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.'"

Comments

wait

[PunkOfLinux]

If their operating system is soooo great for servers, routers, etc, why don't they use it in their own business?

Re:wait

[Anonymous Coward]

Would there be a headline saying "CEO of United Airlines chooses El Al for flights to Israel?" No, there wouldn't. So what's the big deal?

Its a big deal because the CEO of United Airlines did not run a marketing FUD campaign to discredit El Al, nor did he hire scum like Bill Hilf to spew the same FUD in the media, nor did he use another airline to sue El Al on bogus patent dispute grounds. You get the picture.

Re:wait

[drinkypoo]

Or of course there's the contractual stipulation that any software developed on their mainframes (back in the day) was the property of IBM. IBM used to be the enemy, it's true; today we should all be congratulating them for coming SO FAR. From "your source is my source" to "open source"... IBM is the closest thing I have to a favorite corporation.

Re:wait

[Phillup]

Perhaps the "facts" are different when it is your wallet the money is coming out of...

The right tool for the job.

[Anonymous Coward]

It looks like Microsoft understands something the majority of slashdot's users have trouble with.

What choice do they have

[MrRuslan]

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.

Does it really matter what it runs ?

[nomad63]

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 ?

Re:Does it really matter what it runs ?

[ratboy666]

Microsoft sells routers and access points. Microsoft produces an OS that is claimed to be usable as a commercial embedded system for routers. Doesn't that give them experience in the "networking hardware arena"?

Microsoft continually harps on "TCO" issues (Windows vs. Linux). Are you then claiming that the "TCO" for Windows/CE is higher than Linux?

And, just a final question: What Microsoft competitor are you talking about?

Ratboy

Re:Does it really matter what it runs ?

[truthsearch]

LAMP has a lower TCO than Windows/IIS/SQL Server/.NET, even when the cost of software licenses is dropped to zero, yet they run their sites on their own software. Linux file servers can run more efficiently on less hardware than Windows file servers, yet they use Windows file servers. SVN is far more flexible than VSS yet their developers use VSS. Their motto is to eat their own dog food. Yet this time they didn't swallow it.

Ballmer banned iPods + Google: why not?

[ThinkingInBinary]

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_a rchive/2006/04/03/8373041/index.htm

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.

Re:Sheesh

[Cleon]

It's really very simple. Microsoft has been talking smack about Linux for years, about how Windows is better, lower TCO, etc. Now they've been caught using Linux-based appliances.

If nothing else, it's funny. It's like an environmentalist ranting and raving about SUVs driving the environment until someone points out, "dude, you're driving a Hummer."

Essentially, Microsoft's rhetoric HAS been "windows only lol r0xr." Now they have to eat a little crow.

Holy smokes, Bullwinkle!

[HardCase]

April 11, 2005? You've got to be kidding me!

-h-

A lot of posts miss the point

[porkThreeWays]

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.