Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft starts anti-Linux Group
It started in the Wall Street Journal, but the story has spread all over. Microsoft has started group, much like in the case of Java to get into the minds of the Linux community. At least we now they see us as a serious, despite claims to the contrary.
I've been using linux as my only operating system ever since I got a computer in December 1994 and I've been pretty happy with it.
At work, they got rid of our Solaris and Linux systems and installed NT everywhere. I was so offended by this PHB decision and opposed it strongly, occasionally rudely. I hated NT at first, but now that I'm getting used to it I think it's ok. It's never crashed and now that I have all the FSF tools installed--- things like TeX, LaTeX, dvi-viewers, Ghostscript, PS viewers, gunzip, tar, perl, a great editor, a pager, etc... I like it pretty well. I've even used Excel a couple times and it seems like a pretty nice spreadsheet (haven't checked out Word yet, but I know people who like it.) I have no complaints and while I was reluctant at first, I really prefer IE to Netscape.
At home, netscape crashes, X freezes and basically my system has never run perfectly since I switched to glibc. I'm going to the expo today and am going to pick up Debian or RH-6 or maybe *BSD and give that a go before I drop a few hundred on NT, but frankly, I hate KDE, GNOME, and all that unstable, resource hungry crap that everyone works on. It's clear that linux has moved to a new target audience and left real users like me behind.
I'm still learning windows and I haven't decided yet and hell, I can always go dual-boot, no?
Best wishes, Tony
Why isn't Microsoft using those ten engineers to make their product better? What can ten engineers do to help the company researcing the competition. It seems like a clueless response some managers must have thought up. Those ten engineers will eventually come to the conclusion:
1) Linux is more stable than NT, that's why people who need stable servers use it over NT.
2) Linux is cheaper, and runs on cheaper hardware.
3) You can't stop people from developing it.
4) Every day, people are less and less afraid of it, wheres many people are afraid of Microsoft and their "roadmap." People are more conciencious about how they are being abused by Microsoft.
5) Even though Linux has weaknesses, and is slower on 4-way Xenon Intel processors with 4 gigs of ram, etc., Linux is continuously being improved and will eventually be superior.
6) Other companies have interest in seeing Linux succeed, and technologies such as XFS are being given away to help OS's like Linux. The goodwill is spreading like Christmas cheer, and the grinches at Microsoft are eager to spoil the party.
Despite the nasty FUD which will no doubt increasingly come oozing out of Redmond Campus, think of it this way: They're wasting their time. And now, they're wasting even more of their money.
Good luck.
we probably SHOULD care how the trial goes.
If MS wins, then FUD mongering will reign supreme. Look at the whole OJ thing (again). If OJ had lost BOTH trials, there's be a LOT fewer people out there proclaiming his innocence.
If MS loses, then we have the incredibly daunting task of punishing them. Breaking up the company has already been analyzed and it looks like more harm than good will come of it. Fining them will result in the same thing; consumers will end up bearing the cost. Writing up an injunction for them to cease and desist the alleged illegal behaviors will simply not work, because we're dealing with a Saddam Hussein-like attitude here. Remember the 1995 injunction? Bill laughed at it, they were dragged to court, found out of compliance, and won it on appeal anyway.
In any case, MS will probably appeal and get it all thrown out in the end, but the important thing is that they must LOSE this initial trial. MS's strength is in it's PR, and that's what they'll lose by losing the trial. Any punishment the DOJ metes out will be trivial compared to the loss of face MS will suffer. This is the critical opportuninty, and probably the last, best chance for any competitor to make headway. The face MS has lost just by the negative press DURING the trial, has already shown itself, and this is why Linux is making corporate headway. I believe that if MS loses, Linux (and others - the whole MS-alternative mindset) will make enough headway, to actually get enough of a foot in the door to become a permanent fixture. Definately not a dominant one, I think MS's future is secure there no matter what happens with the trial (sadly). But the mindset that alternatives ARE available, and that it's NOT going to be an MS-only world will take permanent hold.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
-jafac's law
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
A lot of big corporations tend to insist upon making all of their systems homogenous. This has quite a few drawbacks, obviously.
The corporation I work for blends the two mainstream operating system classes nicely. For our workhorse applications such as databases, most of our web servers, etc., we use UNIX variants.
All of our desktop systems (and some of our production servers, like for e-mail and some web) are NT4.0. I see quite a few people posting comments that say their NT installations crash *hourly* or at least once a day. No offense intended, but this is more of an indication of poor NT administration than anything else. Our computer support group is responsible for all of our major software packages, service pack updates, etc. This allows them to test everything thoroughly on all of the hardware known to be used by us. The result is a fleet of NT workstations that are nearly as stable as my Linux box at home. I'm not saying they're 100% stable, but I rarely even *log out* of NT but perhaps once every couple of weeks. I've rebooted my workstation *maybe* a dozen times in the year and a half that I've been here.
