Slashdot Mirror


Would You Date Microsoft?

teslatug writes "Channel9 has an interview with Bill Hilf of the Open Source Software Lab at Microsoft. Hilf argues that the majority of companies advocate open source solely so that they can drive customers to their core business, which is not open source. He calls this his 'donut theory.' Hilf also sees RedHat in this model, with support being their core. He compares this to dating, where you have to offer your date value in order to entice them. In his view, Microsoft offers developers a platform where they can make money selling their software. The virtues of 'free as in freedom' and the value of open source to the desktop users are skirted, but he makes an interesting point about big businesses like IBM and Oracle."

10 of 247 comments (clear)

  1. Surprised? by mqduck · · Score: 4, Funny

    Wow. So IBM only supports Linux because it thinks it'll make them money? Next you're going to tell me that Apple only sells iPods for the same reason. Or that the purpose of a business is to make a profit.

    --
    Property is theft.
  2. I'd never date MS.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...She has too many viruses :(

  3. marry then divorce by Mortirer · · Score: 5, Funny

    Only if i can get half of everything after it.

    --
    Curiosity killed the cat, but cats have 9 lives.
  4. Re:My Linux Annoyances as a Hardended Windows user by Elpacoloco · · Score: 4, Informative
    Sorry your experience is so sucky so far. It's been a long time since I switched, my poor annoyed friend, so I'll try to help you as best I can.
    1. No fecking media support! I get XMMS inform me on first attempt at playing an MP3 that it won't because of licensing conflict. Wtf? Codecs for avi's and DVDs were a simular story; all had to be downloaded via yum (bloody excellent tool!). Seriously; not good, but fixed in the end.
    Law is the bane of most media in open source -- many codec makers won't tell you how their codec works unless you promise to only write closed-source drivers for it, which is unacceptable for technical and political reasons in the open source world. We're working on automating it more with package-handling tools like yum, but we're not at the windows "automatically get new licenses" level yet.
    2. Why the hell do I have to install a new kernel? Why? I've never had to on Windows - why is Linux different? Is it so buggy? I installed with a factory version something ending 054. Now I have something ending 122 I believe. I did it ok, but that's not the point I'm making; were there really 68 cock-ups so great in the kernel build from release-time until that now they had to re-release 68 times? I'm guessing probablly not, but still.
    You have to install new kernels for the same reasons that you have to buy new versions of windows. (You're not still running Windows 3.1, are you?) You get new drivers, methods, and all those fun things you expect from your operating system. I can write you scripts to mostly automate the process of building new kernels, which should take 94% of the pain out of the process, but it will involve answering stupid questions about new drivers. It doesn't know. Hotplugging is our weakness right now.
    3. Point 2 also breaks my nvidia drivers. I don't want to re-compile new drivers everytime there's a new 'patch'. For the love of god, why?!
    Driver has to go with the kernel for it to work. Nvidia won't provide binary drivers. I'll have to add that to your kernel compiling script.
    4. X-Windows. What a mess. Why do I have to tell it my x & y refresh rates for my monitor? Windows just 'knows'. Many more things here I feel that X-Windows should just 'know' - the number of buttons on my USB mouse for-instance. If Windows can do it, there's no reason why Linux can't. Also, X-Windows 'feels' slower than Windows. I'm sure there's good reasons for this, but I don't care; Windows is snappier.
    X-Windows *IS* a mess. We mostly inherited it from our UNIX-based predecessors and will break too many things if we replace it, since UNIX, (on which Linux's interfaces are based) was intended as a command-line operating system, and GUIs were mostly an afterthought. There are things I can do to make snappier your X-windows. Upgrading to a 2.6 kernel inexplicably made my X-windows much, much, snappier. Also, some distributions have gotten very good at auto-writing an X-windows configuration that is exactly perfect for you with a little probing , a little guesswork, and some minor information from you. ("My monitor is 17", and I use "blah" graphics card.") I also recommend the "xvidtune" application, which helps you find the best sync information, then gives you the line to paste into the configuration.
    5. Lack of decent file-browser. The best I've come across is Nautilus in a mode that resembles Windows Explorer. It'll do for now, but as far as I'm aware, offers no context-sensitive menus for applications (like the Winamp "Play in Winamp" right-click menu on folders.
    Most of us Linux users do our file maintenence in the command line, which is the main reason for the file-browsers being so bad. It's just too far out of our everyday experience. I'll keep your suggestions in mind for how to improve Nautilus and other file browsers.
  5. I'd date Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'd just never let it drive my car

  6. Re:My Linux Annoyances as a Hardended Windows user by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 4, Interesting
    On KDE it's OK, but that's because they've just pinched Explorer


    IMHO, KDE's Konquorer is superior to Windows' Explorer. Both provide standard context and drag-n-drop file management. Konq also provides some nice split windows options. But the real advantage comes from the KIO slaves. Its nice to grab an archive from a SMB fileshare, open it up, drop a few of the internal files over to a SSH server (via SFTP or SCP). Being able to use the KIO slaves within most KDE file dialogs is a nice added bonus.
  7. Re:My Linux Annoyances as a Hardended Windows user by Yaztromo · · Score: 4, Insightful
    2. Why the hell do I have to install a new kernel? Why? I've never had to on Windows - why is Linux different? Is it so buggy? I installed with a factory version something ending 054. Now I have something ending 122 I believe. I did it ok, but that's not the point I'm making; were there really 68 cock-ups so great in the kernel build from release-time until that now they had to re-release 68 times? I'm guessing probablly not, but still.

    How do you know you've never installed a new kernel in Windows? Do you think it has been static, and hasn't been updated numerous times through both Windows Update and new versions of Windows? Do you not think that Microsoft has hundreds of internal kernel revisions that never get out to the public? This is simply the way that software development is done -- the fact that it's noticeable in the Linux world is a testament to its open development model.

    That having been said, I don't know why you "had" to install a new kernel. Did you require a module which hasn't been back-ported? Did some other piece of software have the new kernel as a pre-req? Or did you just notice one come down the pipe when you did a yum update?

    Every OS has kernel updates. Linux is admittedly more susceptible to updates due to the way that device drivers (modules) are tied to it, and the lack of a stable binary interface for drivers (which requires them to be compiled against the kernel you're running). In the end, however, it generally works the same for the end user: updates give you new features, functionality, and drivers. Package management tools like yum make this sort of update process easy.

    I have a lot of problems with Linux on the desktop as well (on the client side, I'm a Mac OS X person), but this seems to be such a silly one to complain about. The Windows kernel is updated all the time via Windows Update -- you just don't see the word "kernel" on the display, and thus don't realize it. Linux is just more open about this sort of thing.

    Yaz.

  8. ... and what's even worse is ... by j3tt · · Score: 5, Funny

    I've tried all kinds of protection but none of them work.

    1. Re:... and what's even worse is ... by just_another_sean · · Score: 5, Funny

      It just goes to show that the best defense is still abstinence. ;-)

      --
      Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
  9. Would you "date" a hooker? by CptnHarlock · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think the question is wrong. Since they compare FOSS to going on a date, then paying for software would be like going to a hooker, right? Would you "date" a hooker? I wouldn't.. :P

    --
    $HOME is where the .*shrc is
    -- silver_p