kettle' and 'black' come to mind. Is Microsoft unaware that their registry is far more 'brittle'?
When you add new things to Linux, other things break?
Like that never happened with Windows... If I remember well, adding SP2 to Windows XP breaks compatibility with certain software. And that's just the latest example.
Note to Microsoft: you have tried FUD in the past, it did not work. Not goona work this time either.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
How is this news? It would be news if they stopped.
I can use the 16,000 some Debian packages quite easily and happily, but when I want to add software that they didn't package, I have to fight with dependencies myself and really make a whole mess of my system (thank G-d for checkinstall / installwatch). It ends up taking at least an hour to set up most pieces of software that isn't prepackaged.
It seems like whenever a Microsoft employee speaks they generalize Linux into a huge ball, never mention a distro, and say it's bad. Surely this distro is not using RPM or Apt, which many distros are based on, and surely it is not Gentoo with portage. I also don't think they quite understand how Linux works in that things aren't breaking when the end user is too stupid to configure the program.
It's as if Microsoft made their own distro, coaxed it with unstable software from 5 years ago, give it no package managemnet, and say "this is all Linux is!". Ugh, it's enough to drive a sane man crazy.
They just need to keep hiring away our best Open Source talent.
I know they did recently -- article here focusing on their "theft" of Daniel Robbins, the former chief architect of Gentoo Linux.
They claim to be wanting to learn more about Open Source when they try and justify hiring guys who are just getting by financially but are huge braintrusts of the Linux movement. Basically they offer these guys 6 figure salaries to work behind closed doors in Redmond and never release anything of value to OSS ever again.
Many of them being family guys, they cannot turn these offers down due to finances. Kids are expensive, wives are expensive, SUVs are pricy, gas is pricy, taxes, computer hardware, and on and on.
I don't blame them but I think it's a dirty trick by Microsoft. I love OSS and use it at home at work and on project I create. We need to keep our talent.
Shame on you MS.
If you "get" pointers add me as a friend (116)!
One of the main features of Free Software is that you CAN add things to it, you have the source, and since GNU/Linux is a Unix-like system it's easy to automate tasks, and to interface with any software on the system. Each part of the system is a different project, with it's own interfaces well declared and documented. In the case of proprietary software, you are limited to the APIs provided, since you don't have access to the source, and also, all the system is badly designed, many things are just hacked toghether into random librarys, and the whole OS is a single mess, and you can only use the provided API (which is poorly documented) to interface with the system. In many cases, the SDKs and APIs are proprietary, and you have to pay thousands to use them, in many other cases, you are legally FORBIDDEN to modify/interface with certain software, so, again, how it's hard to add things to Free Software and easy to add them to Proprietary soft?.
...
Just how many coders outside Microsoft have added parts to the windows kernel?, now think how many coders contribute to Linux, How many plugins are there for MSN, and how many for Gaim?, The list just goes on and on
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
"The trouble begins when you want to add things to it...(due to) the brittle nature of the platform, when you do that, other things break."
DLL hell?
Duelling versions of the Exchange client?
only now, at the end, does s/w installation and removal not completely suck, XPs installer is decent, although sketchy programs dont always go cleanly.
Hey, I added a video camera? Oh wait, I have to put the registry into "display nonconnected devices mode" reboot, hand delete some stuff, and then reboot, with the camera disconnected, then connect it, THEN add the drivers! Welcome to Microsoft.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
There's really nothing innovative today that Linux does that we can't do.
Actually, I agree with his sentiment. He's bang on. There's nothing Linux does that Windows can't do, certaintly if you're willing to invest the time and effort to produce a solution.
But the opposite is also true. There's nothing Windows does that Linux can't do either.
So the "battle" comes down to other issues, not simply what each OS can or can't do. Those issues are things like cost, trust, support, availability.. And those are when open source really starts to win. Microsoft is a corporate behemoth. Making decisions in a company that size takes real time.. months, if not years. Things have to be discussed, agreed, signed off, checked, signed off again. Compare that to the open source world where someone sees an issue, writes a patch, submits it to the dev tree, and it's in if the maintainer likes it, maybe with a handful of emails bounced around a mailing list, and open source starts to get a real, tangible business advantage over Microsoft.