So, you have two choices. You can train/hire competant Unix people to manage your Unix systems, or you can train/hire competant NT people to manage your NT systems. Reading some of these comments, it sounds like some of you are doing neither.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying NT is superior to Unix in the least, but as far as application support and the fact that most of my work is done for clients using Windows, I need to use it as part of my job.
At home, I own two PC's. One running Linux (without monitor/keyboard) and the other running Win98 along with an X server for my Linux apps. IMO this is an excellent compromise and allows me to take advantage of strengths inherent in both operating systems.
Of course, I still have to reboot Win98 pretty frequently (though usually no more than once or twice a week).
The point is, I do this because I work most productively having access to both operating systems simultaneously. Some people may work in environments where a Unix OS will suffice perfectly, and make them more productive than if they were using Windows. However, there are environments where using Windows IS the best option, because that's what they need to work most productively. It's fairly difficult to develop ActiveX under Unix, for example.
My first thought when I read this was:
,hacker Perl another Just)'
"How does the free software community fight that!"
I mean, 10 microsoft employees - that's got to be over a million bucks a year to MS... That's some serious effort to fight a free operating system.
But then I relaxed - because we don't have to fight it - we just keep on using and producing quality products, and fight them on our terms - quality, stability, openness, freedom. Those are terms MS finds it very difficult to fight on.
I'm actually quite happy now that they've done this - it means they are totally serious about the free software community, and gives them more credibility than I could possibly have imagined over a year ago.
Thanks Bill.
perl -e 'print scalar reverse q(\)-:
Matt. Want XML + Apache + Stylesheets? Get AxKit.
What I mean by that is that I don't think everyone in the Linux community is completely satisfied with the software generated by others in the "Linux community". I'm sure there are some people who want more commercial software. For example, the engineers who are forced to use NT-based design software because their managers say so or because the Unix hardware is too expensive.
Yes, Linux can't be "defeated", certainly not the way the Amiga has been. However, if Microsoft can reduce the growth of Linux's marketshare (or even stop its growth), that will do damage to Linux. Few ISV's want to write software for a stagnant platform.
I don't think your "code and passion" is enough for many Linux users. How many, I can't say. But that's Microsoft's angle. For instance, I can't run Linux at work, because:
- Outlook doesn't run, and our email system is 100% Outlook
- There's no PVCS client for Linux
- Microsoft Office won't run (Yes, I know about Star Office)
- Internet Explorer won't run (many of our internal web sites use IE-specific features)
- The DOS support is medicore, and probably won't run all of my old DOS-based development tools
And so on. There are plenty of other DOS and Windows apps that I need to run because there are no Linux equivalents. Yes, I know about Wine and VMWare, but I seriously doubt they'll be enough.The point the original poster is trying to make (I think) is that the current Linux community doesn't care about anyone who doesn't use Linux. I don't think that's correct. I think most Linux users WANT others to use Linux. But that's not going to happen as long as the software that people need isn't available. And if MS does a good enough job at convincing enough people to NOT use Linux, then the software won't be ported.
Yes, the Linux community has created some incredible software on their own. I especially enjoy the Gimp for OS/2, because every other OS/2 graphics package is mediocre at best. However, I just don't think it's wise to disregard Microsoft's attempt at thwarting Linux acceptance.
--
Timur Tabi
Remove "nospam_" from email address
As that wise man said, and has been quoted here many times before. First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win. I have been using GNU/Linux since the days before kernal 1.0 was released. As I have said in this forum many times before, Free Software is the main evolutionary path and M$ is a dead end. The power of Free Software exceeds its own technical superiority because the code does not die when companies go out of business. There is no stopping Free Software now. Three cheers to RMS, Linus, and all the other contributors to the Free Software movement. I also belive that the GNU/GPL is a significant development in world history. Stallman will always be remembered for this triumph of intellectual freedom. Cheers, gbs
I thought they might be forming a group to do the only thing that might hurt Linux: make Windows NT efficient, rock stable, compatible with decades of portable code, truly multiuser, secure, and network transparent.
But naah, they're just going to spread some FUD.
Move along folks, nothing to see here.
Our development roadmap is created by the needs of the users of Linux. It's the best roadmap there is. Maybe Microsoft can help guide our development roadmap by talking up the areas that are weak in Linux. If it's FUD, it won't hold up because the Internet tends to expose that. However, if it's valid, then the Linux community will fix it.
Lack of a journalled filesystem? Okay, we'll take care of that, with SGI's help, and also the work of kernel hackers.
Lack of a GUI? Let's get KDE/GNOME more robust and stable.
Lack of a good configuration utility?
