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'?
'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.
How is this news? It would be news if they stopped.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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
...when you have only one "Blue Screen" to help solve your problem.
http://www.michel.eti.br
"...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!"From TFA: You can do things just great--I want to be very clear about that--but...
Microsoft's message has changed over the last while. Once it was "Linux is no good", now it's "Linux is good, but we're still better".
I think they're making a strategic mistake by admitting that Linux has any credibility at all. Publicly recognizing the competition is not a good decision because it makes people realize that there are alternatives.
Indeed, who needs smart cards, VPN, or security in general. Just send everything over HTTP. This kinda puts in perspective the previous story about the changes in Microsoft's attitude towards security.
Look, that's why there's rules, understand? So that you think before you break 'em. (Terry Pratchett)
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.
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.
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.
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.
When you add stuff to a Linux box, Microsoft's business model breaks.
Microsoft: Which cleaners would you like to be taken to today?
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!
From the article:
And what is open source? It is interesting in how you define it. Is it in terms of source visibility? Then, OK, in Microsoft's Shared Source program, people can access up to 65 percent of source codes for our core products. And through the government security program around the world, governments can access even more of our source codes, if they choose to. So we're not an open-source company, and yet people can do that.
Hey Martin, here's the definition of Open Source. Notice in the first paragraph it says Open Source doesn't just mean access to the source code. I doubt if you'd like it if people went around redefining your company's EULAs to suit themselves.
Or does it mean that you have technology licensed under the GPL (GNU Public License)? If that's the only definition, then I see a lot of companies that people call open source but aren't, because they're not licensed under the GPL.
No it isn't the only definition so your answer is irrelevant. The GPL may qualify as Open Source but it is Free Software - big difference. Don't you even know the difference?
Taylor: The GPL is a very complex licensing agreement, and they are working on different aspects of it.
It's an incredibly simple licensing agreement actually. Complex for Microsoft to understand perhaps, but simple for anyone else.
I don't know enough to even hypothesize how I would author it, but I would say that in any approach to licensing technology, the following things are important.
First, companies need to have some level of indemnification and protection from the technology deployed. When you license technology as a consumer or business, you should be comfortable that you're protected from patent (or) copyright...claims from anyone. That should be a core fundamental principle of licensing software.
Well, thanks for leading the way there. I'm so glad I'm indemnified when I use Microsoft software. Oh wait, I'm not?
Second, people should have the ability to monetize that and build on top of it. So if I'm an ISV (independent software vendor), I should be able to take the technology that I've licensed, build something on top of it, and sell it.
I do that with GPLed software now and have done for years. So have many other people.
If I'm a reseller or distributor of this technology, I should have a way that I can build and monetize things around that. I think that's what helps you build a very vibrant ecosystem. It also allows you in some ways to protect the intellectual property in different ways.
The GPL already allows this - and my "intellectual property" (whatever that means) is already protected by copyright law.
So this ability to patent your technology and have some level of protection against it, and in the course be able to build on top of that and innovate on top of that, is exciting.
Wait, so it's about patents now? Perhaps you can show me some genuine innovation in software that has been patented by Microsoft? You can't? Oh.
So what kind of innovation are you doing in your area for Microsoft?
Taylor: There are things we're excited about, and there are things that are just the basics. We spend close to $6.8 billion in research and development; it really comes in a variety of areas.
One area is just some fit-and-finish, and taking basic simple processes and doing it better. We have a feature called Configure Your Server Wizard, which allows you to go in and choose a server role so you can take a file server and (rebuild it as a) media server. That takes four to five clicks of a GUI (graphic user interface)
Reconfiguring a server using the mouse? Goodness me, what will they think of next!
Taylor: You have to understand why we have security problems today. In some ways, it's because a lot more things are connected today than they
--- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
Windows 2003? That breaks when you install it? Or breaks when you apply a hotfix?
Or breaks when you reboot it? (blue screens and dumps)
Or breaks when you add new hardware?
