Slashdot Mirror
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.
The Open Developers Score Ladies?
The Optional Donuts Save Lunches?
The Original Dolphin Saved Lassie?
I'm confused.
Would microsoft support OSDL the same way they supported java?
Make up your mind dammit!
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."
I don't know if i would trust Micro$oft with any relationship involving Linux. They'll probably mess it up, try buying it to get rid of it, or patent some critical part of it, going by their history with software of course.
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.
;D
Martin "Scarface" Taylor, running his finger along the top of the monitor: "You guys got a real nice operating system, here. It'd be a real shame if something happened to it..."
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
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.
The unofficial
"Would microsoft support OSDL the same way they supported java?"
Does a jockstrap hold up nuts?
"It's a trap!" - Admiral Ackbar
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
but maybe this isn't a plot by Microsoft to make themselves look better... maybe they just want to understand their opponent better. Go to the experts to arrange a fair trial and learn where they need to improve.
Anyways, I've been wrong before.
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.
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.
"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?
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
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.
This is awful!
. . . somehow. At all.
Oh, I'll find a way.
xkcd.com - a webcomic of mathematics, love, and language.
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.
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
The fox has stepped forward and expressed an interest in guarding the henhouse.
Which henhouse?
Well, specifically, he wants to guard the special henhouse, the one within which the hens are manufacturing tanks, semiautomatic rifles, and other weaponry for the purpose of defending themselves against and possibly overthrowing the foxes.
Now, what do you think is the fox's motivation here?
And more to the point, why the hell does everything on slashdot always come down to strained metaphors?
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
I would say just politely decline and let them do their own marketing exercise - which is what these comparisons always are unless done by a reputable third party.
Otto von Bismarck once said, "Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied." Well, now Microsoft has officially denied that it hates Linux. I guess it's time to start believing, then.
This refers to an interview with Cohen about greater cooperation with Microsoft and more proprietary software on Linux.
Linus, who works at OSDL, has always been a pragmatist and never believed in FSF/Stallman religion. The vast majority of people look at code/computers as a tool and/or a technical curiousity, not a cult.
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.
Earn a % of cash back from Newegg, Tiger Direct, Walmart.com, and more: http://www.mrrebates.com?refid=458505
I can't resist this... "....except in Nebraska!"
A bullet sounds the same in every language. So stick a fucking sock in it...
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?
This is worse than when Jobs and Gates were invited to Xerox!
Get your Unix fortune now!
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.
and your enemies closer!! (it plays both ways!!)
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
``facts-based analysis of Linux and Windows''
Regardless of whether you think this is a good idea, and regardless of whether OSDL is going to take the offer, I just don't think any _meaningful_ "facts-based analysis" of Windows vs. Linux is ever going to happen.
The problem is that there are so many aspects that matter in such a comparison, and so many different Linux distros that get these aspects differently from the next one; so many potential users of either OS that have differing needs with respect to those aspects, and so many aspects that are not going to be covered in any given study, that basically any study conducted by yourself or someone else is going to be less than what you need.
If someone else conducts the study, they are going to cover some issues that are important to you, but not others. For example, they are going to find that security updates work better under the Linux distro they evaluate than under Windows, but ignore the fact that one application your business uses doesn't run on Linux. Or they are going to find that many applications don't run under Linux and suggest that switching to Linux would severely reduce productivity, whereas no such thing would happen in your particular case.
If you do the analysis yourself, you are not going to be aware of certain things. For example, I could well imagine that someone doing the comparison would notice differences and similarities on the surface, apps that do and don't run, how it takes time for people to adapt if they make the switch, etc. but not find that eventually, some employees are going to really take advantage of the new features and use the shell to greatly boost productivity. Or that this shiny distro they opt for is going to be a horrible mess come the next major upgrade, because of RPM hell. Or that an open-source effort is currently underway that will provide an app that is just what their business needs, but it will only run on one of the operating systems.
I believe that the only way to _really_ determine if Linux is right for _you_, is to actually look for (with the help of more experienced users) a distro that matches what you want to get out of your computer, install it on a computer that it works well with (don't go telling yourself that Linux isn't user friendly because it doesn't support your wireless network card), and run it for at least a full upgrade cycle. Get used to the way things are done on your system. Customize it to better match your desires. See how the distro copes with everyday needs. Maybe report on what you don't like, and let people recommend you a different distro based on that; then try that one and see if you like it better. Ask more experienced Linux or Unix users how they would do things. Maybe even try to do some programming or at least scripting on your distro, and then on the system you were switching from; just to get an idea of the functionality you don't use now, but could at some point. In other words, evaluate how the system fits your current needs, how well it behaves over time, and explore all the capabilities it has to offer. This will get you a much better insight in what Linux (and Windows, if you're thinking of switching the other way) has to offer you than any study conducted by others.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
...how would the Linux community react if Microsoft decided to throw the entirety of their Windows budget behind WINE, let the OS be open source, go entirely Linux, and focus on providing things like Microsoft Office on Linux?
