Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Business

Linux the Tortoise to Microsoft's Hare? 548

Posted by michael from the slow-and-steady-gets-eaten-by-a-bear dept.
LukePieStalker writes "TheStreet.com is running a story by Ronna Abramson that makes a case for Linux cutting into Microsoft's server business and forcing Redmond to trim margins. A particular vulnerability is seen in overseas markets, but the heat should be turned up everywhere once Unix replacements are pretty far along by then end of next year. A quote from one CTO: [Linux is] "going to force Microsoft to spend more time on security and stability, and less time on adding new features.""
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Linux the Tortoise to Microsoft's Hare? More

Linux the Tortoise to Microsoft's Hare?

Comments Filter:

  • Don't you mean... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Xpilot ( 117961 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @12:57PM (#8511241) Homepage
    The penguin and the....uh.... abstract looking stylized flying window?

    The mascot coolness factor alone makes Linux a superior competitor!

    • Re:Don't you mean... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Vancorps ( 746090 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @01:05PM (#8511358)
      You know that almost ironic. Pure brand recognition Linux could easily gain ground in. The Tux is far more recognizable.

      That is sadly something a lot of corporate types care about. If they know the brand then they will be much more likely to sink a little money into it.

      • Re:Don't you mean... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Frymaster ( 171343 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @01:15PM (#8511470) Homepage Journal
        yes... but microsoft has branding in the words. all their products are preceded by "ms" to tie the company to the product in the minds of end users. kinda like "mc" for all the mcdonalds "food" products or the much more recent "i" prefix for apple stuff.

        linux doesn't really have that. sure there's "gnu" as in "gnutar" - but everyone just says "tar" anyway. and "k" and "g" for the desktop manager... but there's not over-arching naming mechanism that says "this is linux".

        and quite frankly, i don't want there to be. if we're going to start messing with the names of linux stuff, i vote we put an 'n' in umount and an 'e' in resolv.conf first.

        • Re:Don't you mean... (Score:5, Interesting)

          by antiMStroll ( 664213 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @04:12PM (#8513621)
          The lack of structured branding is part of Linux's character and charm and in my eyes, paradoxically, almost an anti-branding form of branding. Going back to "MS" or "i" always makes me feel like I'm sitting in front of 'product', something Linux never does, save for the more corporately focused distros like RedHat's BlueCurve effort.

        • Re:Don't you mean... (Score:4, Interesting)

          by stephanruby ( 542433 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @08:42PM (#8516566)
          linux doesn't really have that. sure there's "gnu" as in "gnutar" - but everyone just says "tar" anyway. and "k" and "g" for the desktop manager... but there's not over-arching naming mechanism that says "this is linux".

          For corporations, Linux has IBM. For everything else, it has the penguin and the simple but memorable Linux name.

          Besides, Linux is no longer a brand name, it's its own category. For now, some people still want Linux to be like Windows, but eventually everyone will want Windows to be like Linux.

          Notice, I didn't say "MS Windows", only the marketing people, the retarded, and the overly constipated say "MS Windows".

      • get serious (Score:5, Insightful)

        by tacokill ( 531275 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @01:23PM (#8511552)
        The Windows logo is seen by hundreds of millions of people each and everyday they boot up.

        Are you actually suggesting that the Linux Penguin is a better known mascot/logo? Get serious. 95% of the world doesn't even know Linux exists.

        Remember, if you read slashdot, you are in that educated 1% of populace that knows a lot about computers (insert obligatory /. joke here) but the rest of 'everybody else' has no clue about computers, much less Linux.

        • Re:get serious (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Vancorps ( 746090 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @01:26PM (#8511603)
          No, I was stating that it is more recognizable. Anyone that has seen and realized what Tux is forever links it with Linux. It is a unique logo that can spread the brand name around all over the place.

          This is one of the goals IBM had a while back when they were spreading graffiti all over. Images of Tux are very easily recalled since it is something most people have heard of, if not seen. Penguins that is.

          • Re:get serious (Score:5, Interesting)

            by Trurl's Machine ( 651488 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @01:42PM (#8511774) Journal
            No, I was stating that it is more recognizable. Anyone that has seen and realized what Tux is forever links it with Linux. It is a unique logo that can spread the brand name around all over the place.

            Hardly. Unfortunately, the idea "let's promote our brand by adopting a cute penguin as our logo" was too obvious NOT to be already taken. In Great Britain, penguin is associated rather with a popular paperback publisher [penguin.co.uk]. In Poland, it is associated with a popular pre-paid cell phone operator [pekao-fs.com.pl]. People can see Tux on screen and think it's just some cross-promotion of a computer manufacturer, paperpack publisher and phone operator.

