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.'"
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.
.. 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...
...
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"
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
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
"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.
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.
One ring to bind them - should probably have more fiber and less rings in their diet.
So instead of smearing Linux like they used to, there recommending that IT managers actually use metrics and eveluate the platforms. WTF?
Let me help you: The main reasons are:
- Avoiding vendor lock-in. This is a long-term cost reducing strategy, because it increases competition.
- 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.
- Reducing licensing costs. This is really a small issue for most businesses.
The problem is that Microsoft cannot compete on the first two points.Show us the money! This is an easy claim to make...
Bait and switch? "Don't use Linux it's brittle." ... but ... "It's about issues of cost and vendor now."
Has he ever read one of Microsoft's EULAs???! What a dick. That's the choice of the author. Microsoft will choose differently than RedHat. His implying that in europe, software has been hampered because software patents exists, but are unenforceable. It's a shame it doesn't show in the products.Don't give any evidence that Linux actually IS brittle. And it's nonsense. Linux is more agile than any Windows OS.