Microsoft Developing Linux Policy, Plan of Attack 845
Lil' Bobby Gortician writes "This new MSNBC article talks about Microsoft's developing strategy to deal with Linux. They are actually getting some of their sales people certified as Linux experts, and say 1/10th of their test servers now run Linux. My favorite quote? "There's no set architecture in Linux. All roads lead to madness"."
Innovation (Score:3, Insightful)
*sigh* There's another new field, fresh for 'sploits. Nice one, Microsoft. Keep up with the .. errm .. 'innovation! :-/
Re:Not so easily manipulated (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't underestimate the power of stupidity, my friend. You'd be surprised.
There plan of attack.. (Score:5, Insightful)
MS should start selling Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
And he has realized that "Linux is a different kind of opponent. It's not a company to bash, but a software movement with the backing of the entire tech industry.".
And this is why the Linux community is winning. We are more developers in the Linux scene, we are better skilled and higher motivated.
Understanding this, Microsoft should turn around and start providing Linux support and services as part of their portifolio. There is nothing wrong with selling both Linux and Windows! Software is all about support, not the product, today anyways.
^5 (Score:5, Insightful)
I think I'm going to run around high-fiving everyone here, because to me this shows they still don't get it. You can kill SuSE, you can kill Novell, IBM, and Red Hat and you still wouldn't kill Linux.
Microsoft, if you are reading this, you screwed me over once with OS/2. There is no way you will ever take Linux away from me. :)
Re:Not so easily manipulated (Score:5, Insightful)
How can this fellow's opinion turn on a dime like that? Is he really credible to a corporate audience? I don't think people are quite that stupid or so easily manipulated.
Plain to see you haven't been in the underbelly of corporate America, my friend...
"Architecture"!?! (Score:5, Insightful)
No no... all roads lead to madness on Windows programming. I assure you. (Of course, if you HAVE the roadmap...)
Re:Innovation (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides, I'm sure many similar comments were made about redsktop, and yet I don't recall any exploits appearing for that.
roads leading to madness (Score:1, Insightful)
Tell that to the companies brought down by the slammer worm, either of the nachi worms or the effort trying to keep MS boxes patched in a large enterprise.... that is the road to hell not madness. Although madness is thrown in at no cost.
They don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry /., but they have a point (Score:2, Insightful)
Add to that the proprietary modifications and vastly inflated prices of the dominant Linux vendor and you have a confused customer base that is more comfortable with the consistent Microsoft product lines.
Re: Good Thing there are "Non-Profit" distros (Score:2, Insightful)
How would you go about to bring GNU [gnu.org] down, even if you were founded by the millions?
Re:^5 (Score:5, Insightful)
No, they wouldn't kill Linux, but they would shove it so far out of the public view it might as well be Amiga. I don't think they want to kill Linux completely - just the big players, the ones that matter to the high dollar corporate customers. The ones really stealing sales from MS.
But MS is a tad to late to come to the table, they are trying to crush it after it's gotten to large. If they destroy distro X, another will rise out of the ashes and be just as big (I hope!). 10 years ago, if they'd invested all their energy into it, they might have kept Linux small - but it's gaining momentum now, and it's hard to stop a freight train.
Re:Not so easily manipulated (Score:5, Insightful)
Quite easily actually... there's an old saying... there's no greater fanatic than the converted. I've seen staunch supporters of something do a 180 within a day when exposed to something they thought impossible (switching from Windows to Linux or from Linux to Windows... yes, I've seen both).
Re:pattern (Score:5, Insightful)
<pedant>
> 1st they laugh at you
> 2nd they fight you
> then you win
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." [wikiquote.org]
</pedant>
The MSFT shareholders (Score:3, Insightful)
A publicly traded company exists solely to make profits for shareholders. This is accomplished by crushing competition (ideally). If you can't crush 'em though, you don't sell their products! This isn't a sound business model.
Re:Not so easily manipulated (Score:5, Insightful)
You misspelled money .
Re:Not so easily manipulated (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead of looking for behind-the-scenes back-handers, actually stand up and show why he's wrong.
Still, personally, I can kinda see where he's going with his arguments. I don't agree 100%, but there is at least a grain of truth behind them. Of course, this is slashdot, so I'm getting the fire-extinguishers ready ;)
Re:^5 (Score:3, Insightful)
and linux was doing just fine before IBM et al. hint: they came to linux because they saw great potential, no one cold-called IBM and made a sales pitch.
fundamentally linux is about talented people writing software based on principles. to kill linux you pay everyone money to stop, kill everyone involved with it, or pass a law abolishing rights such as free speech.