So yeah, I'd agree with Taylor's analysis that Windows is just as capable as Linux on the CPU.. But if he thinks that's where Linux's fighting ground ends, he's dead wrong.
http://twitter.com/onion2k
Which is why many places have test machines to test windows updates
Each of which needs its own software licenses. Cha-ching! As long as you can pull it off, it's a heck of a revenue generating business model!
From TFA: You can do things just great--I want to be very clear about that--but...
Microsoft's message has changed over the last while. Once it was "Linux is no good", now it's "Linux is good, but we're still better".
I think they're making a strategic mistake by admitting that Linux has any credibility at all. Publicly recognizing the competition is not a good decision because it makes people realize that there are alternatives.
Indeed, who needs smart cards, VPN, or security in general. Just send everything over HTTP. This kinda puts in perspective the previous story about the changes in Microsoft's attitude towards security.
Look, that's why there's rules, understand? So that you think before you break 'em. (Terry Pratchett)
Microsoft can't have it both ways.
Either we're to trust them because they're a commercial business, in which case their code should already be tested and work without hassle, or they're "no better" than OSS in this regard.
"people didn't really understand buffer overruns and port 80 and I/O issues 10 years ago."
That's the part that caught my attention. Is he seriously suggesting that 10 years ago no one had ever heard of a buffer overrun? That no one had heard of network security in 1995? Maybe they should have thought of that BEFORE they forcibly tied a Browser into their Flagship product.
-theGreater.
If Linux weren't a threat, Microsoft wouldn't be smearing it in a campaign but instead treating it as an annoying little gnat - by ignoring it and lauding it's own positives. By paying so much attention to and attempting to shape Linux's image publicly, Microsoft is validating it by its own advertising despite the negative content.
People with brains will realize what is propaganda and check Linux out on their own. Thanks to MS.
I don't really code (other than for small hobbyish things) so I actually wouldn't know how this works. But if an uninstall leaves something in the registry, isn't that due to poor uninstall by the programs in question?
In fact, I thought I read that a lot of programs leave registry entries for a number of reasons - like to stem piracy in case you install a wares version, or to ease a reinstall since many programs don't assume you want to get rid of them permanently.
So, I put the question to the experts? Who's at fault for the most part when the registry becomes clogged with stales entries? Should Windows assume that this is the case and actively update the registry itself?
un burrito me trampeó.
Many of them being family guys, they cannot turn these offers down due to finances. Kids are expensive, wives are expensive, SUVs are pricy, gas is pricy, taxes, computer hardware, and on and on.
So there aren't any other IT companies that are neutral or pro-Open source left in the world that he could have worked for, that would have paid a decent salary ? Have IBM gone out of business, and I don't know about it ?
Your statement almost implies that there are no employers left in any field at all, other than Microsoft, that are paying a living wage. Do I need to point out how unrealistic that implication is ?
The shame is Daniel's, not Microsoft's. Microsoft found somebody with the skills and experience they wanted, and who was willing to work for them. It was Daniel's choice, and he decided to sell out, probably for the money.
PS. Don't need an SUV. If they are costing too much in fuel, get a smaller car, such as a normal sized sedan ....
The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
Linux has no anti-Microsoft strategy yet people are migrating from Windows to Linux.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
From the article:
And what is open source? It is interesting in how you define it. Is it in terms of source visibility? Then, OK, in Microsoft's Shared Source program, people can access up to 65 percent of source codes for our core products. And through the government security program around the world, governments can access even more of our source codes, if they choose to. So we're not an open-source company, and yet people can do that.
Hey Martin, here's the definition of Open Source. Notice in the first paragraph it says Open Source doesn't just mean access to the source code. I doubt if you'd like it if people went around redefining your company's EULAs to suit themselves.
Or does it mean that you have technology licensed under the GPL (GNU Public License)? If that's the only definition, then I see a lot of companies that people call open source but aren't, because they're not licensed under the GPL.
No it isn't the only definition so your answer is irrelevant. The GPL may qualify as Open Source but it is Free Software - big difference. Don't you even know the difference?
Taylor: The GPL is a very complex licensing agreement, and they are working on different aspects of it.
It's an incredibly simple licensing agreement actually. Complex for Microsoft to understand perhaps, but simple for anyone else.
