Microsoft Proposes Cooperative Research With OSDL

turnitover writes "According to eWEEK.com, Microsoft has proposed to work with OSDL for a 'facts-based analysis of Linux and Windows.' Could this just be a case of the fox contracting security for the hen house?" Martin Taylor, Microsoft's general manager of platform strategy, declined to comment on the specifics of what was discussed when he met with OSDL's CEO Stuart Cohen, only to say that they met.

Comments

java?

[Janitha]

Would microsoft support OSDL the same way they supported java?

Re:java?

[jkrise]

Seeing that most OSDL projects are licensed under the GPL unlike Java, MS can't embrace, extend and extinguish OSDL projects.

Secondly, this is not about co-operation, it is about 'research' or 'study' or whatever else you call it. Looks like MS wants the OSDL to endorse an opinion about the Windows Server OS - so they can FUD the market with something like : "The OSDL, of which Linus Torvalds is a member, has admitted that the Windows Server Operating System has been found to deliver superior performance and TCO in 326 out of 1,028 customer situations... including Clippy, DRM, Windows Media Player, the registry, MSN messenger ...."

Re:java?

[mrchaotica]

Another implication could be that if Microsoft DID use the GPL for a program that implemented Microsoft-"enhanced" "standards", the "enhancements" could legally be added to other GPL software. On the other hand, those "enhancements" (even undesireable ones) would have an even better chance of becoming the "standard" because there would be no barrier to implementation -- Microsoft would be in an even better position to "extend" than they are now.

That's no moon!

[dotslashdot]

Microsoft might be genuinely interested in learning from GNU/Linux since they obviously need all the help they can get. I was reading that Longhorn will finally have GNU/Unix-like user permissions. Besides, it makes sense from a strategic point. What's the Sun Tzu saying? "Keep your friends close, your enemies closer." Perhaps Microsoft will lure away all of the OSDL developers (aka Mono & the head of Gentoo) with money for starving developers to take the wind out of Linux. Just tractor beam in all of the major talent and learn from the "enemy."

Re:That's no moon!

[msobkow]

There are a lot of OSDL projects aside from Mono. It's entirely possible that Microsoft wants to ensure a certain degree of interoperability, and that they'll want to find ways of improving inter-system security.

Microsoft knows they don't own the server space, and they also know that most of the server vendors have partnerships in place to support Linux on their boxen. Therefore Microsoft has no choice but to ensure a certain degree of compatability if they're to maintain their position on the desktop as the front-end to access the servers.

Much as they'd like to win the server space, Microsoft isn't about to sacrifice millions of desktop licenses just to get a few hundred thousand server slots. Right now that means dealing with OSS in the server space.

Re:That's no moon!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah, requiring files to have an executable bit set and using mime types rather than file extensions is a real fucking step backwards!

MSTARD: Windows is really easy for granny to use.
NIXGUY: Windows file permissions suck
MSTARD: Windows has ACL's
NIXGUY: Posix has had ACL's for years, nobody uses them, just like the windows equivilent.
MSTARD: You must be a linux using commie.
NIXGUY: What happens when granny tries to listen to "natkingcole.mp3%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20% 20%20%20.exe"?
MSTARD: Linux is for communists!

Microsoft fanboys amaze me.

Re:That's no moon!

[GauteL]

Exactly!

Does anyone seriously think they would have brought out MS Office for the Mac if they thought the Mac platform was a serious threat to Windows? Earning a cushy bit of money from the Mac enthusiasts is fine, but there is no way they would risk that if Apple was actually a threat.

"Did know that a low-end Mac sold with a boxed copy of Office often makes more money for Microsoft than it does Apple? (Gross margins on software are 80%+ compared to gross margins of 20% on hardware.) Yeah, Microsoft must really hate Apple."

And this is nothing compared to the enormous profits Microsoft gets from their total dominance of the industry.

Apple produces fine software and hardware and have a group of loyal enthusiasts for it. They also sell lots of machines in niche markets and to people who like style. Good for them, but taking massive market share has not been the goal or the outcome for Apple, and Microsoft knows it.

