Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Microsoft Launches Linux Labs Website

Posted by Zonk on Thu Apr 06, 2006 04:55 PM
from the getting-the-message-out dept.
mjdroner writes "ZDNet is reporting that Microsoft is launching a website to 'share the activities of its internal Linux laboratories.' Microsoft says its goal is to foster communication with those who use open-source. The article also mentions that Microsoft runs a 300-server Linux installation to test open-source products." From the article: "Customers will be able to submit requests to Microsoft employees. For example, a person could ask how to best test the use of Linux desktops working with Microsoft's directory software. In addition, Port 25 will do video interviews with Microsoft employees with experience in the open-source or Unix world, Hilf said."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Technology: Microsoft Port 25 interviews Miguel de Icaza 202 comments
Ben Galliart writes "Microsoft's Port 25 blog, the voice of MS Linux Labs and a spin-off from the MS Channel 9 blog, has an interview with Miguel de Icaza where they discuss the Gnome and Mono projects. It is a nice change of pace to see Microsoft go from attacking Novell and Linux to interviewing a Novell employee about a Linux desktop system. Port 25 has come under some fire since they can not always be trusted. Port 25 has on occasion put out FUD such as claiming Microsoft is doing more to improve security than any other vendor and a security guide attacking Red Hat for not providing security updates for Red Hat v9 despite that Red Hat ended support back in 2004. They have also released a password synchronization daemon for Red Hat, AIX, HPUX and Solaris that must run as root and makes several calls to strcpy() (which violates Microsoft's guidelines for doing secure coding)."
This discussion has been archived.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
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by liliafan (454080) * on Thursday April 06 2006, @04:57PM (#15079744) Homepage
    My biggest question to MS regarding their interaction with Linux/*NIX would be why the hell windows XP SP1 broke my Samba PDC!! Before SP1 I was able to load roaming profiles without any problems, I applied SP1 and it all fell apart.

    Microsoft seems willing to help you get your Linux workstation running against their PDC but are unwilling to reverse and allow their desktops to run against a Unix PDC.

    MS has always seemed to break interaction with samba at every opportunity, I suspect this is completely intentional, especially considering their server products (that include the PDC functionality) is their flagship productline.
    • by psocccer (105399) on Thursday April 06 2006, @05:08PM (#15079888) Homepage

      Actually it was apparently a security fix, I recently went through this since we're migrating to XP and samba 3.x + ldap. There is a setting in the group policy editor for checking ownership of roaming profiles in SP1. You have to disable this check by enabling the "Do not check ownership" thing. There are details here [rmschneider.com], but once you're done it all works fine.

      • Documentation! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by XanC (644172) on Thursday April 06 2006, @05:06PM (#15079868)
        Is it possible that MS could document the protocol, then we wouldn't have this problem?
          • Re:Documentation! (Score:5, Insightful)

            by bugg (65930) on Thursday April 06 2006, @05:45PM (#15080212) Homepage
            Did you just make the argument that networking protocols are "innermost workings" of an operating system?

            They're not inner at all, they're outer: they're designed to be used with others. I do believe this is an important distinction...

            • Re:Documentation! (Score:5, Interesting)

              by spanommers (800808) on Thursday April 06 2006, @06:31PM (#15080532)
              Having spent a summer at Microsoft, I can verify that Microsoft does, in fact, treat protocols as "innermost workings." They are treated as intellectual property, and when the protocols are good, that means they are valuable business assets. Interoperability is not a metric for many protocols (unless you consider different versions of Windows).
  • Its a trap! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LiquidCoooled (634315) on Thursday April 06 2006, @04:57PM (#15079745) Homepage Journal
    I'm serious.
  • obligatory (Score:5, Funny)

    by sTeF (8952) on Thursday April 06 2006, @04:59PM (#15079768) Homepage Journal
    in other news: hell just froze over.
  • Embrace... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by LithiumX (717017) on Thursday April 06 2006, @05:01PM (#15079802)
    We all know what this is. They've more or less claimed it as a prime mantra behind their business logic. Embrace and "Extend". The Embracing has started, but that Extension is going to be considerably less fun.
  • by jacobcaz (91509) on Thursday April 06 2006, @05:03PM (#15079825) Homepage
    For example, a person could ask how to best test the use of Linux desktops working with Microsoft's directory software.

    Answer: Thank you for choosing Microsoft(TM) Software. We have studied this problem and have determined to best use Linux desktops with Microsoft's Active Directory(SM) first format the machines and install Windows(TM) XP Professional(SM)...

  • Actual Link (Score:5, Informative)

    by Ctrl+Alt+De1337 (837964) on Thursday April 06 2006, @05:04PM (#15079847) Homepage Journal
    Since the summary did not provideth, here's a link to the actual site: http://port25.technet.com/ [technet.com]
  • by caffiend666 (598633) on Thursday April 06 2006, @05:05PM (#15079854) Homepage

    Hello dear friend,

    While this message my come as a surprise to you, I have spent extensive time trying to port MS Windows applications to Linux. After my company (Loki Software) went bankrupt, the CEO mistakingly transferred $100m (One Hundred Million US Dollars) to my Nigerian bank account and I am looking for a partner in transferring this money back to the United States. In exchange for this service....
  • by vertinox (846076) on Thursday April 06 2006, @05:06PM (#15079871)
    I dunno. Isn't this kind of like Stalin asking for input on the democratic process:

    Stalin: Hey guys... I know I've been kind of totalitarian in the past, but... Um... Let's foster some thoughts about that democracy thing we keep hearing about over in the States.

