Microsoft Using Linux To Optimize Skype Traffic

An anonymous reader writes "A security researcher believes that Microsoft has overhauled Skype, with thousands of Linux boxes serving as the 'supernodes' that route calls between users of the voice-over-IP service. Kostya Kortchinsky of Immunity Security 'discovered the Linux supernodes using a Skype probing technique he and colleague Fabrice Desclaux first demonstrated in 2006,' according to Ars Technica. The drastic infrastructure change doesn't affect the peer-to-peer nature of the calls between Skype users."

Comments

Eh? This is how Skype works?

[CriticalAnalysis]

Skype creators are same that designed Kazaa. This is how the P2P structure of Skype works and is widely known. What is the point of this story?

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[Overly Critical Guy]

To gloat over the irony of Microsoft using cheap UNIX boxes for P2P infrastructure. Even in 2012, Microsoft is still the bogeyman here.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they switched from client supernodes to dedicated supernodes. Those of us interested in p2p architectures are interested. Go back to drooling on yourself.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[CriticalAnalysis]

They didn't switch, they merely improved the network by providing extra capability to it. Skype has been growing fast lately and they want to ensure its stability. It is still P2P, they just house dedicated nodes to support it.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[SplashMyBandit]

Well, very appropriate considering Microsoft's position on Linux and Free Software was that they were a "cancer" (their words, not mine). So maybe giving them a ribbing at this news isn't unjustified.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[Anonymous Coward]

Define cheap? Did Microsoft save money by not buying Windows licenses from themselves? Price was not obviously the reason for this decision.

Idiot.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[Missing.Matter]

Words uttered in 2001. Words which more than anything exhibit Ballmer's (mis)understanding of how GPL and other open source licenses work, and also how cancer in general works.
Like the AC said, even in 2012 MS is still the bogeyman.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[Overly Critical Guy]

Not to come off as a defender of Microsoft, but Ballmer said that over 11 years ago, and it was in reference to the GPL's viral nature. Ribbing of Microsoft on Slashdot has to do with us-versus-them platform fanboyism more than anything.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[chill]

The article claims that regular users can no longer be promoted to supernodes. I would call that a switch.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[dittbub]

Yeah i don't get it. What is the author suggesting?

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[jhoegl]

Nah, I think it speaks to the scalability, maturity, and flexibility of Linux vs MS.
Although it should be logical to people, some seem to treat it as "fanboiism", when in fact, it celebrates one OS over the other.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[Anonymous Coward]

MS is pretty irrelevant these days outside of the enterprise desktop arena. I don't get the continual obsession with them around these parts. People still living in the 1990s, I guess.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[CriticalAnalysis]

They will be if the network needs it. They haven't changed that part in the algorithm, just supplement the network with tons of powerful machines to have that role.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ballmer made the comment and he is the current CEO of Microsoft. He never recanted what he said and MS has been on a continuous campaign of attacking Linux ever since. Furthermore, "Overly Critical Guy" made the bogeyman comment, not an AC. Hmm...

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[whoever57]

Apparently, you either failed to read or failed to comprehend the article. In this case, Microsoft has deployed 10,000 Linux servers essentially to replace a larger number of Windows machines (the supernodes that ran on individual desktops). This is a new deployment of a new type of server (a dedicated supernode).

So this is not case of Microsoft just delaying a switchover from Linux to Windows, it represents Microsoft choosing to use Linux for a new task.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[Taco Cowboy]

To gloat over the irony of Microsoft using cheap UNIX boxes for P2P infrastructure

There's no reason to gloat - I mean, if Microsoft is so full of themselves, if that Ballmer guy is still insisting that "Linux is a cancer", then fine, let Microsoft use boxen running their own OS to power Skype.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[CriticalAnalysis]

You mean like Xbox360, the winner of current console generation, Azure, used by Apple, Netflix and tons of other large companies for hosting their services in the cloud, having 32% of internet search market (DuckDuckGo and Yahoo included), relaunching of tons of great game franchises (Flight Simulator too), having the planet's best programming IDE (Visual Studio), closely working and owning large share of earth's largest social network Facebook and having the worlds largest mobile phone manufacturer Nokia by the balls?

Yeah, seems quite irrelevant to me.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[Caesar Tjalbo]

Price was not obviously the reason for this decision.

Total Cost of Ownership.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[shentino]

The GPL isn't any more viral than the default copyright law that applies to proprietary products.

All the GPL does is piggy back on "derived work".

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[thoughtlover]

Like the AC said, even in 2012 MS is still the bogeyman.

I think Apple owns that honor now.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[thoughtlover]

Nah, I think it speaks to the scalability, maturity, and flexibility of Linux vs MS.

ehh... seeing that MS can freely change their source, I think it represents the inflexibility of management.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, very appropriate considering Microsoft's position on Linux and Free Software was that they were a "cancer" (their words, not mine). So maybe giving them a ribbing at this news isn't unjustified.

You mean over a decade ago, you even stated quite clearly that's what their position was. You understand past-tense yes? This has long since changed, which most would consider a good thing, but i suppose people like you have some desperate need for a bad guy and will cling to the past in an effort to retain one.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[icebike]

Correct.

In the early days of Skype, any machine with a direct connection to the internet could find itself being a supernode (which really handled setting up connections for firewalled machines, not all of the traffic for those machines).

Later Skype decided to create farms of supernodes for this and stop using end-user machines for this purpose. (Mostly because it was getting harder and harder to find non-firewalled machines). They haven't used individual desktops for supernodes for a long time.

So other than the scale of the deployment, the fact that Microsoft deliberately chose to avoid windows for this purpose is significant.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[cpu6502]

>>>us-versus-them platform fanboyism

For good reason. In the 80s Microsoft was producing boring crap, while the real innovators were Apple (GUI/mouse interface), Atari (128 colors in 1979), and Commodore/Amiga (premptive tasking and the first multimedia computer in 1985).

In the 90s Microsoft produced more crap (Windows 3), or blatantly copied the Mac OS (Win95 with traschcan, shutdown procedure desktop, etc), or driving companies into oblivion through Embrace, Extend, Exterminate.

Then the 2000s arrived with the shitty Win M.e., followed by the decent Windows NT 5.1 (XP), and the pile of crap named Vista. My brother bought a brand-new PC with Vista, but because it came installed with Microsoft's recommend 1/2 gig of RAM, it randomly froze-up for 2-3 minutes.

Microsoft is the worst platform I have ever used in the last 30 years of experience. It isn't "fanboyism". It's a shitty company producing shit. Like Yugo. Or Hyundai.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[thoughtlover]

All the GPL does is piggy back on "derived work".

I think you're confusing apples with oranges. GPL is protection from people profiting from others' work to make a product in tended to be free for use --just like like copyright/patents may be for-profit works. Derived work, though, is a fact of progression. Rarely will you see a paradigm-changing piece of work that hasn't had an influence from some other part of a whole.

"Good Artists Borrow, Great Artists Steal" -Picasso*

* yeah, I know he may not be the person that actually uttered those words. http://arthistory.about.com/b/2009/01/26/good-artists-borrow-great-artists-steal.htm

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[icebike]

The article claims that regular users can no longer be promoted to supernodes. I would call that a switch.

Regular users haven't been promoted to supernodes for a long time. You needed an inward route thru your firewall (or a direct connection) for this to work. The sale to Microsoft left a bad enough taste in many people's mouth that they just dropped their inward routes and thereby eliminated any possibility of them being a supernode.

But even prior to the sale, (under Ebay) skype had started paring back client side supernodes, because of security concerns. I don't actually think they were using end-user machines for supernodes for a long time. I used to have a machine that frequently became a supernode, and could see a lot of connections on my router when skype was idling. I haven't seen that for several years.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[shutdown -p now]

I very much doubt that those farms of dedicated supernodes that Skype has introduced way back then just run the desktop Skype client - much more likely is that they have made a dedicated server for that task, with only the code that's necessary for it, and anything unused ripped out. If their server infrastructure was already all Linux, it also makes sense that the dedicated server was also Linux-only.

Sure, it can probably be ported to Windows now, but why bother fscking around with something that already works just fine?

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[icebike]

Problem is, its getting hard to find machines with inward routes. If you are using a supernode, (because you are firewalled) you can't BE one.

Supernodes handle connections for firewalled machines, to assist in firewall piercing and advertising.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[symbolset]

[citation needed]

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody talked about relevance. The word used was bogeyman.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[Anonymous Coward]

[TFA]. Duh.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[darthdavid]

Nobody talked about relevance. The word used was bogeyman.

MS is pretty irrelevant these days outside of the enterprise desktop arena.

What was that?

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, it can probably be ported to Windows now, but why bother fscking around with something that already works just fine?

Because it's incompatible with the *fact* that Microsoft is an evil, anti-Linux corporation. Just like their development of the ODBC driver for Linux and their use of Akamai and their hypervisor contributions, the *fact* is that Microsoft is trying to kill Linux and all these actions undertaken by Microsoft are contradicting that *fact*!!!

Also they aren't mandating that there be an inability to turn off the SecureBoot UEFI feature on ARM devices certified for Windows 8, this means that manufacturers can create compliant devices capable of booting Linux, therefore they MUST mandate that SecureBoot be always on and non-optional otherwise it will contradict the *fact* that they are trying to kill Linux!

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[Anonymous Coward]

by Overly Critical Guy (663429) Not to come off as a defender of Microsoft...

Hahahahahhahahaaha!
Hahahaha!
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHHA!

LOL!

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[Eponymous Coward]

They aren't irrelevant, but they don't have the influence they once did. XBox hasn't made them much money, but it's probably their most respected consumer product. Microsoft is really just an Office + Windows company selling to corporations these days. They are interesting in the same way that Oracle or Cisco are interesting.

They have a huge pile of cash, so you can never count them out, but I would say their bullying is over (except for patent trolling) because they have lost their best talent. They are trying to compete with a B-level team.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[mcneely.mike]

Yes, i think it is Ballmer who is the real cancer now.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[Anonymous Coward]

Even in 2012, Microsoft is still the bogeyman here.

Abso-fucking-lutely. One of the key reasons why Microsoft (and Apple too) are so successful is that they treat *every* competitor as a threat. If Linux is going to survive, it's backers need to continue ignoring advice like yours for them to be somehow be ashamed of wanting to succeed. At the end of the day Microsoft has proven time and time again that will do absolutely anything they can to eliminate every competitive threat including Linux and open source, and I see absolutely no reason why the Linux community should not work to end Microsoft as a competitive threat first.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[omglolbah]

Personally I find Win7 to be good enough that I am ok with shelling out the 165 USD it cost here in Norway.

Each to their own and all that though. I use ubuntu on my file/media/web server and find that to be the best solution for me there.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[Anonymous Coward]

the planet's best programming IDE (Visual Studio)

Ok. I've never really understood this 'troll' thing.. but here you are providing a perfect example.

Obviously you've never had to actually use VS in a corporate environment

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Sure, it can probably be ported to Windows now, but why bother fscking around with something that already works just fine?

I dunno, Ask hotmail?

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh... they're absolute nobodies in cloud services. And last I checked their "lets make this number as big as possible" search share was more like 25%. Did they really gain almost 10% in a month or two? Also, the Wii took the console crown. And Microsoft's position in Facebook is like 1.5%. I don't know if I'd call that a "large share", even if it involved a lot of cash.

You're correct about the IDE though. It really is the best ever made.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[SplashMyBandit]

Microsoft Flight is a total joke for the sim crowd. Only someone quite inexperienced when it comes to simulators would think Flight was anything other than lame (eg. any of X-Plane, or DCS:A-10C, or DCS:Ka-50, or the recently released DCS:World, or even Microsoft Flight Sim X are all generally held to be better simulators than Flight - by those in the know).

Visual Studio is the best IDE, if you only develop for Windows (most people do more than Windows, eg the web, iOS etc) if you have never used anything better (and there are better IDEs out there, depending on your needs). Again, this smacks of someone who actually hasn't got much experience with other IDEs.

nb. Nokia is no longer the World's largest phone manufacturer. Recently Samsung overtook them in shipped more units, and furthermore, Apple is the leader in terms of market direction (they lead, others follow). Microsoft is loosing money badly in the mobile space - if it wasn't for their established monopolies they would have exited mobile long ago, but they are desparate to be relevant. Now Microsoft are a generation behind, trying to get into mobiles when Apple has already captured the mindshare of that market and is now moving to the tablet space (where Microsoft is a non-contender at the moment).

XBox360 is winner? they do have higher total sales than PS3, but given their huge lead time it turns out that PS3 has had the better rate of growth in terms of sales (and a better experience, in terms of reliability and game choice).

So, it is good that Microsoft makes you happy. It doesn't make its shareholders happy, and it is rapidly losing relevance compared with its position even five years ago. But by all means, please try and see the good in their products (even though anyone else who has used their competitors products will never go back to the poor-quality Microsoft equivalents).

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[SplashMyBandit]

Ballmer understood Linux and Free Software - if he didn't then he was negligent as CEO, and I actually give him more credit than others. Ballmer also understood that with the right tech support networks (eg. pre-installation) that Linux was a huge competitive threat to Windows. It is only recently that Microsoft has backed off on such comments, they weren't isolated comments made in 2001, they were made consistently and has part of an orchestrated campaign over many years (please, check out the notorious "Halloween Documents" for some perspective on Microsoft's modus operandi - you may never of heard of them, but anyone who is anything but a n00b is well aware of these and Microsoft's other dirty tricks).

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[dbIII]

Azure

That's right, it's leap years ahead of ... oh wait. Lets try selling it as 0.06% downtime instead of a really stupid calender bug.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, thanks for putting how far MS has fallen into prospective so nicely.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[PaladinAlpha]

having the worlds largest mobile phone manufacturer Nokia by the balls?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, Microsoft + Nokia, taking the world by storm! Windows Phones everywhere! HAHAHAHAHA! They're gonna expand that 0.41 percent market share into something important real soon now!

Anyway, that's all I -- HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the 80s Microsoft was producing boring crap, while the real innovators were Apple (GUI/mouse interface)

oh jesus not this shit again. Apple did not 'innovate' with the GUI or the Mouse, those were innovations produced by Xerox, Apple used these innovations to make computing more user friendly. Microsoft brought computing to the masses by making it useful rather than just a hobby and providing a software platform that anyone could build hardware to run. Atari, Commodore and Amiga stagnated because they tried to tie hardware and software, creating a device lock-in, but then failing to innovate in both elements, an approach that only ended up working out for Apple, and even then only because they worked with Microsoft to make sure their platform could run Microsoft's premier business applications. Now Apple stand strongly on their own and Microsoft continue to use OSX and iOS as platforms for their software offerings in conjunction with their own operating systems, they are after all a software company.

It's easy to call things 'crap' without specifying why and it's even easier to make a compelling post if you point out flaws in one offering while ignoring the flaws that exist in the competing platforms.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[SplashMyBandit]

ODBC driver for Linux is so they can sell more instances of SQL-Server on Windows Server. No sin there, but no altruism either.

Similarly, hypervisor contributions so you can run Linux instances on Windows Server. No sin there, but no altruism either.

> Also they aren't mandating that there be an inability to turn off the SecureBoot UEFI feature on ARM devices certified for Windows 8, this means that manufacturers can create compliant devices capable of booting Linux, therefore they MUST mandate that SecureBoot be always on and non-optional otherwise it will contradict the *fact* that they are trying to kill Linux!
Hmm, so they are heroes by their inaction over SecureBoot UEFI?

No wonder you posted as an Anonymous Coward. I'd be shamed by poor analysis with such posts too.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[shutdown -p now]

Good point, but it may just as well be a case of lesson learned.

Or not. Hotmail wasn't immediately migrated to Windows as soon as it was acquired - it ran on FreeBSD for quite a while even then.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[vanaeken]

Netflix is hosted on AWS, not on Azure.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[Anonymous Coward]

well it looks like there is a new shill account

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[Anonymous Coward]

ODBC driver for Linux is so they can sell more instances of SQL-Server on Windows Server. No sin there, but no altruism either.

Yeah, that's the point, they would not support linux if they were trying to kill linux, that's obviously not altruistic, nor is it meant to be or any implication that it could be, it just makes business sense.

Similarly, hypervisor contributions so you can run Linux instances on Windows Server. No sin there, but no altruism either.

Who said anything about altruism? Not killing linux != altruism.

Hmm, so they are heroes by their inaction over SecureBoot UEFI?

No why would you think that?
It could not be clearer: the action specified indicates they are not trying to kill Linux. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea of inference that they are heroes or altruistic? Could you explain exactly what part and how you misread/misinterpreted it to come to that conclusion?

No wonder you posted as an Anonymous Coward. I'd be shamed by poor analysis with such posts too.

It's a shame you posted under an account, especially since you seem to think that because i wrote that they aren't trying to kill Linux you equate that to perceiving them as 'altruistic' or 'heroes'.
But i suppose to some people if a post isn't anti-microsoft then it MUST be implying that they are, to use your words, 'altruistic heroes', it certainly couldn't just be 'that they aren't trying to kill linux', that would be too factual and not emotionally charged enough for you i guess.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[qu33ksilver]

Aaah finally the secret is out ! Swallowing one's own words is indeed tough ..

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you actually developed any iOS application, you wouldn't even mention iOS. X-code is hands down the worst IDE.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[Anonymous Coward]

C'mon /. this poster SCREAMS shill, mods himself up, and has an obvious name for a shill account. Don't feed the troll.

Cue the other trolls blindly barking..

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[Bert64]

He never said xcode was any good, just that visual studio is useless for developer ios apps.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[Bert64]

Mainly because they tried to migrate it to windows and the first attempt failed miserably, and they had to try again with a lot more hardware.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess MS is still relevant enough to troll the fuck out of slashbots, I will give you that OCG.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple is the leader in terms of market direction (they lead, others follow).

Yes look at them with their large screens and NFC and face unlock that they are doing and everyone else is following. Look at how they had OTA updates first and cloud storage first and wifi-syncing first and the first notifications center and integration with twitter first and quad core processors first and everyone else is just following them.

