Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's New Linux-Based Wireless Network
MECC points to an article about Microsoft's new wireless network. From the article "The next time Bill Gates sends an e-mail through Microsoft's shiny new Wireless LAN it will be passed through a behind-the-scenes Linux-based network appliance." Microsoft has partnered with Aruba Networks for a large corporate wireless LAN deployment, involving 277 buildings and 5000 access points, 'all Linux based.'"
If their operating system is soooo great for servers, routers, etc, why don't they use it in their own business?
Show this to your friends and family that don't know what a real hacker is
I could see them doing this on purpose to say, "See Linux DOESN'T belong on the desktop. It's only good for doing SOME TYPES of behind the scenes stuff." This way I imagine they cover their asses in the markets they most care about. That's all I thought before even reading the article.
It takes all types in this world. I sincerely mean it... This is just my perspective.
It's funny because you wouldn't think Microsoft would use linux ever, right?
My head asplode from the irony...
I'm not anti-social, I'm anti-idiot.
It looks like Microsoft understands something the majority of slashdot's users have trouble with.
You can get Linux a screensaver for Windows here
SuSE 10.1, nothing but the newest.
What are you talking about? Gates has left Microsoft to go head up Novell. Where he's spearheading their new Vista wireless network system to challenge the Microsoft monopoly.
--
make install -not war
Maybe they'll just make sure the network gets pwn3d so they can point their fingers at it, jump up and down, and yell "See! See! See!" like a bunch of 12-year-olds who just drank a case of Red Bull.
Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
first reply to your post.
There, is that better?
Well what choice do they have when it comes to imbedded wireless APS. They can't put windows on one and not make it a full blown box sitting there wasting space and resources. This time it will be harder to eat their own dog food because if they end up making there own custom APS based on windows as a sort hey look what our stuff can do maneuver that would be labeled as stupid.
Are there Windows-based access points? I think not, so why is this news, and why do we care?
As far as microsoft is concerned, they are buying an appliance to provide a dedicated service. As any profit minded company, they should not care what it runs behind the scenes as long as TCO is low on the long run. And linux is known to be a robust OS in the embedded OS arena. So most probably it will run without any problems, meaning less out of pocket costs for m$. What do they care ? Also, they do not have any expertise in networking hardware arena, so it is not against their motto of not to use a product from the competition. I am not sure what's newsworthy about this story ? Slow Friday may be ?
__________
The more I know people, the more I love animals
So, they finaly realized that Windows is $$$ and will never come out of dev.
This is old news. When my organization was looking at managed wireless vendors a year ago we did an eval of Aruba and they were already bragging about getting the Microsoft account.
That said we didn't go with Aruba, mostly because their pricing was pretty Microsoft-esque. In other words, worse than a prison shower.
Is /. reduced to dragging out articles over a year old to bash Microsoft? Get a life folks...
So is it ... "The power of Linux brought to you by Microsoft." or
"The power of Microsoft brought to you by Linux." ???
FLR
Is the average Linux advocate really this pathetic and sad? Microsoft buys a bunch of freaking wireless appliances that happen to use Linux, and this warrants a big freaking article? I bet the Cisco routers they're replacing don't use Windows, either. Is Microsoft supposed to have a "WINDOWS ONLY LOL ROXR" policy on any electronic device down the copy machines?
I bet they might have a coffee machine that uses embedded Linux as well. Maybe LinuxWorld needs to send in a few spies to rat it out.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Yes.
If, as Microsoft says, Windows offers cheaper TCO, more efficiency, less maintenance, and fewer baby kittens eaten than Linux... why can't they use Windows for their wireless network? Sure, I don't expect them to put a full installation of Windows on it, but the basic OS (and Media Player, of course ;-) could be separated out and set up in a stripped-down configuration that just does routing.
This is funny. I want M$ to come out with their own distribution of Linux. One of three things will happen: 1. They will fail miserably. Yay, I get to laugh. 2. They will eat Linux. Not likely. We'd fight back. 3. They will help Linux. Yay, we get more features.
ttuttle is a rankmaniac
MS, bought a unix kernel from Carnegie Mellon.
