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.'"
... in Windows, you don't have to add things to break it!
"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'?
As where with windows. It comes broken.
+-+-+-The folowing statement is true. The previous statement is false.-+-+-+
'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.'
We heard what the thinks about Windows, but what does he say about linux?
+1 funny, -2 overrated. Life isn't fair.
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)
Why would you post such an article on Slashdot?!?
*Runs for nearest bomb shelter*
Upcoming article: Why Microsoft is the greatest!
Like say you added a database server to your server installation of windows, and then later on you add an official OS update to the same server, with the interesting side effect of breaking the database.
Which is why many places have test machines to test windows updates.
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..
Slashdot.. Land of nerds, trolls, and FlameBait..
How is this news? It would be news if they stopped.
OSS advocates are stating that Windows is increadibly robust and stable.. until you start adding to it. Infact, after installing and uninstalling programs, testers were suprised to find information still says in the REGISTRY! In addition... some programs leave directory structures behind sometimes with megabytes of data files in them!
Good Grief... brittle? At least when I do a "make un-install" I'm not left with registry entries filling up all over the place.
How in the world is Linux brittle when you start adding to it?
His comments make me want to hunt him down and whack him over the head with my copy of "programing windows with MFC."
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. --
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.
Has this guy tried to write a device driver for windows recently? Any idea how many things can break on windows if you don't do it exactly right? Same bull goes for Linux. If you don't know what you're doing, you can hose the OS and 'break' it.
Add to that the fact that writing an application on linux that misbehaves is less likely to cause as much trouble as a windows app that misbehaves. It's just that in linux the lower layers are more visible, and most people tend to poke their noses in it a lot more than with windows, where everything is hidden pretty well, so you're stuck in win32api world. But if you dig down in windows, just as in linux, you can make things go boom real easy if you don't know what you're doing, or make a mistake.
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
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.
Taylor: We continue to do the same things that we've been doing in the last couple of years
You mean perpetually patch IE security flaws?
Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you... Brittle Software!
The meaning of your Life is up to you. Mean well. -- Me, 9/11/2001
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?
Sounds to me like he's bashing Linux. Linux is a subset of OSS, not the whole.
In other news, Microsoft said something bad about Apple, Sun and Oracle. Apple said something bad about Microsoft. And Ford still hates Chevy.
"Taylor: From a software perspective, we don't think the patent system is perfect. We had put forward some recommended restructuring to patent laws in the United States which will give (software) innovators more opportunities." Whilst sueing anyone that might possibly interfere with their intent of world domination. Hypicrite or what!
"The Chinese use two brush strokes to write the word 'crisis.' One stands for danger; the other for opportunity
Its simple really. Microsoft hired a team of scientists to figure out how to implement the third step in the UnderPants Gnome theory of economics. They succeded and thus... profit.
They fear going Open Source would divulge this information and that would put a damper on thier profit margin.
Its rumored that MS is in talks with the Sock Monster as well.
"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.
"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." ... It's a Mr. Pot, Something about you being black.
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
That is true as far as it goes. However don't take it to imply that Microsoft is any better. There is a reason that most administrators of Microsoft windows have separated things like the web server, mail server, and DNS, even when all three machines never see more than 30% load. (That is there are so few users that the total load is less than one system could handle.) In many cases the t1 internet connection will fall over before their servers, but they still separate services because Microsoft windows is brittle.
Scaling is hard. Doesn't matter what system you have. Even on mainframes eventually you can hit a limit where the system cannot scale easily.
Microsoft does have a couple advantages over linux. However the reverse is also true. Incompetent administrators are everywhere, and they will fail no matter what system you are running. In most cases the administrators inability is a better issue than the OS. This is particularly true in small business where the administrator mostly does something else, but once in a while puts a band-aid on the system to keep it running, instead of a well planned, preemptive upgrade that a large company would have done long ago.
Brittle in this case refers (albeit, somewhat obscurely) to the operating system's probability to fail quietly, or possibly even handle a fault as opposed to simply disintegrating while attempting to save an important document, close a program, or, god help you, surf the web.
The trouble begins when you want to add things to it
Wheras in Windows when you want to add things to it you can't because it's not open source. Microsoft adds to their heap of garbage, says "this is what you really want" and it still breaks!
Erik http://yakko.cs.wmich.edu/~rattles
...when you have only one "Blue Screen" to help solve your problem.
http://www.michel.eti.br
If microsoft actually had a decent product which could compete with Linux they wouldn't need to get up to these kind of b/s tactics.
These tactics do work but they also prove microsoft can't compete on the merits.
like back in my tech days, anytime a user had an issue in windows I'd come over and take a look, "Hmmm...when did you install these screensavers?" Fast fwd to today, Ubuntu/Synatpic, and you never have problems adding things. Sorry, sir, thanks for the FUD, please drive through.
bad_outlook
--
Is this vague enough for you?
the reason that ms fud fails so completely is that the vast majority the 90% of the market (or whatever it is) that uses ms products is unhappy with them. unhappy with the complexity, the time it takes to solve problems, the breaking of seemingly unrelated things during updates or "just because."
fud can't work if the fudster has zero credibility and ms has exactly that. just about any criticism they could ever level at anyone (valid or not) is something they can rightly be criticized for as well.
I'd really be interested to know what breaks when you 'add stuff on'. Can someone enlighten me?
Microsoft's General Manager of Platform Strategy, Michael Taylor, when speaking of Linux says "it will work great."
I'm taking a partial quote, but its not too far out of context. He does admit Linux will work great. Do you think he will have a job tomorrow?
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=884130
the kernel, linux distros, Free and/or Open Source software.
Though I don't doubt that to a certain extent much of M$ staff is confused on the issue, the main goal is to create a distraction which seems to have worked.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
"...because people didn't really understand buffer overruns and port 80 and I/O issues 10 years ago...
Those damn port 80 and I/O issues. Such a bitch to fix.
I mean c'mon. That was in 1988; by computing standards that was prehistoric. Everything Microsoft wrote should have been looked at for that bug ever since. They didn't. Microsoft didn't even bother to look at security issues much at all until a few years ago. Unix was ahead of that curve by 5-10 years.
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"At least, people at a certain company didn't...
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?
Apparently not Microsoft...
It's more like comparing a car and a helicopter.
Really, it's like comparing a cookie-cutter 3BR ranch in a popular subdivision with renovating a Victorian downtown. With the first, you know what you'll get (except for what they don't tell you). With the other, you may have to think a little bit, but when all is said and done you have a better product.
sigs, as if you care.
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.
INAP... ...is that a windows problem or just a poor uninstall routine by a software writer?
always mosh clockwise
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)
Sure, Windows will do anything most people ask of it with minimal effort. That's because people have learned better than to ask certain questions if they're in a Windows environment.
Linux users generally have learned that they don't have to take "NO" for an answer.
Nice analogy. Makes Linux sound like it's made out of glass. Oh, don't touch it!
It's using the myriad of custom distributions against it. There are Linux distros for forensics, for security, for graphics, for portability, for a myriad of specialties. These distros are usually booted from CDROM, etc. They have nothing to do with an average workstation distrubution installation of Linux, which has perfectly capable package management using apt-get or rpm. Dependency checking is part and parcel of every decent installation shell. Across a boggling array of packages for every conceiveable app.
Microsoft is just working the edges, trying to make the somewhat busy rate of new distros into a negative. It's true, I just got the LAST Fedora Core in when the next one comes out. But it's hardly orphaned, is it? apt-get works just fine for something I may want to add.
Microsoft's war strategy is to drive major Linux distrubutions to being more static, to stop re-releasing new distro updates at such a frenetic rate. They can't compete in this area, it's too costly for them to do major Service Packs all the time.
You clearly don't work in an enterprise of any significant size. We insist on having source for all products we buy including operating systems. The only vendor who doesn't like to play ball with us is microsoft.
While someone may want to tinker with code at home enterprises want source to ensure their investments are protected.
OSS may be stupid but that puts it light years ahead of you.
some programs leave directory structures behind sometimes with megabytes of data files in them!
That really doesn't have anything to do with Windows. Installers/uninstallers are created by whoever authored the program being uninstalled. Many times programs leave behind settings files in hopes that someday you'll reinstall.
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
Next article: Bill Gates is still at Microsoft! Imagine the press that'll get!
You can build it, design it, and it will work great. The trouble begins when you have to upgrade to .NET and scrap all of your VB6 code.
And just what modules would those be? How can you toss out something like that without even a single supporting example? Wait, this is MSFT, that explains it.
Hey, let's not plan our user environment in an organized way, let's just toss "modules" in there. Sounds like a great new game: Module Toss. I had the idea first, I get the patent!!!
It's the attack of the random modules!!! Run for your lives!!!
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
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.
... he wants his lack of sense of humor back!
my experience is just the opposite - I've added, changed and upgraded lots of things and since it's all open and available I can usually get to the bottom of the issue. With Windows it's by guess and by gosh, if something doesn't work there's not much you can do since is closed and hidden away. Even whey you pay for something there is no legal guarentee that their tech support can sort it out, you're just hung out to dry.
And another thing, PC unix doesn't have such a bad case of 'bit rot' - once you have it configured and running it's the same year after year (other than slowly becomming obsolete - I have 233Mhz notebooks with RH6.2 from years ago that still work fine that I use for a serial terminal or other low speed functions). Windows just gets slower and crappier with time untill you're forced to upgrade or do something.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
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?!?
Accountability on the heads of the powerful.
Power in the hands of the accountable.
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.
Speaking only from experience here with respect to code I wrote. I remember compiling code on gcc/g++ Unix in 1997. Virtually none of it works/compiles correctly now. Specifically code which was developed with gcc2.95 back then. Quite a great deal of it has many issues with gcc4 now (maybe less with some 3.x.x - but still substantial). Flipside, I used Visual Studio 5 in NT4 to develop similar coding projects circa 1998. Transitioning to VS6 in ~2000 then VS7 lately has been *significantlty* easier. Even my horribly written MFC projects seem to load and "convert" rather well with minimal effort.
As a more personal opinion, I get frustrated when some minor API changes in libraries or ABI changes in compilers causes compilation road blocks. I find this more difficult in Linux/gcc than in Windows/VC++.
Linux Resources
About time for someone to implementRFC 3093, "Firewall Enhancement Protocol", also known as IP-over-HTTP.
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.
I switched to a Mac a couple years ago, and its handling of applications astounded me. Why can I just drag and drop an application onto my hard drive and have it work? Even better is uninstalling it, which involves just trashing the app. Why hasn't Linux or Windows implemented something like this (maybe Linux can, I don't use it enough to know)? I'm not trying to fan some flamewar, I just don't understand why it works so well, but noone else seems to have implemented it.
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.
... don't mention Linux.
Seriously, with MS spreading the word people will start to wonder what this Linux thing is and is it any good.
After all, MS is spending a lot of energy briefing against it...
...gravity continues it's matter-attraction strategy.
When you add stuff to a Linux box, Microsoft's business model breaks.
Microsoft: Which cleaners would you like to be taken to today?
