Microsoft Doesn't Care About Destroying Linux 330
techie writes "A latest column on MadPenguin.org suggests that Microsoft may not be really interested in killing Linux for mainstream users. It's after something else, and it's getting its way already. Read on to find out what it is. The author states, "Love it or hate it, Microsoft's IP attacks will continue, Linux user numbers will continue to grow and broad spectrum adoption throughout the rest of the world will grow and flourish. Microsoft's not interested in destroying Linux in the slightest. Why would they? it's been a fantastic vehicle for them to land a firmer grip on the corporations throughout the US."
Great, you know what that means (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Great, you know what that means (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft need to make money. Not kill Linux.
If they could see a way to make more money by working with Linux, they'd do that. Hell, they're not that stupid ;-)
Just stating the obvious.
monk.e.boy
Re:Great, you know what that means (Score:4, Informative)
Microsoft makes its money by controlling the market. Linux allows for multiple vendors to compete in the market (aka capitalism), preventing any one vendor from controlling it. Even if Microsoft could make a boatload of money on Linux, they would never risk their precious (and profitable!) monopoly on the OS market.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A clone of a clone.
Microsoft has to be liking what it is seeing, with every day a new distribution of Linux coming out, and no single standard. Different files in
That isn't "fragmented". (Score:4, Informative)
But Linux is not "fragmented".
And each of those "clones" works in almost the exact same way.
There is no "fragmentation". Any software that runs on the latest version of RHEL will also run on the latest version of Ubuntu. Or Slackware. etc.
And yet that does not seem to be hampering Linux's growth at all.
So maybe it isn't as big a problem as you believe it to be.
Anyone who knows Red Hat can pick up Ubuntu in less than a day. And Slackware in another day. And Gentoo over a weekend. At which point, you pretty much know every distribution out there.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Four basic package managers. (Score:5, Insightful)
rpm
apt
slackware's pkgtool
gentoo's emerge
And learning them would be included in the single day it would take for anyone familiar with any distribution to learn a different distribution.
So it seems that you're trying to define "fragmentation" as "choices".
Why is that?
No one refers to the car market as "fragmented" just because you can buy a Ford OR a Chevy.
And if you buy a Chevy you can get a sports car OR a pickup truck OR an SUV.
And you can get them in manual OR automatic.
"Choice" is not "fragmentation". Learning to drive a manual pickup truck does not prevent you from learning to drive an automatic sports car. And the learning process will take less than a day.
Re:Four basic package managers. (Score:4, Insightful)
How long it takes to LEARN one package system or another is irrelevent. The real issue is that each package front end means a different package *backend*. Actually, there are more backends (repositories) than there are package managers. That means: if you want to release a binary version of your software, you have to compile and package it for each and every distribution you wish to support. This is a sign of fragmentation.
No slashdot discussion would be complete without a car analogy.
No, choice alone is not fragmentation. But when one car requires diesel fuel and another requires unleaded gas, that is fragmentation. Add in cars that charge from a high voltage/current line, and you have even more fragmentation. Each gas station that wants to support all these cars has to implement all the different ways of refueling. Just as any Linux software vendor who wants to support all of Linux has to build and test packages for a dozen or more different distributions. And a corporation trying to decide WHICH flavor of Linux to adopt has to be worried about which distribution will get the support of third party vendors. THAT is fragmentation.
-matthew
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Different distros support different versions of different libraries. This is significant enough that a deb made for Ubuntu won't necessarily run on Debian Etch or Debian Lenny. And conversely. Even mixing packages between Etch and Lenny (stable and testing) is problematic. I often run a few Lenny packages on Etch, but if it ever starts to be a problem, I'd better be ready to do a full upgrade.
So... if you want to use any feature that's under development, you'r
Re: (Score:2)
car analogies are inherently suspect.
the pick-up and the sports car are two very different vehicles that function in two very different environments and you will be not be mastering one or the other in a day - no matter how experience you think you think you bring to the problem.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Desktops? 2 major ones. (that interoperate)
X servers? 1
Linux is hardly a good example of "fragmentation".
Commercial Unix is a far better example of fragmentation.
Compared to HPUX vs AIX vs Solaris a couple of corporate Linux distros that share 99.9% of their inner workings is not so bad really.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that they don't, from a commercial vendor's perspective at least. Or even from a system adminitrator's perspective. Each distribution has its own packaging system, it's own unique versions of libraries, a different default desktop environment, etc.
