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.'"

Comments

"Linux" is a Total Generality.

[torpor]

You can't say that Ubuntu is 'brittle', nor GoboLinux, nor MEPIS. If you want to add something to any of these distributions of a Linux-based operating system, you can, with ease.

Microsoft, however, in their positioning, are exploiting the human incapacity for understanding a generality when confronted with logo/brand positions. "Linux" is a huge field. You can't just say "Linux" and mean "All services that depend on a Linux-based solution". Its pathetic.

Microsoft know this; they frame the fight so that when they say "Linux" they mean all Linux-based distributions. But to a user of Linux who actually wants to use Linux, and knows how to use Linux, "there ain't no such thing as a Single Linux target" .. you either roll your own, pitch a tent in a distro field, or take a pre-packaged solution from a vendor who has done the hard work for you...

I say this having used Linux now for 10 years, quite productively. I haven't used Microsoft-based products in that time. I hardly consider that a "GM for Platform Strategy" at Microsoft will have had that experience ...

Re:*yawn*

[RockofSisyphus]

"Note to Microsoft: you have tried FUD in the past, it did not work." Not true! It has worked in the past. IBM just retired OS/2; an example of Microsoft's FUD working to great effect.

Transitioning Software

[ehaggis]

I agree with Martin Taylor that transitioning software on a Linux platform can be difficult. I also believe transitioning software on ANY platform is difficult. If it wasn't, none of us would have jobs.

I also agree with Martin Taylor that going to a Linux platform may prove more costly than first expected. I also know from experience that Microsoft roll-outs have additional cost.

For Example: MS Exchange server compared to SuSE OpenExchange (now Netline OpenExchange). Similar Products. Exchange is cheaper out of the box until you add Spam Control, Virus Control, etc... Also, Exchange counts licenses by CAL connection, OpenExchange is Licensed by concurrent connections - much cheaper. If you want you can even download the Netline Open-Xchange for free with no license restrictions.

Martin Taylor is correct on many points. Unfortunately his logic breaks down because those points are universal and not specific to OSS.

Buffer overruns... who knew??

[DeadVulcan]

When you look at the issue of buffer overruns, eight to 10 years ago in software development, you did not know how much space you might need for something so you just create a big buffer zone to allow things to happen. Who knew that people could go exploit that and use that buffer space to do malicious things?

I'm speechless. I have no words. Except... W... T... F! is he blathering on about?!?

Re:This is true...

[tolkienfan]

"... But I think now, two to three years into this, we're seeing these issues around cost and reliability coming up such that, we now know we need to go back to the basics on how we evaluate a platform and choose it."

So instead of smearing Linux like they used to, there recommending that IT managers actually use metrics and eveluate the platforms. WTF?

"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."

Let me help you: The main reasons are:

1. Avoiding vendor lock-in. This is a long-term cost reducing strategy, because it increases competition.
2. Increasing agility. Many companies are now actually modifying the platfom to meet their needs. There are different levels of this - many don't involve changing software.
3. Reducing licensing costs. This is really a small issue for most businesses.

The problem is that Microsoft cannot compete on the first two points.

"It was all very complex, and some of the seams of the Linux architecture were beginning to show."

Show us the money! This is an easy claim to make...

"... Because of the brittle nature of the platform, when you do that, other things break. ... It's about Red Hat, it's about Novell, it's about IBM...really looking for ways to monetize sets of things around Linux. In some ways, this is a good thing for customers because things are more black-and-white now, and it allows us to have a very balanced conversation with them around these key issues."

Bait and switch? "Don't use Linux it's brittle." ... but ... "It's about issues of cost and vendor now."
Don't give any evidence that Linux actually IS brittle. And it's nonsense. Linux is more agile than any Windows OS.

"The GPL is a very complex licensing agreement"

Has he ever read one of Microsoft's EULAs???! What a dick.

"... people should have the ability to monetize that and build on top of it."

That's the choice of the author. Microsoft will choose differently than RedHat.

"and there's been a lot of innovation (in the last decade or so) in the software industry where patents exist and are enforced in so many countries."

His implying that in europe, software has been hampered because software patents exists, but are unenforceable.

"We spend close to $6.8 billion in research and development; it really comes in a variety of areas."

It's a shame it doesn't show in the products.

Bwa Ha Ha Ha Ha (FUD)

[darkonc]

The sound of me falling over.

A little while ago I was called in to teach a Solaris course. I asked the lab admins to install the Solaris Community CD. They were like "Oh, no. We've got a system that works. We don't want to change anything". The fear in their voice was palpable.

I was dumfounded for a second. All I was asking them to do was add a CD's worth of random software. Nothing was even being enabled... then it dawned on me. "Oh. You're used to Windows aren't you? This is Unix. It's actually stable when you add software to it.

Ultimately I had my students add in the software. It was easier. I just mounted the CD image and made it available by NFS. They installed the software and all was well.

The fact that people are so scared of making changes to Windows disgusts me, but I don't think it's going to change. It's part of their FUD campaign. "If WIndows is so bad, what's it going to be like to go to a new system?"