Seriously Apple are doing a brilliant job and have the most abundant single smartphone presence, they have taken the lead with the 'personal assistant' by incorporating Siri's technology into their OS and have their competitors clamoring for a similar feature, but you'd have to be completely blind and ignorant to actually suggest that everyone is just following what Apple does, in many ways - not all - iOS 5 was their way of catching up to where the industry had already passed them by.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's ironic, isn't it, that Microsoft use the TCO mantra every time they wish to dispute the suitability of Linux as a server solution. They, uniquely, have no price differential when it comes to using either OS, and they choose Linux, either in terms of technical superiority or lower TCO (or possibly both, but I'd go with the superior networking stack in this case).

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[ozmanjusri]

Words uttered in 2001. Words which more than anything exhibit Ballmer's (mis)understanding of how GPL and other open source licenses work

Words uttered in 2007:

Microsoft claims that free software like Linux, which runs a big chunk of corporate America, violates 235 of its patents. It wants royalties from distributors and users.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/28/100033867/

Words uttered in 2009:

Microsoft has brought a lawsuit against car navigation system manufacturer TomTom. The products in question incorporate Linux, and at least one of the seven patents involved concerns a Linux kernel implementation rather than TomTom's own software. Is this Microsoft's first direct salvo against Linux?
Is this a serious suit, or an effort to stir up fear, uncertainty, and doubt about Linux at a critical time, when government and industry is taking up Open Source in a big way?

http://www.datamation.com/osrc/article.php/3807801/Bruce-Perens-Analyzing-Microsofts-Linux-Lawsuit.htm

Microsoft are just getting media sly. They haven't really changed otherwise.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[93 Escort Wagon]

You mean like Xbox360, the winner of current console generation

When did they pass the Wii?

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[webnut77]

and I see absolutely no reason why the Linux community should not work to end Microsoft as a competitive threat first.

I view the OSS community more as pouring their energy in to producing better software rather than pouring their energy into crushing their competition. Let software stand on its own merits.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[twistedcubic]

$165 for Windows 7??? What do you need it for?

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[JasterBobaMereel]

XBox360 - 62m sold
Wii - 95m sold

32% of the search market when they are the default search engine on most desktop PC's is not good enough, and when then most search for word on Bing is 'Google' ...

Games, they pay games companies to write them, Facebook they own but otherwise have nothing to do with, Nokia is no longer the worlds largest mobile phone operator....

Microsoft rapidly becoming a minor player in most markets ...

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[RightSaidFred99]

Lol at your logic fail.

The straw company down the block probably sold 300 million plastic straws last year. This just in, plastic straws more successful than Wii!

The Wii was a moderate profit driver for Nintendo but is now dead. The Xbox is a massive success and continues to earn Microsoft tons of money. It's quaint you think number of consoles sold is what matters. Just because a shitload of people have dusty old Wiis rotting by their TV's doesn't mean much of anything.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[Anonymous Coward]

apk, is that you?

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[crutchy]

no, because apple isn't anti-competitive like microsoft (apple is more of a closed ecosystem, with people only buying apple who choose to, not by lack of choice), so "m$" will always hold the title

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[crutchy]

GPL is protection from people profiting from others' work to make a product in tended to be free for use

gpl doesn't prevent you from profiting from someone others' work. where did you get that from?

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[PaladinAlpha]

So how's that XBox handheld working out for you?

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[crutchy]

so,

(Windows TCO) less (Windows licensing costs) still > (Linux TCO)

that wouldn't make a good sales pitch

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[crutchy]

i agree, but there's no reason why the OSS community can't spend a bit of effort bitching about microsoft on dotslash

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[UltraZelda64]

Microsoft is really just an Office + Windows company selling to corporations these days.

How is that? I mean, when I go out to one of the major local stores and go to their electronics department, I unfortunately still see plenty of desktop and laptop "PCs" that are running Windows. Those things are sold to plain old customers (what, are you telling me Wal-Mart sells primarily to knowlegeable business people...?). Same thing when you go to Dell's or Gateway's site, or any of the other desktop or laptop computer OEMs; just look at their personal laptops and home desktops... same thing, it's all Windows. Simple fact is, Windows is sold everywhere... except for with tablet computers (dominated by Android and iOS currently), cell phones for the most part (ditto... mostly Android and iOS right now), and... well, that's about it. Planning on buying a laptop? A desktop? Enjoy your shiny new license of Windows 7, suckers!

Unfortunately, not only will Windows 8 likely change the whole tablet computer thing, Microsoft will be actively locking out every other operating system from any tablet computer sold with Windows 8. Which, given Microsoft's (typically illegally leveraged) strength [I like to think of it as steroids...] to monopolize yet another market. Yay for... uh... completely blocking out competition! HELLO, worthless and corrupt Federal Government of mine... ARE YOU PAYING ANY FUCKING ATTENTION?!? Get off you god damn pointless anti-drug crusade and do something decent for once!

Just watch. I predict that Android tablets will quickly be pushed out of the market in favor of Windows 8 devices with sleazy deals only a slimy company like Microsoft could come up with, just like netbooks with the resurrected Windows XP and the butchered Windows 7 Starter. Just flash that green stuff in front of the hardware manufacturers' faces, that's all they need--and Microsoft has shitloads of it to toss around. Those tablet computer manufacturers that stand by Android will succomb to Microsoft's bullshit patent licensing agreements, effectively paying them just to use the operating system, passing yet another "excise" Microsoft tax onto us consumers who do not want to support Microsoft in any way, and are in fact not buying anything Microsoft sells... except for a bunch of bullshit, unspecified patents that they *claim* Android infringes, which the pussies--er, I mean cell phone manufacturers refuse to challenge. Meanwhile Apple, being a for-profit and relatively successful corporation, will be able to keep their overpriced and increasingly locked-down walled gardens on the market to compete with Microsoft simply because of their massive stash of money. Linux (in this case, Android) will likely die a quick death of tablet computers.

I really don't want to see that happen, but facing facts and history here, that seems like a likely (and unfortunate) outcome. In fact... god damn I hope I'm wrong. But I'm not betting on it; I never expect the best outcome, because it almost never fucking happens.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[Anonymous Coward]

A year ago Nokia was selling more than Samsung and Apple combined (when counting all phones or just smart phones). Now they are smaller than Samsung overall and sell less smartphones than Apple at far smaller margins.

So yeah, MS has Nokia by the balls but those balls are shrinking day by day.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody talked about relevance. The word used was bogeyman.

MS is pretty irrelevant these days outside of the enterprise desktop arena.

What was that?

That's irrelevant.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[omglolbah]

http://omglolbah.net/ksh/mobilkamera/random/triplehead_setup.jpg

Short answer: It is the best operating system for my current needs.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[Anonymous Coward]

the planet's best programming IDE (Visual Studio)

Ok. I've never really understood this 'troll' thing.. but here you are providing a perfect example.

Obviously you've never had to actually use VS in a corporate environment

Well, I have "had" to use it in a corporate environment for 15 going on 20 years now, and I also feel that it's the best development environment that I've ever used, at least for C and C++ programming.

There, feel better now?

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[erroneus]

So maybe giving them a ribbing at this news isn't unjustified.

Ah yes... ribbing... for her pleasure.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[lipanitech]

Microsoft bought Skype they did not build it from the ground up they are using what ever software and hardware are in place. Remember they spent 1 Billion dollars they are not going to gut all hardware and software at that price.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Building better software" is essentially irrelevant in the age of software patents and harassment lawsuits. Too many people in the Linux community still see Microsoft as some kind of honorable competitor who will somehow eventually "see the light" and give up. Microsoft did not become one of the most powerful corporations in the world by bending over to their competition. Phrases like "embrace, extend, extinguish" did not pop up out of thin air. Whether Microsoft apologists or naive Linux developers want to admit it or not, capitalism is played as a zero sum game and it is not enough to just "win", you must also destroy the ability of your competitors to ever be a threat again.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[Zero__Kelvin]

Great point. If only Linux could do it, I bet they would do it better!

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[Anonymous Coward]

you give him credit for being a dirtbag? Impressive.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[cpu6502]

>>>us-versus-them platform fanboyism

For good reason. In the 80s Microsoft/IBM was producing boring crap (16 colors and sound that went "beep"), while the real innovators were Atari and Commodore/Amiga (128 colors in 1979, 4000 colors and near-CD sound in 1985, plus preemptive tasking).

In the 90s Microsoft produced more crap (Windows 3), or blatantly copied the Mac OS (Win95 with trashcan, shutdown procedure, shortcuts, programs directly on the desktop, etc), or driving companies into oblivion through Embrace, Extend, Exterminate.

Then the 2000s arrived with the shitty Win M.e., followed by the decent Windows NT 5.1 (XP), and the pile of crap named Vista. My brother bought a brand-new PC with Vista, but because it came installed with Microsoft's recommend 1/2 gig of RAM, it randomly froze-up for 2-3 minutes (hard drive thrashing).

Microsoft is the worst platform I have ever used in the last 30 years of experience. It isn't "fanboyism". It's a shitty company producing shit. Like Yugo. Or Hyundai.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[ConceptJunkie]

Let software stand on its own merits.

You say that in a world where 99% of business users have Office installed, and Microsoft uses everything in their huge portfolio of evil to keep it that way?

I agree that the OSS community needs to make better software, and in many cases they already do. But you can't just compete with Microsoft on quality. They will crush you almost every time. Sure, Mozilla has driven IE from its once overwhelming market share, but that isn't slowing down the sales of Windows, or that thorn in the side of all that is good, Office.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody talked about relevance. The word used was bogeyman.

MS is pretty irrelevant these days outside of the enterprise desktop arena.

What was that?

What was what? I didn't hear anything.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://omglolbah.net/ksh/mobilkamera/random/triplehead_setup.jpg

Short answer: It is the best operating system for my current needs.

I've always wondered what to do with my third monitor. I've been trying to figure out how to program simultaneously on three programs, but I'm not that awesome. Then I tried to figure out how to program on one, watch movies on the other, and play solitaire on the third. Too much mouse movement. I was going to try running three WoW sessions so I could level up three characters almost as fast as one, but you've just given me the best solution: Monitor 50 IRC channels on one, play games on the other--and for the third? Fireboobs.

I can't wait to be such an unproductive member of society... Maybe I can convince my company to buy them for me.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[darkpixel2k]

Well, I have "had" to use it in a corporate environment for 15 going on 20 years now, and I also feel that it's the best development environment that I've ever used, at least for C and C++ programming.

There, feel better now?

Aah--so you looked around 20 years ago, decided on Visual Studio because you were obviously a windows shop, and then have stuck with it--completely missing all the other environments that have sprouted up. No worries--after doing that for 20 years, you're pretty much obsolete too. You just have to wait for the old, monolithic, used-to-be-fortune-100 company you work for to finish tanking and you'll be gone too. Maybe you'll see a brief surge of usefulness next leap year or something when every realizes Microsoft can't account for leap-anything--kinda like the Cobol guys were suddenly valuable again for a brief period right around the year 2000...

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[Zero__Kelvin]

"Linux users idea of better is 'visual vomit ..."

That is really weird, because up until now I thought all the Windows users marveling over the awesome look, feel, and performance of my Linux laptop had something to do with its awesome look, feel, and performance.

"Of course you also act like 8 monitors is unique to Linux in this post. "

Er ... ah ... no. I act like the OP implied with his .jpg link that he needs Windows to do triple head, but that is just because that was what he implied. Your ability to grasp a context could use significant improvement. Also, 1995 called, and it wants your understanding and experience with Linux back.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[tolan-b]

Has Xbox turned a net profit yet? I don't mean this year, I mean over its lifetime. It's only a few years since the division turned its first annual profit, let alone made up for all the money it sank into loss-leading.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[Eponymous Coward]

If you count the iPad as a PC sale (and Microsoft has always counted a Windows tablet as a PC), then Apple and HP are virtually tied for market share. Tablet sales are roughly 20% of the market these days and that is almost entirely owned by Apple. They are certainly the only company making money in that segment except for perhaps Amazon and B&N who, interestingly enough, have a similar business model to Apple's.

Microsoft is gong to continue to make lots of money selling Windows and Office licenses, but they aren't going to be able to leverage Windows and Office to dethrone Apple as the most profitable phone maker any time soon. Their old tactics of using Windows to push products just isn't all that effective any more.

The worst thing that could happen to Apple would be for Google to give up on Android. It hasn't made them any money and the Oracle lawsuit could cost billions. If Google were to dump Android, Apple would suddenly be looking like a monopolist much like Microsoft was 12(?) years ago and their terms would suddenly cross over from simply being abusive and one-sided to being illegal.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[Eponymous Coward]

I just found a recent market share report.

For me, the most interesting thing in this report is that tablets (mostly iPad and some Kindle Fire) made up 40% of PC shipments in North America in the first quarter of this year. I wonder if there are a lot of purchasers holding out for Windows 8? I'm not sure how else to explain non-Microsoft PC's getting so much marketshare.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[thetoadwarrior]

That's because they're still event and bully smallers companies into making patent payments and the operating perhaps the most closed system ever (xbox) where it took years just to get the BBC iplayer because MS couldn't handle the fact they couldn't force you to have a gold subscription to use it.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[RightSaidFred99]

Lolyes. It's been 4 years since they turned their first annual profit, and they are raking money in hand over fist on Xbox Live. That's why they're adding a $99 Xbox+Kinect subscription model.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[Anonymous Coward]

Obvious flamebait post

(Score:4, Informative)

Who the hell gave you idiots mod points?

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[Tsingi]

having the worlds largest mobile phone manufacturer Nokia by the balls?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, Microsoft + Nokia, taking the world by storm! Windows Phones everywhere! HAHAHAHAHA! They're gonna expand that 0.41 percent market share into something important real soon now!

Anyway, that's all I -- HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I call your HAHAHA and raise a shadenfreude.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[unixisc]

The networking stack in Windows used to be taken from BSD rather than Linux. But that too was only for IPv4. For IPv6, although BSD has still been the leader here, MS didn't take their stack, but instead, started w/ a homegrown technology called Teredo, which is quite different.

TCO can't be a reason here - the only reason is that traffic regulatory operations are already there in Linux (and BSD), but would have to be done from scratch in Windows, where the GUI would just be extra overhead.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[detritus.]

And didn't they kill the Skype linux client as well?

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[Atti K.]

Not that hard, because the skype client will automatically open ports via upnp if it is possible, and that is the case for most home users. What is harder, find users which are running the skype client almost all the time.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[icebike]

Except every security blog and even router documentation recommends against upnp.
I believe it ships in the OFF state on most new routers for this very reason.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[Atti K.]

Well maybe, but the average user at some point will usually turn it on to get some p2p software working properly, it is easier than setting up the ports manually. The average home user also doesn't read security blogs or their router's documentation for that matter :)

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[Anonymous Coward]

emberasment?

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[Anonymous Coward]

Obvious flamebait besides the informative and relevant link, you mean? It's not flamebait just because you don't like it.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[Anonymous Coward]

Zmud/cmud are a pain on anything but windows.
Port royale 2 works, but most of the games do not.

My netduino is awesome and I'm happy with visual studio.

List goes on but mobile touch input is annoying.

I use ubuntu on my server where it matches the needs.

And your assumption is a rather large one :p

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[Zero__Kelvin]

"I use ubuntu on my server where it matches the needs.

I said they would do it better (The Linux developers), not you or Mark Shill-tleworth. Obviously, you don't know better than to use Ubuntu as a server, so I wouldn't expect you to do it better.

What you have done is compare applications that run on Linux to Applications that run on Windows. Furthermore you didn't compare best in class on one platform to best in class on the other. ... and my assumption - while always incurring the dangers of any assumption - is not very big. Perhaps you can come up with another reason why someone would post a pick of a three-head system with triple-head in the filename as an example of what need it suits, and no other explanation of what needs it suits?

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[Anonymous Coward]

Working at one of MS's main operations centers, I do know that whenever MS acquires a new service/company who's product is unix based, it ends up in one of their unix based data centers (one in particular I can't name) where the majority of its unix bases systems reside. This is done until the system can be properly migrated over to windows systems which, in case of skype, takes lots of time and effort to plan/engineer. Until that time, it will remain unix. Hotmail is an example of this which is now all windows based (and has been for some time now).

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[nobodie]

well at least you have windows in the room and don't have to use the "computer windows" to let in some light.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[nobodie]

Yeah, I got an sympatico IT guy at work to hook up fedora on my work box with win7 running in a VM for stuff that I must do with IE (HR and registration stuff for example-- go figure), you should see how people in the office ALWAYS turn their heads when they walk by my desk to see what my desktop looks like. Its not that it is always different, just that it is always working on something. I have projects alive and moving on my WORKspace, not the latest cute kittens or stupid video in my crapware browser. Windows has fallen victim to its success with xbox, it is overtaking Apple as the most used casual gaming platform in the office

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[DaVince21]

I quote:
"MS is pretty irrelevant these days outside of the enterprise desktop arena."

That's what Missing.Matter replied too. Seems totally appropriate.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[RubberDogBone]

For THAT price, you could have bought a Technet license and gotten multiple Win7 licenses not to mention licenses for Office and nearly everything else Microsoft makes.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[Trogre]

Thank you for a rational response. By the looks of the GP's posting history, I'd say there's a good chance this CriticalAnalysis is another shill account.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[omglolbah]

Except they're 212-500 bucks here in Norway.

25% sales and services tax tend to drive price up a tad.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[Anonymous Coward]

awwww, how cute, a noob with the idea that everything will be ruby-on-rails. sorry kid, the reality is that using visual studio for a long time, or coding in c/c++ doesn't preclude you from experiencing other options and branching out to other languages, but you're not the first to incorrectly predict the obsolescence of languages like c and c++ so don't beat yourself up. you're also not the first to assume that c/c++ coders don't branch out to other newer languages, paradigms and IDEs. when you actually get some experience in the industry you'll look back at this an laugh at yourself.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[SplashMyBandit]

My absolute pleasure - I simply could not let such incorrect statements stand unchallenged - and thanks for taking the time to comment on my post. Sometimes, as I'm sure you have experienced yourself, you're never sure whether people read and appreciate them or not.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[Anonymous Coward]

The main point that I take away from this story is that..Linux is literally everwhere :)

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works?