Your favorite quote (Score:5, Insightful)
To the newbie this perception is immediately apparent.
First question: Which of the hundreds of distros do I use? Hundreds of different answers.
Second question: If they are all Linux, why will this application run on one but not the other? Development geek speak.
Third question: Of the hundreds of choices of this particular application, which is best? Hundreds of naswers and then a massive flame war.
Microsoft's quote may sound pathetic to you but, when they tell a neophyte to check for themselves, they are "proven" correct. The uninitiated are confused and intimidated by the vast number of choices, incompatibilities and varied advice from a pleathora of zealots. Just ask a technical question about a mail program like Postfix or Sendmail. Half the responses will be to change distributions. Change the OS because of an issue with the MTA???
Re:Sorry /., but they have a point (Score:1, Insightful)
Dude - I have been using Microsoft products, in a business environment, since Dos3.3. There is _nothing_ consistent in their product lines apart from having to pay for flakey software.
Re:^5 (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think they'll succeed, but don't be too sanguine yet.
*cough*AD*cough* (Score:5, Insightful)
One could be forgiven for thinking that was intended to describe Active Directory.
I run a mixed network, though mostly Linux these days, for work. I frequently hear about juicy new technologies for MS (I read several of the pro Windows mags) and some sound really good. Mostly, however, as I read the article I quickly find myself thinking "that's nice if you're a company big enough to pay someone to learn this one technology, and you'll really need the myriad options it provides. But for most people who could use that functionality, this is ridiculously complex and over-engineered."
There are also times I curse Linux, often in ways that'd make your hair curl. MTA + spam filter + virus scanner(s) + IMAP/POP server + webmail is all well enough, but give me standard interfaces on each of them or I'll go insane very soon. Then I tried to set up an Exchange demo and, well, suddenly it didn't seem so bad anymore. It's still quite bad, but Exchange also failed to work sensibly by default, was hard to integrate with multiple plug-ins, and generally reassured me that in fact all mail server software is crap (though each may in isolation be quite good).
MS needs to get a handle on the complexity of its own systems before they can talk too loudly about the multiplicity of configurations under Linux and the fact that every admin almost has to be a developer. At least with Linux, I can admin my hideously complex configurations via a collection of individual config files in a consistent place that don't change for no reason, vanish, get corrupted, or get bored and go for a smoke
If Linux distros could offer a consistent config file format (Pick one. Seriously.), some form of config inheritance (eg load
If I could get consistent open and save dialog boxes for my Linux terminal server, I think I'd be in heaven.
Overall, I must say that I see a serious case of the pot calling the kettle black here. They're both awful.
Re:Not so easily manipulated (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sorry /., but they have a point (Score:5, Insightful)
The x86-PC has real stability and consitency problems when it comes to competing vendors and running different CPUs on different motherboards.
Add to that proprietary modifications and vastly inflated prices of the dominant CPU-vendor and you have a confused customer base that is more comfortable with the consistent Apple product lines.
Re:Not so easily manipulated (Score:3, Insightful)
Money talks.
Re:This is actualy good news. (Score:1, Insightful)
Where Microsoft screwed themselves up was in getting harsh about license compliance at the precise moment when people began asking if there was some cheaper way to do it. Linux has been looming on Microsoft's horizon for six years now and for most purposes, it simply cannot replace Windows. What's got MS scared is that their customers are just waiting until the day it can.
On a related note, please give that old quote a rest. Sometimes they fight you, and you lie bleeding in a ditch for hours.
Try being a Windows server admin (Score:3, Insightful)
Then there's handling software that doesn't like to live together on the same server.
I'm very far from deluded enough to believe that Linux is perfect, or even particularly good, and the MS systems do have some serious advantages. On the other hand, I think they have as much of a problem with overconfigurability as Linux, just in different ways. With Linux, I feel like I'm forced to do a lot of the OS engineer's job. With windows, I feel trapped as soon as I try to go outside the bounds of the pre-designed capabilities of the system.
Let's call them both broken and pick whichever is least excruciatingly broken for the task at hand.
The strategy may be more insidious than that... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think they should start making Linux applications, providing Linux support, even making thier own distribution or at least a "Windows for Linux" desktop.
Remember when Netscape was the dominant browser and I.E. first came out?. It took a while but eventually I.E. became dominant. They just have a huge financial pool to draw upon. Makes them well suited to corporate "siege warfare".
You want to migrate to Linux, let us make it easy for you. Here is MS Office ported to Linux so you know your old docs will not only work, but be supported by us as well. Worried about migration? No problem, use the Windows for Linux desktop environment.
