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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
Good Evening Mr. Gates, I'll be your server today!
x /gates1280x1024.jpg
http://www.penguincomputing.com/images/stories/Tu
This isn't insightful. Microsoft has written their own embedded software for access points and other devices. Apparently there aren't any hardware vendors that support it yet or I presume they'd use their own software.
Developers: We can use your help.
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.
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
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--
I can just see Linus' avatar now
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
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.
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.
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