Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Linux Lab Manager Responds
Bill Hilf, Microsoft's Linux Lab Manager, got his answers to your questions back to us in time to publish them just before the San Francisco LinuxWorld, where he is speaking. Before you ask: Yes, Microsoft PR had a look at his answers before he sent them. So if you have any follow-up questions for Mr. Hilf, please post them below and I'll try to ask at least a few of them in person at LinuxWorld.
1) Start with the obvious
by Raul654
Dear Mr. Hilf - Surely by now you have to have been accused of helping Microsoft try to exterminate Linux. How do you respond to such accusations?
Bill:
I get that occasionally, you bet. But usually after I explain what I'm actually doing, it helps clear up the conspiracy theories (of which, there are quite a few). The truth is my job is to help Microsoft have a clear, unbiased and knowledgeable understanding of Open Source Software (OSS): the technology, the development models, how the community works, the pros and cons, and the mechanics of the overall process. So, no, Microsoft is not out to exterminate Linux or Open Source, Linux and Open Source Software will continue to be part of the software industry. My job is to help Microsoft have an understanding of the Open Source technology world.
In fact, Microsoft has benefited from OSS, has participated in OSS projects, and feels that OSS will continue to have an important role in the ecosystem. Both commercial and open source offer specific advantages. And several development models can and should coexist in healthy competition. After many years of working in both environments, a mantra I've seen pay off numerous times is "choose technology to fit the need" not based on a belief or religion: in other words, if the software doesn't solve the problem in a cost effective way, belief and religion won't stop the IT guys' cell phones and pagers from ringing at 2 AM, and that goes for *any* technology, regardless of the development model.
2) Open Standards
by Oriumpor
How does Microsoft internally deal with Open Standards and Open Document Formats?
I suppose more generally: In your testing is it solely relegated to Linux in the Server role, or do you address End-User issues as well?
Bill:
We are interested in all sorts of distributions, commercial and non-commercial, of Linux and we test many types of Open Source software overall.
We are very active in helping our product teams test out their open standards implementations. For example, we are currently doing this with Windows Server R2 (a release of Windows Server due out later this year) and its support for NFS and NIS. In a broader answer to this question, Microsoft strongly supports the promotion of open standards. Microsoft's participation in standards bodies such as IETF, W3C and OASIS, and our royalty-free contributions of technology to Web Services standards supports this commitment.
That said, Open Source does not equal Open Standards. It surprises me that this is an issue that(some) people still don't really comprehend. Let's break it down:
* The term "open standards" describes the results of a process for establishing uniform technical specifications (when used in the broader sense);
* While the term "open source," by contrast, refers to a software development and licensing model.
* Open standards may be implemented by software developed under any development and licensing model - non-OSS and OSS alike.
The VCR is a good example of a standards-based product that allowed any video tape* to play on any player - providing a marketplace of competitive VCR implementations, competitive tape media suppliers, and commercial opportunities.
*go ahead, someone say "Hey, but what about Betamax?" - but you get my point.
3) Penguin Aid?
by deathcloset
No doubt one of the activities of microsoft's linux lab is testing the security of linux.
My question is this: if you find a security vulnerability in linux, do you inform the linux community about it?
Bill:
We definitely look at security technologies in OSS in general, including Linux, but we do not actively do security code audits on Linux/OSS. We do occasionally stumble on bugs by accident in various products, and we always email the parties concerned, and it's up to them to do the right thing from that point on.
Let me give you some examples. Michael Howard, one of our security gurus here at Microsoft, has come across some issues in some projects, such as Apache.
As a company, we strongly believe in and encourage responsible disclosure of vulnerabilities. The practice of reporting vulnerabilities directly to a vendor is beneficial to everyone. It helps to ensure that customers receive high-quality software updates for security vulnerabilities, without exposure to malicious attackers while the update is being developed.
In my team's day to day work, we have discovered bugs and submitted fixes upstream. For example, the smbtorture test suite included with Samba had a bug that we identified. We provided a backtrace to the developers, and it was fixed and committed.
We also found some problems with the GAIM Instant Messaging client. GAIM's MSN via HTTP feature didn't work. The bug was noticed by our team because we had a real need for MSN via HTTP on our Linux desktops. So we fixed the issue and submitted the patch upstream.
4) Can Microsoft Ever Give Us Free As In Freedom?
by nurhussein
We've heard a lot about MS having a lower TCO etc., and who knows it may even be true in some cases, but does Microsoft realise that the reason some of us are on Linux is for the "Free as in Freedom" part? This may matter not to the PHBs, but some of the Linux users MS is trying to court such as HPC consist of engineers and scientists who operate things like particle accelerators and are unfazed by the "complexity" of Linux and appreciate the freedom to be able to customise it to their needs?
Can Microsoft ever be as liberal with their operating system as Linux developers are with Linux?
Bill:
Great question, and as someone who has spent time in the academic world as well as in the HPC world, I very much understand your point.
There's always a trade-off between modularity and integration, or said another way, there is always a balance between the ability to customize anything and everything and the ability to deliver a consistent, tested and supported software solution to a broad base of users.
This is not a Windows vs. Linux thing but more of a software design issue. The key is realizing that there's a continuum of possible trade-offs. With increased integration you have certain advantages and disadvantages, and conversely with increased modularity you have other advantages and disadvantages. As an operating system designer, you can pick where you want to be on this modularity/integration spectrum.
Microsoft has found that pursuing a balance, rather than one extreme, is a successful approach that fits the needs of our users and customers in a broad and effective way.
For the global software ecosystem, the best environment for innovation is the coexistence of OSS and commercial software. There is a good review of this successful interaction between software models here.
We try to provide the transparency and flexibility you describe through our Shared Source program. The Microsoft Shared Source Initiative is a range of programs and licenses to make Microsoft source code more broadly available to customers, partners, developers, governments, academics and other people who are interested. Shared Source now serves more than 1.5 million developers through source code access programs. What surprises most people when I tell them about our Shared Source program is that 99% of the >70 programs have full redistribution and modification rights.
5) Stranger in a strage land
by winkydink
Doesn't working at MS isolate you somewhat from the OSS community? What do you do to keep your OSS perspective and skills current?
Bill:
Believe it or not, I use more different types of OSS here at Microsoft than I've ever used before. Our team uses over 40 different flavors of Linux and BSD, plus several commercial Unix variants. Beyond this, we use an ever-growing number of OSS applications. In my spare time, I'm even learning some stuff about Windows J
I also interact with the OSS community and am in contact with many people in the OSS development community from all sorts of different projects. It's important to keep open lines of communication. We may not always agree, but the dialogue is always open and friendly.
6) Why doesn't Microsoft release Microsoft Linux?
by amper
The subject says it all (mostly).
One of the primary reasons Linux is somewhat inferior to commercial offerings when considered as a general-purpose desktop operating system is that there is a lack of a single guiding human interface standard for the various groups to work toward. Companies such as Apple Computer and Microsoft have invested large amounts of money in human interface studies, and although much of this information has been made readily accessible to the public, it would appear that very little of that information has been put to good use by F/OSS developers.
With Apple using the BSD branch of software as its operating system core, do you see a future for a Microsoft-branded Linux distribution, using a Microsoft-developed HCI design?
Though there is a large amount of enmity in the F/OSS community toward Microsoft, it cannot be denied that Microsoft's development methods are demonstrably capable of producing quality software. Could Microsoft serve as a catalyst for consolidation within the community, while remaining true to the F/OSS philosophy? Could such a strategy be profitable for Microsoft?
Bill:
Without question, our strategic bet is on Windows. Windows Vista and Longhorn mark the threshold of our next wave of innovation. This might sound a bit like an 'I drank the Kool-Aid' type answer but I've seen what we've built and are in the process of building, and I've seen what we're architecting. Our developers are creating products and technologies that are redefining what is possible with software. It's an exciting time to be at Microsoft.
But you raise a good point, which is: can there be a positive reciprocal relationship between Microsoft and the OSS development community? I strongly believe the answer is "Yes" and I spend a lot of time trying to help this relationship mature. There is a great amount we can learn from one another, and we have just begun to explore the potential of this relationship.
7) Samba
by miltimj
Is one of your projects to assist in analyzing Samba source code to help coworkers better understand the SMB protocol?
Bill:
This is not something we do, but as I mentioned above, we do use the smbtorture test suite in our labs and we do test for Samba interoperability.
8) Execs trying Linux?
by unsinged int
Have you ever managed to get any of the big shots (for example, Gates) to sit down and try Linux for a few minutes? If so, what did they say? If not, why not? Did they have an allergic reaction and try to run away from you, or have you not asked?
I think it would be interesting to hear the opinions of people at Microsoft who actually have tried Linux (with KDE, OpenOffice, Firefox, etc.), versus the standard "Linux is evil" public relations line.
Bill:
All of our executives see and occasionally use non-Microsoft technologies. This is certainly going to get me flamed, but the Microsoft executives I have worked with are typically very technical, sometimes extraordinarily so. They grasp new technologies very quickly. Sometimes they say "Hey, that problem was solved five years ago - is that it?" -- other times they say "We've got some work to do". I personally have not had an experience here where someone said 'Linux is evil!' Microsoft is a company with deep roots in technology, so most people here approach technology - our own or others - with a technologist's curiosity and interest. Easily one of my favorite things about Microsoft is its culture of curiosity about technology and its potential.
9) Windows Services for Unix
by dtfinch
Microsoft has long offered Services for Unix free for download to provide a unix-like environment on Windows. I've seen rumors and speculation that SFU will be included by default in Windows Vista, with some GPL'd portions replaced or rewritten to maintain compliance. If it's true, what level of functionality and compatibility can we expect?
Bill:
You should attend my LinuxWorld session this week J
I can't confirm what functionality will be in what version of Windows Vista. However, I can confirm that the next-generation of several components of Services for UNIX are being integrated into Windows Server 2003 R2. The NFS client, NFS Server, User/Name Mapping, Telnet Server & Client, Password Sync and NIS Server components of Services for UNIX are all present in the Windows Server 2003 R2 builds. In addition, a revamped POSIX subsystem, the "Subsystem for UNIX-based Applications" or "SUA" is also available as an optional install in R2.
