Slashdot Mirror
OSDL CEO: Microsoft Has to Accept Linux
PenguinCandidate writes "The OSDL's Stuart Cohen has been in the news lately following a clandestine meeting with Microsoft about a dubiously independent TCO study; a study that has since been rejected by the OSDL. The idea of an independent Windows/Linux TCO comparison may be dead, but did Cohen have an additional card up his sleeve?
In this interview, Cohen states that while he "awaits the reply from MS's Martin Taylor on the results of his internal investigation" into how an off-the-record meeting became public, he will continue to promote his belief that MS will eventually have to accept Linux as customer demand increases."
I thought Microsoft has long accepted Linux's place in the market, otherwise why would it bother to come up with those TCOs and FUDs?
I hope this is not exposing the lack of maturity in "Linux People", who acts like a little brother, and always try to get recognition and comparison with his older brother, and in trying so, will forever live under the shadow of the latter.
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
If I change the oil in my car myself, every ~3000 miles, it costs me about $20. If I have to take it to Quicky Lube it's about $32 (plus they try to sell me a bunch of useless stuff). Obviously TCO of the same car varies depending on the expertise and willingness of the customer to crawl underneath and get dirty.
Similarly, if a customer has to hire someone to edit his inittab then it's probably going to cost more than a Windows jockey clicking on services attributes. Dunno, there's just too many indefinite variable to compare complex systems.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Did he meet the MS fellow in a parking garage at night after carefully placing a flag in a potted plant on his patio, then receiving the "meet" time in his delivered newspaper?
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
What occurred to me is that there's something rather bizarre about how little interest has been generated by the complete destruction of a major US city a few days ago. I've barely blinked (sent money, couldn't do anything else, shrugged and went back to work) and in general there seems to have been a lot less fuss than I certainly would have imagined something like this would prompt.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
MS don't get it that people use GNU/Linux because it is "free". The propation war they like to think is a battle isn't at all. People/Company's are using it because it is there. It is pissing in the wind. The bad shame is the techy sites that relay 'news' to the common plebs are read by the common blebs, and don't know what the hell anyway.
This is like saying that Chrysler must accept Toyota. No they damn well don't and if they want to run a competition to put them out of business, then that's their decision. If MS wants to fight Linux, more power to them. MS doesn't have to "accept" anything. They are free to fight it as they should. I don't recall anyone saying that MS should "accept" OS/2 instead of offering incentives to IBM shops to ditch it for NT Wkstn.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
First was IBM's results claiming Linux TCO was lowest, now it doesn't matter!?
OK, let's base it off something else...maybe security? Oh wait, I got it, who has the easiest to configure applications?
No...it has to be something more. Maybe we should see who has the better mascot. I think that's Linux, considering Windows doesn't really have a mascot; although personally I think I'd vote for Windows is their mascot was a caricature of Bill Gates getting pied in the face.
IGB: More fun than eating oatmeal!
- Denial
- Anger
- Bargaining
- Depression
- Ultimate Acceptance
Microsoft is somewhere around 3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_stages_of_grief
Linux users already outnumber Mac users. Linux is growing fast, and estimates are hard to pin down of the shear size of the user base since there are no receipts or other records for most of us. My computer came with Windows installed originally, even though I have never used Windows on it or any other machine in over a decade. As far as the sales records go, I am a Microsoft customer. I have purchased CDs for any distro, I have always downloaded CD (and long ago floppy) images. Since Google's Zeitgeist no longer lists OS and browser statistics, here's a good site to check out: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.a sp
MS accepts that it must compete against Linux, but I think that Mr Cohen is trying to point out some of the dumber MS practices, in regards to interoperability.
In my experience alot of this is related to how MS wants to integrate it's enterprise level products into the OS. The two biggest examples I can think of are:
- SQLServer
- .NET
Basically they both run as services (IIS, I think) on Windows OSs, making them inherently incompatible with Linux or any other OS. It's all part and parcel to this Microsoft mentality that to make the most money, we need to be an end-to-end solution; for everything.So what is my point? Well, if MS was really about making the best product you could run it on a multitude of OSs. Because if SQLServer and the .NET (web apps) were really that good they could be more OS agnostic. The alternatives, Oracle, J2EE, PHP, etc run almost anywhere. It would also be nice to see Active Directory provide full LDAP support.
