Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Launches Linux Labs Website
mjdroner writes "ZDNet is reporting that Microsoft is launching a website to 'share the activities of its internal Linux laboratories.' Microsoft says its goal is to foster communication with those who use open-source. The article also mentions that Microsoft runs a 300-server Linux installation to test open-source products." From the article: "Customers will be able to submit requests to Microsoft employees. For example, a person could ask how to best test the use of Linux desktops working with Microsoft's directory software.
In addition, Port 25 will do video interviews with Microsoft employees with experience in the open-source or Unix world, Hilf said."
My biggest question to MS regarding their interaction with Linux/*NIX would be why the hell windows XP SP1 broke my Samba PDC!! Before SP1 I was able to load roaming profiles without any problems, I applied SP1 and it all fell apart.
Microsoft seems willing to help you get your Linux workstation running against their PDC but are unwilling to reverse and allow their desktops to run against a Unix PDC.
MS has always seemed to break interaction with samba at every opportunity, I suspect this is completely intentional, especially considering their server products (that include the PDC functionality) is their flagship productline.
GeekServ Unix Consulting Services (http://www.geekserv.com)
I'm serious.
liqbase
For all of these years M$ has tried to Buy, steal or distroy anything to do with Linux, Then why do they want to be so nice to anyone dealing with Linux, Be afraid.
Well, to me it was pretty obvious that Microsoft runs Linux machines. How can they test their competition if they don't? I expect that they also have HP machines with HP-UX, Sun, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, and Apple machines. It's just good business sense to know what the competition is doing. I'd be disappointed if they didn't.
Oh, OpenBSD also forms the base of Services for UNIX, so that'd be a shock if they didn't have at least some OpenBSD servers.
Now, Microsoft writing about it, that's kinda neat.
God save our Queen, and Heaven bless The Maple Leaf Forever!
Is it possible that MS could document the protocol, then we wouldn't have this problem?
{anti-microsoft rhetoric ON}
What's to stop Microsoft from receiving a request then patenting it and stiffling all future OSS development for your submission?
On the covers, it sounds like Microsoft is opening their arms to open-source development - which is what the OSS community has been wanting for years - but, under the covers, what's to prevent Microsoft from garnering too much control of any given project?
This move isn't to gain the respect of the IT community, it's a ploy aimed directly at removing the ever-increasing market share that GNU/Linux has been gaining. Every Linux installation removes the Microsoft Tax Revenue Stream from Microsoft's coffers and that is a threat to them.
Until you see a Microsoft release of a GNU/Linux distro, don't expect Microsoft to support Linux too earnestly. This is just another move by Microsoft geared to directly affect GNU/Linux installations by those installations being replaced with Microsoft server OSs.
{anti-microsoft rhetoric OFF}
Hmmm :) Isn't this how revolutionaries bring down governments - from the inside?
Get your own free personal location tracker
As large as Microsoft is, they can't totally control the computing choices of all of the businesses and governments in the world.
As much as marketing is importing in the consumer field, I think aggressive advertising is not taken as favorably in the business world. Many large businesses and organizations have chosen to use Linux on various servers, and Microsoft has to acknowledge this, especially if they want to keep their core desktop business.
For example, say you are a large university and you keep thousands of students and staff members' e-Mail on a Linux computer (or computers), and you have labs full of desktops that students use to access it. Say the IT department at this university calls Microsoft up with a question about some minor problem this is causing. Microsoft tech support can't really say "oh, just format that closet full of mail servers and put Windows on them!" They might be able to suggest such a thing in advertising, but they know that if they try it with corporate professionals, they are just going to be laughed at.
Microsoft needs to adjust itself to the decisions corporations, governments, universities and the like are making. It is as simple as that.
Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
...and your enemies even closer!
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
Yoga Tutor: OK, now put your arms in front of you. Now slowly join your hands making a circle, and breathe out.
Breathe out....
Now extend your arms and breathe in.
Breathe out...
Breathe in...