:-)
I may be completely wrong here, but I am under the current impression that Microsoft Office, SQL Server, and other such things are responsible for the majority of MS's bottom line. Now I need to go look at their reports to find out if that' true.
--S
-- sigs cause cancer.
Cohnen kicked him in the ding-ding!
BTW,
1. ???
2. Wait for population to increase
3. Profit!!!
At least not until Netcraft confirms it...
Can this not be a good thing for both Linux and Microsoft? First, Microsoft talking to OSDL means that they're not only acknowledging the competition (they already did so with their anti-Linux market), but admitting that there's something to be gained from Linux (or why talk in the first place?) Second, Microsoft doing something other than ignoring or belittling open source is a step in the right direction, no?
And no matter what, both sides get publicity for it.
[ Additional Info ]
:-)
For FY05, Microsoft reported 30.75% of their revenues as being from "Windows Client", which includes Windows XP, Windows 2000, and Windows Embedded. I'm guessing there's a fair amount of Windows Embedded business, given all the WinPhones out there.
Strategically, it could make a WHOLE lot of sense for M$ to drop Windows as an operating system in the long term, assuming they believe that Linux is a true threat on the desktop in that same long term. If they make their other software and solutions available (all of which would probably end up benefitting in stability and security from a transition to Linux) on Linux, they still have a hell of a business, and suddenly Linux is no longer a threat.
Of course, there's the spectre of OpenOffice, mysql, apache, and so forth, but that's for another time...
Could it be? I wouldn't put it past 'em. Talk about "embrace and extend"...
--S (providing your hair-raisingly frightening thought for the day)
-- sigs cause cancer.
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.
You missed one: Windows.
Microsoft is a software company. There will be software from MS which runs with Linux (or BSD, or what have you) as the host OS in the next 5 years. But they will always play to strengthen their core monopolies, so we're unlikely to see workstation software running on Linux.
Whenever MS provides software for another platform, it is always as a move to strengthen their dominance of the industry. MS Office on Macintosh is not only a solid revenue stream in it's own right (as MS acknowledges that as of yet there are some small office and home users who will not move to Windows in the near future) but also keeps their proprietary formats the dominant ones. Mac Office sales increase Windows Office sales.
Internet Explorer for SunOS - same deal. Control the primary implementation of a standard, control the standard. Controling the browser on all platforms provided a way to keep rich web applications from thriving early on, which made thick clients neccessary for real work, which in turn made the OS with the most applications the dominant player. In other words IE for Macs and Unix boxes helped strengthen the Windows monopoly.
Of course, this drifts far afield of TFA . . .
Red Hat says why in the article: they believe in using customer testimonials, rather than a lab environment which may or may not - usually not - resemble the real world.
They also know how easy it is to tweak such an environment to produce the results you want.
I don't entirely disparage lab tests. When the trade journals run a test on Windows 2003 Server vrs. SUSE or whoever, and come up with the figures that a Linux distro with Samba is twice as fast at file and printer sharing as Windows, I can accept that. If they legitimately found the opposite, I could accept that - unless of course the trade journal was known to be anti-OSS.
But when someone is PAID by a company to do a study, the study is compromised, no matter what the research company says.
Many of these "research" companies let the paying company set the ground rules and configurations and targets for these tests, which compromises the study right there.
There's no advantage to an OSS company doing the same study, as the same criticism could be made against them.
There have been a number of studies which show lower TCO for Linux over Windows. Unfortunately, most of them were done by companies either actively involved in OSS, or companies using OSS and justifying their use of OSS. So Microsoft naturally ignores those studies and prefers to use "independent" studies from "research" outfits that show lower TCO for Windows.
It's a game, and not particularly useful for anything except propaganda.
Actual usage statistics of Linux vrs Windows, growth in market share stats, and testimonials from companies who HAVE measured their costs under both systems before and after a migration are the most reliable indicators.
The latter, by the way, is why Laura DiDio is now babbling about how most companies don't know what their TCO even is. That's undoubtedly true. BUT companies that spent money on Windows licenses for years and switched to Linux KNOW what they spent before and what they are spending now (there's a little thing called "budgets" in most companies) - and every company I've read about who have switched have stated they realized actual dollar savings. DiDio is trying to blunt those real world stories by claiming the companies don't know what they're spending on Linux or OSS.