Integrating this functionality in Windows Server 2003 R2 provides native support of cross-platform management tools, Windows/UNIX interoperability and UNIX to Windows application portability. This is a big help for many of the customers I talk to and something I will demonstrate at my LinuxWorld session this week.
10) Beat em or Join em?
by jdehnert
Having been in IT a looong time, I'm pretty familiar with all of the major players.
All of them have their +'s and -'s, but one of my biggest gripes about Microsoft is that instead of trying to leverage OSS, they continually try to crush or marginalize it. Over time I find myself less and less likely to consider a Microsoft solution because I know that over time Microsoft will try and make that solution less interoperable with all of my other solutions.
Microsoft would sell more software to me if I could be sure that they are NOT going to try and lock out all of my other platforms going forward.
Given your current position, does it look as if Microsoft will continue to try and marginalize OSS, or will they do an about face and work to try and ensure ongoing interoperability?
Bill:
If there's one thing that I'd like people to take away from this interview, it's that we can, and should, cooperate and learn from one another.
We love to write great software. One thing Microsoft knows well is the art of 'co-opetition' - competing and also cooperating. Both Microsoft and OSS technologies will continue to be around. We can compete - and competition is healthy - but just as important, we also need to cooperate and make sure that we pursue interoperability as a common goal. We need to be comfortable doing both, simultaneously. We need to have an open, mature relationship.
The key to making this happen is to have open lines of communication. If someone in the OSS community runs into a technical interoperability problem with Microsoft products, I want to know about it. In many cases, we'll be able to do something to resolve the issue. There may be a solution that already exists. Or the problem could be related to an issue that might need to be addressed by one of our product teams. But at the very least, I'll try my best to help and give you a straight answer.
One of my first demos to a high-level executive involved showing some standards-based Linux/Windows interoperability scenarios. I expected to receive an "If it's not built here, then I don't care" kind of response.
To my surprise, his reaction was the opposite: "This is good--we should do more of this type of thing." And I've seen this commitment from many others here at Microsoft, in a variety of roles. At the end of the day, we want software to "just work" too. That's what great software is all about.
If you'd like to contact me directly, I can be reached at billhilf at microsoft dot com.
------
by Raul654
Dear Mr. Hilf - Surely by now you have to have been accused of helping Microsoft try to exterminate Linux. How do you respond to such accusations?
Bill:
I get that occasionally, you bet. But usually after I explain what I'm actually doing, it helps clear up the conspiracy theories (of which, there are quite a few). The truth is my job is to help Microsoft have a clear, unbiased and knowledgeable understanding of Open Source Software (OSS): the technology, the development models, how the community works, the pros and cons, and the mechanics of the overall process. So, no, Microsoft is not out to exterminate Linux or Open Source, Linux and Open Source Software will continue to be part of the software industry. My job is to help Microsoft have an understanding of the Open Source technology world.
In fact, Microsoft has benefited from OSS, has participated in OSS projects, and feels that OSS will continue to have an important role in the ecosystem. Both commercial and open source offer specific advantages. And several development models can and should coexist in healthy competition. After many years of working in both environments, a mantra I've seen pay off numerous times is "choose technology to fit the need" not based on a belief or religion: in other words, if the software doesn't solve the problem in a cost effective way, belief and religion won't stop the IT guys' cell phones and pagers from ringing at 2 AM, and that goes for *any* technology, regardless of the development model.
2) Open Standards
by Oriumpor
How does Microsoft internally deal with Open Standards and Open Document Formats?
I suppose more generally: In your testing is it solely relegated to Linux in the Server role, or do you address End-User issues as well?
Bill:
We are interested in all sorts of distributions, commercial and non-commercial, of Linux and we test many types of Open Source software overall.
We are very active in helping our product teams test out their open standards implementations. For example, we are currently doing this with Windows Server R2 (a release of Windows Server due out later this year) and its support for NFS and NIS. In a broader answer to this question, Microsoft strongly supports the promotion of open standards. Microsoft's participation in standards bodies such as IETF, W3C and OASIS, and our royalty-free contributions of technology to Web Services standards supports this commitment.
That said, Open Source does not equal Open Standards. It surprises me that this is an issue that(some) people still don't really comprehend. Let's break it down:
* The term "open standards" describes the results of a process for establishing uniform technical specifications (when used in the broader sense);
* While the term "open source," by contrast, refers to a software development and licensing model.
* Open standards may be implemented by software developed under any development and licensing model - non-OSS and OSS alike.
The VCR is a good example of a standards-based product that allowed any video tape* to play on any player - providing a marketplace of competitive VCR implementations, competitive tape media suppliers, and commercial opportunities.
*go ahead, someone say "Hey, but what about Betamax?" - but you get my point.
3) Penguin Aid?
by deathcloset
No doubt one of the activities of microsoft's linux lab is testing the security of linux.
My question is this: if you find a security vulnerability in linux, do you inform the linux community about it?
Bill:
We definitely look at security technologies in OSS in general, including Linux, but we do not actively do security code audits on Linux/OSS. We do occasionally stumble on bugs by accident in various products, and we always email the parties concerned, and it's up to them to do the right thing from that point on.
Let me give you some examples. Michael Howard, one of our security gurus here at Microsoft, has come across some issues in some projects, such as Apache.
As a company, we strongly believe in and encourage responsible disclosure of vulnerabilities. The practice of reporting vulnerabilities directly to a vendor is beneficial to everyone. It helps to ensure that customers receive high-quality software updates for security vulnerabilities, without exposure to malicious attackers while the update is being developed.
In my team's day to day work, we have discovered bugs and submitted fixes upstream. For example, the smbtorture test suite included with Samba had a bug that we identified. We provided a backtrace to the developers, and it was fixed and committed.
We also found some problems with the GAIM Instant Messaging client. GAIM's MSN via HTTP feature didn't work. The bug was noticed by our team because we had a real need for MSN via HTTP on our Linux desktops. So we fixed the issue and submitted the patch upstream.
4) Can Microsoft Ever Give Us Free As In Freedom?
by nurhussein
We've heard a lot about MS having a lower TCO etc., and who knows it may even be true in some cases, but does Microsoft realise that the reason some of us are on Linux is for the "Free as in Freedom" part? This may matter not to the PHBs, but some of the Linux users MS is trying to court such as HPC consist of engineers and scientists who operate things like particle accelerators and are unfazed by the "complexity" of Linux and appreciate the freedom to be able to customise it to their needs?
Can Microsoft ever be as liberal with their operating system as Linux developers are with Linux?
Bill:
Great question, and as someone who has spent time in the academic world as well as in the HPC world, I very much understand your point.
There's always a trade-off between modularity and integration, or said another way, there is always a balance between the ability to customize anything and everything and the ability to deliver a consistent, tested and supported software solution to a broad base of users.
This is not a Windows vs. Linux thing but more of a software design issue. The key is realizing that there's a continuum of possible trade-offs. With increased integration you have certain advantages and disadvantages, and conversely with increased modularity you have other advantages and disadvantages. As an operating system designer, you can pick where you want to be on this modularity/integration spectrum.
Microsoft has found that pursuing a balance, rather than one extreme, is a successful approach that fits the needs of our users and customers in a broad and effective way.
For the global software ecosystem, the best environment for innovation is the coexistence of OSS and commercial software. There is a good review of this successful interaction between software models here.
We try to provide the transparency and flexibility you describe through our Shared Source program. The Microsoft Shared Source Initiative is a range of programs and licenses to make Microsoft source code more broadly available to customers, partners, developers, governments, academics and other people who are interested. Shared Source now serves more than 1.5 million developers through source code access programs. What surprises most people when I tell them about our Shared Source program is that 99% of the >70 programs have full redistribution and modification rights.
5) Stranger in a strage land
by winkydink
Doesn't working at MS isolate you somewhat from the OSS community? What do you do to keep your OSS perspective and skills current?
Bill:
Believe it or not, I use more different types of OSS here at Microsoft than I've ever used before. Our team uses over 40 different flavors of Linux and BSD, plus several commercial Unix variants. Beyond this, we use an ever-growing number of OSS applications. In my spare time, I'm even learning some stuff about Windows J
I also interact with the OSS community and am in contact with many people in the OSS development community from all sorts of different projects. It's important to keep open lines of communication. We may not always agree, but the dialogue is always open and friendly.
6) Why doesn't Microsoft release Microsoft Linux?
by amper
The subject says it all (mostly).
One of the primary reasons Linux is somewhat inferior to commercial offerings when considered as a general-purpose desktop operating system is that there is a lack of a single guiding human interface standard for the various groups to work toward. Companies such as Apple Computer and Microsoft have invested large amounts of money in human interface studies, and although much of this information has been made readily accessible to the public, it would appear that very little of that information has been put to good use by F/OSS developers.
With Apple using the BSD branch of software as its operating system core, do you see a future for a Microsoft-branded Linux distribution, using a Microsoft-developed HCI design?
Though there is a large amount of enmity in the F/OSS community toward Microsoft, it cannot be denied that Microsoft's development methods are demonstrably capable of producing quality software. Could Microsoft serve as a catalyst for consolidation within the community, while remaining true to the F/OSS philosophy? Could such a strategy be profitable for Microsoft?
Bill:
Without question, our strategic bet is on Windows. Windows Vista and Longhorn mark the threshold of our next wave of innovation. This might sound a bit like an 'I drank the Kool-Aid' type answer but I've seen what we've built and are in the process of building, and I've seen what we're architecting. Our developers are creating products and technologies that are redefining what is possible with software. It's an exciting time to be at Microsoft.
But you raise a good point, which is: can there be a positive reciprocal relationship between Microsoft and the OSS development community? I strongly believe the answer is "Yes" and I spend a lot of time trying to help this relationship mature. There is a great amount we can learn from one another, and we have just begun to explore the potential of this relationship.
7) Samba
by miltimj
Is one of your projects to assist in analyzing Samba source code to help coworkers better understand the SMB protocol?
Bill:
This is not something we do, but as I mentioned above, we do use the smbtorture test suite in our labs and we do test for Samba interoperability.
8) Execs trying Linux?
by unsinged int
Have you ever managed to get any of the big shots (for example, Gates) to sit down and try Linux for a few minutes? If so, what did they say? If not, why not? Did they have an allergic reaction and try to run away from you, or have you not asked?
