Microsoft Continues Anti-OSS Strategy 857
MacDaffy writes "Microsoft's General Manager of Platform Strategy, Michael Taylor, continues Microsoft's press blitz against Open Source in general and Linux in particular in a CNET Interview. He says of Linux: 'You can build it, design it, and it will work great. The trouble begins when you want to add things to it...(due to) the brittle nature of the platform, when you do that, other things break.'"
Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
*yawn* (Score:3, Insightful)
Like that never happened with Windows... If I remember well, adding SP2 to Windows XP breaks compatibility with certain software. And that's just the latest example.
Note to Microsoft: you have tried FUD in the past, it did not work. Not goona work this time either.
This isn't news! (Score:5, Insightful)
How is this news? It would be news if they stopped.
I kind of agree (Score:3, Insightful)
What distro is he using? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's as if Microsoft made their own distro, coaxed it with unstable software from 5 years ago, give it no package managemnet, and say "this is all Linux is!". Ugh, it's enough to drive a sane man crazy.
Microsoft don't need to spread FUD about OSS (Score:3, Insightful)
I know they did recently -- article here [builderau.com.au] focusing on their "theft" of Daniel Robbins, the former chief architect of Gentoo Linux.
They claim to be wanting to learn more about Open Source when they try and justify hiring guys who are just getting by financially but are huge braintrusts of the Linux movement. Basically they offer these guys 6 figure salaries to work behind closed doors in Redmond and never release anything of value to OSS ever again.
Many of them being family guys, they cannot turn these offers down due to finances. Kids are expensive, wives are expensive, SUVs are pricy, gas is pricy, taxes, computer hardware, and on and on.
I don't blame them but I think it's a dirty trick by Microsoft. I love OSS and use it at home at work and on project I create. We need to keep our talent.
Shame on you MS.
WTH are they talking about? (Score:4, Insightful)
Just how many coders outside Microsoft have added parts to the windows kernel?, now think how many coders contribute to Linux, How many plugins are there for MSN, and how many for Gaim?, The list just goes on and on
Re:Hmmm (Score:3, Insightful)
s/Linux/Windows (Score:2, Insightful)
DLL hell?
Duelling versions of the Exchange client?
only now, at the end, does s/w installation and removal not completely suck, XPs installer is decent, although sketchy programs dont always go cleanly.
Hey, I added a video camera? Oh wait, I have to put the registry into "display nonconnected devices mode" reboot, hand delete some stuff, and then reboot, with the camera disconnected, then connect it, THEN add the drivers! Welcome to Microsoft.
Linux vs Windows (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, I agree with his sentiment. He's bang on. There's nothing Linux does that Windows can't do, certaintly if you're willing to invest the time and effort to produce a solution.
But the opposite is also true. There's nothing Windows does that Linux can't do either.
So the "battle" comes down to other issues, not simply what each OS can or can't do. Those issues are things like cost, trust, support, availability.. And those are when open source really starts to win. Microsoft is a corporate behemoth. Making decisions in a company that size takes real time.. months, if not years. Things have to be discussed, agreed, signed off, checked, signed off again. Compare that to the open source world where someone sees an issue, writes a patch, submits it to the dev tree, and it's in if the maintainer likes it, maybe with a handful of emails bounced around a mailing list, and open source starts to get a real, tangible business advantage over Microsoft.
So yeah, I'd agree with Taylor's analysis that Windows is just as capable as Linux on the CPU.. But if he thinks that's where Linux's fighting ground ends, he's dead wrong.
Re:And Windows never breaks, right? (Score:5, Insightful)
Each of which needs its own software licenses. Cha-ching! As long as you can pull it off, it's a heck of a revenue generating business model!
The messsage is changing (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft's message has changed over the last while. Once it was "Linux is no good", now it's "Linux is good, but we're still better".
I think they're making a strategic mistake by admitting that Linux has any credibility at all. Publicly recognizing the competition is not a good decision because it makes people realize that there are alternatives.
Looks like this guy did not go to the Blue Hat eve (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed, who needs smart cards, VPN, or security in general. Just send everything over HTTP. This kinda puts in perspective the previous story about the changes in Microsoft's attitude towards security.