        • Re:get serious (Score:4, Funny)

          by BrynM ( 217883 ) * on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @04:01PM (#8513433) Homepage Journal
          The Windows logo is seen by hundreds of millions of people each and everyday they boot up
          So is a blue background with white letters... something else they identify with Microsoft, but not to Microsoft's advantage ;)

      • Re:Don't you mean... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by wukie ( 684014 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @04:30PM (#8513852)
        The problem with the "Tux" is it's universal to Linux. You need to start somewhere. Sort of like saying BSD.

        There is only one Microsoft, but there are many players in the Linux game. Which do you follow?

        I think Linux (I have moved to FreeBSD) needs a group to really take the lead, something like the consortium Suse and others tried to form, but Redhat wasn't in it. Obviously this won't happen any time soon. Infact I see the problem getting worse (which is why I switched to FreeBSD).

        At the end of the day, it's all about available applications and how easy they are to use for the employees of the people who make the big decisions. I have seen rediculous amounts spent on IT with a good chunk going to Microsoft, and I don't see thinks changing overnight in companies that have been using MS products for the last 10 years. Certainly a Linux server or two might pop up, but it's been my experience the employees whine to the middle managers who whine to the big guns and it's back to MS on the desktop (even Apple was disliked). Sure I have no problems with any windows manager, and neither do most people who haunt slashdot, but the average joe/jane likes to the same desktop at work and at home.

        The worst/weirdest (some would find funny, but you had to be there) incident I ever had was a woman who went ballistic, I mean freaked out big time when I minimized Word to look at something. She literally started screaming "what did you do", and "bring it back, bring it back" with a waiting room full of people (I'm self conscious). Well MSWord was in her Start-up folder in Win3.1 and she just turned the computer of at the power when she was done which was causing the problems. I couldn't imagine a person like her changing to Open Office, besides she's probably still using Win3.1 if the hardware hasn't died.

    • Re:Don't you mean... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Zardoz44 ( 687730 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @01:08PM (#8511389) Homepage
      Forget the window, they have Clippy!

    • Re:Don't you mean... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by gwernol ( 167574 )
      The mascot coolness factor alone makes Linux a superior competitor!

      Yes, yes I know the post is meant to be funny, and it is. But there's a serious point here. The Tux mascot may have a high geek coolness factor, but its a small but real impediment to acceptance of Linux by the broader business community. The logo is cartoonish and childish. It says that this project is the opposite of professional, competent and reliable. It says the software is built by a bunch of amateurs who think a fat, funny penguin

      • Re:Don't you mean... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by kisielk ( 467327 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @01:26PM (#8511593)
        On the contrary, I think the pengiun is an easily recognizable and very memorable symbol for Linux. It's much easier to remember a cute character like that than some abstract symbol. Judging by the few trade shows I've attended the corporate types just love picking up the stuffed or rubber pengiun toys exhibitors give out. Personally I think they beat out Microsoft's stupid "spider balls" that I got. Not to mention the XP T-shirts that say "Yes you can." (Thanks for the permission by the way ;)

        • New Slogan for Longhorn (Score:5, Funny)

          by handy_vandal ( 606174 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @01:54PM (#8511959) Homepage Journal
          Not to mention the XP T-shirts that say "Yes you can." (Thanks for the permission by the way ;)

          The new slogan for Longhorn should read:

          "Yes, you must."

          -kgj

      • Re:Don't you mean... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by egghat ( 73643 )
        IMHO the look of XP compared to the look of W2K isn't exactly what I'd call professionell and what I'd call cartoonish and childish.

        Hmmm. MS has sold millions of these bright, colourish and childish desktops ...

        bye egghat.

      • Re:Don't you mean... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Rooktoven ( 263454 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @01:52PM (#8511929) Homepage
        You mean like Reddy-Kilowatt, Mr. Zip-code, The Exxon Tiger, Ronald McDonald, the AOL man, the GOP elephant, the Demorcatic donkey, the Maytag repairman, Ask Jeeves, or any other persona or charicature?

        The point is that there is no such thing as bad name recognition. Just because Linux doesn't have a stylized "Linux" in words logo, doesn't mean that it is not professional. The goal of a logo is to stand out in people's heads and make a permanent impression.

        Now perhaps you think it is childlike, but so what if it appeals to kids? My kids, aged 8 and 6 recognize Tux as being the linux penguin wherever they see it. This creates lifelong association and awareness.

        As it is, Tux is quite stylized and adaptable, and when broken down into high contrast colors, it is still recognizable. I also take issue saying it conjures up images of unreliability. Linus liked Tux because (paraphrasing) "He looks liked he just ate of lot of herring or just got laid." So Tux stands for fat and happy success with a knowing, enigmatic grin-- i.e. you just ate the competition's lunch.

        • Graphical logos better than text (Score:4, Interesting)

          by fiannaFailMan ( 702447 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @03:05PM (#8512807) Journal
          The Shell logo is a lot more recognisable and is quicker to assimilate than the word "SHELL" spelt out in big letters. That's why they removed the word from their logo years ago.