I don't know enough to even hypothesize how I would author it, but I would say that in any approach to licensing technology, the following things are important.
First, companies need to have some level of indemnification and protection from the technology deployed. When you license technology as a consumer or business, you should be comfortable that you're protected from patent (or) copyright...claims from anyone. That should be a core fundamental principle of licensing software.
Well, thanks for leading the way there. I'm so glad I'm indemnified when I use Microsoft software. Oh wait, I'm not?
Second, people should have the ability to monetize that and build on top of it. So if I'm an ISV (independent software vendor), I should be able to take the technology that I've licensed, build something on top of it, and sell it.
I do that with GPLed software now and have done for years. So have many other people.
If I'm a reseller or distributor of this technology, I should have a way that I can build and monetize things around that. I think that's what helps you build a very vibrant ecosystem. It also allows you in some ways to protect the intellectual property in different ways.
The GPL already allows this - and my "intellectual property" (whatever that means) is already protected by copyright law.
So this ability to patent your technology and have some level of protection against it, and in the course be able to build on top of that and innovate on top of that, is exciting.
Wait, so it's about patents now? Perhaps you can show me some genuine innovation in software that has been patented by Microsoft? You can't? Oh.
So what kind of innovation are you doing in your area for Microsoft?
Taylor: There are things we're excited about, and there are things that are just the basics. We spend close to $6.8 billion in research and development; it really comes in a variety of areas.
One area is just some fit-and-finish, and taking basic simple processes and doing it better. We have a feature called Configure Your Server Wizard, which allows you to go in and choose a server role so you can take a file server and (rebuild it as a) media server. That takes four to five clicks of a GUI (graphic user interface)
Reconfiguring a server using the mouse? Goodness me, what will they think of next!
Taylor: You have to understand why we have security problems today. In some ways, it's because a lot more things are connected today than they
--- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
Windows 2003? That breaks when you install it? Or breaks when you apply a hotfix?
Or breaks when you reboot it? (blue screens and dumps)
Or breaks when you add new hardware?
Or... Well... You get the idea.
I know you were trying to be funny, but this is FUD. I have been running 2003 on many of my servers for a year now and it's never broken. Windows 2000 and XP, on the other hand, are a different story. Windows 2003 is actually very stable.
My favourite bit of the article:
Q. "So why do you think the ideals of open source... have appealed to so many people?"
A. "Taylor: Well, first you have to define "people"... And what is open source? It is interesting in how you define it..."
How shifty is that?
People: Human beings.
Open-source: Access to all the source-code for the application, such that you can copy it for no more than a negligible fee, and compile useful applications with it.
So, simple answer, MS "Shared Source" is not open source and people don't like that, but watch the frantic handwaving and redefinitions so he can avoid saying that.
Most telling bit of the article:
Q. "But software patents have been criticized for interfering in software development. Do Microsoft software developers worry about infringing on patents when they develop a piece of software?"
A. "From a software perspective, we don't think the patent system is perfect... But when I look at the software industry today, we've been getting a lot of innovation from Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, Adobe, the list goes on..."
Yeah. In other words, patents encourage large corporations, and effectively lock out the little guy or smaller, independant ISVs. But again, watch the careful sidestepping of the obvious conclusion. Just once I'd like to see a real interview, between an informed interviewer and a real person from MS who actually answers questions. Or failing that, flying pigs over my house and a hunk of green moon-cheese for breakfast.
Just more uninformed blathering and semantic tapdancing from Yet Another MS Press Flack - redefining terms to avoid outright lying and regurgitating the same old crap we've all heard before.
Sigh.
Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
That would be true if they would let you add things... These days, every enterprise level MS app basically HAS to run on its own box...
Fucking lying fuckers. And the same thing never happened to Windows?!?!? That's just one of a million examples, as we all know, and for crying out loud, it's a patch from MS that's causing the problem in that one.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
I remember a book by A. Tanenbaum - Modern Operating Systems (2nd ed., 2001) - stating that buffer overruns have been there for 30 years and still they keep reappearing. It has been used to gain privileges for ever and it will be used as long as low-level programs with no buffer length checking are used. So this talk about 8-10 years is complete bullshit. That's when THEY had to start thinking about it after the famous Pings of Death and stuff. Because the Windows was never intended to work in a possibly hostile environment.