Re:And Windows never breaks, right? (Score:4, Insightful)
Either we're to trust them because they're a commercial business, in which case their code should already be tested and work without hassle, or they're "no better" than OSS in this regard.
Re:So.... (Score:5, Insightful)
"people didn't really understand buffer overruns and port 80 and I/O issues 10 years ago."
That's the part that caught my attention. Is he seriously suggesting that 10 years ago no one had ever heard of a buffer overrun? That no one had heard of network security in 1995? Maybe they should have thought of that BEFORE they forcibly tied a Browser into their Flagship product.
-theGreater.
The rules of power (Score:5, Insightful)
People with brains will realize what is propaganda and check Linux out on their own. Thanks to MS.
Re:In other news (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact, I thought I read that a lot of programs leave registry entries for a number of reasons - like to stem piracy in case you install a wares version, or to ease a reinstall since many programs don't assume you want to get rid of them permanently.
So, I put the question to the experts? Who's at fault for the most part when the registry becomes clogged with stales entries? Should Windows assume that this is the case and actively update the registry itself?
Surely not. (Score:5, Insightful)
Many of them being family guys, they cannot turn these offers down due to finances. Kids are expensive, wives are expensive, SUVs are pricy, gas is pricy, taxes, computer hardware, and on and on.
So there aren't any other IT companies that are neutral or pro-Open source left in the world that he could have worked for, that would have paid a decent salary ? Have IBM gone out of business, and I don't know about it ?
Your statement almost implies that there are no employers left in any field at all, other than Microsoft, that are paying a living wage. Do I need to point out how unrealistic that implication is ?
The shame is Daniel's, not Microsoft's. Microsoft found somebody with the skills and experience they wanted, and who was willing to work for them. It was Daniel's choice, and he decided to sell out, probably for the money.
PS. Don't need an SUV. If they are costing too much in fuel, get a smaller car, such as a normal sized sedan ....
Re:*yawn* (Score:1, Insightful)
They still seem to be doing pretty well for themselves...
Re:I kind of agree (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe Debian is brittle -- I highly doubt it -- but when I want to add something to my SuSE box that isn't pre-packaged, it's perhaps more difficult than popping open YaST and clicking around, but I haven't had the experiences you have. I rather prefer to roll my own copies of a lot of big software -- Apache, MySQL, PHP, Samba, and others come readily to mind. Usually, I find that it goes very well. I honestly can't recall the last time it took me anywhere near an hour to compile and install anything on Linux.
Ironically -- although this might be what Taylor is talking about -- I *do* find that I have difficulty installing proprietary software on Linux. Although it tries to hold your hand more, it frequently fails to Do The Right Thing, IMHO.
Furthermore, even if Andrew's experience is more typical than mine, it doesn't mean that Taylor was right. Taylor's claiming that installing non-prepackaged software breaks *other* stuff; that's patently false. A difficult system (what Andrew is claiming Linux can be) is very very different from a brittle system (what Taylor is claiming it is). Solaris is, IMHO, a very difficult system to install stuff on -- at least, stuff that's not prepackaged from Sun or SunFreware. Some of the other Unixes, like AIX and Tru64, are even more so. That doesn't make them brittle.
A brittle system is one where, say, installing a service pack breaks compatibility with many network services and programs. But, as many other posters have pointed out, that is much more descriptive of certain OS's whose names begin with a "w" and end with an "indows."
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Either clueless or lying - I suspect the latter (Score:5, Insightful)
And what is open source? It is interesting in how you define it. Is it in terms of source visibility? Then, OK, in Microsoft's Shared Source program, people can access up to 65 percent of source codes for our core products. And through the government security program around the world, governments can access even more of our source codes, if they choose to. So we're not an open-source company, and yet people can do that.
Hey Martin, here's [opensource.org] the definition of Open Source. Notice in the first paragraph it says Open Source doesn't just mean access to the source code. I doubt if you'd like it if people went around redefining your company's EULAs to suit themselves.
Or does it mean that you have technology licensed under the GPL (GNU Public License)? If that's the only definition, then I see a lot of companies that people call open source but aren't, because they're not licensed under the GPL.
No it isn't the only definition so your answer is irrelevant. The GPL may qualify as Open Source but it is Free Software - big difference. Don't you even know the difference?