          I think that the IT sector is overflowing with boring logos and stylised names. And if I see another logo with a meaningless eliptical sweep around the company name, I swear I'm gonna scream!

      • Japan doesn't agree with you. Or the EU. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Wohali ( 57372 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @01:56PM (#8511990) Homepage
        Funny, small [so-net.ne.jp] but [www.qoo.jp] cute [sony.co.jp] characters [nttdocomo.co.jp] don't seem to be a problem in Japan.

        Quit taking such a US-centric view of the market. Given the realities of the declining economy, and the increasing trend towards humanization of technology interfaces, perhaps a penguin is the right move after all.
      • I wonder, do you also think the *BSD mascot is satanic, or that it represents satanic values (whatever those may be)? Anyone who makes business decisions based on a product logo, deserve what they get.
    • From my email .signiture rotation (and undoubtedly taken from here):

      "The Linux symbol is a cute cartoon penguin. For Microsoft, the symbol
      right now is a fat guy in a skintight butterfly suit. Which mascot is
      more appealing?"

  • Linux will beat Windows in the security battle. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Ckwop ( 707653 ) * on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @12:58PM (#8511247) Homepage
    No matter how many security researchers Microsoft get to look at their source there will always be more looking at linux. The reason: It's open source..

    Microsoft can't compete against that so I suspect they'll lose their % of the server market quite rapidly in the next two years.

    Simon.
    • Not only that, but if you find a security flaw in Windows and report it, either Microsoft ignores you or they threaten you with the DMCA for "hacking" the OS. If you find something in Linux, at least a dozen developers hop onto the problem and get it resolved within a week (or less).
    • But when Microsoft's "source" is Dotnet a whole class of security vulnerabilities will be eliminated that could still be latent in Linux or Linux C/C++ applications.

      Also Dotnet gives MS the kind of integrated security environment that is not even on the horizon for Linux.

      So let's not be too complacent here - Dotnet will increase MS's agility and Linux will have no coherent response, right now all we have is a bunch of disparate "platform" initiatives. Although by a vast margin the greatest investment is f

      • Re:Linux will beat Windows in the security battle. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by MagikSlinger ( 259969 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @01:53PM (#8511942) Homepage Journal
        But when Microsoft's "source" is Dotnet a whole class of security vulnerabilities will be eliminated...

        *splutter*

        .Net is going to make Melissa et al look like a minor cold compared to the digital Pearl Harbor that is .Net. This thing was built without security in mind, then it was "Oh, we need to secure it!". Cringely had a good column about this just last week.

        SOAP (the communication protocol of .Net) was designed to deliberately to bypass firewalls by using the HTTP port by default. That alone is enough reason to shut down .Net. If you cannot block off .Net communication without breaking another (relatively more secure) protocol, you'll either cripple .Net or a lot of companies will be caught with their pants down.

        Listen, I know you're all excited after reading the .NET and C# technology papers, etc. But I've been victimized by MS technology for nearly 15 years (Oh dear, has it been that long already??), and I can guarantee you: .NET will not provide half of what they claim it can do.

        • Re:Linux will beat Windows in the security battle. (Score:4, Informative)

          by DroopyStonx ( 683090 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @02:53PM (#8512667)
          Why was this modded up? Just mindless MS bashing with no facts to back it up.

          Look, I dislike Microsoft as much as the next person, but the argument you used with SOAP is just way off. I'm not even sure what you're trying to say. SOAP is as insecure as the developer allows it to be. It wasn't DESIGNED to bypass firewalls. It was designed to provide a standard format in remote computing. It's no more insecure as requesting an XML feed or a web page. If you want it secure, then pass along a user & password to validate each function via SSL.

          I know it's popular opinion to bash MS, but if you're ASP/PHP designer, then you know the benefits of .net (which is pretty much Microsoft's take on Java/JSP/Servlets). I've been using .net since the beta days and I can guarantee you, while I haven't been using MS stuff as long as you, it DOES provide half of what they claim it can do for Web Applications; it does MORE than enough and then some.

          Like it or not, .net is a step in the right direction. While c# isn't as good as traditional c++, it's sure as hell way more powerful than VB, *almost* as powerful as c++, and way easier to program in. The downside.. not cross platform, but when you design applications for MICROSOFT solutions, it's excellent.

          Now, if I were to design a Linux-based solution, that's a different story.

      • Good God..."+4, Insightful"??? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by WebCowboy ( 196209 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @02:56PM (#8512710)
        How inappropriate...however it would be cool if the parent post got modded "+5, Troll" as it is a masterful example of trolling.

        Sincerely, HOW exactly does .NET eliminate a "whole class of security vulnerabilities" from Windows. Are you referring to buffer overflows and such? Seems to me that lately that's been the LEAST of problems in the windows worm-fest (almost none involve security breaches related to overflows).