But that's the kind of comparison Red Hat prefers to rely on.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
I'm sure I'm not the only one that sees the torpedo being loaded by Microsoft. But there are lots of folks that are too trusting of lawyers and eager for M$ money.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
I'm not quite sure how I missed windows (not being snippy, just would like a bit of elaboration there).
:-)
The theory that I'm putting forth, summed up, is that the costs of Windows development, end-user support, etc. etc. might make the net profit from Windows fairly insignificant. If that's the case (and I can't tell if it is from their financial statements since they don't break it down that way), then they could win big by controlling the applications through purposely conceding control of the OS envrionment. IOW, let the OSS folks do their OS work for them for the most part.
I'm probably totally off-base since I haven't really studied Microsoft's business, but it's an interesting thought to me nonetheless. And you're right, it's a bit off-topic
--S
-- sigs cause cancer.
The proposal itself tells you that Microsoft just doesn't understand that software quality isn't about having the most features or doing the best on some benchmark. Microsoft probably does really win (slightly) on both counts for some (maybe even many) of their products on some (contrived) benchmarks.
But that's no accident, nor is it anything to boast about. The UNIX principles are to keep things as simple as possible, to ruthlessly eliminate features, and to live with inefficiencies in places where they don't matter much. There is no point, for example, optimizing a mainstream web server beyond the performance actually demanded by real-world setups.
If Microsoft delivered clear-cut 10-fold improvements in productivity and performance compared to open source, then people might be willing to put up with being tied to Microsoft, but we don't need OSDL or anybody else to see that Microsoft isn't delivering that. And for perhaps a 5% or even a 50% improvement in performance, the risks, hassles, and costs of going with a proprietary solution aren't worth it to an increasing number of people.
The reason why businesses increasingly choose open source is that they simply don't want to be tied to Microsoft (or any other software vendor); it all comes down to risk and predictability.
48 Billion in hand (I think that's what's left in cash and after the last dividend, not counting other financial assets). Say they spend 100 grand on hiring each developer, they would only be able to buy less than half a million developers. How many developers are there in the core Linux team?
You misunderstand the problem.
Microsoft can hire all sorts of Linux Kernel Programmers. Many of the top tier programmers will not be easily hired, so you will have to focus on the second tier (which is, I think, where a lot of the actual programming is done). Many of these are hired by other companies. Redhat, Novell, Cray, IBM, SGI, and others. These companies often have a fair bit invested in Linux and can't just get by on fewer developers, so they will fill in the ranks. There will be some loss there but not enough to justify the money that Microsoft will be spending.
Now, lets say that Microsoft hires 300 second tier Linux developers at 100k each plus benefits (lets say 130k to be conservative). This means that it is costing them nearly 10M dollars just to retain these people for a year.
So now IBM, et. al. have hired and ramped up 300 more developers. People see that Linux Kernel Development has career potential and more people are interested. Wash, rinse, repeat and voila it is now more expensive the next year.
This is money which *actively* reduces Microsoft's profits. Yet, it doesn't accomplish a whole lot. Indeed it could actually hurt Windows marketshare as bright programmers see all the indications that Linux development is where it is at.....
So you have two problems:
1) Microsoft creating a larger job market for its competition and
2) Microsoft paying lots of money for very temporary delays.
Microsoft could hurt Borland by hiring all their C compiler developers. However, Linux is far different. There are many magnitudes more kernel developers out there on Linux.
Ultimately Microsoft would find themselves overwhelmed by sheer numbers much like the US-led forces were overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of Chinese crossing the Korean border when the Korean war really got going.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Maybe they are hoping that OSDL will turn down their offer? Then, suddenly, OSDL is "scared" to admit that MS products are better and scared of the truth that the study will bring to light, at least according to Microsoft's new add campaign.
I don't see Gates thinking that way.
I see him thinking like this:
1) Our apps only run on Windows.
2) Our apps dominate on the corporate desktop because they only run on Windows.
3) Our OS's dominate on the corporate desktop because they run our apps - and because we have business contracts and marketing to convince people to use our OS because it was cheaper than UNIX for years. So we got there first.
4) If it ain't broke, don't fix it - unless it makes us more money DIRECTLY to fix it.
5) Security ain't "it" - yet, anyway - when we see people ditching us in droves because of security, then maybe we'll fix it - 'cause it's gonna be a major rewrite and that costs me money, so it ain't happening until it costs me MORE money NOT to do it. And as long as we're making profit and have dominant market share, why should I?
6) I'm all about money, not technology. Business contract law and marketing is THE way to make money. Technology is just the product.
7) I don't listen to people with less money than me telling me how to run my business.
