Posted by
ryuzaki0
on from the kinda-scary-stuff dept.
Adam Cody wrote in
to note that this job
on Microsoft's web site. It's a marketing position and
the responsibilities include a competitive analysis of Linux.
Should I apply?
The simple explination is "know thy enemy". Doing a competitive analysys is pretty common, and I'm sure that the marketing people over at RedHat, VAR, and so on have done these. And I'd venture to guess they do this not only against MS products, but against SCO, IBM, probably even other Linux vendors.
MS is looking for what to say when a customer says "but what about that Linux thing? why is Win2000 better?", they'll know what to say besides "it's free software".
If anything, I take this as one of the best compliments the Linux community can get. We're really competition. Now if only we can get a hold of the complete analysis when complete....
Looks like "Winux" is becoming a reality.
by
Grenamier
·
· Score: 5
To me, it looks like Microsoft is creating its own distribution of Linux. For one clue, the title of the job is "Product Manager". No company has Product Managers for products they don't sell. Some of the duties include "product development for the development team" and "technical assistance for the sales force."
The position also advertises "high visibility" outside of the company. People who just watch competitors and make reports about them don't normally get much exposure (VinodV didn't get his 15 minutes on purpose). But if Microsoft is selling a "new" product, its Product Manager would be expected to flog it to the press.
So what's Microsoft up to? Scrapping NT for Linux? Of course not, they'd be throwing away all of their leverage. Trying to steal Linux technology for NT? Perhaps, but they wouldn't need to sell a product of their own for that.
This is my wild speculation:
Free-sourced software is the Internet happening all over again for Microsoft...everyone in the industry is jumping on the bandwagon and stories about the success of Linux, Apache and Perl are everywhere. Microsoft missed the populization of yet another decades-old "phenomenon" and they've known it since Hallowe'en at the least.
What did Microsoft do about the Internet? Embraced and tried to extend it. Now everything they sell has some Internet features, but they didn't manage to spread Active Server Pages everywhere, and Apache still tromps MS Internet Information Server.
I believe Microsoft will start by bundling Apache like Apple did, all "cleaned-up" with a Windows interface. Perhaps in the next Service Pack and in Windows 2000. Ballmer was saying the other day that Apache was simply better, in fact. They'll make a big deal about Microsoft supporting Open Source, and how they support innovations like that.
Then Microsoft ActiveLinux 3.1 will come out (I thought that was the most probable name and no version number less than 2.2 - 3.1 is good luck for Microsoft.) They'll make it easily installable, perhaps add USB and NTFS support, and then use Active X and IE for UNIX to put a Windows interface on Linux that has some Win32 APIs, the way OS/2 had some Win32 API's with DAX.
I'd be willing to bet Microsoft keeps that interface closed. They'll argue using a creative interpretation of GPL or LGPL so that they won't have to reveal the source and perhaps any undocumented Win32 calls that they port over. What they do will probably be in violation of the (L)GPL, but what legal force will be able to challenge them? ESR doesn't have that kind of cash.
MS shops and ISV's won't care about that though. Those dyed-in-the-wool Microsoft groupies, PHBs and non-technical CEOs who've heard so much about Linux can try it without leaving the MS fold or the Windows interface.
And they'll be impressed. Instead of creating a bad distribution to discredit Linux, they'll create a really good one, with all the goodies and easy installation (that you can start from Windows like Caldera, probably). Microsoft users who need hand holding will use it, Windows users who want to get into Linux (but don't want to get their hands dirty) will use it, and ISVs will write to that closed interface, because Microsoft will give them tools to make an easy port that lets Windows program keep Win32 calls for the UI. Microsoft will make ActiveLinux become the path of least-resistance for users and vendors from the Windows world who want to expand into Linux but have no interest in free-source issues.
If Microsoft succeeds in keeping the interface closed, and porting Office and BackOffice to their distribution, then it'll mean trouble because other distros won't look very competitive to the new users and the industry press. Microsoft could end up gathering more users than the other distributions, and then I don't know what...Microsoft was never able to get most of the web servers to run on MS-ware, so they didn't succeed there, but what if they managed to amass the biggest share of Linux users? Would it give them enough power to influence Linux's direction?
