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?
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
"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.
"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
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 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.
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.
``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.
Show me one quote where Linus thinks Microsoft are in any way "good guys" - however you or he defines "good guys."
Yes, Linus is not a "free as in beer software" fanatic. However, he DOES believe in open source and in Linux as a process and a product, as well as a technology challenge. The latter may be what floats his boat, but he's not exactly an SCO supporter, either. And he's not stupid.
Stallman may be a socialist or semi-socialist or pseudo-socialist or whatever, but even the GPL allows people to sell open source software as long as the source is included.
Bill Gates and Microsoft have NEVER been about free as in freedom OR free as in beer, ever. Go back and read his "You Hobbyists Steal Your Software" rant and his poker days at Harvard.
Why should anybody in OSS concern themselves about "cooperation" (in other than a technical interoperability sense) with Microsoft?
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
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.
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.
"Kittens give Morbo gas!"
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
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.
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
Sneak teach kids Algebra using a game
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).
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
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?"