Taylor: The GPL is a very complex licensing agreement, and they are working on different aspects of it.
It's an incredibly simple licensing agreement actually. Complex for Microsoft to understand perhaps, but simple for anyone else.
I don't know enough to even hypothesize how I would author it, but I would say that in any approach to licensing technology, the following things are important.
First, companies need to have some level of indemnification and protection from the technology deployed. When you license technology as a consumer or business, you should be comfortable that you're protected from patent (or) copyright...claims from anyone. That should be a core fundamental principle of licensing software.
Well, thanks for leading the way there. I'm so glad I'm indemnified when I use Microsoft software. Oh wait, I'm not?
Second, people should have the ability to monetize that and build on top of it. So if I'm an ISV (independent software vendor), I should be able to take the technology that I've licensed, build something on top of it, and sell it.
I do that with GPLed software now and have done for years. So have many other people.
If I'm a reseller or distributor of this technology, I should have a way that I can build and monetize things around that. I think that's what helps you build a very vibrant ecosystem. It also allows you in some ways to protect the intellectual property in different ways.
The GPL already allows this - and my "intellectual property" (whatever that means) is already protected by copyright law.
So this ability to patent your technology and have some level of protection against it, and in the course be able to build on top of that and innovate on top of that, is exciting.
Wait, so it's about patents now? Perhaps you can show me some genuine innovation in software that has been patented by Microsoft? You can't? Oh.
So what kind of innovation are you doing in your area for Microsoft?
Taylor: There are things we're excited about, and there are things that are just the basics. We spend close to $6.8 billion in research and development; it really comes in a variety of areas.
One area is just some fit-and-finish, and taking basic simple processes and doing it better. We have a feature called Configure Your Server Wizard, which allows you to go in and choose a server role so you can take a file server and (rebuild it as a) media server. That takes four to five clicks of a GUI (graphic user interface)
Reconfiguring a server using the mouse? Goodness me, what will they think of next!
Taylor: You have to understand why we have security problems today. In some ways, it's because a lot more things are connected today than they
Re:Compared to? (Score:2, Insightful)
Or breaks when you reboot it? (blue screens and dumps)
Or breaks when you add new hardware?
Or... Well... You get the idea.
I know you were trying to be funny, but this is FUD. I have been running 2003 on many of my servers for a year now and it's never broken. Windows 2000 and XP, on the other hand, are a different story. Windows 2003 is actually very stable.
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Windows requires a lot more care to do the same. I always advise people not to add and remove software they don't really need to use.
This article is more FUD from Microsoft. If they are so sure of their software being the best and Linux being so bad they wouldn't need to keep mouthing off. Sadly they know it's actually pretty good and competitive in many areas and will continue to get better. Especially with IBM and Novell on the case. Previous competition was from an OS written by a single company. Linux isn't and some major companies are behind it.
Re:Linux vs Windows (Score:5, Insightful)
-modify, recompile and use new object code of any non-kernel module without rebooting
-heck, for that matter rewrite or modify any portion of the kernel and recompile it (although rebooting is needed)
-use any number of filesystem or even write your own
These are just a few. Perhaps if Windows shipped with the source, these would be possible, but something tells me Windows doesn't work that way.
Re:Linux vs Windows (Score:5, Insightful)
It's an often heard argument, but it's an empty one, at least in the Windows vs OSS context.
Microsoft explicitly excludes any damages, IN ALL CAPS. See paragraph 13 of the winxp pro eula for an example: EULA [microsoft.com]. They are even more explicit than most OS licenses.
As MS isn't accountable, then who is? The software supplier? If so, the situation isn't any different than using OSS.
Considering the (lack of) speed with which MS reacts to critical bugs and flaws in their products, the only conclusion is that MS is actually LESS accountable than most large open source developers.
Re:This is true... (Score:5, Insightful)
Q. "So why do you think the ideals of open source... have appealed to so many people?"
A. "Taylor: Well, first you have to define "people"... And what is open source? It is interesting in how you define it..."
How shifty is that?
People: Human beings.
Open-source: Access to all the source-code for the application, such that you can copy it for no more than a negligible fee, and compile useful applications with it.