Sure, as long as you have the source to recomp
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. But somehow, Window 95 being different to Windows NT 3.51, to Windows NT 4, to Windows 2000, to Windows 2003 doesn't seem to matter, does it?
Or is it that some people has a different mettering bar when it comes to Linux?
Re: (Score:2)
Try one workstation with the same WinOS and installed applications compared to a workstation next to it with the same stuff installed on it. You can't assume that both boxes will be identical.
Windows developers are just used to being able to effectively reinstall the OS anytime they ship a product.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This includes Word Perfect, Star Office, Applixware, Netscape, the Loki Games & Oracle.
Re: (Score:2)
Come on. Linux is communism. Both SCO and Microsoft have told us so!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
<SARCASM>
In the future, I shall provide SARCASM tags, in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, so that the sarcasm-impaired (such as GP) will be able to appreciate it.
</SARCASM>
Re: (Score:2)
So Microsoft monopoly isn't capitalism then?
Re: (Score:2)
But I thought its goal was to use the marriage to unleash the Chaos Heart and destroy all worlds?
Re:Great, you know what that means (Score:4, Funny)
Bill Gates: This Please! This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker and argue over who killed who. I see this not as losing a son, but gaining a daughter in a very legal and binding way.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Linux will not die. Death cannot stop true love... all it can do is delay it for a while.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
but couldn't we make the T be something like "Theo de Raadt?" =]
Good we don't have to worry. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://slashdot.org/~MEEPT!!/ [slashdot.org]
Best part of the article (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only Part of the article (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Only Part of the article (Score:5, Insightful)
Even worse, the conclusion he draws doesn't even make sense. Linux helps Windows domination in the enterprise (where it is a monopoly) when users switch to it at home (where Windows is also a monopoly)? How-d-hell does that work?
Windows needs something to denigrate... (Score:5, Insightful)
For many business managers that went to business schools who know fuck-all about IT, it's very easy to believe that something that is "free" in both senses of the word is not good. After all, business is about control and profit, two things that are absent from "free".
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Say you're in charge of a datacenter:
1. One one side you can have Windows on all servers, 10 IT people to take care of them all, headache of licensing, updates, patches, crashes, recovery.
2. Run linux on them, free updates, more secure, no worring about having to keep track of licenses, less staff because th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Which do you think they'd pick? Granted it depends a lot on what kind of work needs to be done, but for something like web/email/sql server then Linux does the job very well. You can always have 1-2 Windows servers for those few clients that absolutely insist on having MsSQL and IIS.
You answered your own question. Of course the hosting company would pick both, if "the bottom line" is all they care about (as you assert in your previous statement). Whether we like it or not, Windows is a HUGE market, and if all they want is to rake in the cash, there is no way they'd ignore those who wish to use a MS environment.
Re: (Score:2)
You answered your own question. Of course the hosting company would pick both, if "the bottom line" is all they care about (as you assert in your previous statement).
While, he wasn't talking about hosting companies. I'll bite. Most hosting companies (at least all of the ones that I checked) which offer both platforms charge less for their linux platform, even though it provides broader functionality. That makes the linux benefit really obvious, even to the clueless pointy-haired manager types. No guessing at TCO and other hard to measure metrics - instead they have two straightforward choices with two straightforward prices.
Whether we like it or not, Windows is a HUGE market, and if all they want is to rake in the cash, there is no way they'd ignore those who wish to use a MS environment.
As long as linux is a consistently che
Re:Windows needs something to denigrate... (Score:5, Insightful)
Bear in mind, that reducing headcount means one-time expenses related to severance, etc. And savings on license fees will take at least a few months to hit the bottom line (sometimes longer). In most cases, it takes at least a year to show the savings to be had by dumping MS. It may very well be worth doing, but the first year is not going to put big savings onto the scoreboard. And it may take a while before users discovers that things work more smoothly than before. In the short run, dumping MS might be a rough ride.
Sadly, it is the people who don't spend much money who are often taken for granted. In many companies, the path to success in management is to grow your budget and headcount faster than anyone else.
I have met a whole generation of IT professionals who like what MS does for their careers more than it does for their business.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Things that break a lot- you stay sharp about fixing them.
Things that break once a year- it can be very tricky to remember how to fix them.
Linux staff more expensive, harder to replace... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You obviously never went to business school.