The odd thing is that they so often choose to lay into their opponents for their own most conspicuous weaknesses. It's a spin thing, sort of an innoculation, meant for at the ignorant audience they think they're addressing -- but to an informed listener it's like they're living in a house of carnival mirrors, and railing at the scary stuff they see there.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
This is about Linux and common linux tools: I'm talking features, not price nore stability nor security, although they do heavily weight in linux's favor. Just a few things I couldn't live without - MIME recognition of files and not DOS-old extensions? - Seamless integration of sofwtare using client/server abstraction, allowing multiple GUI to use a single enfine - Powerfull shell - Command line optional argument for most application, even the graphical one. Very useful when you wan to map a key to a specific action - Packet based installation of software!! - Automatic update of All installed software - SSH ! and so on I have been running Linux for only three years now but couldn't live without it.
\u262D = \u5350
other things break
As much as I love and use linux, jwz is right. Sound and audio are a broken mess. Why can't all desktops/distributions/etc use the same damn audio server interface, like they all use X as a video server interface. It drives me nuts!
Y'all don't seem to understand one basic function of the business world. The main desire of any company is to sell (get this) their own product.
You people act like you expect Microsoft to be saying glowing and positive things about Linux. That would be like Ford trying to sell their cars by listing the positive qualities of Chevys. Of course Microsoft is going to accentuate the negative...even if their own product has the same negatives. That's how this game is played.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
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.
It's funny, but the only things that seemed to break in four years of using Linux were hardware that fell out of date.
This sig no verb.
Why are they worth "saving" ? Why waste time and effort trying ?
Are you originally a Windows user, and still feel some sentimentality towards Microsoft, such that even though you're running FOSS, you still think "gee, wouldn't it be great if Windows was open source" ? If that is the case, you need to realise that you haven't fully understood the FOSS philosophy enough to realise that MS would never change. It is as likely as the Pope converting to Satanism.
The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
However, it turns out that Microsoft doesn't offer much more than FOSS when it comes to backing their product. The following is from the WinXP EULA:
WTF does the NON-INFRINGEMENT statement refer to?
Taylor: We continue to do the same things that we've been doing in the last couple of years. 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.
Translation: We continue to do the same things that we've been doing in the last couple of years. First and foremost, we are having to develop entirely new types of FUD, since the general public is beginning to see through all of our old schemes.
"What you mean 'WE', Kemosabe?"
:o) And when the HD died, the machine kept on ticking. This isn't the first time I'd experienced it, so I recommended to them that they not panic and deal with it during the regular maintenance period (on the weekend.) It kept happily running until I powered it off to replace the drive. I've no doubt that it would have continued to run until the power ran out (which would have been a long time, as it was on a big honking UPS.)
There's really nothing innovative today that Linux does that we can't do.
If by "we" he means Microsoft, then the response is "well duh" (after all, they *do* have the source code.)
But the obvious response is "then why don't you?"
I use Linux machines as routers for a local school district. A couple of weeks ago, the HD in one of them died - and nobody noticed (well, I noticed when the nightly backup didn't happen.) This machine was doing packet filtering, traffic shaping, and policy routing (iproute2 rocks!
Let's see Windows do traffic shaping.
Let's see Windows do policy routing.
Then let's see it keep running when you rip out the hard drive.
Hrmm Microsoft Flight Simulator has done it to me... additionally some programs have done it because "Windows has a lock on the directory" and you have to reboot and manually delete.. definately a Microsoft/OS issue (albiet some of them may be bad uninstallers)
I like how he describes adding modules as being difficult.. Apache modules? Perl or PHP modules? Kernel modules? New software packages? If so which distribution/package system? Could he make his statements any more general? (The first clue that you should put too much stock in this.)
On the other hand im shocked to see him say you can do stuff with Linux successfully - isnt this a turn around from previous MS opinion? I thought we were all foolish for using OSS. Make up your mind MS.
I was crazy back when being crazy really meant something. (Charles Manson)
Actually, one of my big complaints about both emerge and apt-get is figuring out what the name of the package you want to install, or what it is listed by in the package availability database.
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
This is more like the pot calling the silverware black.
How funny that he mentions only the really big software companies since it is only they that can invest in cross-licensing schemes and defend their patents?
they who complain about Windows crashes...
Bah.
I've been using Windows back to 3.1 with DOS 6 and straight on through 95, 98, NT4, ME, to XP Home and Pro and throughout that time, I've gotten MAYBE all of ten BSODs.
Windows is, and there is NO arguing this point in my book, leaps and bounds easier to use and configure than any version of Linux. Installshield and its competitors are mature and make installation of all sorts of apps easy. More and more, Windows coders are starting to code properly as Windows changes its architecture to "strongly encourage" it.
The primary reasons for instability on Windows boxes are willy-nilly isntallation of software of unknown origin, inane web usage without regard to security and contractions of viralware, incompetent driver installation by amatures and by techs who should definitely know better (rule of thumb for USB related installs has been since Windows 95B to install the driver software first, THEN connect the device, I see this basic rule violated by A+ and MS certified people constantly), farking with the registry when there is no concrete reason to be in there, and installation of system software such as anti-spyware and anti-virus without paying heed to KNOWN conflicts (such as installing McAfee on top of Norton or vice versa, saw this on Windows 95 ten years ago, STILL seeing this today). On that rgistry point, I still see people installing spyware that is advertised as a "registry cleaner".
I find it amazing that so many people who think they know Windows complain endlessly about it yet in nearly every case I personally look into, USER ERROR was the singular culprit. NOT Microsoft, NOT Bill Gates, NOT closed source, but USER IDIOCY.
Linux and other Unix variants are so difficult to use they rule out MOST user error by way of shutting out the most incompetent people but in no way, shape, or form does it stop it. The help forums for Fedora, Suse, etc. all bear testament to this. Easily, Linux is reloaded in a nuke and pave by the average Linux user maybe five to ten times more often than Windows.
I've had the same Windows XP install running nicely without a nuke and pave for four years now. Any problems that crop up, I fix. I also don't reload my Linux boxes very often either and have become pretty good at scrubbing failed builds and fixing problems. And I do it without complaining, without blaming Linus or anyone else... I take responsibility for my own boxes. So should all these supposedly "experienced Windows users".
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
Why are you modded as insightful for refuting an argument with "Windows Sucks"
For example, U.S. company Flyi.com handles about 90 percent of travel reservations through their online portal, which they run on Linux and Apache.
The systems were running fine until the company had a huge spike in traffic, and there were all kinds of downtime issues. So they did the upgrades, added a few servers, some hardware, some memory and new technologies around the Web site to do more customer relationship database tracking. It was all very complex, and some of the seams of the Linux architecture were beginning to show.
This is my favorite part...it seems like a perfect opportunity to launch into a "switched from Linux back to MS" story, but he actually only points out that they bought new hardware, and the kink was ironed out...
"It was all very complex" - so essentially, you're saying that no one should try anything complex without the assistance of MS? No thanks.
Umm...hmm.
emerge -s partofnameyourelookingfor
don't know the apt syntax, but you can just use dselect to search through the list.
I get what you're saying, but I guess I've been doing it long enough that I kindof know the names I'd be looking for already.
I know that nobody here ever RTFA, so here's my executive summary:
"An exciting opportunity for leveraging our core business strategy and enhancement of our portfolio through technological synergy effects with our premier after-market partners."
Or something.
Often times there's stuff in the System Folder too -- or at least was on older versions of MacOS. This is not necessarily true.
Film at 11.
No keyboard detected. Press any key to continue.
The trouble begins when you want to add things to it, add some services and things like that. Because of the brittle nature of the platform, when you do that, other things break.
"some services", "other things"? There's nothing like a coherent, well reasoned argument - and this certainly isn't one. I could very well say the same about MS or any software. "Well, if you want to change, like, some stuff, then you end up messing up some other stuff, like that."
Just like everybody making viruses to attack windows machines makes the underlying operating system more robust and secure in the long run, pointing out the current limitations in OSS makes OSS more robust and secure in the future, assuming someone addresses the problems appropriately. If they really wanted to hurt OSS, they should run ad campaigns on how much cooler it is to be able to run any game or software that any of your friends is running. That's something that can't be said for a system with a tiny market share... Conversely, if you really want to hurt Windows, don't let your viruses trickle out, release them all at once so you can actually disrupt the network of systems and thereby impugn the theory that being on the dominant system implies reliability.
YOU have the choice to add things to it or NOT!
Whereas with windows you get all the junk/crap/bloat even if you do NOT want it.
Then again when using IE a lot of things got added that I did NOT want..after about 3 months worth of use.
"Just Smile and Nod." --Huck
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.
'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 try to add things to Windows too. That's when they sue you.
Have you ever wondered How to Take Over
right? Or have I missed something....?
"It is a good divine that follows his own instructions" - Portia, The Merchant of Venice
IANAL, but I wonder if MS opens itself up to legal trouble by publicly saying something that contradicts the 50,000 word EULA that we're supposed to accept before using their product. Hell I don't know what half of that crap means except it seems to be saying, you pay us money, we give you software, all other bets are off. The end.
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.
Actually, one of my big complaints about both emerge and apt-get is figuring out what the name of the package you want to install, or what it is listed by in the package availability database.
apt-cache search foo
What would Lemmy do?
apt-cache search
apt-cache show
What Larry, Moe, and Curly do they have setting up the "Linux" servers. Using any Debian based distro I can do everything this guys says is un-do-able. Of couse I didn't apply for the job.
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
That's kind of an interesting claim from MS's part.
There is no MS issued "LiveCD" for booting a system and running it for Windows XP. Yeah they've got some Recovery Console functionality now but it's lame.
Ironically when a Windows box tanks here we tend to "slap in Knoppix" so that we can at least get into the box and copy out files before nuking and reinstalling.
Tomorrow we'll hunt for the Windows equivalent of the Tom's Root Boot floppy...
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
This may be true... but it seems like developers for Windows are a lot less concerened about quality then on Linux. I'm not going to say there are not linux programmers who don't care about quality.. but over all it seems that MSFT has made it so easy to program administer, whatever the Windows Boxen that you can just point and click.. where as with Linux there needs to be a bit of understanding....
Good example... Our Nortel phone system has some ACD monitoring software that works with the Symphony ACD system... it (per Cintech makers of Symphony) should NOT run on an outside your firewall server, or any other public server as the web service needs to run as ADMINISTRATOR!!!! YIKES! There are infact instructions for setting it up and changing permissions on some directories to make it run as Administrator... YIKES! I had a very long phone call with them one day and only got "Yeah that's why we recommend it running on its own $$MSFT LICENSE CHA-CHING$$ machine." Needless to say we are migrating to Asterisk after only about 2 years as we have out-grown the Nortel system... and we will actually profit by selling the Nortel system and putting in an Asterisk system.
He has LOTS of experience to draw on. The only thing he probably doesn't understand yet is that not all operating systems work like Windows.
I have some windows software I have never been able to run. I have windows 2000, btu the software was written for 98 and the game maker won't support it on anything else. So even though I paid for the right to use it, I can't unless I will use the one distribution of Windows the company will support.
Now, depending on my programming skills (which are not great) I might never be able to compile it myself to run on a newer version of windows even if I had the source - but at least with linux and open source I have the option of trying a new port.
Depends on the scope of the project. Sure things like Firefox [re: not linux] are hard to add to because they are big ...
But i'd say Linux is a hell of a lot more extensible than windows.
Say I want to develop a new device [/dev/toms] for some reason. I have the Linux Kernel SOURCE CODE for free to look at. What do I get in the windows camp for free?