So, simple answer, MS "Shared Source" is not open source and people don't like that, but watch the frantic handwaving and redefinitions so he can avoid saying that.
Most telling bit of the article:
Q. "But software patents have been criticized for interfering in software development. Do Microsoft software developers worry about infringing on patents when they develop a piece of software?"
A. "From a software perspective, we don't think the patent system is perfect... But when I look at the software industry today, we've been getting a lot of innovation from Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, Adobe, the list goes on..."
Yeah. In other words, patents encourage large corporations, and effectively lock out the little guy or smaller, independant ISVs. But again, watch the careful sidestepping of the obvious conclusion. Just once I'd like to see a real interview, between an informed interviewer and a real person from MS who actually answers questions. Or failing that, flying pigs over my house and a hunk of green moon-cheese for breakfast.
Just more uninformed blathering and semantic tapdancing from Yet Another MS Press Flack - redefining terms to avoid outright lying and regurgitating the same old crap we've all heard before.
Sigh.
Re:This is true... (Score:2, Insightful)
A lie of omission is still a lie. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Buffer overruns... who knew?? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I kind of agree (Score:5, Insightful)
Really, the state of GNU/Linux is a product of its users as much as anything else. Many Linux users want to compile a number of their own apps, especially on servers.
Universal package management should be a goal for all distros, but they won't ever Windows-ize Linux software installation.
Re:With Regards to Source Code and Compilers (Score:3, Insightful)
Shovel for the Board (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What distro is he using? (Score:2, Insightful)
1. I agree, to a degree. If I have Problem-X with my Linux platform, I don't want to fix it by switching distros. I chose my distro because I liked Features M, N, O, and P, not being aware of Problem-X until I encountered it. "You have Problem-X? Try Distro-Y instead." "Try installing from source" is also not an ideal solution, as it will (correct me if I'm wrong) take said application out from under the watchful eye of package management.
2. If I encounter Problem-X in Windows, you can't tell me I have the wrong distro (beyond the scope of versions), because there isn't another distro. "You have Problem-X? Oh well, you're hosed."
More FUD of the generic variety (Score:3, Insightful)
From TFA:
So he's saying that they reached the limitations of their hardware and it had to scale? Is Microsoft software somehow immune from the need to scale as the requirements grow? If this is the case, a Microsoft OS would be the better choice. I would hail all kinds of MS solutions if they could pull other magical abilities out of their hat. We all know that this is BS -- requirements change, demands on systems change, and hardware must be scaled, regardless of the platform. Until then, claims like that are simply FUD and double-talk. He's not actaully saying anything, he's just instilling a little fear in the back of managers minds.What's funny is that many of these arguments are largely an attack on a licensing model, and it actually has very little to do with the quality of the products. Contrary to RMS' belief, I don't think that the license model necessarily dictates the quality of the software. There are plenty of excellent commercial, closed products out there in the marketplace. There alre also plenty of these products which are absolute garbage. The same goes for OSS, I've seen brilliant stuff and I've seen crappy stuff -- neither are a silver bullet.
Taylor does make at least one good point, however:
In many circumstances, people like IT managers don't care about seeing the code. It's not everyone -- there are lots of groups who have a specific need for custom solutions...however I'm talking more about the small-mid size IT group. These IT managers are generally decision-makers, and don't want to ever touch the source code. Many don't even want to hire people to muck about the code...especially in small to mid sized companies. I'm not talking about the idealist hobbyists here, who will sit around and pour through source code all day long looking to understand it, modify it, or break it...or those who build all of their binaries from source, adding in every possible optimization for their target platform. With many of those professionals, it's not about the license model. It's about the solution in the end. Most people like this who I have worked with are generally platform agnostic, and will run whatever it takes to get the job done.The simple truth about MS.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Second, they are a marketing company that uses law as the game rules they play by, like in chess where you typically sacrifice some of your own players in effort to win. This is verified over and over again with their persistant effort to try and distort the law enough to get away with acts of anti-trust. They simply prefer to not play fair. And this is undersandable as they are least of all a company of innovation, but rather a company buying out innovation of others and then either closing it down or marketing it as their innovation.