8) We make 30% of our revenue from the OS, 60-70% from our apps. The only reason we make anything else is to try to find something to boost our profit margins so the stock looks good - cause other than my $10-15 billion in cash (and the stock laundering my Dad does at the "charitable foundation"), my wealth is stock value. And our profit margins are single digit these days, which is bad for the stock. That's why I pissed away $37 over the next few years - to prop up the stock - instead of spending it on pointless - to me - technology research. I could spend $37 billion on research and get nothing. I can spend $37 billion of the company's money and keep MY personal stock value up there.
THIS is how Bill Gates thinks.
As long as he's running Microsoft, they're not going to do ANYTHING good for anybody but Bill.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Microsoft will propose to work with Slashdot for showdown Windows vs. and other OSS OS on the planet. May the best OS win :)
If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough. (Alan Kay)
Um... so if Mercedes sponsered an "honest and fair" review of a BMW, would you believe it? More importantly, what would BMW have to gain from doing such a thing?
Perhaps this story is silly, I mean OSDL would not be looking after their own best interests to do such a thing, MS is basically bluffing. But that is a feather for MS... or am I crazy? Now, Ballmer, Bill & Co can say, "Well, those Linux guys are all pansies, we can put up, so prove it!" Heavan forbid , Linux might get served.
I know that I am biased (boo MS), because as a developer and computer user, I hate all of the crap MS pulls, so I would pull for Linux in an "objective" comparision. Again, nothing is truly objective... MS slants the "Get the Facts" info to obfuscate the truth. Ex: SQLServer has been the source of lots of super serious exploits (FACT: see the Slammer worm). But I am sure we will hear MS fanboi ad nauseum on the exploits theme ("they stay up all night trying to crack XP", yeah right, it is alot easier than that Linux distros don't usually run bizarre services you can't see).
Really that's all a red herring, because no matter what the truth is, this is not going to find it. Linus would pull for Linux (duh) and MS would pull for Windows. In fact, if they didn't they would be liars, who don't believe in what they sell (oh wait, this is MS and OSDL isn't really selling anyting).
This is a glorified press release that should read, "Bill tries to bluff Linus" But some people recognize that, so I call this whole thing FUD in sheeps clothing.
"... declined to comment" Beware of those, it means that whatever actually comes of it can be spun like FUD.
C|N>K
Let me see: "facts-based analysis of Linux and Windows." I really don't think that the word fact and microsoft belong in the same sentence where Linux comparisons are concerned. Now, if this was Microsoft wanting to work with OSDL on a common driver architecture, DRM or some kind of Windows/Linux_whatever API integration then that's something else. Why would MS want to work with OSDL on a 'facts based comparison' ? Because they want the facts to turn their way and I am sure they have some kinf of evil plan along this line. OSDL, run far far away from this.
Maybe it's just me, but as long as Microsoft is behind/championing/funding/involved directly/involved closely indirectly, it will never be a truly factual and fair comparison or analysis between Linux and Windows. There's just too much bias being pulled out of their asses.
We could all be overthinking this.
After all. Microsoft may just be joining up with OSDL so they can see what will happen....
You never know who you might be able to hire way, what standard you can hijack, when getting a picture of Bill Gates shaking Linus' hand might come in handy
vi +
No problem if you assume Taylor is a paid Microsoft liar.
His stated motivations are "billshit" (no, I didn't mispell bullshit.)
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Could this just be a case of the fox contracting security for the hen house?
This metaphor is a lot like a duck riding a chainsaw to the primary school. It makes no sense at all.
Look out honey cause I'm usin' technology
Ain't got time to make no apologies
It's telling that Microsoft were the ones who went to eWeek with the story, without consulting Cohen or asking for his OK on telling the world about the meeting. Since Microsoft were also the ones asking for the meeting in the first place, one has to wonder whether it was done solely to be able to place a piece like this?
Actually one doesn't have to wonder, knowing Redmond.
> I'm not certain why you all think this is insightful?
It wasn't. Just a knee-jerk response that has nothing to do with the story.
> And les you all forget, there is some good code buried under all that other stuff that MS puts out. If MS ever got their act together and stripped away the bad code and added bits and pieces from others in the Windows domain. They could actually have something that would compete.
Are you refering to something specific, such as web servers? Because it would appear that overall Microsoft is doing a reasonably good job of competing. It's not like Linux & Co. had anywhere to go but up.
The unofficial
Meanwhile, OSDL has reputedly issued a survival kit, knife-proof jackets and antidotes to most known poisons to their staff.
*ObTrivia: The British Civil Service really DO use the cult TV series "Yes, Minister" as training material.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
There's nothing like waking up with a good laugh.
'For we walk by faith, not by sight.' II Corinthians 5:7
Or is that "misspell 'misspell'"?
Fuck it.