?SYNTAX ERROR
This is because it was improperly coded back then.. and / or you have not upgraded to newer versions.. function calls have changed and progressed.. where as (as you have explained) Visual Studio has not changed... grown.. or made better any of its internal functions.
How long is it going to take for MS to understand that slandering Linux is not going to get them anywhere? And I'm not being pro or anti anything when I say that.
From TFA:
So he's saying that they reached the limitations of their hardware and it had to scale? Is Microsoft software somehow immune from the need to scale as the requirements grow? If this is the case, a Microsoft OS would be the better choice. I would hail all kinds of MS solutions if they could pull other magical abilities out of their hat. We all know that this is BS -- requirements change, demands on systems change, and hardware must be scaled, regardless of the platform. Until then, claims like that are simply FUD and double-talk. He's not actaully saying anything, he's just instilling a little fear in the back of managers minds.What's funny is that many of these arguments are largely an attack on a licensing model, and it actually has very little to do with the quality of the products. Contrary to RMS' belief, I don't think that the license model necessarily dictates the quality of the software. There are plenty of excellent commercial, closed products out there in the marketplace. There alre also plenty of these products which are absolute garbage. The same goes for OSS, I've seen brilliant stuff and I've seen crappy stuff -- neither are a silver bullet.
Taylor does make at least one good point, however:
In many circumstances, people like IT managers don't care about seeing the code. It's not everyone -- there are lots of groups who have a specific need for custom solutions...however I'm talking more about the small-mid size IT group. These IT managers are generally decision-makers, and don't want to ever touch the source code. Many don't even want to hire people to muck about the code...especially in small to mid sized companies. I'm not talking about the idealist hobbyists here, who will sit around and pour through source code all day long looking to understand it, modify it, or break it...or those who build all of their binaries from source, adding in every possible optimization for their target platform. With many of those professionals, it's not about the license model. It's about the solution in the end. Most people like this who I have worked with are generally platform agnostic, and will run whatever it takes to get the job done.-Turkey
.. they are first and formost a marketing company, They will say, in their marketing any thing they can that they believe will help them "market" their products.
Second, they are a marketing company that uses law as the game rules they play by, like in chess where you typically sacrifice some of your own players in effort to win. This is verified over and over again with their persistant effort to try and distort the law enough to get away with acts of anti-trust. They simply prefer to not play fair. And this is undersandable as they are least of all a company of innovation, but rather a company buying out innovation of others and then either closing it down or marketing it as their innovation.
The more the general public understands this, sees MS for what MS really is, a marketing company with a legal team to help them figure out what they can get away with, the better it is for the general public in making an operating system choice.
Windows 2000 was the turning point for MS - proper memory management and good stability - while XP was a backwards move because of it's huge bloat. I can't comment on 2003 because I've not used it.
The major problem with Windows always has been the registry - it grows, fragments and is totally the wrong configuration methodology for desktop environments where users are constantly upgrading, installing and uninstalling software. Even though Windows 2000 and later split the registry out into user folders, it's still pretty impossible to correct registry problems without doing major reinstalls. If you compare that to the UNIX model of storing all users config files in their home directories, then UNIX is much better because if an app problem appears, you can always move or delete a few config files to clear the problem.
Much of the backlash to Windows is as a result of Microsoft's own complacency and disregard for the needs of their users - a lot of people, myself included, won't allow themselves to be dictated to by a power-hungry corporation. In my case, I'd had experience with UNIX at work and in 1996 started trying out Linux. Now I'm at the stage where I shell-script competently, do a lot of CGI stuff with PERL and PHP and have started messing around with C a little. And if it comes to applications for work, no-one really cares if I deploy a server-side app on a Linux server I happen to build, I'm just expected to maintain that server because out IT people won't.
I still use Windows 2000 for some desktop stuff and for work apps but 80% of my time these days is spent in Linux - I'm happy and confident with it and anything I need to deploy, I can usually just "emerge" it (I use Gentoo), configure it and start it running - I don't have to worry about getting corporate licenses and it's stable.