I think it would be interesting to hear the opinions of people at Microsoft who actually have tried Linux (with KDE, OpenOffice, Firefox, etc.), versus the standard "Linux is evil" public relations line.
Bill:
All of our executives see and occasionally use non-Microsoft technologies. This is certainly going to get me flamed, but the Microsoft executives I have worked with are typically very technical, sometimes extraordinarily so. They grasp new technologies very quickly. Sometimes they say "Hey, that problem was solved five years ago - is that it?" -- other times they say "We've got some work to do". I personally have not had an experience here where someone said 'Linux is evil!' Microsoft is a company with deep roots in technology, so most people here approach technology - our own or others - with a technologist's curiosity and interest. Easily one of my favorite things about Microsoft is its culture of curiosity about technology and its potential.
9) Windows Services for Unix
by dtfinch
Microsoft has long offered Services for Unix free for download to provide a unix-like environment on Windows. I've seen rumors and speculation that SFU will be included by default in Windows Vista, with some GPL'd portions replaced or rewritten to maintain compliance. If it's true, what level of functionality and compatibility can we expect?
Bill:
You should attend my LinuxWorld session this week J
I can't confirm what functionality will be in what version of Windows Vista. However, I can confirm that the next-generation of several components of Services for UNIX are being integrated into Windows Server 2003 R2. The NFS client, NFS Server, User/Name Mapping, Telnet Server & Client, Password Sync and NIS Server components of Services for UNIX are all present in the Windows Server 2003 R2 builds. In addition, a revamped POSIX subsystem, the "Subsystem for UNIX-based Applications" or "SUA" is also available as an optional install in R2.
Integrating this functionality in Windows Server 2003 R2 provides native support of cross-platform management tools, Windows/UNIX interoperability and UNIX to Windows application portability. This is a big help for many of the customers I talk to and something I will demonstrate at my LinuxWorld session this week.
10) Beat em or Join em?
by jdehnert
Having been in IT a looong time, I'm pretty familiar with all of the major players.
All of them have their +'s and -'s, but one of my biggest gripes about Microsoft is that instead of trying to leverage OSS, they continually try to crush or marginalize it. Over time I find myself less and less likely to consider a Microsoft solution because I know that over time Microsoft will try and make that solution less interoperable with all of my other solutions.
Microsoft would sell more software to me if I could be sure that they are NOT going to try and lock out all of my other platforms going forward.
Given your current position, does it look as if Microsoft will continue to try and marginalize OSS, or will they do an about face and work to try and ensure ongoing interoperability?
Bill:
If there's one thing that I'd like people to take away from this interview, it's that we can, and should, cooperate and learn from one another.
We love to write great software. One thing Microsoft knows well is the art of 'co-opetition' - competing and also cooperating. Both Microsoft and OSS technologies will continue to be around. We can compete - and competition is healthy - but just as important, we also need to cooperate and make sure that we pursue interoperability as a common goal. We need to be comfortable doing both, simultaneously. We need to have an open, mature relationship.
The key to making this happen is to have open lines of communication. If someone in the OSS community runs into a technical interoperability problem with Microsoft products, I want to know about it. In many cases, we'll be able to do something to resolve the issue. There may be a solution that already exists. Or the problem could be related to an issue that might need to be addressed by one of our product teams. But at the very least, I'll try my best to help and give you a straight answer.
One of my first demos to a high-level executive involved showing some standards-based Linux/Windows interoperability scenarios. I expected to receive an "If it's not built here, then I don't care" kind of response.
To my surprise, his reaction was the opposite: "This is good--we should do more of this type of thing." And I've seen this commitment from many others here at Microsoft, in a variety of roles. At the end of the day, we want software to "just work" too. That's what great software is all about.
If you'd like to contact me directly, I can be reached at billhilf at microsoft dot com.
------
Hilf's answers sound quite reasonable, something that most of us don't associate with Microsoft. I understand that his answered were cleared by MSFT public relations department, but that's not quite the same as saying that the company as a whole feels the same way he does. How much of this is just him and/or his department, and how much of this is truly the attitude of the company as a whole? A lot of what some of the other talking heads at Microsoft have been saying over the years is not only different, it's often completely counter to Hilf's views.
"No, no, no. Don't tug on that. You never know what it might be attached to."
Never mind RTFA, RTFsummary!
Before you ask: Yes, Microsoft PR had a look at his answers before he sent them.
Something seems not right about his answers. As if it were passed through a marketing or PR filter afterwards. Not that he can't be pro-work, but it doesn't read right. Call me a skeptic.
FTA: "We need to have an open, mature relationship"
Tried that one on my wife once, and I didn't have one decent hot meal in over 6 months.
"If you'd like to contact me directly, I can be reached at billhilf at microsoft dot com."
Does this mean I can contact billgates at microsoft dot com, because I have some questions I'd like to ask him too.
I see that /. did not have the cojones to ask difficult questions. So much for its credibility.
Windows Vista and Longhorn mark the threshold of our next wave of innovation.
Isn't Longhorn == Vista?
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Yes, Microsoft PR had a look at his answers before he sent them.
*A paperclip icon comes up onto your desktop*
"Hi, I see you're answering questions from Slashdot, and I noticed you need some help."
| Yes, delete all negative MS comments | or | Yes, delete all negative MS comments |
IGB: More fun than eating oatmeal!
Don't see a lot of marketing fluf, and the guy most assuredly knows his stuff. If he is excited by some of the new stuff due in R2 and Vista, then it must be rather good stuff. He even admits even at Microsoft he isn't much of a Windows user but is learning more about it. Not bad responses from him at all.
I think my biggest issue with MS interoperability currently is NTFS write support in Linux or EXT3/ReiserFS/XFS support in Windows. Being a dual boot person, I really need a partition that's fast, efficient, reliable enough for everyday use, and interoperable.
Does MS have any such plan in the work to either a) support alternative file systems (such as EXT2/3) natively or at least publish something explaining how their older FS (NTFS) works such that OSS people can write a better interoperability module?
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
One thing Microsoft knows well is the art of 'co-opetition' - competing and also cooperating. ...or maybe 'co-opting' the competition?
Where do they get these guys? No one I know talks like Microsofties - which gives me the feeling I'm listening to a snake oil/car salesman. They slip up in little ways that gives you a picture of the inner truth - that is only possible if they are keeping a tight reign on their inner voice for public consumption.
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
like the man said, I, too, put my money on MS in the long run. I've been in the IT industry too long and seen too much to believe that MS will back down anytime soon. Linux has actually helped MS improve itself. Unfortunatley, too many people put freedom above all else. People talk about open source in here like it's the 2nd coming, but if the truth be known, almost nobody save developers and the zealots care about seeing the source.
As a guy whos purposely moving away from being a techie into management, I can tell you that all I care about is getting the job done. I could care less whether that solution is MS or linux. Whatever works. Open standards, though are imperative for us all to play nicely.
Look how the wording is exact. Perhaps he/she read the summary and posted that comment, then the summary was edited to answer the question.
Most of those answers are so gross I couldn't bear to read them anymore. They were PR washed for sure. In fact many answers sounld like advertisement from Microsoft. Lame
Personally, if I were in control of Microsoft, I'd want Hilf to be talking to the public instead of Ballmer. Ballmer gives talks about how much more secure Windows Server 2003 is compared to Red Hat 6 as a definative blow to all things Linux. On the other hand, I actually like this guy's position. While it's possible that it could just be PR to make us watch the left hand while the right is up to no, good, it is also quite possible that Hilf is genuine in his approach to technology. In either case, he comes off as a personality that is far more trustworthy than Steve. And trust seems to be a key ingredient in building customer/provider relations.
Just my two cents
Perfecting Discordia
www.stevenvansickle.com
If Microsoft gets further into UNIX, like Bill Hilf suggested then they would just need to clean up their code and they would have a great UNIX based OS.
Go to the w3.org and put Slashdot.org through the validator.
Looks like the joke is on me. The summary says "before you ask", so he was just asking to be funny.
We definitely look at security technologies in OSS in general, including Linux...
Free debugging for their stole^H^H^H^H^Hborrow^H^H^H^H^H^Hlicen^H^H^H^Htop notch code.
However, it's plainly clear that one hand isn't aware of what the other is doing. Here we have someone suggesting that Microsoft is about cooperating and being friendly towards the OSS community, which is probably true. Yet the upper management in Microsoft seems more content on crushing or marginalizing OSS rather than fostering the cooperation that a lot of the people in the company might feel.
I can understand this as the people lower on the totem pole probably get a flat salary and some stock options on occasion if they want them. The top brass makes money whenever the company sells an MS product and potentially loses out when someone tries OSS software. The guys making the same $40 (or whatever) an hour will make that same $40 whether or not John Doe runs Linux, Windows, or OS X. Granted that they would be laid off if no one bought Windows and the company went under, but that seems a little unreasonable at this point in time.
It's pretty clear though that there are some mixed and widely different viewpoints in the company. A lot of hardcore Linux people could easily write this off as more junk from the evil MS, but I actually feel that these are truthful answers that are believable. However, since Mr. Hilf isn't calling all the shots, it really doesn't matter how he feels. Microsoft upper management will generally tend to pursue tactics to get rid of Linux.
The theme of all his answers is basically 'there's room for all of us to coexist together in a Utopian paradise' blah blah... This comment in particular annoyed me (FTA):
One of the primary reasons Linux is somewhat inferior to commercial offerings when considered as a general-purpose desktop operating system is that there is a lack of a single guiding human interface standard for the various groups to work toward. Companies such as Apple Computer and Microsoft have invested large amounts of money in human interface studies, and although much of this information has been made readily accessible to the public, it would appear that very little of that information has been put to good use by F/OSS developers.
Speaking for myself, I find KDE to be far more pleasurable to use than the current WinXP interface. If you look at the progress KDE has made since WinXP came out, it's pretty obvious who's making good use of human interface research and who isn't. Need I mention Firefox and tabbed browsing??
FUD FUD FUD
He seems a quite intelligent and otherwise well spoken chap, but what gives with the use of such idiotic tech-speak?
Architecting?
Argggghhhh....
here is the info from the gaim patch..