Join your arms again. Embrace...
Now extend your arms and breathe in. "Extend".
Keep doing it guys...
Embrace...
Extend...
Embrace...
Extend...
Well done! See you next week!
Isn't this kind of like Stalin asking for input on the democratic process
Well, MS isn't asking anyone anything... they are "providing information".
Their intent is to make the "information" look legitimate by having a huge resource that they could use for "research" if they really wanted to.
So... a more appropriate analogy would be:
Asking Satan for the best way to get into heaven.
In the end you really have to consider the true intentions of the source of the information.
--Phillip
Can you say BIRTH TAX
Why is the first thing that went through my mind "Ok, how're they going to use it against Linux?"? Maybe because it's always been like this so far?
.net. Yes, there's Mono, but MS has the advantage of setting the standard. If they provide a Linux version of the next .net version, Mono will have a rather hard time holding a foot in that market. The framework is free anyway (has to be, who'd buy it?), so MS isn't even losing anything.
I pondered, and so far the only explanation is their usual "embrace and extend" practice. Take a standard, implement it, then extend with some "extra features" nobody else supports, hope that devs jump the wagon and make use of those "features" until customers have to use their flavor or else something doesn't work.
It worked before in the Browser War, I'd guess it's a tactic that could work again.
Now, how?
My guess goes towards
After a few years, Mono will vanish. And then MS can start pulling resources from the Linux version, making it less stable, making it slower (unless it's neither stable nor fast from the beginning). Yes, that takes time. But MS is in no hurry.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
OK, I will repeat this once again...
I have said this a lot on Slashdot, and usually it gets dismissed, but I will restate it.
Know your competition and DO NOT under estimate Microsoft.
This just shows that at least they 'get' this concept of knowing their competition. This also would demonstrate that Redmond is not blind to the advances in the Open Source world.
Not only are the using and learning from it, but all it would take is a bit of popularity to see a Linux subsystem for NT, like the already MS *nix subsystem shipping free for NT.
Ah but everyone... here's the catch...
OPEN SOURCE CANNOT BE EXTENDED. At least not the way Microsoft wants it to be.
Why? Because it's based on open collaboration and open standards. It's a collective which cannot be controlled. What happens if Microsoft tries to control OSS? Simple. You fork it. What happens when Microsoft tries to find a way to exclusivly make money off of OSS? Simple. You make a free (beer, speech) alternative and put all the documentation on-line. All of it.
You see, Open Source cannot be killed. That's the beauty of the whole concept. Cut off one head and another grows... and I mean it in a good sense.
I think the community-at-large should be very careful with this. Linux is open source, no doubt. But, what if, over time, Microsoft became *the* resource for open-source software, advice, etc., relegating much the current open source effort to a class of unimportant distinction? What better way to eventually rid yourself of a huge problem - support it out of existence.
* Adapting the Open Document Format for Microsoft Word
* Stop the "embrace and extend" business please...
Two contradictory items: How will they adapt an open document format for their needs if they can't extend it?
More people spouting the FUD about how the GPL is "viral". MS have already started winning the FUD war, and I'm very much afraid this "Linux Lab" will result in only more FUD.
Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes. - Mahatma Gandhi
This is a classic marketing ploy. Pretend to be "concerned" about the needs of a competing product. In actuality, they are attempting to "re-educate" you. Oh, you have a question about why something doesn't work with Windows? "Well such and such won't work with us. It is best to just use Windows."
True, they aren't going to be that obvious. But the attempt here is to see the concerns of users of a competitors product and best understand how to meet those needs through their own product. Don't think for one second that MS is actually looking for ways to make their products work better with Linux. They are looking for what doesn't work and see if they can turn that into a compelling reason to stay with MS based products.
Since I manage an ISP among other duties, it would be like me offering advice to AOL users, with that advice always boiling down to AOL sucks, use my product which is better. Sure, I can throw in some technical jargon to make it sound legitimate, but it is still just a sales pitch.
Don't be fooled.