Slashdot Mirror
Hilf Speaks About Linux Through Microsoft Eyes
inkslinger77 writes "Microsoft's Linux-pro, Bill Hilf pulled out of the Linux World conference in Australia, but speaks with Computerworld anyway about what exactly his team gets up to. He talks about how Microsoft plans to make money from Linux and how they use Linux in their overall market strategy."
I'd say the software wars image is LONG overdue for an update.
Furthermore, inkslinger77 goes on to say: No he doesn't.
As you can see from TFI: Did he say anything about Linux in there? I don't even see him using the word. He talks about how Microsoft can better themselves by learning from the open source software out there.
According to Hilf, hey're not "making money from Linux." Instead they're learning from the OSS development model and I think it's about time Microsoft starts to realize that they can learning a thing or two about how bug identification (among other things) is supposed to be done.
Jesus, the title of this article--"Linux: Hilf Speaks About Linux Through Microsoft Eyes"--belies its true nature, most of the interview is spent discussing OSS, understanding it, the sociological aspects of it and its development process.
When it comes to Microsoft, I'm one of the first people to throw stones (and hard!). But this review of this interview is ridiculous! I don't know if inkslinger77 didn't even read the article or if this is a classic case of 'spin.'
I'm going to send inkslinger77 and ScuttleMonkey a big " Read the Fucking Interview " on this one.
My work here is dung.
We try to find out what makes people use Linux instead of Windows and add that functionality to Windows, so people stop moving away.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
What you get from this interview is less that Hilf is Microsoft's guy for Linux, but instead that Hilf provides a strong counterbalance to the mainline Microsoft anti-Linux stance. His background shows exactly how pro-Linux he is. Yet, he still is able to call a spade a spade and give Windows credit when it is due.
Mix06 probably made for the scheduling conflict, and for someone who definitely seems more at home with Unix operating systems, LinuxCon would be a much more interesting event than another rehashing of Microsoft's products and vision.
It is too bad the interviewer seemed more interested in coaxing anti-Windows sentiment out of Hilf than in getting to the heart of what the OSS team within Microsoft does. Hilf vaguely responds with some comment about using the lab as a testbed for OSS within a mixed network ecosystem, but surely there's got to be more than that!
By running Linux and a variety of other OSS in a highly Microsoft-centric IT environment, we're learning how those technologies can better interoperate with Microsoft's proprietary technologies. Really? And then finding ways to stop that happening? It's great if Microsoft were working on ways to help Linux/Windows communication, but I find it doubtful....
http://skeptobot.blogspot.com/ - A site for the Renaissance man and woman
How does Microsoft plan to make money from open source and Linux?
The majority of Microsoft doesn't understand the benefits of the OSS development model. We are pretending to incorporate its most positive elements into our development practices. We like to claim our top priority is to produce great software that meets the needs of our customers, partners, and other constituent communities. We recently struck deals that will see us screw over SugarCRM and Jboss, open source vendors we normally would leave alone. The reason we pursued these relationships is because in both cases nearly half of the infidel traitors are running Windows Server. By fucking over these companies, we can help raise the perceived TCO of open source software. The deals are also a prime example of the success partners are finding on the Windows platform regardless of the development model they employ (so we need to put an end to this).
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The ever wonderful Lugradio interviewed Bill a while back. see http://www.lugradio.org/episodes/39 WARNING: Contains bad language and M$ insults
I thought only Deanna Troi could do that?
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
It seems to me in many respects MS is playing catchup to OSS. The tabbed browsing in IE 7 (that's been in every other browser in the last year or two), the all grahpical installation of WinVista (the two Linux distros I've installed, Mandriva and SuSe, had all grahpical installations), the interface in WinVista (looks kinda like KDE or Mac OS X), and so on. Maybe WinVista will actually have a decent partioning tool during it's installation like Mandriva and SuSe do. So yeah, MS does have things to learn from OSS (and the Mac). This post will probably incite a flamefest from the MS Windows apologists that hang around message boards but that's not my intent, just my observations from using Linux and MS Windows.
(...) how they use Linux (...)
"We are Microsoft. Lower your firewalls and surrender your servers. We will badly reimplement your technological distinctiveness in our own products. Your culture will be embraced and extended to service us. Resistance is futile."
Wenn ist das Nunstueck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.
Considering that the interveiw mentions that an estimated half of these two open source software programs are running on the Windows platform, I think they have a lot of research to do regarding that. I mean, if you are one of the largest operating systems in the world, wouldn't you be interested in the software that a massive amount of users are running on it?
Personally, I think you're digging for some conspiracy that isn't there but you're free to speculate (as that's what makes things interesting!).
My work here is dung.