I didn't test this at all, so if it doesn't work, I'm going to send my girlfriend's dog after you (it's a chihuahua!).
not the typical microsoft readme!
FTI:
I've seen what we're architecting.
Architect...ing? Maybe I've not had enough coffee this morning but this is by far the most odd verbing I've seen lately.
Asking Microsoft how it feels about Linux? Isn't that like asking Castro how he feels about Florida? or something...
My humor is probably your flamebait
but your enemies closer. You have to remember that MS is in this for the bottom line and Linux and OSS is eating into their bottom line. While the answers given seem to show some sort of appreciation for Linux and OSS, I would say it is really less appreciation than respect for an enemy. To MS's credit, they are finally giving in that there is something to be learned from the various practices in the OSS world.
You never saw a fish on the wall with its mouth shut.
Have you ever managed to get any of the big shots (for example, Gates) to sit down and try Linux for a few minutes? If so, what did they say? If not, why not? Did they have an allergic reaction and try to run away from you, or have you not asked?
Gates claims to have tried Firefox:
If is this the case, then why does the IE7 beta include so many features from Firefox/Opera like tabbed browsing and support for RSS feeds?Statements like this coming out of Microsoft make it difficult to believe that you're being honest with us. Every single person that I've shown Firefox to, no matter what their background, has switched over and not gone back. What's unique about Gates?
Have him spend a few hours mangling his stylesheets so IE can understand them, and then let's see what he thinks about IE.
Well, you can't knock him for trying - although it looks like neither of us laughed...
Well at least one person at microsoft realizes that making a product that is usable and interoperable with other software will in the long run help microsoft, not hurt it. Hell, if I didn't have so much hate for microsoft as a company and they included a unix layer in windows vista, i'd be willing to run it!
That was the interesting part. What they NEED to do is update the libraries and development options in SFU so you can just port all your "unix" programs to Lonhorn's "unix" layer. Talk about embrace and extend...
Microsoft has long offered Services for Unix free for download to provide a unix-like environment on Windows. I've seen rumors and speculation that SFU will be included by default in Windows Vista...
:)
I think what he meant was that Windows Vista is going to include a lot of STFU by default
From Question 5:
Believe it or not, I use more different types of OSS here at Microsoft than I've ever used before. Our team uses over 40 different flavors of Linux and BSD, plus several commercial Unix variants. Beyond this, we use an ever-growing number of OSS applications. In my spare time, I'm even learning some stuff about Windows J
What is this "Windows J" he speaks of? Is this the code name for the real next version of Windows (since Longhorn is due out in 2042)?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
...but of course the "kernal of truth" joking is often the funniest.
If I were him I would have immediately ignored anything along the lines of, "Do you think Microsoft is outright evil, or just misguided?", or "Why is Microsoft trying to [insert dastardly deed here]?"
I could not find *any* specification on what he is actually doing, besides he is 'studying'.
The Borg Motor Corp. tells thier customers that "Quality is Job One", they tell their employess that "Safety is Job One", but they tell their stockholders the truth, that "Profits are Job One". Msft has a long history of doing anything to accomplish Job One, and there's nobody they won't shake hands with then stab-in-the-back to do it. This lab manager makes 1) good pr for a company will tons (billions) of ill-gotten gain to throw around and 2) helps them understand the competition better in order to win contracts that someone else may get.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Can anyone here name any examples of Microsoft's participation in OSS projects?
Having seen Mr.Hilf in person, and had a chance to chat one on one, I think that MS is doing great by the OSS comunity by having Bill on staff. His style is very even handed, and he's objective to a fault. I try to keep a very cenetered aproach to OS,Software dev, and philosophies associated with them. I find Bill's perpesctive refreshing and helpful.
So, no, Microsoft is not out to exterminate Linux or Open Source...
I should have stopped reading right there, knowing the whole piece is spin.
Software Wars
Microsoft's participation in standards bodies such as IETF, W3C and OASIS, and our royalty-free contributions of technology to Web Services standards supports this commitment.
You don't really wanna tell the /. croud that your answers didn't run through Microsofts PR department; now would you?
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
VCR describes the machine -- Videocassette Recorder VHS is the format.
One thing Microsoft knows well is the art of 'co-opetition' - competing and also cooperating.
Maybe it's just me, but I'm having a hard time reconciling this statement with internal emails that say things like "cut off their air supply."
Given a choice between free speech and free beer, most people will take the beer.
Microsoft has tried to close out OSS developers, like the Samba people, even when they were required by EU to open their protocols...
It is standard practice for monopolists to vary implementations and standards -- it is to their advantage. And it is standard practice to lie about it. (Something like foreign policy even in democracies; "realpolitik" rules -- and all countries lie about it.)
Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
In case you're wondering what influence the PR people had, you can look for things like: Did he mention any specific strength or compliment of a specific Free/OS project? E.g. "GAIM is a great IM client..." Did he mention any specific ways that MS can learn from OS development approach? E.g. "OS development has taught us the importance of..."
"Co-opetition" is a pretty common business buzzword, often uttered in the same sentence as "synergy" and "solution". Heck, I think someone even wrote a book by that title.
-R
So no one posed the question: Does Microsoft intend to develop applications for OSS Operating Systems? I'm glad that they are playing ball and trying to be cooperative, but it seems to me that they are doing it to benefit themselves; the "keep your enemies closer" routine. While they do not need to open the source for applications like MS Office, they could sell them for UNIX/Linux.
They tried to get Q, but he retired with 007, so I guess Jay ran the project.
Forgive me, but I'm still trying to figure out if this hype is "news for nerds" or "stuff that matters".
Because to me, it simply seems like feel-good PR rubbish that corporations spew every day...
"Open standards may be implemented by software developed under any development and licensing model - non-OSS and OSS alike."
At best, that's disingenuous; don't non-OSS licensing models preclude interoperable OSS software?
And Goodwin's law rears once again.. nicely done.
I had a great hot meal and the best sex of my life every night for six months.
It was a good Q&A session but it doesn't seem to reflect the truth about MS. Look - they recently broke OpenGL and they can't even be assed to use the OASIS document format they helped develop! Frankly, I recognize that this is for the most part a Windows world, but I'm tired of having to save my documents under several different extensions just to get them to print on the school printer. Maybe when they start actually playing nice instead of just talking nice, I'll be able to believe that the vision Hilf obviously has for MS will come to pass.
When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.
Until the weather changed and she felt that she didn't want to suffer your lousy cooking anymore.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
You know that don't you?
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
But I think he found out that Microsoft makes some damned good Kool-Aid.
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
Wow... I'm getting dizzy from all this spin.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
Unfortunatley, too many people put freedom above all else.
Is... that a bad thing?
Sorry, no funny or insightful comments offhand, just wanted to say thanks for a good article.
And several development models can and should coexist in healthy competition. .. but Microsoft does not like competition and kills it at any opportunity by buying out companies, having "creative" budling agreements with OEMs and so forth. Many companies have decided against investing into new ideas because of these anti-competitive practices. How does that create a "healthy competition"?
.. does this mean we will see the Office suite utilize OASIS in the future or atleast provide the ability to easily import/export OASIS documents?
.. mess around with FOSS all day, get paid well to do so and every once in a while fire off some BS to management about the state of FOSS (copy and paste from slashdot?? :)
Microsoft's participation in standards bodies such as IETF, W3C and OASIS
I was unaware of their participation in OASIS
How about W3C? Seems like MS is very much behind in their "participation" to web standards.
The VCR is a good example of a standards-based product that allowed any video tape* to play on any player - providing a marketplace of competitive VCR implementations, competitive tape media suppliers, and commercial opportunities.
Kinda like how FOSS can *generally* be easily run on any operating system providing a marketplace of competitive OS implementations, hardware architectures and commercial opportunities. Like you said "best tool for the job.."
At the end of the day, we want software to "just work" too. That's what great software is all about.
What better way to make it "just work" than have Microsoft create it all! hehe..
Overall I don't see much value in this interview at all.. there is no doubt that the Linux guy at Microsoft would get this level of treatment. Microsoft needs guys inside the company that fully understands the competition and can provide information so the execs/marketing can maintain success in the marketplace.
The bottom line is this guys reality is not anywhere close to what is happening. Microsoft fostering friendly competition? Microsoft adhering to and promoting open standards (w3c, oasis as examples??)? 'co-opetition'?? Blech.
Needless to say, I wouldn't mind having this guys job
His job isn't to exterminate Linux, just get accurate info about it to M$.
In other news, the AEGIS radar system on a DD(G) guided missle cruiser doesn't kill enemies. It just gives fire control information to the ship, which then uses surface-to-air missles to kill the enemies.
But for a commercial for-profit company that depends on people buying their product, doesn't it make sense that Microsoft can be only so friendly to OSS? OSS undermines their business model, so there really is no way, regardless of the quality or lack there-of of their product, that Microsoft could ever really embrace OSS or be totally open and friendly towards OSS.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Except those of us who are raising families on a single income. A second good machine will pay for my car insurance this year.
Dual boot with reasonable FS support (FAT32 is not reasonable) would be nice. Windows support of ext2/3 or real Linux support of NTFS would be wonderful.
What surprises most people when I tell them about our Shared Source program is that 99% of the >70 programs have full redistribution and modification rights.
That would surprise me too. I'd like to see the licenses on the >69.3 programs (if my calculation is correct) he's referring to.
Isn't it supposed to be "co-optetion" and not "co-opetition"?
"We shall grapple with the ineffable, and see if we may not eff it after all." - Douglas Adams
You are missing the point. It has nothing to do with "See? We can use Linux too". It has to do with Microsoft understanding their competition, and picking apart OSS to glean the parts that are valuable to them and can be integrated into their commercial products. It's part of the research and development process, and any smart company should do the same thing with competitors products.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
"Microsoft strongly supports the promotion of open standards"
That's where his credibility was lost on me.
What surprises most people when I tell them about our Shared Source program is that 99% of the >70 programs have full redistribution and modification rights.
Technically, you can't have 99% of 70 items fall into a criteria without also have 100% of them fall into that criteria.
Sure rounding... ok but rounding statistics into your favor seems disengenious to me.
I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
What surprises most people when I tell them about our Shared Source program is that 99% of the 70 programs have full redistribution and modification rights.
