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
in other news: hell just froze over.
We all know what this is. They've more or less claimed it as a prime mantra behind their business logic. Embrace and "Extend". The Embracing has started, but that Extension is going to be considerably less fun.
Do not confuse "Freedom of Choice" with "Free Will".
The U.S. Airforce once had some of their practice squadrons use Russian tactics and made 'em speak Russian and had 'em briefed with a Soviet flag in the background. This helped the regular pilots practice "against the enemy".
I wonder if this is sort of the same concept going on here.
Answer: Thank you for choosing Microsoft(TM) Software. We have studied this problem and have determined to best use Linux desktops with Microsoft's Active Directory(SM) first format the machines and install Windows(TM) XP Professional(SM)...
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!
Since the summary did not provideth, here's a link to the actual site: http://port25.technet.com/
Hello dear friend,
While this message my come as a surprise to you, I have spent extensive time trying to port MS Windows applications to Linux. After my company (Loki Software) went bankrupt, the CEO mistakingly transferred $100m (One Hundred Million US Dollars) to my Nigerian bank account and I am looking for a partner in transferring this money back to the United States. In exchange for this service....Here's to losing my Karma Bonus again....
Is it possible that MS could document the protocol, then we wouldn't have this problem?
I dunno. Isn't this kind of like Stalin asking for input on the democratic process:
Stalin: Hey guys... I know I've been kind of totalitarian in the past, but... Um... Let's foster some thoughts about that democracy thing we keep hearing about over in the States.
KGB Adivsor: I hear they don't have secret arrests over there...
Stalin: Ok. Thats a start... Anything else?
Army Commisar: They don't have secret laws or show trials.
Stalin: I seeee....
Politburo Advisor: Oh... And they watch funny shows on TV and actually own their own homes and cars and mow their lawns and have these things called elections so that everyone can have their input into the process... Oh and almost forgot there is the...
Stalin: *cuts advisor off* Ok. I think that is enough fostering for a very long time. Lets get back on the subject of 'summary executions'. You know guys, I was thinking maybe we could double our efficiency if we outsource to the Chinese.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
First Apple lets people install Windows then Microsoft lets its own people install Linux.
Whats next ?
Balmer takes an anger management course and Steve Jobs changes his appearence ?
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.
Microsoft Linux Virus Labs
MS admits that staff inspect and use open source.
How do they ensure that none of that source doesn't leak into MS products?
It would be interesting to discover the facts, we've shown you ours, how about you show us yours?
{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}
The Prince of Darkness (TM) as set up a new site called "Port 666" where residents of Hel will discuss their experiences with that Other guy. As a quote from the PoD himself, "We'd really just like to help the community out there understand the implications of the decesions they make." More on this later...
...Microsoft urges UK PC vendors to not sell PC's without an OS, since this is a missed opportunity to market their software and services. They also claim that so called naked PCs are often used to install pirated copies of Microsoft software.
Note that they do not specifically mention that this OS is Windows, but I think it is implied between the lines. It is also common knowledge that BSA counts systems sold without a commercial OS as using a pirated OS, which means that computers running Linux or other F/OSS OS'es are included in their piracy statistics.
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!
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.
And yet nobody has yet said:
"Finally! The ease of linux combined with the security of Windows!"
Really guys we're slipping here.
The U.S. really needs an English to Wisdom dictionary.
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.
Their "Port 25" website is in fact not accessable via port 25 at all. On a hunch I tried port 80 and some kind of web site about port 25 came up. This is apparently another embrace and extend type of thing, where port 25 is now accessable only via port 80 and god knows where they've extended port 80 to or what's actually running on port 25.
-Lod