But just never got it to work quite right.
No
Instead of setting up a lab and stress testing the thing with fake user traffic and analyzing it from the outside they may have opted to dive in and experience what works and what doesn't from a "truer" useage perspective.
To see what happens in a large scale corporation when you deploy a product you have to actually deploy it in a large scale. They already know what their tools do and what the pains and plusses are. They really don't have any first hand experience with the competition other than tests and stories.
I personally think this is a great move on their part. Not only to improve their products, but to experience what happens when their competition is deployed somewhere else. The insight can be used across the board.
Ballmer doesn't let his kids use Google or iPods. I don't find it so farfetched that Microsoft might have at least a slight bias towards wanting their employees to use their own products, both as a matter of company pride and as a matter of "dog food"--the more people in the company who use a product, the more bugs get squashed before the product gets released.
ttuttle is a rankmaniac
Must be a slow news day when the best slashdot can do is point out that MS are using linux in embedded hardware when there is no equivilant windows products. And you wonder why CNN says slashdot simply doesn't matter any more.
How is this news? MS doesn't have a solution so they purchased the most cost effective solution available. Reported as lame. No digg. Oh right, I can't do that here...
Good Evening Mr. Gates, I'll be your server today!
x /gates1280x1024.jpg
http://www.penguincomputing.com/images/stories/Tu
"Microsoft buys Cisco storage switches which run Linux!!!!!"
So what? Microsoft doesn't care a damn what's running inside.
I mean, give'em a break. FUD could be both ways.
Come to think of it, that's probably why in the last year or so, I'm suddenly bombarded by "Press THUMBS UP! for more" during commercials (when I can't time-skip 'em), and the plethora of advertising being pushed to the messages area.
Next year is the year of Microsoft on the appliance.
Hopefully the access points are out of Mr. B's "chair" range. :)
are belong to us!
"premier linux news source"???? must be a slow news day somewhere!
Saturday , 24th June 2006
Australia's Premier Linux News Source
It's unofficial: Microsoft bets business on Linux
Rodney Gedda, Computerworld
04/11/2005 08:31:35
^^^^^^^
The next time Bill Gates sends an e-mail through Microsoft's shiny new Wireless LAN it will be passed through a behind-the-scenes Linux-based network appliance.
It should be safe to assume that approximately 80% of Microsoft's employees who use the Linux-based wireless network will be using Google for their searches.
I think they might have some binary light switches too.
Good thing they paid SCO that licensing fee!
I'm not not licking toads.
OK this is silly... I appreciate the article... it has some interesting information worth taking note... but *NOT* that "microsoft is using linux"... whooptie friggin do.
if you actually look at the MS evangelism, the *REASON* linux costs more is because of MAINTENANCE (gee, not a surprise since linux has $0 upfront costs for the software)... anyone who has looked at the competition should be able to acknowledge that yes, *nix can handle at least 90% of what MS does... what MS is capitalizing on is SIMPLISTIC MANAGEMENT (and supposed reliability... but let's not even bother throwing that in the mix right now because between updates and viruses, scheduled or unscheduled downtime, etc... they both need *some* maintenance)... but MS says "yes but ours is easier/faster/cheaper"... and they're usually right!... how long does it take me to add a reservation to MS' DHCP? about 20 seconds... open the MMC (5 seconds), navigate to reservations (another 5), add the reservation (10 seconds), DONE... how about linux? open dhcpd.conf (2 seconds), navigate to correct section of page (2-5 seconds), add entry (10-20 seconds), restart dhcpd (5 seconds)... granted it's not VERY different, but that's a tiny task... over the course of all admin tasks, yes MS can be significantly quicker to administrate.
so back to the article... the fact that MS is using linux (within the gear) doesn't mean much to me... what DOES have meaning to me, is that MS chose Aruba over Cisco... The fact that Aruba happened to make a feature-full and management-friendly access point better than Cisco (in the eyes of MS), has more meaning than "gee, aruba happened to use *nix as the base OS".