[frazzledjazz]

YEAH. Its how it works. Goes to show you M$ thinks its product really not living up to snuff and they realize it. HMM, future of M$ in desktops...Canonocal wants a piece of that pie. Better get ready to overhaul the Windows CORE..my friends. Your BROKEN AERO is showing. Linux can do better than M$.

And...

[Anonymous Coward]

So what? Why should the average person care? Linux is free, lightweight, and useful for this sort of thing. What's the issue? :)

Re:And...

[ozmanjusri]

So what? Why should the average person care?

Oddly enough, they shouldn't care because hell has frozen over and Microsoft is using Linux.

They should care because Microsoft is taking steps to centralise what was a peer-to-peer telephony system. By adding supernodes that they control, they are positioning Skype to transition to a system where everybody's data goes through Microsoft servers rather than direct person to person.

They're happy to have us discussing Linux because the privacy implications are what they don't want us talking about.

Re:And...

[hairyfeet]

Uhhh...where have YOU been? didn't you get the memo? hell the only reason SUSE has a pulse is because MSFT has spent hundreds of millions buying SUSE Linux licenses to bundle with WinServer packages so MSFT has been making money off of Linux for years now. That of course isn't counting the tons of money they make by trolling Android OEMs for the LULZ so the only real shock is that so many of those that go nuts over FOSS hasn't figured out that MSFT is making money hand over fist off all their free work.

As far as privacy? I guess you missed the memo from the head of Google saying privacy was dead too huh? Hell the users hand all their data over to FB and Twitter and Google now anyway, so why should they give a shit about phone calls? I mean have you seen the kind of dumbshit people tweet or post to FB? You got morons bragging about crimes, smoking dope or piss faced drunk, nobody has any shame or common sense anymore, I'm starting to think the conspiracy nuts are right and there is something in the water because i don't remember people being this ignorant nor as exhibitionist when I was a kid. Frankly privacy went the way of the 8-track when all the smart phones came with cameras and upload to social media features. Unless you want to pull a Michael Jackson and run around in a mask everything you do will end up on somebody's FB page anyway, just give it up.

Re:And...

[Anonymous Coward]

> they are positioning Skype to transition to a system where everybody's data goes through Microsoft servers rather than direct person to person.

Currently that is not the case as is even stated in the fricking summary which you obviously did not bother reading.

Re:And...

[ozmanjusri]

"Currently" being the operative word.

Re:And...

[Nutria]

Where's the mod point when I really need them?

Re:And...

[icebike]

> they are positioning Skype to transition to a system where everybody's data goes through Microsoft servers rather than direct person to person.

Currently that is not the case as is even stated in the fricking summary which you obviously did not bother reading.

Currently is rather temporary. (By definition).

The problem is there are so few machines that meet the criteria for being a supernode that the network can't handle the number of connections it needs because of a shortage of supernodes. It used to be that skype enthusiasts would create inward routes through their firewalls specifically to allow (some of) their machines to be supernodes. When big money stepped in, lots of folks stopped doing that. When suspect big money (Microsoft) stepped in, even fewer were willing to do this. (Like one in 100 skype users even know how to do this anyway).

Everybody is firewalled these days. There are fewer volunteers. ISPs are imposing bandwidth caps. And Microsoft would likely rather have control, especially if they want to monitize this thing.

Re:And...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oooooh so because something might potentially happen sometime in the near or distant future means that it actually will happen and I should be concerned and believe your tin foil hattery. Get real fuckronaut.

Re:And...

[darthdavid]

For me at least, the problem isn't that so much is becoming public but that so many little things that shouldn't matter can get you in trouble when they're made public. Smoking some weed, getting drunk, whatever goofy shit you get up to, it shouldn't matter if it's made public, because it shouldn't be anyone's concern but your own what you do with your own body in your own time.

Obviously, if you're getting twisted at work or whatever that's an issue, but victimless fun shouldn't have legal or professional consequences...

Re:And...

[deatypoo]

Well it's actually harmless until someone needs to discredit you for some reason. I'm pretty sure it's easier to justify firing someone who would have FB posts of them being stupid compared to someone who would not. Everyone commits minor crimes but if you provide your own proof against yourself don't be surprised you get prosecuted.

Re:And...

[crutchy]

not that i care one way or another about the topic of conversation, but you're apparently not familiar with microsoft business tactics (the three e's)

Re:And...

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you want to pull a Michael Jackson and run around in a mask everything you do will end up on somebody's FB page anyway, just give it up.

Without losing sleep over it: no, I don't just give it up. You're basically saying that I should go with the flow and give up things I consider important just because some companies offer apparently free bling-bling. No thanks, I'm not that easy to corrupt.

Re:And...

[hairyfeet]

But whose fault is it for not paying attention to history? Look at the history of this country and you'll see hard swings to the right during ANY economic crisis, see the 80s as just one example. hell the media likes to make socialism cracks about Obama but in the 70s he would have been labeled hard right, hell Mittens is probably more left than Obama!

When a country is in the midst of a hard right shift one does NOT act like a dumbass where it can be used against them! While I agree that it ought not be that way, that is the classic "is ought" problem and what reality IS is that one doesn't do anything during a hard right shift that they don't keep on the down low without being run over like a Mac truck. All those idiots that got fired for doing stupid shit on FB should have been fired for being such a total moron that they blast their dumbass moments all over the planet, but of course common sense is so damned rare nowadays its practically a superpower.

Re:And...

[Alex Belits]

Don't worry, hairyfeet's friends at Microsoft marketing department have more accounts.

Re:And...

[Anonymous Coward]

Translation: "OMG ! You don't hate microsoft like I do ! This is unacceptable ! "

Re:And...

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently you think the world is the same place it was a decade ago. Time to step outside and get some fresh air.

Re:And...

[ozmanjusri]

You completely fail to understand what these boxes do.

"Two months ago, Skype replaces user-hosted P2P supernodes with Linux grsec boxes hosted by Microsoft, but for what?

I found some brilliant and valuable comment about this:

I think wiretapping is one of the big reasons for the rearchitecture. Skype officially claimed they could not comply with wiretapping requests because of the P2P network as late as 2008 (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9963028-38.html), and Microsoft was already working on wiretapping VoIP in 2009 (http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/tom-keating/microsoft-patents-voip-and-skype-wiretapping.asp)."

http://skype-open-source.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/microsoft-wiretapping-on-skype-now.html

Re:And...

[crutchy]

that's like a bully stealing some kid's money and wondering why he doesn't want to be friends the next day.

if microsoft gave up their fud campaign against linux, and really contributed to linux (as in not just dodgy drivers to make their own product more marketable), and gave linux a fair go in the OS market, maybe they wouldn't be considered such a bully, but why the hell would they do that?

maybe you've been living under a rock for the past decade, but microsoft hasn't changed that much. if anything they're becoming smarter at their games (like funding SCO to take the beating for them, or bribing walmart execs to take linux oems off their shelves, suing companies using linux rather than suing linux distributors, as just a couple of examples out of many)

why don't you wake up and smell reality? moron

Re:And...

[hairyfeet]

See this is why I love to LMAO at the FOSSies, they are so "There is but one true god!" they can't even think, its like a cross between village idiot and conspiracy nut, all rolled into one!

You want some fresh bitch slapping? Be careful what you wish for FOSSie, how about a nice kernel exploit? Or how about the guy that wrote EEEBuntu saying Ubuntu sucks which considering they are the current savior of Linux kinda tells you something. But why don't you say "Use Distro X" and then have the balls to name the X so i can show its just as big a POS, huh? BTW frankly everyone has stop giving a fuck about your OS, you aren't even newsworthy anymore really. Now its all Win 7&8, OSX&iOS, and of course Android which just shows what happens when a company bitch slaps the community and takes it away from them, why it actually fucking runs!

How sad that even with a bug spreading through OSX there are writers pointing out that's no reason to torture yourself with Linux , after all even a virus ridden OSX actually runs which is more than most distros LOL! But hey, you can always tell them they can fix it otherwise they don't need that right? LOL! And I noticed you just couldn't fricking resist screaming "Nigger!" which in FOSSie is done by screaming PaidMicrosoftShill, hey you think you could throw in one more FOSSie cliche please? Then I'll have a FOSSie Flush ROFL!

But if you didn't have cliches and your pathetic attempts at insults why then you might have to have an independent thought and realize what everybody knows that even when MSFT put out a universally reviled OS you STILL got curb stomped, does that give you ANY clues? or all they all brainwashed by those black choppers that have been following you? Hell when the Chinese were given the choice of your "free OS" or pirating Windows they chose the latter even if it meant staying on XP and using IE fricking 6, LOL! Does that ring ANY bells? A smart person would say "what are we doing wrong the other guy is doing right?" but a FOSSie who is just like a Moonie in that they blindly follow, instead says "Its all a conspiracy! They are all shills keeping the masses from true salvation!" and then you wonder why we all laugh at you because you DON'T Listen, you DON'T learn, and Torvalds could take a big steaming dump and hand it to you and you'd thank him for his generous gift. So enjoy that fresh bitchslapping loony, enjoy the fact that the world really doesn't care...but I do, I enjoy slapping you, it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.

MS and Linux

[Ultracrepidarian]

Now, isn't this ironic?

Re:MS and Linux

[CriticalAnalysis]

How is it ironic? Microsoft has used Linux on some of their services for a long time. It just shows that Microsoft doesn't take the hard approach of FOSS fanatics but uses what suits the purpose best. Maybe there's something to learn from that.

Re:MS and Linux

[MickyTheIdiot]

Or it shows that they are willing to take from FOSS and not give anything back, which confirms some of the things we've said all along.

One of the two.

Re:MS and Linux

[CriticalAnalysis]

What are you talking about? Microsoft has contributed tons of patches and other stuff to, for example, Linux. They have actively worked to make it more compatible with Windows.

Hell, they have an open source project hosting at CodePlex.

At least try to get your facts straight instead of the pure hate. But I saw what happened when Microsoft guys reached out and asked for comments about their open source offering on Slashdot. You can still read it too, Microsoft Wants Your Feedback On Its New Python IDE.

Re:MS and Linux

[MickyTheIdiot]

Which is why I called for MY OWN post to be modded down. It was a factually inacurate shot. A post below enlightened me.

Re:MS and Linux

[cpu6502]

It's a surprise for me because I would have expected MS to use a Windows Server box, especially given their philosophy of their employees using own product for real-world test.

Re:MS and Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

How is it ironic? Microsoft has used Linux on some of their services for a long time. It just shows that Microsoft doesn't take the hard approach of FOSS fanatics but uses what suits the purpose best. Maybe there's something to learn from that.

So when MS refers to Linux as a "cancer", that's not taking the hard fanatical approach? You are so quick to complement them and slam FLOSS advocates for exactly the same kind of thing. You should sit and think about your hypocracy.

Re:MS and Linux

[socceroos]

Its ironic given Microsoft's stance on Linux in the past - having gone from calling it a cancer to using it in critical infrastructure. Why you can't see that, I'm not sure - seems obvious to me.

Re:MS and Linux

[betterunixthanunix]

It just shows that Microsoft doesn't take the hard approach of FOSS fanatics but uses what suits the purpose best.

Well that is not really asking much out of them:

• For Microsoft to use Linux, they merely have to agree to the GPL -- if the use is purely internal, this basically imposes no restrictions on them.
• For me to use MS Office, I have to agree to the EULA, which demands that I not attempt to reverse engineer the software, modify the software, use the included artwork to produce offensive documents, etc. I have no choice but to use MS Office internally, since the EULA forbids me from redistributing it, except to sell it and delete any copy that remains in my possession (or have they removed that clause?).

You see the difference here? The GPL imposes no restrictions on how software can be used, and few restrictions on how it can be copied and shared; proprietary licenses contain nothing but restrictions on use and copying. It is easy for Microsoft to use GPL software internally; it may not be easy for me to use software under a proprietary license, unless I fit the model of computer users as envisioned by the companies that made that software (which I almost never do).

Re:MS and Linux

[interval1066]

I'm taking away one thing from this; the linux comm technology is, perhaps not better, but more suited, to their purpose. What else should anyone take away here?

Re:MS and Linux

[MickyTheIdiot]

The thing is that Linux (and before that Unix) has always been a part of their infastructure. When Ballmer was being an ass, throwing chairs, and having diarrhea of the mouth with the cancer and "viral" comments, the people doing the real work on the inside had linux boxes on their network helping them get their day to day work done.

In other words, Ballmer is an idiot and Microsoft does have some good and practicle people working for them. An idiot CEO, that's not at all odd either.

Re:MS and Linux

[ags1]

It just shows that Microsoft doesn't take the hard approach of FOSS fanatics but uses what suits the purpose best.

Most open source projects run on windows. Linux usually comes first, but 90% of the time there is a windows port. What % of Microsoft apps run on something other then windows? It looks to me that the "FOSS fanatics" are very good about allowing people to pick what suits them the best while Microsoft isn't.

Re:MS and Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Or it shows that they are willing to take from FOSS and not give anything back, which confirms some of the things we've said all along.

One of the two.

It's so ironic how, in one breath, Slashdotters will decry the lack of "giving anything back" to open source software, and in the next breath, defend software piracy. Microsoft has the right to use cheap UNIX boxes as backend infrastructure like everyone else.

Hell, what have YOU given back to "FOSS"?

Re:MS and Linux

[socceroos]

I'm not denying that they've used Linux for a long time already - not at all. The fact is that up until a year or so ago, "Microsoft" was publically and verbally belittling and demonizing Linux and open source in general. So, despite them using it in their infrastructure already, it doesn't detract from this being ironic.

Re:MS and Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Those restrictions are exactly why MS is a multibillion dollar company that sells software and no single company selling software under the GPL can compare.

Why is that? Oh right, those few restrictions you mentioned about GPL copying and sharing ensures the code under the GPL is available for free if you try releasing a binary for profit.

Re:MS and Linux

[crutchy]

if nothing else, microsoft using linux validates the gpl on their part (after all, they have to agree to it to use it), so i'm sure this will come up in any court battles over gpl violations by microsoft in the future (which there are no doubt many)

Re:MS and Linux

[UnknownSoldier]

> that I not attempt to ... use the included artwork to produce offensive documents,

As much as I hate wikipedia I'm going to have to call [Citation] on this one part ...

Re:MS and Linux

[wanzeo]

Microsoft was in the top 10 corporate contributors to the kernel in 2011. And I am not a shill, check my posts dawg.

Re:MS and Linux

[Nutria]

the people doing the real work on the inside had linux boxes on their network helping them get their day to day work done.

In 2001? Citation please.

IOW, I think you're talking out of your arse.

Re:MS and Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with not giving back.

NOTHING.

Re:MS and Linux

[symbolset]

Google is also a multibillion dollar company, and they sell software under the GPL. In fact in terms of market cap they're pretty close to each other right now. I believe IBM, HP, Dell and Samsung could be on that list too. And Comcast, Oracle and Cisco too, I think. I'm sure there's more, but that should do.

Re:MS and Linux

[ratboy666]

Start here

http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_vista-windows_programs/what-are-the-copyright-rules-concerning-use-of/741f069b-a52e-4688-b19e-dee05180fc3a

And now here

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows-live/microsoft-service-agreement

Pay particular attention to section 17. You may not use Microsoft included artwork to create "obscene" material.

Which is fairly ill-defined. Could be considered offensive material.

I could give other citations, but that should do.

Re:MS and Linux

[xous]

Microsoft has bee requiring job candidates to have Linux experience for a long time.

http://www.microsoft-careers.com/job/Redmond-Software-Development%2C-Principle-Job-WA-98052/1715106/

I've seen a few for DC tech positions as well but I couldn't find one when I was looking today.

Re:MS and Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Google isn't making its billions from selling GPL software, it's making them from advertising. Most of the rest of the companies you listed make their money from hardware. Comcast makes it from Cable services.

There's nothing wrong with those revenue streams, but it's a poor comparison.

Re:MS and Linux

[symbolset]

These companies all sell products with GPL software (Linux) in them. What part of the value provided is software and what is hardware is a subjective judgment with no basis in fact. Google's services run on GPL software so they're leveraging that to keep its costs down. They're leveraging Linux in Android to stay alive in the mobile market too. The rest of those companies ship hardware with Linux in it - and if didn't have Linux in it they would either have to pay more to replace it with something else and/or be slower to market, have a less satisfactory end user experience, have less control of the user experience, be unable to differentiate their product. IBM, Oracle and HP do sell a LOT of Linux systems. Dell less so. I'm no so sure what the prevalence of Linux is in Comcast's set-top DVR, but I'm pretty sure it's in there - but that's more of a lease than a sale. There are many, many more. I didn't mention Intel which is working on at least two Linux-based OSes that I know of. And Amazon and Rackspace, Box and Dropbox and Backblaze and Bluehost and all the other cloud folks of course, selling linux-based services of one sort or another.

Some of these companies approach Microsoft's market power individually, and together they dwarf it. Sure, none of them is exclusively software - but some might see that as an advantage in a world where we can so easily lose interest in one way of doing things. Microsoft isn't the 800lb gorilla any more, intimidating everybody on the field like they once were. More and more they're just a bully, standing alone on the soccer field yelling at the backs of all the folks who've decided not to play with them any more.

And coming back to the topic at hand, for now at least it seems Linux is essential to Microsoft's operations too.

Re:MS and Linux

[rastos1]

I choose to ignore their contribution to Linux kernel and keep waiting for their contribution to Skype on Linux. They are in the best position to provide it.

