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
Is it possible that MS could document the protocol, then we wouldn't have this problem?
It's pretty simple. They've tried killing, buying, and trashing Linux. It's not going away. So now the question is 'How can I make money off of Linux?' This is market research to find out what MS-Linux interoperability tools people may need and how to best sell them.
{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}
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.
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.