I'm not trying to be alarmist, I'm just trying to figure out their strategy...I could have it all wrong, but I do believe Microsoft will create its own distribution, and that it will try to create some reason to use Microsoft's distro instead of anyone else's. And Rob shouldn't work for them...what would happen to Slashdot??
Sorry for the length, I got off on a tear there...
-- --
John Truong
Why not an MS Linux distribution?
by
maynard
·
· Score: 5
This is the best comment of the bunch, I think. Grenamier makes the point that Microsoft could create their own distribution of Linux with a proprietary Win32 kicker. They are in their rights doing this, and if I were MS this is exactly the tactic I would use. How different is this from Corel using Linux as a vector to market their proprietary Corel Office software?
Even though the premise is good, there are some fundamental mistakes of fact which ought to be resolved:
Grenamier (jtruong@idirect.com) Wrote: To me, it looks like Microsoft is creating its own distribution of Linux. For one clue, the title of the job is "Product Manager". No company has Product Managers for products they don't sell. Some of the duties include "product development for the development team" and "technical assistance for the sales force."[Emphases mine]
The position also advertises "high visibility" outside of the company. People who just watch competitors and make reports about them don't normally get much exposure (VinodV didn't get his 15 minutes on purpose). But if Microsoft is selling a "new" product, its Product Manager would be expected to flog it to the press.
So what's Microsoft up to? Scrapping NT for Linux? Of course not, they'd be throwing away all of their leverage. Trying to steal Linux technology for NT? Perhaps, but they wouldn't need to sell a product of their own for that.[emphases mine]
Yes, I agree completely. They wouldn't bother with a project unless they were planning to either make something for sale, or were planning a "grassroots" marketing effort. But they can't "Steal" something out in the open like a GPL'd package, so I don't know what you mean by that.
This is my wild speculation:
Free-sourced software is the Internet happening all over again for Microsoft...everyone in the industry is jumping on the bandwagon and stories about the success of Linux, Apache and Perl are everywhere. Microsoft missed the populization of yet another decades-old "phenomenon" and they've known it since Hallowe'en at the least.[Emphases Mine]
I really like that quote. It well describes the mentality which must be fermenting in MS upper management strategy meetings.
What did Microsoft do about the Internet? Embraced and tried to extend it. Now everything they sell has some Internet features, but they didn't manage to spread Active Server Pages everywhere, and Apache still tromps MS Internet Information Server.
I believe Microsoft will start by bundling Apache like Apple did, all "cleaned-up" with a Windows interface. Perhaps in the next Service Pack and in Windows 2000. Ballmer was saying the other day that Apache was simply better, in fact. They'll make a big deal about Microsoft supporting Open Source, and how they support innovations like that. [Emphases Mine]
This follows well.
Then Microsoft ActiveLinux 3.1 will come out (I thought that was the most probable name and no version number less than 2.2 - 3.1 is good luck for Microsoft.) They'll make it easily installable, perhaps add USB and NTFS support, and then use Active X and IE for UNIX to put a Windows interface on Linux that has some Win32 APIs, the way OS/2 had some Win32 API's with DAX.
No. I've got a couple problems with this. First, USB support is already in active development, as is NTFS support in the kernel... that point is moot. Of course they could always release a binary only driver, but like with VMware, I think they're likely to find kernel developers unwilling to maintain backward compatability to support binary only drivers. As well they should! What this means for Microsoft is that they will never control the momentum of kernel development unless they're willing to attempt a legal attack against the GPL; though that may well be in their interest.
I'd be willing to bet Microsoft keeps that interface closed. They'll argue using a creative interpretation of GPL or LGPL so that they won't have to reveal the source and perhaps any documented Win32 calls that they port over. What they do will probably be in violation of the (L)GPL, but what legal force will be able to challenge them? ESR doesn't have that kind of cash.
OK. More problems of minor ignorance. First of all, if MS were to release a proprietary Win32 widget library, this would be no different from The OpenGroup with their Motif product line, or Troll Tech with their previous QT-1.x product line. In both cases each company has (and had) every legal right to sell a proprietary binary only software package which could not only cost to develop for, but could even cost just to use in runtime licensing fees!