And they really have to learn to distinguish between the kernel [that is Linux] and distros. The kernel for the most part is very stable. Yes, the bleeding edge [e.g. 2.6.12.3 may not work well] versions are a tad buggy but the recent ones [2.6.12 for instance] works just fine on my AMD laptop, AMD64 dual core desktop and P4 Prescott desktop.
Three different architectures with different drives, graphics, etc [my 64 has SATA drives too and a PCI-X graphics card] but they all work out of the box with a trivial kernel configuration.
I can take the kernel and use it with Gentoo. In this distro I can add/remove programs with a simple emerge command. You think installshield is easy? How hard is
emerge firefox
or
emerge -C firefox
etc, etc, etc.
This is just more fud from a person who obviously doesn't use [or take the time to understand] how the technology actually works.
I guess that's his job, to spread FUD to sell Windows. Unfortunately for him people are waking up and are not FUCKING MORONS anymore.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
.. 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.
Not Benz and Porsche!"
"Be an well-suited buisnessman just living for profit! Not an computer-science-freak having fun!"
Other buisness, same parols...
Amen...I've just had to use a Knoppix CD on a colleague's laptop: they were installing AOL's software (I know - they never learn!) and it crashed half way through. The laptop had to be powered down and when it started up again, it made it to the desktop but all icons were blank and absolutely nothing would run, not even commands in the 'run' box - ALL file associations were lost - a major registry screw-up.
Having booted from an XP CD, I tried to do a system recovery to get the registry back to a restore point, but the software just kept rebooting the machine!
I found some 'fixes' on a third party site but these required you to run regedit - no could do.
I thought about doing a Windows reinstall but this failed with a known error to do with reinstalling on a FAT32 disk (M$ KB official fix is to reformat the disk and start from scratch!)
In the end, I booted Knoppix and used it to copy back the registry from a restore point copy - hey presto, problem solved in 10 mins.
AT&ROFLMAO
I seam to recall reading in the last security update on my pee cee somthing to the effect of:
Due to a potential vulnerabilty, MS recomends applying this patch to your color management system....blah blah blah...
I mean, a security vulnerability in your COLOR MANAGER?
WTF?
I can just see it now, set you color level to 16 bit and get 0wned.....
MS Stuff doesn't break, it's created already broken....
Been there, and I feel ya.
The question is not one of the absolute "can we do this", but rather one of "will we do this"? To me, that is by far the more significant question, as it doesn't have a mathematically proven answer.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
And who the hell is flyi.com?? They should pick a company that people might have heard of. For instance, I could name a much bigger travel company that's been using Linux servers for at least a couple of years with no problems, even during fare-sales. And I seem to recall seeing something on the MySQL home page about The Sabre Group switching from a mainframe app to a cluster of Non-Stop systems with MySQL. Looks like that's working fine for them.
In some ways, it's because a lot more things are connected today than they were when we architected some of the things we built into Windows.
Back then, Bill didn't care about the internet. He used to refer it as "and that thing called the internet"
So maybe that's true for Windows, but Linux was born ON the internet.
This fact may explain why Linux is A LOT more secure than Windows : because it was build from the start to be connected to the big-bad-internet
Avoid the MS tax, always buy I.B.M. PC's (I Built-it Myself)
Well, someone mentioned this in one of the comments - buffer overrun was utilized by rather well-known 1988 UNIX worm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_worm
BTW, that worm was written by the guy who later founded Viaweb (now Yahoo! Store) together with Paul Graham.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Tappan_Morris, _Jr.
Microsoft Continues Anti-OSS Strategy
Wow! Microsoft continues to do what it can to mitigate the long term threat posed by OSS. Now that is a surprise.
I want that testing from the vendor.
Then don't roll your own system. Use a trusted distribution such as Debian (which is *extremely* well tested, to the point where people complain about the length of the release cycle), Fedora / Red Hat, Mandrake, or Suse. These are all better-tested than new Microsoft releases, as most components are tested in the real world by hearty souls who dare tread where most sysadmins do not.
As others have pointed out, indemnification and accountability are strawmen, as there is no way Microsoft or Oracle or any other major company is going to provide anything other than expensive phone support, or (in the case of Oracle and the like) even more expensive on-site support. They will absolutely *not* provide accountability.
And, with F/OSS you are able to purchase support through any number of vendors. You are not stuck with the original vendor, at the mercy of their support prices.
Running a web server for your PHP site is vastly different than running an application that is relied upon by many tens of thousands of employees.
Not if that PHP webserver provides applications that are relied upon by many tens of thousands of employees.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Sure the registry may be brittle, but is that any way of dealing with real issues on Linux? The only way to fix things to stop deflecting criticism and do something about it. It is this "Linux is superior" attitude that actually hurts the platform's development.
Linux should stop trying to imitate other platforms and actually try to come up with solutions to existing problems. For example, did we have to wait for Apple to come up with Launchd to solve the init script issues, do we really need to immitate Windows to make a better OS?
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
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.
We need our talent? Who the '*&$%' are you?!!
Dude, people need to make a living. Opensource developers still have bills to pay. Hiring them, for what ever reason, is a good thing for them and their families.
Could you please stop being so damn selfish?!
I have many issues with Microsoft's business practises, but if there is one thing respectable about them is the about of good engineers they continue to employ over the years.
I spend 10-20 hours/week developing opensource on top of my fulltime job.... Simply because it entertains me. But anyone that neglects their career to work on projects for free I think should have their head examined.
Based on upvotes, Ageism is the only "-ism" Slashdotters care about and think isn't SJW
Notice he did not say more investment into the technology than Linux.
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.
Is he talking about their customers, or Microsoft?
We continue to run our lab where we analyze and look at open-source software to understand and ensure we're still building the right things from a short-term or long-term basis.
Read: If there is some code in Linux that we can use in Windows to make it more competitive, we'll use it.
Apples and oranges: Save money applied more people? Yes, people cost money, but in my experience, there is usually a higher ratio of servers to admins for Windows than Linux. Did these customers use their Windows admins for the Linux boxes?
The systems were running fine until the company had a huge spike in traffic, and there were all kinds of downtime issues. So they did the upgrades, added a few servers, some hardware, some memory and new technologies around the Web site to do more customer relationship database tracking. It was all very complex, and some of the seams of the Linux architecture were beginning to show.
Scratch the word "Linux," since this statement can be applied to any architecture using any OS (Win, HP-UX, Solaris, etc...)
You can build it, design it, and it will work great. The trouble begins when you want to add things to it, add some services and things like that. Because of the brittle nature of the platform, when you do that, other things break. We see that in the labs all the time, and our customers see that as well. So that has a (total) cost of ownership impact on it.
As so many other people have pointed out, this happens with Windows too. I think the big difference here, though, is that an application issue on Linux does not hose the entire OS, whereas on Windows, there is that possibility.
It is also more of a commercial discussion now.
Yes, this whole interview is nothing more than a Microsoft commercial
So we're not an open-source company ... we have projects available today that make Microsoft technology open source.
Huh?
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.
Is he aware that SCO lost the lawsuit?
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.
Hmmmm... sounds kinda like what Apple's doing with BSD.
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.
Software patents are exciting for them, I'm sure. Other than that, I have no clue what he means
From a software perspective, we don't think the patent system is perfect. We had put forward some recommended restructuring to patent laws in the United States
Oh yes, more money changing hands in Washington to benefit the "legal" person.
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 (reb
"Teleporting Rodents with D-Cell Battery Displacement" theory -- IgnoramusMaximus (692000)
After that patch was installed (and the obligatory reboot happened), MSFT Word was fubar ... but in a wierd way. In outline view, and only in outline view, all my text was reading right-to-left and shifted to the right side of the page ... like the following paragraph is, except also right-aligned.
.page the of side right the to shifted and right-to-left reading was text my All
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.
OK I won't speak about the lot of FUD that Gates say about innovation etc. I'm talking about software installation problems.
/. we have already spoken of the installation problems in Linux, and the dependency hell.
I'm afraid we have fallen in the "Ad Hominem" attacks. Everything Microsoft says is lie, just because Microsoft say it. (OK i agree, 99% of what it says is a lie).
Here on
Yes, it's bad, but this time Gates has found Linux' achiles heel. Let's hope we don't ignore this usability problem as Microsoft did when spoken about the IE vulnerabilities.
The problem with packaging applications (either in Windows or UNIX... don't think you don't run into packaging problems on Windows) is that they encourage people to ignore complexity because they've shoved it under the rug.
I don't use packages nearly as much as many people seem to. I go for the original source tarball myself, and most of the time all I do is "make;make install". If there's too many dependencies, my first reaction is to look for another alternative... because even when the packaging system can hide the complexity it's still there waiting to bite you.
It can take half an hour or so to configure some packages, but once I've done that installing on the next machine is automatic.
If it wasn't for package management tools, people wouldn't build such delicate dependency trees nearly as often.
You don't see this kind of problem so often in Windows because the environment is so hostile to running multiple services on a given machine that you set up separate machines for each job. Where a single UNIX box that's handling a dozen jobs might sit, you have half a rack of 1U servers or blades, each running a separate instance of Windows for a separate role.
In a way, it's the brittleness of Windows that makes it look good.
The vast majority of computer users are running Windows. This means for small software development companies writing client side applications the biggest market is there.
Using either Linux or Windows we could have written our soon-to-be-released multi-threaded, web-endabled, windows application. However, we want people to buy it- that is to enjoy it AND pay money for it.
If we wrote it to run under Linux sure we could feel good about ourselves in some kind of Jeff Goldblum, we're brainy and our trash pollutes less than your trash kind of hypocritical way.
But loosely quoting Alan Rickman from the movie Die Hard- We'd much rather be on a beach, earning 20%.
And we don't care what the self-anointed intelligencia "community" thinks of our platform selection. Our customer's opinions are the only ones that matter.
Cogito Ergo Sum
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?
This is a real issue and also stems from the issue of static, dependency databases. It would be nice if some of those dependency databases actually reflected the libraries available on my HD, no matter how they got there. There needs to be something a little more dynamic.
I remember trying to install an application and finding that on the one hand it needed a more recent version of one library and then an older version of another. Trying to sort this out without breaking anything proved to be difficult. Then trying to add the new version of one library without nuking the previous version proved problematic as well.
Windows suffers from the registry and Linux from its incompatible range of dependency databases, that don't necessarily reflect what is on the HD. This is where centralised databases can break down.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
You cannot make your enemy go away by paying them money. You can take out one or two guys, but there will lots of people eager to replace them, especially when they think there will be a huge monetary reward for success (being bought by Microsoft).
I'll probably be modded down for this...
News flash: Microsoft doesn't want their customers switching to a rival product. In other news, water is wet, bees make honey. How can this possibly be news?
bance.net
In case of install, break Windows.
In case of using IE, break Windows.
In case of using Outlook Express, break windows.
In case of buying a new graphics card, break windows.
In case of using it for a couple months, break windows.
Heh.. the title of the article should have been: "Microsoft Continues Anti-OS Strategy"
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
Someone mentioned it, but it's a valid point. How many users have to reload their OS due to issues with Windows. I've had Linux boxen run with ZERO degredation for months on end. The only reason I ever reload is because I either want to move to another hardware platform, or I'm on a development system that I am hitting really hard. If I set up a PC for my kids with Linux it will outlast a Windows box simply because they will download all these little goodies that Linux will ignore. Eventually Windows just starts to choke.