Which half of which program is the one missing the redistribution and modification rights?
Look - they recently broke OpenGL [...]
Microsoft's support for OpenGL has always been poor. The interface they provide for OpenGL apps originally only allowed you to accelerate one screen on a multi-monitor box. I think this is still the case, despite the fact that Apple and others handle multiple OpenGL cards with no problems. They basically forced the flight simulator crowd to switch to DirectX just by doing that.
But then, right at the end of that reply, he says that 99% of Microsoft's Shared Source stuff comes with full redistribution rights. Well, that sounds like he's actually (finally) talking about freedom. Does anyone know the Shared Source terms enough to comment on whether this is "real" freedom, or whether it comes with fine print that makes the "freedom" more apparent than real?
Of course Microsoft wants to understand Linux and Open Source. Knowing your enemy is the first step towars defeating him.
I think there is one thing that seems to be in MS' history that completely destroys all good will that this Hilf guy does not address or recognize: Intentionally making things more difficult through very small and unnecessary changes to existing standards.
There is very little in this world so close to my heart that bothers me more. Standards are so unbelievably hard to do, and MS essentially destroys them very often for nothing else than to further their own cause. I, too, believe very strongly in "coopetition", but what MS often does is hardly that at all. In fact, they totally hate the concept of true competition. They cooperate only long enough to figure out how to make it difficult for other people to compete with them, rather than welcoming a good challenge and believing that the result of an open, honest game on an even playing field will be better software for everyone, that just works.
It would be one thing if they broke with standards for very significant improvements, but only if they then bothered to try to work those back into the standards at least on occasion. Instead, every standard basically dies with MS, even ones that they help originate or create. That is why this "freedom to innovate" crap was such a joke. Sure, you need to break with standards on occasion, often just because creating them and working with them can be a bit slow and bureaucratic. What they do, however, is essentially stand on the backs of the giants that truly work to make the software ecosystem better and more interoperable with *all* software from *all* companies from *all* development methodologies, and then piss on them.
Having working file system interoperability is crucial for sharing things like external USB hard drives that are usually NTFS to get files between Linux and Windows sytems.
The existing IFS drivers mentioned are not always enough since they don't come with Windows by default, so you can't just plug in a USB drive with an ext2 filesystem and have it work on Windows. You would have to carry the driver around on something else to install it when needed.
Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.
I thought they said they would never make their own distribution. It's finally happening!
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
as well if anybody is interested.
MS was one of the intial supporters of XEN at least financially
Am I the only one that finds it amusing that they submitted a Gaim patch to fix an MSN issue when MS (and most other major IM networks) have a history of doing their best to ensure third party clients don't work on their networks?
Um.... The problem is that the Free Software Movement is like communism.
I am talking about Marx's Communism here, ideal Communism, not the so-called Communism found in the real world.
This is the communism of:
Everybody works for the common good; There is no government because there is no need; there is no money because there is no need;Information is always publicly available.
Several of those ideas are embodied in the Free software Movement.
The most interesting part for me is that MS has admitted contributing to GAIM and SAMBA, and that PR (and legal?) approved of this disclosure. I think that should put the conspiracy theorist a bit at ease that MS will end up suing either or both of these projects at some point. If they did, I think their legal standing would be rather weak (arguably, it already was, but then again, I am not a conspiracy theorist).
I stopped reading after the third question, as it was apparent to me that it was heavily censored (both in the literal sense, and in the sense where Bill obviously worded things carefully so as not to be censored). Disappointing, to say the least. I wanted to hear responses from Bill, not Microsoft.
I was unaware of their participation in OASIS .. does this mean we will see the Office suite utilize OASIS in the future or atleast provide the ability to easily import/export OASIS documents?
OASIS isn't a standard, it's a standards organization. OASIS controls a lot more standards than just the recent Open Office Standard. DocBook, for example, is an OASIS standard (iirc).
This interview was everything I was expecting it to be. It made the Microsoft OSS research department sound like an OS multicultural utopia. I was hoping there would be some mention of drobbins http://www.gentoo.org/news/20050613-drobbins.xml
How is Daniel Robbins fitting in at Microsoft? Is he respected or ridiculed? These are the questions I wanted to see asked.
He moved mountains in the Open Source community, and he did it all from his own pocket book. I imagine he is getting all the respect he deserves there, but I would like to hear a little bit about it.
jownz
"In a broader answer to this question, Microsoft strongly supports the promotion of open standards."
I suppose you can support the promotion of open standards and not actually follow them.
- Kevin
The less confident you are, the more serious you have to act.
Wrong. The Free software movement is more like Free Market Capitalism - there are no government-granted monopolies on production (i.e. copyright and patent law), or at least those monopolies are waived.
The closed source world resembles the soviet. Yes, the closed source people have dressed themselves in the trappings and vocabulary of capitalism, but at heart they are reliant on ultra-socialist governmental control-freakery of copyright and patent law.
Take away copyright and patent monopolies, and we'll see open source against closed source in a REALLY free market.
But actually, comparison to either communism or capitalism is a bit silly - both are means of apportioning SCARCE resources. Information is nonrivalrous - if I know something, it doesn't stop you knowing it. If I have a particular apple, you can't have that particular apple. Treating information like apples is Just Stupid, so thinking about it in terms of either communism or capitalism is flawed: the closed source conmen rely on flaws in the thinking of people who think they're capitalists.
Standards.
OSS does equal Open Standards --always. If one has the source code, the data encoding is open. May not be legal to use, but it is open.
By contrast, Microsoft can equal Open Standards if they want to.
His answer is a little bit of a weasel there. They really want to downplay that, IMHO. Case in point: Where is Office support for OOO document formats?
Blogging because I can...
No, Longhorn was the bait, Vista is the switch.
They do this all the time you know. The tout a super shiny new product that will be out Real Soon Now, get all of the trade press hyped up to the point that they start doing product reviews of the vaporware against the shipping versions of the competition's stuff, to convince everyone that is pointless to buy OS/2, Netware, etc. because any day now Microsoft will be releaseing SuperShinyVaporware 1.0 which will totally 0wn the market.
Then at some point comes the Switch, when it is revealed that what they can actually ship is just another minor incremental improvement. There were features promised for the product that eventually became NT4 that still haven't shipped yet, I think the database filesystem was one of them. But the mainstream tech media fall for it every time and the slashdot crowd about half the time.
And of course you will know when Vista is about to actually ship (my money is on them targeting Xmas06 and actually hitting Mid 07.) because about six months ahead the usual suspects will start being honest about Windows XP, calling it utter rubbish, but you just wait! All those security problems they will be freely admitting (and we have either lived through personally or spent far too much time cleaning up the wreckage from for years) be fixed if you buy a new PC with Vista. (or buy an assload of hardware and upgrade you can have a reduced quality experience)
Democrat delenda est
Although I am appreciative of the response, the major concern of F/OSS advocates (and anyone having to integrate those systems with Microsoft products) is that of compatibility between products.
In as much as Open Document Formats and Open Standards go, there are various implimentations of "Open Standards" that Microsoft quite regularly deviates from. My question was aimed generally to get any response, but I was dissapointed nothing of the infamous Office/XML debacle was mentioned. These end user issues are real... and I'm sure the various companies who use competitive OSS alternatives to office would still like to know Microsoft's position in their regard.
Will we have to re-write/re-create our documents in the future? Or will the VHS ideal hold true? Will there be a standard for compatability released for Office Documents, or will OSS continue to be behind due to the time consuming Reverse engineering that must take place to provide compatibility?
NDA
However, adopting that standard and support it would go a long way toward the greater adoption of something we can all use to exchange documents.
As it stands right now, OOO bends over backward to provide interoperability with the latest MSO formats and gets nothing in return. Given the touchy nature of the MSO formats, returning the favor in like kind might bring an advantage to both sides. Having recently used OOO to open a mangled MSWord document, I think there is some room to give in this area.
Blogging because I can...
I can confirm that the next-generation of several components of Services for UNIX are being integrated into Windows Server 2003 R2... Telnet Server & Client [is] present in the Windows Server 2003 R2 builds.
Any plans to move over to something secure like ssh?
________________________________________________
suwain_2
"If someone in the OSS community runs into a technical interoperability problem with Microsoft products, I want to know about it."
:-).
Thanks Bill. So how about the IDL files for all the undocumented Microsoft RPC services your clients depend on for login as well as the "standards" based parts of login ?
We're still waiting.... no, we won't go away
Knowing about it doesn't help if you never *do* anything about it.
Cheers,
Jeremy Allison,
Samba Team.
How is the OSS community supposed to learn from Microsoft, who keeps everything closed? I'd love to hear this sort of double speak cleared up.
I'm a writer, a poet, a genius, I know it. I don't buy software, I grow it.
How about an unencumbered document standard so that I can open Word docs in OpenOffice without losing significant formatting?
90% of everything is crap. Also, crap is relative.
See: http://www.code.cx/what-have.png
_ you_done_dani_.svg :)
SVG: http://openclipart.org/clipart/unsorted/what_have
Thanks a bundle.
I'm currently in the process of rebuilding my system and am curious...how well does this module work for everyday use? Does anyone use it regularly?
I'm basically looking to share large volumes of data between OSes (personal documents, gigs of media, and whatnot) with minimum hassle. I was using FAT32 but it's showing its age. I had no idea I could be using EXT2 instead for this purpose.
Thanks again!
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
I'm sorry but years and years of lies from Microsoft have jaded me to see these guys as nothing more than technology killers.
I didn't see anything in what he said that told me that they were using the Linux Lab to make Windows better and when asked if what the lab learned would be used against Linux, he only stated what HIS job was and not what the purpose of the lab is.
IMO, that lab is only for finding places where Microsoft can market Windows against Linux. Since Microsoft has NEVER embraced an outside technology without implementing it's extend and extinguish policies, I can only see it's use as distructive. Not competitive and not co-opetition.. WTF
I would not talk with these guys other than saying thanks for the free pizza. Let alone talk shop with them if you appreciate the GPL, GNU/Linux, OSS, and having a system which works and works well at a reasonable cost. IMHO.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
"But for a commercial for-profit company that depends on people buying their product, doesn't it make sense that Microsoft can be only so friendly to OSS?"