The more the general public understands this, sees MS for what MS really is, a marketing company with a legal team to help them figure out what they can get away with, the better it is for the general public in making an operating system choice.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The rules of power (Score:3, Insightful)
Right. But what will Management do?
Re:This is true... (Score:3, Insightful)
Standard lawyer-weasel words. Gates used the same kind of escape routes during his trial hearings.
It does give one important piece of information away, though: The guy was seriously briefed. He's not speaking his mind, he has been told exactly what to say, what not to say, and where to evade the question.
Re:Hmmm (Score:3, Insightful)
It is a very good idea because it ensures physical seperation between the different services and greatly reduces the potential of compromise of one service spreading to other services.
Maybe, but there are disadvantages. If you run everything on one machine you have a single point of failure. The more machines you have the more failure points, the more complexity, more nodes available to attack and more maintenance. As a Sys Admin I'm in favor of running as many things as possible on one box for all of the above reasons. If I can't resonably protect a single machine how can I be expected to reasonably protect six, or ten, or a hundred?
Re:Microsoft don't need to spread FUD about OSS (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, then, why not child prostitution, or organ bootlegging, or dealing crack? Or working for Al Quaida? A man's just *gotta* keep his huge azz-guzzling Sherman tank of an SUV going and meet his monthly cell-phone charges! Do we really have to hash this out again? Danny-boy's conscience *told* him that it wasn't the right thing to do, and he *did* *not* *care*. Be a cold day in hell before any amount of money would get me into Redmond, unless it was to set it on fire. There's a difference between being hog-rich for yourself, and making the world rich for everybody. Both kinds of wealth benefit the individual. And I'll point it out tirelessly every time somebody trots out this apologise-for-Dan sermon. Not to troll or flame, but because it makes me sick to see people who've been lied to so much, that they begin to lie to themselves.
He now works for the company currently slandering his previous life's work. Doesn't look like he did much to "help them better understand Open Source", now, did it?
The "right" offerings (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry...you can't compete with freedom, since everything Microsoft does is exactly the opposite- DRM, rediculous EULAs, closed, proprietary source code, not to even mention the licensing costs. The customer is at their mercy.
Re:The rules of power (Score:3, Insightful)
The cynicism may well be deserved by those few - but I have to ask one question:
If Linux is not reaching any of the PHBs and if it's not being adopted by organization headed by these "idiots", why is MS bothering targetting them in advertising to smear it?
You are missing... (Score:4, Insightful)
People = "Microsoft Employees", Programmers that program for Microsoft Products, Administrators that run Microsoft Products and similar "people". It's best written as (Microsoft) People, but you can leave the (Microsoft) bit off, if you are one of those people...
The quote should have been more like this:
"Ten years ago, (Microsoft) people didn't really understand Buffer Overruns, Port 80 and I/O Issues."
This is, or should be, similarly inferred when we have another major network news release about a "computer" or "Internet", examples follow.
"A new (Microsoft) Computer Virus in making the rounds through (Microsoft Outlook) E-mail Clients."
"A new (Microsoft OS Targeting) Internet Worm was discovered on (Microsoft OS Running) Computers yesterday morning which quickly spread across the (Microsoft OS Running Portion of the) Internet."
Re:What distro is he using? (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree, it is the absolute worst answer to give someone. What ends up happening is what I like to call "LDIF" or "Linux Distribution Installtion Frenzy". A syndrome where people install N linux distros just to see if their hardware is 'autodetected' when all they need to do is type 'modprobe usb-storage' or some other trivial command to get what they need.
If anyone new to Linux is reading this, the kernel and Xwindows/X.org determines what hardware your system supports, not the distribution. You can take a 5 year old distro and add SATA support just by changing the kernel. You can add support for a new video card by changing the X.org version or downloading a new driver for it.
I do disagree with the idea of condidering each distro separetely. For instance, I would never use Fedora/Redhat as a workstation. For some reason its so slow on my 1.5Ghz Centrino. I can see Xwindows drawing pixels and it doens't support XFS, JFS, or ReiserFS out of the box. Gentoo, on the other hand, screams with full eye candy in KDE. But, I wouldn't use Gentoo as a server because they tend to make sweeping changes to the file system layout and send down a lot of non-critical patches.