I use Fedora 3, and recently installed the recommended update to kernel 2.6.12. I also use VMWare because I need to run several Windows applications that don't run in Wine. After upgrading the kernel, I could not configure VMWare, and worse, the improperly built VMWare kernel modules were causing the whole system to crash. Finally, after a fair bit of internet searching, I found a third-party patch for VMWare that, when applied, fixed the problem.
The real problem, is the Linux (both the kernel and other packages) changes very fast and in ways that software authors often can't keep up with, it's more of an issue of rapid changes in the OS making it hard to keep software up to date, expecially if they need rapidly changing API's, like the kernel.
I'm not saying this never happens on Windows - it does - but it seems more prevalent in Linux because of the high rate of change.
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!
Like windows doesn't break when you add things and remove them due to lazy fucking programmers who don't make sure every registry entry is wiped out upon uninstall? Or what about those programs that when being uninstalled tell you "This file is apparently no longer used by any other applications - do you wish to remove this file?" and the second you click yes your system crashes because indeed, another app was using the file? Or what about all the problems involving microsoft's apparent lack of thorough testing and ahcking to find it's own problems with itself?
Typical MicroShaft (very apropriate for Bill Gates, Mr. 3 1/2" floppy dick.) tactice, lay blame elsewhere while those exact same faults are inherent in their own OS.
Someone needs to condust their own interview with that reporter, and get them to post the TRUTH.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
You're correct in this regard. So let me ask you: how often, as an administrator of Windows machines, have you seen problems with user workstations that involved either the corruption or misconfiguration of the registry? My guess is that if you've been doing administration for any length of time, you've seen it often enough that it doesn't get more than a raised eyebrow.
So, consider: how robust the registry system can really be if ordinary users can break it in the course of doing their daily business, without ever opening it, examining it, or even knowing it exists?
Contrast this with text based configuration files. Each file is a discrete entity, as opposed to a monolithic binary database. Even if one of the configuration files becomes hopelessly borked, the damage is confined to whatever you were configuring: I may completely kill someone's network connection by deleting
If your best argument is only over semantics then it proves what an ignorant, intolerant, religious-hatred preaching moron you really are.
Yes, I feel sorry for my countrymen who died in the London bombings, I feel sorry for the American troops in Iraq and the Iraqi civilians getting killed there.
But morons like you who are so stupid that you voted in a president who has offered up human sacrifice just to make Exxon a few more bucks are just pathetic.
Anyone can find a few links on the web to justify an argument, I'm not even going to lower myself to your level.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
And, by the same token, there's nothing that an olympic athlete
can do that an out-of-shape coder like me can't. Har, har, har.
The real test isn't so much what an OS can be made to do with a
Herculean effort, but what it can do with a reasonable
investment of time, money, and coffee. Not to mention a minimum of
cursing, swearing, and hair-pulling.
There is a spellbook here; eat it? [ynq]
"There's no new feature or new design that can be done only on Linux, and not on Microsoft"
Finally, a Microsoft employee shows some real understanding about the beauty of OSS.
So when the press writes of Chairman Bill receiving a poem from a little girl who has memorized his RedBook^H^H^H^H^H^HMSCE exam or pays attention to the smoke and noise generated in this case by Michael Taylor, they can't pay attention to other things. For example, that mainstream sources are starting to acknowledge that the future is open source. There's probably a good dozen things including but not limited to sw patents, failed security, underperforming sales, etc. that MS would rather not have in front of people.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Linux open-source infrastructure: "You can build it, design it, and it will work great."
- Microsoft's General Manager of Platform Strategy, Michael Taylor
News.com interview on 7-20-2005
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.
but they don't.
Best intentions of the world, poorly executed and masked by closed source privacy, still result in large gaping holes in oh so many areas.
So, rather than complain about how YOU can do it, MSFT, just get it DONE, and stop telling us that you COULD do it.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
OSS? Open Source says it all. Is the extra S for savings?
It only works for simple GUI apps.
If you install libraries, services, users, or a command line component you have to use the OSX installer.
Un-installing is quite a challenge. The installer has no uninstall function at all. On my test mac mini I periodically wipe and reinstall the entire system, but then I don't use it a lot... not sure how a home user would cope.
Microsofts constant nagging on Linux is good free advertising. The more they nag the more people realize it's good enough to be a competitor to Microsoft. Even the sponsored SCO case is good for linux because it gives Linux a clean bill of health, something Microsoft sure doesn't have.
= 2005010107100653
http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page
HTTP/1.1 400
Granted, but I understood the question was about the relatively recent influx of many people outside Linux's natural demographic.
"Why do so many Linux developers like developing for Linux" is a stupid question - "Why have so many non-hackers suddenly started getting excited about (and defecting to) Linux" is an interesting one.
That said, the interviewer's hardly grilling the MS press flack so it's entirely possible you're right.
However, he still tries to redefine the ideals and approach of "open source" a few lines later, and those were explicitly defined in the question.
Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
Goddamn. I think anyone who uses the term "source codes" in cold blood can safely be classed as a fucking tool. *eye roll*
In Windows you don't NEED source.
OK, are you talking about:
1. There's more desktop software for Windows, so you don't have to work as hard to find something that's easy to install?
Or:
2. There's fewer dependencies between Windows applications, because they cost money and so having a dependency on someone else's program costs you sales?
Or:
3. Windows applications typically ship with compies of the components they're dependent on, rather than expecting the user to find them?
Or:
4. All of the above?
For server software (which is what the original article seemed to be about), I find the opposite situation holds. At least for software that's been developed in the UNIX tradition, you tend to have software that has very robust and simple interfaces that you can glue together with scripts. In Windows, you either have a standalone program that only interoperates with specific programs the vendor supports, or you have to go out and buy a bunch of packages (database servers, etcetera) that your program depends on to share data with other programs... point "2" up there no longer holds.
The thing that I've found to be a big exception to this is any of those huge Java application server programs. Those are really not "Linux" or "UNIX" applications, they're a whole new operating environment and have to be dealt with on their own merits. If they have any.
/_vti_bin/_vti_aut/fp30reg.dll
/\x90\xc9\xc9\xc9\xc9
or this
SEARCH
That seems to be able to break a windows machine.
Or break the ownership of that windows machine.
Seeing apache logs full of crap like that sure makes me glad i run a brittle os, actually i run freebsd so my os isnt brittle its just dead.
Quote: "Most IT professionals don't want to be in the business of maintaining system-level software."
Okay, release less service packs.
Now, I had the same thing happen on a Linux box a few months ago. Hardware took a nosedive. You know what, I took the drives out, moved them to another box, and booted up. I think I might have had a few minutes get the right NIC driver module loaded, but that didn't even require a reboot.
Now I'll freely admit that one could compile a Linux kernel with such a restricted set of IDE drivers that I'd be equally hosed, but for virtually every stock-compiled kernel I've ever got with a distro, I've never had a problem. In fact, due to the wonders of LILO, I can compile a small kernel, but still have the stock one on the boot menu in case I ever need to move to new hardware. In short, Windows caused me a lot of grief, I hate it now more than I did a week ago, and am actively looking at giving our IIS webserver the boot and going to Apache.
So stick it where the sun don't shine, Microsoft!
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Got a letter from microsoft about 2 weeks ago. It was sent to management level employees of various companies. The text warned against using open-source solutions because these may not have IP indemnification protecting your company from lawsuits.
Naturally they follow this up promoting how well protected MS products are by their legal department.
The letter was good for a few laughs before I threw it out.
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 have two things to say about that: first, updating dependencies to keep the system up-to-date is How It Is Supposed To Work. Second, apt-get should have handled that for you automatically -- `apt-get install electric-sheep` or similar should have been all you needed to do.
(I think, at least -- I use Fink and Portage, which are similar, but I've never used apt itself.)
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
"no one has a real true standard to enforce anywhere."
"A standard way of doing things are key to appeal to a large audience."
Freedesktop standards
Gnome HIG
KDE Guidelines
If I use either KDE or Gnome, I very rarely use applications that don't match the environment. My desktop of choice is Gnome, and I've found it much more consistent than the windows GUI.
Windows User Experience
Office (XP anyway) is really inconsistent. I normally use Microsoft Word, in which every new document opens in a seperate window. However in Excel, the new documents actually open in a new window inside the main excel window, but they create another application button on the taskbar, giving the illusion that it's opened in a seperate window.
Sometimes I've had 1 document open that I've not edited, and 1 that I have edited. I'm used to Office bugging me to save documents even when I've not edited them, so when I hit the big "X" button on the window, and it asks to save, I just click "no" because being a human, I don't read messages that I expect to say something, stupid I know. I lose my work.
I'm not the only person this has happened to either...
I know I'll probably get modded troll or something...
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.
Maybe it's brittle because once you break it it's broken 'til someone spends a few hours to fix it.
In that aspect MAYBE.
Windows is not brittle, it's utterly not designed to run properly!
Who was it that was talking about Windows uptimes in comparison to Linux uptimes?
Maybe they should realize that having long uptimes is a BENEFIT.
Is it just me or do other people think it's unfair as hell for MS to make loads of $$ making every single user on the planet angry?
Maybe someone should talk to them about that fact, and ask the USERS if they like what they have, instead of the sysadmins. We know people who administer windows machines in corporate environments are happy, 'cuz it's easy, if it's broken, reboot, if it's still broken you re-image it.
Been there, seen it, hated it. Get MS a sense of reality before listening to them. They're polling the wrong people about their software.
---- I am certain of only one thing : I know nothing else.
I modify parts of the kernel and load them without rebooting all the time. (loadable kernel modules)
Its not that big of a deal really.
Brittle? The way Windows breaks, it's brutal.
(apologies to Fat Albert)
Windows XP PXE. I run it from a DVD - no hard drive required.
- GeexBox like appliances
Windows XP Media Center Edition.
- Install on most architectures
No business requirement. The cost of development potential ROI. Profit!
- Scale well. Boot with minimal configuration (like without GUI for example) allowing it to run decently even on low hardware like a P75 , and this with the latest version
Have you actually run a 2.6 kernel on a P75? ;-)
And yes, you can run Windows XP - or any other version of Windows - without a GUI if you really want to.
- Run without antivirus when exposed to the Internet. Next Windows will even come with one by default !!!
This is just like leaving the bank vault open because nobody in town owns a gun.
- Run reliably. Years of uptime are impossible to get for production machines
That's just plain false.
- Run clusters (well, there is one, no info on if it works or not)
Funny, I run a couple of them. They work just fine.
- Run real multiple desktops simultaneously
Can do this easy.
- Privilege separation that just works
rwx for the masses! NTFS permissions are considerably more granular.
- No defrag
Okay, you got me on this one.
- One integrated toolkit like KDE or GNOME
Huh? In Windows there is only one toolkit and it's integrated as hell ;-)
we see things not as as they are, but as we are.
-- anais nin
Microsoft has never heard of the term "DLL Hell".
"Apparently so, but suppose you throw a coin enough times. Suppose one day, it lands on its edge."
Direct from the Microsoft headquarter: Ok lets find a problem with linux... well which distro should we use.... well I think there is this windows clone based on linux it is called xp with a window in front of the box... 10 hours later... I added a few virus scanners, some freeware, and look the installation now is totally hosed... I think we have the weak point
How can software be brittle? I can understand HARDware being brittle but SOFTware? isn't it too soft to be brittle?