Why not? In case you hadn't realized it there are like maybe ONE or TWO companies that make a living selling OSS products and services.
Of course they could embrace OSS and make money off of it. They could even port IE and Office to Linux and sell them while keeping the source closed. They just choose not to.
btw the whole "we don't hate OSS" line this guy is giving off is a laugh. It may be his job to present unbiased information to MS, but right above his head are people whose lives are dedicated to wiping out a common good, ie linux and oss.
MS or anyone else for that matter being openly against Linux and OSS is like being against a cure for cancer. Your a horrible person if you feel that way. Quality Free software for the common good is a noble goal.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
An open source developer can quit anytime, he gets to decide what he contributes. He even gets to decide how much (or if) he gets paid.
The means of production of free/open software are privately held.
This is NOT communism.
In communism the means of production are publicly held.
In true communism you couldn't own your computer.
According to some scholars, Marx's main contribution to communism was the advocacy of revolution to achieve communism.
Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
Sorry, but this is full of half-truths.
Q: [Helping to exterminate Linux?]
A:The truth is my job is to help Microsoft have a clear, unbiased and knowledgeable understanding of Open Source Software (OSS)
If Microsoft is trying to exterminate Linux, they would want a clear understanding of Linux.
In fact, Microsoft has benefited from OSS, has participated in OSS projects, and feels that OSS will continue to have an important role in the ecosystem.
An enemy tends to have an important role in the ecosystem.
After many years of working in both environments, a mantra I've seen pay off numerous times is "choose technology to fit the need" not based on a belief or religion: in other words, if the software doesn't solve the problem in a cost effective way, belief and religion won't stop the IT guys' cell phones and pagers from ringing at 2 AM, and that goes for *any* technology, regardless of the development model.
But the core difference between OSS and proprietary isn't the technology, it's the license.
Q: [...] but does Microsoft realise that the reason some of us are on Linux is for the "Free as in Freedom" part? [...] the freedom to be able to customise it to their needs?
A: Great question, and as someone who has spent time in the academic world as well as in the HPC world, I very much understand your point.
There's always a trade-off between modularity and integration, or said another way, there is always a balance between the ability to customize anything and everything and the ability to deliver a consistent, tested and supported software solution to a broad base of users.
He doesn't get it. If you give users the freedom to customize your software, they can no matter what your design. There isn't a design tradeoff in that respect. The response reframes it as design question of whether to make the system easier to customize or have a more-polished single product.
Q: [...] Given your current position, does it look as if Microsoft will continue to try and marginalize OSS, or will they do an about face and work to try and ensure ongoing interoperability?
A: If there's one thing that I'd like people to take away from this interview, it's that we can, and should, cooperate and learn from one another. [...] We can compete - and competition is healthy - but just as important, we also need to cooperate and make sure that we pursue interoperability as a common goal. We need to be comfortable doing both, simultaneously. We need to have an open, mature relationship.
He turned it into this "we need to" crap, taking the focus off Microsoft's actions. "Well, things aren't working well (we're crushing you via monopolistic practices!) so we (YOU) need to try harder. I hope we can resolve these differences (once you're eliminated they will be resolved for good!)."
All the responses have the foul taste of "I'm making you think that I'm cheerfully answering your questions with honesty" while your questions get reframed and subtly misinterpreted. I don't like it.
Although Mr. Hilf mentions robust command line capabilities on the horizon, Microsoft has announced they are dropping Monad from Vista for a time.
One ring to bind them - should probably have more fiber and less rings in their diet.
This is not a Windows vs. Linux thing but more of a software design issue. The key is realizing that there's a continuum of possible trade-offs. With increased integration you have certain advantages and disadvantages, and conversely with increased modularity you have other advantages and disadvantages. As an operating system designer, you can pick where you want to be on this modularity/integration spectrum.
Microsoft has found that pursuing a balance, rather than one extreme, is a successful approach that fits the needs of our users and customers in a broad and effective way.
I really liked this point, and the general concept is right on. The latter paragraph made me snicker however. Isn't it funny how, from where I'm standing, I can always see that I'm in the center. Everyone else is an extremist. Hint: if you can't remove the browser without breaking the operating system, you're on the extreme end of tight coupling.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
"For the global software ecosystem, the best environment for innovation is the coexistence of OSS and commercial software."
Repeat it enough and hope it sticks. Microsoft PR at it's "best" or rather worse.
When they deliver this message to a developer-centric audience such as slashdot,they want developers to equate commercial software with proprietary software, which is plain bullshit and proof that Microsoft has not changed its stripes.
More importantly, as I expected, Slashdot never put to him any of the many questions about why the Office formats are not released in a bsd/gpl compatible license so that they can be used by its main competitor, OpenOffice. If Microsoft truly believed that they could win on merit, that's what they would do, but of course, all the BS about innovation is nothing but a PR charade.
Microsoft hasn't changed one bit and this interview is nothing more than cheap PR.
Pragmatism as an ideology is not particularly pragmatic in the long term. Keep it in mind when you dismiss Free Software
This is the MS way and this interview reaks of it.
It always has been MS's way to denounce, embrace and extend technologies.
So far they seem to be through their denouncing (Linux is a buggy, communist, viral plague that will get you thrown in jail for using it due to all the IP violation) stage.
Now they seem to be firmly into the embracing stage.
I truly fear the extending stage. Hopefully the GPL can stand up to the massive chaos that will result as I believe that it is the only thing holding the current chaotic community together.
Or is anyone else sick of marketing bastardising the language. Architecting for heaven's sake. Architect is a fking noun it is NOT a verb.
Does a Christian soccer team even need a goalkeeper?
I don't know where he is getting his facts from, but MS's "Shared Source" program generally does not allow for distribution, or even changing, the code. Unless MS is lying to us on the section of their site dealing with the Shared Source program. (http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/I nitiative/Initiative.mspx)
For those that don't know, the letter 'J', in the WingDings font, is a smiley. This is utterly broken behaviour (because it's the character 'J', when an actual smiley character exists, U+263A that works no matter what font is used). This is usually caused by somebody pasting text written in Word into an HTML document or textarea.
I see that Robin Miller only chose the suckiest, most obsequious, questions to ask the delicate little M$ robo so as not to offend his delicate, lying, FUD-powered sensibilities. A totally worthless interview because of the general suckiness of atmosphere. If anyone believes anything that he said, I recommend you sign up in the US Army to go to Irak to look for WMD. In the meantime, I recommend you all now trip on over to NewsForge to read the latest and greatest Microsoft ads that pay for that sucky site.
~ Glanz
He's nice enough to respond and then gets bombarded with snide and bitter responses.
We've tried nothin' and we're all out of ideas. - Ned's Mom
Exactly - mod parent up
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
This is an evolving situation at microsoft.
;)
I was hired 5 years ago into the developer tools division. At that time, we were getting beat up in the press w.r.t. security, linux, open source, relibility, etc. IIS was losing to apache, people were threatening to drop windows for linux, etc.
People were scrambling. There'd be discussions about every press release or "analyst" report. I think the windows server marketing group were the first people to try and lookg objectively and analytically at what was happening in the MS vs. F/OSS space.. and back then anybody that had come from that world was someone they wanted to talk to. I had chimed in on a few of the internal mailing lists that were discussing some of what was out there in the press (or on slashdot, for that matter), filling in details or giving examples of my pre-Microsoft life (solaris, irix, linux, etc).
I actually looked at interviewing for a full time position doing linux competitive analysis, but that never panned out. The position would be tasked with things like "person x is saying that linux's kernel has this advantage over windows - do a technical analysis for us and cook up some tests to see what the real story is".
Another thing i participated in was a planning meeting for Windows kernel auditing.. they were basically saying "lets make sure we're not egregiously behind what other people are doing in this space" so i gave a short overview of the Solaris C2 (bsm) package and showed them a bit about how it worked.
I went to perhaps 5-10 of these "we're comparing what we're doing with what unix is doing" type meetings.
I'd say 2-3 years ago, they really started getting good people in the right places to think about this stuff full time, and to really become experts at it. Each passing year of my employment was time away from the daily grind of living in the unix world (though i had my old unix machines at home still running, even my SGI was my main workstation at home for a few more years after i was hired..)
There are people that came from unix scattered all over the company, and there always have been. What we've got now are people who _only_ think about linux/unix/f/oss issues as their full time job. They can get into the guts of any of the relevant f/oss products, they can see what does and doesn't work, they can see where we do or don't interop well..and i suspect they can feed the marketing people with _real_ data on what windows does well and what it doesn't do well, w.r..t linux. I used to review marketing/sales documents in an informal capacity a few years back..
this may sound nefarious but ultimately the more technical people reviewing that literature, the better everyone will be. I made some suggestions that some of the claims were either useless, would be shot down by anybody familiar with the tech, or were perhaps overly zealous.... and afaik these made it into the final documents.
Microsoft is learning to deal with the growing interest, acceptance, and quality of f/oss. A few years ago, we were (imo) floundering pretty badly in "panic mode". At least now we've got good people dedicating lots of time and brainpower to understanding the space.
Hopefully you'll see less stuff like "gpl is cancer"*** and more stuff like SFU, ADS->NIS interop, and people like Bill getting into the press.
Finally, i think everyone will agree that the microsoft of today, product wise, is quite a lot better than the microsoft of Windows 98. Solid competition (even if its just mindshare, and linux getting lots more press adoption than real adoption), pushes us to work that much harder and hopefully make software that is that much "less awful" (i dont say "better" very often about software
***[although technically, i agree with this.. the viral nature of GPL is hugely scary for a company that thinks its source code is its IP.. and the stated goal of GPL/RMS is to _Destroy_ intellectual property]
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
Mircrosoft has a history of embrace and destroy and they are still at it. If by meeting open standards they mean making JSscript to replace Javascript, the Microsoft VM, and J++ then they have proven that they fail. In a way, that is the past, but since JScript is still not Javascript, they continue to damage computing as a whole (because guess what your Win box has by default... JScript).