And it isn't even the end-to-end solution that bothers me. It is also the lock out of everyone else (but, I guess Microsoft can always say, "Look how well we play with ourselves" ;-) ). This also seems to be half of what causes all of the OS security problems and release delays. Instead of having each app provide its own services (to some extent), the OS comes with bits and pieces for other MS apps. Some of these bits don't seem to get used much, but everyone gets them. This all adds to the complexity of the OS. While Bill and Balmer spout that it makes "everything easier to do", I disagree. I would rather set up a cluster of app servers for J2EE than attempt that nonsense for .NET using the built in configuration options (from the control panel).
I think it is possible that Vista/Longhorn will not be that sucessful. Then MS will have to make SQLServer and .NET web apps run on something else... like everything else in the world. That is just conjecture (or wishful thinking, perhaps), but that will be the only way MS can hold its ground in the long run (at least in the business IT world). Ceterus Peribus.
Exactly when did hell freeze over?!
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
MS does not have to accept linux. I hear the phrase "so and so has to..." and I shudder almost each time.
Unless it is legally mandated, they don't have to accept anything. Hell, the can say gravity doesn't exist. You can think of them as stupid, but they don't have to accept it. They can go and live with my ex who is queen of the region. You know de Nile.
In fact Windows is the younger brother (Unix has been around much longer), even if Windows has grown up looking like Tyson.
I am not interested in "recognition", whatever that means, nor comparisons. MS and their customers (pointy haired office managers and Joe Sixpack home users) are welcome to go their own way. Linux has by now established a viable user base.
I just want to see MS pressurised or forced to use open file standards.
Linux exists *despite* Microsoft, not *because* of it - the "UNIX way" started 30+ years ago, long before Microsoft even had MS-DOS, let alone Windows.
Linux is my chosen way because it's stable, fulfilling to use, and makes me feel good being part of a global movement where people create because they want to rather than because of financial gain.
However, at the same time, my wife uses Windows because she does a lot of work with Excel, wants ease of use with her digital camera and just wants to stick with what she knows. She's aware Linux exists, she occasionally uses one of my machines to surf the Internet and now prefers Firefox to IE. But she has no interest in shell programming or command line skills.
The point I am trying to make is that neither Windows or Linux provides the answer to everyone's computing requirements and those of us who advocate Linux should only do it in so much as to make Windows users aware that there are alternatives to the Microsoft way.
However, there is *no* intent to destroy Microsoft or to aim for "more Linux desktops than Windows ones by 2010" type targets - if such is ever the case, it will be because people have chosen it to be so, not because of Linux winning some kind of "war".
So move along now, nothing to see here...
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Long-time users are asking the question: Is Slashdot becoming irrelevant? More posts express that sentiment as the number interesting stories are being buried by accidental and deliberate duplicate entries, and the flood of Linux vs. Microsoft war stories, grows by the day. A collective yawn has developed among nearly all three-digit UID members and it is now moving into the four- and five-digit UIDs at an alarming rate. Can Slashdot stop the slide into sheer obscurity?
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
>Wow. If that's true Apple's in deep shit.
Not really. OSX actually works (so they say), and significant portions of it are open source. Not the eyecandy, of course, but the foundations. If the world really needs what he said, Apple may do just fine. Is that really what the world wants? I haven't seen much evidence of demand for either ``actually works'' or ``open source''. I hope I'm wrong about that, but history suggests that the inferior product has a huge advantage.
The market is big enough for lots of players.
I remember before the IBM PC. Back then, when the market was a lot smaller, there really was room for lots of players. There was Vector Graphics, IMSAI, Altair, Altos, Otrona, Kaypro, Osbourne, General Automation, Franklin, Apple, Commodore, Northstar, Tandy, Heathkit (including a kit PDP-11!) and many others, running Xenix, single or multi-user variants of CPM, Pick, and I don't know what-all. I worked on or with them all. I had a diskette with a program which allowed me to read 43 different, proprietary, soft-sectored floppy disk formats. Obviously, that didn't include the 8-inch floppies and the hard-sectored ones like the Vector graphics. There were many manufacturers, and a huge variety of hardware and software.