I can't believe I'm publicly disagreeing with no less than Andrew Tanenbaum, but I *do* have a lower /. ID, so here goes...
:(
That would have been a perfect sig, but it doesn't fit.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
The words 'pot', 'kettle' and 'black' come to mind. Is Microsoft unaware that their registry is far more 'brittle'?
Hand on heart, I have never, ever installed software on a windows box which has broken another piece of software. Not saying it never happens, I accept it does, just saying I have never personally done it.
Never done it on Linux either. Ain't apt great?
"I realise this is not a very popular opinion but it's the truth, and there for needs to be said" -Bill Hicks
The installer can uninstall if the installed package was correctly made. A recite file should be written to /Library/Frameworks/Recites (i havent checked the path recently). Double click on the recite file launches the installer program in uninstall mode. Also some packages have an uninstall that is selectable from the normal launch. Double click on *.pkg select uninstall/remove and hit enter.
This book is just off the press. It is chuck full of practical examples of using FOSS. I have heard that ESR approves of it. http://freedomsoftware.info/content/section/1/45/
I don't care what their reasons are for leaving crap in the registry, I want a way to clean it."Actively"? Not necessarily. But Microsoft should have an auto-cleaning process. They used to have a utility called "regclean" that would make an attempt.
If Microsoft provides the registry for programmers to use and makes the registry critical to Windows, then Microsoft needs to provide for the cleaning and maintenance of the registry.
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?"
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
Drag and drop installation in Linux would be great. But hell, we don't even have "double click, next, next" installation yet. One thing at a time.
This might just be my first ever Flamebait mod right here.
"I realise this is not a very popular opinion but it's the truth, and there for needs to be said" -Bill Hicks
You must have never been exposed to OpenWindows or CDE...there are worse GUIs than Windows.
"Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Autopackage addresses this issue by allowing the providers of software to roll their own equivalent of an InstallShield package.
The only big piece of software that I know about that distributes an Autopackage is Gaim (here).
Just download and run it, and after some progress bars and some simple questions you have Gaim on pretty much any distro. Sure, it has to provide its own dependencies (so you lose the benefits of sharing libraries with your distro), but it works damnit.
So the problem is being addressed on Linux, it's just a matter of software getting packaged in a way that everyone can use. But that's kind of the idea of distributing source...
This is a DUPE!
Why?
Because it's just another variant on the same old Microsoft lies.
How many times have I said this: Microsoft is run by and employs LIARS. Deliberate, focused, unabashed, paid LIARS. NOTHING said from the lips of a Microsoft employee can be taken to be anything but a lie.
It's time the OSS community started publicly calling these lies what they are: not spin, not marketing, not a difference in opinion - straightforward, unabashed, fucking LIES.
It's time the OSS community started publicly calling the Microsoft people BY NAME what they are: not officers, not Vice Presidents of whatever - straightforward, unabashed, fucking LIARS.
I'll start - this motherfucker Taylor is a fucking LIAR. Give me his email address and I'll send an email to him explicitly stating so.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
I dislike it when people instinctivly bash the Windows platform calling it insecure or unstable as MS has done a pretty decent job of improving security recently IMHO. Both Linux and Windows offer a very good platform but when I see stuff like this:
"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."
it makes me not care about seeing a fair argument about both operating systems. I mean let's face it, that statement above fits Windows much more appropriately.
For example the registry, corrupt it and Windows and most of its apps will stop working properly. It's a massive single point of failure, they should bring back individual config files like Linux has, the worst you can do is break a single app rather than the entire OS!
DLLs are another big stumbling block, Windows often refuses to unload them so you can't replace them without needing a reboot. Why is that a reason to call Linux more brittle than Windows? I can't remember when I last had to reboot one of the Linux servers after patching something.
SCSI and RAID drivers, why does Windows only accept them on floppies, the most brittle storage medium out there? And if the drivers get corrupted why does that usually mean a full reinstall of Windows?
And then what about Services, those wonderful background tasks that when they fail to start break the OS because other things are dependent on them. What part of services makes Linux so brittle?
Windows still has problems, it is clearly unfair to claim it is superior to Linux at least in the case of extending it. I guess MS needs to start some new FUD now that we all know SCO has no evidence.
Until normal people realize Christianity is not compatible with a free society expect more such "enriching" cross-cultural exchanges...
By the way, the Sheik was right - there IS no difference between an American soldier and a civilian IN IRAQ. No US civilians are there under the current circumstances unless they're there to fuck the Iraqi people. Most of these fucks are ex-military contractors working for the CIA or security companies protecting US occupation employees. An occupier is an occupier. Get the fuck out, no US citizens will be endangered.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
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.
Okay, I realize Yu solicited the term first and that it's probably proper English. Despite that, every time I hear someone refer to "source codes" it irritates the hell out of me. If I told my project manager "I have produced many source codes today" it would probably raise a few eyebrows (before the sardonic laughter).
It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
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.'
sigh. i just get so tired of the same old rhetoric coming from their lousy playbook. i realize i'm preaching to the choir but windows breaks "other things" just by simply applying their recommended, critical, monthly security patches.
heavens, my fiannce works at a bank and tuesday the entire bank was shut down for the better part of the morning while the admins were trying to rebuild a machine that runs the bank's account management software package. the machine broke something fierce while installing the july "critical" security patches.
Remind you of anything else?
Speak truth to power.
m.
Well, much easier if you use a Linux distro with a package management system.
For me to install Electric Sheep, I just do
emerge electricsheep
And, viola!! It is installed...all dependencies taken care of. How much easier than that? And I didn't even have to 'click' anything once, much less twice...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
You don't understand the concept of a real package management system and why in this way Linux distributions are light years ahead of anything else available.
Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it 'sucks'. Just because you're used to something (installing things the windows way, hunting down some random
Malike Bamiyi wanted my assistance.
they've had that ever since XP. is that three years now? you have to click a checkbox to turn it on. it couldn't be simpler. you're talking about win 2k, which is eol'd i believe.
"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.'""
I think he was confused and meant windows.
this is one of the major reasons I use Linux because of the quality of software and the ability to add things with ease.
Just the opposite of windows - there is no control over any third party crap software out there.
Just because the registry worked in your case, doesn't mean that it's a good way to do things.
The registry problem:
You have a single file that must be in perfect shape, or your system pretty much has to be reformatted and reinstalled.
Now, lets give the lowliest app written by some "insert your favourite dumbass character here" full read/write access to that file, and see how long it takes before your system dies off.
Single Point of Failure with no security:
See "Windows Registry".
Bavarian Purity Law of Rice Krispie Squares: Rice Krispies, Marshmallows, Butter, Vanilla.
"This work may not be duplicated in whole or in part without permission from the author".
That's all there is to it. Really.
The GPL merely provides a means of providing such permission to people without the burden of a lot of paperwork. Obtaining permission from the author to copy the work only requires that the person agree to the terms of the license. If they don't agree, they don't have permission to copy (for non personal use) - it's as simple as that. To some extent it depends on the honor system, but if push comes to shove, it's still enforceable by virtue of the work still being protected by good old fashioned Copyright law.
I fail to see what's so hard to understand about the GPL.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
As I said to my friend today wrestling with mail stored in Outlook. (Shudder!)
you had me at #!
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.
In other news, Michael Taylor retracted his earlier claim saying, "I misread the note from the engineers. They were in fact referring to Microsoft Windows, not Linux."
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
This article is ridiculous flamebait. Anyone who is a Decision Maker, recognizes the usefullness of both Operating Systems.
Wishful thinking. If Decision Makers were so enlightened, why are there bad decisions?
Often in the press, because so many of us are trying to make living at this free software hacking thing, we see a lot of emphasis on customers, and costs, and business needs. That's all great and fine but if we focus only on those issues, we would have to admit that maybe Michael Taylor is right! Maybe it's good enough to have a "shared source program", as if access to source code is a form of peep show. Maybe it's more important to have freedom-robbing licensing terms because, as he says, that makes it easy to "monetize" the hacking process. If open source hackers can exploit the benefits of cooperating -- perhaps proprietary source hackers can do the same thing -- only picking and choosing to work only with those people who buy licenses: either way, the same development efficiencies are achievable.
It seems to me that Michael Taylor is successfully refuting the Open Source initiative's claim to be a productive force in the world. Open Source has positioned itself squarely with the same set of corporate values as MSFT, only MSFT is clearly the superior competitor. Stealing revenue from MSFT for a few years, and making them stronger a few years later, is not progress -- it's shooting ourselves in the foot.
The free software movement, on the other hand, is about preserving personal and democratic freedoms, first and foremost. You, a creative person, have written some code. Your friend, another creative person, has written some code. How are the two of you free to interact? The GPL, in spite of its critics, concentrates on preserving your rights in this circumstance.
In the equations of the purely business view, at least as it is so poorly framed today, you -- the creative person -- don't count. Don't obviously have the same rights as others. Aren't all that important. Taylor's rhetoric betrays that this logic underlies his arguments:
It's more about people taking an anti-Microsoft stance?
Taylor: Well, first you have to define "people" because I can tell you that most IT professionals don't want to be in the business of maintaining system-level software.
We should, in that view, abandon free licensing because the customer counts more than the worker. You should be glad, creative proprietary software hacker, that you have a job at all -- of course you should give up your rights to communicate freely with your professional peers. (Nevermind that nothing about free or open source licensing implies IT professionals maintaining system-level software -- on that point, he's just FUDing.)
There are many economic, engineering, and engineering safety arguments for free software licensing but let's not lose sight of the origins and most beautiful contribution of the free software movement so far: the idea that programmers' rights of expression -- their freedom to cooperate with their friends -- is at stake.
Thanks, Martin Taylor, for reminding us that, in your world view, that which has so much in common with the Open Source initiative, hackers are second-class citizens. It was a resistence to servitude that sparked the free software movement and attacks like yours will, in the long run, only make us stronger and more determined.
-t
Actually, the registry entries provide some interesting problems (as to their removal).
The latest way to make an install package (using MSI) makes it relatively easy to add/remove registry entries. This is automated and the registry settings are removed (for the most part).
Occassionally, the MSI will leave the company name (registry key) in HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE, for reasons that I do not know.
A bigger problem is user registry entries that the application may put in the user's registry when the application is run. Since the installation did not create these registry entries, it cannot be expected to (automatically) remove them. This falls on the developers to properly clean the registry entries.
The entries I've mentioned so far aren't really the issue though. The Windows installer creates a LOT of registry keys based upon installed components of the application, shared DLL's, etc. These keys are not always properly cleaned up, and since the developers of the install didn't create them, they don't really have a way to remove them. This is the major failing of the Windows registry (in my opinion).
Another problem is registration of COM components. This isn't really the fault of the registry, but of COM registration as a whole, it's a BIG UGLY MESS.
It would be very easy for microsoft to log changes to the registry and have the uninstall be a microsoft product not part of the application. That way applications don't get to write or delete directly but rather must call on OS service which does this and thus everything gets logged.
This is a database after all.
"Hello?"
"Mister Kettle, it's Pot on Line 2"
I don't know, I've had so many things that just....work with linux. I switched my network from an all Windows network (done before I came aboard) to an almost all linux network. I had to leave a few windows servers around for those people with MS specific hosting requirements.
Windows network 20hrs/wk minimum managing, cleaning up, updating, and other routine care.