"Billshit" is Bill Gates bullshit uttered by Windows shills, if you didn't get it.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
I know I already commented on this but.. The very idea of Microsoft engaging in a FACTS based analysis of ANYTHING is nothing short of hilarious!. Maybe just MAYBE there is one person who would engage in a fact but the rest of the spin, FUD generation, bogonified corporate money making monopoly machinary of the company would soon have rid of it. Really, if it were another month I'd think this was an April Fools joke!
just a thought.... :)
Open Labs for Software Development
And they can't conduct a comparison between Windows and Linux by themselves?
I mean, clearly they are simply trying to find some specific area that Windows beats Linux at and have this fact 'endorsed' by an organisation with some respect inside the OSS community.
If their 'fact-based' studies use sound methodology and draw sound conclusions, I dont see what there is to be gained from doing a 'joint' study unless it is purely to gain ammunition in a FUD-fight.
If Microsoft have painted themselves into a corner w/regard to credibility, they need to pull themselves out by simply publishing good, unbiased data, and simply proving their critics wrong by being scrupulously thorough, scientific and honest with their published research.
What they are essentially admitting with this move, is that they are unable to make people believe them, regardless of the truth of the message at the moment, and they would like some help from some people who arent assumed to be morally and ethically bankrupt on the strength of a shallow claim that 'I just want people to judge technology on its merit versus on hype and emotion'.
Notice it is Taylor, personally saying this, always prepended by 'I' instead of 'Microsoft' or 'we' when it comes to meaningful statements on the motivation behind these moves.
There is a lot of this in the article, and while it may be quite understandable, as he is being personally interviewd, I don't see what the mans personal opinion has to do with these issues when it comes to his company's position on these issues, which are of far more relevance.
I gots ta ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long
ms: our studies lack integrity. your name would add some. if you don't cooperate, we'll use it as proof of your lack of faith.
sum.zero
All Microsoft is looking for here is credibility. They will take the data and skew to their liking, pointing out all of Linux's weaknesses and none of Microsofts. They will continue to saturate the web with banner ads touting their dubious strengths using "new and improved data". When the open source community cries foul they'll point to the source of their data as indisputable and non-biased.
The net effect of all this will be a community that's distracted from building the worlds best software. It'll cause us to concentrate on beating Microsoft instead. This isn't our goal - it will happen - but it is *not* our #1 goal.
Historically, those who've survived the Microsoft threat are those who've done WHAT THEY DO and not what Microsoft does. IBM, Apple, Sun.
It's all part of their game. Embrace and Extend.
MFG: "The system supports both the LAMP (Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP) and WIMP (Windows, IIS, MySQL, PHP) platforms."
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
There has been a spate of posts during the last couple of days with people searching google or acronymfinder.com or whatever and suggesting "funny" meanings for acronyms. This must stop. It just isn't funny. I can't accuse you of karma whoring, cos funny mods don't cut it. Please spare us...
Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
Do they think that they can hoodwink ODSL into agreeing to a bent question to get a warped answer ?
Also:
Errrm: does this mean that the MS "get the facts campaign" has been done before they did the research to know the facts ?1. We get a study that elucidates relative pros and cons of different OSs, or
2. Due to our paranoia, future advertising quotes that the Open Source crowd refused to participate in an 'objective' study.
One problem, of course, is that the study is likely doomed to unobjectivity anyway: future funding will sway whoever performs the study more than current funding, which is a given.
And who is likely to commission many future studies? The OSDL?
Wikileaks, no DNS
Unfortunately if OSDL turn them down, Microsoft will make out that they're scared to compare Linux with Windows properly.
That didn't really make sense. But I'm going to post it anyway.
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).
i would ignore microsoft and walk right past them like some stinking homeless beggar on the street... anything microsoft touches turns to sh!t, just look at windows :p
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Is MS necessarily the fox?
Yes.
Sorry to step on your eggshells, but you need to get your historical facts straight. The supposed netscape "fox egg" came before the supposed IE chicken. The browser wars started out as MS reacting to NN's popularity, not NN "attacking" MS by resorting to open source. I hope your post isn't representative of the sorts of facts that are to be "agreed" upon in a back room.
Perhaps the real fox is the one that is trying to keep the truth from being posted through some form of censorship? The slashdot story, titled Microsoft asks Slashdot to remove Readers' Posts would certainly argue that a free airing of facts and opinions isn't what the PR types are going to be aiming at. Not a very good gesture in support of free speech or a very great confidence in people to decide on their own what the facts may be about the Kerberos standard and other stuff like that...
What would be the point of a discussion like this one if all of the "facts" to be aired were pre-decided? No need to use your brain, just sit back and get your spoon feeding? Instead, we will prepare "safe" controversies for you to argue about that do not impinge on anything.