    KGB Adivsor: I hear they don't have secret arrests over there...

    Stalin: Ok. Thats a start... Anything else?

    Army Commisar: They don't have secret laws or show trials.

    Stalin: I seeee....

    Politburo Advisor: Oh... And they watch funny shows on TV and actually own their own homes and cars and mow their lawns and have these things called elections so that everyone can have their input into the process... Oh and almost forgot there is the...

    Stalin: *cuts advisor off* Ok. I think that is enough fostering for a very long time. Lets get back on the subject of 'summary executions'. You know guys, I was thinking maybe we could double our efficiency if we outsource to the Chinese.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2006, @05:08PM (#15079890)
    First Apple lets people install Windows then Microsoft lets its own people install Linux.
    Whats next ?
    Balmer takes an anger management course and Steve Jobs changes his appearence ?
  • by jlebrech (810586) on Thursday April 06 2006, @05:14PM (#15079951) Homepage
    Microsoft Linux Virus Labs
  • {anti-microsoft rhetoric ON}
    What's to stop Microsoft from receiving a request then patenting it and stiffling all future OSS development for your submission?

    On the covers, it sounds like Microsoft is opening their arms to open-source development - which is what the OSS community has been wanting for years - but, under the covers, what's to prevent Microsoft from garnering too much control of any given project?

    This move isn't to gain the respect of the IT community, it's a ploy aimed directly at removing the ever-increasing market share that GNU/Linux has been gaining. Every Linux installation removes the Microsoft Tax Revenue Stream from Microsoft's coffers and that is a threat to them.

    Until you see a Microsoft release of a GNU/Linux distro, don't expect Microsoft to support Linux too earnestly. This is just another move by Microsoft geared to directly affect GNU/Linux installations by those installations being replaced with Microsoft server OSs.
    {anti-microsoft rhetoric OFF}
  • In other news... (Score:5, Informative)

    by init100 (915886) on Thursday April 06 2006, @05:24PM (#15080030)

    ...Microsoft urges UK PC vendors to not sell PC's without an OS, since this is a missed opportunity to market their software and services. They also claim that so called naked PCs are often used to install pirated copies of Microsoft software.

    Note that they do not specifically mention that this OS is Windows, but I think it is implied between the lines. It is also common knowledge that BSA counts systems sold without a commercial OS as using a pirated OS, which means that computers running Linux or other F/OSS OS'es are included in their piracy statistics.

  • Embrace and extend (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Opportunist (166417) on Thursday April 06 2006, @05:56PM (#15080298)
    Why is the first thing that went through my mind "Ok, how're they going to use it against Linux?"? Maybe because it's always been like this so far?

    I pondered, and so far the only explanation is their usual "embrace and extend" practice. Take a standard, implement it, then extend with some "extra features" nobody else supports, hope that devs jump the wagon and make use of those "features" until customers have to use their flavor or else something doesn't work.

    It worked before in the Browser War, I'd guess it's a tactic that could work again.

    Now, how?

    My guess goes towards .net. Yes, there's Mono, but MS has the advantage of setting the standard. If they provide a Linux version of the next .net version, Mono will have a rather hard time holding a foot in that market. The framework is free anyway (has to be, who'd buy it?), so MS isn't even losing anything.

    After a few years, Mono will vanish. And then MS can start pulling resources from the Linux version, making it less stable, making it slower (unless it's neither stable nor fast from the beginning). Yes, that takes time. But MS is in no hurry.
  • by Yuioup (452151) on Thursday April 06 2006, @06:52PM (#15080682)
    Ah but everyone... here's the catch...

    OPEN SOURCE CANNOT BE EXTENDED. At least not the way Microsoft wants it to be.

    Why? Because it's based on open collaboration and open standards. It's a collective which cannot be controlled. What happens if Microsoft tries to control OSS? Simple. You fork it. What happens when Microsoft tries to find a way to exclusivly make money off of OSS? Simple. You make a free (beer, speech) alternative and put all the documentation on-line. All of it.

    You see, Open Source cannot be killed. That's the beauty of the whole concept. Cut off one head and another grows... and I mean it in a good sense.
  • 99 comments (Score:5, Funny)

    by Captain DaFt (755254) <<captain_daft> <at> <gmail.com>> on Thursday April 06 2006, @06:57PM (#15080720) Journal
    And yet nobody has yet said:
      "Finally! The ease of linux combined with the security of Windows!"

    Really guys we're slipping here.
    • by vandon (233276) on Thursday April 06 2006, @05:13PM (#15079945) Homepage
      For all of these years M$ has tried to Buy, steal or distroy anything to do with Linux, Then why do they want to be so nice to anyone dealing with Linux, Be afraid.

      It's pretty simple. They've tried killing, buying, and trashing Linux. It's not going away. So now the question is 'How can I make money off of Linux?' This is market research to find out what MS-Linux interoperability tools people may need and how to best sell them.