Linux network 2hrs/wk...period. And 1 hour of that is strictly for the Windows servers that remained.
I also reduced my server count when I switched. It was cut almost literally in half, 55% to be exact. Ontop of that I almost doubled the work load. It would have been less servers if I didn't have to keep those !@#$@#$% windows servers around. So I don't want to hear any BS from Microsoft about solidity, functionality, features, performance or security. Around my shop I've already proven to everyone that Linux is the way to go.
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!
Having access to source code is important, as no matter how good the documentation is (and Microsoft's developer documentation is lousy, according to some my of developer friends), nothing beats being able to look at the source of the library or OS component you're using to see exactly what it does. At the very least, it allows you to see that that component isn't built to handle the situation you're trying to get it to deal with, and you can work around that, or change the environment to match the assumptions made by the programmer of that component. Since different people rely on different parts of the OS, 65% source code availability may meet the need of 100% of developers (if no-one ever uses the remaining 35%) or 0% (if the 65% available isn't interesting to anyone). Only 100% availability is guaranteed to meet the needs of 100% of developers.
Regarding the GPL, Taylor at least gives the honest answer that he "[doesn't] know enough". Firstly, the GPL covers patents, and says that code licensed under the GPL must license any patented techniques used therein for "everyone's free use" or the code may not be licensed under the GPL at all. Secondly, people can build upon FOSS and monetize their innovations; without restrictions if the components they use are licensed under the terms of the LGPL or BSD licenses (and they comply with the terms of those licenses) or with some restrictions if not. Red Hat are successfully monetizing their innovations despite having to comply even with the terms of the GPL. Done right, anyone else can too.
On buffer overflows, Taylor states that "people didn't really understand buffer overruns and port 80 and I/O issues 10 years ago". Well, the guys writing articles for Phrack probably did, seeing as they published an in-depth explanation on 8 November 1996. What Taylor probably means is that people at Microsoft didn't really understand buffer overruns ten years ago. Shame on them. It was taught on the mediocre Computer Science degree course I followed between 1992 and 1995.
Who told you that? Someone must have if you don't use them. I've noticed influence coming from a lot of directions, but then I don't just look at screenshots either.
Or are you saying that Apple is going to hell now that it has icons on the Finder bar, similar to Windows' taskbar?
I'm not sure what OS you use, but the ones I do have the same problems. When I uninstall programs, there are still /etc config files left behind, there are still libraries with no dependancies left behind, there are stray . files in home directories, etc...
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
I seem to recall a certain patch (one of the service packs for sure, but I forget which one) completely breaking every single website I had on my IIS5 box running Windows 2000 Advanced Server. I rolled back the patch, and viola, my sites were functioning again.
Windows patches have been, in my opinion, definitely one of those things that I have NOT 'run out to get' or be the first in line to download and install. I want to wait to see how many things break, and how long it takes to get fixed, before I install any such patches.
Luckily at my next position, we used Apache on Linux. It ran flawlessly for almost two years (constant uptime) until an unknowing janitor unplugged the UPS to mop. He knew what the UPS was, and knew that he could unplug it briefly and not cause a problem. Only thing was that he forgot to plug it back in, and I lost my ~600 uptime. (No more janitors in the server room after that.)
And they said zombies weren't real!
I needed that laugh today...
I think the last time I had a kernel panic was 6 years ago (and it happened once) - and the systems I run are not idle by any stretch - nor are they single-task machines.
When I ran Windows, I could count on a BSOD at least once a week, if not more often. The company I worked for at the time had well over 2,000 NT4 servers that needed to be rebooted once a week because of a memory leak.
Now, while that memory leak was in a database application (not MS SQL), I think it speaks volumes that a poorly written application on Windows can cause the system to require a reboot because of inadequate garbage collection at the OS level, but an OSS platform running applications that are developed entirely in the OSS world doesn't.
Yo, Microsoft - THESE are the facts....
Insanity is a gradual process; don't rush it.
In other news, sun continues to fuse hydrogen into helium, dogs continue to lick their own testicles, and I continue to wonder if any real news will ever hit /. again.
I'm getting a little sick of people compiling programs and its dependencies on linux from source manually (essentially porting it to their platform) or hunting for packages by hand (when they usually have a package manager) and complaining that it isn't as easy to do as simply dragging and dropping a statically linked binary under windows. That could by why all modern distros ship with tools to prevent the user ever having to do this miserable task. With a distro like Ubuntu (with a universe repository of cause), complaining about packages being too hard to update manually is like throwing out a new Macintosh because "PPC chips don't support some of my favorite instructions so I'll have to call more, plus big endian just weirds me out".
Linux has its advantages too, under windows one can't simply type "apt-get install winzip" and get an archive management tool that is always up-to-date. In windows one can't type in "emerge -u world" and have one's copy of ut2004 updated at the same time as the operating system and office tools. In windows one can't look through a list in something like synaptic and see thousands of programs, all categorized with a search function and reviewed so that none of them contain malicious code. But do people get modded up for mentioning them? Of cause not, because it is seen that Linux needs all of this constructive criticism.
In both Linux and Windows all one requires is someone to spend a little time to package software nicely. Under Windows there are many options including but not limited to a winzip self extracting archive, an installshield installer or just a plain zip file. In Linux there are also many easy to install and run options such as autopackage, loki installer or just a statically linked binary in a tarball. Of cause the easiest and best way for an author to package software exists only on linux: simply emailing some distro maintainers to let them know it exists. For example, a crappy game I wrote over the course of three days is now in Debian, Gentoo and Ubuntu (that I know of, probably many more) ready to be downloaded and installed by any user anywhere in the world with a single command without me ever packaging a single one myself.
I know you might be new to the whole Linux thing so I don't want to insult you too much, but if you are, then possibly you should lay off the judgments until you understand the different way that package management is now done under most Linux distros. I don't think I've had to manually resolve dependencies for non-beta software for three years now and find it very hard to believe that someone needs to do it in a nice distribution like Ubuntu in this day and age.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
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.
...that what the guy is saying isn't necessarily wrong. The real issue is that it's the pinnacle of irony that it would come from the CEO of Microsoft, which has suffered from the same problems on a far greater magnitude.
I guess you wanted to say "voilá". As "viola" mean "rape" in Spanish, I think the whole SW updating thing makes sense now.=)
Yes, I am being facetious. It's embarrassing to admit that my company has developed code to determine when a Windows box is suffering from degraded performance. It then shuts down all apps and reboots the machine automatically. Then it tries to restart the applications it was running on reboot (not always successful). We use this in a large Windows based processing center, before using this code we would realize that after 3-5 days of processing a Windows box would be at 10-20% of its "fresh" speed.
I have a theory for why this happens, MS either uses a wind-up or small hamster like creature to power their software. Over time the wind-up runs down or the hamster needs replacing. This function is achieved through a reboot.
From a competitive standpoint, take Linux, for example. There's really nothing innovative today that Linux does that we can't do. There's no new feature or new design that can be done only on Linux, and not on Microsoft. So I don't worry too much about Linux and open-source projects out-innovating us.
That's right, 64 bit x86 instructions work perfectly on windows, and weren't a complete failure when microsoft tried to patch the OS, whereas the linux kernel had incorporated support before AMD64 was released.
+5, Truth
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.
Yeah yeah Bill MS will crush the running dawg lackies and herald in a new era where the people's blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.....
Honestly Bill & Steve take your fucking heads out of your asses, stop whining and threatening about everything else and just make a very good product that does what I want the way I want it for a price that doesn't make me feel like Abu Ghriab christmas tree guy.
Other than that you can shut the fuck up and sit the fuck down.
Thats funny Linux and OSS is the best time and money saving thing our company has done. Go back to MS? Never!
Anticipated-Comment Summary for the Casual Slashdot Reader
Package is called electricsheep in Ubuntu, available since Warty. And he could have used System > Administration > Synaptic Package Manager.
;)
Congrats, you fed the troll
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
Hand on heart, I have never, ever installed software on a windows box which has broken another piece of software.
I have...in fact millions have. That piece of software: Service Pack 2 for XP. Perhaps home users don't encounter many problems, but ho boy there seems to be a lot of business stuff that does.
Here are some other things I've personally seen that wreaked havoc on Windows boxes on at lease:
* All the service packs released for SQL Server 2000. Better have redundant data server boxes if you need the uptime because SQL service packs require taking down the machine and doing a full backup. Invariably they'll mess up SOMETHING on your system so don't skip the step.
* Service Packs and some other add-ins for Office 2000 (anyone else remember getting their MS Office into a state where trying to launch Word or Excel always starts "preparing to install" even when it is fully installed?
* The "Interactual Player" software on many DVD movies (mostly Disney ones I think)--that obnoxious piece of sh*t that tries to install itself on your PC when autorun is turned on. Many versions of this regrettable application will break your DVD software--especially on Win2K machines. At best, it'll step down the resolution or colour depth and at worst it'll stop working altogether.
I can break existing software on Linux by installing other softweare too, but you really, really have to try. The ONLY time it has happened to me is when I was messing around and doing stuff like installing RPMS and forcing it to ignore dependencies. I've broken windows by clicking the wrong OK button.
I really have to shake my head when some MS apologist tries to suggest Windows is less brittle than almost anything else--to these people check out their own software to at least a moderate degree of thoroughness before speaking such things?
Yup, as pointed out by my friend- really-pose-challenge-to.html
http://rockdalinux.blogspot.com/2005/05/can-linux
The important thing is not to stop questioning --Albert Einstein.
Interesting use of an anti-5GW criticism to attack a 4GW system. By "interesting," I mean "stupid."
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.
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.
What? So learning how to use something before you're required to use it doesn't make any sense to you? Imagine that same mentality in teaching... Here's the book, kid. Can't you read it? It's simple...
If you think I'm trolling, just reread the parents post. It's either sarcasm or ignorance, and I'm betting on the former.
I can explain the difference between the two installs pretty easily. It really has nothing to do with the operating systems, just with how the person who wrote Electric Sheep packaged it for the different systems.
.dll files necessary for it to run with the binary, but we can treat that possibility the same way for this explanation)
:)
:P
The Windows install was probably statically linked, while the Linux install was definitely dynamically linked. (another possibility for the Windows install is that it was dynamically linked and the author included copies of the
I'm not going to say which is better, just explain the differences.
The statically linked binary has copies of all the libraries it needs to run already compiled into it. The effects of this are:
1) The package is self-contained and requires nothing else to run.
2) The package takes up more disk space than a dynamically linked version.
3) The package takes up more memory than a dynamically linked version.
4) The libraries the package depends on can not be upgraded separately from the package itself.
The dynamically linked version does not include the dependencies, requiring you to install them separately if you don't already have them. The effects of this are:
1) Potentially requiring the end user to download and install several libraries to make the program work.
2) Disk and memory usage are (potentially) decreased (if there are multiple programs that use the same library, the operating system will only load one copy of it into memory for both applications).
3) The libraries can be upgraded separately from the program. So if there's a bugfix or speed improvement in the mpeg playing dependency of Electric Sheep, that can be upgraded without the developer of Electric Sheep having to compile a new version to put on his site using the new mpeg player code. Also other programs that use the same code to play mpeg files will be upgraded at the same time when you upgrade that dependency.