I like the choice of distributions out there. It seems like there are about 10 that can be put into a lot of roles and a lot that fill individial nitches here and there, like Damn Small Linux and the various versions of Knoppix
Re:And they call themselves techies (Score:3, Insightful)
But on the topic of Windows, I do find it to be an inferior operating system in the sole reason that it is designed like a submarine with one compartment. Get one leak - no matter how small - and the entire ship goes down. With Linux, just seal off the damaged compartment, and keep on keeping on.
I do agree with you in regards of installing software on Linux. That's why I hope this little project [autopackage.org] takes off.
Re:Linux vs Windows (Score:2, Insightful)
His statement implies that Windows has caught up with Linux.
That's a very telling implication - and not at all true, of course.
Re:Oh please (Score:5, Insightful)
This article is ridiculous flamebait. Anyone who is a Decision Maker, recognizes the usefullness of both Operating Systems. I don't imagine we'll ever see an interview from an executive at microsoft, whereas he states "You should use Linux for this... and our product for that."
I just don't see how this is "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters". Microsoft claiming that their competitors suck, that's not news to anyone.. and it certianly doesn't matter to me.
Now microsoft providing a way to setup NTP without editing the registry, That would be News! Or RedHat providing me with a reason why cups test print works to my Epson POS, but actual print jobs don't.. That's stuff that matters
Re:Linux vs Windows (Score:4, Insightful)
Without Linux, forget Microsoft "innovation" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hmmm (Score:3, Insightful)
It's much easier to compromise additional servers once you are on the inside of the system and can see what distribution, kernel, etc... is being run.
Also, when you have seperate machines for different functions, failure will be far less catastrophic because it means only one service is affected.
Generally, in my experience, any service failure is very serious. Networks don't exist in a vacuum, services depend on each other to work. If your ldap server goes down no one can log in anywhere on the network. If your dns server goes down everyone has to connect via IP address. If your firewall goes down all of your online services, email, etc.. no longer work.
I have heard many people following your reasoning, probably because it makes sense at first glance. I have seen very few keeping to this opinion AND being seriously interested in securing their network, after having had a decade or so experience with it.
I've had a decade or so of experience running my network, which is relatively large and I still have that opinion. The network I adminstrate has never been hacked by an intruder, the only time we have been compromised is when some of our users infected their workstation with an email virus and that has only happened twice. Don't get me wrong, there are still circumstances where a dedicated machine is best. I fully believe in dedicated firewall machines and of course distributed webservers and DNS servers are a necessity if you want to keep a site up continually. I just don't ascribe to the philosophy of distributing out components across multiple servers more than required for reliability or performance issues and even then I prefer redundancy to separation.
Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
This just made me recall the abject fear I have of installing updates to Windows. I don't get an option to boot to the old kernel when the patch breaks everything else.
Re:Joel on software (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyway, the worst GUI ever is Windows (from a usability and even eye-candy perspective)... and I admit that the OSS folks seem to be intent on cloning it. I don't use GNOME or KDE simply because they are trying to reimplement Windows (which is a terrible terrbile thing to copy... do everything exactly opposite instead!)
I think GNOME and KDE need to start innovating rather than copying. OS X is nice because Apple comes up with new GUI ideas for each release. OSS needs to do this too. (Until then, I'm happy with either my Mac or XFCE on Linux. All I need are xterms and emacs anyway
Marketting Playbook, Page 35, Paragraph 3 -f (Score:1, Insightful)
Gandhi said it best.. (Score:3, Insightful)
1. First they ignore you.
2. Then they laugh at you.
3. Then they fight you.
4. Then you win.
- Mahatma Gandhi
Now we're at stage three.
Re:I kind of agree (Score:3, Insightful)
If you don't care to have average users use Linux, then all of the replies are fine. If you want average users to use Linux, something (and I don't have any ideas unfortunately) has to be done.
However, Linux will never be able to "compete" with Windows because of a difference in computer use philosophy. Generally, Windows is promiscuous and Linux is not. Windows (and software developers) try to make the software installable so that a computer-phobe could still do it. Once there are more than a couple of options or steps, the basic user will give up and never return. We also know what promiscuity allows, spyware, trojans, etc.