Business i
Re: (Score:2)
Really? All Linux software is free of licensing headaches? Licensing the OS has always been brain dead easy for most any platform. It's the software running on the OS that causes the headaches. Of course on both platforms I have tools for inventory management to keep all the licensing straight. It's even unified so I can monitor and control both environments with it. I don't manage a lot of servers, about 24 so far. 20 of them are Windows and four are Linux based. I visit each of my servers on the same sche
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But regardless, I think that the biggest benefit to open source software is that you can change it. If you
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't have to. Open Source is about power and suitability, not price. That being said, it's usually up to you having a cheaper solution (maybe less powerful) or expend more or less the same but end having a more suitable, powerful and flexible environment, or even paying more so you can have the environment exactly as you know you need it instead of being the way your vendor imposed upon you.
"I'm especially skeptical ab
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In any case they do claim their product is better then the previous version just not in a clear way like "Way better then XP!". That's why in the product charts comparing the several Vista licencies they have fields that make no cense like "Better Security" with just the most expensive ones selected, are they saying the cheapper ones have crappy security? Are they assuming to be selling a unsecure
Bad Headline (Score:2, Informative)
Headline sounds like its saying "Microsoft is killing Linux and doesn't care that it is doing so", while the summary sounds more like what it should be, that "Microsoft is not trying to kill Linux and has no interest in doing so."
*sigh*
So what SCO couldn't do... (Score:2, Informative)
Mad Penguin (Score:2, Informative)
Hmm... (Score:2)
Eynak East (Score:2)
No Reason to be afraid. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's one reason I respect Dell for having the guts to sell machines with Linux preinstalled.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Please do!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1 linux distro on DVD versus
20 DVD's for Windows Vista, Office, and similiar programs that are on the 1 linux distro DVD.
Granted these numbers are random but the point is valid.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure MS will gain corporate market share... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's talk, wait for action (Score:4, Interesting)
Microsoft is forever expanding into new markets because Windows and Office aren't the "revenue streams" they used to be, and eventually they will be trying to get money from people using Linux. Even if they don't go after Linux directly, they will probably be going after Linux users saying they owe Microsoft something for some reason. Microsoft isn't interested in putting products on the shelf that a user may or may not buy.
They're more interested in taxing or selling a "service", simply because it's a guaranteed income if the customer is tethered to Microsoft in some way. If you don't buy Windows, then you can't keep it on your PC when Microsoft releases a new version. Instead, MS wants to be charging you yearly for using Windows (like with business Licensing) or yearly for using their IP in Linux. It's guaranteed money every year, as opposed to you maybe not upgrading every year like their ideal situation.
Re:It's talk, wait for action (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft is forever expanding into new markets because Windows and Office aren't the "revenue streams" they used to be, and eventually they will be trying to get money from people using Linux.
If they really wanted revenue from Linux users they would come out with Office for Linux. However, that's not what they want. The want to keep businesses locked into using Windows on the desktop and the server, hence the flood of patent litigation threats. This is just the latest iteration in their campaign to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
First they claimed that Linux was unreliable. Then they claimed that it was insecure. Now they're claiming that it allows for intellectual property violations. This isn't a change in strategy, just an adjustment in tactics. Their long term goal is still to scare businesses away from Linux.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, because that helps people migrate from MS's tether. What they want is people being further entrenched into MS tech. People considering Linux are migrating away from Windows. Linux is growing at its own pace, but also at the expense of Windows users. I used to be a Windows user, and so did a lot of other Ubuntu and Fedora Core installations. These are the fastest growing community Linux projects because they d
Microsoft doesn't have to frighten normal users. (Score:3, Insightful)
Look, hoping that Microsofts actions lead to more adoption of Linux isn't going to work. They don't have to do anything, its up to linux promoters to convince people that it will work AS WELL AS windows WITHOUT any interruption in their use of it, meaning that they don't have to think.
Until you can provide a "don't think about it - it just works" Linux desktop the users aren't going to switch. Even then it had best come preinstalled and have a near seamless way to run windows software that they might want.
Linux and Windows don't compete for the same people and the Linux people should understand that, it sounds like Microsoft already does
Re:Microsoft doesn't have to frighten normal users (Score:4, Insightful)
I disagree. There's tons of stuff you have to think about when using Windows. The difference, however, is that Linux makes you look at a command line, while Windows wraps it all in pretty GUI screens that all do essentially the same thing.
