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
It looks like Microsoft understands something the majority of slashdot's users have trouble with.
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
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$. What do they care ? Also, they do not have any expertise in networking hardware arena, so it is not against their motto of not to use a product from the competition. I am not sure what's newsworthy about this story ? Slow Friday may be ?
__________
The more I know people, the more I love animals
Is /. reduced to dragging out articles over a year old to bash Microsoft? Get a life folks...
Is the average Linux advocate really this pathetic and sad? Microsoft buys a bunch of freaking wireless appliances that happen to use Linux, and this warrants a big freaking article? I bet the Cisco routers they're replacing don't use Windows, either. Is Microsoft supposed to have a "WINDOWS ONLY LOL ROXR" policy on any electronic device down the copy machines?
I bet they might have a coffee machine that uses embedded Linux as well. Maybe LinuxWorld needs to send in a few spies to rat it out.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
If, as Microsoft says, Windows offers cheaper TCO, more efficiency, less maintenance, and fewer baby kittens eaten than Linux... why can't they use Windows for their wireless network? Sure, I don't expect them to put a full installation of Windows on it, but the basic OS (and Media Player, of course ;-) could be separated out and set up in a stripped-down configuration that just does routing.
This is funny. I want M$ 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
I could also see them doing this based on what made the most sense, from an engineering perspective. Sure, it might have been some bad (PR) press in the circles (like /.) where they are disliked anyway. But linux is free, so eating their own dogfood here doesn't save them any money, and asides from the momentary pain of limited bad PR, probably will save them more money than rolling their own.
Not everything has to be a conspiracy, especially if there are some sane people running that company.
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
Wouldn't not eating their own dog food in this case go against their "true cost" initiatives to try to show that OSS isn't really all that free?
Slashdot.. where people join together in deliberate ignorance.
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.
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.
Oh for Christ sake people! They found a stable wireless solution capable of supporting the type of deployment they wanted, and they bought it!
/.
This "it runs Linux OMG!!1!!11" shit is just meant to ruffle the feathers of people like the Linux zealots or MS haters on
I'm not going to make analogies, come up with metaphors, or anything. Why anyone thinks MS should disregard a stable, capable wireless solution because it runs embedded Linux is such a political waste of time it hurts my head.
Excuse my speling.
Making The Bar Project
The MS zealots on slashdot are far more vocal, hysterical and obnoxious than those they scream at these days.
April 11, 2005? You've got to be kidding me!
-h-
I worked for IBM Global Services when Ifirst got out of college - we ran Lucent's UNIX operations for 'em. I haven't checked lately, but back then, Lucent made its own switches, routers, etc. We used to interface with their network techs all the time who eventually revealed to us that 99% of their gear was Cisco equipment. It was more reliable, easier to manage and Cisco cut them a bigger break at volume than their own internal supply chain.
We used to laugh about that, but I guess their stock troubles of the last 6 years are no surprise, given that sort of internal mess.
I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
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.
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.