Or... Well... You get the idea.
I know you were trying to be funny, but this is FUD. I have been running 2003 on many of my servers for a year now and it's never broken. Windows 2000 and XP, on the other hand, are a different story. Windows 2003 is actually very stable.
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?
"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 actually break things all the time...
Saturday I lost the ability to use ttfonts in PHP after I upgraded PHP. Now I'm regretting making all those graphic banners and image links on my company intranet using PHP. But that's because of my ignorance, and it will take me a while to figure out what I need to do to fix that particular issue.
Other than that, that particular server has been heavily used 24/7 for 5 years, only coming down to replace a failing UPS, a failed RAID drive, and to max out the RAM. How is that for reliability, security, and stability?
I would say Mr. Taylor's quote about the brittle nature of Linux certainly applies to older servers like some of mine that cannot be taken down and upgraded (Or shouldn't have, in my case). I am definitely regretting not trying out Debian years ago for that very reason.
I seem to remember WinXP SP2 breaking a lot of things recently, and I can probably come up with a pretty large list of things that are broken in Windows by adding software. Of course, Microsoft would say that they can't control what is broken if you install software that isn't theirs. Apparently in their opinion the same excuse cannot be used by OSS.
--dingletec--
Fucking lying fuckers. And the same thing never happened to Windows?!?!? That's just one of a million examples, as we all know, and for crying out loud, it's a patch from MS that's causing the problem in that one.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
I know you were trying to be funny, but this is FUD. I have been running 2000 on many of my servers for a year now and it's never broken. Windows NT and 98, on the other hand, are a different story. Windows 2000 is actually very stable.
Before 2000:
I know you were trying to be funny, but this is FUD. I have been running NT 4.0 on many of my servers for a year now and it's never broken. Windows NT 3.51 and 95, on the other hand, are a different story. Windows Nt 4.0 is actually very stable. and so on..
This is because it was improperly coded back then.. and / or you have not upgraded to newer versions.. function calls have changed and progressed.. where as (as you have explained) Visual Studio has not changed... grown.. or made better any of its internal functions.
How long is it going to take for MS to understand that slandering Linux is not going to get them anywhere? And I'm not being pro or anti anything when I say that.
From TFA:
So he's saying that they reached the limitations of their hardware and it had to scale? Is Microsoft software somehow immune from the need to scale as the requirements grow? If this is the case, a Microsoft OS would be the better choice. I would hail all kinds of MS solutions if they could pull other magical abilities out of their hat. We all know that this is BS -- requirements change, demands on systems change, and hardware must be scaled, regardless of the platform. Until then, claims like that are simply FUD and double-talk. He's not actaully saying anything, he's just instilling a little fear in the back of managers minds.What's funny is that many of these arguments are largely an attack on a licensing model, and it actually has very little to do with the quality of the products. Contrary to RMS' belief, I don't think that the license model necessarily dictates the quality of the software. There are plenty of excellent commercial, closed products out there in the marketplace. There alre also plenty of these products which are absolute garbage. The same goes for OSS, I've seen brilliant stuff and I've seen crappy stuff -- neither are a silver bullet.
Taylor does make at least one good point, however:
In many circumstances, people like IT managers don't care about seeing the code. It's not everyone -- there are lots of groups who have a specific need for custom solutions...however I'm talking more about the small-mid size IT group. These IT managers are generally decision-makers, and don't want to ever touch the source code. Many don't even want to hire people to muck about the code...especially in small to mid sized companies. I'm not talking about the idealist hobbyists here, who will sit around and pour through source code all day long looking to understand it, modify it, or break it...or those who build all of their binaries from source, adding in every possible optimization for their target platform. With many of those professionals, it's not about the license model. It's about the solution in the end. Most people like this who I have worked with are generally platform agnostic, and will run whatever it takes to get the job done.-Turkey
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.
Windows 2000 was the turning point for MS - proper memory management and good stability - while XP was a backwards move because of it's huge bloat. I can't comment on 2003 because I've not used it.