        I am not extremely well versed in the underlying architecture of .NET except in that it seems to be "Java done right (according to Microsoft)". Pray tell me, what does the "integrated security environment" do to make Windows inherently more secure than anything else?

        Seems to me it's primary benefit would be to streamline the process and provide a common security layer for ALL .NET applications. Do you mean that since it is a uniform system it will be easier to secure and as such more people will secure their systems. "Security by Simplicity" if you will--make it too hard and people will give up or incorrectly secure the system and leave it vulnerable, hence a simpler setup is more secure. Is that your argument?

        Seems like a good theory but one that can bite a gigantic chunk out of your ass if you aren't careful. The whole .NET architecture seems to force all applications to rely on the integrity of the .NET framework and security environment. The apps are all .NET CLR "managed code" but low-level drivers and code in the .NET framework itself at some level are going to rely on C and assembly I would think. What happens if there is a vulnerability there? A security bug in the .NET Application Framework somewhere wouldn't just make IIS or Outlook or IE vulnerable, it could make EVERY DAMN .NET APP vulnerable! "Central" and "Intetgrated" security model seems to me to translate to "single point of failure".

        Maybe I'm just missing something here, but I really don't see how .NET is the MS Saviour of security. About all I've seen is a change in philosophy to "services closed by default" etc but nothing MEANINGFUL. And we still have to wait at least TWO YEARS until Longhorn to see it working to it's fullest advantage (thatever that is). How is something that's realistically that for out on the horizon fix the very serious flaws in the platform that have to be dealt with today?

    • Re:Linux will beat Windows in the security battle. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Ryan Amos ( 16972 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @01:17PM (#8511491)
      This is a common misconception. Linux is more secure than Windows because it's a lot easier to micromanage your system. But it also places a lot more of the responsibility for security on the administrator's head, which means if you have a Linux admin who doesn't know how to properly secure a box *and maintain that security*, it'll probably be more insecure than a Windows machine. Most hacks for Windows aren't widely exploited until after a patch is released anyway, whereas on Linux it's often in reverse (though the patches are usually available within hours.) Linux just better allows you to micromanage things than Windows, which can either be a good or a bad thing depending on the skill of the admin.
      • But it also places a lot more of the responsibility for security on the administrator's head,

        But it also means that, at any given time, you can know *exactly* what's running on your machine, because nothing is hidden from you. Can you say the same for a more closed system like Windows?

        Most hacks for Windows aren't widely exploited until after a patch is released anyway,

        Sorry, but this is bullshit. First, if a hack is available in the wild, do you really think *you'll* be the first person to know a
      • In the article here [slashdot.org] it was mentioned that script kiddies were already exploting RPC/DCOM months before the first eEye first published it.
    • The problem for Microsoft is Longhorn isn't expected to be released until 2006. By then, Gus Zinn, an analyst with Waddell & Reed, expects Linux will have killed off most of the Unix market, setting the stage for the real showdown against Microsoft

      I think this prediction is rather interesting. Where will UNIX vendors go from there? Everyone knows where SCO is going, but what about SUN and others?
    • Emphasis added:

      No matter how many security researchers Microsoft get to look at their source there will always be more looking at linux.

      There's a bit of wishful thinking here. One highly capable expert is probably worth a thousand pairs of moderately capable eyeballs.

      MS is hampered in the "security battle" by two things. First, it is a larger and more attractive target. Second, it's near term business interests and practices don't make security as high a priority as we would like it to be.

      I think

  • Could someone... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jwthompson2 ( 749521 ) * on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @12:58PM (#8511251) Homepage
    ... explain this title to me...is the implication that Linux is slow at innovating or something? Or are they focusing on the 'steady' part from the old fable? The analogy doesn't quite seem to fit since Linux is both 'fast' and 'steady'...Besides Microsoft could be better anologized to a 'retarded turtle' that is both slow and disoriented/unfocused whereas linux is much more like a determined 'rabbit' which is both 'fast' and steady/focused.

    Some may not agree with me on the 'focused' point but that's ok, they probably are using the 'retarded turtle' anyways.

  • No, Really? (Score:3, Funny)

    by nickasbob ( 759097 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @12:59PM (#8511256)
    More security and stability? You're kidding right? Why would anyone want that in a server? Silly Linux forcing Microsoft to do jump through such unecessary hoops.

  • What case is there to be made? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Overly Critical Guy ( 663429 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @12:59PM (#8511264)
    We've known since 1998 that Linux has server headway. Microsoft knows this too. They know they have to work on security (hence what's coming in SP2 and later on, Longhorn).

    Summary of article--Linux is a good server, Microsoft has to make Windows more secure to compete (this despite the fact Linux was shown to be the most vulnerable OS on the net according to an article Slashdot posted a few months ago).

  • Yeah (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @01:00PM (#8511271)
    and Mac OS X is a panther, it can kill both of those.