With their resources, they can shred Linux from the inside and slowly undermine the GPL.
My Favourite Part.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Then also asks what linux can deliver that MS can't. I think the short answer to that would be that linux has a social conscience of infinite magnitude in comparison to the 'black hearted' MS corp.
MS offer plenty of stuff, patent lawsuits after agreements that read something like 'we can steal your patents, but don't touch ours'. Also MS can give you all the security updates you need.. 3 weeks after the internet slows to a crawl with Windows worm traffic.
MS can also give you a hefty priced lock in cycle.
MS's fear seems to come from the fact that you can get equal functionality and better quality from something that is free.(With acknowledgment that alot of users aren't interested in buying new hardware, with that, old hardware does exist.)
Why pay excessive amounts of money to fund a company running it's own agenda? Or using that money to unfairly, and with questionable ethics, nail out competition?
MS don't seem interested in developing a better product+service package that compels users to pay for it, rather they look for each companies funny bone and strike at it with lawyers and/or software contamination.
So combining these business 'values' that MS have(in contrast to social values), it becomes clear to me that users would still run linux even if it ran at a fraction of the speed of MS software. The real world difference, (even in MS funded benchmarking) shows minimal difference between the speed of both platforms. This leaving the user to make an ethical choice. This is why MS miss out on future opportunities from the user bases of companies they've assassinated over the years. Note MS's failure to recognise that when they kill a company, it angers that companies user base(creating them more work plus a costly turn over program), who in return will endeavour to not use MS products.)
Re:"Architecture"!?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, I think you meant to say:
"DDE? OLE? OLE2? COM? COM+? ActiveX? DCOM? SOAP?
Re:Not so easily manipulated (Score:5, Insightful)
You're working on the assumption that he either likes or hates Linux, and thus that he either now or before was compromising himself.
Things aren't black-and-white like that. Presumably he just doesn't care, either way. He used to point out pros of Linux and is now pointing on the cons of Linux. It's what is paid to do, and presumably he doesn't think that his personal opinion on the overall situtation is relevant, and so he is not compromising any personal integrity.
I'm a Linux user and OSS developer. And I can talk for quite a while about what's bad about Linux. I wouldn't do it for a living, but hey - that's because I do care about the issue, and have a sense of integrity.
But just because you care, doesn't mean everyone else does.
Microsoft Is Aiming At The Wrong Target (Score:5, Insightful)
When they almost missed the Internet boat, it was only because of Gates' annual Summer sabbatical (so it is said) which made him realize they were on the brink of being left behind. The 'net, and more specifically, the web, were not quite on the fast track for bringing in the dough. And this is part of what caused Microsoft to wait. They'll either invest heavily in something which they know will make money in the future (and they can lock it down now (or soon); or they'll hop on the bandwagon and start making money now, even if the software quality isn't there. When the "Information Superhighway" was the vogue term, Gates said, "I don't care what the Information Superhighway looks like as long as I have a tollbooth on it." (we know they've wanted more than that for some time: why rule desktops when you can rule the Internet?)
Back to the topic at hand. Microsoft understands money and they know how to fight it and with it. What they don't understand is how to fight something which doesn't show up on their financial slide rule. '$ofties put in massive hours because they think it's cool and they like to do what they do. Open Source people tend to spend a lot of time doing what they like to do. (and make a lot of money, although they're restructuring^killing their stock system, that may change. 8-10 years ago, you could put five years in, cash out, and leave a millionaire. Not any more!) And [not by default], the bug count seems to be much less because there's the issue of oversight of code by anyone who wants to. This doesn't exist at Microsoft and never will.
Microsoft is trying to brainwash itself internally. They need to hire some people who either know & believe in Open Source or some who don't eat, drink, and sleep it, but are young enough they haven't been indoctrinated by Microsoft's corporate culture. I don't think Linux has anything to worry about.
As opposed to? (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, I use both Windows and Linux. There are things I use one for and not the other, because Windows is really good at some things that Linux is not, and vice versa.
You'd THINK that if Microsoft wanted to keep Linux from growing, they'd identify the things that Linux does well and Windows does not, and work on that.
I think they have this idea that Windows is really the best at everything, and people are just using Linux because it's free. Sorry, wrong. I pick my operating systems based on which one does the job the best.
Re:But also don't forget... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not so easily manipulated (Score:3, Insightful)
That campaign wouldn't work if there wasn't a grain of truth to it. You're only kidding yourself if you think things like Sendmail are intuitive to set up without needing to hit the web rather often to figure out the right commands to poke in. In the case of Sendmail, for example, it's a right pain in the ass compared to Exchange to get running.