If these guys get to play that game, then certainly Microsoft can. The GPL only covers software which can be thought to derive from a previously GPL'd source base. For example, if I create a source tree completely by scratch the GPL has nothing to say about what kind of license I distribute under. But if I derive an offshoot from a previously GPL'd program, say my own special version of GNU ls, and I distribute this code in binary form for either free or for charge, then I must also offer to distribute source, and I can't prevent the recipient from also distributing either the binary or the source.
Harsh terms if you want to take something someone else wrote, change a line here and there (or not even that if you release under a BSD license), and then call it yours. But a Win32 emulation library, which has already been created for NT, is something wholly authored by Microsoft, and therefore completely their's to distribute under whatever license they choose. They don't even have to sell development libraries to third party developers; meaning they could, if they wanted to, completely monopolize the office software for Linux market given their current monoploy on office software and the immediate demand from the business community should they ever offer such a product. They could even use their old standard tactic of the Interface Shuffle by porting Win32 and MS Office to Linux, and then changing the Win32 layer regularly enough to prevent WINE from ever maintaining compatability.
This is what they mean by embrase and extend.
The LGPL license is another animal, designed to allow developers to offer a library of functions for other developers to include in their code without demanding that said developers using that library release their source upon releasing their software.
MS shops and ISV's won't care about that though. Those dyed-in-the-wool Microsoft groupies, PHBs and non-technical CEOs who've heard so much about Linux can try it without leaving the MS fold or the Windows interface.
And they'll be impressed. Instead of creating a bad distribution to discredit Linux, they'll create a really good one, with all the goodies and easy installation (that you can start from Windows like Caldera, probably). Microsoft users who need hand holding will use it, Windows users who want to get into Linux (but don't want to get their hands dirty) will use it, and ISVs will write to that closed interface, because Microsoft will give them tools to make an easy port that lets Windows program keep Win32 calls for the UI. Microsoft will make ActiveLinux become the path of least-resistance for users and vendors from the Windows world who want to expand into Linux but have no interest in free-source issues.
Microsoft won't do it unless they think it will significantly extend their MS Office monopoly. This is where the serious bucks are for them anyway. If MS ever begins to think Corel's Office for Linux, or StarOffice, might become a serious threat to MS Office marketshare (+15% of the market, say) then this is exactly the tactic I'd expect them to take.
If Microsoft succeeds in keeping the interface closed, and porting Office and BackOffice to their distribution, then it'll mean trouble because other distros won't look very competitive to the new users and the industry press. Microsoft could end up gathering more users than the other distributions, and then I don't know what...Microsoft was never able to get most of the web servers to run on MS-ware, so they didn't succeed there, but what if they managed to amass the biggest share of Linux users? Would it give them enough power to influence Linux's direction? [Emphases Mine]
You can't stop Microsoft from releasing their own commercial and costly Linux distribution with a proprietary Win32/MS Office kicker, they're in their legal rights to do so. This is no different from Apple releasing the core MACH and BSD components from MacOS-X under the APSL while keeping the crown jewels (Carbon and the OpenStep libraries) propritary. But like I said, the Linux core components like it's kernel and basic tools will never be under Microsoft's control unless they can pull a legal victory out of their ass which undermines the GPL. If they pull that stinker off the entire Open Source community is fucked. And it might well be in their interest to attempt this move if they ever think the dollar losses from OS/Office sales to Linux ever exceeds the potential PR disaster from such a move.
But baring such a casastrophic -- and unlikely -- outcome, we should expect that even if Microsoft released the most popular distribution of Linux, with all sorts of proprietary and expensive add ons to run commercial MS software, plenty of people will still just tinker around and maintain their own special Linux flavors. Do you really think Debian would go away? Not even if Caldera, Suse, and RedHat were flattened by the MS steamroller could they stop the Debian project without a Legal or Congressional victory (heh, maybe a bullshit Free Software Tax Act, that might make for good assault legislation against free software and is right up this congresses alley). Just like MS can't prevent end developers from creating a quality stable kernel and giving that away for free, they can't prevent a bunch of developers and end users from collecting a bunch of free software, creating a usable Linux distribution, and giving that away for free.