Linux on the other hand is scary, because it is a commodity. It could perceivably become a huge threat, and Microsoft knows it.

Hardware manufacturers should realise that they NEED Linux. They have been raped far too long by the software business (mainly Microsoft).

A complete PC for $200, but Microsoft Windows costs as much, despite having almost zero reproduction costs. WTF??? Development costs can only explain so much.

Re:That's no moon!

[Antique Geekmeister]

The absolute garbage involved in managing them, however, is nasty. I've seen plenty of sites where every single user runs with "Administrator" privileges in Windows every single day, because running or installing simple software like MP3 players or CD burners requires it. Microsoft may have a very sophisticated user permission management system, one almost as fine grained as Kerberos, AFS, and NIS in the UNIX and Linux worlds offered 10 years ago. But way too much Windows software just ignores it. On top of that, even in the Linux and UNIX world, you may notice how little people actually use the more subtle features and rely on the old "you're a guest with no privileges, you're a distinct authorized user, or you are god" levels of authority.

Re:That's no moon!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's entirely possible that Microsoft wants to ensure a certain degree of interoperability

Maybe on Bizarro World, but not outside the pages of a comic book. MS doesn't WANT anybody to interoperate with MS. Why do you think they fuX0red Java? Why won't Word read Word Perfect or Open Office documents when those WP programs read Word quite well?

You can't even open a new MS document with an old MS program - they don't even interoperate with themselves.

Never forget the mantra from 1989: "DOS ain't done until Lotus won't run." Their philosophy hasn't changed a bit since then.

Re:That's no moon!

[bluGill]

True, and Microsoft doesn't do anything to change the situation. So even though it would be a trivial fix and solve a lot of problems things continue.

Hint: Nearly everyone has Ms-Office. It would be simple for Office to check your user permissions, and refuse to start (with no backdoor bypass) if you ad administrator access. That simple change and the guts to stick with it would force a change on the industry.

Microsoft doesn't care though. They have great fine grain permissions because a tiny number (but enough to make it worth the price) want it. They don't care that nobody uses it because things seem easier at the start, and that is more important than the long term useability of the system. (Not to mention there are other Microsoft products that they would have to fix)

Re:NO NO NO

[Gherald]

If it's Linux, were perfectly safe. Little thing called the GPL.

But you can bet your last cent that Microsoft wants to `cooperate' under a BSD license.

Who is the fox and who is the hen?

[Call Me Black Cloud]

Is MS necessarily the fox? It seems to me that open source projects target MS products, not the other way around. Consider Firefox. Take a look at Firefox's lineage and you'll find Netscape Navigator, once upon a time a commercial product. To keep up with IE, NN became free and open source in 1998. The descendants of NN have been playing market share catch-up ever since, even taking out large ads in major newspapers.

I think in this case it's the hen opening a dialog with the fox.

Re:Who is the fox and who is the hen?

[Alien Being]

"I think in this case it's the hen opening a dialog with the fox."

I think it's more like the big bad wolf (Ballmer) and the three little penguins. First he huffed and puffed and he blew down the straw house.

Then he blew down the house made of sticks.

But as hard as he puffs, and as hard as he puffs, he can't blow down the house made of bricks. So now he's trying to sneak down the chimney.

That's real nice of them to ask first

[l0ungeb0y]

Usually they just come up from behind and stick it in the ass without even the common decency of a reach around.

But the friendlier post-monopoly suite MS politely "proposes" you drop 'em and bend over for some "embracing and extending".

how sweet.

But seriously, OSDL would have to be freaken nuts to even consider this offer to be in their interest for even a second.

Morons and Oxymorons...

[jkrise]

"approaching the OSDL (Open Source Development Labs) to work with it on a joint, independent research project "

How can this be 'joint' and 'independent' at the same time? Specially when MS is one of the parties?

Fun

[Anonymous Coward]

In the meantime, you can look back at the last 25 years of computer history and view the landscape full of the broken, rotting carcasses of everyone, from PDA manufacturers to OS/2, who ever "collaborated" with Microsoft and thought it would result in something other than betrayal followed by their complete and utter destruction.