The future of standards at Microsoft? How about the "standardization" of .NET (the CLR)? There is nothing like having a standard that won't port to another OS (Mono is nice, but it doesn't do Win32 and it is not MS anyway). And then there is DirectX vs OpenGL, amongst other things. Oh, but I shouldn't count out other standards: CSS, ODBC drivers, CORBA implementation, etc. Ever notice how Windows hangs on to DNS info past the TTL? Did they not read the RFC? And that is just what I know about.
To be fair, not everyone hits on all standards, that is just what happens. And no company should be so concerned with pleasing everyone that they cannot get anything out the door. But as a company that has been convicted of anti-trust violations perhaps they should be a little more proactive? Instead they either embrace/destroy or create a new standard and make alot of unfounded claims about it.
So how about it MS? Clear out those buggy Win32 calls from .NET, support CSS, read a few W3C RFCs, get ActiveDirectory to support LDAP queries, come up with some original ideas for a change... then I would believe some of these claims about standards. Oracle does it too (call it Larry Ellison's Freudian envy of Bill Gates), seeking to be your "end-to-end" solution and not accomplishing it by being standards based, but by making their own standards that no one else uses.
Really that is the crux of what Microsoft's claims for standardization are: "We implement standard X. (Which BTW, we created and no one else uses.)" For the most part, MS does not like meeting standards they do not control (they call it innovation).
FWIW, I love the part about "brilliant minds" and the "future of computing". MS couldn't even get me to take a job there, much less any of the brilliant people I know. We all want to work for Google!
Look for MS's next invention: the fully POSIX compliant Operating System! * I know NT has some POSIX compliance
"My job is to help Microsoft have an understanding of the Open Source technology world. "
Oh yeah:
"My job is to help *Black Flag* have an understanding of the *cellular metabolism of ants and cockroaches*."
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
I'm on the fence on this one...
... pretty good movie, I think it pretty accurately describes just how large companies work (of course it's the extremists approach...but it get's the point across).
... and don't say "a balanced computing environment" 'cause we all know that'd be a lie.)
Ever seen the movie "Anti-Trust"
Listen, the point is simple... Businesses are in the business of making money. Anyone that says otherwise is either lying or preparing to go bankrupt.
We live in a capitalistic economy and that's the way things work. It takes money to make money and people with money always want more...and people without money tend to point fingers in disgust.
Maybe not this guy from microsoft, but when you take a more serious look at the higher-ups you'll see that the answers to questions like "Does Microsoft want to stamp out the competition" and "Will I get locked into proprietary software" are all answered with a resounding "Yes." (and shame on you for thinking they'd be otherwise...I mean, what do most Linux advocates want?
It's not so much that MS is evil, it's that they're forced to do things to increase their bottom line (remember "shareholders"?). Where we get the "evil" term comes when the things they do actually work as they were intended to...kerberous is a fairly good example. When a market is full/saturated the only way to get marketshare is to take it from the less powerful...thus the smaller guys get the short end of the stick so to speak.
I mean come on...it isn't that hard to understand.
BTW: Down with Microsoft!
The GPL allows me to retain control of my code. It is extremely capitalist. Programmers use it exclusively for reasons of Ayn-Randian greed. Look up "dual licensing" if you still don't have a clue. In today's world writing GPL software is the ONLY way to distribute software that you really own in a way where you may potentially make a profit or get credits or a job, unless you are the head of one of the dozen or so very large software firm. This is the real reason Microsoft attacks the GPL so much, it is really it's only competition.
"Communist" would apply a bit better to BSD code, as supposedly all your work is contributed to everybody to do what they want with it, though none of it really applies that well.
Other comparisons of Microsoft to controlled economies to reverse the argument are fun but irrelevant, as the original poster pointed out. Supposedly "ideal communisim" would not require a controlled economy.
I just asked Bill about this and he responded:
.NET components that are open off of gotdotnet.com.
Hey Peter, thanks for writing - check out http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/ on the left hand side is 'Shared Source Programs' link with links to all our programs. We also have over 600 various
Looking at that web page makes it clear that he's using the word "program" the way it is in "school lunch program"... some kind of ongoing business endeavour.
So in that context what I think he means is something like "99% of the projects distributed under these programs have...".
I've asked him for clarification of what particular programs count as freely redistributable in Microsoft's sense of the word, but he hasn't replaied yet.
What does Bill get paid for? What is his job? Is it to teach others at Microsoft how great Linux and OSS is so that they can help their customers work better with the competition's stuff? No.
Let's enter the reality zone for a moment. In the past, what competitive technologies has Microsoft chosen to support and interoperate with rather than replace with their own? None that I can think of. They interoperate only when - from a business perspective - there is no other choice. Remember the first incarnation of MSN? They wanted to replace the internet because they couldn't control it. Had they been successful, it would have been a brilliant business move. As usual, they were not motivated by "evil" but by a standard business strategy: control the market whenever possible.
Bill's responses here indicate nothing more than a signal that Microsoft may be switching from openly aggressive competition with F/OSS to their old standby, "embrace and extend" (out of existence). Or, as Bill called it "co-opetition". This doesn't make Microsoft or its employees bad, evil, stupid, uninformed or any other negative moniker. It's just business.
Consider this quote from Bill (which I'm surprised made it past the PR filter):
I wouldn't expect a PR-filtered response from an MS employee to contain the phrase "Well, of course we intend to stamp Linux out of existence. What do you idiots think we are, a charity?" but Bill *is* essentially saying "I didn't expect that Microsoft would want to interoperate with F/OSS." which, of course, they do not.
You can be certain that MS has and will continue to spend lots of time and money analyzing their current and potential business threats. Thus, a job for Bill. I'll bet one question they've thought about quite a bit is "why are developers willing to spend their time writing free software in the first place?" Among the many and varied answers is one that MS may be particularly concerned with: some OSS developers have a fundamental dislike of MS (why is out of scope for this post) and this dislike helps to form a group identity. If MS can change your minds by saying "we appreciate and support what you are doing" then they take away some of your motivation and help to divide the opposition into some who say "MS is horrible" and others who say "I'm changing my mind, they are not so bad."
I'm not casting judgement on any of these things, only making the observation that these are aspects of "embrace and extend" and "divide and conquer" strageties one uses against an enemy or competitor.
At the end of the day, Linux and amost all F/OSS represents competition to Microsoft - nothing more, nothing less. MS has a well-established track record of fierce aggression (including a willingness to break the law when they see it as a profitable option) and a weak one of "genuine technical curiosity", or whatever Bill called it.
So, you could say this post is a very long-winded version of "I'm calling complete and utter PR bullshit."
Just picture it:
Q: So, is Microsoft out to kill Linux?
A: YES! YES DAMMIT! We want to kill off Linux like we killed off Netscape! We don't want competition. We want to be the best, and if we can't then we'll use unfair practices to hold back the competition. If Linux wants to come play with Microsoft, IT HAS TO PAY! You want to read our file formats little penguin? SHOW US THE GREENBACKS!
As if anybody from Microsoft would admit to such things. A question of this nature is pointless!
Linux/Open Source/Anti Microsoft News
Disclaimer: I'm a non-Linux-using Windows 2003/OS X drone, not a troll.
One thing Microsoft knows well is the art of 'co-opetition' - competing and also cooperating. Both Microsoft and OSS technologies will continue to be around. We can compete - and competition is healthy - but just as important, we also need to cooperate and make sure that we pursue interoperability as a common goal. We need to be comfortable doing both, simultaneously. We need to have an open, mature relationship.
When I read several of his answers, including the one above, I couldn't help but think his answers were passed through Microsoft's market-droid reality distortion field.
When has Microsoft EVER been about cooperation when it doesn't directly benefit their profit? Office doc formats? HTTP? HTML, DHTML, J++, Java?
"His" answers are filled with laughable irony. With all due respect, don't feed this tripe out, Bill & Microsoft.
"Linux and Open Source will remain part of the IT Industry"
Gee, thanks mister!
I know how much power Microsoft has... but they have none over me, or millions of other users. Im sorry to say that this one statement has made me lose a lot of respect for this guy... who is he to say what will stay and what will go? Surely we are the people who will decide that, the users. Besides, I truly believe that there is no amount of corporate or legal power that will ever get in the way of Open Source software for the simple fact that it is self spreading and supported by the people who use it. Now more than ever people are realising that the alternative to Windows is not only free of cost, but also free of Microsofts' little quirks and ways, like random crashes and no paperclip! How long is everyone really going to put up with the hilarious excuse for internet security and hefty price tag?
Call me an optimist, but people can't be that stupid... right?
All depends on what's in the tags, if it's patented, documented, etc....
If they provide *all* information necessary to read / write the document without having to license said information, ok. If not, same story different technology packaging...
Blogging because I can...
If you were just Joe Programmer at Microsoft, that's one thing, but you said your job is to be an "evangelist." I'm curious what that job entails.
Yes, there are some Linux fanboys who only use it because they think it's 31337 or whatever (just like there are some Windows fanboys who do the same thing). But most of us are just interested in stuff that "works for them." Of course "works for them" is very subjective. What makes me more productive might not be the same for you. I might need some license-free, royalty-free, scalable system to build into an embedded device. You might need an IDE that can crank out a GUI to an app in 2 minutes. And one size certainly does not fit all. It would just be helpful if Microsoft would stop pretending that it did.
The top brass makes money whenever the company sells an MS product and potentially loses out when someone tries OSS software.
Perhaps if Microsoft were to make money off OSS they wouldn't be so hostile.
They do have Interix, but they don't advertise it or ship it with Windows, and they seem to only keep it around so that people who would otherwise give up and switch to Linux have a way to get their UNIX fix while still being a Microsoft shop.
I was so excited to get onto /. today and read those answers. Im really glad he was asked the one about higher up people using Linux. I just wish he answered it more thoroughly. It would be really interesting if he ever did get Bill Gates to try Linux. I know he tryed FireFox and blew it off, but I really wonder what he would think of Linux?
The only other place I've heard "co-opetition" is out of Darrell Waltrip's mouth this season while Fox was broadcasting NASCAR events.
Microsoft do not know the difference between community and Communism because they are too busy writing buggy software.
Um, accelerated OpenGL on multiple monitors works for us. This is however on a single card, perhaps it does not work on multiple ones...
X) Can you give me a straight answer?
Most of your answers seem to be non-answers. I want a definitive statement regarding MS's stance on linux as a competitor.