Linux would be fine if people didn't mind hiring someone to set up their computer to do word processing, websurf, e-mail. But few if any people want to do that.
Mac OSX will succeed in ways that Linux won't because of the ease of (and consistency of) installation of other software. This has nothing to do with open source.
What upsets Microsoft is that they do not have a monopoly on ease of use. For Linux it is just a problem to be solved. Apple has solved it: *nix and ease of use. Microsoft knows that it will likely be solved eventually, and then all hell will break loose.
Re:Buffer overruns... who knew?? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Linux vs Windows (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems to me like the accountability to OSS developers hits much closer to home. Very few (if any) OSS developers work on a software project that they don't actually use. OSS developers are accountable to themselves and to their employers, not to some customers who they'll never have any interaction with.
Re:Joel on software (Score:1, Insightful)
Wow. Just wow. I'm ashamed to ever have used Linux. If our developers and/or users really think with their heads this far up their asses, the platform is dead.
Sorry, I didn't mean to make this personal, but you stated, quite succinctly, one of the core fallacies with the Linux on Desktop argument. It's easy to use if you know how to use it.
Software should be making lives easier and simpler. I've been programming for 18 years and just got into a PhD program in CS, and I still can't reliably get a wifi card to behave under Linux.
And I leave myself open to all kinds of "See! you're too stupid to use computers!" attacks, as they only prove my point.
News? (Score:4, Insightful)
Taylor seems to want to make you think that just because you don't see most bugs in MS apps that are fixed pre-release, they didn't exist, having come pure and bug free from the mind of the programmer. Because OSS shows you these bugs, instead of hiding them from you in the development process, it must be "brittle". Just LOOK at all those bugs!
A classic attack, long since rebutted.
How Microsoft is like an Arsonist (Score:1, Insightful)
The only problem is that due to extreme long term negligence the massive Microsoft mansion is burning a lot hotter and more obviously than the neighbors they try to finger.
Re:Joel on software (Score:3, Insightful)
It's easy to use if you know how to use it.
Which is entirely true.
And it's just as true for Windows and Mac.
I've been programming for 18 years and just got into a PhD program in CS, and I still can't reliably get a wifi card to behave under Linux.
Which has exactly *WHAT* to do with the topic at hand? I believe we were discussing the ease of use of the GUIs, not the difficulty of getting non-manufacturer-supported hardware to work.
Nice troll though, seems you hooked a few clueless moderators.
Re:Joel on software (Score:3, Insightful)
I've been programming for 18 years and just got into a PhD program in CS, and I still can't reliably get a wifi card to behave under Linux.
How Linux works "under the hood" has its ups and downs. No, configuring a wifi card can be ugly. But I was also impressed when I pieced together a secondary computer from odd parts and Linux identified every one of them, no driver cd required (granted, no wifi in that one).
In short, I'm vastly more impressed with Linux than Microsoft when it "Just works", to steal an expression from Apple. That tells me that they *are* trying to make life easier and simpler. It also tells me that in some areas they're not where they'd like to be.
Most of the time, they are trying to support something the company doesn't. The hacks are still better than a simple "Not supported - F U", because you can at least try. If they had the source of the wifi driver, or even just the specs, I promise there would be a supported, stable, "so easy your grandmother could do it" driver. But since they don't, they make due with reverse engineered drivers, binary modules and whatever dreck they have to. What more can you ask?
Kjella
Re:Joel on software (Score:2, Insightful)
I think it's fair to say that when introduced to any computer system, you're going to need at least a little training. The real problem is that people are so familiar with the Windows Way(TM) that they have a hard time adjusting to anything else. You could put the theoretically perfect GUI in front of Joe WinXP, and he's still going to have to learn....
Maybe, instead of making Windows-like GUIs for Linux (for easy adoptability), we should walk our own path.
Re:Bwa Ha Ha Ha Ha (FUD) (Score:2, Insightful)
On OS X or Linux, I don't worry too much. If a user needs a software, usually it doesn't need much discussion.
Re:Joel on software (Score:3, Insightful)
This reminds me of a quote from my second favourite fantasy novel, Prince of Lies: "The world was doomed, but it kept running anyway."
This is true of anything. The implication - it is hard to use something if you don't know how to use it - is also true, even for such simple devices like hammer.