Then came IBM. Suddenly the market was huge, and there wasn't room for all those many computer makers and their diverse products. Of that list of hardware and software platforms I mentioned above, how many are around today? How many do you even remember?
I'd say the microcomputer market is either way too small for ``lots of players'', or way too big. Right now, it seems to be about right for Wintel (or WinAMD) and a maybe Apple, and Apple's been dying at least as long as BSD.
See what I've been reading.
Why is there this feeling of Windows has to die, Linux must take over? okay its fair enough to monitor the linux uptake, because it can spark confidence in the community, and also encourage developers to take into account the rapidness of the uptake, however these figures should not be compared to other OSs.
We also have to remember, the majority of users don't switch OSs just because they think Windows is Evil, its almost always down to the "User Needs".
As for all this media coverage over Linux Vs Windows, and TCO Campaigns, when will see news of NEW and INNOVATIVE operating systems, like i recently stumbled on SKYOS(http://www.skyos.org/) which looks promising, and is commercial, none of the usual UNIX FOSS dervatives.
you only joined recently.
you joined to defend your 'review' of the ie7 beta in which you praise ms for creating 'superior software' and for adding new, innovative features.
now you claim the linux destop offers no significant advantage, is only for techies AND is a cheap knock off of windows.
the time lost and costs associated with the removal of adware, spyware and trojans is a significant disadvantage for ms windows. and that is just one of the advantages for linux that i care to mention atm.
there are a plethora of desktop environments for *nix, some of which are nothing like the windows ui. have you seen a modern linux desktop?
what are these missing features for non-technical people? file storage - check. internet browsing - check. office suite - check. media playback - check.
every post by you is decidely ms-centric, so i am thinking your experience with linux is fairly limited.
"you must be young, son
because your head is all wrong"
- me
sum.zero
ps i wrote this on a windows workstation
This is naive thinking IMO. Microsoft makes over 30% of it's profits from Windows and over 30% from MS-Office. They got that MS-Office monopoly by using the Windows monopoly. Why on earth would Bill and Steve allow a competitor to Windows gain any value by putting MS Office on Linux?
Any such move would mean that they have accepted
Their their control of developers and the market would have to have deteriorated so so much for Bill and Steve to allow ANY MS software product to run on another operating system. MS Office for Mac only exists because they needed Apple in the DOJ vs MSFT case. It only exists now because it's a wash to keep it running and it helps them LOOK like they are good citizens. It also helps that they have a monopoly on Mac for office software too.
The day Microsoft releases a critical business software package for another operating system will the the day Bill Gates and Steve Balmer leave the building. They make billions in profits off Windows and Office. Heck, look at the Palm/handheld market for an example. Palm had over 80% marketshare when all the database companies were releasing Palm versions of db access clients. Microsoft, they announce a version for WindowsCE... Speaking of WindowsCE, they've lost money on THAT product every quarter of every year since they started that project. About $1 billion in losses per year for 8 years. Do you really think they'll bring MS Office to Linux?
Unfortunately, such a statement actually lowers my respect for the guy.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Yesterday I had the prideful pleasure of watching my eldest daughter show me how she can play ANY of her CD's on her linux box. She uses FireFox, openOffice, Gaim, Thunderbird, Gimp, and soon Blender3D; All on KDE from a Knoppix distro. Her "Jump Start" games are starting to collect dust next to the Win'98se master cd. When she asked what is "BSOD"? I said, "It's just your father dating himself."
Given the networks of tens or hundreds of thousands of zombie Windows computers, it is clear that the Total Cost to 0wn (TC0) some AOL user's Windows PC is very, very low.
I doubt you can 0wn a Linux box as cheaply.
Reading Slashdot is ruining my spelling and grammar.