Hey, Microsoft wants to "collaborate" with open source? Maybe they could never mind the PR movements and "research", and just fucking document their formats and protocols so that open source software isn't left a second-class, reverse-engineered citizen in the world full of computers Microsoft owns.

Re:Fun

[10Ghz]

In the meantime, you can look back at the last 25 years of computer history and view the landscape full of the broken, rotting carcasses of everyone, from PDA manufacturers to OS/2, who ever "collaborated" with Microsoft and thought it would result in something other than betrayal followed by their complete and utter destruction.

Exactly. I wish that the people involved will remember what you wrote. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Microsoft is not to be trusted. Maybe, MAYBE after they have had a complete change of leadership (starting from Ballmer, Gates and the board of directors, followed by heads of divisions) and complete change in operating philosophy. Maybe then they can slowly start to regain the trust they have lost over the years. But as things are right now, MS has screwed competitors and potential competitors over and over again. And Linux is a competitor. Why eaxctly would MS NOT screw Linux over, if they had the chance?

MS does not want to "cooperate" with OSDL because they want to help Linux or open source. They want to do it because they feel that they have something to gain. And in this case, it would most certainly involve harming Linux and open source.

I repeat: Microsoft is not to be trusted.

Two possibilities

[Trepalium]

I see two possibilities for this:

1) They seek to make their own "Get the Facts" campaign appear more legitimate by having OSDL create a similar one. Right now, a lot of people assume that Microsoft isn't telling the whole truth in their advertising, but if Red Hat or some other Linux company started doing the same, then some people might start believing it. By not fighting back, they actually make Microsoft seem almost desperate.

2) They want OSDL to do market research for them from their "customer base" so Microsoft can take that research to improve Windows in these areas. If Microsoft can absorb the features that people value most about Linux into Windows, the theory goes that they can then crush Linux.

Re:Two possibilities

[WhiteWolf666]

#1, for sure. As it is, the 'Get the Facts' campaign looks like pure FUD. I've *never* seen *anyone* that took it seriously.

#2. Unlikely. Microsoft doesn't believe it has flaws. To MS, a problem is something that is either a) already fixed by in the next version, b) user/admin error, or c) 'a feature'. Most likely, a security feature :). MS is *very* arrogant when it comes to software design. There are countless tales of MS engineers visibly getting angry when others imply their software is insecure, or uses an inferior design. NIH syndrome is pervasive throughout MS; MS tends to reinvent things because they sincerely believe their version is *always* better.

[Semi-OT] Linus on Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

From Kerneltrap:

From: Linus Torvalds [email blocked]
Subject: Re: [OT]Linus trademarks Linux?!!
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 17:42:33 -0700 (PDT)

Gaah. I don't tend to bother about slashdot, because quite frankly, the whole _point_ of slashdot is to have this big public wanking session with people getting together and making their own "insightful" comment on any random topic, whether they know anything about it or not.

[ And don't get me wrong - I follow slashdot too, exactly because it's fun to see people argue. I'm not complaining ;]

I think that sums up your comment pretty well, honestly.

M$ won't mess with Linux

[Donniedarkness]

It'd be a major mistake for M$ to screw around w/ Linux. Considering most people consider M$ a monopoly as it is, imagine what would happen if we were to take Linux out of the picture (and have Microsoft as the killer). They'd get sued, and they know it... so they are obviously only doing this to learn from it.

Re:M$ won't mess with Linux

[gooman]

I only wish it were true, but I think you are sadly mistaken.
Most people are completely unaware that Microsoft is a convicted monopolist.
Most people have no idea what Linux is. By the way, who owns Linux again? Who exactly is going to sue Microsoft?
Microsoft has been screwing around with Linux in every possible legal way it can. (Follow the SCO money trail or their many funded TCO studies and other FUD campaigns).

Microsoft's track record speaks volumes about their lack of respect for every company they have ever entered into an agreement with.
They buy (or steal technology) and proclaim innovation. They pay lip service to security and standards. They embrace and extend.