Just like how Microsoft can't control the kernel source tree, the Debian project is exactly why Microsoft could take over the lion's share of the Linux user market as a vector to generate revenue from a Win32 and MS Office port, yet still not control all the Linux distributions out there. I don't know about you, but I can live without MS Office for Linux. I won't be paying astronomical fees just to run bad software because Frank down the street is too stupid to convert his email to ascii. But hey, that's me.
Slashdot Mirror
The simple explination is "know thy enemy". Doing a competitive analysys is pretty common, and I'm sure that the marketing people over at RedHat, VAR, and so on have done these. And I'd venture to guess they do this not only against MS products, but against SCO, IBM, probably even other Linux vendors.
MS is looking for what to say when a customer says "but what about that Linux thing? why is Win2000 better?", they'll know what to say besides "it's free software".
If anything, I take this as one of the best compliments the Linux community can get. We're really competition. Now if only we can get a hold of the complete analysis when complete....
To me, it looks like Microsoft is creating its own distribution of Linux. For one clue, the title of the job is "Product Manager". No company has Product Managers for products they don't sell. Some of the duties include "product development for the development team" and "technical assistance for the sales force."
The position also advertises "high visibility" outside of the company. People who just watch competitors and make reports about them don't normally get much exposure (VinodV didn't get his 15 minutes on purpose). But if Microsoft is selling a "new" product, its Product Manager would be expected to flog it to the press.
So what's Microsoft up to? Scrapping NT for Linux? Of course not, they'd be throwing away all of their leverage. Trying to steal Linux technology for NT? Perhaps, but they wouldn't need to sell a product of their own for that.
This is my wild speculation:
Free-sourced software is the Internet happening all over again for Microsoft...everyone in the industry is jumping on the bandwagon and stories about the success of Linux, Apache and Perl are everywhere. Microsoft missed the populization of yet another decades-old "phenomenon" and they've known it since Hallowe'en at the least.
What did Microsoft do about the Internet? Embraced and tried to extend it. Now everything they sell has some Internet features, but they didn't manage to spread Active Server Pages everywhere, and Apache still tromps MS Internet Information Server.
I believe Microsoft will start by bundling Apache like Apple did, all "cleaned-up" with a Windows interface. Perhaps in the next Service Pack and in Windows 2000. Ballmer was saying the other day that Apache was simply better, in fact. They'll make a big deal about Microsoft supporting Open Source, and how they support innovations like that.
Then Microsoft ActiveLinux 3.1 will come out (I thought that was the most probable name and no version number less than 2.2 - 3.1 is good luck for Microsoft.) They'll make it easily installable, perhaps add USB and NTFS support, and then use Active X and IE for UNIX to put a Windows interface on Linux that has some Win32 APIs, the way OS/2 had some Win32 API's with DAX.
I'd be willing to bet Microsoft keeps that interface closed. They'll argue using a creative interpretation of GPL or LGPL so that they won't have to reveal the source and perhaps any undocumented Win32 calls that they port over. What they do will probably be in violation of the (L)GPL, but what legal force will be able to challenge them? ESR doesn't have that kind of cash.
MS shops and ISV's won't care about that though. Those dyed-in-the-wool Microsoft groupies, PHBs and non-technical CEOs who've heard so much about Linux can try it without leaving the MS fold or the Windows interface.
And they'll be impressed. Instead of creating a bad distribution to discredit Linux, they'll create a really good one, with all the goodies and easy installation (that you can start from Windows like Caldera, probably). Microsoft users who need hand holding will use it, Windows users who want to get into Linux (but don't want to get their hands dirty) will use it, and ISVs will write to that closed interface, because Microsoft will give them tools to make an easy port that lets Windows program keep Win32 calls for the UI. Microsoft will make ActiveLinux become the path of least-resistance for users and vendors from the Windows world who want to expand into Linux but have no interest in free-source issues.
If Microsoft succeeds in keeping the interface closed, and porting Office and BackOffice to their distribution, then it'll mean trouble because other distros won't look very competitive to the new users and the industry press. Microsoft could end up gathering more users than the other distributions, and then I don't know what...Microsoft was never able to get most of the web servers to run on MS-ware, so they didn't succeed there, but what if they managed to amass the biggest share of Linux users? Would it give them enough power to influence Linux's direction?