Like i said... interesting to see, but not for the same reasons that were mentioned in the article.
What a sad joke.
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
From a story dated 04/11/2005. Right tools for the job, what's the problem? MS made a good choice....over a year ago. When in doubt, search the archives for a story to get the MS bashers drooling.
When I was at MS, they were installing a huge wireless network in all the buildings...when I left, it was something like 90% done...
SO my question is, if they already have a wireless network, and I know they do...why are they installing another one? Or is it really that they are UPGRADING the existing one...???
Either way, this would make the 2nd Linux installation that I know of over at MS...they have (or had) a set of servers over in building 43 that contained, "sensitive, critical data" that they couldn't (wouldn't??) trust to Windows Server...
--E--
Windows was never made to run on embedded devices like this (CE was never a server platform).
maybe?
How about if you ran a multi-million dollar ad campaign about how your paper clips were cheaper and more convienient; you could call it... "Get The Facts" or something? Then you go and buy the commodity clips that everybody else uses because... "It's cheaper and easier". Ouch, that's really gotta hurt you MSFT apologists huh?
Trouble with what? That Microsoft is comming out with a Linux disto? :)
I can just see Linus' avatar now
I agree, and it is obvious that this should not be a big deal. Don't dufferent devices run on different operating systems? EMC (example - Lynx) and Cisco devices (example - IOS) certainly do. The Linux that is in the access points is probably not much like the desktop or server Linux that Microsoft attacks, but rather is heavily modified at the kernel level to fit the devices.
An interesting question is whether Microsoft has much to say about using Windows for routers, wireless access points, and storage devices. I think they have tried on some of these fronts (example - Windows Storage Server), but made no real headway -- and hence, no envangelism (or demonizing).
Dontcha think?
It's like Microsoft, using Linux gear,
It's uncertainty and doubt,
Without any fear.
It's like using a device,
Not Invented Here.
And who woulda thought.
We snigger.
The latest Slashdot meme.
I really don't understand why this counts as news. As much as I, and many members of the Slashdot community, dislike Microsoft's business practices, Microsoft generally makes business decisions which are good for Microsoft and Microsoft's shareholders. In this case, in particular, Microsoft is showing that they're able to use the best tool for the job they need to have done.
They may try to say that Linux isn't ready for the desktop, but I somehow doubt that's the point. Linux is fine on the desktop; Linux currently has trouble on laptops, and that's where Linux developers need to focus. Windows XP Professional works better, at least where power management is concerned, on my cheap Dell Inspiron; As an undergraduate, money is at a premium, I buy the machine which is both within my budget and which will meet my needs.
Currently, I have few qualms (aside from GSA) with Windows XP, and it meets my needs better than Linux does where the power-management features of my laptop are concerned. ACPI functions poorly, at best, on my Inspiron. I can't close the lid and have it reliably enter a sleep state (and it never wakes correctly). I also cannot use OneNote, and there's no OSS equivalent to OneNote at the moment; OneNote makes organizing my notes from lectures and seminars much easier.
All that said, Linux runs on my desktop machine. I do think folks are overreacting quite a lot about Linux running on some WiFi appliances in Redmond. You use the best tool for the job, or you're not going to be able to get the job done as efficiently.
Is that why they had to put so much time energy and money to convert Hotmail away from BSD?
l _servers_begin_switch/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/08/01/ms_hotmai
Microsoft is relying even remotely on Linux . . .
I think I'm going to faint.
That article is over a year old! The Aruba/Microsoft network has been up and running for over 14 months now...
Just to make this point clear. Microsoft DOES make an embedded OS. So presumably the makers of this appliacne COULD have chosen to use Windows Embedded. They didn't. Maybe that's not terribly significant to Microsoft's overall PR image. But that's the fact nonetheless.
A better one would be Ford choosing a Toyota vehicle to standardize on for their management staff. Or Dasani execs all drinking Crystal Geyser. Or Sprint using Verizon in-house. Or Dell's support staff all using MacIntoshes. And so on...