The major problem with Windows always has been the registry - it grows, fragments and is totally the wrong configuration methodology for desktop environments where users are constantly upgrading, installing and uninstalling software. Even though Windows 2000 and later split the registry out into user folders, it's still pretty impossible to correct registry problems without doing major reinstalls. If you compare that to the UNIX model of storing all users config files in their home directories, then UNIX is much better because if an app problem appears, you can always move or delete a few config files to clear the problem.
Much of the backlash to Windows is as a result of Microsoft's own complacency and disregard for the needs of their users - a lot of people, myself included, won't allow themselves to be dictated to by a power-hungry corporation. In my case, I'd had experience with UNIX at work and in 1996 started trying out Linux. Now I'm at the stage where I shell-script competently, do a lot of CGI stuff with PERL and PHP and have started messing around with C a little. And if it comes to applications for work, no-one really cares if I deploy a server-side app on a Linux server I happen to build, I'm just expected to maintain that server because out IT people won't.
I still use Windows 2000 for some desktop stuff and for work apps but 80% of my time these days is spent in Linux - I'm happy and confident with it and anything I need to deploy, I can usually just "emerge" it (I use Gentoo), configure it and start it running - I don't have to worry about getting corporate licenses and it's stable.
Yes, Linux is not for newbie users but, for a newbie user, there is no pressure anyway - you can install it and dual-boot it with your Windows environment, try it out and learn it in your own time and make your own decisions about if and when you want to use it.
Martin Taylor and MS in general do not understand this mentality that some of us like total control over what we do and like the good feelings we get when you've built something from scratch, configured it properly and got a few scripts to do something really impressive with Linux.
Not all of us want everything "delivered on a plate" to us - some of us do enjoy taking time getting software to work properly and learning in the process.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
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)
First and foremost, we are looking to understand some of the scenarios like why customers are considering Linux, and making sure we have the right offerings for the marketplace.
Sorry...you can't compete with freedom, since everything Microsoft does is exactly the opposite- DRM, rediculous EULAs, closed, proprietary source code, not to even mention the licensing costs. The customer is at their mercy.
People = "Microsoft Employees", Programmers that program for Microsoft Products, Administrators that run Microsoft Products and similar "people". It's best written as (Microsoft) People, but you can leave the (Microsoft) bit off, if you are one of those people...
The quote should have been more like this:
"Ten years ago, (Microsoft) people didn't really understand Buffer Overruns, Port 80 and I/O Issues."
This is, or should be, similarly inferred when we have another major network news release about a "computer" or "Internet", examples follow.
"A new (Microsoft) Computer Virus in making the rounds through (Microsoft Outlook) E-mail Clients."
"A new (Microsoft OS Targeting) Internet Worm was discovered on (Microsoft OS Running) Computers yesterday morning which quickly spread across the (Microsoft OS Running Portion of the) Internet."
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
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.
I don't know ... user idiocy can really be equated as people using your software outside its intended purpose. To me - what marks a good engineer is one who accounts for such deviation. Calling people idiots doesn't solve the problem. It just puts further barriers between you and the problem at hand.
But on the topic of Windows, I do find it to be an inferior operating system in the sole reason that it is designed like a submarine with one compartment. Get one leak - no matter how small - and the entire ship goes down. With Linux, just seal off the damaged compartment, and keep on keeping on.
I do agree with you in regards of installing software on Linux. That's why I hope this little project takes off.
Your example is an valid one for "Typical home users", however the article is discussing Business stategies, not End/Home User.
;-) ./peaCe
This article is ridiculous flamebait. Anyone who is a Decision Maker, recognizes the usefullness of both Operating Systems. I don't imagine we'll ever see an interview from an executive at microsoft, whereas he states "You should use Linux for this... and our product for that."
I just don't see how this is "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters". Microsoft claiming that their competitors suck, that's not news to anyone.. and it certianly doesn't matter to me.