I'm not trying to be alarmist, I'm just trying to figure out their strategy...I could have it all wrong, but I do believe Microsoft will create its own distribution, and that it will try to create some reason to use Microsoft's distro instead of anyone else's. And Rob shouldn't work for them...what would happen to Slashdot??
Sorry for the length, I got off on a tear there...
-- John Truong
Even though the premise is good, there are some fundamental mistakes of fact which ought to be resolved:
Grenamier (jtruong@idirect.com) Wrote:
To me, it looks like Microsoft is creating its own distribution of Linux. For one clue, the title of the job is "Product Manager". No company has Product Managers for products they don't sell. Some of the duties include "product development for the development team" and "technical assistance for the sales force."[Emphases mine]
The position also advertises "high visibility" outside of the company. People who just watch competitors and make reports about them don't normally get much exposure (VinodV didn't get his 15 minutes on purpose). But if Microsoft is selling a "new" product, its Product Manager would be expected to flog it to the press.
So what's Microsoft up to? Scrapping NT for Linux? Of course not, they'd be throwing away all of their leverage. Trying to steal Linux technology for NT? Perhaps, but they wouldn't need to sell a product of their own for that.[emphases mine]
Yes, I agree completely. They wouldn't bother with a project unless they were planning to either make something for sale, or were planning a "grassroots" marketing effort. But they can't "Steal" something out in the open like a GPL'd package, so I don't know what you mean by that.
This is my wild speculation:
Free-sourced software is the Internet happening all over again for Microsoft...everyone in the industry is jumping on the bandwagon and stories about the success of Linux, Apache and Perl are everywhere. Microsoft missed the populization of yet another decades-old "phenomenon" and they've known it since Hallowe'en at the least.[Emphases Mine]
I really like that quote. It well describes the mentality which must be fermenting in MS upper management strategy meetings.
What did Microsoft do about the Internet? Embraced and tried to extend it. Now everything they sell has some Internet features, but they didn't manage to spread Active Server Pages everywhere, and Apache still tromps MS Internet Information Server.
I believe Microsoft will start by bundling Apache like Apple did, all "cleaned-up" with a Windows interface. Perhaps in the next Service Pack and in Windows 2000. Ballmer was saying the other day that Apache was simply better, in fact. They'll make a big deal about Microsoft supporting Open Source, and how they support innovations like that. [Emphases Mine]
This follows well.
Then Microsoft ActiveLinux 3.1 will come out (I thought that was the most probable name and no version number less than 2.2 - 3.1 is good luck for Microsoft.) They'll make it easily installable, perhaps add USB and NTFS support, and then use Active X and IE for UNIX to put a Windows interface on Linux that has some Win32 APIs, the way OS/2 had some Win32 API's with DAX.
No. I've got a couple problems with this. First, USB support is already in active development, as is NTFS support in the kernel... that point is moot. Of course they could always release a binary only driver, but like with VMware, I think they're likely to find kernel developers unwilling to maintain backward compatability to support binary only drivers. As well they should! What this means for Microsoft is that they will never control the momentum of kernel development unless they're willing to attempt a legal attack against the GPL; though that may well be in their interest.
I'd be willing to bet Microsoft keeps that interface closed. They'll argue using a creative interpretation of GPL or LGPL so that they won't have to reveal the source and perhaps any documented Win32 calls that they port over. What they do will probably be in violation of the (L)GPL, but what legal force will be able to challenge them? ESR doesn't have that kind of cash.
OK. More problems of minor ignorance. First of all, if MS were to release a proprietary Win32 widget library, this would be no different from The OpenGroup with their Motif product line, or Troll Tech with their previous QT-1.x product line. In both cases each company has (and had) every legal right to sell a proprietary binary only software package which could not only cost to develop for, but could even cost just to use in runtime licensing fees!
If these guys get to play that game, then certainly Microsoft can. The GPL only covers software which can be thought to derive from a previously GPL'd source base. For example, if I create a source tree completely by scratch the GPL has nothing to say about what kind of license I distribute under. But if I derive an offshoot from a previously GPL'd program, say my own special version of GNU ls, and I distribute this code in binary form for either free or for charge, then I must also offer to distribute source, and I can't prevent the recipient from also distributing either the binary or the source.