Re:MS and Linux

[unixisc]

Actually, MS is the 17th largest contributor of code of Linux - don't have the citation link w/ me @ present, but I recall reading it recently. So doesn't jive w/ the 'give back' rule. Also, anybody is free to take FOSS and use it, and that's not considered wrong. It's only considered wrong if they distribute it while witholding the source code. In this case, MS is just a Linux user - they're not re-distributing it after using it to build Skype, they're just using it to regulate Skype traffic.

Re:MS and Linux

[unixisc]

Yeah, given how they'll be trying to push Windows 8 in a few months, one would have expected them to use that for this purpose

But seriously, what I'm interested in is - what distro do they use? Or since it's just traffic, do they simply use the CLI shell and not bother about X and anything else? The other thing I'm curious about - their internal stuff that was based on their Xenix - have they moved that to Linux? I'm also surprised that they didn't choose to use BSD, where the IPv6 is more developed, and where Skype would benefit from a change in going over from IPv4 to IPv6, which is what Windows Vista and beyond by default support.

Re:MS and Linux

[unixisc]

Fully agree! The very 'giving back' notion implies that one would have to be a coder of some kind in order to be morally justified in using GPL software. I'm sure that would be news to the bulk of Linux users who do no programming, but simply use it while pursuing their varied interests.

Re:MS and Linux

[Bert64]

They only even acknowledge the existence of linux when they are still at the "embrace" stage, in markets where ms is already dominant they never even acknowledge that linux exists at all...

ODBC driver for mssql - ms do not dominate the database market, oracle are still huge, mysql and db2 are well known too
hyper-v drivers - ms are nothing in the virtualization market, having been very late to the party and already released and subsequently dropped a previous virtualization product (ms virtual server)
frontpage extensions - again, apache is still the biggest player in webhosting

They don't even attempt to make linux ports of any of their desktop apps, nor do they make it easy for linux users to connect to their more widespread server products like exchange

Re:MS and Linux

[Bert64]

Software as a product will come and go, were it not for lock-in and inertia it would have already for all but niche markets...

If you look at the price/performance of hardware over the years, where there is fierce competition... The same level of competition in software would ultimately end with everyone giving it away free and trying to make money via other means.

Software too, unlike hardware, has a very low barrier to entry and with the sharing nature of open source its much easier to get a customised fully working product ready to go quickly than it would be to develop your whole stack from scratch.

Take the web browser market, all the major browsers are given away free and very few people would ever consider paying for one now.

Re:MS and Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Ballmer convinced most Linux/Android device vendors to pay royalties. The reason he's shut up about it recently is because Microsoft won.

Re:MS and Linux

[crutchy]

Microsoft doesn't take the hard approach of FOSS fanatics

bahahahahahahahaha!!!!!! you are such a tool

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Linux#Competition_from_Microsoft

Re:MS and Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

A few years ago I worked for a company that had decided to migrate from a mainframe to the .NET plaform. The place was swarmed with Microsoft employees doing their part in the project. I noticed a few things about the ones I worked with. a) IT outside the Microsoft platform hardly seemed to exist for them. b) The mainframe platform the company was migrating from hardly seemed to exist for them, to them that was an archaic, uninteresting, underpowered server doing something marginal in a corner of the computer room. They didn't seem to register that this marginal thing ran the bulk of the company's business and that *that* was what we were migrating from. c) They behaved like salespeople. They constantly pushed us to focus on Microsoft technologies even if they were only announced and wouldn't be available for quite a while while we needed something now. And if anything from a third party was needed it had to come from their partners; they were being pretty uncooperative when we considered suppliers who weren't their partners. They clearly disliked it if an open source product was considered. Their contract, by the way, explicitly stated that it was not to be a Microsoft-only solution, if a third party product was a better fit for the company's requirements than what Microsoft (or their partners) had to offer they were supposed to help make it fit in.

They may not all have been like that, but the ones I had dealings with pretty much were. They weren't the best Microsoft has to offer, I heard from a former coworker who went on to work for Microsoft and was impressed with the expertise and open-mindedness of many people he met there. But the company I worked for apparently wasn't important enough to get their best people. The people I did work with made me feel Microsoft isn't a company but a religious sekt.

Of course Microsoft is far too big for one such experience to tell the whole story. But it does show that within Microsoft the same kind of fanaticism that you see with FOSS people exists as well, and that may be the Microsoft you get to deal with. If that is how you know them then yes, it's pretty ironic to see them choose Linux for anything.

Re:MS and Linux

[crutchy]

microsoft is not comparable to the bulk of linux users

Re:MS and Linux

[crutchy]

hyperv drivers don't count as a contribution to linux, just as an addition to it

Re:MS and Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

These companies all sell products with GPL software (Linux) in them. What part of the value provided is software and what is hardware is a subjective judgment with no basis in fact

By that logic all car makers sell cars because they contain knobs and buttons in them. Since you say the importance of those parts to revenue generation is a "subjective judgement", I guess the knobs and buttons are why people are buying luxury cars.

and if didn't have Linux in it they would either have to pay more to replace it with something else and/or be slower to market, have a less satisfactory end user experience, have less control of the user experience, be unable to differentiate their product.

Whats wrong with BSD?

And coming back to the topic at hand, for now at least it seems Linux is essential to Microsoft's operations too

No, it does not seem that way at all. Linux was *already* being used by Skype before MS bought them. Nothing important has changed. I'm sure MS has some plan to migrate them away from Linux. Just like they eventually migrate from BSD (or was it something else?) after acquiring hotmail.

The important point here is that windows NT was designed to be sold as a consumer OS for general purpose use and also as a server OS for some limited roles. Its not a CS project that everyone can tinker with like Linux is/was. Hence nobody really cares that MS has not released NT in any form that can be useful in other scenarios. Its obvious why. Because its a proprietary OS they will be stuck maintaining and supporting the OS for use on a even larger variety of hardware configurations that wont really bring in that much more money. Linux devs just dump the code and let the users be the test guinea pigs.

Although ironically.. Linux has a horribly non-modular-monolithic-no-kernel-ABI's- wild-west-binary-blob architecture in contrast with the highly modular / strict ABI / pseudo micro-kernel architecture of NT. So in that sense Linux has the worst possible design you would come up with if you were starting afresh today and were creating an OS for all the uses that Linux sees. Linux is a great UNIX clone, but UNIX itself is a poor architecture. But all that doesn't matter. NT probably will be the last of major OS project of our generation that attempted to create something new (no, its not a clone of VMS despite what the zealots claim). Its too expensive to start something new now.

Re:MS and Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

That the TCO of Linux is lower than that of Microsoft for this particular technology, *even if you don't have to pay a Microsoft license because you are Microsoft itself*.

Re:MS and Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

What are your opinions on Slashdot posters who belittle Windows but also use it occasionally?

I assume you call them idiots. I mean, otherwise you'd have a double-standard and be an anti-MS shill, right?

Re:MS and Linux

[Alex Belits]

And what they contributed is self-serving crap for running Linux under Windows (let call things by their real names, their virtualization onlu works with Windows acting as master and gatekeeper for everything) that no distribution ever compiled.

Re:MS and Linux

[unixisc]

Totally irrelevant. There is a GPL license that both Linux users and Microsft have to follow if they choose to distribute. Microsoft does not distribute Linux software (just uses it for internal operations for optimizing Skype traffic), and neither do Linux users. And AC is right - there is nothing wrong that either of them are doing.

Re:MS and Linux

[Alex Belits]

For Microsoft to use Linux, they merely have to agree to the GPL -- if the use is purely internal, this basically imposes no restrictions on them.

No. To use GPL software, the user does not have to agree to GPL. GPL is a license for [re]distribution, not use.

Re:MS and Linux

[unixisc]

Difference being...?

Re:MS and Linux

[Alex Belits]

Most open source projects run on windows.

Sure, they do. They run on Windows like shit because Windows is an inferior OS. Windows users don't notice it because the rest of their software is shit.

When anyone cares about performance, security, configurability, manageability (not stupid active directory crap), wide range of hardware support, or anything else of importance, Windows is immediately out of the... window.

People like myself, want to destroy Windows because it's nothing but a distraction and burden for software developers -- no one but Microsoft benefits from its existence, it sucks away mindshare, and we waste our time on making our software work on Windows instead of spending the same time on making our software better. Whatever effort it will take to destroy Windows, is less than the amount of effort we (same people who want it gone) waste on supporting it.

Re:MS and Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, contributions to Linux are "self serving". Like.. uh.. Google, Redhat.. oops. You might want to look up how and why this project was started in the first place.

Re:MS and Linux

[Alex Belits]

Things Google contributed are used by users other than Google or its customers.
Things Red Hat contributed are mostly used by users other than Red Hat or its customers.
Things Microsoft "contributed" are exclusively used by Microsoft or people suckered into crippling Linux by running it under Windows-based virtualization.

Re:MS and Linux

[socceroos]

I'm not sure how you got from "ironic" to calling people idiots and being anti-this and pro-that.... I think you're missing the point. Never mind, mate. :)

Re:MS and Linux

[crutchy]

if you don't use hyperv, their "contribution" does nothing

Re:MS and Linux

[crutchy]

didn't say there was anything wrong with it (legally), just that microsoft using linux is contradictory to their own culture and deserves a good slashdot bagfest (considering their business practices and fud campaigns against linux in the past)

microsoft has also denounced the gpl in the past; guess that won't work now huh

if you don't like it, go tie yourself to a tree and get pissed on by dogs passing by

Re:MS and Linux

[unixisc]

Same thing applies to anything else. If you don't use GIMP, the fact that it's there means squat. Likewise if you don't use LibreOffice. Same if you don't use Banshee, or Virtual Box, or QEMU/KVM or Xen, or anything else. I don't use the bulk of GNU apps out there - emacs, bison, octave, and probably most GNU software out there. Does that mean that GNU's contribution does nothing - it does for me!

It's funny, b'cos the FSF complains about 'non-Free' software even existing in the first place, and would ideally like to see all companies (like MS) that write proprietary software get nationalized and their software thrown open. Yet, when the same people who are the targets of their hatred throw open software under precisely the licenses that they like, they scoff at it, saying that it doesn't count. MS also contributed a great deal to Samba, which provides MS services to Linux, and w/o which Windows resources couldn't be accessed under Linux. That software is not only under GPL, but under GPL3. Does MS deserve any credit for that one?

Re:MS and Linux

[crutchy]

Actually, MS is the 17th largest contributor of code of Linux

this isn't about gimp or libreoffice, because they don't go around claiming shit like this

nice backpeddle though fool. now you've thrown microsoft into the same category as gimp and libreoffice... your shill managers will be highly disappointed (you'll probably get a pay cut)

Re:MS and Linux

[symbolset]

Dave, If you want to get together and talk this out my number is tree xex oh, for oh too, ate neighn fife too. I'm just down the road in Tacoma, and I'd love to have a beer with you and talk about old times.

End-to-end principle

[benedictaddis]

These intermediary nodes are only needed because we've broken the end-to-end principle - the idea that any Internet endpoint can talk to any other. We need to wean ourselves off NAT and start to demand native IPv6.

Re:End-to-end principle

[zlives]

learn to SBC...

Re:End-to-end principle

[zlives]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Session_border_controller
IPv6 will not solve the SBC issue since homeland needs to listen in

Re:End-to-end principle

[Anonymous Coward]

I prefer my home network to be behind a firewall. The NAT concept isn't the issue at all really, it's the implementation of getting throughput in and out which causes the problems. It seems to me that still modern applications have a hard time coping with the random port assignment of NAT, when NAT is quite ubiquitous in our society today. NAT might be causing a lot of problems for p2p traffic, but it's usually down to bad equipment or horrible routing schemes. Some ISP's here force their customers to use the routers they send you (and admin interface, forget it, they have you log into a web page where you can turn on and off wireless, and add a DMZ to your network, that's it). You might find yourself at the end of 100/100 optical fiber connection and yet they won't give you a simple media converter so that you can use a dedicated server as router. It's horrible IMO, and the result of all these crappy down-your-throat scheme is that people end up running two routers in serial. Ofc that ruins stuff, but people don't know any better.

But yes, IPv6, you are welcome, but I still would like to be able to retain one single entry point into my home network.

Re:End-to-end principle

[interval1066]

There is no reason in the world not to have some kind of ip sharing when you have multple ip nodes in a private network, no matter how much ip address space you have. Giving your toaster's nic a pop on a public net just sounds too stupid for words, at least from a hardware management POV.

Re:End-to-end principle

[gstrickler]

Obviously, you didn't RTFA, but that's the norm these days. The traffic doesn't go through the supernodes, all call traffic is p2p. The supernodes are directory servers so that clients can locate other clients.

Re:End-to-end principle

[benedictaddis]

Obviously, you didn't RTFA, but that's the norm these days. The traffic doesn't go through the supernodes, all call traffic is p2p. The supernodes are directory servers so that clients can locate other clients.

And this is exactly why it's a bad idea to break the end-to-end principle.

You don't need thousands of distributed servers to run a simple directory / presence service. The primary purpose of these 'supernodes' is to set up a call between clients when both are behind NAT. The 'supernode' (just a fancy word for a non NATted server) asks each client to make an outgoing connection to the destination. It is this action which creates the permission entry in the NAT table, allowing incoming connections and thereby peer-to-peer communication.

With IPv6 this (admittedly cleverly-designed) kludge would not be necessary. Instead the endpoints can communicate directly.

Re:End-to-end principle

[gstrickler]

IPv6 isn't even available everywhere yet, much less widely deployed. So, yes, it is absolutely necessary to have directory nodes. They used to co-opt user machines for that purpose, now, they've allocated dedicated servers in data centers with high availability and high bandwidth. That's an improvement anyway you look at it.

Re:End-to-end principle

[bill_mcgonigle]

IPv6

Which part of IPv6 fixes the ISP's ToS about running servers 'at home'?

Re:End-to-end principle

[unixisc]

The firewall will (or at least should) be there - NAT or no NAT. In case of Skype, the application has to work by undergoing something called NAT traversal, which pretty much destroys the 'security' aspect of NAT. Skype & other internet telephony need to wok on peer to peer configurations, and that means not having any address translations in b/w. If anything, Skype is one of the last places where one should have NAT.

The single entry point is easy - one can have a computer or wireless router/access point acting as a DHCP6 server, and assigning addresses from there. If certain devices are not to be able to access the external internet, don't assign them public addresses. If you want to connect something to the internet but not have its IP used for future security breaches, use dynamic public addresses. If OTOH you want your garage door to have an IP so that you can open it remotely if your spouse is stuck outside while you're @ work, give it a static public IP.

Re:End-to-end principle

[unixisc]

There is no reason to share IPs. If your toaster is not meant to be conected on the public net, don't give it a public address - a link-local should do. Frankly, I don't see why toasters should have internet access in the first place.

If you have a private network which you don't want connected to the internet, don't assign its nodes public addresses - it's simple. If some of them do need external addresses, have them behind firewalls. If they're just hosts, they can be assigned a certain number of dynamic IP addresses. There is no reason why any 2 devices should share the same IP address. In fact, neighbor discovery in IPv6 ensures that no 2 devices can.

Re:End-to-end principle

[interval1066]

1) Focusing on the toaster example is stupid, wasn't meant as a real world example
2) If you're intranet isn't going to have access to the outside world then fine, do what you want. My point is, do you really want every node on your network to have its own, external, internet presence? In some cases, servers and the like, yes. For joe sixpack, who has a pc and a media server and some assorted media sink appliances? I don't see it. Could actually be a liablility to that guy.

Re:End-to-end principle

[unixisc]

Second point first - one may not want each node on the network to have an external presense, but one could possibly want more than one. Also, one may want a computer to have one IP address for the web server, another for the mail server and so on - something that IPv6 allows. But that aside, if one wants one's iPad to be online, one can have it set up such that it has a public but dynamic address, so that a rogue app that logs that address won't find it active for long. That's achieved by both DHCP6 pooling, and by setting a valid lifetime for every address so that it doesn't become permanent. Exception being of course things like server addresses.

The toaster example didn't illustrate why a toaster would be better off w/ a private, as opposed to a public address. One example I do use is a garage door, where I've made the case that it could do w/ a public address, as long as it's programmed to accept inputs only from valid sources, such as the owners garage door opener, cell phone, laptop and a few limited select devices. That way, if a person is locked outside the house - or garage - the owner can, in his absense, remotely open the garage from wherever he is. However, due to the limited number of devices that the garage firewall would allow, the question of intruders opening it, despite the address being public, wouldn't arise.

Why So Serious?

[girlintraining]

I've never understood why people get all shocked when someone uses a competitor's product when theirs can do the job too. Well, Linux is a better platform for embedded applications, single-purpose servers, etc. It is much more efficient because there's no GUI to drive and only the bare minimum needs to be loaded in memory. Even the kernel can be stripped down to only essential modules, and it can be tweaked for realtime applications.

Windows servers aren't designed for that. They're designed to be low maintenance multi-purpose servers which are easily configurable. Most businesses who setup windows servers aren't using them in areas where high performance is needed. They are for satellite offices, small workgroups, etc., where the server has a variety of roles. The only high performance servers I routinely see windows deployed on routinely are domain controllers and mail servers (specifically Exchange servers).

It's a sound business move.

Re:Why So Serious?

[TubeSteak]

I've never understood why people get all shocked when someone uses a competitor's product when theirs can do the job too. Well, Linux is a better platform for embedded applications, single-purpose servers, etc. It is much more efficient because there's no GUI to drive and only the bare minimum needs to be loaded in memory. Even the kernel can be stripped down to only essential modules, and it can be tweaked for realtime applications.

Windows servers aren't designed for that.

Eat your own dog food.
If Windows Server isn't secure enough or powerful enough to do the job, maybe Microsoft should revisit their design choices.

Re:Why So Serious?

[Anonymous Coward]

Look how well that has worked for them w.r.t. HotMail.

Re:Why So Serious?

[Anonymous Coward]

I completely agree with you and, guess what? Apple (for instance) isn't using neither OS X or Apple machines in their data centers.

Re:Why So Serious?