I suspect MS just want to keep Linux from starting to death rattle but no more. If they can keep Linux alive to the point is "next year Linux will become mainstream!" they can pretend it's a real rival in the anti trust lawsuits. Any more than that and Linux is a danger and they'll want to cripple it.
Linux is like a little kid right now. If has a lot of freedom but hasn't exploited it yet, the second it starts to get out of hand MS will try and bitch slap it back into what it sees as "it's place". But untill then MS want to encourage it and act like they're trying to help it, it's great PR to "help the little guy" and with the anti trust stuff being thrown around, using Linux as a defence is a very good move by MS.
I like muppets.
"Microsoft's Linux-pro, Bill Hilf pulled out"
Doesn't he know that this procedure rarely works? Just ask my son.
MS is a reactive company (I'm sorry but extra graphical bells and whistles in Vista doesn't count) it adds features of it's competitors in order to compete and usually wins due to it's existing market share.
IE is the perfect example - nothing changed on it since it "won" the browser wars, "no need for improvement because it is perfect" was the MS line. But then Firefox came along (yes I know there is also Opera and others BUT Firefox got the market share), suddenly a new version of IE is on the horizon (but only for limited operating systems to encourage us to upgrade to Vista).
If MS controls a market sector it has no reason to innovate "we're #1 so why try harder?" syndrome. This is not an anti-MS rant because this is a wider trait with most monopolising companies.
I hope that some day MS learns from the open source community, not by giving their software away but by not being afraid to open up a little bit. But whilst they control the market they do not have to be proactive do they?
Only if Linux and other open source products make major inroads into MS sales (20%+?) will we see any change of direction from MS and then it may be more of a PR stunt than actual change (plus of course adding a few features that OSS already has that most users never get a chance to use).
The real M$ strategy to destroy OSS:
/ 1736230&from=rss[slashdot]
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/14
Lure away some of the best people in OSS with big paychecks and then put them in a corner until they are so frustrated they quit.
GeekServ Unix Consulting Services (http://www.geekserv.com)
Nothing new here, except a slightly different form of doubletalk. Microsoft's only interest in OSS is co-opting and controlling as much of it as possible, and destroying the rest. Just like they've always done with all of their competitors. And please spare the silly "we just want to build great software" baloney. The richest software company on the planet can't build diddly-squat, sheesh.
we will end no whine before its time
The fine article has:
we're a centre of competency for Open Source Software (OSS) inside Microsoft. By running Linux and a variety of other OSS in a highly Microsoft-centric IT environment, we're learning how those technologies can better interoperate with Microsoft's proprietary technologies.
Even your own quote stresses interoperating. Improving M$ junk is a secondary function of his lab.
He's hosed. A M$ man talking about how good Linux is and how much M$ can learn from the FOSS community instead of calling it a "cancer" or "communist" is obviously off message. In a company that fires employees for mentioning Apples computers in a personal blog, breaking groupthink is a bad idea. Not so bad an idea as working for said company or using it's products, but a bad idea. The "internal meeting" is probably going to consist of chair throwing and statements like, "we hired you to understand how we can break this communist shit, not to issue PR statements or set company policy."
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
MILF?
Captain Spin: Our operating system is much better than Linux.
Hilf Boy: Yes much better than Linux.
Captain Spin: Linux is ok for loser techies like us but not for the average user.
Hilf Boy: Yes, they are far too stupid.
Captain Spin: These aren't the droids you are looking for.
Hilf Boy: Definitely not our droids.
Same show, different solid gold dancer.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
This guy isn't an idiot or a grunt. Hilf knows a thing or two about Linux and OSS. The fact that Microsoft hired him and he has an (albeit small) team working on this stuff should be at least a sign of goodwill. How can you call him "off message?" I think this guy is right on the fucking money and Microsoft is finally pulling their heads out of their asses. Sure this is optimistic hope for the future of companies working hand in hand with OSS development projects but we have to believe it's going to happen or it won't!
But then people like yourself hop all over it and stomp down anything that might be construed as an olive branch.
Congratulations, they call you a communist and you call them fascists. Let's all call names then, shall we? You'll probably find some names for me also. Where does that get us?
The cold hard truth is that you're just as closed minded as they are about working together and you're only screwing over the user when you do that. I don't know what they did to you or what happened to you in a previous life but please get over it.
My work here is dung.
Linus: Hilf, do you actually expect me to believe that you want to contibute to the Linux community?
Hilf: No, Mr. Torvalds. I expect you to die.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Lets not forget that Linux, Linux users, and the Linux community have held themselves as accountable to being free as in freedom because of the underpinnings of the GPL. However, Microsoft is accountable to "intellectual property" being their "crown jules" as I think Bill Gates once put it, but that kind of proprietary controll simply won't work in the information age. It's like mixing oil and water - if you shake it up real hard it might work for awhile, but over the long term one will float to the top and the other to the bottom.