Harsh terms if you want to take something someone else wrote, change a line here and there (or not even that if you release under a BSD license), and then call it yours. But a Win32 emulation library, which has already been created for NT, is something wholly authored by Microsoft, and therefore completely their's to distribute under whatever license they choose. They don't even have to sell development libraries to third party developers; meaning they could, if they wanted to, completely monopolize the office software for Linux market given their current monoploy on office software and the immediate demand from the business community should they ever offer such a product. They could even use their old standard tactic of the Interface Shuffle by porting Win32 and MS Office to Linux, and then changing the Win32 layer regularly enough to prevent WINE from ever maintaining compatability.
This is what they mean by embrase and extend.
The LGPL license is another animal, designed to allow developers to offer a library of functions for other developers to include in their code without demanding that said developers using that library release their source upon releasing their software.
MS shops and ISV's won't care about that though. Those dyed-in-the-wool Microsoft groupies, PHBs and non-technical CEOs who've heard so much about Linux can try it without leaving the MS fold or the Windows interface.
And they'll be impressed. Instead of creating a bad distribution to discredit Linux, they'll create a really good one, with all the goodies and easy installation (that you can start from Windows like Caldera, probably). Microsoft users who need hand holding will use it, Windows users who want to get into Linux (but don't want to get their hands dirty) will use it, and ISVs will write to that closed interface, because Microsoft will give them tools to make an easy port that lets Windows program keep Win32 calls for the UI. Microsoft will make ActiveLinux become the path of least-resistance for users and vendors from the Windows world who want to expand into Linux but have no interest in free-source issues.
Microsoft won't do it unless they think it will significantly extend their MS Office monopoly. This is where the serious bucks are for them anyway. If MS ever begins to think Corel's Office for Linux, or StarOffice, might become a serious threat to MS Office marketshare (+15% of the market, say) then this is exactly the tactic I'd expect them to take.
If Microsoft succeeds in keeping the interface closed, and porting Office and BackOffice to their distribution, then it'll mean trouble because other distros won't look very competitive to the new users and the industry press. Microsoft could end up gathering more users than the other distributions, and then I don't know what...Microsoft was never able to get most of the web servers to run on MS-ware, so they didn't succeed there, but what if they managed to amass the biggest share of Linux users? Would it give them enough power to influence Linux's direction? [Emphases Mine]
You can't stop Microsoft from releasing their own commercial and costly Linux distribution with a proprietary Win32/MS Office kicker, they're in their legal rights to do so. This is no different from Apple releasing the core MACH and BSD components from MacOS-X under the APSL while keeping the crown jewels (Carbon and the OpenStep libraries) propritary. But like I said, the Linux core components like it's kernel and basic tools will never be under Microsoft's control unless they can pull a legal victory out of their ass which undermines the GPL. If they pull that stinker off the entire Open Source community is fucked. And it might well be in their interest to attempt this move if they ever think the dollar losses from OS/Office sales to Linux ever exceeds the potential PR disaster from such a move.
But baring such a casastrophic -- and unlikely -- outcome, we should expect that even if Microsoft released the most popular distribution of Linux, with all sorts of proprietary and expensive add ons to run commercial MS software, plenty of people will still just tinker around and maintain their own special Linux flavors. Do you really think Debian would go away? Not even if Caldera, Suse, and RedHat were flattened by the MS steamroller could they stop the Debian project without a Legal or Congressional victory (heh, maybe a bullshit Free Software Tax Act, that might make for good assault legislation against free software and is right up this congresses alley). Just like MS can't prevent end developers from creating a quality stable kernel and giving that away for free, they can't prevent a bunch of developers and end users from collecting a bunch of free software, creating a usable Linux distribution, and giving that away for free.
Just like how Microsoft can't control the kernel source tree, the Debian project is exactly why Microsoft could take over the lion's share of the Linux user market as a vector to generate revenue from a Win32 and MS Office port, yet still not control all the Linux distributions out there. I don't know about you, but I can live without MS Office for Linux. I won't be paying astronomical fees just to run bad software because Frank down the street is too stupid to convert his email to ascii. But hey, that's me.
[snip]