  • Qaulity Sfotwere? (Score:4, Funny)

    by ackthpt ( 218170 ) * on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @01:00PM (#8511272) Homepage Journal
    Microsoft to spend more time on security and stability, and less time on adding new features."

    What? And part with tradition?

    Would this mean the new Microsoft ad taglines would be "Now, more secure and stable than ever!"

    I can't see that, since they've already played that card and anyone with a lick of sense has seen the results. More likely they'll just trim their profit margins, try to lock down proprietary technology (to bar Linux from having it) and continue to spin marketspeak.

    • Microsoft ad taglines would be "Now, more secure and stable than ever!"

      Make that "Now, more secureer and stableer than ever before!"

      People always like their comparative adjectives with , "ER" in the end.

      Note to grammar nazis :- It's a joke.

  • Not Linux (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Walkiry ( 698192 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @01:00PM (#8511274) Homepage
    [Linux is] "going to force Microsoft to spend more time on security and stability, and less time on adding new features."

    Not specifically linux, but the market. ANYONE who had come along providing that focus with good functionality would have had the same effect. Linux has rewritten a few rules with the GPL and the way the beast is created and mantained, but ultimately the reason why the market has accepted those is because they provide greater security and greater stability.

    Microsoft would have also focused there if they had tried to meet their user's demands instead of telling them they should meet Microsoft's goals.

  • Mantrims (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rf0 ( 159958 ) * <rghf@fsck.me.uk> on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @01:00PM (#8511275) Homepage
    Microsoft: Release First Patch Often

    Linux: Release when stablish and patch when needed

    Well IMHO anyway

    Rus

  • The real battle in the overseas market (Score:5, Informative)

    by andy1307 ( 656570 ) * on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @01:00PM (#8511276)
    Is going to be over "open" office suites. Most companies go with windows because their worker driods are accustomed to Ms Word, MS Excel and Ms Outlook. If we can keep the new emerging markets from being addicted to MS office productivity suites, that will be a big boost for open source.

    This is a good start

    Haryana(State in India) signs pact with Sun Microsystems [business-standard.com]
    The Haryana government has signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with Sun Microsystems to adopt open source office productivity tool, the StarOffice 7, for departments and educational institutions.

    Linux may carve out bigger niche in desktop PC market [usatoday.com]
    On Feb. 4, it announced the sale of 10,000 copies of its StarOffice desktop suite to United India Insurance, one of India's largest insurers. StarOffice can run on Windows or Linux desktop PCs. Sun aims next to persuade United India to replace 10,000 Windows PCs with Linux-based Java Desktop PCs.

  • Microsoft may be a lot of things... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Penguinisto ( 415985 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @01:00PM (#8511279) Journal
    ...but on bread-and-butter issues, they're certainly not stupid:

    "They're not at all important in the next quarter," Lundstrom said. But "20 years from now, the global center of the software industry will be Asia."

    I bet MSFT pays damned close attention to that line right there. Problem is, Asia is already more in love with Linux than nearly anywhere else on the planet, and that may be Linux' ultimate success... and MSFT's ultimate source of destruction.

    /P

  • For Microsoft, security and stability will be new features.

  • MS is still an innovator - in other ways (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gregwbrooks ( 512319 ) * <gregb.west-third@net> on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @01:01PM (#8511294)
    Adaptation of an earlier post on another thread, but the point is worth repeating.

    :::putting on flame-proof suit:::

    Microsoft is an enormous innovator and will innovate in some manner to push back the threat of *nix. In fact, they may be one of the greatest innovators in the history of tech companies. They're just not innovating in an altruistic, philanthropic or technical way that most /. readers relate to.

    From a business perspective, strategic marketing and business practices can and should be part of the innovation mix. If I'm Microsoft can package technology in such a way that it maximizes uptake, positions it as the de facto standard in the marketplace and raises the cost of entry for competitors, that's massive innovation, as long as you're defining innovation in a way that matters to the company's profitability and the financial success of shareholders -- and that is the only $DIETY Microsoft ultimately has to serve.

    Microsoft makes some money when it technologically innovates. It makes one hell of a lot of money when it can innovate through changes in its business practices or (better yet) forcing changes in the business practies of most or all customers and competitors. This is where you'll see Microsoft working hard to combat erosion in its server market.

    RMS can rant all he wants. We can wave the banner of free (Speech! Beer!) all we want. We can use the word monopoly all we want.

    And Microsoft will still win.

    Microsoft will win as long as they understand the whole war and we understand just one battle. The battle we're fighting is technological superiority, lower off-the-shelf cost and (in some cases) the principles of Free Software. Battles matter, but they're not the whole war. The war is market share and mindshare dominance, and "innovation" as simply a name for a whole range of tools that meet that primary business end.

    In this war, it sometimes seems that we're using a gun and Microsoft is committed to using its whole arsenal. Can you win with just a gun? Yeah, if you're a good shot and take out a key leader. But the odds favor the person with more weapons.

