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.'"
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.
My head asplode from the irony...
What irony? It would be irony if they were using Linux where Windows competes, such on the desktop or for servers. As far as I know, there is no Windows embedded (Windows seems attached to having a GUI). And while Microsoft does make a lot of software, it has specialised in a few areas (that's a facet of efficiency/capitalism). Since they don't make a similar product, it's just a matter of using the best tool for the job here, and it happens to be Linux.
On a side note, real irony is when you make a ferrousiously bad pun.
Be relentless!
When I worked at a fast food joint, we still had pizza/subs/etc ordered in. Just because you produce a certain product doesn't mean you'll never go to the competition.
Good thing they paid SCO that licensing fee!
I'm not not licking toads.
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
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--
Actually both Microsoft and IBM have a long history of "eating their own dogfood" by policy.
It is really hard to sell your microsoft proxy servers when the customer asks, "Why don't you use them?"
I just spent the last 6 weeks helping a company fix a problem (we told them at the start it was their microsoft proxy servers or their configuration but they wanted to eliminate every other possibility first). In the end, they swapped in a linux server and the problems they were having stopped right away.
What was the problem? It looks like the microsoft servers were changing the TCP headers in some way at fairly short intervals. As a result, they looked like a new user to the remote web site and were offered a login page. This is basic "intro to TCP/IP" stuff. But apparently the microsoft servers just don't scale well above a hundred users.
This is an ongoing theme of microsoft products by the way. They are *really* easy to set up and work really well until you hit the enterprise level. Then suddenly it gets really hard and you need to think about linux, oracle, and ibm products instead.
That's not necessarily a bad thing- the expense or difficulty configuring those other solutions might stop you from getting your fledgling company off the ground. But folks get stuck on microsoft (because that's the skills they have) and continue to use them when they are no longer appropriate.
An 18" lawnmower is great for doing your lawn-- it's not so good for doing soccer fields and highway medians.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
You bring up a very interesting point mentioning TCO. When both products' software is free (Since Windows is free to Microsoft) which one do you choose?
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
I've been using nmap on Microsoft for 7 years and I can tell you without a doubt that they don't use what they sell. Also, I've bought only one Microsoft product, Windows 3.1, which spent a grand total of 20 minutes on my machine because it was garbage. I believe that I have your reacherch filled those requirements. A Microsoft Wifi set up, if they built on would be garbage
That may be because building an embedded product with Windows Embedded is just slightly above doing triple integrals in your head in terms of startup complexity. Microsoft's official procedure for creating a bootable CompactFlash card with an NTFS file system for Windows Embedded is to run a DOS utility. It must be run in DOS real mode, not a DOS box, which means you need a CF reader with an IDE interface, not a USB one. This was somewhat tough for us, since CF/IDE interfaces are sold by almost nobody these days. For that matter, we don't exactly have a copy of Windows 98 to dig up and install on a system.
The solution I came up with? Hook a USB flash reader up to a Fedora Core box, and use ntfstools to format it. Took all of fifteen seconds.
Unfortunately, we don't have the option of never working with Windows Embedded again, since we work with whatever our clients need us to... but I've developed three products that use embedded Linux (using Buildroot), and all three combined were easier to get off the ground than that Windows monstrosity.
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.
The big deal is the hoopla from Microsoft about how
their product is superior to everything everywhere,
and it is ready to do everything, yeah.
If Microsoft historically was saying "Our OS
is good, and getting better all the time,
and here are some succes stories", they would
not be so open to criticism on this point.
( I am sure there would be some anyway, but... )
Yes, Microsoft has it's place and strengths,
just like everything else out there.
emt 377 emt 4
That's because Cisco wireless is a nightmare if you have more than a handfull of APs and you want to centrally manage them. Aruba wireless, on the other hand, is a beautiful thing to behold.
-- The voice of experience
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
NT/embedded doesn't even require that you use the GUI.
How long will Microsoft support NT/embedded? What if you developed something on that, and YOUR product becomes vulnerable, and you can't ask for support? The problem with integrating a 'closed' operating system in hardware is this: Hardware has a much longer lifespan than most corporates (including Microsoft) would like to support.
It doesn't make long-term business sense for an appliance-devleoper to use Microsoft products... or indeed any closed source products.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....