TROJAN HORSE ;)
Microsoft has always said that Linux is great for running "infrastucture." Microsoft has always positioned itself as a maker of consumer products and has gone to great lengths to label Linux as an arcane OS that only a few high level geeks can figure out and that should only be used for very specific "technical" roles. In other words, it is great for servers but not the average desktop user.
This is just another attempt by Microsoft to say "Hey, Linux is awesome for servers, and only for servers. In fact it runs our servers." They are trying to subtly instill in every one's mind that Linux is not the OS you want for everyday use. They want the immediate response to someone who mentions Linux to be "We aren't talking about servers here." It is quite ingenious and sneaky.
April 11, 2005? You've got to be kidding me!
-h-
See above....oh, my goodnes...I can hardly contain my enthusiasm...zzzzzzzzzz
----- I have bad karma for a reason! -----
A lot of you are missing the point. For most instances it's about saving money. But sometimes there are public appearance issues that are more important than immediate cost. By using a direct competitor's product, you are admitting your competiting product is not only inferior, but so vastly inferior that free licenses and free in-house support are still not enough to use it. This hurts sales of that product long term. Even if using your own stuff costs more now, you hope that saving face and eating your own dog food will result in sales that make up for it. Microsoft has no equivalent to Cisco's IOS. However, they have an embedded version of windows that is poised directly at linux. And the real news of this is that Microsoft has been so vapidly against linux. I mean they have fought dirty and mean and lied through their teeth. Now this product they have utter distain for is aparently vastly superior to one of their products? Kinda a big kick in the nuts if you ask me. They probably should have just stayed with Cisco and saved themselves the embarassment. It makes them look foolish.
If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
Xenix was the BEST unix around, MS used it as late as 1989, long after they had sold it to SCO. Xenix became SCO Unix.
Might this have something to do with Gates stepping down from the top? OR have they just realized that Microsoft isn't all they claim it to be (as the rest of us already know.)
Time and time again Microsoft doesn't use the right tool for the job. Why? Because it's about saving face. You have to make it appear Microsoft products are always the right tool for the job. It may not be true, but that's what you want the public to think. What's the public to think if you never use any of your own products? They are going to think they are garbage. The idea is that the sales gained by saving face will outnumber the costs in using the wrong tool. The use of a directly competing embedded OS is giving a public image that linux is so vastly superior for this purpose that Windows embedded isn't worth anyone's time. "Windows embedded is so bad Microsoft won't even use that crap". Get the idea?
If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
I am no microsoft fanboy, nor a linux or mac fanboy. (Although I prefer Linux for myself)
However, this article is (biasly) from a linux site, and it's over a year old.
Another issue is that Linux is used in Wired and Wireless routers all over the world. It's called 'embedded linux', and it's what runs your D-Link, Linksys, and Netgear Routers.
Anyhow, let's not become like Microsoft and spread useless misinformation, like digg, please. =p
Thanks!
the only permanence in existence, is the impermanence of existence.
So what do you want Microsoft to do in order to make you respect them?
- buy the company
- force their devices to be migrated to some flavor of Windows
- handle the expenses needed to teach the personnel the new stuff
- waste time on the previous items
?
Yes, that's a damn efficient strategy!
The saddest poem
Microsoft knows that VSS is a dog (in the other sense of the word) and use SourceDepot instead. http://www.google.com/search?q=microsoft+vss+sourc edepot
I've noticed clients are now getting some enjoyment out of exchange after I installed linux+postfix mail firewalls in front of them. It kind of feels bad. I think they are going to forget the reason why stuff is now working. I know their boss'n are ignorant of the reason. But anyway, maybe Microsoft wants to see this "improvement" for themselves.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
I think grandparent was saying something about "Why isn't it a big story when MS uses Cisco routers?"
Well, you just answered that one. MS never started a FUD campaign against Cisco.