If they truly want to learn, as you naively assert, let them make the first gesture: Make a standards compliant browser, support open document formats, open the source code for products they no longer want to support.
Personally, I would have to see a BIG gesture before I believed they've changed their ways and actually were willing to work together.

Re:Don't be so sure

[l0ungeb0y]

This has nothing to do with religion.

This has everything to do with empirical evidence of MS actions in regards to "cooperating" with other organizations and efforts.

Funny how any techie could rattle off at least a few well known and high profile cases of MS shafting it's "development partners". And yet you sit here and rattle off some crap about religious zealots and "not being so sure".

Well... that about sums it up don't it.
Obviously you're too much an idiot to bother trying to explain anything to , or too much an asshole to bother with.
but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt either way.
- lest I be too quick to judge.

So here's a bone:
Name 1 competing software manufacturer that MS has dealt with on a cooperative basis that MS hasn't stolen from, lied to, killed out right or simply aquired.

who stands to win?

[stinky wizzleteats]

OSS/FS stands to gain nothing.
MS stands to gain everything.
OSS/FS stands to lose everything.
MS stands to lose nothing.

Questions -

Who has it?
Who doesn't?
Who wants it?
What will happen if they get it?

Which brings us to: Why agree to this in the first place?

Re:I could be wrong...

[Master of Transhuman]

And if that's the case, there's no advantage to Linux to accommodate them.

Always make sure your opponent knows as little about you as possible.

Probably what Microsoft is aiming for is a server "face-off" where they get to tweak Windows 2003 Server against one or more of the Linux servers (Red Hat or SUSE) - and then swing the conditions so they win or can at least spin that they won.

They've steadily lost these comparisons before (by up to a factor of 2 - 2.5.) This way they could "truthfully" say that it was a non-Microsoft-sponsored comparison that was agreed to by the OSDL.

There's no incentive for Linux to contribute to Microsoft's competitive advantage against Linux by being manipulated like this.

Nothing Taylor says can be taken for anything but a lie, anyway. He's a Microsoft employee and they are paid to lie at all times. So whatever his stated motivations, they're false.

Re:Obligatory quote

[HiredMan]

"It's a trick. Get an axe"
      -Ash _Army of Darkness_

Re:NO NO NO

[most_unique_name]

DO NOT LET MS do anything that could screw up Linux.

1) Microsoft has absolutely no control over the Linux kernel code. No legal trick or hollow threat from M$ will affect the avid Linux user.

2) Besides, anything they "screw up" would have to be re-released under the GPL. They're so freakin' scared of the GPL they'll just stay away from the code and

3) fuel their anti-Linux marketing. The best/only thing they can do is keep Windows users running Windows and make money as population increases.

What is the motivation behind this?

[rolfwind]

No only is Microsoft for this, but it's own architect of the "Get the Facts" campaign, Martin Taylor.

There must be strings attached.

Whatever the trap, a) we should avoid the bait or b)figure out what they are up to (I'm not smart enough to see it) because whatever the case - Microsoft isn't about to fund a study that shows it bad in security.

And what's the need to analyze Microsoft security?

First: The computers in research studies can be unrealisticly hardened on both sides - Windows more so because the default installation isn't tested most of the time - just a dream system hardened by EXPERTS. How many Windows users turn off the default services they don't need along with turning off ActiveX.

Second: How is this a learning experience? Microsoft already knows what it does wrong. But it can't take the cure because they think it's too painful - rip out ActiveX, make Internet Explorer and Explorer more removable and more modular so it's not soldered to the system, same with Outlook, etcetera.

Re:it's telling

[Anonymous Coward]

cahiha, I think your response is actually indicitive of the techie who knows little about how most real businesses operate -- in particular those that do NOT write software as their core competitive advantage.

People typically want two things (1) A solution that works and (2) Someone accountable if it doesn't. Most companies don't care about being tied to some software vendor. If being tied to some company gives you those two properties then they'll take it. And likewise, if it doesn't then they won't.

And if you think it would take a 10-fold improvement over open source for people to use Microsoft (or any other software vendor) then you haven't been paying attention for the past 25 years.