    • Re:MS is still an innovator - in other ways (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @01:11PM (#8511423)

      Microsoft will win as long as they understand the whole war and we understand just one battle. The battle we're fighting is technological superiority, lower off-the-shelf cost and (in some cases) the principles of Free Software. Battles matter, but they're not the whole war. The war is market share and mindshare dominance, and "innovation" as simply a name for a whole range of tools that meet that primary business end.

      No, technologic superiority is definitely not the point. Don't listen to Linus, listen to RMS. He "got it" long before most of us. Simply put, politics, licensing, and legal details are the most important elements to this battle. Technological improvements are secondary.

      Free/Open Source Software is more closely aligned with the needs and habits of the general public (need to install 10 servers, take one disk and install it 10 times, don't pay for 10 "licenses"). So all things being equal, FOSS should win.

      But MS and others will play hardball in the courts and in government. THAT'S what we should be keeping an eye on. Let's keep the playing field as level as possible, and let freedom ring!

    • Re:MS is still an innovator - in other ways (Score:4, Insightful)

      by k_head ( 754277 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @01:55PM (#8511979)
      The point you are missing is that freedom is just as important to a corporation as it's to a human being. Corporations don't like being locked in to a vendor, they will put up with it if they don't have an alternative but as soon as an alternative comes along they will jump on it.

      Linux is almost ready to invade corporate America. My prediction is that 2005 will be year that corporation adoption of linux will explode. The main driving force behind that will be the desire for freedom. Freedom to upgrade when you want, freedom to choose your hardware from many different vendors and freedom to switch support contracts.

      Munich was the watershed event. They chose linux even though it cost them more money because it gave them greater freedom.

  • Or.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by andih8u ( 639841 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @01:02PM (#8511306)
    going to force Microsoft to spend more time on security and stability, and less time on adding new features

    You would actually think that with the resources available to them, that they would be able to do both. Perhaps this is the reason for Longhorn's delay.

    Microsoft is not a stupid company, by any means, I'm sure they have several linux labs so they can start gleaning ideas from it. They've never had any problem with seeing something as competition and coming up with their own version of it.

  • Isn't this a good thing (Score:3, Insightful)

    by andy1307 ( 656570 ) * on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @01:03PM (#8511326)
    going to force Microsoft to spend more time on security and stability, and less time on adding new features.

    So MS is going to spend more time on security and stability, something every user needs, and less time on adding new features, most of which are hardly ever used.

    • But it's true that the new features are what sell software. I wouldn't like to pay money to upgrade to a more secure product - I'd prefer to have the already paid for, broken one, fixed.

  • Security (Score:3, Informative)

    by Schnapple ( 262314 ) <tomkidd@gmail . c om> on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @01:04PM (#8511336) Homepage
    going to force Microsoft to spend more time on security and stability, and less time on adding new features
    I think MS' focus on security is going to annoy many, which may be why they held off on it for so long. For example, last night I opened up an Access 2000 database I created like four years ago. Access 2003 asked me three times if I really wanted to open it since it may have security issues (I don't recall what the issue was). Of course I opened it anyway - I did it four years ago and I'm pretty sure I'm not malicious against myself. In fact, I know I've opened this one in Access 2003 before with no problem, so I think this is related to the latest critical patches for Jet.

    The funny thing is, it really annoyed me. Not the being asked part, the being asked three times thing. But then I reminded myself that the alternative is insecurity.

    So whereas Linux, et al, has focused on security, Microsoft focused on adding new features. MS is now in the dominant position (always was, really) and now will drag the consumer into security. Linux meanwhile wrestles with TCO, which is a result of Windows dominance, again due to lack of security.

  • Cost is key (Score:3, Informative)

    by jpnm ( 758003 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @01:04PM (#8511347)
    I've always been a Microsoft guy, but last year when I had to standardize on a single OS for our applications, I went with Linux. Not because it was better, but because it was free. It is that kind of decision made over and over again that is hurting Microsoft.

  • enough! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mr_tommy ( 619972 ) <tgrahamNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @01:05PM (#8511350) Journal
    Enough with these stupid stories already!!!!! Seriously : i know this appeals to the slashdot audience (posting linux advocacy stories) but the reality is completely different. The day that the community focuses on real ways to reduce microsoft's monopoly will be the day that linux becomes sucessful.

    People were writing these stories 3 years ago. Nothing has changed.

  • Interdependencies (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jtwJGuevara ( 749094 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @01:05PM (#8511353)
    Microsoft's next major operating system release, dubbed Longhorn, aims to integrate numerous products into the operating system and desktop, creating interdependencies that could further lock customers to Microsoft

    How is this an advantage. Everyone I know that is halfway technically savvy finds this a disadvantage about the Windows line of operating systems. People like having choices when it comes to the products and services they buy. Microsoft is going to shoot themselves in the foot with this line of thinking.