No. Software is about solving problems. Those problems don't neccessarily have anything to do with anyone's daily lives. Take 3D modeling software, for example - I doubt it has actually made anyone's life easier, and it has a learning curve like Himalaya, but it certainly has allowed people to do things they couldn't do before (see pretty much any recent movie for an example).
What does wifi card have to do with GUI ? And what do your programming experience have to do with Linux driver configuration ?
But I know how you feel: I once programmed a Nethack variant, but I still can't model a 3D human, so my movie project will have to wait :(. Such a pity too - Drama ! Action ! Suspense ! Space empires ! Magic ! Coming soon to a P2P network near you, just as soon as I can figure out how to use Blender and render 128 000 frames in high quality on my 1GHz Duron sneeze pump !
No they don't. Your point seems to be that you have 18 years of programming experience, so your inability to get a wifi card to work under Linux means that Linux GUI is hard to use. Your point is bullshit and therefore cannot be proven.
Re:Joel on software (Score:2, Insightful)
This probably the main reason why Gnome and KDE are so intent on copying the Windows gui. It may not be pretty or very sensible but everyone out there knows how to use it, and more they expect a computer to behave like that.
So while you certainly can make a more effective and enjoyable user experience most users aren't prepared to go through the learning curve that is required to get there. They expect it to just work the way that it always has, the way that they are used to. I think that when linux has gained a large enough market share then they can start gradually making the gui more useable in ways that the user isn't used to.
Re:This is true... (Score:3, Insightful)
Real person means someone who answers the question, and isn't afraid to be honest. Perhaps you misunderstand my position, but the emphasis on that was on "real person", not "from MS" (the italics give a handy clue). Press Flacks (from any company) regurgitating their briefing notes are not real people, they're drones. And interviews with them are not interviews, they're stealth press releases.
"Actually answer the questions" means answer the bloody question they were asked, without prevaricating, dodgy the question or deliberately obscuring the issue. For example, from TFA:
Q. "So why do you think the ideals of open source... have appealed to so many people? Do you think it's more about people taking an anti-Microsoft stance?
This is a pretty interesting question, and one I'd like to hear the MS view on. Instead of an answer, though, we get an unnecessary query on the definition of "people" (here's a clue, the people he's talking about are the ones who are experimenting with OSS who never did before), a dodging of the first question ("at the end of the day, people want to deploy technology to solve business problems, be it Windows, Linux, BSD and so on", which was not the question), and an nice paragraph or so muddying the waters on what exactly constitutes "open source" (here's a clue guys - it's when the source code is freely available [google.com], unencumbered by non-trivial costs, licences and NDAs).
"With any reasonable complex issue people are going to have varying opinions. You would fall into the Linux side, and as such anything MS does is evil and wrong."
Nice try, but no. I don't run a Linux box at home or at work (although I am considering trying it). I have three Windows XP machines at home, and one at work. I use MS Office at work.
I don't know where you got the idea I was some raving Linux-obsessed fanboy, but you really should stop jumping to conclusions you have no evidence whatsoever to support. You'll note that in my original post I was complaining about the lightweight press-release interview style, not the fact is was "M1cr05oF7 cu4se t3hy aRe t3h suXX0rZ!!!!111!!!".
"People from the MS side clearly also view anything the Linux side does as evil and wrong."
Yeah, and if they actually gave a single truthful reason as to why maybe we could have a dialogue between the two camps. Unfortunately it's impossible to start a discussion between two people when one of them keeps claiming there is no disagreement while stabbing the other in the back.
Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of Linux fanboys out there bitching on forums and stirring up bad feeling too, but the people who actually "manage" Linux are generally quite approachable.
"The only thing that you can expect is that posting on Slashdot about Linux being great and MS sucking is a sure way to get karma."
Read the post again, fuckwit. Those words (or sentiments) never passed my lips (or fingers). Not once was Linux even mentioned ("open source as a concept" != "Linux"), and I was pissed because the "interview" was nothing more than a conent-free opportunity for a press flack to regurgitate the company line, with a couple of "hard" questions thrown in (and subsequently ignored) to make it look good. Boring, sterile and worthless.
Did you even read the article?