Hilf on why he jumped ship from IBM to work at M$,
"Microsoft offers me the opportunity to work with extremely smart people,..."
Ouch! Was that on purpose?
cat sig >
Well, there's this chinese saying (literally) "know yourself, know your enemy, win all the battles you fight". So, what MS is really doing is nothing new.
I think Linux has no problems penetrating further in the server space. However, Windows is slowly becoming like Unix, what with better command shells, scripts, use of XML as config for IIS. Maybe one day, the whole registry is one big XML file.
On the other hand, as a end-user workstation, Linux really needs something, to the extent of an Aqua-equivalent, a very consistent, across-the-board graphical interface. Current KDE or Gnome desktops still falls short. (Yeah, I know there are many different distributions, and that's the whole point of open source and Linux. But better consistency is needed for mass adoption. How about, as a start, a common menu structure across different distributions?)
... or at least don't post AC when making such assertions.
In some circles, your 'spade a spade' comment might be considered racial in tone. But not in all. In fact, it is certain that it did NOT originate as a way of refering to blacks. It is possible that the term got "adopted" by racists in the same way that "gay" got adopted by homosexuals.
For a little history on the phrase , click here
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
"...largest software development environment in the world."
Number of employees:
- MS: +/-52,000
- IBM: +/- 365,000
Software/Services Revenue per Employee:
- MS comes in at #3, with $560,340.57 of revenue per head
World's Largest Development Site:
- SourceForge.net (VA Software) w/over 1 million registered developers.
Microsoft will probably download a Linux distro. re-compile the kernel with intentional bugs, then show it off and say: "Look! Linux has worse security problems than Windows! Don't go free, go Microsoft..."
Couldn't resist...
If Microsoft are working on interoperability, then isn't a large part of that about sharing files and printing? And isn't the main component of that SMB/CIFS? And isn't that down to Samba, a reverse engineered implementation of Windows SMB/CIFS, reverse engineered because Microsoft won't release the API? What is that sound I hear? Parry sirrah, it is the CluePhone.
Not really worth reading. In summary, he says: bla blob bla blob bla.
You caught that too I see. He's one of those "I wanna be a manager" types. The puree'd bullshit is seething out of his teeth. Microsoft just paid this whore more. Well, linux's future is secure.
"Contrary to a common assumption that Microsoft is anti open source, the reality is not so black and white. Certainly, most customers don't live in that either/or world. They choose a technology - an operating system or an application - based on its ability to solve a particular problem and to serve a certain business need, not based on its development model."
<insert obligtory M$ bash>
OK. I'm glad we could get that out. Now, obviously Hilf is going to biased towards Microsft, mostly because that's where his paycheck comes from, but I think that the interview says a lot that goes left unsaid here at /. Primarily this:
Don't make a platform decision entirely based on its development model. There are pros and cons on both sides of the issue. Going the MS route creates its own set of challenges, same with OSS. At the end of the day managers only care about this: how much is going to cost and does it solve more business problems than it creates?
In projects that I've done, it made more sense to go with MS, in others, *nix. I haven't let development model politics cloud my judgement in order to get the job done. Isn't that how it should be?
We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
Hilf states: "They choose a technology - an operating system or an application - based on its ability to solve a particular problem and to serve a certain business need, not based on its development model."
I'd suggest that the development model is or should be a factor in the choice for the obvious reasons. Those include, but are not limited to: time-to-change, time-to-repair, internals documentation, and maintenance costs.
better is the enemy of good
The problem is that out of those 365,000 employees at IBM, 350,000 are salespeople. The rest work on hardware.
It is not a question. It is the answer.
re: we're learning how those technologies can better interoperate with Microsoft's proprietary technologies.
:)
I'll believe it when Microsoft contributes to (either) samba's protocol stack (or|and) GUIs for samba, including either webmin or an X app - oh, and helps to document smb.conf
Meanwhile, aren't they still running their "Get the FUD" campaign?
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
They choose a technology - an operating system or an application - based on its ability to solve a particular problem and to serve a certain business need, not based on its development model.
/could/ choose linux based on the fact that I can stuff my system so full of development tools, compilers, cross compilers, 3d libraries, windowing libraries, that I can't even think straight, all without spending a nickle.
/could/ choose linux based on the fact that I can simply walk away from the computer when I'm done using it. I dont need to shutdown, in fear of a slow experience when I come back, or in fear of extending my internet-exposure for longer than I have to, filling my computer with spyware.
Not me! I
Or, I
But no, I choose linux because I look to the FUTURE, you know, BEYOND my next 5 clicks or so. You george bush american's are now very confused arent you? Future?