Any other perceived weaknesses? Other companies/individuals/groups can come in and fill in and then support that subsystem. There is lots to be made in that. Are you listening? Apparently, SGI is.
Maybe MS can help the Linux development effort after all. Haven't you noticed how the more the weaknesses are talked about by people, the more interest there is in fixing them?
This document shows that in the weeks after the Mindcraft tests, kernel hackers and interested parties have been able to bring Apache and Linux performance to 3 or 4 times what it used to be, and they've identified problems in the kernel that are being fixed as we speak. Sure there are weaknesses, but the biggest advantage of Linux is that there are many eyes to find out where these weaknesses are and how to fix them when they are exposed.
Like someone else here said, this is a guerilla war. The harder MS fights us, the more resources they use to extinguish us, the more people will be turned off to Microsoft and will question their practices. The more desperate Microsoft becomes, the more obvious it is that they are losing.
It's hard to flail at a moving liquid target that cannot be pinned down to one organization or group of people.
Linux grew with the Internet. It grew without any media attention. It grew and still grows because it meets real-world needs. It has nothing to do with hype. It did just fine without media attention. We basically had to force the media into noticing us. As long as it can meet real world needs for the users/developers and has a good chance of providing that in the future, it cannot lose.
Once again, I say that it's essential for the Linux community to make up their own rules for the game.
One such rule is to *not* defend one's product as the be-all and end-all. That's a business game, not an open community game.
Promote *ALL* other alternative OSes. Promote the BSDs. Promote BeOS. Promote MacOS and QNX and PalmOS(?) and every other OS.
They all have their place. QNX is a major force in the embedded market. Kicks ass on WindowsCE in every way. The BSDs are incredibly well done and kick NT ass. BeOS kicks everyone's ass in the multimedia department. MacOS is experiencing a resurgence, and is a delight to use.
Don't let Microsoft focus on one thing! Force them to deal with *ALL* things, *ALL* the time.
They can't spread FUD on all the competition...
...change the rules! Keep them hopping --- and learn to use the mass media!
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
I'm NOT referring to competition on technical grounds - Linux can and will kick NT's ass in a fair fight, as a server at least.
But the simple fact of the matter is that Linux is GIVEN AWAY FOR FREE. The vast majority of people who work on it WORK ON IT FOR FREE. In an economic sense, how does this constitute competition? It's like saying that backyard gardens are competition with supermarkets. The reason the Linux model works is that it DOESN'T depend on sales!
Every commercial competitor of Microsoft's has been woefully unable to generate enough sales to build momentum, even when, as in the case of OS/2, their product was superior and in the market first. Microsoft has too much of a headlock on the sales channel and the mindshare of businesses and corporations. Not enough copies of the OS get sold, and so not enough software companies jump in making software for the OS because the market is too small, which in the turn causes people to not buy the OS. It's a vicious cycle.
The only reason that Linux hasn't fallen victim to this is that Linux isn't being developed for monetary reward. It's like if all the HO scale train buffs decided to build a real train line for the love of it.
Saying that Linux is competition for Microsoft is like saying that ham radio is competition for the telcos. It's being developed completely outside the traditional arena of work for pay. How then can you say that it competes within that arena?
Am I making sense?
Jon Acheson
All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.
>More hype than it deserves
No, the ability to have a free, stable OS is not hype. It's just good.
>Nothing new from what existed 20 years ago
>(well, actually Unix is older than that...)
Think about what you say before you say it. New apps are developed every day. Besides, if you'll step out of the box and see features as more than command line syntax, you can see that being FREE is a new thing for UNIX. How much did it cost relative to now 20 years ago?
>Lots of special effects, but no real content
>(show me something that Linux can do that other >OS's can't)
It can stay up under large loads without crashing.
It allows you to continue to use your computer for longer periods of time without upgrading.
Forgive me, but I must include the Bewolf clustering and the fact that I don't see a NT cluster making the worlds 16th fastest computer.
Someone please provide the link for that because I don't have it handy.
By the way, how many users can log onto NT Enterprise Server at a time? one?
>Can't hold up on it's own (you still need to >dual boot to nt or 95 to run your real software, >or get any work done, or play any good games.)
The games part was true, but now Quake III, Civ III, Myth II and such are comming out for Linux.
I can't run virues in Linux though. I always have to reboot to Windows when I want to use them.
>We have to wait 3-6 years for it to be worth >anything (who wants suffer waiting for linux to >mature, I'll install it once it can do the >things i need it to do and runs the programs i >need to run).
I can do more with Linux than I can with NT. The only thing NT does better is crash. It does that quite well.
You've obviously either never used Linux or just don't have the disire to be the best. I've used NT. I can speak from experience on both sides. Linux is far superior.
I'm not being mean, but you really just don't have a clue about Linux. Seriously, give it a try. I think you'll be surprised.