Linux mail servers. (Score:4, Insightful)
Admittedly, I honestly do love it once it's all set up and running and the pain is gone, you can just forget it's there and it keeps on working, but the process of getting it there is
Given n MTAs, o spam filters, p virus scanners, q IMAP/POP servers, and r webmail systems, how many different combinations do you think is possible - assuming (naievely and oversimplisticly) that you can only have one of each? Just going by the software I know of in each category, I'm counting hundreds of combinations - and that's with a reasonably common set of software. The worst thing is that many of those combinations require totally different ways of hooking everything together - often badly documented ways.
We really need standardised interfaces between the MTA, webmail (OK, so that's mostly there with IMAP + LDAP), IMAP/POP server, and any filters such as virus scanners and spam checkers. At least that way we'd have a massive variety of software to learn how to configure, but wouldn't have to do battle with figuring how the f**k postfix plugged into Cyrus and and mailscanner with spamassassin and clamav (daemon mode).
I don't mind (no, I like) variety, I just wish the variety would learn to read the same configuration for common options, and try to talk the same language where possible.
You don't have to use lawyers (Score:2, Insightful)
And yes, been there, done that, won both times, once against literally a flown in expert lawyer hired by a consortium of rich dudes. I won't go into specifics, I will say it was hard,scary at times, even to the point of getting death threats from people I know had already murdered people in an arson for profit scam, but I started from scratch, got some good free advice and ran with it and kicked boot-tay. The main thing is, you got to KNOW you are in the right, if you are, then it's just procedure, lining your ducks up, and going for it. It's doable, even moreso now that you can use the internet for research. Thousands of people out there are working their own cases now,websites exist for the purpose of helping, the monopoly guild just doesn't like it and would like to make it illegal, but so far it's still *legal* to do so.
Corporate arrogance (Score:2, Insightful)
And what kind of corporate arrogance assumes "because I can" is an insufficient reason for not choosing their products?
Re:Not so easily manipulated (Score:5, Insightful)
While I can't explain the 180 easily, this line here says it all. Is brain surgery easy for a brain surgeon? Somewhat. For me? Impossible. Should brain surgery be easy for me? Only if I want to take the time to be a bain surgeon.
Most people don't. Microsoft claims they can make brain surgery easy, with their "Windows Brain-Surgery-Made-Easy robot", and sure sometimes it works. Those initial incisions, cutting with the bonesaw... and then it slices the cerebrum into ribbons like a maniac. And people say "Gee, I hope when it's my turn to have the tumor removed, it get's it right."
It's nuts. But then maybe this guy realizes that there will be a need for more computers, than there can ever be clueful people to use and maintain them, and this is his justification. Since they're clueless anyway, it doesn't matter... and it's better to be on the winning side.
Re:But also don't forget... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The MSFT shareholders (Score:3, Insightful)
Not even if you get their products for free and then get to keep all the money you make on the sale?
Re:Aha! (Score:3, Insightful)
These are not examples of 'techie jargon'. Tech jargon is limited to words like 'bandwidth', 'optimization', 'standards compliance', and so on-- words that careful programmers use when they talk with each other about making good programs. Buzzwords like 'value proposition' and 'customer sat' are marketdroid crap.
Implying that marketing buzzwords are part of the tech jargon is a kind of 'embrace and extend' that I find loathsome. It pollutes the language.
"It's the smell. If there is such a thing."
Cheap knockoffs (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds eerily like a "cheap knockoff" of Dashboard [nat.org] to me.....
history repeating? (Score:2, Insightful)
Plus, Apple coulnd't compete with "cheap" and Microsoft will loose to "free"...
on a side note:
Ease of use is a very bad argument, it doesn't seem to attract people for a very simple reason, if it's complicated or buggy it gives them a socialy acceptable reason "not to" (finnish a report, complete a homework, do something). The entire IT industry is based around this concept, without bad products ITs wouldn't be that many (conspiracies aside this is still a fact). Apple want to succedd they should start making their OS buggy, virus prone and badly designed, IT's would switch in droves...
Good morning MS (Score:2, Insightful)
Now MS is doing this. It's really interesting to see that they have waited for so long. Most of the linux guys will know about what sucks about a particular subject in MS world. The same must work for MS too, or they can't fight with some memorized words (total cost of ownership, open source not secure, bla bla).
Validating Linux kills Microsoft's revenue stream (Score:1, Insightful)
Of course, anyone with half a brain thinks that already, which is why Microsoft is so damn desperate about Linux (yes, all you MCSE's better start working on your RedHat certs...)