So Linux doesn't have to be "don't think about it - it just works" to succeed. It needs to be "don't think about it - just click OK" to succeed.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Linux has been trying to get away from the commandline since Slackware 96. In some ways, Slackware 96 even did a pretty good job of it. Much like Windows itself, Linux these days tends to mainly need to the commandline when you need to debug some gui app that's not quite right.
The Unix commandline utilities also provides a nice stable toolset. You don't have to worry about where in the GUI the network config wizard is hidden this time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I have to add that I'm not a big fan of these distributions 'just work'. It seems to imply: "This is a OS that even the dumbest can use."
Something you can use even if you're still wondering: "How do I download the Internet?"
I've been using Linux for over 10 years now on my primary desktop, and I completely appreciate that when I want to plug in a piece of hardware, if "just works". Your comment seems to imply that even seasoned veterans wouldn't want such functionality. You'd be wise to count the number of Macbooks at your next LUG or convention gathering to see how wrong this thinking is. Any cycles I can use that aren't burned up trying to figure how to get the f-ing video card or flash card working with my current setup ar
It's important not to crush all your enemies (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Redmond doesn't want to obliterate all comers such as Linux and Apple because that would trigger yet more legislation and court cases. Redmond has to 'suffer' a 10% or 15% market share to its competitors in order to preserve the illusion of a loyal opposition.
You're right about Apple. Apple is the perfect 'competitor' for Microsoft - an opponent that has no intention or capability to conquer any sizable portion of the market (and why would they? Apple makes more money per computer than Microsoft do, since they sell hardware as well. Market share != profit).
But Linux is nothing like that. Linux can run on the same hardware, and costs less. It already controls a very large part of the server market. Given time and opportunity, it can do the same to the desktop
TFA makes no sense. (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux Good for MS (Score:4, Insightful)
These moves would shut out or down Windows ISVs, but would provide a bit more revenue growth for Microsoft. Were someone to cry anti-trust foul, Microsoft could, and has, pointed to Linux as a real competitor. This isn't unlikely. When Linux couldn't even run with many kinds of mice and had little hardware graphics acceleration, Microsoft claimed they were a competitor during the Netscape trial.
It's the Dunkin Donuts defense, and it works. The backstory is that Dunkin Donuts drove Amy Joy out of business, but argued that it wasn't a monopoly because you could still buy donuts from Entemanns and other local bakeries. Microsoft is doing the same thing.
And, the other thing, too, is that the consumer OS space really doesn't have much room for MS. Consumers generally don't go to the store to buy operating systems, all the MS money is in preloads. So, if consumers do switch to Linux, MS has already collected its first payment. Then, as most consumers do, they switch back to Windows, by going to the store and buying a copy of something like Vista. In other words, the more frequently a user switches back and forth between Windows and Linux, the more likely they will make Microsoft even more money.
So they don't want to support Linux, but they don't want to quite kill it off either.
Non-sequitur (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft doesn't care about Linux because people are starting to use it more and more, but not as much in America and America is going to hell in a handbasket so Microsoft really doesn't care if Linux eats their lunch if they do it slower and that helps Microsoft get to the corporations with Ubuntu in their back pocket.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Article's Premise is Fatally Flawed (Score:2)
I'm left wondering why anyone ponders this question any more. Maybe so nothing gets done?
Re: (Score:2)
Somehow I don't think Ma Bell [wikipedia.org] would agree with you there... The battle may've taken about 8 years, but in the end, all it took was a torpedo up that two-meter exhaust port.
Riding the Wave (Score:5, Interesting)
Linux is a large part of the next wave - shifting the OS as proprietary product to commodity platform. But instead of IBM, this shift directly threatens not only Microsoft's core products but a large portion of their business model (and development). Microsoft is looking for a way to get on top of this wave as well.
The IP shennanigans going on is simply Microsoft's attempt to gain control of Linux and hash out a way so that every commodity hardware platform that runs a commodity OS (specifically Linux) also includes a payment to Microsoft.
New, improved and content-free. (Score:5, Funny)
Article summary:
Microsoft blahblahblah Linux blahblahblah Corporations blahblahblah Users blahblahblah Doesn't Matter blahblahblah Or Does It blahblahblah Who Cares? blahblahblah Apparently, none of the above blahblahblah click here to make me some money.
Mod parent up. Article is total crap. (Score:2)
Mod parent up. Article really is almost content-free. Also has annoying pop-up ads that make it through Firefox's filters.
not ready for the desktop (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
do I click setup.exe, setup.msi , install.bat ?