Yes, Linux is not for newbie users but, for a newbie user, there is no pressure anyway - you can install it and dual-boot it with your Windows environment, try it out and learn it in your own time and make your own decisions about if and when you want to use it.
Martin Taylor and MS in general do not understand this mentality that some of us like total control over what we do and like the good feelings we get when you've built something from scratch, configured it properly and got a few scripts to do something really impressive with Linux.
Not all of us want everything "delivered on a plate" to us - some of us do enjoy taking time getting software to work properly and learning in the process.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
A. "Taylor: Well, first you have to define "people"... And what is open source? It is interesting in how you define it..."
Standard lawyer-weasel words. Gates used the same kind of escape routes during his trial hearings.
It does give one important piece of information away, though: The guy was seriously briefed. He's not speaking his mind, he has been told exactly what to say, what not to say, and where to evade the question.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
First and foremost, we are looking to understand some of the scenarios like why customers are considering Linux, and making sure we have the right offerings for the marketplace.
Sorry...you can't compete with freedom, since everything Microsoft does is exactly the opposite- DRM, rediculous EULAs, closed, proprietary source code, not to even mention the licensing costs. The customer is at their mercy.
People = "Microsoft Employees", Programmers that program for Microsoft Products, Administrators that run Microsoft Products and similar "people". It's best written as (Microsoft) People, but you can leave the (Microsoft) bit off, if you are one of those people...
The quote should have been more like this:
"Ten years ago, (Microsoft) people didn't really understand Buffer Overruns, Port 80 and I/O Issues."
This is, or should be, similarly inferred when we have another major network news release about a "computer" or "Internet", examples follow.
"A new (Microsoft) Computer Virus in making the rounds through (Microsoft Outlook) E-mail Clients."
"A new (Microsoft OS Targeting) Internet Worm was discovered on (Microsoft OS Running) Computers yesterday morning which quickly spread across the (Microsoft OS Running Portion of the) Internet."
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
I don't know ... user idiocy can really be equated as people using your software outside its intended purpose. To me - what marks a good engineer is one who accounts for such deviation. Calling people idiots doesn't solve the problem. It just puts further barriers between you and the problem at hand.
But on the topic of Windows, I do find it to be an inferior operating system in the sole reason that it is designed like a submarine with one compartment. Get one leak - no matter how small - and the entire ship goes down. With Linux, just seal off the damaged compartment, and keep on keeping on.
I do agree with you in regards of installing software on Linux. That's why I hope this little project takes off.
Your example is an valid one for "Typical home users", however the article is discussing Business stategies, not End/Home User.
;-) ./peaCe
This article is ridiculous flamebait. Anyone who is a Decision Maker, recognizes the usefullness of both Operating Systems. I don't imagine we'll ever see an interview from an executive at microsoft, whereas he states "You should use Linux for this... and our product for that."
I just don't see how this is "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters". Microsoft claiming that their competitors suck, that's not news to anyone.. and it certianly doesn't matter to me.
Now microsoft providing a way to setup NTP without editing the registry, That would be News! Or RedHat providing me with a reason why cups test print works to my Epson POS, but actual print jobs don't.. That's stuff that matters
Awesome!
The interviewee heralds Microsoft's server reconfiguration with a few mouse clicks. First, that's a feature that could be coded into any Linux distribution fairly easily. Second, if it weren't for Linux, Microsoft would have never have any need to create such "innovation." They'd let their server software rot from decay just like they did with IE---until they started to feel the heat from Firefox.
---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.
Excuuuuuse me? There are a variety of Linux GUIs that don't suck. All of them are great, if you know how to use a computer. You can't drive a car without training; why should a computer be different?
:)
Anyway, the worst GUI ever is Windows (from a usability and even eye-candy perspective)... and I admit that the OSS folks seem to be intent on cloning it. I don't use GNOME or KDE simply because they are trying to reimplement Windows (which is a terrible terrbile thing to copy... do everything exactly opposite instead!)
I think GNOME and KDE need to start innovating rather than copying. OS X is nice because Apple comes up with new GUI ideas for each release. OSS needs to do this too. (Until then, I'm happy with either my Mac or XFCE on Linux. All I need are xterms and emacs anyway
My other car is first.