Most Unix/Linux users and developers prefer distributing and installing packages that are dynamically linked, so that they have quick access to bugfixes and use less system resources. If (for instance) there were a bug in a dependency of Electric Sheep that somehow allowed an attacker to get control of your computer, even if you upgraded that specific library, a statically linked version of Electric Sheep would still be vulnerable.
Most Windows users and developers prefer distributing and installing packages that are statically linked, so that the users don't have the potential annoyance of downloading multiple packages just to be able to run Half Life 2. (assuming they don't already have those packages installed for another game)
Hope this has been educational
In post-9/11 America, the CIA interrogates YOU!
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.
Well, I'll bet you would have had no trouble with
what wifi card before you got into the PhD
program.
By the time you finish, you will be unable to determine for certain whether something is or
is not a computer.
"Office (XP anyway) is really inconsistent."
I agree, although when it comes to certain tasks switching between KDE and Webmin must seem really REALLY inconsistent.
"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
KDE is no more cloning Windows than it is cloning OS X, or any other GUI system (in fact, KDE is customizable enough to look like just about any GUI you choose). I suspect the same is true of Gnome. How is XFCE wildly different? It has a panel, a window manager, a file manager, a menu to start programs.... Sounds like Windows, or any other WIMP GUI made in the last ten years.
Further, KDE, at least, is attempting to break into new directions with KDE 4 and Plasma. I'm sure the Gnome guys aren't slacking off either.
You can't just change everything and do the exact opposite of Windows (whatever that means) for the hell of it. There are some decent ideas in Windows (and nearly every other GUI), and throwing them out simply to not be "copying" is foolish. Not everything has to be totally original.
I've come for the woman, and your head.
> Software should be making lives easier and simpler.
Oversimplification. And yes, designing a general purpose computer and it's OS around the idea that the user will require a bit of training makes for a more usable computer. If you want consumer electronics, buy consumer electronics. Tivo is a good example of Linux made user friendly for the consumer electronics masses. GNOME, KDE and emacs aren't, but are more useful for those willing to invest the effort.
> If our developers and/or users really think with their heads this far
> up their asses, the platform is dead.
Calculus is very useful, but will never be made 'user friendly'. Does this make it 'dead' also? No, the answer is to follow the Unix way and make the hard things possible even if it makes the really easy things a little harder.
Democrat delenda est
I don't think I noticed a single statement in that entire three page article which was factual. Taylor is obviously utterly devoid of integrity or anything remotely resembling business ethics.
This is typical of Microsoft...or at least it was. I had hoped they'd grown out of the use of such tactics, but I suppose it is naive and futile to assume that this particular leopard is ever likely to genuinely change its' spots. Gates truly does provide the direction for this company...what we're seeing here is as much an example of his own ethics (or complete lack thereof) as it is Taylor's.
The company seems to be incapable of grasping the concept that continuing to use such gutter tactics is ultimately going to prove monumentally self-defeating.
Windows User Experience
Wow. Just wow! Never have I, as a intelligent being felt so insulted. Ok, maybe, but that's still pretty retarded shit. That's not even design-guidelines. That's "Let assume people are too stupid to even use their toaster" as a computing philosophy.
Jesus H. Christ. No wonder Windows is getting more and more uselss by each and every release.
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
The bug exploited to break fingerd involved overrunning the buffer the daemon used for input.
Have you read my blog lately?
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
You are speaking of the Morris Worm. You can read more about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_worm
It was an interesting worm in more ways than one though: it affected multiple operating systems and it used multiple paths to get into the hosts (sendmail as well as fingerd). You can read a thorough analysis here by a "respected" security guru: http://protovision.textfiles.com/100/tr823.txt
strike
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
No overhead there.
"When you add things, it breaks?" That's one of the main problems with Windows: everytime you do anything (add h/w, s/w, ...) with Windows, you risk having to reinstall. Maybe Taylor got confused about which platform is which.
"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.'"
Well thats true of any OS. Install something wrong and it breaks the whole thing. A classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.
"Your having a bad day when the voices in your head put you on hold"
Because you can't kill someone when you fail to operate your home computer properly.
The point of GP, IMHO, was that you need to learn the interface. Which is perfectly true.
GUIs do improve the start-up time to learn, usually at the cost of efficiency later on.
But that is true of all GUIs (although some are better than others).
GP didn't say (or imply) "Your to stupid to use a computer".
Linux has a reputation for being hard to use - but that's unfair. Linux GUIs are no harder to use than Windows GUIs - but there are differences. Someone coming from Windows needs to learn those differences. GP was pointing out that you need to learn how to use it.
You mean "newest" as in Breezy, which is undergoing heavy development, is expected to be broken for a while and is tagged "DON'T USE" for anything at all which is meant to be stable?
I know I just installed the same screensaver in about a half minute with synaptic in Hoary, the latest release. No unresolved dependencies, just searched for the package and clicked four times.
I hate to admit it, but you do have a point there. OS software should be intuitive. But hey, just give it a little more time, we'll get there. With the Microsoft business model, they do R&D to determine what's intuitive. Not the best way, really, and definetely more expensive. With the OSS way, people will play with the code, and the version that's most pleasant to use will be the one that becomes the standard. It's positively Darwinian. Their stuff comes from focus groups, ours follows a community-powered evolutionary model. While the OSS model may take longer to get to the superior product, without a doubt it will get there, in all aspects of use.
You forget that you were trained on the WIMP GUI many years ago, and that familiarity continues to make Windows or MacOS easy to use. One thing I find to be fun is to find one of those old introduction to Macintosh books. (The last one I saw was in the back of a cabinet full of manuals in my undergraduate Physics lab.) After using the GUI for such a long time, it's enlightening to see just how many pages are devoted to making sure you understand the WIMP metaphor.
Granted, the WIMP GUI with a good mapping to the system software is much more intuitive than the man/info/HOWTO text-based system for more people. The main difference, then, is how much training you have to do to use a system.
Have a nice time.
I guess that would also be why Windows fails on the desktop. It's so horrible they have to teach its use to children at schools.
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.
Yeah, it took me almost twenty minutes of reading and tring to finally figure out how this works. Don't feel bad. I know LOTS of Computer Science PhDs who aren't worth crap. They still get good jobs running companies into the ground.
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.
sorry, gates was misquoted, type:
cat gatesarticle.html| sed 's/linux/windows/'
should fix it up.
sorry bout the mistake
--ed
The first rule of USENET is you do not talk about USENET.
Since when does using software licensed under the GPL prevent you from building a useful product on top of it, and selling it for money????
Most of the core Linux software is GPLed, and yet plenty of companies build proprietary and/or open source software on top of it... and sell it for money!
This is pure FUD... Microsoft is just perpetuating the myth that any software "touched by the GPL" is dirty and can never be sold as a proprietary product. In reality, only software that LINKS with or USES CODE FROM something that's GPLed is constrained.
My bicyles
Hmm, let's talk about about broken things...I added NOTHING to Microsoft Office...I built a nice Contacts list that needed to get distributed to 140 PC clients (no central address book available). I then exported said contact list into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet using the import/export feature built into Outlook. I then tried to import said spreadsheet into Outlook on another system, and guess what, IT DIDN"T FUCKING IMPORT. Do we know why? Yes, because when Outlook exports a contact list it fucks up the field headers and you have to MANUALLY map the fields in the spreadsheet to the correct fields that Outlook expects...so basically Outlook can't import what it exports. We tried this exporting to .csv and .mdb files, same situation.
I have used the (obivously false) anology that this is like Veritas selling you back up software that will take backups, but force you to manually massage the dump files in order to recover you system...
"Get a bicycle. You will not regret it, if you live." - Mark Twain, "Taming the Bicycle"
Well just plugging a number of GUI standards to prove your point on linux isn`t really helping the linux case. My point is not that the standards don`t exist, my point is that there are many, and that each application can choose to behave differently (read: unexpectedly). Under windows and especially under Mac, there is much more concensus as to how an application should behave. It`s still possible to fuck it up, but if you keep that up, musually your client the evil home user will turn your office into a helpdesk in minutes. There is a clear vision about what user friendlyness should bring. It plays a key role in designing the OS. With Linux, technical issues play a keyrole. Which is why techies like us all love Linux. But that doesn`t mean that it should be used by everybody, nor that it is suited to handle all the world`s problems.
And yes of course there are exceptions to every rule, and neither MS or Apple are more perfect than the pope. But it`s not so hard to get: Linux was NOT a desktop targetted system. It`s historic command line driven interface somewhat stigmatized it as a 'difficult' system. And this is true. It` may be easy for someone who`s into it, but it`s not for an average user. And that same average user tends to find windows or MacOS easier to start with. And that`s normal because these systems appear - to the home user - as monolithic, very straightforwardly conceived monsters instead of multiple loosely coupled modules. If you don`t know one bit about conmputers, then it`s easier to work with one giant monster instead of with 100 little critters that need to sing in tune to make it work.
Anyway, these are not my observations, you can read them on Joel`s homepage where he actually cites out of a book by R.Stallman. I agree with those observations though.
Cheers.
With great power comes great electricity bills.
"Tayler: So is that what it means to be an open-source company? 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."
well for one, applications released under the GPL are free software, not open source software. he should learn the difference between the two.
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."
I think we all know where innovation and research money goes into (eweek.com)
"Taylor: There's really nothing innovative today that Linux does that we can't do."
i guess thats why so many people leave windows to use linux. It goes for apple too. What he is really saying is there is nothing that linux and apple can have that we can steal and put in Windows calling it our own.
It seems to me that the microsoft approach to software is to put all the intelligence into the software so a somewhat trained monkey can run a network. I think this would lead to decreasing personel costs as a portion of IT expenses.
It seems to me that the F/OSS approach to software is to design many intelligent components which must be put together by someone who understands their intelligence and can link them together to do what is needed. It seems that this sort of approach would lead to decreasing software costs as a portion of IT expenditure.
I think buisnesses will in the future be switching to F/OSS solutions for IT infrastructure for two reasons.
* The task microsoft is attempting to undertake is monumental. To write software so good as to make user intelligence obsolete is going to require a LOT of intelligent automation in a very complex and rapidly changing environment. A brain is a very powerful tool and not quite obsolete yet. Perhaps however the microsoft approach has its advantages when it comes to naturally low intelligence activities such as impulse media consumption. (no to say that people who do this are unintelligent but rather that the act itself does not require much intelligence)
*Competition! When using a F/OSS solution in an IT environment there is a pricing structure which corresponds to the relative demand for IT the relative number of skilled F/OSS IT providers and the relative expertise of these individuals. One very skilled F/OSS provider can administer a large portion of an IT infrastructure. when more of these people are hired more workers will have an incentive to learn this profession and the skill level of the average administrator will rise. This in turn leads to an abundance of market regulated IT resources. Microsoft on the other hand is beholden to its shareholders desire for maximum profit. As infrastructure deployment and maintinence costs are born by the customer the marginal cost of production is essentially zero. In the absence of competition microsoft has virtually no incentive to lower prices. Companies invest in IT because it increases productivity and will continue to do so as long as the productivity gains are worth more than the cost of IT. With a microsoft solution much of these gains are siphoned away to microsoft shareholders. A monopoly is both in a very strong and very weak position. It is strong in that it can control market pricing but weak in that it CANNOT compete on price with non monopoly entities as it would destroy their pricing structure, in fact in the face of a limited amount of price competition they are probably better off just ignoring it as they gain much more from monopoly prices than they do from a small increase in market share at non monopoly prices. The best way for microsoft to maintain their profits is to slow the growth of competition as much as possible and they spend quite a lot of effort "innovating" in this area. Whitness things like proprietary formats, massive FUD campaigning (it works), hiding the extent of monopoly pricing in forced upgrade schemes etc. The general effect of this is to try and split the market into microsoft and non microsoft IT solutions by maxing the cost of migration, lowering the effectiveness of competitors by crushing their economies of scale and future pricing the cost of their goods. Taken together microsoft has a very strong but ultimately unstable position.
