Slashdot Log In
Microsoft Proposes Cooperative Research With OSDL
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Mon Aug 22, 2005 11:32 PM
from the olive-branch-or-a-fox-in-the-henhouse dept.
from the olive-branch-or-a-fox-in-the-henhouse dept.
turnitover writes "According to eWEEK.com, Microsoft has proposed to work with OSDL for a 'facts-based analysis of Linux and Windows.' Could this just be a case of the fox contracting security for the hen house?" Martin Taylor, Microsoft's general manager of platform strategy, declined to comment on the specifics of what was discussed when he met with OSDL's CEO Stuart Cohen, only to say that they met.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
java? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:java? (Score:5, Insightful)
Secondly, this is not about co-operation, it is about 'research' or 'study' or whatever else you call it. Looks like MS wants the OSDL to endorse an opinion about the Windows Server OS - so they can FUD the market with something like : "The OSDL, of which Linus Torvalds is a member, has admitted that the Windows Server Operating System has been found to deliver superior performance and TCO in 326 out of 1,028 customer situations... including Clippy, DRM, Windows Media Player, the registry, MSN messenger
Parent
Re:java? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
That's no moon! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That's no moon! (Score:5, Interesting)
They had better have really deep packets to try take the wind out of Linux. They have deep pockets, but not deep enough, I'm afraid. Besides I think that their stock price would suffer if they spent enough of their money on this to make a difference.
More likely it is just one more aspect of Microsoft struggling to understand Linux. My suggestion is say "Sorry, Windows is beyond our focus. But if there are other areas you would like to work with us on, such as maybe improving the GCC on Windows, we would love to have your cooperation."
Parent
You misunderstand the problem (Score:5, Interesting)
You misunderstand the problem.
Microsoft can hire all sorts of Linux Kernel Programmers. Many of the top tier programmers will not be easily hired, so you will have to focus on the second tier (which is, I think, where a lot of the actual programming is done). Many of these are hired by other companies. Redhat, Novell, Cray, IBM, SGI, and others. These companies often have a fair bit invested in Linux and can't just get by on fewer developers, so they will fill in the ranks. There will be some loss there but not enough to justify the money that Microsoft will be spending.
Now, lets say that Microsoft hires 300 second tier Linux developers at 100k each plus benefits (lets say 130k to be conservative). This means that it is costing them nearly 10M dollars just to retain these people for a year.
So now IBM, et. al. have hired and ramped up 300 more developers. People see that Linux Kernel Development has career potential and more people are interested. Wash, rinse, repeat and voila it is now more expensive the next year.
This is money which *actively* reduces Microsoft's profits. Yet, it doesn't accomplish a whole lot. Indeed it could actually hurt Windows marketshare as bright programmers see all the indications that Linux development is where it is at.....
So you have two problems:
1) Microsoft creating a larger job market for its competition and
2) Microsoft paying lots of money for very temporary delays.
Microsoft could hurt Borland by hiring all their C compiler developers. However, Linux is far different. There are many magnitudes more kernel developers out there on Linux.
Ultimately Microsoft would find themselves overwhelmed by sheer numbers much like the US-led forces were overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of Chinese crossing the Korean border when the Korean war really got going.
Parent
Re:That's no moon! (Score:4, Insightful)
There are a lot of OSDL projects aside from Mono. It's entirely possible that Microsoft wants to ensure a certain degree of interoperability, and that they'll want to find ways of improving inter-system security.
Microsoft knows they don't own the server space, and they also know that most of the server vendors have partnerships in place to support Linux on their boxen. Therefore Microsoft has no choice but to ensure a certain degree of compatability if they're to maintain their position on the desktop as the front-end to access the servers.
Much as they'd like to win the server space, Microsoft isn't about to sacrifice millions of desktop licenses just to get a few hundred thousand server slots. Right now that means dealing with OSS in the server space.
Parent
Re:That's no moon! (Score:5, Interesting)
Hmm.
<sarcasm>
So I guess that's why they brought out MS Office for Linux instead of MS Office for Mac.
</sarcasm>
Did know that a low-end Mac sold with a boxed copy of Office often makes more money for Microsoft than it does Apple? (Gross margins on software are 80%+ compared to gross margins of 20% on hardware.) Yeah, Microsoft must really hate Apple.
Apple is no threat to Microsoft. If Mac doubled it's marketshare, Microsoft's revenue from it would increase.
Linux, if it can get its desktop act together, is.
Parent
Re:That's no moon! (Score:5, Informative)
Don't think so. SELinux is a MAC (mandatory access control) framework. ACLs - by their nature are a DAC (discretionary access control) mechanism. MAC and DAC work together - if DAC access succeeds, then MAC can still override it. The graininess of the access control has got nothing to do with it.
The point about MAC based systems is that they enforce system security policy between system subject, objects and actions. In other words, an SELinux policy can say "allow this program to perform only the following actions to this file, and no other". So that, even if a cracker compromises the app on the Linux box, he can't get the cracked app to execute other actions on that file, or even the permitted actions on another file.