  • Forcing to be more stable and secure.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gmuslera ( 3436 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @01:05PM (#8511359) Homepage Journal
    ... now, that is a negative or positive thing for windows, microsoft or the world as a whole?

    I think a lot of companies that depends on windows would happily buy a lot of boxes of linux and show the bills to Microsoft if that will make windows more safe and stable.

  • Desktop up next -- (Score:5, Insightful)

    by frenetic3 ( 166950 ) * <houstonNO@SPAMalum.mit.edu> on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @01:06PM (#8511373) Homepage Journal
    They ought to be damn worried about the desktop and the consumer market as well. The Linux desktop as a drop in replacement for XP Home/whatever is still a ways away, but with advances in (the products formerly known as) Mozilla/Thunderbird, OpenOffice, and KDE/GNOME it's only a matter of time before it really improves to the point where a Linux desktop is truly accessible and does everything that 95% of the mass market wants to do.

    Plus companies like IBM can afford to throw full-time devs at it in the hopes of avoiding millions of dollars of MS tax/Windows licenses a year.

    Finally they're starting to get a taste of their own medicine (getting their market cannibalized by a free alternative).

    -fren

  • I think they'll just obfuscate more. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MarcQuadra ( 129430 ) * on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @01:08PM (#8511385)
    I disagree, I think Microsoft is just going to push their proprietary stuf harder, in the false name of security. Sure, they'll have to drop the prices, but Linux will have a tough time 'fitting in' when it can't authenticate against the existing Active Directory servers out there.

    I'm already having trouble getting Macs and Linux boxes to play nice with Active Directory, who KNOWS what sort of proprietary encryption techniques they'll use to keep Linux and Apple boxes out of the core network.

    I can easily see MS dropping support for pre-NTLMv2 logons, which would force Mac users to use MS-controlled authentication modules, that would be rough if they didn't maintain them properly.

    Is there a way now to run an Apache/Linux box and have it authenticate web users against an Active Directory?

    Is there an open-standard directory service that can replace AD, but windows machines can still connect to? Has anyone written an 'OpenDirectory -> pseudo-AD / NT Domains' gateway?

  • Unintended Competition (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Mordack ( 756812 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @01:10PM (#8511405)

    It is worth noting that somehow an operating system created just for the fun of it and never intended to take on Microsoft's product line is doing just that.

    When was the last time one of your educational endevours resulted in taking on a major corporation?

  • Microsoft *is* working on security & stability (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Daltorak ( 122403 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @01:10PM (#8511408)
    "going to force Microsoft to spend more time on security and stability, and less time on adding new features."

    That's exactly what Microsoft has been doing for some time now. We're 2.5 years out from the release of Windows XP; in this time there's been a fairly significant update to Windows Media Player, Movie Maker, and Messenger, and umm... that's it for features, folks! Pretty much everything else MS has released as updates to XP in that timeframe directly addresses security and stability. XP SP2 will be more of the same: all the binaries have been recompiled with stack corruption checking mechanisms in place, the firewall will be turned on by default, automatic updates will be pushed harder than ever, IE will get additional ActiveX security controls, there will be better integration with third-party AV solutions, RPC has been thoroughly worked over to improve security, etc. etc. Even Athlon 64 owners will get additional security in the form of the NX protection.

    There's very little in the way of new features that aren't security-related. The closest one I can think of is the pop-up blocker, and that could even be considered a "job security" feature.

    It's o this CTO's discredit that he has had his head in the sand for so long that he hasn't actually noticed this going on!

    • IE will get additional ActiveX security controls

      Can I get a control that says if the only signature on the ActiveX control is the VeriSign Time Stamp signature, to not run it?

      Setting the security to not run "signed" ActiveX controls resulted in every spammer and spyware product getting "signed" with a timestamp signature, and allowed to run as if signed by a real certificate.

      For now, I've just turned off ActiveX controls entirely. As a nice side effect, Flash ads no longer work. On the downside, neithe

    • Re:Microsoft *is* working on security & stabil (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @01:31PM (#8511659)
      I guess it depends on how seriously you take Microsoft's "security" initiative. If you think it's for real, then yes, Microsoft has been focusing on security for two years. If you think it's just marketing nonsense, then Microsoft has been sitting on its ass for two years except when prodded forward by security vulnerabilities. It's a toss-up for many.

      Take some of the things MS does to improve "security". Back in 199x, they had a problem with viruses being sent as attachments, because it's too easy to convince people to run foreign executables on Windows. So, do they fix the bug? No, they remove the feature. No attachments for you! Now it's 2004 and they have a bug in their HTTP URL parsing that allows people to phish. Fix the bug like Mozilla did? No, remove the feature--no usernames/passwords in URLs for you! It seems that Microsoft has learned nothing. Got a bug in a feature? Remove the feature, because fixing bugs is hard.