There is no reason for me to think that this is going to be any different, seeing what they tried to do with their "Get the Facts" campaign, and it turned out to be anything but facts, more like made-to-order TCO studies that applied to atypical application niches.
Embrace and Extend Strategy
Slashdot = Sarcasm
Office for Mac ?
Our apps dominate on the corporate desktop because they only run on Windows.
Er, no. They dominate on the corporate desktop because they're largely unchallenged.
Our OS's dominate on the corporate desktop because they run our apps - and because we have business contracts and marketing to convince people to use our OS because it was cheaper than UNIX for years. So we got there first.
Now you're on to something. Windows is popular because it runs the apps, not the other way around. It's the *applications* that matter most.
Security ain't "it" - yet, anyway - when we see people ditching us in droves because of security, then maybe we'll fix it - 'cause it's gonna be a major rewrite and that costs me money, so it ain't happening until it costs me MORE money NOT to do it. And as long as we're making profit and have dominant market share, why should I?
There's no reason whatsoever to do a "rewrite" to "fix" the "security problems" in Windows. Particularly since about 99% of them are due to end users doing silly things or poorly written software.
That's why I pissed away $37 over the next few years - to prop up the stock - instead of spending it on pointless - to me - technology research. I could spend $37 billion on research and get nothing. I can spend $37 billion of the company's money and keep MY personal stock value up there.
This might carry some weight if Microsoft didn't spend so much on R&D.
It appears that Microsoft feels emotion and hype is on GNU/Linux's side. I would trade merits for emotion and hype on a mass market any day.
Indeed - this is a very smart PR move for Microsoft.
They're calling out Linux in a public setting, and publically promising an end to FUD and biased studies. If OSDL doesn't take the bait, it looks like they're snubbing a perfectly fair (even friendly) offer, and the only conclusion people will jump to is that they're too scared to compete.
If OSDL agree and the study does take place we all know exactly what it'll say - Linux is better for servers, and Windows is better for end-users and enterprise desktops. Microsoft then get to crow loudly about how their end-user experience is provably better, Windows is more usable, and employee productivity is provably higher than on Linux.
At the same time they also ramp up their their multimillion dollar marketing efforts to executives (who are traditionally the major MS-fanboy stronghold anyway). They convince them that Exchange Server is something with which Linux can't compete (which, for a turn-key solution is pretty hard to refute). Bingo - executives buy Windows servers too (for Exchange), and end up consolidating on Windows on the front and back-ends.
Basically, (in my experience) execs have always been the stronghold of MS fanboyism - generally they need a good reason to change, but only an excuse to stay with Microsoft. This will give them a powerful argument against Linux on the client-side, and MS will provide them with the excuse they need (integrated solution, interoperates best with MS clients) to keep Windows on the server-sdie, too.
Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
de Gaulle: "Ce qui il veut?" ("What does he want?")
Aide-de-camp: "Quelque chose au sujet d'un exercice militaire commun l'hiver prochain." ("Something about a joint military exercise next winter.")
I don't give a shit about TOC. You can't put a price on freedom.
"Would microsoft support OSDL the same way they supported java?"
...starting with supporting linux command line text editors in 2015, and emacs promissed by 2041!
MS will abuse (s/abuse/support/) OSDL in newer and more creative ways than Java! Unfortunately, support for OSDL is also on the list of dropped features from Vista. But, good news, I hear MS will start rolling out linux support!
I8-D
And what do they hope for if they succeed? Clearly, Microsoft wants to gain *something*. It's possible that they feel that Windows is being unfairly treated, of course, and everything is on the up-and-up, but I'm more than a little dubious, given Microsoft's marketing history; this would be a hell of a 180 for them. Their former "honest comparisons", focusing on Linux as a server, have been pretty heavily biased.
One possibility is that they want to identify areas of Linux that are weaker than Windows but improving more rapidly than Windows *now*, before it becomes too late.
For example, Linux has a number of weaknesses as a general desktop environment, but has been rapidly improving, and each month, Linux becomes a more suitable desktop environment. The earlier that Microsoft can establish conceptions about the suitability of Linux, the more it benefits them -- they can build a perception of "studies have shown that Linux is twice as expensive to operate as an email client platform", for example, even if this ceases to be true in the future.
Another possibility is that they feel that if they spend enough money, they can get OSDL management to sell their reputation. This is hardly some nasty Microsoft-specific tactic. Many companies that have gone to the trouble of earning themselves a good reputation are willing to sell that reputation for a significant amount of money -- for example, if they produce a high-quality version of something, a large company may purchase them and sell a lower-quality version of their product, but still enjoy increased sales for quite some time due to the higher-than-normal perception of the product that has permeated the public. OSDL, by virtue of the employees it has, has a good community perception. It's possible that someone at OSDL may be willing to sell that reputation, to make not-entirely-accurate studies and provide a source for Microsoft to say "the organization that best represents the competition feels that Windows is superior".
