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
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.
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.
"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).
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
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
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 >
"...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.
Yup. Me too. Though I guess I would be curious about a MILF's view on Linux would be. It'd probably be just as relevant and probably more exciting.
But they can't go back to OSS.... They will have signed NDA's or similar with MS, and now if they release any code they risk a legal battle with MS over IP. MS would claim that the code has been influenced by what the person saw at MS, or some other far fetched farce.
Essentially MS removed those people from the OSS pool.
Car analogies break down.
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.
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
I haven't let development model politics cloud my judgement in order to get the job done. Isn't that how it should be?
For you, perhaps.
For others, the politics are very important.
For me, it's all about the ethics. Microsoft has behaved unethically; that is enough for me to avoid their products. I don't give my lunch money to the school bully.
Has it made my life more difficult? Perhaps. But the important issues usually are difficult.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
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