[aintnostranger]

I've never understood why people get all shocked when someone uses a competitor's product

Maybe in this case people get shocked not because it's just a competing product but one that was deemed a "cancer" by MS itself? It's one thing to use a competitor product, it's another to use something you denounce as immoral.

Re:Why So Serious?

[Anonymous Coward]

Tom sells lorries. Tom likes lorries. Sam wants to know why if Tom likes lorries so much he doesn't do his grocery shopping in one.

Simple enough for you to understand?

Re:Why So Serious?

[crutchy]

microsoft servers are designed to keep the IT industry employed

Re:Why So Serious?

[CriticalAnalysis]

Eat your own dog food.
If Windows Server isn't secure enough or powerful enough to do the job, maybe Microsoft should revisit their design choices.

Not every product fits all use cases. For example there are times when Apache is better than nginx and times when nginx is better than Apache. You pick the best tool for the job and don't just mindlessly jabber about something that pretty much equivalents to religious blabber. This is something that Microsoft understands but seems like basement jerker FOSS fanatics cannot.

Re:Why So Serious?

[girlintraining]

If Windows Server isn't secure enough or powerful enough to do the job, maybe Microsoft should revisit their design choices.

So if you're a bicycle manufacturer, you should give up and start designing cars? Microsoft's design choices have been about making a server that's easy to configure, does not require specific knowledge of the OS' inner-workings, and is intended as a "one size fits all" solution. It's like comparing a semitruck to a freight train -- yes, they both often haul the same materials but they are hardly interchangeable.

Re:Why So Serious?

[betterunixthanunix]

For example there are times when Apache is better than nginx and times when nginx is better than Apache

This is something that Microsoft understands but seems like basement jerker FOSS fanatics cannot.

My irony meter just went off the chart.

Re:Why So Serious?

[Imagix]

Except you're missing some parts. Tom builds and sells lorries. Tom likes lorries. Tom is telling everyone that his lorries are the best lorries. Tom expects everybody else to use his lorries. It costs Tom nothing to use his own lorrie. Tom does go grocery shopping in a lorrie. Why isn't Tom using one of his own lorries to do his shopping?

Re:Why So Serious?

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows servers aren't designed for that. They're designed to be low maintenance multi-purpose servers which are easily configurable.

Having deployed and maintained both Windows Server and Debian Stable, I have opinions about which one is low maintenance, multi-purpose, and easy to configure. It seems Microsoft shares my opinions; at least when it comes to routing Skype traffic.

Re:Why So Serious?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not every product fits all use cases.

So what use case does "cancer" fit? Because that's what MS called Linux. And now they're using it. Maybe those pricks were wrong. If they weren't such obnoxious jerk offs they might even admit it.

Re:Why So Serious?

[Anonymous Coward]

They bought out a company and shock of shock they used linux. Bet the idea of 'switch to windows' went over like a lead balloon once they saw the cost.

Lets switch out everything to windows. Ok here is the HW cost (as we cant just turn off the network as is). Here is the internal cost of maintaining ~2x the servers. Oh also the guys who run our server farms we will need to retrain them (oh and we probably will have a 60-80% attrition rate on that and loose a bunch of hard learned lessons). Oh and all the extra man hours we will spend on switching it out. Oh then when we are done we have exactly what we started, with some extra capacity in severs that we have to re-image (another time cost), oh and a green set of new employees. OOOOOORRR leave as is and just add in new servers as things arise and spend it on r&d and make the service better.

I'm thinking the idea probably did come up but when it came out the other end with a several million dollar price tag to get a nice negative ROI on it, it died quick.

People like you are the reason people from pepsi and coke get fired for bringing a competitors drink to work. It is stupid and childish. MS is neither one of those. If you think so you have not been paying attention for 30 years.

Re:Why So Serious?

[MickyTheIdiot]

I agree happen to agree after supporting and configuring and administering the same two platforms, but Baldy McSuitysuit has heard of Microsoft and hasn't heard of Debian because Debian doesn't actually spend money on commericals.

Of course this explains 96% of the problems in the corporate world. You also can't expect every Microsoft employee to be dumb... good ideas have to get through once in a while, even with a rotten corporate culture.

Re:Why So Serious?

[Anonymous Coward]

So if you're a bicycle manufacturer, you should give up and start designing cars?

But we aren't talking about bicycles and cars here, we're talking about two operating systems that both should be able to function as Skype supernodes. The fact that an arrogant company like MS would stoop to using something they've compared to a terminal disease to run critical infrastructure for their own property speaks volumes at their hypocricy. But, hey, whatever, the next time a PHB asks my opinion for what server to use, I'll be sure to point this out.

Re:Why So Serious?

[Billly Gates]

With Powershell its different and you can't even setup Exchange 2012 without good knowledge in it on purpose. In NT 4 land Windows Server was first introduced as a server even an idiot can setup. ActiveDirectory and infrastructure is difficult to setup for a large organization. A bad design is very hard to fix and can cause many stale active directory objects to kill all the bandwidth. Active Directory is the IE 6 of all managed directory services and sucks very hard.

Windows Server was designed starting with Windows 2000 to be the Unix and Mainframe replacement.

Re:Why So Serious?

[slew]

Maybe Microsoft has learned something over time. When Microsoft first bought hotmail, all the front end servers were running on FreeBSD, and the backend servers were running Solaris. The first thing they tried to do was convert everything to Win2K to show the world it could be done. Didn't start out so great and they learned that somethings were best left alone (even though they eventually pushed them all through to show that it could be done**). Now they have another chance with another high-value web property and they decided to be learn from their own experience (since they don't have the goal to make this a showcase).

**Here's an (admittedly somewhat biased account) of what they did. http://www.securityoffice.net/mssecrets/hotmail.html

Re:Why So Serious?

[RulerOf]

Eat your own dog food.

Step back a minute. Just because Microsoft owns Skype does NOT mean that they think it's a great business idea to come in and tell them HOW they should accomplish something. Did it ever occur to you that they might have said, "We want Skype to be more reliable, so here's some money, dear Skype division. Now get it done."?

Re:Why So Serious?

[Anonymous Coward]

... Tom builds and sells lorries.

The analogy would be much funnier if you used Hugh instead of Tom. And House instead of Laurie. Oh, wait...

Re:Why So Serious?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm thinking the idea probably did come up but when it came out the other end with a several million dollar price tag to get a nice negative ROI on it, it died quick.

You're fucking bonkers if you think MS blinks at several million dollars especially after they bought Skype for 8 billion. Just accept it, Linux was so far and above better for the job that they had to swallow their pride and us it. The funny part is they have been on a crusade to discredit Linux for over 10 years now. If they had a shred of decency, they'd just man up and say that for some things Linux is just better and let it be.

Re:Why So Serious?

[girlintraining]

With Powershell its different and you can't even setup Exchange 2012 without good knowledge in it on purpose. In NT 4 land Windows Server was first introduced as a server even an idiot can setup. ActiveDirectory and infrastructure is difficult to setup for a large organization.

Specific examples do not compromise general design principles.

Thousands of design choices needed to be made in order to make Windows. While some of them may have been suboptimal or even contrary to the goals, overall, the product achieves its aims. I can provide many examples where Linux' performance is lower than competing products, where it doesn't work well as a server, or where comparable solutions are better at embedding and realtime performance... but again, overall, it achieves the goals of having a low overhead, high configurability, and high reliability.

Re:Why So Serious?

[Guppy06]

If Windows Server isn't secure enough or powerful enough to do the job, maybe Microsoft should revisit their design choices.

They are. Server 2012 won't be RTM until early fall at the earliest, and they apparently needed something now.

Re:Why So Serious?

[im_thatoneguy]

Or Microsoft isn't forcing Skype to do things their way and is letting the Skype team do what they've been doing well up to this point. I imagine this change has been years in the making. No reason to force them to change paths due to politics.

Good on Microsoft.

Re:Why So Serious?

[Anonymous Coward]

Step back a minute. Just because Microsoft owns Skype does NOT mean that they think it's a great business idea to come in and tell them HOW they should accomplish something. Did it ever occur to you that they might have said, "We want Skype to be more reliable, so here's some money, dear Skype division. Now get it done."?

Do you have any evidence to back up this assertion at all? Because history shows that MS loves to buy companies and replace their infrastructure with Windows. See Danger and Hotmail for two notorious examples.

Re:Why So Serious?

[nurb432]

And they should cut back on the hypocrisy some too.

But to be fair, 2008 can be cut back, no gui, etc..

Re:Why So Serious?

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows is focused on endpoints, not bridging or routing. Supporting the parent, routers use Linux, and has optimized mechanisms to provide routing. For what I know Google builds it's own Linux routers [citation always has been needed], because they can customized them the way they want.

My analogy is, if Linux is can be used to construct roads (pavement) and buildings (concrete), why a building company that makes buildings (servers) should not use another company product if they need roads?

Re:Why So Serious?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe you missed the point of the parent's post... the right tool for the right job. Linux isn't best at everything, either.

Re:Why So Serious?

[Anonymous Coward]

Eat your own dog food.

So you're implying that they should also use Windows Phones on their corporate phone network, and should never use Polycoms or Ciscos?

Re:Why So Serious?

[SvnLyrBrto]

It's more likely that this was already in progress, or at least already planned out and ready to begin purchasing and deployment, when microsoft set their fangs into Skype. The timing doesn't really work out for a complete overhaul to be proposed, planned, designed, purchased, and deployed in the timeframe since the acquisition. So they probably just let the Skype team see the in-progress work through to completion.

I don't think there can be any doubt that the next upgrade of the Skype infrastructure will see a switch to windows though. See, for example, the Hotmail acquisition. They want windows running on everything, everywhere, and with no exceptions or competitors allowed.

Re:Why So Serious?

[symbolset]

With Microsoft fans this is always the way it is. What's the good version of Windows? The next one.

Re:Why So Serious?

[hey!]

You do realize the Microsoft *does* have an embedded operating system: Windows CE. This is not to be confused with Pocket PC, Windows Mobile, Zune, or Windows Smartphones, all of which are built on top of Windows CE profiles. It's quite a versatile system, and has real-time capabilities, something which might be helpful in a telephony context.

And Microsoft *does* have a product targeted at high performance computing: Windows HPC Server, although that's not what you mean by "high performance".But it's likely that if MS was making a recommendation to someone else, they'd steer them toward Windows Server with various secret tweaks that only MS knows about.

The reason to use Linux is that Unix is the go to operating system in this kind of role; always has been since the early days when it was used in telephone switches. The tools and knowledge for doing this stuff is commonplace, and if your criteria for "good business" decision is something that gets the job done on-time and relatively cheaply, a free Unix is an obvious choice. Whether it *is* a good business is probably something an outsider with only superficial knowledge of the company and its plans can answer. It isn't surprising, though, because MS is reputed to have a corporate culture in which other parts of the company are viewed like competitors and you don't do them any favors.

Re:Why So Serious?

[UnknowingFool]

Yes, you should use the right tool for the job, however, MS has loudly boasted their tool is the right tool for every job and that Linux is not a good tool for any job.

Re:Why So Serious?

[UnknowingFool]

Seeing how MS just acquired Skype, I would say Skype acquiring 100,000 servers as the article suggests means this was planned way in advance. Buyout or no, Skype was going to purchase and run the servers and let MS deal with them afterwards. If history is any suggestion, MS will try to switch everything over to Windows very soon.

Re:Why So Serious?

[JWSmythe]

    HoTMaiL was launched in 1996, running Solaris and FreeBSD.

    Microsoft acquired HoTMaiL in 1997.

    They migrated to Windows 2000 in June and July of 2000. (citation)

    HoTMaiL was rebranded to Hotmail, and then a few various MS names.

    I know some of you kids haven't been on the Internet quite so long, but I remember when it happened, and many outages during the migration.

    Just because a company buys another company, even if it's Microsoft doing the purchasing, it doesn't mean that they will migrate to Microsoft platforms overnight.

    I can't comment on Danger, as I've never heard of them, never used them, and honestly don't care. I know the Hotmail history, because I was an early user, and still have a few accounts. They collect spam, which jumped substantially when the MS acquisition happened.

Re:Why So Serious?

[Guppy06]

As opposed to Chrome-style distro releases every 90 days, breaking compatibility and EOLing the last version?

Re:Why So Serious?

[TubeSteak]

Just because Microsoft owns Skype does NOT mean that they think it's a great business idea to come in and tell them HOW they should accomplish something.

You have a point, but it looks really bad when one of the most disruptive telecommuncations companies in the world chooses to use Linux instead of the OS from their parent corporation.

If it was a matter of resources, they could have used better &/or more servers.
The only reason not to use Windows Server is security.
And how does Microsoft's marketing department spin that?

Re:Why So Serious?

[Eggplant62]

Maybe this is why so serious? You were likely in grade school, sonny.

Ballmer: "Linux is a cancer"

Contaminates all other software with Hippie GPL rubbish
By Thomas C Greene in Washington DC

Posted in Software, 2nd June 2001 18:19 GMT

Microsoft CEO and incontinent over-stater of facts Steve Ballmer said that "Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches," during a commercial spot masquerading as a media interview with the Chicago Sun-Times Friday.

Re:Why So Serious?

[shentino]

Is it possible that Apple is a consumer oriented company and leaves servers to the others?

Unless you're the USAF, you don't use PS3's to run your data centers either.

Re:Why So Serious?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's funny. Because when Linux distros try to be a better desktop, everyone screams that they should stick to the late 90's way of doing things, and focus on what they do well instead.

Re:Why So Serious?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only is Linux better in single purpose servers, it is better in multi purpose servers, being a unix system which has long emphasized sharing, design, job and resource control.

It's common, even typical, for Microsoft shops to use 1 Windows installation for each service they run. Even going so far as virtualizing them and then running them on a single server! One box/vm for MSSQL, one for Exchange, etc.

Re:Why So Serious?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly! Every company must redesign the wheel or they're not eating their own dog food!
 
No wonder the Linux camps are so fragmented at this point. No wonder anyone who just wants a machine that works without relearning everything they know keeps away from that train wreck of a culture.

Re:Why So Serious?

[Gothmolly]

Claiming Windows is a low maintenance multi purpose server which is easily configurable invalidated anything you say after that.

Re:Why So Serious?

[Anonymous Coward]

I see a lot of responders to your reply are saying, 'they are with 2012' , or , 'they have improved such and such" ....

It's all lip service really. MS has had a decade to blow the server environment out of the water, and have failed miserably. And no, I'm not talking about Exchange and AD environment that work fine* in enterprise environments.

I'm talking about a stripped down MS server environment that would do the job that the linux supernodes is doing. The fact they they've had to turn to an outside OS shows me that they really don't have the gusto in house to strip down the kernel and system for a streamlined custom configuration.

I'm sure detractors will say they can, since NT has been running on Navy ships, and submarines, and ATM's and this and that for the better part of 2 decades. But MS can't take a 50 dev's, attack the server branch, and knife it up to their hearts content? I guess MS really is in their own world, leaving the heavy lifting to that which can fit the bill: namely, Linux.

Parent was right: Eat your own dog food.

Re:Why So Serious?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it says they probably aren't as arrogant as you claim.

Ballmer was an idiot to call it a cancer but seriously, wtf does that even have to do with this? It's basically an orthogonal complaint.

Re:Why So Serious?

[Anonymous Coward]

So has every vendor of every other product. Including those of Linux distros.

Re:Why So Serious?

[Anonymous Coward]

Aren't very technical, are we? Of course Linux servers are better suited for a variety of roles on a single machine. Simply because the separation of the apps from each other and the OS is so much better (that's why virtualization on Linux is much less in demand). The only people left that don't by default use Linux servers are the ones having no necessary expertise, and that is changing fast in every IT dept.

Of course it's a sound business move, it's sound since MS is in decline and the decline is fastest in the server area.

Re:Why So Serious?

[Anonymous Coward]

With Microsoft fans this is always the way it is. What's the good version of Windows? The next one.

Just like next year will be the year of the Linux desktop, right?

Re:Why So Serious?

[oakgrove]

Microsoft not arrogant? Have you ever even heard of this company before?

Re:Why So Serious?

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is it? A meter or a chart?

Re:Why So Serious?

[EdIII]

Really? I dropped MS some time ago (for the vast majority of things) and when I have to deal with them it is mainly 2003 boxes. 2008 can be run as headless servers?

That's interesting......

Re:Why So Serious?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that's not it. Linux is a more efficient OS. (FULL STOP) Microsoft (and its users) can shut down their gui by killing explorer.exe. Linux has been tweaked by thousands of companies and individuals in the world of high performance supercomputing. Go to TOP500.org and you will see a list of the current 500 fastest supercomputers in the world (updated every 6 months). If you go to operating system family, Linux owns 95%. These machines cost millions of dollars each, and they go out of their way to use Linux because its more efficient. There is one kernel. There aren't "oh, this is for phones, this one for laptops, that one for supercomputers. Nope, there is one kernel. The telling tale comes from Microsoft research. About 5 years ago they publicly published that (as one example) Linux could do a context switch (switch from one time sliced running program to another) in 29 machine cycles, and the best Microsoft OS could do a context switch in 249 machine cycles. Linux does *really well* with mixed loads, whether you run the GUI on it or not.

Re:Why So Serious?

[Bert64]

Only when it comes to their customers, MS will try to push you into using their products across the board wether they are the best tool for the job or not... Yet internally they take a more pragmatic approach.

Re:Why So Serious?

[Bert64]

Windows was always marketed as "you don't need expensive highly skilled admins to run this"...
The problem is, that although someone with limited skills can get a windows network limping along, the end result will be neither stable nor secure, so the marketing has helped them earn a bad reputation.

Re:Why So Serious?

[bill_mcgonigle]

+1 (No Mod Points)

Re:Why So Serious?

[Bert64]

Apple produce desktops, laptops and various other consumer devices, they do not make servers any more and only ever had a very limited range of lowend servers when they did. It stands to reason that they would need to get their servers from somewhere else.

That would be like saying MS don't build their own company cars...

Re:Why So Serious?