Er... (Score:3, Insightful)
Allow everyone to download and tinker with the sources... ?
Microsoft is legitizing Linux. (Score:2, Insightful)
I mean people that were pro-MS will be pro-MS after this propaganda. And people that were pro-linux will be pro linux after this, too. (except those that get fat paychecks from MS)
What it goes to prove is that Linux is a legitament competator with MS. After all if Linux was a bunch of Loonies then why MS would go thru the trouble of funding dozen or so "independant" studies to prove that MS is superior? Why all this effort?
Wouldn't the superior worth of Microsoft be self evident as businesses that use Linux collapse under the strain of their IT infrastucture, getting replaced and bought out by company after company running Windows?
The fact that MS can't dismiss Linux anymore is proof that Linux has come of age.
After all, Linux is displacing the old Unix strongholds. Places that MS couldn't touch because of the reliability, scalability, and usability of their offerings. People that wouldn't touch W2k and wouldn't trust their data to anything less then the most expensive IBM or Solaris hardware are now turning to "white boxes" running Linux instead of w2k3.
In many people's minds Windows is fine, and it's easy to find cheap workers to support it since everybody and their mom is forced to work with it. But Windows is cheap and it can only take you so far. If you want to play with the big boys you are just going to have to run a real computer OS: Unix and.. er... Linux.
Before Windows was used because it was just plain cheaper. That's why. Unix was nice but expensive.
Now with Linux you can have your cake and eat it too!
And the legions of MS followers chant: "Wayward soldiers marching on! We are cheaper, know the fud!"
MS Stock Price (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmmm, let's see - it's a 300 billion dollar company with a P/E ratio of 36.19. To get to the point where they are bringing home a 10% return on that market cap (the traditional good rate of return), they would have to more than triple their earnings. They already have the entire market in their primary fields, which means they've got nowhere to go but lateral markets. Looking at XBox, MSN, WMA, and the like, it doesn't look like Microsoft is going to be able to pull a Microsoft in any other market.
Frankly, Steve, if I were you I'd be real grateful for the 36.19 P/E. It doesn't look like you deserve it.
They already have.... (Score:1, Insightful)
The major distributors already have agreed on a standard package format. Mandrake, RedHat and SuSE all use RPMs. You did say "major". The rest are "minor" distros. Regardless of what distrowatch claims... these are the three major ones in actual corporate/govt/edu installed production use outside of the hobbiest user base.
Re:Not so easily manipulated (Score:3, Insightful)
You just pointed out the 'truth' of it. (Note: Grain here, grain.) Don't be so quick to deny what I'm saying. There actually is value in making something easy to set up and get running.
Re:The MSFT shareholders (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, you're right - that's why other publically traded companies like Novell, IBM, Red Hat, and many more have all ganged up to eliminate open source.
Oh, wait NOT THEY HAVEN'T.
How will selling Linux services enhance shareholder return on investment?
BY MAKING MONEY
Troll.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not so easily manipulated (Score:1, Insightful)
I have been running postfix for one of the big movie studios and it has been running non-stop for close to three years with the only down-time being a couple of 30 second reboots for kernel upgrades every so many months.
System administration is to be done by professionals. How hard is that for you to understand?
Something smells (Score:2, Insightful)
If Ease of Use Were The Only Criteria (Score:4, Insightful)
The same arguments used against Microsoft's platform are now wielded as a weapon against their enemies. I remember the constant flame-fests between Mac and DOS users and how each of their respective platforms were "the best". Unfortunately for Microsoft, there are still things that are easier to do on a Mac than on WinTel PC - hands down. This is true despite hundreds of millions of dollars of investment by Microsoft.
So the usability argument has proven to be an historically inaccurate guide to whether a particular operating system will gain prevalence.
Microsoft proved it.
Re:Not so easily manipulated (Score:3, Insightful)
Because you are going to have to train those guys for the next version of windows anyway. When longhorn comes out your entire staff will need to be retrained. Why not take that money and time and train them on linux?
Or maybe you can replace them with unix sysadmins as they quit or get fired. Next time your network gets hacked or viruses fire the sysadmin and replace him with a unix sysadmin.
Re:Not so easily manipulated (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not what happened and that is rarely what ever happens. Small companies don't have their own staff. They hire someone to do it for them. If they hire a MS shop to do a Linux job then that is their own stupidity. It has nothing to do with Linux.
Re:Not so easily manipulated (Score:1, Insightful)
It really does seem to work--you're currently at +5. Congratulations!
Re:Not so easily manipulated (Score:5, Insightful)
The real problem with linux is the backend. Linux is missing (or has poorer implementations of) a lot of enterprise-level software that is taken completely for granted in the Microsoft world. Poorer here means that overall, Linux becomes more of a headache to manage than Microsoft, for a wide variety of reasons, but I assure you that lack of understanding of both platforms is not among them.
This is one area where Novell can kick Microsoft right in the junk. Novell has a lot of the enterprise level management software that linux is sorely lacking. What's more, Novell's enterprise architecture has had years (decades!) of wildly stable and successful deployment, it has well understood standards, and there is a large technical user base that understands how to support it. Hooking the myriad linux services into a Novell backend would be easy... not trivial, but certainly no major headache. Not moreso than hooking other open source apps into windows, anyway, and that's the target.
I really hope Novell doesn't go the greedy proprietary route here. If they convert and open-source their entire enterprise management suite, Microsoft is in for butthurt like they have never had before, because one of their biggest advantages will be eliminated instantly. There are many of us who would be only too willing to convert to linux to avoid Microsoft (mainly due to their horrific license agreements and prices), but only that kind of enterprise management on linux can make Microsoft into the lesser of two headaches. Contrary to popular opinion, Microsoft's problems are easy (nearly effortless, in fact) to mitigate if one has a proper understanding of the software and how to manage it.
Once that is done, desktop use will skyrocket, and so will desktop development. Linux is going to own the corporate desktop long before it makes any real dent in the home user market. People will use it at work and then decide they like it, and the IT department can give them a free copy to take home. It'll sound almost too good to be true.
Re:Not so easily manipulated (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow, you think somebody [linux-nis.org] would have come up with a solution [openldap.org] for this by now [samba.org]...
My experience with XP and Fedora (Score:2, Insightful)
*Snort*! Ask vendors like Dell, Micron, Gateway, and IBM if Microsoft was EVER flexible with their licensing policies. No, actually, MS would aggressively PUNISH any vendor who sold alternate operating systems on their hardware by increasing the per-box fee.
Anyway, the FUD from MS is just so much fart gas. My real life practical experience with XP is that if I connect it to the internet, I can't keep viruses off it. I waste more time trying to slap a condom over my system with XP. This OS is leakier than a Saudi terrorist holding cell.
Fedora: I haven't had to delouse it once. I haven't had to reboot or reinstall. It just works.
They lie. Period.
Re:Microsoft Is Aiming At The Wrong Target (Score:3, Insightful)
We are saying to Microsoft et. al. that there "is a place for you at our table," and all they want to do is destroy the culture we have created, even though it would really serve them no purpose.. and in fact, the existance of FOSS creates a healthy ecosystem that allows everybody to prosper.
It must be sad to live one's life so full of fear and hatred. I actually feel sorry for Ballmer, Gates, and anybody else who can't see beyond their own greed.
Re: Their true enemy isn't Open Source either (Score:4, Insightful)
But Microsoft would have to understand Open Source. Not from a marketing point of view, but in their gut, kidney's & toes. And to make a 180 degree turn, they'd have to totally change their company culture, views, and convince their own customers. And that is the hard thing.
So Microsoft's real enemy is the one within: themselves.
Re:The strategy may be more insidious than that... (Score:3, Insightful)
Adding support to Linux while keeping away from the GPl and from contibuting to Linux as a whole will be tricky as well.
Oh My, How Nice (Score:3, Insightful)
For servers it's a different matter. Once, long ago, I was with a company that ran overnight builds from MS client machines with source on an NT server (Pentium 100, 6G IDE, 10Mbit/sec). For a test we put together a Samba server (you don't care about the OS, remember) with (386/25, 4G IDE, 10Mbit/sec) and the builds against it completed in 2/3 the time. Samba is very good.
Linux, or any flavor Unix or look-alike)succeeds in the server market because the server applications tend to do a better job with the added benefit of much lower cost. That's true of file services, print services, database services, and so on. The glaring exception at this point in time is an open-source MS Exchange server killer. Build that and MS seriously loses in the server market.
The ease-of-install argument is not appropriate for servers. Techies (mostly) install servers. For them, open is good, closed is bad, and the gui may get in the way. Install of Linux or whatever Unix is no big deal, maybe easier than MS, with better diagnostic tools to get at problems. Though MS's knowledge base and tools are outstanding, the collective community for open source is arguably better.
Client systems are a kettle of fish of a different color.
Re:Not so easily manipulated (Score:4, Insightful)
What?!!! You have to look at a text file?!! You mean to tell me you actually have to read?!!!
Sounds to me like you actually might have to do a little reading to set up a linux box properly.
As someone who is in the midst of getting his MCSE (however reluctantly) through self study, it seems to me the ones blubbering about Microsoft products being "easier and more intuitive" are probably the same ones who sat in an actual classroom learning how to use it or did a whole lot of reading to get it to work properly (and to get those nifty certifications).
So why then do all the MS techs (including my bosses) all balk at anything that might involve a command line and a different approach to the same tasks?
Frankly I put it down to ignorance born of laziness.
Oh, and to answer anyone who has asked (can't count the number of times) why they should use Linux when Windows is so much easier? Check your wallet. The difference is in there (or if you're using Microsoft, it's not in there).
Ignorance isn't cheap.
Re:Not so easily manipulated (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't do that with Windows. I don't do system administration, and so I'm not supposed to be able to. But I can tell you that none of the Windows shops where I've worked have been able to do that. I'm sure that you can do it, since you use it as an example, but the Windows admins I have known, including at least one competent one, can't or won't.
Compare to a "typical Linux" system. First off, there is no such thing. There isn't a typical Linux server.
Try Solaris, or one of the BSDs, or AIX, or Debian. They're all Unixes, they're all different, but each of them puts stuff where it belongs on that system. Talking about a ``typical linux system'' is like talking about a ``typical car''. Why, on a typical car, you don't even know which end the engine is on! But if you're talking about an early VW, you know it's in the back.
On Unix systems, this is usually done via Xterms. There is no need for a single sign-on to multiple computers, because there is no need for multiple computers. Most things that Windows fanatics claim that the Unixes can't do well are foolish workarounds that Windows forces on them. That is, Unixes don't do them well because they're unnecessary. It's like claiming that having two working legs is bad, because they get in the way when you're in your wheelchair.
You may have shell logins, but they do not correspond with e-mail usernames/passwords.
You say that as if it were a bad thing.
I'm not a sysadmin, but my home computers, and my mother's computer, all run Linux because that's easier than Windows for me to use and maintain.
Brain Surgery (Score:3, Insightful)
Linux has a temporary advantage in the early phases, just as Microsoft did in the early 1980s.
The enthusiastic, the technically adept, the patient, the intelligent people are adopting Linux, using it, showing their prowess by bringing up umpteen zillion servers with fantastic uptimes and remote ssh serviceability over slow intercontinental networks.
Some of that advantage is due to Linux, but some of it, too, must be attributed to the people currently using it.
As the distro makers start encroaching into Microsoft's territory, BrainSurgeryMadeEasy.com, then there will be tougher slogging.
I hope that FOSS programmers are up to the challenge of keeping true to principles of security and technical excellence and we don't start seeing kernel modules and browser plug-ins that sacrifice principles for WhizBang features that marketing advocates.
Dont be suprised that Microsoft is not stupid. (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft may have gotten to where they are though questionable means, but they are not stupid. Far from it. If they were stupid, they would just stick their head in the sand and pretend that Linux was not a competitor worthy of notice.
END COMMUNICATION
Where are you buying your software????????? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't don't where you got you pricing structure, but you ain't buying all those M$ products for LESS the $1000.00. I haven't checked the prices in awhile, but the last time I bought W2K server it was $11280.00 with ONLY 10 client licenses. That was just for the server software. Last I checked MSSQL was around $3200.00 with ONLY 10 client licenses. Lets say you have just 20 people in an office and they all need a connection the to DB well then there is more money invloved. My MySQL DB doesn't care how many connections and it is faster and more reliable. My files server doesn't care how many connections ti has either.
We are a mixed shop here. Both Windows and Linux servers. With the Windows servers getting less and less in here. Yes Linux and most of its is for the most part harder to set up. It takes about 2.5 hours to set up a W2K box. It takes me about 4 hours to set up a RedHat box. This means that I have spent 1.5 hours longer on the set up. now if I pay $1280.00 for W2K and either got Fedora for free or paid (I think) $150.00 for RedHat Enterprize. Haven't I saved money? Maybe took a bit longer. Then comes the license issue? RedHat doesn't care how many clients I have hanging on my server M$ does! Then we have the security issues (Oh yea I forgot my 34 item security check list for basic server configuration on W2K another 2 hours) A basic Rehat Load everything is turned off. Yes it takes longer to turn on what I need, but isn't this easier and better than with MS going and turning OFF everything I DON'T need or even want? Hell somethings you don't want that comes with M$ you CAN"T TURN OFF!
It isn't that I'm a zelot about any system. I am a Systems Engineer I use what works and is reliable, and cost isn't that big of a factor. If I could find a reason to pay M$ prices for a BETTER OS I would. The reason I don't pay and use Linux is that it is better, more reliable, and more secure. If Windows was better I would pay the price and run it. As an engineer what I know is I spend more time working on the M$ boxes that the Linux boxes. This is what my customers look at too. They like to pay me as little as possible. Time sheets don't lie. Some may say "Oh you spend more time on the Windows platform because you don't know it." WRONG!!!! I have work with NT since 3.51. I have that worthless piece of plastic too. I am the first to admit it that yes I do know Linux as well not near the knowledge that I have on Winders. Yes Linux does take me longer sometimes because of my lack of knowledge on it but this isn't the fault of the OS. It is a matter of my training. Once whatever it is to learn is learned it is simple the next time. I don't bloat the time sheet because of my lack of skill and blame it on the OS. Hey we can't know everything, but I can learn.
Yes single signon is "tightly intergrated" into the Windows OS, but it is right there in the Linux CD too! You just have to load it and turn it on! NIS works quiet well
Is Linux read for Joe User? NO! One day it will be.
Not just fanboy optimism (Score:4, Insightful)
A better strategy would, upon any announcement by Microsoft, begin a distributed search for prior art. The SCO suit has been particularly informative regarding how much community participation can be leveraged, and I think such would also be heavily leveraged in a patent suit as well. Perhaps moreso.
Failing that, one might be able to force Microsoft to license patents under antitrust laws. Such licenses would have to be compatible with the GPL.
Either of these strategies could be successful at mitigating any risk of a patent and would seriously weaken Microsoft's general position. Furthermore there is a good chance, I think, that both these strategies could be successful for any given patent.
The final strategy I see that of a distributed patent counterattack where various parties begin to launch patent suits against Microsoft in an attempt to force them to substantially re-engineer Windows and pay damages. IBM could try to nuke Windows, but it woudl be more effective if you have 10 or 20 suits such as Eolas as well.
The final strategy should I think be employed with the re-engineering of the open source software in question to avoid these specific patent restrictions. I personally do not think that there are likely to be defensible patents in Linux that cannot be easily worked around. Samba is a different story of course, but Samba could be replaced in corporate settings using CUPS, OpenLDAP, MIT Kerberos, and OpenAFS.
As a final thought, such a litigation campaign by Microsoft would be very bad for them. It would destroy the reasonable goodwill they still have from many customers as they would probably be suing their customers (not generally recommended) given the ubiquity of Microsoft products. Furthermore the possibility of having the courts overturn patents or force them to license them to open source projects free of charge may indeed cause them many serious problems. I don't think that they will... Yet....
Re:But also don't forget... (Score:4, Insightful)
That has exactly what to do with how large a company is?
If Microsoft wanted to buy IBM it would be possible.
I highly doubt it.
The whole point I was arguing with the parent was that Microsoft cannot just take on IBM and their patents and win. It's not going to happen. IBM has many more patents. IBM has many lawyers. IBM pulls in a lot more money. than Microsoft every year. No matter who is bigger, depending on what statistic you are looking at, they are both very large companies and if they get into a patent war with each other, IBM has the upper hand. This is the total opposite of what the parent was saying.
Re:Microsoft Is Aiming At The Wrong Target (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft has billions because they realized that the low-cost OS would win against others, and so PC-DOS and MS-DOS defeated CPM/86 and UCSD P-System. With the others defeated, Microsoft had their DOS monopoly. They leveraged their DOS monopoly into a Windows Monopoly, and used that to defeat other office apps (123, WordPerfect). And then cement their Office monopoly.
When Linux and OpenOffice change from a thorn to a threat, Microsoft will turn on Open Source with every trick in their book, clean and dirty.
Re:Every trick in the book (and some out of it) (Score:3, Insightful)
Patents are a problem
Yes, they are, but patents are not as effective as a tool for producing customer lock-in as copyrights are. The reason for this is that patents require enablement. With the current state of copyright law, MS sells OS software and nobody knows what it does, so oops, you as a customer find yourself dependent on features that come from only one supplier, hence the customer is tricked into being locked-in. Patented features must be publicly disclosed in an understandable way (called enablement). That makes it harder to trick people. (It also makes SCO-like FUD more difficult, but that's another story.)
Also patents are harder to get than copyrights, so there are fewer of them. That reduces the accumulated weight of feature-dependency lock-in.
Re:Bill Hilf not a "Linux technical leader" (Score:3, Insightful)