Bill:
MS is committed to providing straight answers to the community. I know lots of people here in the linux lab that are enthralled with developing technologies that can provide you the answers you need in a timely manner. I've never heard anyone around here ever say "competition," ever! MS is great. Next question.
---k--
</stupid>
Using Google, I found this CNet article from 1999 about Microsoft joining Oasis XML group. Albeit I didn't follow news that much back then, so I'm not sure what has happened since.
Silicon & Charybdis McLuhan Kildall Papert Kay
If I remember right, Windows J was the name for the Japanese version of Windows 95, waaaay back in the day. I once had to install this for someone working at the Japanese consolate in Detroit. He was having issues with an older NEC machine that had previously ran DOS-J and was havign some sort of an issue. Throughout the install I had to ask him to man the keyboard while I clicked the mouse and picked various install options. I just wasn't able to input things the way that version of Windows required.
Later on I also ended up working on an arabic version of Windows 95 (the first time I got to use Windows in right to left mode), Korean Windows 95, and Swedish Windows 98 SE.
Microsoft, has come across some issues in some projects , such as Apache.
The bug this security guy from Microsoft talks about was not from the Apache source. Rather it was a patch some guy posted at bugtraq apparently. He explains this later on in his blog:
"You are absolutely correct - this is not an Apache Group fix, and I updated the text to reflect this."
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
So wait... capitalism is a good thing all of a sudden?
It is Godwin's law, not Goodwin's you fuckface.
I think most answers are soonding too much Microsoft, and too less realistic. Microsoft has flamed linux many times. Now because they noticed this is a poor way of making your point, and are not able to produce better products they suddenly start being polite. These shifts I do not trust at all. People want results, lots of people want freedom, and some people innovation and good security. Microsoft seem to be good with words, it would be nice if they could simply deliver good stuff and were less milking their Monopoly. Inside the opensource community people can change the code if they are not happy with the product. People know what they want and are reflective. I don't believe Microsoft could ever be so innovative, secure or stable simply because they lack the abillity to reflect, only total openness of code can bring bugs to daylight-> only totally open source can be measured for security and quality. If the security or stabillity of linux would suck, at least people will say it, people will enlessly correct it, some people will passionately try to make it look better. Everything in Linux has top priority. All negative remarks will be heard. All opportunities are there to mold it to your needs or improve it for a larger audience. I know I will never ever produce code for Microsoft, even if I got paid millions. It would be selling my soul to the devil. As an employee it would mean I could not say Microsoft still sucks. I would not work for a company with such bad imago. Never. I would rather would put trash my computer. Microsoft deserves it to get rejected by users and developers after it has (in my opinion) misused its monopoly position. It's time for a real "open" revolution. And when Microsoft is small again, then I will give them a second change if it were up to me. Then let them prove they can compete, since I have never seen them competing yet. Only losing or copying or holding back innovation (by claiming software patents). Who would work for a company who claims a patent on smileys? Who wants to develop for such a company? Not me.
The claim of taking a huge paycut. Yeah. riiiiight.
+++
My new Home
I don't trust a single word of that man, expecially when it says blurb like "Microsoft goes deep root in technology" or similar.
Microsoft is definitely a marketing company nowadays, no longer a tech company.
Their role today is to grab something from the others (they call this process "innovate"), and sell it as their.
Ok, on a serious note, I'm also with the camp that is wondering how much is this Bill's beliefs, and how much contradicts witht he other Bill's beliefs and opinions, as well as the stance of the company.
Don't let RMS catch you advocating "dual licensing", or he'll excomunicate you from the movement. LOL
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
"So, no, Microsoft is not out to exterminate Linux or Open Source"
ANYBODY who goes NEAR the Microsoft operation ends up a total, paid LIAR. (Either that or this guy is a serious idiot who thinks his salary is worth blowing and actually believing - bullshit like this.)
They could take Linus himself, put him in an office in Redmond, and he'd be lying his ass off by noon tomorrow.
Somebody ask this moron when was the last time he talked to Bill and Steve personally about all this - instead of some peon he works for who blows smoke up his ass.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
While I whole-heartedly support your call of shenanigans, I must take issue with something in this post: the second sentence.
I know, I know, not relevant to the discussion, but this must be said.
The expression is not "tow the line". It has absolutely nothing to do with conforming to or upholding the opinions/assertions of some larger thing. The expression is "toe the line". It actually means the complete opposite, in that someone who "toes the line" steps up and challenges (ie. the opinions/assertions of some larger thing or other antagonist) and is derived from boxing and fighting. A less popular interpretation is something akin to "living on the edge" where the boundaries of conformity are flirted with but not crossed.
Now that we've cleared that up, back to the deconstruction of the very carefully crafted responses to honest questions by the OSS community.
-Graham
(for more about how to properly speak this language of ours, see the essay Politics and the English Language by George Orwell, 1946.
I'm not RMS's greatest fan. The GPL is really clever, but not for exactly what he thinks.
People here completely missed how significant the engineering effort behind SUA is.
Just ignore the flamers/trolls here. There're still serious developers out there who like the work done by the VC++ team. Keep it up.
I'm a VB6 developer who has made 70% of the migration to VB.NET. The enviornment of my employer is about 80% Windows, 15% Solaris, 5% Linux. Are there any plans to help the open source community get a functional CLR for any *nix's? The OSS community doesn't have a strong interest in producing a complete implementation themselves, but it would be helpful for me as a developer to have the power of the Visual Studio enviornment and functionality of the .NET framework on legacy platforms.
Did you notice how he's making this about "open source" only? Not one mention of Free Software, the FSF, or GNU. Not even a mention of the GPL, in his part of the conversation.
The big thing that Free Software has going for it is FREEDOM, that ordinary people on the street might actually get some day. If they do, they'll give up proprietary tech.
If, however, people continue to call GPL'd products "open source", as if it's just about whether the code is on sourceforge for programmers to access, we'll eventually be wiped out by MS's intense focus on shipping a shiny product that dazzles customers' judgement, and by MS's footholds in education and game consoles.
I'm not one for conspiracy theories: I usually like to belief that people are always doing what seems good to them, at least in their understanding of the world. But Microsoft are taking a lot of steps that cannot be good for the future of the software industry. And, as such, not good for our future technology-driven society as a whole.
Please start using the term Free Software or Software Libre again.
Talk smack - that's fine - but don't lump *all* of us in to one big package and label it "evil."
It's not *all* of you that we're concerned about. It's the guys at the top. The ones who set policy. Just a few examples:
- We're concerned about the people who decide it would be good strategy to bankroll SCO.
-
We're concerned about the people who fund AdTI to produce such horribly
skewed and falacious reports. And we worry too about the
less glaringly incompetant bodies that they have working on similar projects.
-
We're concerned when Steve Ballmer threatens the whole of Asia with fines for violating "intellectual property" if
they adopt Linux
-
We're concerned by corporate pressure on OEMs to prevent them offering Linux preloaded at a competetive price and spec.
This is the sort of behaviour that prompts the use of the word "evil". We're have no axe to grind, or at least I personally don't, against MS developers. However you should acknowledge that your corporate agenda is set by people who are not friends of Free Software. Thus, if you post on slashdot defending those policies you stand to draw the same sort of fire as would the people that instituted the policies.Mr Hilf is a perfect example. Those questions are answered, not as I would expect a techie to answer them but in the style of a PR flack. Where possible he spouts corporate doctrine; where not he slickly and skillfully evades the issue. As a result he draws fire, not as a techie, but as a flack.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
Ah, nice party line!
Vulnerabilities exist and are exploited even if the white hat researcher does not publish about them. If I, as an admin, do not know about a vulnerability, I cannot take counter-measures. On many occasions, white-hat researchers have found vulnerabilities only weeks and months after they were actively exploited by malicious attackers.
Once published, you get the additional effect of script kiddies pounding on it, so you as an admin have to definitly do something about it, but this is still better than not knowing anything about a problem.
What big vendors really want is control over their customers, not control over their customers' exposure to vulnerabilities, so they can spin their own non-action properly.
Yes, "responsible" disclosure is sensible; the only problem about that is what one would consider "responsible". I personally consider Theo's warning about OpenSSH quite well conceived: he warned people that there was a problem, and that enabling priviledge separation would protect them (which for most people required an upgrade, but still). After a couple of days, people identified the problem from the commit logs. If you (as an admin) had heeded Theo's warning, you could manage to minimize your exposure as quickly as possible.
"If you'd like to contact me directly, I can be reached at billhilf at microsoft dot com."
what incredible courage! this man must have some extra time on his hands.
Balmer was simply comparing the effect the license has on software when you try to integrate OSS into a closed-source model. Ask Linksys what they think and I bet they'd agree. Balmer was just stupid when he compared a characteristic of the competator to a characteristic of a life threatening disease. It was like saying, "Hey, Jon has a mustache like Hitler's!" The fact that cancer spreads is well known and easy to compare to. Unfortunately, it can be taken out of context by hyper-sensitive people that are emotionally attached to their "side". You suddenly have a couple hundred articles quoting one sentence of what you said, making you out to be an anti-competatve slanderer.
-Lucas
You must have incredibly large hands.
If there's anything you take away from this Q&A session it's the feeling there are are multiple personalities at force in Microsoft.
On the one hand you have the side that likes patents and licensing of everything. The side that likes to screw people and rake in the cash. Then you have the more co-operative side. An example is how their technical guys fixed a bug in GAIM. GAIM infringes the MSN licensing (Microsoft require all clients that use their network to be licensed). Which just shows how jumbled up they are.
I'm sure it would be a dull day and interaction would be less simple if these Microsoft employees (who run Linux all day) didn't have an MSN client to use.
> we do use the smbtorture test suite in our labs and we do test for Samba interoperability
so you can break it?
Everything he says sounds all warm and fuzzy...BUT...
The reason people distrust MS because of their history. I'm willing to give MS a chance, just the same as I did IBM. IBM proved itself with not just words but ACTIONS as well.
To Microsoft:
If you want to prove yourself. Do something that people will respect. Like opening the SMB protocol free of charge for ANYBODY to use and implement.
IBM has shown that to be "Not Evil(TM)" as the google founders fondly say, you don't have to give up your crown jewels. You can still make a boatload of money AND be nice.