[unixisc]

I don't recall MS pushing Windows server to do jobs like optimizing internet traffic, since they don't write software that does that. Hence they're using something else in the market that does do that job. I agree w/ the GP - Linux can be stripped down and optimized to do only the jobs that a certain application needs, which in this case is traffic management. Only thing that if size and performance was so critical, I can think of some others, like Minix and QNX that would have achieved the same thing.

Re:Why So Serious?

[Billly Gates]

Go read their marketing material. Windows Server is marketed as a reliable and cost effective Unix replacement. MS advertised this to all the CIOs and how they can be state of the art Microsoft shops if they could just get rid of non MS platforms to save costs. Windows used to host scalability days a decade ago to convince IT that Windows Server was real. It was supposedly designed to do that. This was 11 years ago I may add when SMP was new to wintel world. Oracle even prohibited benchmarks of their database after SQL Server with NT 4 on an alpha beat Unix and VMS as the most scalable server OS. MS really did try. ... just not implemented well. Bill Gates hired David Cutler to build a VMS os with a Windows 3.1 gui on it for NT. It was never designed to be a lite server at all. but a way to gut out mini computers from the bottom up from day 1. Whether it succeeded or not is a different matter :-)

There are many MCSE out there who believe Linux just can't handle thousands of users like Windows as a result of this. Trust me people do use Windows Server in these scenarios and just cluster the hell out of it to make up for anything so their CIOs can see the new shiny MS boxen which they think are awesome and will save money.

Re:Re:Why So Serious?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never understood why people get all shocked when someone uses a competitor's product when theirs can do the job too. Well, Linux is a better platform for embedded applications, single-purpose servers, etc. It is much more efficient because there's no GUI to drive and only the bare minimum needs to be loaded in memory. Even the kernel can be stripped down to only essential modules, and it can be tweaked for realtime applications.

Windows servers aren't designed for that.

Eat your own dog food.
If Windows Server isn't secure enough or powerful enough to do the job, maybe Microsoft should revisit their design choices.

At the end of the day, Microsoft is a business. They will use the best tool for the job because it costs less money to do so. This time it happens to be Linux based.

Re:Why So Serious?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow.. how eager you are to believe everything they say and then assume its the truth and then point and make fun of it. Did it ever occur to you that they might be simply wrong?

But hey.. that would interrupt your anti-ms troll posts. I don't mind them, honestly, just make them more entertaining. You seem to like conspiracy theories, so just go a bit wilder and I'll be happy.

Re:Why So Serious?

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux is the kernel.
Linux kernel is the Linux operating system.

What you are trying to say? That because some people who doesn't care about technology can rule how technology works?

I probably haven't see so bloated and powerful hardware needing software than Exchange when needed a email system to few hundred or even hundreds of thousands users. It is just catastrophic what it demands! With Linux and few F/OSS email systems it is even possible make a 486 computer a great powerful email system for small corporation (meaning that every user sends dozens of emails an day and size of 1MB each).

Re:Why So Serious?

[Anonymous Coward]

Errr.... don't you think a company like MS can make it's own GUI-less servers and stuff like that? That they don't make embedded products?
The news here is that MS uses what they themselves described as a "cancer" because, apparently, it does the job better than their own product. Which is funny for people who already liked linux and an eye-opener for people who stubbornly kept buying into the MS propadada.

Re:Why So Serious?

[Anonymous Coward]

An interesting feature of the deal when MS bought Skype was the agreement that Skype was to be autonomous with the head of Skype only reporting directly to Ballmer. Apparently this was something MS hadn't done with any of their previous acquisitions. I think this news is just a sign of Skype's autonomy.

Re:Why So Serious?

[Alex Belits]

The funny part is they have been on a crusade to discredit Linux for over 10 years now.

They were on a crusade to discredit Linux for as long as Linux existed (that is, more than 20 years now). And before that they were on crusade against all other Unix-like systems. The only time they weren't opposed to Unix-like systems was when they tried to do something with Xenix/SCO UNIX in 80's (when it was originally developed), but they turned themselves into the greatest enemy of all Unix-like systems immediately after that.

Re:Why So Serious?

[Alex Belits]

You do realize the Microsoft *does* have an embedded operating system: Windows CE. This is not to be confused with Pocket PC, Windows Mobile, Zune, or Windows Smartphones, all of which are built on top of Windows CE profiles. It's quite a versatile system, and has real-time capabilities, something which might be helpful in a telephony context.

If it was a usable OS for VoIP, there would be VoIP devices based on it.

Re:Why So Serious?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's silly, nobody likes lorries!

Re:Why So Serious?

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact you aren't aware of it isn't surprising. Linux fucktards often don't actually pay attention to things, they just drool.

Re:Why So Serious?

[EdIII]

I know I am feeding a troll.... but nice generalization there :)

Nevertheless, I don't pay attention to Microsoft anymore. Everything I develop and work with now is Linux and Open Source. People don't want to pay huge licensing fees, operate large MS server farms, and pay mid 5 to low 6 figures each for MCSEs (the ones that are actually worth something) to take care of things for them.

In my neck of the woods platforms are proceeding towards SaaS. I don't see companies that are based on MS competing that well with those that are not... for one simple reason.. Total Cost of Ownership.

How much does it cost in licensing fees alone to run several servers along with SQL server? Answer.... not zero. How much does it cost in licensing fees alone to run several Linux servers and MySQL/Postgres/Firebird? Answer... zero.

Ballmer was right to say that Open Source was a cancer..... to Microsoft. It most certainly is. I can't convince somebody to take on a multimillion project with hundreds of thousands of dollars in licensing fees to MS when I honestly have to tell them that we can create the whole thing in Open Source without those costs.

Even for the high end Enterprise platforms there are serious competitors to MS in database servers. What is it that Microsoft has that could be considered worthy of hundreds of thousands of dollars in of itself?

I've dealt with MS my whole life, and can still reasonably manage a Windows server. It is pretty intuitive after all, and a little research and I am where I need to be. I'm just finding that I have less and less opportunities to deal with MS, and it is not because I don't want to pay attention to them, or that I am too busy being a drooling fucktard :)

MS should really pay attention to that. This Skype deal is a little overblown because it may make a lot of business sense not to try and jam the dedicated supernodes on to a MS server wasting a lot of time and effort that could be used elsewhere, but it is still a little bit embarrassing.

If I can't justify building projects on MS due to the high TCO, and MS can't create an OS that is lean and mean like Linux, than I am really the drooling fucktard for drifting apart from them?

Re:Why So Serious?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course this explains 96% of the problems in the corporate world.

Wow, 96%? Care to share how you arrived at that number?

Re:Why So Serious?

[crutchy]

There are many MCSE out there who believe Linux just can't handle thousands of users like Windows

well duh! why would they compromise their source of income by suggesting that the competition is better?
what the fuck would an MSCSE know about linux anyway? there are a whole bunch of linux admins out there that know that windows will collapse in a light breeze

Is Skype really better?

[cpu6502]

My calling card is only 4 cents per minute. I've been curious about skype but never saw any reason to switch?

Re:Is Skype really better?

[readandburn]

Well, if the person you're calling also has Skype installed the call is free. Calls to landlines (from the U.S. anyway) are usually between 2 cents and 3 cents per minute.

Re:Is Skype really better?

[Ash-Fox]

My Skype subscription is only 7GBP a month for unlimited calls. I've been curious about calling cards but never saw any reason to switch?

Re:Is Skype really better?

[cpu6502]

Calling cards are what people used before unlimited calls on cellphones became popular in the 2000s. MY cell costs 18 cents/minute so I use the 4cent/minute card instead.

Re:Is Skype really better?

[Anonymous Coward]

My grammar? I learned it in school? I didn't think I should end every sentence with a question mark?

Re:Is Skype really better?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a dick? No, wait...you're a dick!

Re:Is Skype really better?

[Bert64]

There are plenty of SIP providers which offer considerably better deals than that...

I've never understood any anyone would want to sign up to a monopoly telco service like skype, they are basically bell/dtag/bt/etc from 40 years ago, forced to use their supplied clients on their supplied network (ie cant run your own pbx), proprietary protocols, "free calls to other users" for now but no free interoperability to other systems (ie no peering, you have to dial out through the pstn).

Compare that to SIP, where you have a choice of hundreds of providers which you can mix and match depending on your needs, easy free peering to other sip users even those using different providers, a huge range of hardware and software clients, full specifications of the protocol to implement your own, all manner of advanced features available via fully blown pbx systems such as asterisk or freeswitch...

Re:Is Skype really better?

[Ash-Fox]

There are plenty of SIP providers which offer considerably better deals than that...

So... What SIP provider can I get works for free with a Three sim, that works in all the countries that Three exists in, note that the sim having no Internet subscription. I would like to see this better deal. Thanks.

Compare that to SIP, where you have a choice of hundreds of providers which you can mix and match depending on your needs

So far I've had a lot of choice when it comes to SIP, more unreliable calls because my Internet has very brief interruptions etc. (if it can't handle it at home, how would it handle it on a mobile device?). I'm not convinced it's better for my uses.

As for costs, I haven't found an unlimited world plan that has as many countries as Skype does with unlimited calling yet (I've been online since the 90s, I have quite a few friends who I will call up depending on circumstances).

easy free peering to other sip users even those using different providers

I look forward to seeing your explanation of how I do this free peering on my mobile phone with Three.

huge range of hardware and software clients

I got my phone that supports Skype on the Three network for free, what hardware+software combo can I get from Three for free with free SIP usage without an Internet plan?

Re:Is Skype really better?

[Bert64]

How do you think Three make any money from that deal?
The fact is its a money losing venture, both for three and skype... a loss leader to get customers, otherwise known as a bait and switch. They get you locked into the service with a good deal, and then pull it away knowing that it will be painful for you to move once you have a large group of people who are used to that method of contacting you. How long do you expect that deal to last, and what is your exit strategy?

I always found SIP to provide much better reliability than skype, it especially helps that you know the protocol and its direct between you and the sip provider, and not routed via some arbitrary third party. If it performs poorly on a mobile, you can force it to use a more heavily compressed codec.

I usually use voipraider.com for outbound, they provide free (well inclusive) calls to a bunch of countries for 90 days from the date of your last top up, so you only need to top up every 90 days and you get 100% of your topup fee as calling credit separate from the free calls they offer, ie for calling non-free destinations.

I have several other providers, which offer non expiring credit balances which i use for backup routing (which is handled automatically by asterisk in my case)...

I also have a friendly provider, although not the cheapest, who provide various other features such as the ability to set arbitrary caller id values and some other even more nefarious things.

And i have a few inbound numbers, some are revenue share (ie i get a small payment every time someone calls them), others are regular numbers... They too are routed through the asterisk pbx, where i can filter calls (known telemarketers get forwarded to a script which plays sound samples of borat and records the call for my amusement), manage multiple extensions, voicemail including emailed notifications, automatically reroute to different handsets depending on availability (eg if my mobile is seen on my home wireless, assume im at home and ring the home handsets, otherwise route to the mobile) and a whole bunch of other stuff

Re:Is Skype really better?

[Ash-Fox]

How do you think Three make any money from that deal?

They get subscribers who inevitably pay for more services through them. Such as when I purchase temporary Internet access when traveling.

The fact is its a money losing venture, both for three and skype... a loss leader to get customers, otherwise known as a bait and switch. They get you locked into the service with a good deal, and then pull it away knowing that it will be painful for you to move once you have a large group of people who are used to that method of contacting you. How long do you expect that deal to last, and what is your exit strategy?

If there is no decent alternatives, I'd go back to before, not using anything. I'm not obsessed. So far I've had this since 2008, during that time, they've only opened up more resources, not limited.

I always found SIP to provide much better reliability than skype

How did you deal with the signalling layer with SIP services? Where the client maintains a constant TCP connection to the signaling server (and my home Internet doesn't like these things). This generally suffers numerous issues due to the fact it prevents my phone from going to sleep and it results in unreliable performance as connectivity changes on a mobile device.

With Skype on my Three phone, it uses the provider's existing voice network to handle calls so I don't even lose battery life from using VOIP over data and it uses the mobile phone provider's existing network to handle signalling etc.

I'm unconvinced so far you've really had better reliability unless you were doing something that isn't standard to SIP here.

I usually use voipraider.com for outbound, they provide free (well inclusive) calls to a bunch of countries for 90 days from the date of your last top up, so you only need to top up every 90 days and you get 100% of your topup fee as calling credit separate from the free calls they offer, ie for calling non-free destinations.

Cool, I'll keep them in mind.

They too are routed through the asterisk pbx, where i can filter calls (known telemarketers get forwarded to a script which plays sound samples of borat and records the call for my amusement), manage multiple extensions, voicemail including emailed notifications, automatically reroute to different handsets depending on availability (eg if my mobile is seen on my home wireless, assume im at home and ring the home handsets, otherwise route to the mobile) and a whole bunch of other stuff

I can't see myself making use of this.

Re:Is Skype really better?

[Bert64]

When you talk of reliability and mentioning that calls are routed over voice gsm you are not comparing like for like...

Three actually provide a similar product for SIP, that is any calls you make in the normal way on the gsm handset are transparently routed to a SIP server of your choice...

For instance, see:
http://aaisp.net.uk/kb-telecoms-sip2sim.html (aaisp resell the service of 3 i believe, not sure if 3 will deal direct to a single customer)

No client necessary, any standard cellphone works.
I think the service is mostly aimed at business users, where your cellphone can integrate totally with the existing sip based pbx.

This service is as reliable as your telco and your voip provider, and seeing as there are multiple sip providers vs one skype provider you remove a single point of failure with sip and can choose a provider based on their reliability, or switch if they're not up to it.

They get subscribers who inevitably pay for more services through them. Such as when I purchase temporary Internet access when traveling.

Seems a fairly desperate way to get subscribers, considering no other provider offers such a service... Once they are established you can expect to see this loss leading service either go away entirely, or start costing.

Looking at the stats:
http://www.telecomsmarketresearch.com/resources/UK_Mobile_Operator_Subscriber_Statistics_2.shtml#EE_subs

Three are growing, but still have the smallest market share of any of the major operators. Setting up a telco is a huge investment in infrastructure, so its likely to be quite some time before they are able to break even. Also if they offer free services, there will be a lot of users who exclusively use the free services and never pay for anything at all. This inflates the market share and subscriber numbers, but is otherwise damaging to the bottom line as these customers are a cost rather than a revenue source.
Also low market share results in unused capacity, so the costs of giving away some of that capacity for free are significantly less than if the free users were depriving paying customers of capacity. You can expect the free services to be dropped just as soon as paying customers need the capacity.

Re:Is Skype really better?

[Ash-Fox]

When you talk of reliability and mentioning that calls are routed over voice gsm you are not comparing like for like...

Skype is Skype. It's called Skype on my phone, the application is called Skype and on the phone bill, the calls are called "Skype" (where it shows there are no charges). When, someone tells me, use "SIP", that's fairly specific.

For instance, see:
http://aaisp.net.uk/kb-telecoms-sip2sim.html (aaisp resell the service of 3 i believe, not sure if 3 will deal direct to a single customer)

I have to pay for that. Don't have to pay for Skype. I see no advantage in it over what I have. So, I don't want it.

Seems a fairly desperate way to get subscribers, considering no other provider offers such a service... Once they are established you can expect to see this loss leading service either go away entirely, or start costing.

I don't understand the problem? This is the best choice right now. If it's no longer the best choice, I will stop using it. I don't use something because it's a name.

Also if they offer free services, there will be a lot of users who exclusively use the free services and never pay for anything at all. This inflates the market share and subscriber numbers, but is otherwise damaging to the bottom line as these customers are a cost rather than a revenue source.

Again, this has nothing to do with my best choice of options at this moment. At the moment there is no SIP provider, providing what I get.

You can expect the free services to be dropped just as soon as paying customers need the capacity.

I expect nothing but change. I don't assume anything will last forever.

Re:Is Skype really better?

[Ash-Fox]

I should also note, the options shown still do not help with my home Internet not liking how SIP handles the signalling layer.

Re:Is Skype really better?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you! I thought I was the only one who noticed/hated that! ARGH!!!

Must be..

[synapse7]

Must be to avoid license fees, zing!

No surprise

[lnunes]

Microsoft is one of the biggest Linux contributors http://www.infoworld.com/d/open-source-software/microsoft-counted-key-linux-contributor-now-anyway-190104. In my view they have absolutely all the right to use it, if it fits their solution.

Re:No surprise

[MickyTheIdiot]

Well.. not be a smartass, but everyone has the right to use it. That's the point.

Re:No surprise

[lnunes]

Indeed, I agree completely with you. But not only the used, they also contributed back to the community. That alone sets them apart of the vast majority of the Linux users, at least symbolically.

Re:No surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

In my view they have absolutely all the right to use it, if it fits their solution.

Of course they have the "right" to use it. That's the beauty of it. Everybody can use it. The interesting thing is that after calling Linux a cancer and shitting all over it for years and years they decide to use it now. Maybe if they weren't so obnoxious about Linux nobody would raise an eyebrow.

Re:No surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

This is such tripe. These patches are to get it working well on their hypervisor. It's not like they were improving scheduling performance, patching security holes, or implementing drivers. They want Linux to work better running under Windows.

Re:No surprise

[CriticalAnalysis]

How is that not making Linux better? Many problems in Linux come from the fact that nobody wants to support it and it doesn't work well with Windows. Microsoft has gone out and made Linux play nicer with what we have. It has greatly improved Linux.

Re:No surprise

[lnunes]

So Microsoft is not a Linux contributor but they have merely contributed code to the Linux kernel.

Right...

And enough to appear as one of the 20 biggest contributors.

Please, forget about this "oh, they MUST make Linux better on its own" mentality. As you said, Microsoft contributed to make it play nicer to their software... So what? Put yourself in their shoes: wouldn't you want your own software to be compatible?
Hell, if they contributed to fix the software controller in their espresso machines, it would still be valid.