I know that people have produced MAC enhancements for Windows in the past, but didn't think that type enforcement et al were present in standard Windows releases. However, I am willing to be informed otherwise
--Ng
Parent
Re:That's no moon! (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
The real scoop (Score:5, Funny)
Martin "Scarface" Taylor, running his finger along the top of the monitor: "You guys got a real nice operating system, here. It'd be a real shame if something happened to it..."
Re:The real scoop (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Obligatory quote (Score:5, Funny)
Who is the fox and who is the hen? (Score:4, Insightful)
Is MS necessarily the fox? It seems to me that open source projects target MS products, not the other way around. Consider Firefox. Take a look at Firefox's lineage and you'll find Netscape Navigator, once upon a time a commercial product. To keep up with IE, NN became free and open source in 1998. The descendants of NN have been playing market share catch-up ever since, even taking out large ads [mozilla.org] in major newspapers.
I think in this case it's the hen opening a dialog with the fox.
Re:Who is the fox and who is the hen? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Morons and Oxymorons... (Score:5, Insightful)
How can this be 'joint' and 'independent' at the same time? Specially when MS is one of the parties?
Fun (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey, Microsoft wants to "collaborate" with open source? Maybe they could never mind the PR movements and "research", and just fucking document their formats and protocols so that open source software isn't left a second-class, reverse-engineered citizen in the world full of computers Microsoft owns.
Re:Fun (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. I wish that the people involved will remember what you wrote. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Microsoft is not to be trusted. Maybe, MAYBE after they have had a complete change of leadership (starting from Ballmer, Gates and the board of directors, followed by heads of divisions) and complete change in operating philosophy. Maybe then they can slowly start to regain the trust they have lost over the years. But as things are right now, MS has screwed competitors and potential competitors over and over again. And Linux is a competitor. Why eaxctly would MS NOT screw Linux over, if they had the chance?
MS does not want to "cooperate" with OSDL because they want to help Linux or open source. They want to do it because they feel that they have something to gain. And in this case, it would most certainly involve harming Linux and open source.
I repeat: Microsoft is not to be trusted.
Parent
TERRIBLE news. (Score:5, Funny)
. . . somehow. At all.
Oh, I'll find a way.
Two possibilities (Score:5, Insightful)
1) They seek to make their own "Get the Facts" campaign appear more legitimate by having OSDL create a similar one. Right now, a lot of people assume that Microsoft isn't telling the whole truth in their advertising, but if Red Hat or some other Linux company started doing the same, then some people might start believing it. By not fighting back, they actually make Microsoft seem almost desperate.
2) They want OSDL to do market research for them from their "customer base" so Microsoft can take that research to improve Windows in these areas. If Microsoft can absorb the features that people value most about Linux into Windows, the theory goes that they can then crush Linux.
Never believe anything... (Score:4, Informative)
What is the motivation behind this? (Score:5, Insightful)
There must be strings attached.
Whatever the trap, a) we should avoid the bait or b)figure out what they are up to (I'm not smart enough to see it) because whatever the case - Microsoft isn't about to fund a study that shows it bad in security.
And what's the need to analyze Microsoft security?
First: The computers in research studies can be unrealisticly hardened on both sides - Windows more so because the default installation isn't tested most of the time - just a dream system hardened by EXPERTS. How many Windows users turn off the default services they don't need along with turning off ActiveX.
Second: How is this a learning experience? Microsoft already knows what it does wrong. But it can't take the cure because they think it's too painful - rip out ActiveX, make Internet Explorer and Explorer more removable and more modular so it's not soldered to the system, same with Outlook, etcetera.
Re:NO NO NO (Score:5, Insightful)
But you can bet your last cent that Microsoft wants to `cooperate' under a BSD license.
Parent
Re:Don't be so sure (Score:5, Insightful)
This has everything to do with empirical evidence of MS actions in regards to "cooperating" with other organizations and efforts.
Funny how any techie could rattle off at least a few well known and high profile cases of MS shafting it's "development partners". And yet you sit here and rattle off some crap about religious zealots and "not being so sure".
Well... that about sums it up don't it.
Obviously you're too much an idiot to bother trying to explain anything to , or too much an asshole to bother with.
but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt either way.
- lest I be too quick to judge.
So here's a bone:
Name 1 competing software manufacturer that MS has dealt with on a cooperative basis that MS hasn't stolen from, lied to, killed out right or simply aquired.
Parent
Re:Don't be so sure (Score:4, Interesting)
Show me one quote where Linus thinks Microsoft are in any way "good guys" - however you or he defines "good guys."
Yes, Linus is not a "free as in beer software" fanatic. However, he DOES believe in open source and in Linux as a process and a product, as well as a technology challenge. The latter may be what floats his boat, but he's not exactly an SCO supporter, either. And he's not stupid.
Stallman may be a socialist or semi-socialist or pseudo-socialist or whatever, but even the GPL allows people to sell open source software as long as the source is included.
Bill Gates and Microsoft have NEVER been about free as in freedom OR free as in beer, ever. Go back and read his "You Hobbyists Steal Your Software" rant and his poker days at Harvard.
Why should anybody in OSS concern themselves about "cooperation" (in other than a technical interoperability sense) with Microsoft?
Parent