Open source has been around as long as I can remember. Most people don't care about software being open source. They care about it being good. If it's good on its own merits then it will flourish, but otherwise it will languish.

Fortunately I think most people in the OSS community understand this. But there are some people like yourself who seem to believe that open source code can be an inferior product, but the "tie-in" plays some large role in corporate decisions. It does not. Good open source software will.

And BTW, if someone could write a good piece of movie/DVD editing software I'd happily pay $500 for it and would gladly never want to look at the code for the eternity of my life.

Re:Trust

[ImaLamer]

Maybe they are going to just ask "Why do you hate our software so much?" and try to get people back into their camp....

I see nothing wrong with that, however I don't think it will work.

Re:Thank you

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you mean IE...opps, no.
How about integrated outlook, nope again.
Office, naa, it's got enough problems between it's own versions. A business plan that breaks previous versions to encourage new sales... A real nasty bunch of folk.
Samba... Naadaa...

If Microsoft was serious about compatibility (and cherished capitalism), a direct x license would be the way to go. We won't see it because gaming is Microsofts' leverage for it's OS (Mmmmm... I wonder how M$ leveraged it's monopoly to shift developers to it's proprietary API)

Microsoft is spinning a PR web by going public with the information without consultation.

If the challenge is taken up-

Microsoft gets some incredibly valuable analysts of how it's OS stacks up to Linux.

Perhaps, M$ should start it's long road back to civility by producing original products instead of copying software written to run on it's platform. Or at least stop locking out competitors software which Microsoft copied.... Sheesh

Re:never

[StevoJ]

Unfortunately if OSDL turn them down, Microsoft will make out that they're scared to compare Linux with Windows properly.

If only it was so simple

[gilesjuk]

I'm more inclined to believe that Microsoft wants to use this as publicity. If OSDL decline Microsoft will says "see, they know their software is inferior". If they accept then Microsoft can spend a lot of money and get OSDL to pay their half (which would probably bankrupt them).

Re:Never believe anything...

[kcbrown]

Except that this is not Politics.

Not strictly, no. It's marketing. Same thing, different name.

Remember: Microsoft is first and foremost a marketing firm.

You should never believe what a marketing firm says. Their purpose in life is to lie in whatever way necessary to get you to buy whatever they're trying to sell. They'll say anything and do anything, no matter how false or shallow. I need only point at the huge pile of advertisements that surround you to illustrate that. Not one of them gives you the straight scoop. Not a single one.

Just like every politician out there.

Marketing, like politics, is the antithesis of truth.

Do Not Forget the lesson of OS/2!

[Lord Raze]

Once upon a time, Microsoft partnered with IBM to try and 'fix' DOS, and the two companies created OS/2, with the much larger IBM shouldering most of the development costs.

Microsoft decided that OS/2 wasn't for them, and left IBM holding the bag. They retained the right to use the OS/2 source, but quietly went away.

IBM went on, developing and marketing an independant version of OS/2 for a while, and suddenly, out of the blue, Microsoft comes out with an All New, All Different, Next Generation OS called Windows NT and proceeded to sanctimoniously kick the crap out of IBM on the market.

Where are they now? OS/2 is officially done according to IBM, and hackers are clamouring for an open source release, and Windows NT is up to version 5.1 (as Windows XP Professional) and dominating the desktop OS market.

DO NOT TRUST MICROSOFT! THEY ARE UP TO SOMETHING!

Knee-jerk Microsoft bashing aside for a moment, consider: the halloween documents suggest pretty stongly that Microsoft is scared shitless by Linux specifically, and by Open Source in general, wondering aloud how one attacks a process instead of a company.

Doesn't anyone else see this as some kind of a "fishing expidition" on Microsoft's part?

Maybe some kind of credibility bait, as others here have suggested ("See? Even OSDL says that Windows Server 2003 beats Linux in the areas of etc.") or maybe something much much more Dastardly.

Learn the OS/2 lesson that IBM illustrated for us. No matter how amicable the partnership, no matter how shared the initial goals, Microsoft can not be trusted!