Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft's New Linux-Based Wireless Network

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the this-is-the-join-'em-part dept.

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.'"

7 of 286 comments (clear)

  1. Perhaps it's their real strategy... by aliasptr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
  2. Re:wait by toleraen · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  3. What for? by Efialtis · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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--
  4. Re:Does it really matter what it runs ? by dnoyeb · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

  5. History says otherwise by pardasaniman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Is that why they had to put so much time energy and money to convert Hotmail away from BSD?

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/08/01/ms_hotmail _servers_begin_switch/

  6. changing minds by sgt+scrub · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  7. Re:wait by Duhavid · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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