I never ceases to amaze me how well this tactic still works. It's so simple: Accuse your opponent of all your own shortcomings. Repeat until people believe it.
1. First they ignore you.
2. Then they laugh at you.
3. Then they fight you.
4. Then you win.
- Mahatma Gandhi
Now we're at stage three.
---- It won't be as bad as you fear or as good as you hope, but it will take twice as long as you plan.
I like that fact that MS buffer overruns written 10 years ago are still hidden in their closed source.
*DrugCheese rants*
Wow. Just wow. I'm ashamed to ever have used Linux. If our developers and/or users really think with their heads this far up their asses, the platform is dead.
Sorry, I didn't mean to make this personal, but you stated, quite succinctly, one of the core fallacies with the Linux on Desktop argument. It's easy to use if you know how to use it.
Software should be making lives easier and simpler. I've been programming for 18 years and just got into a PhD program in CS, and I still can't reliably get a wifi card to behave under Linux.
And I leave myself open to all kinds of "See! you're too stupid to use computers!" attacks, as they only prove my point.
Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!
Translation: software has bugs.
Taylor seems to want to make you think that just because you don't see most bugs in MS apps that are fixed pre-release, they didn't exist, having come pure and bug free from the mind of the programmer. Because OSS shows you these bugs, instead of hiding them from you in the development process, it must be "brittle". Just LOOK at all those bugs!
A classic attack, long since rebutted.
Microsoft is like an arsonist who throws Molotov Cocktails at their neighbor's houses and then yells "Look everyone - the Linux (etc.) house is on fire! You better get away from there right away before you get hurt!"
The only problem is that due to extreme long term negligence the massive Microsoft mansion is burning a lot hotter and more obviously than the neighbors they try to finger.
I fail to see how this is a fallacy.
It's easy to use if you know how to use it.
Which is entirely true.
And it's just as true for Windows and Mac.
I've been programming for 18 years and just got into a PhD program in CS, and I still can't reliably get a wifi card to behave under Linux.
Which has exactly *WHAT* to do with the topic at hand? I believe we were discussing the ease of use of the GUIs, not the difficulty of getting non-manufacturer-supported hardware to work.
Nice troll though, seems you hooked a few clueless moderators.
"There are a variety of Linux GUIs that don't suck."
...which is undoubtably the fault of the GUI. Seriously, the GUI is just fine. Both my parents which are in their 60s can work it out, with no more difficulty than Windows.
I've been programming for 18 years and just got into a PhD program in CS, and I still can't reliably get a wifi card to behave under Linux.
How Linux works "under the hood" has its ups and downs. No, configuring a wifi card can be ugly. But I was also impressed when I pieced together a secondary computer from odd parts and Linux identified every one of them, no driver cd required (granted, no wifi in that one).
In short, I'm vastly more impressed with Linux than Microsoft when it "Just works", to steal an expression from Apple. That tells me that they *are* trying to make life easier and simpler. It also tells me that in some areas they're not where they'd like to be.
Most of the time, they are trying to support something the company doesn't. The hacks are still better than a simple "Not supported - F U", because you can at least try. If they had the source of the wifi driver, or even just the specs, I promise there would be a supported, stable, "so easy your grandmother could do it" driver. But since they don't, they make due with reverse engineered drivers, binary modules and whatever dreck they have to. What more can you ask?
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Your comment is a little harsh there.
I think it's fair to say that when introduced to any computer system, you're going to need at least a little training. The real problem is that people are so familiar with the Windows Way(TM) that they have a hard time adjusting to anything else. You could put the theoretically perfect GUI in front of Joe WinXP, and he's still going to have to learn....
Maybe, instead of making Windows-like GUIs for Linux (for easy adoptability), we should walk our own path.
Slashdot = ((Technology + Politics) / Trolls) % Grammar Nazis
On OS X or Linux, I don't worry too much. If a user needs a software, usually it doesn't need much discussion.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
This reminds me of a quote from my second favourite fantasy novel, Prince of Lies: "The world was doomed, but it kept running anyway."
This is true of anything. The implication - it is hard to use something if you don't know how to use it - is also true, even for such simple devices like hammer.