If not, wouldn't Microsoft actually *try* to attack Linux's core markets? Why not release *affordable* Windows servers to ISP's while today licensing prices Windows out of the market. Same with simple web servers. Same with much of the embedded market.
Sure they are trying to release a cluster edition but nobody I know even at Microsoft takes this seriously. (I think we can call it the Cluster$#%^ edition.)So again, this attack is pretty pitiful on Microsoft's part.
The FUD is directed at protecting Microsoft's core markets and in helping Microsoft win in areas where they are actually trying to compete.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I wouldn't bet on it, there is currently a lot of development in the shinyness category on linux. Stuff like xgl can make windows look bad, as long as the X.org devs can get the code cleaned up and implimented before longhorn comes out (it will probably be a bit touch and go imho). I still don't use linux on the desktop much but i'm pretty excited by the whole thing at the moment, not just the eye candy but that's a part of it.
This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
That's never a sure statement to make. Remember any of these? "I don't see Japanese cars seriously competing the automotive market. Chevy and Ford are pretty entrenched in the US Market" "I don't see Compaq competing in the PC market. IBM is very well entrenched in the home computer market" Or any more of them. How about Bell with telcos, local cable monopolies, IBM with mainframes, Intel with processors, Apple with pretty GUIs... the list goes on. Just because a company has a seemingly insurmountable market share now means nothing for the future. History is full of companies that once were the only players that are now also-rans, or gone completely. Give it 5, 10, 15 years and Microsoft may well be forgotten.
that was a rambling and self-congratulatory non-response to my statements.
reality does not concur with your arguments [and logical fallacies]; linux continues to gain traction in pretty much every area. frankly, considering how effective ms has been at protecting tehir monopoly in the desktop, i'm surprised linux has come this far this fast.
froth away though...
sum.zero
What is the "core market" of something that no-one owns, no-one manages and has no mission plan? "Linux" has no "core market", there merely many systems using linux based OS' in a scattering of roles. Microsoft attacks these roles according to value. The Desktop is mucho value for MS and as such, MS is sticking the FUDge everywhere. Ditto for the application server. Webhosts contain no added value for MS, the scale is too big the profits too low. However, MS will attack the corporate intranet servers as this is a niche in the webserver market, it's actually slowly moving towards the application server! Embedded is of value and MS is on the move, same with media/entertainement.
-if at first you don't succeed, stay the heck away from paragliding.
All of the OEMS bundling windows on their PC's will get the new version of Windows automatically. It's interesting that the areas where Vista is going is where Mac has gained something of a foothold and where Linux is weakest - in 3d desktops.
This is my sig.
You are comparing car industry to software industry. Cars are not suppose to interoperate or lets put it other way, you cannot drive a Chrysler and Toyota at one time...however you can use Linux and run microsoft products within it. "Accept Linux" means acknowledge the fact that Linux is a viable alternative to your (MS) products and stop the subversive software practices that MS is famous for. Coming back to your Chrysler-Toyota example, Toyota and Chrysler both implicitely accept that they are competitors and they both try to make good products...it is just that they don't interoperate due to the nature of industry they are in.
When I use the term "core market" I might better be saying "stronghold market." The core market is the area where the product is not only widely used but derives a dispurportionate aspect of its sustinance. Core markets in this way are very hard to attack.
Microsoft's core market is the corporate workstation market, due to the dependence on Microsoft RAD tools, office suites, and operating systems. If this market falls, Microsoft falls software ceases to be the influence it currnetly is.
Similarly, Linux's core market is in the low-margin technology-centric world of the ISP, the embedded system vendors (TIVO), and hobbyists. ISP's were early adopters, and many employ maintenance developers part time for products like Linux, Apache, etc. If the ISP market would have gone to Windows in 1999, it would have set Linux back decades. If Microsoft had been able to convince embedded system vendors to use Windows CE (maybe free licenses on all products manufactured in the next 5 years), the same might be true today. And had Microsoft ever been able to leverage hobbyists the way Linux can, we would be in trouble.
The fact is that Microsoft is in a "containment" strategy. They are not trying to eliminate Linux at the moment. They are trying to keep it out of their core markets. And they are failing.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP