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"."
Not so easily manipulated (Score:5, Interesting)
In January Taylor poached one of IBM's former Linux technical leaders, William Hilf, to test 20 versions of open-source software in Redmond. Hilf two years ago was in front of audiences touting the cost effectiveness, reliability and performance of open-source software. Nowadays he's working the Microsoft spiel: "There's no set architecture in Linux. All roads lead to madness," and "the devil is in the details. This stuff is not easy to run."
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.
Another strategy is to fund studies that are purported to be neutral regarding Microsoft vs. Open Source. Once again, from the article:
Microsoft has funded 13 studies over the past year comparing Linux with its own products. Guess what: All of them come out in favor of Microsoft. The studies are generously referenced in an advertising campaign dubbed "Get the Facts." Can Linux really handle crucial areas such as security and e-mail?
Here is a skeptical customer:
"I'm not sure how relevant this stuff is," says PCMS Datafit's Matt S. Scherocman. One Microsoft customer, ADC Chief Information Officer Jamey S. Anderson, agrees: "You don't know who's paying the bills. You can't trust the surveys."
Of course, if all else fails, try an "SCO" and claim property as yours and sue the hell out of everybody:
At a recent gathering of venture capitalists Ballmer went so far as to suggest Microsoft might own intellectual property in Linux and assured the audience that Microsoft would pursue any violation of its own patents. Before he spoke, a fire alarm went off. "It was eerily symbolic," says a venture capitalist in attendance. "We all scattered." Microsoft denies this, and says it will not litigate.
Once again, I don't think corporate IT staff and managment can be so easily manipulated. I believe that the very health growth in Open Source is proof.
Cheers,
Erick
Re:MS should start selling Linux (Score:1, Interesting)
Not in the servermarket against MS, against commercial *nix yes, against MS no.
Not on the desktop, Linux isnt moving anywhere there either...so exactly where is Linux winning aside from in the delusions of the
No set architechture... (Score:2, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Centralized administration (Score:1, Interesting)
I know there are different solutions available for this that does some of it. But I think it needs to be integrated more.
I know that part of running Linux servers are the joy of making scripts to automate thing and most Linux people will quickly answer that "you just make a
From the article (Score:3, Interesting)
- A complete GNU/Linux (henceforth: Linux) distribution provides me with source for free (or at a reasonable cost if you buy cds from the distributor), Microsoft does not.
- Most linux distributions provide multiple choices for window managers/desktop environments, Microsoft gives me explorer (though Litestep and BB4Win are available to download).
- In general, with Linux, I have more choices than I need for many things
Granted, some will argue too much choice is bad for the getting Linux on the desktop. That may be, but Microsoft, specifically Mr. Taylor, asked a question, I provided my answer, which does not necessarily represent the views/opinions of others.If Microsoft can provide a reasonably priced, reasonably secure, distribution/version of Windows that comes with such choices, or if a 3rd party vendor started creating Windows distributions along these lines, I would go with what I felt to be a better value, just as I am right now. And for me, a poor, fresh out of college, person, the better value is Linux.
Desperate (Score:3, Interesting)
Does this sound strange to anyone else:
Or how about this?
It just sounds so petty and even a little childish. Microsoft would do better to take the high road - and steer clear of lowering themselves in some kind of attempt at a smear campaign. It only makes them look weaker than they are.
But also don't forget... (Score:5, Interesting)
*even when said "free" costs you more to achieve than you saved.
SCO has created a lot of negative press, but once eradicated it will turn to positive press "claims found groundless". A lot of huge companies are backing it. And don't pretend MS will be able to use patents at will. They're kinda like nukes - if MS decides to "nuke" IBMs Linux plans, trust me, IBM can "nuke" Windows as well.
Kjella
Re:Soon to be greatest sigg'd quote evar: (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course on Windows, just trying to move an Excel or Word document out of that *&$#^$%& cage they lock them in is enough to induce mouse-smashing insanity within an hour...
Kind of rich after a 250mb patch (Score:4, Interesting)
And it is not like SP2 is doing anything radical, it is just increasing security, so MS'es product was so badly put together that just to add a tiny level of extra security it had to replace so much code and spend so much time.
This can only be the result of extremely bad management and directionless developement of their software.
No this claim by MS shows that somewhere at the top something is really really wrong. They just don't get linux. The weird thing about linux is not that it is by nature that much more secure, I could easily make a linux install that would make Windows 95 look good. I think the real succes behind Linux is that it is not actively trying to stop you from making a secure system.
Plenty on /. talk about how hard linux is to use. They forget that the world has plenty of techies for whom this is merely a challenge.
A formule 1 car is a nightmare to drive and most people with a license wouldn't even be able to complete one lap in it if they even get manage to not stall or crash at the start. That is because the wheels on a normal car are turned slightly in wich causes the car the want to drive straight forward but a race car got them neutral so that it is easier to steer but hell to keep straight.
Linux is harder to drive but once you learned it you are in control, not some marketing weirdo at redmond. That is why I like linux. I can figure it out, I am in control, it is my OS.
MS real enemy is MS. To many people now have a stake in MS being reduced. Who are MS allies? Only those it can buy. Mercenaries are not known for their loyaltie.
Re:Sorry /., but they have a point (Score:1, Interesting)
I think the most interesting thing in this article is that after finally recognizing that Linux even existed in 1998, they're now six years down the road before even trying to understand it from a technology standpoint. I guess they were accustomed to just waiting around while competitors withered from the environment.
A brief suggestion (Score:2, Interesting)
Before you listen to anybody's suggestions (maybe even mine here), get a copy of *nix, throw it on a machine or three and beat them up with some sample data. You *will* be impressed. Look at YOUR costs for microsoft CALs and look at YOUR costs for support. Then look at the performance and do the math for yourself. If you're uneasy with the tempest currently swirling around Linux and/or the GPL then use one of the BSDs.
In any event, do it. Your responsibility to the company, its investors and its customers mandates you do this; whatever your ultimate decision.
Re:Not so easily manipulated (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft has started the largest FUD campaign that I can remember against open source. It is doing all it can to portray Linux as not a real operating system, but the hobby of bunch of loony hippies.
I guess the fact that the focus of the campaign appears to be foreign governments and businesses means that it has stayed largely below the radar of US journalists and Free Software advocates in the US.
They are taking page-size ads in the most recognized newspapers in Argentina, Brazil, Spain, and Mexico (those are the ones that I know about directly, but I am told that the campaign is global) and they are displaying the stories of people who allegedly tried to switch to Linux and came back running to the safe arms of Microsoft mamma.
And the stories are all very similar. For instance, in Argentina, they used Grimaldi, a shoe manufacturer as the example. When you dig into the story, you discover that the company that was supposed to carry out Grimaldi's migration to Linux is a Windows certified partner and a windows-only shop. The idiots could not get sendmail or postfix up-and-running and thus claim that it doesn't work. They then told Grimaldi, surprise, surprise, not to bother with Linux because it just doesn't work.
The Free Software and open source communities need to have a global response to this last smear campaign, lest we allow others to define how Linux truly works. I can't tell you how many Windows techs I encounter who are convinced that there are no GUIs or IM clients for Linux or that it is impossible to watch multimedia content on a Linux box.
In summary, Microsoft has been paying some big names to use them as poster children of their "Linux is too messy and difficult adn thus expensive campaign". We need to create a site where we exposed Microsoft lies and we need to do it soon. Anybody can get a plone site up and running that we can use to debunk these myths?
A little know your enemy would be good for OSS (Score:5, Interesting)
A lot of work on Syllable would go a long way toward hurting Longhorn. If enough Linux guys would get involved with the underpinnings so that Vanders and the rest of the team could take a break to work on the GUI system, it'd be a damn good OSS desktop by the time Longhorn gets here. As it stands right now, their labor is too divided to get its hardware support good enough to boot on many systems. Come on people, it'd be a quick investment of time that'd pay large dividends later.
The only way for MS to 'win' ... (Score:2, Interesting)
It makes no sense for Microsoft to 'resist' Linux at all. Microsoft are just as capable of doing a kernel.tar.gz and stage1.tar.gz style release as anyone else. Why don't they just do it?
If there were a "Microsoft Linux", then Novell wouldn't stand a chance. Any existing MS-only shop looking to upgrade to Linux would definitely consider an "MS Linux" package over any other option, at least at first.
Seems to me, this article, and a few of the other ones recently from Microsoft on the subject of "Linux", is all a big prep-job to open the doors for a Microsoft-sourced Linux distro.
It could happen. I'd like to see it happen, personally. It'd be good to give people like these guys [rocklinux.org], and heck, even these guys [openembedded.org] a bit of competition from Microsoft
All roads lead to madness!!! (Score:3, Interesting)
I've got to say though, there is a sort of Mickey Thomson sense of fun and accomplishment on these roads to madness. Like taking a trophy truck across dusty unpredictable roads with many obstacles.
And don't get me wrong Windows is it's own road to madness. But it is for the most part large boring paved highway with no exits (just offramps that say "no exit"), and you are travelling in a very large Buick that seems to only go straight ahead. And while the road seems solid enough the bridges are rickety at every upgrade and fellow drivers seem to pull over randomly to restart their cars all the time.
How many quit reading after... (Score:5, Interesting)
So, how many of you read an article until they quote some person as an authority (could be Laura or anyone else) that you feel lacks any credibility, and then stop reading any further? I'm curious.
I was reading something the other day, when someone was quoted spouting some nonesense that I firmly believe is untrue, and then they referred to the name and the "group" she represents. It seems she gets quoted a lot, especially anything remotely anti-Linux related. I would rather read an author's opinions than have that "group's" opinions quoted as facts. Articles carry more credibility with me when the author stands up him or herself, and doesn't resort to pointing fingers, "see, she said it".
Real world strategy (Score:3, Interesting)
They simply can't grow their PC based business any longer and users are less likely to want to cough up hundreds of dollars for Office and Windows.
Their problem is they've been so focussed on boring office applications for so long that they're not exactly that good at other market areas. Buying other companies is the quickest way to gain expertise but when you look at the purchases they have made, they have hardly captitalised on their gains.
Linux and XP --- My upclose observations (Score:5, Interesting)
In my opinion, Windows XP is a DISORGANIZED MESS! The XP software process works like this.... image a three sided hand-grendade. On one side you have DLL's, on another side you have Registry entries, and on another side you have executables and datafiles. Pull the pin and that is basic method of windows software installation. Also, there is no standard way to install software and people use everything from custom Java installers, Microsoft Installer, Install Shield which makes creating SILENT installations lots of fun. To get an MSCE you should have to package 20 different applications all using different installers to do silent installs under XP. If you still have your sanity at the end, you get the MSCE.
What if something doesn't work? What if the installer fails? What if you have a piece of software that no one can locate the media for, how can you move it from one XP box to another? What if you have old software the requires a CUSTOM environment that conflicts with newer software?
I imagine XP is a great product if you stick to using all brand new Microsoft products and don't try to run your business with older applications from 3rd parties.
Moving on to security.. policies are an overly complex joke. Anyone with even moderate technical skill and intelligence can defeat domain or group policies.
Now let's take UNIX/Linux. It definately has some sharp edges especially if you are trying to run with new or non-standard hardware. However, Linux has some great strengths...
1. I know what package installed what file. (rpm -qf
2. I can move applications EASILY from one system to another without going through the install process.
3. I can backup and restore a Linux/UNIX box from a centralized tape backup system MUCH easier than a Windows server with custom RAID. You haven't experienced IT to the fullest until you tried to recover an older server class Windows NT/2000 box.
4. I can run multiple version of the SAME software by creating custom environments. Trying installing two versions of an application like MS Office on the same Windows XP. The later install typically uninstalls the previous install. Running it under VMWARE doesn't count.
5. Remote adminstration can be done EASILY from the command line under Linux. In XP I've installed Cygwin SSH on XP and have written some VBS scripts. Windows is definately catching up in the area of remote administration, but is still hard to use and books are scarce.
6. Patching for security flaws is a breeze under Linux/UNIX. With Microsoft, install a SUS server and maybe, just maybe if the planets align the patch will saunter down to the PC. I had to write some scripts to slam patches in and reboot. Seems like every critical patch requires a reboot. 7. Figuring out what's going on under Linux/UNIX is pretty simple. You can clearly see what launches applications, what files they have open, what resources they are using etc
I've been using both Linux/XP Servers and Linux/XP Desktops. Handsdown, I prefer running Linux servers over XP or 2003. If I must run XP or 2003 servers, I feel it's best to stick them into VMWARE ESX or GSX so that they are neatly contained and can be easily recovered, moved, and backed up. I know you take a slight performance hit, but the ability to manage the server and keep it up far outweighs it.
For the desktop I prefer Knoppix and a thumbdrive.
WinXP SP2: Fifty-five percent is being replaced. (Score:3, Interesting)
The i386 folder on the Windows XP SP1 Corporate CD is 504,563,416 bytes. Windows XP SP2 is 278,927,592 bytes. Fifty-five percent is being replaced.
Re:Not so easily manipulated (Score:5, Interesting)
You failed to read my comments closely. I expect a company to hire qualified Linux professionals if they intend to deploy Linux, not the first monkey that walks through the door and certainly I wouldn't hire a Microsoft-shop to do a Linux job.
There is no truth to the campaign, period. What your response tells me is that there are a bunch of fearful Microsoft techs that are spreading vile about Linux because they don't want to take a few hours a week to do a little retraining. Their loss.
Too blind to notice Unix architecture (Score:4, Interesting)
The article is full of meaningless statements about Linux, words used for effect and without any attempt at reason or logic. The poetic "All roads lead to madness" really highlights how they've pretty much abandoned technical arguments and are now invoking defensive political rhetoric.
That statement is pretty funny though when you think about it. Linux and the BSDs all have the architecture of Unix, and that's by far the most elegant and powerful O/S architecture available outside of academia at the present time. The fact that they can say something as laughable as "no set architecture in Linux" just shows how divorced from reality they really are.
Re:How many quit reading after... (Score:5, Interesting)
Bill Hilf not a "Linux technical leader" (Score:5, Interesting)
However, his name doesn't seem to appear in either the apache httpd or mod-perl credits file, and I can't dig up any evidence of him having participated in any other mailing list. He's never posted to the kernel mailing list, the perl mailing lists (on the basis that somebody using mod-perl might also be interested in Perl more generally), or anything much else.
I don't know what the guy was up to at IBM, but to describe him as a technical leader of the Linux community would appear to be a considerable exaggeration. Somebody who actively adopted Linux for business use, perhaps, but he's hardly Robinson Crusoe there.
largely below the radar of US journalists (Score:4, Interesting)
It's funny, laugh! (Score:5, Interesting)
From the article:
Linux at some point could be good enough to run home PCs.
Yes, but he forgets that Linux could be ready for the home PC as early as 1998. What will Microsoft do then?
No, we're not just a little biased, are we? I've been running RedHat on my home machine since 1998. I've had non-computer-genius friends and family running Linux on their desktops since 1999. If this guy had a brain, he'd be dangerous...
Can Linux really handle crucial areas such as security and e-mail? The Microsoft people are ready with answers...
And those answers would be... "install this patch and reboot..."? Can Linux handle email and security? I mean, really?! Gosh, I just don't know... Of course, to Microsofties, one Linux hole per year makes the OS insecure, but 100 security vulnerabilities a month make Windows "The choice for reliability throughout the enterprise..." As if MS even understood the term "Enterprise computing".
"I just want the decision to be based on facts, not religion," says Taylor. "People are saying, 'It's not Microsoft, so it must be great.'
No, actually, you don't want a decision ... based on facts... - because it wouldn't be favorably to Microsoft. People are looking to leave Microsoft for Linux because of the facts, not in spite of them:
Allchin points to new features in the version of Windows due in 2007 that will allow users to remotely turn PCs on or off, with programs still running. Searches will extend across all data like e-mail, photos, Word. "We're creating things," he says.
I turn off my machine with programs still running all the time - it's called FreeDOS. But yes, you are creating things - more security vulnerabilities. Why on earth would a home user want to power off their machine from a remote location? What - in your hurry to get out the door you forgot to shut down the computer, and at work you now have the sudden urge to turn it off?
Tell us what Linux does that we can't do. Don't tell us you're deploying Linux just because you can."
Linux can be installed without any risk of violating licensing provisions and incurring unseen financial liability on my employer. But also, the number one reason why I deploy Linux:
- Microsoft doesn't understand Enterprise Computing.
I could go on for hours on this, but I'll spare you. Suffice to say, Microsoft can't build a secure or stable Windows because they lack the mindset to do so.Re:Linux and XP --- My upclose observations (Score:5, Interesting)
> 1. I know what package installed what file. (rpm -qf
Yeah, on one Linux install. On another one it might be dpkg -l. On another one it might be some portage thing with unknown arguments. And what about locally compiled packages?
> 2. I can move applications EASILY from one system to another without going through the install process.
A man who has obviously never been through
> 3. I can backup and restore a Linux/UNIX box from a centralized tape backup system MUCH easier than a Windows server with custom RAID. You haven't experienced IT to the fullest until you tried to recover an older server class Windows NT/2000 box.
Okay, so you can use tar better on Unicies. Point taken.
> 5. Remote adminstration can be done EASILY from the command line under Linux. In XP I've installed Cygwin SSH on XP and have written some VBS scripts. Windows is definately catching up in the area of remote administration, but is still hard to use and books are scarce.
Okay, so remote admin is improving, we can agree on that one.
> 6. Patching for security flaws is a breeze under Linux/UNIX. With Microsoft, install a SUS server and maybe, just maybe if the planets align the patch will saunter down to the PC. I had to write some scripts to slam patches in and reboot. Seems like every critical patch requires a reboot.
What about a kernel vulnerability? Last time I looked you still got to reboot a linux kernel. I agree that segmentation of applications is better on unix, but don't kid yourself; security patching linux requires a lot more effort. And to compare apples with apples here, you're talking about supplying a security patch to a bunch of linux boxes? That's at least as hard as deploying a windows security patch and, in a mixed linux distribution environment, an order of magnitude harder.
> 7. Figuring out what's going on under Linux/UNIX is pretty simple. You can clearly see what launches applications, what files they have open, what resources they are using etc
Yeah, right. cat
Anyway, just correcting a few biases there....
Re:But also don't forget... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not so easily manipulated (Score:3, Interesting)
If that is your grain of truth, then consider this:
ANYONE can decide to write a setup program for Sendmail. Full availability of the source makes that possible.
Let's say you want to set up a Microsoft application. If the setup program is buggy or doesn't properly handle your requirements, tough luck. You get to be ignored when you ask Microsoft to fix it because you're not a "big" enough client.
What are your options?
You don't have any because Microsoft decided not to give you any.
So if the state of the setup tools is the cornerstone of your argument, I can only say - watch the future; Microsoft will progressively restrict what and where you can install, leaving you and your requirements in the cold as Linux continues to grow and embrace EVERY computing platform and possibility on the globe.
It's already over, but the Microsoft-zombie will fight on until someone proverbially shoots it in the head.
A thick seam of comedy here... (Score:3, Interesting)
pffffffffffft........... One word. Windows?
"Allchin points to new features in the version of Windows due in 2007 that will allow users to remotely turn PCs on or off, with programs still running"
Blaster!
"In some number of years my job shouldn't exist"
Well yes, we can hope. Probably not with the same outcome you're talking about though
Remember Netscape (Score:3, Interesting)
This particular competitive conflict might be different in that we're talking not about an application, but a platform. Microsoft eliminated the previously mentioned examples by coming out with their own alternative apps, which they made attractive to businesses and leveraged with the Office suite, or integrated into the OS.
In the case of Linux, they've already got an alternative (Windows 2000 Server, Windows Server 2003). It's not doing too bad either - the problem for Microsoft seems not to be lost business to Linux (though there is some), but rather that they cannot consume and obliterate the *nix market. The continuation of a real, viable alternative stands in the way of their maximizing the profit potential of related applications, such as Exchange, Biztalk, Sharepoint, SQL Server, etc.
In short,the analogy I see is that the don't just want the printer market, the want the cable, toner, and paper markets as well. Linux interferes stands in the way of that goal.
I switched from FreeBSD to Windows XP (Score:4, Interesting)
This was my experience, too! I ran Linux in the early days, and stopped because I couldn't get the performance I needed for high-end network tasks.
Then I went to FreeBSD. I was pretty satisfied (there's a standard distribution, and the networking code is a lot better), but there wasn't enough desktop support.
When Windows XP came out, I discovered I could run nearly all of the Unix stuff I used to with cygwin, and that the Windows API had everything I needed. I really like the way Windows Update works (no kidding!); it's much easire than applying patches and recompiling. And, of course, there are tons of applications available.
But what really did it for me was the .NET architecture. Microsoft's C# and .NET, combined with Visual Studio are by far the best programming environment I've ever used.
In the 23 years since I graduated from college with a CS/Math degree, I've programmed in just about everything.(And, yes, I've programmed on NexTStep and Mac OS-X with that cruddy Objective-C and crashy development environment). And NOTHING beats C#/.NET for general application programming.
Linux isn't even in the running!
Re:Not so easily manipulated (Score:3, Interesting)
They hired the wrong people and got the wrong results.
"Innovation" (Score:1, Interesting)
http://www.apple.com/macosx/tiger/spotlight.htm
Tiger due this year. Microsoft due 2007. I hate you, Microsoft.
Amusing! (Score:5, Interesting)
You have got to love MSNBC's wording !
Nick
Re:But also don't forget... (Score:5, Interesting)
I tend to agree with microsoft (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Microsoft Is Aiming At The Wrong Target (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem is: Linux isn't their enemy
The situation uncannily reminds me of Apple in the early 90's. They were so fixated on competing with IBM that they never saw the real enemy was Microsoft.
The way things are going, MS could end up like the GE small appliance business. When Jack Welch was asked why he was selling the business even though GE toasters & irons had dominant market share, and thereby seeming to violate his rules of when to buy/sell a business, he answered that market dominance isn't worth anything if you don't get control. The business didn't have any ability to introduce new, more featureful products at higher margins; they were stuck competing on price like everyone else. In a like fashion Microsoft could end up maintaining dominant marketshare, but with Wine facilitating migration from their OS and open-source solutions running on top of their OS, they may wind up unable drive sales of any new profitable producs.
Re:But also don't forget... (Score:1, Interesting)
Head counts:
Microsoft 57,086
IBM 319,273 Net Income:
Microsoft US$8.17 billion
IBM US$7.583 billion Revenue:
Microsoft $8.065 billion
IBM $89.131 billion
Looks like IBM is "bigger" in some areas. IBM employs a lot more people and generates quite a bit of revenue compared to Microsoft.
Life guard off duty - Stay out of the shallow end of the gene pool.
Re:Microsoft Is Aiming At The Wrong Target (Score:0, Interesting)
I go home and roll in money, bang my beautiful wife, and then buy and sell small countries... What do you do when you go home? Greed may be bad, but it certainly is one of those character flaws that pay off.
Re:Not so easily manipulated (Score:3, Interesting)
But I have read in a computer-related website (I am not sure, but I think it was IDG) a frustrated Windows-to-Linux migration story of a small company. The story has simillar points with this one: as a Windows-only shop, they did not had Linux expertise inhouse and had to contract outside consultants. But latter the owner pulled back and returned to Windows claiming "Everybody knows how to operate a Windows server, but Linux experts are hard to find".
The whole story seemed like a big press release feed to the journalist by the Microsoft reseller that made the Linux-to-Windows migration or by Microsoft itself.
Re:Let's not degenerate into a political discussio (Score:1, Interesting)
As for supporting troops, George Numb-Nuts has retrograded every pay increase, benefit increase, and US military support function there is. These fucks wouldn't even increase the death benefits to families of US troops killed in combat from a lousy 6K to a lousy 12K.
Not to mention getting a thousand of them killed in Iraq for NOTHING - and threatening to send them to North Korea where FIFTY THOUSAND of them will get killed for NOTHING.
Not that Kerry plans to do any better, I agree. So I suppose in that sense you're correct.
Amazing article (Score:3, Interesting)
This article was not a comparison of Linux versus Windows. It was just an insight into the mind of a Windows salesman from the heart of Microsoft. The guy cries for Microsoft ads on TV.
My favorite quote was where they asked what Linux could do that Microsoft couldnt. Another good quote was where he high-fived everyone when Novell bought SuSE. A few comments:
Linux can do things Microsoft cant. Try configuring the Linux kernel's networking part, and try the same on Windows2000 Server. Compare VPN solutions. Last but not least, check out the drivers in Linux. My Arcnet (ancient pre-ethernet) cards worked well on Linux, had issues on Windows. Next check out the security options in Linux. Enough said.
Novell did lose to Microsoft, but even in the Windows95 days we were installing Netware 4.x clients on Windows to keep them working with the Netware servers. Look at all Ethernet drivers, they still have Novell parts in them. Novell pretty much gave birth to consumer networking as we know it, Microsoft didnt. Novell just made a few bad mistakes along the way, and learned lessons. However it now has a piece of Linux. Just one distro.. a good one mind you. Kill Novell and RedHat, Linux will still be getting patches from various groups around. Someone else will getup and start some company to provide support.
Theres a great push for Linux everywhere. I dont think Taylor has realized that yet. We run 6 Windows servers at work, and all the IT people we've had, the president and vice president all have shown interest in moving everything to Linux. Our ERP system, and lotus notes are both Windows-only, which is whats holding us back. Notes is IBM, so we are expecting good Linux clients, and the ERP software has a few beta parts made in wxwindows for Linux/X11 already. Engineering runs Autocad, I expect that to run on Linux in a few years too. If not, we will move to a CAD system that will.
So while Microsoft has more than 90% of the market share, 90% of their sysadmins are looking for reasons and ways to get to Linux. That means 90% of the market has already been SOLD, but there are obstacles that will almost certainly go away. I'd be cashing my MS stocks if I were Taylor.
Its amazing theyre running 50 servers testing Linux, and certifying salesreps on it. Hotmail must be running on one of those servers. How does it feel to work at a company with good pay selling bad products. How can you face customers asking you about the superiority of Linux you tested in your labs, and lie to their faces? Hard to have any pride in your work. Hard to have passion in technology if youre supposed to hate free software.
For this reason I think selling Windows costs Microsoft much more than selling Linux. Anyone skeptical of Linux imagines it as a collection of companies or a text-based UNIX copycat. "Linux" in these articles increasingly means Linux + GNU software + other sourceforce software / *BSD. They can damage the Linux kernel group, but its free and someone else will pick up the pieces and continue. They will have to go after every single group of GNU and the sourceforge collection. What can you do to a kid in a basement using free compilers on his own computers making programs and giving it away for free? Buy him out? Or get more of your $80,000 per year 40 hours per week programmers to do a better job than a million eyeballs? Linux is here to stay, and in my opinion will be around 10 years from now, 50 and 100 years. Free software like samba, gaim, winex, firefox, thunderbird, will be able to cover Microsofts functionality in days of the release of the software, and improve upon it by leaps and bounds. Its a different beast than good ol Novell.
Every trick in the book (and some out of it) (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft have never had to fight a competitor like FOSS before, which metaphorically plays its poker with all of their cards face-up on the table and wins anyway. Having half of the cards in play faced up makes it very difficult to cheat in the traditional ways, and the elimination of half of the bluff radically alters the game.
The other terrifying aspect is that in order to play poker at this table, Microsoft needs to face not one or two other players, but countless thousands. Their pin-striped suit and expensive jewelry isn't impressing the other players as much as it ought to, and it's hard to keep track of all of those other hands despite their all being faced up.
There are a few "enemy concentrations" which they can focus on and kind of play against as a collective, like Samba (they've been seriously down about the mouth on Samba for the last year or two), Linux (the FOSS poster child) and OpenOffice ("they wrote what?!"), which between them attack most of the profit avenues represented by the two cash cows, MS-Windows and MS-Office.
However, MS had kind of saturated those two markets, and needs to break into new markets - and guess what? Wherever they turn, FOSS is already there. So Microsoft have turned to peripheral areas, hardware and patents and social/political stuff that's difficult for FOSS to directly compete on.
Hardware is not much of a problem for FOSS, Microsoft has conventional competitors there to keep them in line as long as they can't leverage a Palladium-like monopoly.
Patents are a problem, but I think the whole patent arena is sliding out from under the cover of being merely sublime, and even conservative lawmakers are going to have to take notice of that soon.
This leaves the more nebulous area of social/political manipulation. Traditionally, Microsoft has used its massive presence, advertising and schmoozing budgets to leverage its core markets, together with the implied access to a lot more back doors (and we're not talking BackOrifice here). If they find a more direct way to turn all of that power into a cash-flow, the world is in trouble.
Good old "oops, we forgot to renew the domain - and the other domain" Passport is gradually jamming a foot into that kind of door, in the same way as constantly waving MSIE and MSN in people's faces has saved those items from the total obscurity they deserve. Watch out for Microsoft jamming levers in elsewhere.
Nevertheless, the FOSS community in general refuses to take Microsoft as seriously as MS'd like, and they often react in unpredictable was and predictable ways at the same time, which must cause endless ulcers in Redmond because they can never be sure that the predictable responses from the FOSS crowd aren't masking the launch of unpredictable responses (such as handing out FOSS CDs at Microsoft conventions, a tactic which Microsoft seems to be reciprocating by flooding FOSS_friendly websites with their ads).
</ramble>
Re: Their true enemy isn't Open Source either (Score:3, Interesting)
They don't even need to go OSS.
Buy out the SCO nightmare, spend some of that cash reserve, and have the existing Windows kernel engineers turn the SVR code into something that scales and performs.
Don't try and cobble the Windows APIs on the kernel -- stick with Windows.net and other "clean" APIs. Let the crud die -- no more untyped pointers, multifunction entry points, etc. Those are the crux of the Windows security problem, and the only way to clean it up is get rid of those APIs.
Port DX if you insist, but leave it a Ring 1 or outer service.
Microsoft has a lot of good UI work in Windows that can easily be carried over via the Windows.net or whatever proper class-based APIs they've been working on for Longhorn.
But it's time to stop pretending Windows is "secure". It's not. Hundreds of thousands of regular infections costing literal millions of dollars in lost staff time, tech time, restore time, and overtime to catch up from the latest Windows security breach for hundreds of corporations is too much to expect society to tolerate.
99% of the data center servers in North America run a full or close to full POSIX stack that handles real-time pthreads, system resources, etc. Coupled with ANSI C/C++ it's the standard for data center systems. Even AS400, OpenVMS, and mainframes can deal with POSIX.
It's time for Microsoft to face up to the fact that they lost the war. Windows will not be running corporate infrastructures, and until Microsoft accepts that they will be forever relegated to the "security jail" of firewalled desktops and departmental servers.
Microsoft could just as easily do it with OSS, such as a Linux kernel.
Microsoft's biggest enemy is Microsoft and their asinine refusal to support industry programming standards beyond the minimal level required to slap a sticker on their box and claim compliance for government project bids. It's Microsoft that refuses to abandon a security nightmare of spaghetti code, even though they can't maintain it properly any more and have to keep pushing back service packs farther and farther while they try to get it re-stabilized for shipment.
Bad for industry, bad for Microsoft, bad for everyone. Let the Windows kernel die already.