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."

Comments

Already accepted

[fembots]

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.

Re:Already accepted

[Eberlin]

Recognition vs. Acceptance vs. Surrender

MS has recognized Linux's place in the marketplace. They know of Linux's server market growth and its desktop push. Ms recognizes the choices in Open Source software (OO.o vs. MS Office, for example).

MS has not accepted this. Probably will not either. Thus the TCO fudging and other FUDs. If Microsoft accepts the qualities of Linux (and OSS), they wouldn't FUD it. They'd acknowledge its benefits and make THEIR offerings better.

So once you make the distinction between recognition and acceptance, the statement pretty much pans out ok.

Re:Already accepted

[ewe2]

In an odd way, that's exactly what I believe Microsoft wishes the situation to be: Linux the junior partner to Windows. Microsoft will not accept Linux as the dominant server in the enterprise in any way. It has been suggested that recent acquisitions in the area of enterprise management by Microsoft is to ensure that whatever the Linux/Windows balance is, Windows will be in charge of the data centre. All the better to enforce its IP rights, no doubt.

I hear MCSE's praise Active Directory to the skies and claim that Unix ACL's can never match W2K's group attribute management. I don't really see anything a competent Unix admin couldn't match with OpenLDAP and efficient automation, but that's not the point, its the idea that whatever Linux can do, Windows has already done it and in a superior fashion. This is the direction I expect the pro-Microsoft argument to run once they've "accepted" that their TCO argument has failed.

The true value of open source solutions involving Linux and the *BSD's is that you're not trapped into one management model, and only the larger adoptees seem to have grasped this. If Microsoft insist on being the gatekeeper in the server market, they might have more resistance than they expected.

Re:Already accepted

[nocomment]

Funny little known fact. Microsoft runs Linux. My predecessor here at my job, left to go work for Microsofts Xbox division managing their Linux developer stations, because a lot of the Xbox developers wanted to develop on Linux (note: this wasn't MS developers wanted to run Linux but third party and so MS had to support it becuase they wanted the developers more than they wanted a pissing match.

tco and the customer

[ch-chuck]

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.

Deep Penguin

[Stanistani]

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?

Y'know what's curious?

[Otter]

I was about to shrug off the utter pointlessness of this story: OSDL to not perform a hypothetical study, Linux to continue nonetheless. As noted journalist CmdrTaco put it about an equally pointless story about Google buying some print ads, it's news "from the nothing-else-happening-in-august dept."

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.

5 stages

[pizza_milkshake]

• Denial
• Anger
• Bargaining
• Depression
• Ultimate Acceptance

Microsoft is somewhere around 3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_stages_of_grief

Not exactly

[ezweave]

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.

Givashit

[pandrijeczko]

Who gives a damn whether or not Microsoft "accepts" Linux? Why does the ignorant media base Linux's success on whether or not Microsoft acknowledges its existence or not?

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...

Re:MS will never have to accept Linux

[RealAlaskan]

>>Bottom line, the world needs something that accually works, and is open-source.

>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.

Linux just is..

[inkysplat]

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.

Does It Really Matter?

[LifesABeach]

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."