Now microsoft providing a way to setup NTP without editing the registry, That would be News! Or RedHat providing me with a reason why cups test print works to my Epson POS, but actual print jobs don't.. That's stuff that matters
Awesome!
The interviewee heralds Microsoft's server reconfiguration with a few mouse clicks. First, that's a feature that could be coded into any Linux distribution fairly easily. Second, if it weren't for Linux, Microsoft would have never have any need to create such "innovation." They'd let their server software rot from decay just like they did with IE---until they started to feel the heat from Firefox.
---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.
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
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.
"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...
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Anticipated-Comment Summary for the Casual Slashdot Reader
I fail to see how this is a fallacy.
It's easy to use if you know how to use it.
Which is entirely true.
And it's just as true for Windows and Mac.
I've been programming for 18 years and just got into a PhD program in CS, and I still can't reliably get a wifi card to behave under Linux.
Which has exactly *WHAT* to do with the topic at hand? I believe we were discussing the ease of use of the GUIs, not the difficulty of getting non-manufacturer-supported hardware to work.
Nice troll though, seems you hooked a few clueless moderators.
"There are a variety of Linux GUIs that don't suck."
...which is undoubtably the fault of the GUI. Seriously, the GUI is just fine. Both my parents which are in their 60s can work it out, with no more difficulty than Windows.
I've been programming for 18 years and just got into a PhD program in CS, and I still can't reliably get a wifi card to behave under Linux.
How Linux works "under the hood" has its ups and downs. No, configuring a wifi card can be ugly. But I was also impressed when I pieced together a secondary computer from odd parts and Linux identified every one of them, no driver cd required (granted, no wifi in that one).
In short, I'm vastly more impressed with Linux than Microsoft when it "Just works", to steal an expression from Apple. That tells me that they *are* trying to make life easier and simpler. It also tells me that in some areas they're not where they'd like to be.
Most of the time, they are trying to support something the company doesn't. The hacks are still better than a simple "Not supported - F U", because you can at least try. If they had the source of the wifi driver, or even just the specs, I promise there would be a supported, stable, "so easy your grandmother could do it" driver. But since they don't, they make due with reverse engineered drivers, binary modules and whatever dreck they have to. What more can you ask?
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
> 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
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
This reminds me of a quote from my second favourite fantasy novel, Prince of Lies: "The world was doomed, but it kept running anyway."
This is true of anything. The implication - it is hard to use something if you don't know how to use it - is also true, even for such simple devices like hammer.
No. Software is about solving problems. Those problems don't neccessarily have anything to do with anyone's daily lives. Take 3D modeling software, for example - I doubt it has actually made anyone's life easier, and it has a learning curve like Himalaya, but it certainly has allowed people to do things they couldn't do before (see pretty much any recent movie for an example).
What does wifi card have to do with GUI ? And what do your programming experience have to do with Linux driver configuration ?
But I know how you feel: I once programmed a Nethack variant, but I still can't model a 3D human, so my movie project will have to wait :(. Such a pity too - Drama ! Action ! Suspense ! Space empires ! Magic ! Coming soon to a P2P network near you, just as soon as I can figure out how to use Blender and render 128 000 frames in high quality on my 1GHz Duron sneeze pump !
No they don't. Your point seems to be that you have 18 years of programming experience, so your inability to get a wifi card to work under Linux means that Linux GUI is hard to use. Your point is bullshit and therefore cannot be proven.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
It's easy to use if you know how to use it.
This probably the main reason why Gnome and KDE are so intent on copying the Windows gui. It may not be pretty or very sensible but everyone out there knows how to use it, and more they expect a computer to behave like that.
So while you certainly can make a more effective and enjoyable user experience most users aren't prepared to go through the learning curve that is required to get there. They expect it to just work the way that it always has, the way that they are used to. I think that when linux has gained a large enough market share then they can start gradually making the gui more useable in ways that the user isn't used to.