I dont care if Micro$oft may have a slightly better table-format layout in Office Gizmo 2007. I understand what their software development model gives to the world, and I understand what the open source software development model gives to the world. Academia, you know, the place where all those good ideas come from, has always worked with an open development model. I choose linux because I support their development model, I choose linux because support of that development model is support for a future full of innovation courtesy of our uninhibited access to the our society's collective knowledge.
But Ok, if you really want to, you can pick why I'll never use your crappy product.
1. Its crappy
2. You're development model and business precedent you have sent will stifle general innovation in the world if everyone starts acting like you. I hate you and think that you've done more harm then good!
God, it took until __XP__ for you to finally make it so Freecell couldn't crash my home computer's operating system kernel. Those facilities had been there since the 386. GO AWAY.
Why stick up for big business?
The whole second part of the chart, where the emperor retreats from the Vistas of Moscow (Idaho?), seems missing.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Quit being so pompous, it's .... immature. M$ is a good name for a company that sues public schools for copying a text editor. Now, kiss my ass.
Interoperability is a two-way street; you can not only help others interoperate with you, you can improve your interoperability with them.
True and free and open software people understand that. It's kind of hard to miss when all your source and formats are published. That's why Gnome and KDE programs happy share data and space with an Enlightenment window manager. It's also why Open Office can suck down any M$ DOC. Taking it a step further, I can use Wine, Crossover Office or Parallels to run any Windoze application on any free computer. It's equally obvious that Microsoft is unable to understand this.
Now, what was your point?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Err IBM is primarily involved in hardware and services. Not software.
They can have all the staff they want. Id wager there are quite a few companies with more staff than MS. That doesnt change the fact MS makes well over $30 billion from its software revenue.
IBM makes about a tenth of that from software alone.
Yeah clearly hes talking bullshit...
Hackers I'd Like to F***?
In project work you don't have to think about maintenance, since you're usually long gone when the stuff goes down, which is why project members are often not as anti-ms in contrast to maintance staff.
If you look at the maintenance issues, there are three types of IT departments:
- Well staffed (in quantity) MS mentality people who experience *A LOT* of problems and schedule a lot of downtime.
- *nix kind of people working with a lot of Unix boxes and some Windows boxes which they are constantly bitching about.
- *nix only departments who handle a lot of systems with few staff and near-zero downtime.
So personally, I believe your view of things only works because you have the "luxury" of being gone when the stuff your project team has build horribly crashes.
This is hardly the first time this has happened. I was to have been moderator of a GNU/Linux v. Microsoft face-off at LWE NYC 2000, when that year's Microsoft rep pulled out. The result was some last-minute scrambling by a lot of folks and a DMCA panel with some really, really impressive panelists, write-up is still on Wired's site, I believe.
I know I've had the opportunity to trot this information out since, so this is at least the third occurance. Y'know, there's scheduling conflicts and there's scheduling conflicts. I can only conclude that MSFT either don't make LWE a priority, or would rather create the disruption of an empty slot than actually put in an appearance.
Karsten M. Self kmself.home.netcom.com
AC for now.
From the article:
.... in the case of Microsoft, having considerable experience of being let down by a vendor over many years in terms of security issues and long-term API support. I believe that customers frequently choose technologies for much broader and longer-term reasons than individual problems or needs.
Contrary to a common assumption that Microsoft is anti open source, the reality is not so black and white. Certainly, most customers don't live in that either/or world. They choose a technology - an operating system or an application - based on its ability to solve a particular problem and to serve a certain business need, not based on its development model.
I think he is wrong. My opinion and experience is that many people choose a technology neither for a particular problem or business, or because of its development model. There are quite different reasons, like having a political preference for multi-vendor support for products, or
The fact that Microsoft hired him and he has an (albeit small) team working on this stuff should be at least a sign of goodwill.
Goodwill? This is a GhandiCon Three "know thy enemy" tactic.
Liechtenstein
Population
2004 est. 32,528 (187th)
IMB is ~11 times bigger than some european countries.
Talk about 800-pound gorilla.
DYWYPI?
Allow users to choose what they want to run on THEIR computer...
Modularity. (How do you set up a Windows box to do what IPCop does??)
Activation - Their stuff crashes enough already without adding intentional points of failure to it. (With linux I do not have to type in a 20?? character access code to get it set up...)
W2K is too old to detect my newer hardware and I refuse to be subjected to XP activation hassles...(Ever try to explain to someone in India what type of computer a "vmWare is?" Finally give up and lie - Yes it is a Dell...)
When W2K is too old to develop proper Widows apps on then Microsoft will have lost another one of their "Developers, developers, developers!!!"
The trouble with that approach is that, when it comes to software, more isn't better; the quality of a piece of software goes up dramatically the more it manages to achieve its desired function with fewer and fewer features.