No. Software is about solving problems. Those problems don't neccessarily have anything to do with anyone's daily lives. Take 3D modeling software, for example - I doubt it has actually made anyone's life easier, and it has a learning curve like Himalaya, but it certainly has allowed people to do things they couldn't do before (see pretty much any recent movie for an example).
What does wifi card have to do with GUI ? And what do your programming experience have to do with Linux driver configuration ?
But I know how you feel: I once programmed a Nethack variant, but I still can't model a 3D human, so my movie project will have to wait :(. Such a pity too - Drama ! Action ! Suspense ! Space empires ! Magic ! Coming soon to a P2P network near you, just as soon as I can figure out how to use Blender and render 128 000 frames in high quality on my 1GHz Duron sneeze pump !
No they don't. Your point seems to be that you have 18 years of programming experience, so your inability to get a wifi card to work under Linux means that Linux GUI is hard to use. Your point is bullshit and therefore cannot be proven.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
It's easy to use if you know how to use it.
This probably the main reason why Gnome and KDE are so intent on copying the Windows gui. It may not be pretty or very sensible but everyone out there knows how to use it, and more they expect a computer to behave like that.
So while you certainly can make a more effective and enjoyable user experience most users aren't prepared to go through the learning curve that is required to get there. They expect it to just work the way that it always has, the way that they are used to. I think that when linux has gained a large enough market share then they can start gradually making the gui more useable in ways that the user isn't used to.
Nope. Actually informed interviewer means someone with more than a passing familiarity with the topics covered, so they can tell when they've been brushed off, ask follow-up questions and cut through marketing bollocks to interesting information.
Real person means someone who answers the question, and isn't afraid to be honest. Perhaps you misunderstand my position, but the emphasis on that was on "real person", not "from MS" (the italics give a handy clue). Press Flacks (from any company) regurgitating their briefing notes are not real people, they're drones. And interviews with them are not interviews, they're stealth press releases.
"Actually answer the questions" means answer the bloody question they were asked, without prevaricating, dodgy the question or deliberately obscuring the issue. For example, from TFA:
Q. "So why do you think the ideals of open source... have appealed to so many people? Do you think it's more about people taking an anti-Microsoft stance?
This is a pretty interesting question, and one I'd like to hear the MS view on. Instead of an answer, though, we get an unnecessary query on the definition of "people" (here's a clue, the people he's talking about are the ones who are experimenting with OSS who never did before), a dodging of the first question ("at the end of the day, people want to deploy technology to solve business problems, be it Windows, Linux, BSD and so on", which was not the question), and an nice paragraph or so muddying the waters on what exactly constitutes "open source" (here's a clue guys - it's when the source code is freely available, unencumbered by non-trivial costs, licences and NDAs).
"With any reasonable complex issue people are going to have varying opinions. You would fall into the Linux side, and as such anything MS does is evil and wrong."
Nice try, but no. I don't run a Linux box at home or at work (although I am considering trying it). I have three Windows XP machines at home, and one at work. I use MS Office at work.
I don't know where you got the idea I was some raving Linux-obsessed fanboy, but you really should stop jumping to conclusions you have no evidence whatsoever to support. You'll note that in my original post I was complaining about the lightweight press-release interview style, not the fact is was "M1cr05oF7 cu4se t3hy aRe t3h suXX0rZ!!!!111!!!".
"People from the MS side clearly also view anything the Linux side does as evil and wrong."
Yeah, and if they actually gave a single truthful reason as to why maybe we could have a dialogue between the two camps. Unfortunately it's impossible to start a discussion between two people when one of them keeps claiming there is no disagreement while stabbing the other in the back.
Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of Linux fanboys out there bitching on forums and stirring up bad feeling too, but the people who actually "manage" Linux are generally quite approachable.
"The only thing that you can expect is that posting on Slashdot about Linux being great and MS sucking is a sure way to get karma."
Read the post again, fuckwit. Those words (or sentiments) never passed my lips (or fingers). Not once was Linux even mentioned ("open source as a concept" != "Linux"), and I was pissed because the "interview" was nothing more than a conent-free opportunity for a press flack to regurgitate the company line, with a couple of "hard" questions thrown in (and subsequently ignored) to make it look good. Boring, sterile and worthless.
Did you even read the article?
Everything in moderation, including moderation itself