Click on readme.txt and do what it says. This assumes, of course, that you can read.
Re: (Score:2)
The phases of a breakup - Feigned indifference (Score:2)
You know that phase when the person being dumped says "I never even liked you, so there"
and a little while later comes crawling back saying "Please give me another chance"
Cue the Microsoft "Try us again, we really changed this time" publicity campaign in 3,2,1...
Microsoft only cares about Microsoft (Score:2)
Not interested in destroying Linux... (Score:2, Insightful)
Standard FUD Play (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Many of the patents to be invalidated due to prior art.
2) OSS programmers to code around the "infringing" patents.
3) IBM (and it's huge patent portfolio) to come after Microsoft. Since
IBM has a huge vested interested in Linux.
4) Enormously BAD publicity for Microsoft, and call for actual enforcement
of the antitrust ruling against them.
It would be an extremely self-destructive move. By talking about infringement (but not doing
anything), they cast doubt over the competition and even get some gullible corporations to cough
up some cash (woah! free money!). It's a FUD play, fairly standard in Microsoft's (anti-)
competitive playbook.
Taco, please (Score:4, Informative)
Get this trash of an article off the front page. It's making
Theft? (Score:2, Interesting)
Microsoft already knows Vista sucks, and stealing code would not be a new trick for them.
Software is support (Score:3, Interesting)
As a result, corporations aren't going to buy any software that does not come with support, because those gotchas can delay vital money-producing work. Software companies have quite sensibly as a result been drifting closer to a license/service model, where software is "sold" but that purchase is really an entry point to the purchase of yearly support contracts and licenses that entitle them to updates.
Microsoft is not concerned about Linux because Microsoft makes money from selling its support contracts. Their goal at this point is not to slander Linux, but to leave it as a free option with no clear support path, because Linux is divided into thousands of distros with no clear market leader.
This can benefit OSS/FOSS in that where Microsoft tackles the broadest, unspecialized market, Linux distros can shine in specialized areas, for example music production, and offer unofficial support to those who are smaller companies or individuals wanting to forge their own path and not be dependent on expensive support contracts.
What OSS/FOSS should do at this point is to cease any emulation of Microsoft or Google as market leaders, and look closer to the Apple model, which is selling a specialized service to a number of specialized needs. So goes my experience, and whatever "wisdom" has been imparted to me by it.
Short-sighted (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft is offering patent indemnities to linux users. That is one sure-fire way to scare large corporations away from linux.
I don't usually think of Slashdot as a source of comic relief, but what the hey.
Their large customers have spoken... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can just use a LiveCD with nothing more than what came on the LiveCD to quite effectively use Linux as a desktop machine. No "command line futzing" is required.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft tends to change interfaces for no good reason while trying to treat the end user as a moron. That combination of things tends to actually make the system more difficult to deal with in the end.
It also tends to discourage users from being more thoughtful in how they approach their technology.
The only thing that prevents a mass exodus to something else (Apple perhaps) is free tech support from the local gu
There is no kind way to say this... (Score:2, Insightful)
Linux is NOT hard to use. That's very old FUD. T there are only about three possibilities to explain your post:
1. You haven't tried using Linux recently or maybe not at all. This means you don't know what you are talking about.
2. You are a Microsoft shill/astro-turfer.
3. You are one of the crappiest programmer's in the world and really too stupid to be using a computer. You should find a different line of work.
So, which one are you?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
1. You haven't tried using Linux recently or maybe not at all. This means you don't know what you are talking about.
I had been running a Linux server since 1997 - 2006, and as a desktop 2002 to 2006. Using it was fine, updating it, getting it to work with my printer, finding an accounting program that I liked was difficult.
2. You are a Microsoft shill/astro-turfer.
Nope. I had supported Linux for everything.. but after getting married and doing
Re: (Score:2)
I am not running Windows boxes. I don't have to worry about a constant stream of exploits. Why would I bother? Typical "programmer" mentality: muck around with stuff for no good reason.
Even if you are using windows you still need to do a proper impact analysis. That latest service pack might break something you care about. It might not be trivial to roll back. You don't just do this crap willy-nilly. It doesn't matter what platform you're using.
Used
Re: (Score:2)
Years ago, systems were simple enough that a programmer with a bit of spare time could easily manage them. Today, however, a typical full-blown system (let's say a web application, for the sake of argument) could easily involve:
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
April 3, 1983 at 4:29EST.