Companies are beginning to comercialize F/OSS IT solutions, as this market matures it will become more and more cost effective. Eventually companies using a F/OSS IT solution will begin to outcompete those locked into monopolistic pricing. At this point microsoft will have to start competing on price and we will have a race to the bottom. I think many companies are aware of the costs of microsoft solutions, and this is why we see so many companies interested in F/OSS.
I wasn't replying directly to the article I was replying to a specific comment about the fragile state of the Windows registry. I guess my OP didn't contain enough MS bashing. Bill is teh suck!
No sig for you!!
my point is that there are many, and that each application can choose to behave differently
:D.
Yeah (misinterpreted what you meant by "no one has a real true standard to enforce anywhere.")
It's getting better all the time though
especially under Mac
Mac are very good for consistency.. except for this recent brushed steel vs aqua mix, which has been annoying quite a lot of users I know.
I've just recently reccomended an Apple powerbook to someone I know who isn't particularly technical, best tool for the job
windows or MacOS easier to start with.
I recently set up my desktop with Gnome for my family to use, it previously had windows. They said it was much easier to use. Admittedly, I did spend about a day setting it up (most of it was making wine work properly), and I did a few things that takes knowledge, but it shows that linux is capable of being simple if the effort is put into it, but current distros just aren't quite there yet.
But on the other hand, I spent 2 days setting up windows... I had a few problems with my graphics card driver and motherboard conflicting and causing it to drop to 640x480 16 colours and telling me that it recovered from a serious error.. and it involved some things that the average user couldn't have done...
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.
A "blitz" is supposed to to be fast as a lightning flash, and overwhelmingly effective. The time for any of those to apply to Microsofts PR moves against OSS has passed long ago.
If you insist on choosing a war metaphor, picturing the two opponents dug in deep and taking the occasional shot into the other's approximate direction is probably more accurate.
i find it amusing he claims adding software to linux post install will break it. windows is fucking FAMOUS for grinding to a slow halt when you install apps on it.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Someone with a good philosophy background might identify this better than I can, but I think the accepted term for this is a Straw Man argument.
ie. Microsoft creates a caricature to their own liking and calls it "Linux", even though it isn't. Then they knock it down by highlighting all of the flaws that their invented caricature has.
If you're interested in sending your comments about Mr. Taylor's comments, you can send to his e-mail address at Microsoft.
When Windows can come up with a platform that can without crashing and with an uptime of 6 months or more do all of the following on one cpu, I'll buy it.
Firewall and nat box.
Windows file sharing.
Appletalk file sharing.
DHCP server for a small network.
FTP server.
Apache web server with php and mod_perl.
Runs 2 low volumn web sites.
Websites allow client file uploads as large as 100MB.
Mysql server.
Qmail email server.
POP3 server.
Email Virus scanning.
Network print server.
Virus scanning of network connected Windows OS's.
SSH server.
More cron jobs than I can remember.
Unlimited client connections.
All this on a single 300mhz pentium II with 256MB of ram and
a single 8GB scsi hard drive. This is the most abused
Linux box I have ever created. Longest uptime 6 months. Has never been hacked. Running this setup close to 4 years.
Until Microsoft has a system that can do all this and not cost
a literal fortune there is nothing going on but FUD, smoke and
mirrors.
Everybody that knows how needs to start flooding the interwebs with websites like mine.
Meh.
Personally I find the dock quite useful. OS X is the only system I have seen that combines the functionality of an application launcher and task manager. It frees up screen real-estate and makes a bit more sense, imho, because any time you're moving to an application (open or closed) you're still going to the same place. The only thing I don't like about it is the fact that you can't have a all your applications there and still have it work well. Fortunately, it's easy enough to go into the applications folder for more seldomly used apps.
I'd very much like to see something similar on linux, but unfortunately I have a feeling the idea's been patented.
I can continue to be anti Microsoft.
"Source Codes"
This is not even the problem, some people just do NOT care, they want a working solution. Do not drive your car until you can explain me camshaft calculations then. Who decides how much training you need? the user does depending on his needs. 'can't drive a car without training'? how deep is the training? some people just want to drive, some want to understand the details. You can have a car that requires a very deep understanding of its technology, but it limits its audience, do you want Linux to become this? Linux is the worst for this; one example: (background: I am a windows user as we use it at work and Linux doesn't personally offer me any advantages over windows.) One time we needed a Samba server, so I took an older PC, installed Linux on it, and then Samba; it didn't cause much problems, but I had one issue to solve; I went to one of the linux channels on irc and instead of answering my question, I was confronted with stupid comments on how all the answers are in the doc and how stupid I was for now knowing. Most likely the docs held the answers, but in reality... I couldn't care less, I just wanted a working solution and somebody helped me out in a couple minutes. The Linux attitude is the OS' biggest ennemy. I think it is great to have other options than Windows, but when the users' elitist culture get in the way, this makes me want to ignore the OS itself. In the meantime, do not use your computer until you fully understand the internals of your PC's chipset at the atomic level. Maybe you don't care though and just want to use your PC though...
Yes you are correct, seems to be a way without registry changes, however if you look at the procedure it is MUCH MORE involved then "click a checkbox"
o wsserver2003/technologies/security/ws03mngd/26_s3w ts.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/wind
Awesome!
LOL! Because some decision makers read articles/interviews such as this one, and come to the conclusion that Product X is "brittle".
Awesome!
You can't drive a car without training; why should a computer be different?
This statement, to me, is representative of everything that is wrong with Linux. Or, at least, Linux on the desktop. It's this very attitude ("If you can't use a computer, you shouldn't be using a computer") that will effectively prevent Linux on the desktop from succeeding.
The ultimate goal in CS (why yes, I am quite certain) is to make the computer transparent. Not transparent in the Jony Ive kind of way, but transparent in that anyone can use it with minimal fuss and no experience. Apple has pursued this goal for many years, but I would stop well short of saying they've achieved it. Microsoft realized much later that they should be pursuing this goal as well, and have made some attempts in that direction, although these efforts seem to have mostly resulted in making their system more vulnerable to remote exploits.
The computer industry has definitely not achieved this goal yet, and they may never actually get there. However, as long as Linux developers continue to write code targeted at other Linux developers, or otherwise look down their noses at non-developers as uneducated peons, Linux will fall well behind in the race to make computers easy for everyone.
Change your attitude or face irrelevance. Seriously.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
See, the attitude was on your side. "I just wanted it to work." You were trying to set up a fairly complicated server application, and didn't want to take the time to read the relevant part of the documentation. This is like wanting to assemble a radio without having to go to all the trouble of reading a circuit diagram. Setting up a server is not a typical everyday enduser task, and therefore shouldn't necessarily receive as many usability enhancements and support efforts. I note in your comment that you did, in fact, recieve the help you desired. So basically what happened was: you wanted to be spoonfed the info; people said "We don't spoonfeed here. Feed yourself."; and then someone spoonfed you the info.
The word you're looking for is intuitive, not transparent. Intuitive interfaces map to something the user understands easily. One reason the point 'n click interface is popular is that it's easier for the user to make a connection between clicking on the icon and the application coming up than it is to associate typing 'ls -lh' with a listing of file details along with human-readable sizes.
i said XP. XP. again, that's XP (ex-pee). with XP, it's one click. the article you forward is about win2k3. i cannot speak for win2k3.
Hallelujah - thank you for saying something I've been wanting to say for a long time!
It has been very disappointing to see so many Linux distros trying to outdo M$ at being M$.
I abandoned Windows for the very reason that I was fed up with the bloated, resource-hogging, latency-distending, performance-hammering gui nonsense that makes Windows what it is.
How disappointing to see Xorg alone now topping 60mb, and the overkill "desktop environments" on top, striving to look and feel as much like Windows as possible.
I mean - what's the point?
Fortunately there are a lot of 'micro' distributions (Puppy, DSL, etc.) who are on the right track.
Give me Xvesa, evilwm and aterm any day.
How about the functional NextStep window manager clone, WindowMaker? I have a feeling that Jobs brought the idea along with his company.
That said, I'm pretty sure there's also some blatant OS X dock clones around, but I haven't been interested enough to really look.
There are definitely some clones around. I use one of them on my PC actually. Unfortunately, all the ones I've used lack the task manager functionality. Some will allow you to switch to open apps if they're already in the dock, but it won't add the icon of a program that's been opened elsewhere. They're basically just nice looking launchers.
It comes down to philosophy.
I'd think your objection to Siemens wasn't contrary to a strong ethical or philosophical position you held (or supposedly held), so at a certain point you're willing to overlook the reasons why you don't want to work for them for a certain amount of the money.
This isn't just about having fun working with computers and software for a big salary. As I think I said earlier, if those are the only criteria, then there would be other companies that are tolerant of or pro-Open source. In my experience a lot of companies will be tolerant of it as long as it doesn't effect your work or the work of others. They're even happy to let you do it unofficially if it improves your productivity, or solves a problem for them.
Choosing to work for Microsoft, when there are alternatives, is selling out open source principles, and that is my point.
It's up to Daniel what his principles are. My main point is that "FOSS-oriented" people, such as the original poster, should move on, rather than complaining that MS "stole" FOSS people, and FOSS will die when all of these people are "stolen" by MS. There are two reasons why (a) the person who went to work for MS chose to do so, and (b) not all key FOSS people will "sell out" for money.
The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
Heh, you post something that is a little hard to digest, and it`s promptly modded as troll. Overrated?, fine. No problem with that. I just stated what was said before by people who are respected programmers and ideologists in the OSS and non-OSS world. Like Joel Spolski and Stallman, for example.
So, I thought that we`ve had all the zealot`s by now, but no.. Linux people still need to get it thrown in their faces over and over again and learn that Linux is a Great Idea, but that the implementation and it`s use is not always per definition good when it`s related in some way to that original Great Idea.
Oh and before you go on a crussade, no need to get yourself wet here..
With great power comes great electricity bills.
not quite, I got everything up and running, I had just a simple basic question. It's not like I asked people to walk me through a process without doing any homework before. What I criticize is the elitist culture that doesn't bring anything but the 'I know it, you don't so you suck' attitude; while they don't realize that there are plenty of topics they probably suck at for which other people have skills. It's all about attitude. I have never seen in the windows world the elitist attitude, have you?
Nope. Intuitive is just a stepping stone along the way toward transparent. It's today's immediate goal, not a forward-thinking future goal. I didn't say anyone had achieved tranparancy, or is even close, just that it was a long-standing CS goal.
Here is an article that talks about the quest for transparent computing. From the article:
Here's another article that talks about it. From the article;
I didn't make this up. It's probably taught in every CS program in the world. Really, if you're in the CS field, you should have been aware of this already. Further, if you think it can't be done, then you won't be able to do it.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
Behind every argument is someone's ignorance.
-- Louis D. Brandeis
Slashdot = Sarcasm