Another possibility is that Microsoft feels that they can outmanuver OSDL at the negotiating table -- to manage to push through tests which will represent their product extremely well without OSDL being capable of realizing that there might be objections.
And of course, it comes back to "but it might be on the up-and-up".
My question, though, if this is legitimate, is why Microsoft is doing this in closed talks with a single organization. If they really, honestly, and legitimately have a concern that there are no fair comparisons being done, there is a very fair way to conduct them. Let them propose their tests to the *public* and let the whole open source community dissect and analyze them. OSDL can run the tests with Microsoft, if that's what they want. I don't believe that Microsoft can slip something past the entire tech community -- stick their proposed test on a blog, let Slashdot and technocrat.net and so forth link to them, and see if any legitimate objections are raised. Then the only weaknesses become whether Microsoft could manage to successfully buy people at OSDL (with the eyes of the world on them, dubious) or whether the tests might only consist of traditional Windows strongholds where Linux is rapidly improving.
Microsoft doesn't do anything without an expectation of return on it (just like IBM, HP, etc). The question is just what their expected return is here -- a legitimate study, or hopes of biased results to use in marketing.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
Tell they to go fuck themselves. All they are looking for is where to attack Linux in their next round of adverts and paid-for "independant" tests. There is NOTHING we can learn from MS, to think otherwise is nothing short of foolish.
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!
-- "Have you ever seen your own brain?"
So, what is happenin it the following: MS contacted Red Had to do some cooperative benchmarking, since the get the facts campaing is not going well. RH answered that they are not interested on benchmark, so MS made the offer to OSDL. Since OSDL didn't bothered to answer the proposal, MS arranged to have the article covered by a magazine, so they will not loose everything.
No reason or fear here, since RH and OSDL aready ignored MS, and their strategy is clear, they just want more powerfull FUD. The sky wont fall by now.
Rethinking email
There are already lots of studies. See Why Open Source Software / Free Software (OSS/FS)? Look at the Numbers!, which lists lots of them. While I certainly like the idea of getting even more information, the claim that "there are no independent studies" is ludicrous.
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
I've read all the comments, but haven't seen anyone point out directly that Microsoft is preparing legal strategies against Open Source. They are quietly patenting scores of programming methods, plus god-only-knows what else! What better way to learn what is "important" to the Open Source community than to "cooperate" with them in an analysis of Open Source code, and learn from the community members what they "really care about". That will let them focus their anti-open source legal machine with laser-like precision, instead of guessing. Call the "cooperation" what it is--under-cover legal research, with the cooperation of the opposing team. Brilliant!
They had better have really deep packets
If by depth you mean length, I expect they dont exceed the pmtu. Its better with no fragmentation...
That's what I think:
By now, MS has a very nice position being a monopoly on both the OS and the most common applications. They use both monopolies to sustain each other and have no reason to change that.
On the near future, Linux will probably catch up Windows on the OS market. Then, MS will have to support Linux (and lose a monopoly). By this time, Microsoft will be on a very weak position, trying to maintain a monopoly without the other that they used to have. The company may be bankrupt, but can also make the transition to the applications market. The most important factor here is if MS will notice that they lost the OS market on time to change their strategy. If they can notice that, they will probably make the transition.
On the long term, free office suits (don't know witch one) will catch up* with MS Office. By this time, MS will lose all the profit it makes now. They may adapt to a different market, probably open sourcing their products. If Ms can't find a new way of earning money by this time, they'll be bankrupt.
That is the scenario I trace. I'll be glad to listen to other ideas, or flaws on it.
* This is inevitable. FOSS moves much faster than proprietary software, and there is no reason to it deaccelerate on the forseable future.
Rethinking email
SFU is a nice implementation of the POSIX standard on top of the NT microkernel. If MS decides to enhance and make it fully compatible (both at source and binary level) with Linux, that could hurt a lot since the need to migrate from Windows to Linux will be less urgent or there would not be need to migrate at all.
1) Office for Mac exists to prop up Office for Windows - period. Office for Linux wouldn't, so it doesn't exist.
2) MS apps dominate on the desktop because they tied to the OS via the APIs - previous challengers such as WordPerfect were not so tied. It should be obvious to anyone with a brain that companies would prefer to buy apps from the company that makes the OS they run on. So they WERE "challenged" - but the challengers were running with both hands tied behind them. Nowhere is that more obvious than IE.
3) My point stands - Windows USED to be cheaper than anything else, and Microsoft's monopoly behavior allowed them to tie their apps to the OS and their OS to the machines being sold.