Re:No surprise

[crutchy]

It has greatly improved Linux

no it hasn't. it has only improved linux operating as a guest on a windows vm server.

microsoft's contribution had nothing to do with linux on its own

go back to licking windows, moron

Re:No surprise

[crutchy]

am i a contributor to windows because i've written software for it? so what if it had nothing to do with making it a better OS and was only to serve my own interests, but you seem to be making a case for me

Re:No surprise

[crutchy]

enough to appear as one of the 20 biggest contributors

quantity != quality

they may have actually made linux worse/more buggy and created more work for the regular kernel contributors to integrate and debug

they've used endusers as beta testers for years, and now they're using linux kernel developers as debuggers

Re:No surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

MS contributed patches to Linux for the sole purpose of making Linux run better on top of Microsoft software. While it is appreciated, that is not at all in the same league as submitting code that makes Linux run better everywhere. When people help make the scheduling better or make the memory management better that helps everybody. What MS did only helps themselves and their paying customers. I don't expect anything else from them but heaping congratulations and calling their contributions "key" is bizarre.

Re:No surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

Should he do that before or after the Linux cock is pulled from your bleeding asshole?

Re:No surprise

[recoiledsnake]

What shortsightedness. Everyone working on Linux ultimately does it to scratch their own itch, but Linux keeps getting better because of their contributions nonetheless. Linux working better under Windows will cause some people to use who wouldn't have, that's good for Linux since it will give it exposure.

Hear it from Linus himself:

Linus states that this is how all open source code gets written, developers scratching an itch. The fact that this comes from Microsoft shouldn’t make any difference at all, saying:

“I agree that it’s driven by selfish reasons, but that’s how all open source code gets written! We all “scratch our own itches”. It’s why I started Linux, it’s why I started git, and it’s why I am still involved. It’s the reason for everybody to end up in open source, to some degree.

So complaining about the fact that Microsoft picked a selfish area to work on is just silly. Of course they picked an area that helps them. That’s the point of open source – the ability to make the code better for your particular needs, whoever the ‘your’ in question happens to be.

Does anybody complain when hardware companies write drivers for the hardware they produce? No. That would be crazy. Does anybody complain when IBM funds all the POWER development, and works on enterprise features because they sell into the enterprise? No. That would be insane.

So the people who complain about Microsoft writing drivers for their own virtualization model should take a long look in the mirror and ask themselves why they are being so hypocritical.”

Re:No surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the patches for hypervisor did all 3 of those. But don't let that interrupt your grade school mentality us-vs-them bullshit.

Re:No surprise

[crutchy]

i'm not sucking any cock

i'm simply poking holes in an argument from someone who clearly sucks windows cock

go back to sucking your own cock

Re:No surprise

[Arker]

Linus makes a good point. So do you. And probably, ultimately, it will be a good thing - because of your point.

Still there is a difference between writing drivers for hardware, and writing drivers for virtualisation. We all know their aim in that is ultimately to make it harder to actually run linux on the bare hardware, instead of having to run it under windows only. Embrace, extend, extinguish remember?

Re:No surprise

[Fnord666]

Everyone working on Linux ultimately does it to scratch their own itch, but Linux keeps getting better because of their contributions nonetheless.

I seen this as a shortcoming of FOSS. yes, developers work on whatever scratches their own itch, but that may not be what really needs worked on. Bugs can languish for months or years while developers scratch their new bright and shiny. Without market forces (or a project manager) to give development direction, what gets developed is frequently whatever strikes the developer's fancy. It's their time and they can do what they want with it. I'm just saying that more than once I have seen it be a detriment to the overall project.

Re:No surprise

[shentino]

And rumor has it that they chucked out half-assed patches and only did even that much because someone caught them with their fingers in the linux pie taking code and they didn't want to get burned by the GPL.

Re:No surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not the issue -- everybody contributes to Linux in order to help it work better for them, or help them to sell it better, etc -- the big thing is that Microsoft did not open source these things until people called that out as being a clear copyright / GPL violation.

Re:No surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, they contributed the most _comments_ to their own module. That is such a huge contribution, isn't it...

Re:No surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

That was just one month, when they pushed a couple of years of work upstream. And pretty much all based on compatibility with THEIR virtualization. Which of course is fine, but it does not make them one of the biggest contributors in any way.

Re:No surprise

[Bert64]

No it wouldn't, because MS are a bit player in the virtualization arena... Without this support, those who wanted to use virtualization with linux would use vmware, xen or kvm instead.
If MS were dominant in the virtualization market there is no way they would do anything to make it easier to run linux.

Re:No surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

Um.. the code went into the *LINUX* *KERNEL* source tree. Hence.. they contributed to Linux. Haha.. you trolls are so funny.

Please tell me you get paid to write anti-ms troll posts. Please.. because otherwise you're just whoring for no money. Dude.. go beg Google or Apple they would definitely pay you some nice cash.

Re:No surprise

[Alex Belits]

Linux is not designed to run under Windows. It's not a problem. Everyone who think, it's a problem for him, is welcome to fuck himself.

In fact, it's a (minor) problem that it's possible to run Linux in crippled virtualization on Windows-based desktop because Linux running in such environment looks horrible and creates an impression that Linux is a bad operating system when clueless newbies install it that way. If it was impossible, there would be no crippled Linux installations.

Same applies to "stable drivers ABI" and other bogus demands from Microsoft.

Re:No surprise

[Alex Belits]

NO ONE outside Microsoft ever compiled the code Microsoft "contributed". It's worthless. It's for running Linux on Windows.

Re:No surprise

[crutchy]

it only does anything if you're running linux as a hyperv guest, so its no different to any other driver

you shills aren't even funny, you're jut stupid

i defend linux because i choose to moron, for the same reason that other kids step into a fight to fend off a big fat bully, not that you would understand that as nobody in their right mind would defend microsoft without being paid

i don't need to hang shit on microsoft to make linux seem more mrketable, because linux sells itself

i do it because i love reading the moronic reactions from you shills

dotslash is fun ain’t it?

go beg Google or Apple they would definitely pay you some nice cash

i defend linux, not google or apple. i'm not sure why you would even suggest it, but i guess you're just that desperate

Re:No surprise

[crutchy]

also microsoft's "contribution" did nothing for linux performance on its own. it was merely an attempt to increase marketed performance of hyperv

Re:No surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't get it: these bugs seem to be your itch. Why aren't you scratching it?

embrace...

[crutchy]

...extend, extinguish

Probably . . .

[OverlordQ]

They likely couldn't afford the cost of the server licenses.

Re:Probably . . .

[crutchy]

i wonder if there are any data centers in the world (not owned by microsoft to some extent) that run any version of windows

Re:Probably . . .

[don.g]

Well you can rent Windows servers from Rackspace...

Also I hear myspace runs (ran? is it dead yet?) on Windows.

Re:Probably . . .

[crutchy]

you can rent Windows servers from Rackspace

that doesn't mean they have a data center full of them

Re:all I care about

[crutchy]

she's too flat chested for my liking

Re:all I care about

[readandburn]

I hate to tell you this, but Anderson Cooper is a guy.

Alternative article needed?

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux Users Using Microsoft Windows To Optimize Compatibility
- Posted by an Ubuntu user

AC

Re:Alternative article needed?

[Anonymous Coward]

i guess if canonical was found guilty of monopolization, spread fud about its competition, bullied oems out of supplying any alternative, etc, you might have seen such article, but since there is none, i guess they aren't like microsoft

an alternative article might also be "Author of Slashdot Post #39884927 Using Dildos to Optimize his Homosexuality"

That's nice and all...

[ZackSchil]

Good to hear that Skype will be a bit less fly-by-night and will have better call performance. But for two years now, the interface has been getting progressively worse and Skype credits have been exchanging for fewer and fewer minutes. The current version has no compact buddy list, requires a subscription for multiparty video, has giant ads on a useless "home" screen, and wants me to issue facebook updates of some shit. I have never uninstalled anything so fast in my life.

Balance the traffic all you want, Microsoft. Skype is a sinking ship if you don't make it lighter, prettier, and cheaper.

Re:That's nice and all...

[Anonymous Coward]

requires a subscription for multiparty video

Google Hangouts. Generally provide equal or higher video resolution and audio quality and is free.

Seriously folks, Skype sucks. It has sucked for a long time. There are better solutions available. And if you care, the last time I compared prices, Google's offerings were cheaper on all but one country I checked. Not trying to be a Google cheerleadering, but seriously, you can easily do better than skype.

Hell, my brother is deployed overseas in a country I'm not supposed to name. We tried Google Hangouts for the first time two weeks ago. Keep in mind he's been raised on skype and that that was the cat's meow. After one 40-minute session between me and my two brothers, he said he'll be converting his wife next time he rotates home. Share videos? Share scribbles? Share desktop? All with hangouts. Its pretty fucking sweet - and free. And if you're wondering, the call quality, the one time he called me via Google's services was superior to skypes too.

Seriously, finding a better solution than skype isn't hard. Its right in front of your face.

Re:That's nice and all...

[ghostdoc]

I use Skype messaging all the time, rarely use it to make calls, and I've noticed performance is getting terrible these days too.
Messages frequently don't arrive until the next time the recipient logs on.

Guess it's time to move on... I haven't tried Google hangouts for this yet, so that might be worth a go

Re:That's nice and all...

[Tanuki64]

Looks like you need Google+. I don't do social crap.

Re:That's nice and all...

[Jezral]

The current version has no compact buddy list

Sure it does: View -> Compact View

requires a subscription for multiparty video

True, that sucks.

has giant ads on a useless "home" screen

It does? I've can't see any ads in Skype anywhere, but then I don't use the Home screen...you can turn that thing off.
I did enable it just now to see if there are ads, and there are not. It looks like a rather plain contact's status updates listing.

and wants me to issue facebook updates of some shit.

It does? Again, you can turn that off, or just ignore it.

But really, Compact View fixes most ills. It makes Skype look like it always has.

Re:That's nice and all...

[Sabriel]

Excuse my inner cynic, but when I basically hear something that sounds too good to be true, and then the guy says it's free, I start looking for the other end of the line attached to that hook. And I'm already more dependent on Google than I like. :p

Re:That's nice and all...

[Anonymous Coward]

You should follow their example and switch to Linux. You get a compact-only skype client, no ads, no home screen. It's still version 2 and it shows. I'm happy with that.

Re:That's nice and all...

[ZackSchil]

The Mac OS X client has no compact view, no option to turn off the home screen, and there are ads that pop up from time to time. Lots of them are for Skype subscriptions but some are not. The main screen keeps trying to get me to link my Facebook account, I assume so it can spam my friends too. No thanks!

This is shocking...

[Guppy06]

... to anyone who doesn't remember Microsoft's acquisition of BSD-based Hotmail.

They're not going to migrate to completely in-house systems overnight.

Re:This is shocking...

[marcosdumay]

This is not about migration*, it is about a new deployment.

* Ok, it is about migration, they are migrating from Windows to Linux while doing a system reachitecture.

Re:all I care about

[crutchy]

lay off the gay porn dude

Slashdot Mandatory Notice:

[Anonymous Coward]

ANNOUNCEMENT

A team from Burson Marsteller on behalf of Microsoft has joined the discussion, and will be moderating and directing it to ensure Microsoft's interests are well served.

They will be using a number of sockpuppets, including Bonch, Sharklaser, Overly Critical Guy, TechLA, TechNY, TechCar and many others.

Their presence in this discussion indicates:

1. Microsoft is concerned that free and undirected speech about this topic would be undesirable for them
2. All postings must be considered suspect.
3. All moderation must be considered suspect.
4. Anyone participating in this discussion tacitly agrees that reputation management and astroturf is acceptable.

Please avoid posting anything of value in this discussion. Treat all who do post with contempt and mockery.

Because it's Microsoft

[dan_barrett]

Why is this interesting / amusing ?
Technically using Linux or some other unix as a supernode is fine, probably a better solution than Windows server - but this is Microsoft, the dominant operating system provider; very much the competitor to Linux. they *could* use a competitor's solution but traditionally Microsoft reinvents the wheel rather than do this (see Silverlight, XPS, .NET, Office Open document format, Sync framework for examples)

Choosing Linux rather than their own OS product for this task seems like bad PR especailly after publicly criticising Linux as an insecure, slow, potentially IP-violating OS platform.
You may recall they were "caught" using FreeBSD for hotmail after acquiring that service - and eventually migrated it to Windows.

I'm guessing there will soon be a "WinMin" or Windows server core based platform that hosts this instead of Linux.

Re:Because it's Microsoft

[Alex Belits]

competitor

Enemy.

There is a difference.

Re:all I care about

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you know that for certain?

When did they not have a right?

[betterunixthanunix]

GPL software is for everyone. The reason people are surprised when Microsoft uses GNU/Linux is that they spent years badmouthing the OS -- they said it was only suitable for hobbyists and students, they said it was cancer, they told people that it violated untold numbers of patents, etc.

Re:When did they not have a right?

[shentino]

That's just FUD that they happen to back up mostly because of their superior legal budget that can win them a lawsuit just by sheer intimidation, long before either a judge or jury can decide the merits of the case.

Legal Implications ...

[memzilla]

Did Microsoft have to negotiate with itself and come to an agreement to compensate itself for infringing on it's alleged intellectual property? I could see it making a lot of money. Microsoft is a rich company. It should call up the lawyers and squeeze itself for all it's worth!

Re:Legal Implications ...

[crutchy]

by inspection of both windows and linux source code, the microsoft lawyers might find large portions that are the same. the only question is, which one is infringing?

A small difference (perhaps) ...

[Anonymous Coward]

is that M$ simply maintained and perhaps improved the BSD servers running Hotmail until the time came for them to migrate to an in-house eat-our-own-dogfood solution. But from the looks of it, it appears(tm) that M$ has installed Linux where there was none or at least only minor instances of the said viral operating system. This looks a major deployment. Again, this is the impression I got from reading TFA.

Re:all I care about

[crutchy]

who the hell is Anderson Cooper?

i think gp probably knows because of all the gay porn he's obsessed with

X [] O

[tepples]

It says so in the manual for his Xbox game Anderson Cooper 360.

Re:all I care about

[Sylak]

Mod parent up, it's one of the most intelligent not-rage posts on this article

Development of Skype on Linux abandoned?

[Diamonddavej]

And it's therefore ironic that the development of Skype on Linux has been abandoned, it's been stuck at version 2.2 Beta for over a year now.

Re:Development of Skype on Linux abandoned?

[symbolset]

That was to be expected.

Re:Development of Skype on Linux abandoned?

[psychonaut]

I'm not so sure you can definitively say that it's been abandoned. Even before Microsoft bought Skype it would often be months or years between releases.

Re:Development of Skype on Linux abandoned?

[Fri13]

Microsoft said that they will continue supporting "other"* platforms... what people know**

* OS X and Android
** not other Linux platforms than Android

Re:Development of Skype on Linux abandoned?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ironic, yes. But let's also be thankful it hasn't been ruined any further than the mess it already was.

Re:Development of Skype on Linux abandoned?

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, I'd rather have Skype 2.2 than the pile of smoking bloat it is on Windows right now. As long as I can use it's primary functions, I see no reason to complain.

Re:Development of Skype on Linux abandoned?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm quite happy to be stuck on 2.2 rather than being forced to upgrade to the terrible UI that the Windows version has these days.

So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hotmail also used many linux node before acquired by MS
MS will find a way to solve

They didnt use Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft did not use Linux - they use Gatenux :)

Re:They didnt use Linux

[crutchy]

now it would be called "ballux"

The geek meme is his security blanket.

[westlake]

Eat your own dog food.
If Windows Server isn't secure enough or powerful enough to do the job, maybe Microsoft should revisit their design choices.

Windows Server has been quite successful in markets where the FOSS developer still struggles to gain a foothold. "Eating your own dog food" makes sense only when you are in the pet food business.

Re:The geek meme is his security blanket.

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn, even the old time MS shills are out in force doing damage control. Where's your buddy D'Aldredge?

No different from running Hotmail on Unix boxes.

[Kaz Kylheku]

Nothing new here.

Dirty Little Secret

[Forthan Red]

Back in the 80s and 90s, one of Microsoft's dirty little secrets was that they were using IBM Midrange computers to do their accounting, because nothing that ran on a Microsoft OS could scale up to handle it.

What's the alternative?

[caywen]

Dear Recently Acquired Skype Division:

Please abandon your entire Linux infrastructure, like, right after you read this. I know the market is hypercompetitive, but we really need you to spend 2 years rebuilding everything from scratch on Windows Server, because if word got out that one of our divisions is using Linux, the slashdot community will go ape shit. In the meanwhile, you'll still be accountable to shareholders for revenue, so figure out how to make money after your service goes down for 2 years. Maybe you can sell chocolate bars or have a bake sale or something.

Yours,
Steve Ballmer

Re:What's the alternative?

[tokul]

Dear Recently Acquired Skype Division:
In the meanwhile, you'll still be accountable to shareholders for revenue, so figure out how to make money after your service goes down for 2 years.

Dear Microsoft CEO:
Small correction. figure out how to make money after your service goes down for 2 years. We are already making money on 8.5B USD that we got from some sucker.

Re:What's the alternative?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, exactly.

Skype had been doing all their backend stuff with Linux servers, so, given the opportunity, they just extended what they'd already been doing. Microsoft may want Skype to shift eventually to Windows servers, for greater compatibility with its existing infrastructure, rather than any particular concern with propaganda. And Microsoft's not going to be in a big hurry to push this.

Microsoft is a big corporation, and big corporations buy out small corporations. Small corporations in software and IT often use Linux. The overwhelming bulk of MS IT work is based on Windows, but some of the companies they've bought out are Linux shops. As others have mentioned, forcing Hotmail to switch to Windows Servers was a mess, and Microsoft doesn't want to repeat that mistake.

If only they'd just

[Anonymous Coward]

release a decent Linux client... I got their Linux "beta" client working on my RHEL clone (Scientific Linux 6.2), but it was a real PITA to get it to run. At least it works, and with my webcam and bluetooth headset as well.

Re:Eat your own dog food.