And no, this isn't about MS eating crow, this is about two things:
So, in other words, I think the motive here is simple: The right tool for the job, and they can still spread two kinds of FUD. To the people who aren't already using Linux, they say "Open source is communism!" But if you point out their Linux wireless, they say "Linux is only good in appliances, which is why we only use it for our wireless stuff. You don't want it on your desktops or in the server room. You're not a communist, are you?" To the people who are using Linux and trying to expose the FUD, they say "See, we use Linux when it's appropriate. We're not so anti-Linux after all. In fact, you should use Windows too, for the things it's good at. You aren't anti-Windows zealots, are you?"
This is why I never trust a damn thing MS says. And I do use Windows for what it's good at -- playing games. Which means I boot it no more than once or twice a week, and I make sure if the whole partition goes bye-bye, I can recreate it in a day or so.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
We needed some for the kindergarden graduation ceremony.
I mean, really, how boring are these stories?
Ok, so Microsoft uses Linux in some places, and some Microsoft employees have iPods, so what?
Next thing you know, they'll be sending reporters down to the local Ford plant to find out how many GM cars there are in the parking lot.
We live in a diverse universe guys, get used to it.
Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum videtur (anything said in Latin sounds important)
I've looked all over the place and can't find a Windows-esque operating system that is also embedded. Could someone post a link in this thread maybe? I'd appreciate it.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Now that's hardly what I'd call current
Come on editors, look at article dates when reviewing submissions - a story about a story from 12months ago is not exactly keeping your finger on the pulse is it...
--- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
"Repeat after me, "The size of my dick has nothing to do with the success or failure of Microsoft." There, feel better?"
It's good that you said it first because you seem to have the same problem as his only in reverse.
HAHAHAHA... There are two COWARDS FIGHTING each other? Never thought I'd see the day...
I side with Coward # 2.
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
If they found a way to strip out ie? Oh, wait, I suppose this all depends on which win OS they'd have used...
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
This article was posted to Slashdot when it was released. While the Aruba stuff does make use of linux in some ways, you certainly aren't going to find a shell on it. It is one of thousands of devices that have linux inside for some functions. No one cares. Let it die. The moron above that thought it was all that expensive must have been comparing it to his linksys at home too. The stuff is pennies on the dollar compared to cisco.
Is Aruba Networks located on Aruba Island (twinned with Fecalruba)?
it's because they aren't complete idiots. I think the hotmail backend processing is still on Linux boxes, too, making them among the world's biggest corporate Linux users.
Tech Public Policy stuff
This, in reality, is a rumor. I'll wait until I hear an answer from someone "in the know" before I believe that Microsoft's wireless network is based on Linux.
No, I will not work for your startup
It's good to see that Microsoft, like everyone else, is willing to pay the big bucks for the best the market has to offer, even though they have their own line of wireless devices and software. You can understand how they would not want to advertise their sideline romance with free software.
Expect to see the price of Microsoft's wireless equipment plummet. It never sold well anyway did it?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
nuff said ;
My thoughts on this
f t-bets-business-on-linux/
http://rjdohnert.wordpress.com/2006/06/24/microso
Basically, not really interesting. ironic sure.
to original poster and approver: ThIs Is An OlD StORy! CheCK ThE DaTe NeXt TIme! D0N'T WaStE My TIme With OLd StORiEs LikE ThiS!
All M$ stuff aside, my school ran a pilot network using Aruba Networks equipment last year (I was a senior at the time) that was utter trash. The stuff never ran, was constantly down, and their installation was one of their technicians duct taping 4 of their wireless repeaters in each room. The minimal research I did at the time made them look even worse, like a small start up company with a poorly made website, and almost no other mentions on the web.
Let's just hope they've learned some things from a high school with 300(ish) [student controlled, owned, and operated] laptops spread across a large sized high school in S. CA.
God we had a lot of fun pulling the cord ever so slightly loose so it wouldn't get power and they thought it was still plugged in.
Anyways, rants aside, best of luck to them and microsoft... I'd love to see it work, just to spite M$.
Scott Swezey
Uh it happens all the time. Try reading at a lower threshold so you see more AC comments.