4) Windows security problems are not about the users - they are direct flaws in the system design, and would require yanking out Active X and un-entangling IE from the OS and removing insecure "features."
5) Microsoft spends shit on R&D compared to their cash balance, and their R&D produces virtually nothing - certainly nothing that improves Bill's bank balance.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
What I think is that Microsoft wants to compete on the technical merits by making sure they have a bunch of patents that Linux can't use. In this sense it is very advantageous of them to be a budy budy with Linux as possible, and actually start making honest technical compairisons.
Also, Microsoft is going thru great efforts to tone down the "religious war" with Linux. Meaning, we don't want people to place any appreciative value on free as in freedom. This also plays into their strategy very well.
Another thing they will be big on is TCO, which is a nice way of saying they system we give you will have the best TCO out there at the time, but forget it when it comes to capitalizing on improvements and changes after we get you'r revenue stream locked into our patented technology.
Finally, MS has realized that they can't beat Linux in the market place, so they will half to co-opt it. But the truth is that the forces that pull us apart (freedom and opportunity) are greater than the forces that hold us together. (busines and commerce)
So eweek asked MS what was said at a meeting with OSDL, and MS refused to say. What else did you expect? The question is what OSDL had to say. Let me guess. Eweek found out about the meeting from OSDL, but OSDL said they agreed to secrecy from MS. Which is a big reason why not to have anything to do with MS. If it is open source, why does anything have to be secret? Yes, I am sure MS has a good answer to that question, like they do for why the xp operating system can not be defragmented so there is a large clear open space Dealing with MS is like getting in a snakepit. OSDL will get bitten. The documented history of bad experiences with MS is just the tip of the iceberg. And yes, I have heard some of the undocumented cases.
Sorry, I wasn't real clear I realize.
It's pretty much established doctrine from those who watch MS that Windows and Office are their cash cows. Actually deciphering what is most profitable is difficult since they are internally always robbing Peter to pay Paul, but it seems that Windows is the number one revenue stream over at MS. Which is why they're getting concerned about Vista (nee Longhorn) crashing and burning. They had enough trouble selling XP because 2k was so good.
To bring discussion (which has mostly died) back to the topic and to your point, I think you are right that MS could make a boatload by becoming and ISV primarily for other platforms (like Linux). I even think that is likely to happen in the relatively near future. But MS isn't planning on it. Yet
Whip out my "Hell hath Frozen over" celebration gear...
[Now, I'm off to lift my le... Um, visit... at another place.]
I find it weird that the open source community cries 'troll' when they read this comment.
Seriously. I normally don't gripe about moderation, but this particular one just bugs me.
Personally, I agree with the parent. Now I am going to be cynical for a moment: Perhaps the reason this is marked 'troll' is because it is one of the few *rational* posts and a rational post about Microsoft isn't cool enough for the average Slashdot mod. Ok, now that I'm done being sarcastic, I have to add that piss-poor mods like this one are one reason I find myself avoiding Slashdot in favor of less biased news communities.
For the record: I think it'd be great to have a bi-partisan (to use a political term) study comparing the relative merits of Open Source and Microsoft products. Of course, almost everyone here would hate it. The Microsofties would be upset because it would show that OSS is better in some areas. The OSS zealots would be be upset because the would show that OSS is NOT better in some areas. The Apple fanboys would be upset because the study would probably not include OSX. Those few of us who truly believe there are pros and cons to all of the above (and other) offerings and that you should simply choose the best tool for your particular job - well, we will get even more disgusted by Slashdot.
Of course, by saying this... I've just committed Karmic suicide, but dammit! It needed to be said.
Solitary, Poor, Nasty, Brutish and Not Quite As Tall As I'd Like To Be.
Mmmm, sometimes the comparisons are hated but I cannot resist this one...
Seems like Microsoft has been ignoring everithing that wasn't a threat, destroying it whenever they believed it to be a threat and assimilating it whenever they thought it would be useful to them... now there is an species just like that in a tv show...
Also a well known skinny guy said something that represent the other side of this matter: First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.
I mean how inane can they be. You can imagine them, haunched over their consoles, giggling away, in some darkened corner of redmond figuring out ways of rigging the tests and twisting test conditions to suit themselves (maybe one of M$=B$ famous multi-million R&D programs, it certainly doesn't seem to go into developing better code).
The only benefit to the community is the effective admission by M$=BS that the alternative is failing. They are the competing historical operating system and they are trying to define themselves in a market that is leaving them behind. I a sure if the horse and buggy operators of yesteryear wanted to stage a race with automobiles they would always make sure the conditions favoured them and cry foul if they did not.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
"He who sups with the devil had best bring a long spoon."
Love your country always, but respect your government only when it deserves it. -- Mark Twain