[Anonymous Coward]

They are. Microsoft is a Linux kernel contributor.

Remember when MSN Hotmail ran FreeBSD?

[kolbe]

This just reminds me of the whole 1999-2000 debacle of Microsoft's continued use of FreeBSD + Apache for its 1997 acquisition of Hotmail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotmail

Hotmail originally ran Solaris and FreeBSD in its infrastructure and even after acquisition by Microsoft in 1997, they continued using FreeBSD for much of it. That is, until someone found out about it and leaked it to the public. As I recall, no citations found though, Microsoft hurriedly ported it all to Windows 2000 Server and botched it up several times before getting it right (2002?).

feds told 'em to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

... get control of global skype network under one usa-based roof (with separate dhs entrance and upstream connections through tapped networks) as part of regulatory approval process for microsoft's purchase of skype. and the feds preferred open source linux be used instead of proprietary windows that microsoft makes.

It had to happen.....

[InspectorGadget1964]

They have finally realized that Windoze is bugy, resource hungry and underperforms. I guess Micro$oft has hired someone with brains!

Microsoft is becoming less evil

[screwgoth]

While all of us are debating on whether this gloat is justified and how Microsoft has double-standards and what not, I think Microsoft's engineers must be putting their head down and focussing on their products. I'm not a Microsoft fan, quite the opposite actually, but even I gotta admit, they have been churning out decent products lately. Not to mention the fact that they have stopped spreading FUD about Open source and even admitting that open source as a key part of their community and Business strategies. You never know .... Before we know it, we might actually start liking Microsoft.

Re:Microsoft is becoming less evil

[crutchy]

Before we know it, we might actually start liking Microsoft

BAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!

And yet

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet they still won't update the Linux client for Skype... It's not like its 3 major versions behind the rest or something...

boring

[pbjones]

right tool for the job, unlike the tool that thought that this info was interesting enough to put on /.

So lame!

[LostMyBeaver]

Next you'll start bragging about how Metro on a tablet kicks the crap out of pretty much all the other tablet OSes (been running it as such since December and ... well it does, have the other too... use them as coffee cup coasters now), and how the biggest VoiP provider in Europe delivers touch screen telephones running on Wintel and how Microsoft products currently have the best documentation (start with MSDN for developers and move through all the other products and when that's not good enough look to Microsoft press) out there. Or how like after 28 years, X11 still doesn't have a reliable way to configure network adapters without modifying the /etc directory or how after playing catch-up for years, DirectX passed and left behind OpenGL in features and consistency.... hell, you need to read two books on OpenGL these days just to learn the "best practice" method of uploading a vertex list.

Pretty sure that while we're all talking about how irrelevant they are in modern culture, they're just sitting back and letting us all buy their products and saying "Well... we'd rather be considered irrelevant than evil... Google and be evil... we'll just take the money and be happy and chug along making new stuff". I think that Microsoft's fading to behind the scenes might have been the most profitable thing they ever did. Let's face it, the justice department is pretty much leaving them alone, anti-trust suits have faded away, they're just making money like they always have and "Don't be evil Google" and "Think Different Apple" are now the new companies to be paying out fortunes in settlements while Microsoft just keeps one making products and selling them.

Re:So lame!

[Anonymous Coward]

I found your beaver. It was wrapped around your face.

I know and I believe

[Fri13]

A security researcher believes that Microsoft has

I almost stopped reading at that point...

so lie

[Anonymous Coward]

they use this linux infrastructure to spy and listen/watch conversation, microsoft bought skype not only because it was coming very popular but because alot business people use skype in everyday life, and spying with this tool they can make a fortune in the economy if they hear important business merging, and stuff.

Re:so lie

[crutchy]

trying to catch up to google i suppose

Dog food

[MrKaos]

What's your dog food is my dog food, it's the new 3E rule

if the product starts to be successful, crush the

[Anonymous Coward]

If you create a mildly successful program on Windows, Microsoft will attempt
to kill you.

"At that point, Mr. Ballmer picked up a chair and threw it across the room hitting a table in his office," Lucovosky recounted, adding that Ballmer then launched into a tirade about Google CEO Eric Schmidt. "I'm going to f***ing bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to f***ing kill Google."

Becoming a programmer for Windows
is like becoming a dentist for a Tyrannosaurus Rex

By: Wil Shipley, President, Omni Development, Inc. May 5, 1998
http://www.stepwise.com/Articles/Editorial/wjs_Windows.html

Over the last year and a half since I was transplanted into the Mac
community, I've occasionally heard Mac developers on various forums cry
out, "Why don't I just become a developer for Windows?" This is in response
to various perceived injuries perpetrated by Apple, including possibly
dropping QuickDraw GX, changing the Mac UI, embracing Unix, and increasing
the price of some developer support options.

Usually, I assume this is a rhetorical question, like a pouty teenager asking,
"Well, why don't I just go jump off a bridge, then?" But, I feel that too many
innocent observers may have heard this question too often, and asked, with all
sincerity, "Why don't all programmers use Windows? The Windows market is
bigger, after all."

Lots of small programmers have a vision that working with Microsoft is like
being one of those little toothbrush birds for crocodiles -- sure, the
crocodile is the one eating the zebras and gazelles, but there's plenty of
crumbs left in the cracks between his teeth. The crocodiles don't hurt the
birds, as they appreciate clean teeth, and the tiny birds can live very
well off the morsels that the 20-foot crocodile deems not worth bothering
with, so everybody wins.

The problem with this analogy is toothbrush birds never grow up to be
crocodiles -- they spend their whole lives just living off the gunk in
crocodile's teeth. Most people don't set out to create a tiny company;
they want to create the next killer app, and become, if not the next
Microsoft, maybe the next Adobe, or the next MacroMedia. Nobody wants to
stay a tiny bird forever, but that means giving up the gunk and going
for the big game.

A better simile is that becoming a programmer for Windows is like becoming a
dentist for a Tyrannosaurus Rex. Sure, the market is big (lots of seats,
lots of teeth), but both Microsoft and the king of dinos are vicious
carnivores, and both will snap their jaws shut as soon as share their
leavings with you. Rexes don't distinguish between symbiotic birds and
predators -- it's all meat to them.

Microsoft is deathly afraid that now they are a huge company they won't have
creative ideas. This is a good fear, because it's true: How much has Word
changed in the last 8 years? How much has Excel changed? I'm not talking about
adding a feature here and a feature there; I'm talking about really changing
the way people use software.

Microsoft doesn't know how to innovate any more. The problem is that when
Microsoft looks at new ideas, they don't evaluate whether the idea will
move the industry forward; they ask, "how will it help us sell more copies
of Windows?" (This is an actual quotation of Bill Gates in The Seattle Weekly,
April 30, 1998).

So, their business model has come to this: Wait for young companies to create
new products, and, if the product starts to be successful, crush the company
and take its market. Some examples, by no means complete:

In 1995, Netscape pioneered Web browsers, but Microsoft simply bought some
code, hired a bunch of programmers to duplicate Netscape's work, and now
gives away Internet Explorer. They paid Apple millions to bundle Internet
Explorer instead of Netscape with Mac OS, and Microsoft is planning to
bundle IE with Win98. Microsoft even claimed (in a letter sent to

Make me laugh (part #1 on security)... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

"If Windows Server isn't secure enough or powerful enough to do the job, maybe Microsoft should revisit their design choices." - by TubeSteak (669689) on Thursday May 03, @08:02PM (#39884823)

2012:

Medicaid hack update: 500,000 records and 280,000 SSNs stolen:

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/medicaid-hack-update-500000-records-and-280000-ssns-stolen/11444

So, what's dts.utah.gov running everyone?

LINUX (and yes, it got HACKED) -> http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=dts.utah.gov

What's health.utah.gov running too??

YOU GUESSED IT: LINUX AGAIN -> http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=health.utah.gov

* Ah, yes - see the YEARS OF /. "BS" FUD is CRUMBLING AROUND THE PENGUINS EARS HERE & 2012's starting out just like 2011 did below!

===

2011:

KERNEL.ORG COMPROMISED - The Cracking of Kernel.org: (that's VERY bad - do you trust it now?)

http://linux.slashdot.org/story/11/08/31/2321232/Kernelorg-Compromised

---

Linux.com pwned in fresh round of cyber break-ins:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/12/more_linux_sites_down/

---

Mysql.com Hacked, Made To Serve Malware:

http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/09/26/2218238/mysqlcom-hacked-made-to-serve-malware

What's that site running? You guessed it - Linux -> http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=mysql.com

---

London Stock Exchange serving malware:

http://slashdot.org/submission/1484548/London-Stock-Exchange-Web-Site-Serving-Malware

(I mean hey - NOT ONLY DID LINUX FALL FLAT ON ITS FACE less than a few minutes into the job http://linux.slashdot.org/story/11/02/19/0147232/London-Stock-Exchange-Price-Errors-Emerged-At-Linux-Launch, & crash not only ONCE, but TWICE there? You see "Linux 'fine security'" in motion @ the LSE too!)

---

DUQU ROOTKIT/BOTNET BEING SERVED FROM LINUX SERVERS:

http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/11/30/1610228/duqu-attackers-managed-to-wipe-cc-servers

---

Linux Foundation, Linux.com Sites Down To Fix Security Breach:

http://linux.slashdot.org/story/11/09/11/1325212/linux-foundation-linuxcom-sites-down-to-fix-security-breach

---

Linux's showing in CA's breached recently too? Ok: (very, Very, VERY BAD for ecommerce, online shopping, banking, etc./et al)

http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=StartCom.com

http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=GlobalSign.com

http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=Comodo.com

http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=DigiCert.com

Make me laugh MORE (part #2 on powerful)

[Anonymous Coward]

"If Windows Server isn't secure enough or powerful enough to do the job, maybe Microsoft should revisit their design choices." - by TubeSteak (669689) on Thursday May 03, @08:02PM (#39884823)

367++ TOP FORTUNE 100/500 (or best 100 to work for per CNN Money) COMPANIES, EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, &/or GOVERNMENT AGENCIES USING WINDOWS (over other solutions like Linux) both in HIGH TPM ENVIRONS, & FROM "TOP 100 COMPANIES TO WORK FOR" (per CNN Money 2011):

---

38 HIGH TPM & 99.999% "uptime" examples:

---

XEROX: Managing 7++ million transactions a day for office devices for its customers using Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 64-bit with 99.999% uptime!

NASDAQ: The U.S.' LARGEST STOCK EXCHANGE, Since 2005 has had Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 in failover clusters running the "official trade data dissemination system" for them in 24x7 fabled "5-9's" 99.999% uptime, doing 64,000 transactions PER SECOND (compare London Stock Exchange using Linux @ 3,000 per second)

FUJIFILM GROUP: Tracks data for its imaging, information, & documentation for its products & services using Windows Server 2003 w/ a custom SAP solution on SQLServer 2005, achieving 99.999% uptime.

HILTON HOTELS: Manages 1.4 Billion records a day for customers in 1000's of their hotels worldwide - for 370,000 rooms & catering services forecasts (switching from 6 *NIX systems to 1 Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 clustered failover system using a data warehouse with 7 million rows & 99.998% uptime).

MEDITERRANEAN SHIPPING COMPANY: Manages & Tracks 7 million containers out of 116 countries daily using Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 in failover clusters with 99.999% uptime.

SWISS INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES: Serves 70 airport destinations worldwide, with 6,500 employees + 110 branch offices via Windows Server 2003 & Active Directory with 99.95% uptime (all while growing their business 30% per year). THEIR PREVIOUS LINUX SYSTEM COULD ONLY HANDLE 250 concurrent users - the Windows one handles over 500++ users concurrently/simultaneously!

UNILEVER: Global consumer good leader, migrated to mySAP on SQLServer 2005 + Windows Server 2003 & scaled UP their operations by over 200% & yet saved money + have 99.999% uptime!

MOTOROLA: Using System Management Server, Windows Server 2003 & SQLServer 2005 to conduct inventory of 65,000 desktops from a single location (e.g. for system updates corporate & worldwide).

NISSAN: Uses Windows Server 2003 to manage 50,000 employees' email & calendaring (w/ out VPN, & using Exchange Server 2003) for local AND remote + mobile users.

TOYOTA MOTOR SALES: Reduced the # of techs needed per dealership (1,000's worldwide) from 7, to 1 using Windows Server 2003.

SIEMENS: 420,000++ people, 130 business units over 190 countries managed in Windows Active Directory

REUTERS: Managing 3,000 servers worldwide @ customer sites internationally (using only 4 managers to do so, remotely).

DELL COMPUTER: Managing 130,000 servers & 100,000 PC's worldside using Windows Server 2003 + 40 million customers' data worldwide.

LEXIS NEXIS: Searches BILLIONS of documents each second delivering news, legal, & business information.

HSBC: Deploys System Center solutions to 15,000 Servers worldwide & 300,000 desktops using Windows Server 2003.

RAYOVAC: Chose Windows Server 2003 over Linux to manage their infrastructure - saving 1 million dollars estimated in software, staffing, & support costs.

JETTAINER/LUFTHANSA/U.S. AIRWAYS: managing shipping to 3,000 flights to 400 airports every day.

CONTINENTAL AIRLINES: Manages crew communication systems, log on/log off, schedules, & shifts using Windows Server 2008 worldwide.

JET BLUE AIRWAYS: Managing 12 million flights & their data

Re:samba

[crutchy]

might want to have a look at http://www.samba.org/samba/PFIF/PFIF_history.html

there was nothing generous about microsoft's involvement in samba. if anything it serves as an example of how microsoft doesn't work with the foss community

so no, microsoft doesn't deserve any credit for being forced under EC monopoly provisions and then being paid $10k merely for access to the protocol documentation

Re:samba

[crutchy]

ms also didn't contribute to development of samba, and had no input into it being released under gpl. samba was reverse engineered by packet sniffing

nice going shill fag

How's "eating ur words" taste?

[Anonymous Coward]

Flavored w/ the "bitter taste of defeat" & ur foot in ur mouth -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2808773&cid=39855971 ?? LMAO @ U, troll!

Re:How's "eating ur words" taste?

[crutchy]

keep impressing yourself, because everyone else knows you're just a fag with no friends

Re:How's "eating ur words" taste?

[Anonymous Coward]

How did eatin ur words taste though? LMAO -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2827829&cid=39927463

Ready 2 eat ur words some more?

[Anonymous Coward]

How's eatin ur words taste -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2808773&cid=39855971 - flavored w/ the bitter taste of defeat n ur foot in ur mouth? Absolutely - LOL!

On this note from you, moron? Eat them again:

"there are a whole bunch of linux admins out there that know that windows will collapse in a light breeze" - by crutchy (1949900) on Wednesday May 09, @04:25AM (#39938843)

Here's a TRUCKLOAD of admins in the Fortune 100-500 that know otherwise (& funny how Linux COLLAPSED RIGHT OUTTA THE GATE @ London Stock Exchange, only minutes into the job too no less):

367++ TOP FORTUNE 100/500 (or best 100 to work for per CNN Money) COMPANIES, EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, &/or GOVERNMENT AGENCIES USING WINDOWS (over other solutions like Linux) both in HIGH TPM ENVIRONS, & FROM "TOP 100 COMPANIES TO WORK FOR" (per CNN Money 2011):

---

38 HIGH TPM & 99.999% "uptime" examples:

---

XEROX: Managing 7++ million transactions a day for office devices for its customers using Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 64-bit with 99.999% uptime!

NASDAQ: The U.S.' LARGEST STOCK EXCHANGE, Since 2005 has had Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 in failover clusters running the "official trade data dissemination system" for them in 24x7 fabled "5-9's" 99.999% uptime, doing 64,000 transactions PER SECOND (compare London Stock Exchange using Linux @ 3,000 per second)

FUJIFILM GROUP: Tracks data for its imaging, information, & documentation for its products & services using Windows Server 2003 w/ a custom SAP solution on SQLServer 2005, achieving 99.999% uptime.

HILTON HOTELS: Manages 1.4 Billion records a day for customers in 1000's of their hotels worldwide - for 370,000 rooms & catering services forecasts (switching from 6 *NIX systems to 1 Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 clustered failover system using a data warehouse with 7 million rows & 99.998% uptime).

MEDITERRANEAN SHIPPING COMPANY: Manages & Tracks 7 million containers out of 116 countries daily using Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 in failover clusters with 99.999% uptime.

SWISS INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES: Serves 70 airport destinations worldwide, with 6,500 employees + 110 branch offices via Windows Server 2003 & Active Directory with 99.95% uptime (all while growing their business 30% per year). THEIR PREVIOUS LINUX SYSTEM COULD ONLY HANDLE 250 concurrent users - the Windows one handles over 500++ users concurrently/simultaneously!

UNILEVER: Global consumer good leader, migrated to mySAP on SQLServer 2005 + Windows Server 2003 & scaled UP their operations by over 200% & yet saved money + have 99.999% uptime!

MOTOROLA: Using System Management Server, Windows Server 2003 & SQLServer 2005 to conduct inventory of 65,000 desktops from a single location (e.g. for system updates corporate & worldwide).

NISSAN: Uses Windows Server 2003 to manage 50,000 employees' email & calendaring (w/ out VPN, & using Exchange Server 2003) for local AND remote + mobile users.

TOYOTA MOTOR SALES: Reduced the # of techs needed per dealership (1,000's worldwide) from 7, to 1 using Windows Server 2003.

SIEMENS: 420,000++ people, 130 business units over 190 countries managed in Windows Active Directory

REUTERS: Managing 3,000 servers worldwide @ customer sites internationally (using only 4 managers to do so, remotely).

DELL COMPUTER: Managing 130,000 servers & 100,000 PC's worldside using Windows Server 2003 + 40 million customers' data worldwide.

LEXIS NEXIS: Searches BILLIONS of documents each second delivering news, legal, & business information.

HSBC: Deploys System Center solutions to 15,000 Servers worldwide & 300,000 desktops using Windows Server 2003.

RAYOVAC: Chose Windows Server 2003 over Linux to manage their infrastructure