Romans 10:9-10
Don't complain about a lack of software, do something about it!
The problem is I have way better things to do with my time that reinvent the wheel for the 600th time. I'm not going to write an Outlook clone just so I can use linux. I'm only going to use linux when there is an Outlook available.
Doing something about the lack of software only makes sense if you have a vested interested in seeing the platform survive. I don't. Linux is just an OS.
This has nothing to do with who has the better multitasking, who has more stability, or who can throughput more data. It's all about politics and money. Already Microsoft hands huge grips of cash to many render-farms to switch away from Macs and SGI's to NT. Already Microsoft spreads propaganda to IT's about NT's server performance.
Can't be bought? Maybe all you Linux fans can't, but the MIS or IT who has to decide between doing work on Linux or getting a fat check from Microsoft for switching to NT can be. I can already name several game developers who've been offered six-figure "developer assistance" to switch their development away from Macs and SGI machines.
This is a very interesting move on Micros~1's part. Up until this point, they've always been competing with companies, tangible entities that can be defeated.
:) All we have is our code and our passion, and they can never take those away from us.
Criticize us! Please! It only gives us ideas to better our software. Here's my impression of the situation:
Micros~1: "Linux doesn't do this, and Linux doesn't support that."
Linux Community: Gee, thanks for the ideas, we'll go add that now.
The important thing to stress is that while Linux poses a threat to Micros~1, they can NEVER pose a threat to Linux. There's nothing to threaten. They can never take it away from us. They can never prevent us from doing what we want with it. We're not like a company, we can't go under, you can't take us to court, you can't DEFEAT us because there's nothing to defeat. Anything they can do we can do better and faster and cheaper, because we don't have a bottom line to worry about. All we need be concerned with is good software.
We don't even have money to lose
"I think any time you expose vulnerabilities it's a good thing." -Attorney General Janet Reno
Linux has been ready for the "buzz explosion" for some time now. Microsoft went into the DOJ trial, nad has been failing miserably. They have needed to show that there is competition, that they are not a monopoly.
I believe that tons of money got invested into Linux precisely because of the DOJ trial. Before this trial, nothing was keeping Microsoft from cutting off anybody who supported Linux.
Now that the buzz is in full explosion, MS can show the DOJ that it is competition and attack it as such. Personally, I don't care how the trial goes; the fact that it happened at all has made the difference.
Another side effect of the trial is that Microsoft is forced to spout the virtues of Linux to the courts to defend the theory that Linux is indeed a contender. They then have to turn around and tell the market that Linux is not a contender.
With some money and some lawyers, Microsoft will start finding themselves back in court--for false advertising, slander, and/or perjury. You cannot lie under oath, you cannot make false claims in advertising, so contradicting your testimony with your marketing is a criminal offense of one sort or another.
My question is, who has both the money and the motive to spend it on lawyers? Everybody seems to be investing in Red Hat, but I don't know their budgetary situation. IMHO, the best anti-FUD is to overturn said FUD in court.
The trick is to keep Microsoft fighting fair. They win when they can operate unhindered by the law. They lose when the law catches up with them.
--The basis of all love is respect
Don't underestimate Microsoft; they can deploy some very smart people, if sufficiently concerned.
They are now sufficiently concerned--the giant has awakened. Indeed, the point of this group will not be to generate FUD, as so many of you seem to be assuming.
Has the Open Source Community imagined all the possible moves open to Microsoft?
Have we any counter-strategies?
Doubtless, Microsoft is already thinking three and four moves ahead.
Let the game begin...
MS setting up a team to combat Linux! :). Linux can survive without businesses. And its roots are with the technical developers. Although management is MS focused, the real work is always done by techies. And that group favours the better OS. We don't like to have our hands held by a system. We want to control it!
War has been declared. The one thing that I don't think MS has realized yet, is that Linux is NOT a company. Sun, Netscape, IBM, and Apple, are all companies, where as, Linux is a community (although I will say Apple is close in this respect
MS may convince management to watch out for those "Linux people" who will not play by the rules, but it's time that us techies start talking to our management. Make this an internal vs. external (Microsoft) battle. I've already have given two seminars on Linux that was focused towards management. I request others do the same.
Call for arms here!
P.S. This was always my signature, I didn't updated for this response, although I see others have this Ghandi quote....
Steven Rostedt
-- Nevermind
I find it "interesting" that Microsoft is telling the world about this group, and even supplying quotes from the team leader to the press...
I think that Microsoft is happy as hell at this point to see Linux pop up, because they need something to point to for competition in their antitrust suit - it's still going on, you know!
They've been clutching for something to call competition - Paul Maritz is quoted as saying under oath that AbiSource's word processor, AbiWord, is competition for MS Word, even though it's still WAY beta and not fully functional.