      And then there's Oxymoronic statements, like "ActiveX security". You know what? ActiveX is a generic technology with no concept of program INSTALLATION with restricted user permissions. Using it as an Internet-exposed browser plugin technology was a quick and easy but extraordinarily insecure decision. The best Microsoft can do is throw up a lot of locks in front of the control, because once a user clicks "Yes" (and trust me, users do!) the show's over. The ActiveX control has complete control. Not so on Linux--I install plugins without root access, and they only apply to me, and can only damage my home directory. Home Windows users regularly run as administrators, not because they are dumb, but because they need to do things that Windows won't let them do unless they're administrators. Install browser plugins, fonts, change file associations. Linux users can do all of these things as unprivileged users.

      Yes, I believe people at Microsoft believe they are working on security. I believe many Microsoft customers believe Microsoft is committed to security. And I also believe that the truth or falsehood of those beliefs is irrelevant. This is a PR blitz, nothing more.

  • Feature churn is a top Windows problem (Score:5, Interesting)

    by swb ( 14022 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @01:14PM (#8511447)
    One thing that's always driven me batty is the manic-depressive nature of Microsoft's feature development. On day, they announce some new technology with a commitment that seems more impressive than wedding vows, six months later they quietly kill it off in favor of another announcement of some other, newer, technology.

    I'm not against new innovations, but this cycle should be more like 3-5 years, not 6-18 months, they shouldn't be unsupported and obsolete until 5-7 years, minimum. Between a new technology announcement and a real deployment can be 9-18 months depending on a business' needs and budgeting and planning cycles. Replacing it right when you want to deploy it is pretty insane (although I know they want you on the upgrade treadmill).

    And their "new" innovations should in some way be improvements (with perhaps some backwards compatibility) so that they seem to have a coherent, long-term *strategy* and not just a short term marketing idea.

    We'll see if they're capable of being that kind of company.

  • Did Anyone Catch MS Admission to Paid Studies? (Score:5, Informative)

    by TheWanderingHermit ( 513872 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @01:14PM (#8511453)
    I thought this paragraph was most telling, the 1st one on the last page:

    Taylor also said the company is countering Linux's unbeatable price tag by commissioning studies that show the total cost of ownership over the life of the software is higher with Linux than Windows.

    Taylor is Martin Taylor, Microsoft's general manager of platform strategy.

    Basically, they are admitting to paying for studies that show the results they want.

    I'd love a direct quotation of his answer -- it'd be a great rebuttal when MS publishes another "Windows costs less" study.

  • Question... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Roger Keith Barrett ( 712843 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @01:14PM (#8511454)
    Why do idiots^m^m I mean "industry analysts" like the writer of this article always quote insiders at Microsoft but never talk to ANYONE within the open source movement... not even someone like Linus Torvalds or the CEO or red hat? Why do they get ALL their information from the corprate world and NEVER even THINK about getting information from inside the open source world?

    I am not going to take any of these types of reports seriously unless they can get outside of their little corporate biosphere at least once in a while and understand that there is a world outside. I am tired of seeing reports on TV and on bignamed media sites act like anything that is outside of corporate-think is odd, alien, and totally not worthy of mention.

  • competition (Score:4, Insightful)

    by pizza_milkshake ( 580452 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @01:17PM (#8511488)
    microsoft has something they haven't had in a long time: competition. sure, the unixes have always been around, but they're expensive, require custom hardware, and support can only come from one place. linux has none of these detractors.

    with both sides working to improve their product, hopefully the big winner will be computer users.

    • Re:competition (Score:4, Insightful)

      by pizza_milkshake ( 580452 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @01:22PM (#8511545)
      one thing is forgot to say though -- since microsoft got big, whenever they do have competition, they tend to pull out the stops and find ways other than technical superiority to best the other party. see netscape. see them funding sco to drag linux's name through the mud. the great thing about linux however is that the one thing microsoft is great at, making money, isn't of primary interest in the linux world. microsoft can't buy out linux. they can't give out cheaper copies to saturate the market and put linux out of business. but they will try dirty tricks... lawsuits, advanced marketing FUD and possibly ninja assassins.

  • Look, I LOVE my Mandrake BUT... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Assmasher ( 456699 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @01:26PM (#8511600) Journal
    ...the reality of the situation is thus:

    Either IBM/SUN/Other serious development companies step in and totally embrace Linux and commit to an acceptable Open Source policy that makes everyone happy, or Micro$oft can quite literally re-invent themselves to be Linux killers.

    For example, and this is horrifying, imagine that M$ purchases SCO's 'rights' (whatever the hell those actually are) and produces a Unix clone and puts 20 THOUSAND engineers on it. Imagine they do it right. Everything written to be secure, everything modularized, the ultimate desktop, et cetera.

    This is a REAL possibility. Sadly, I think Apple is the one who showed them the possibilities. OSX was a huge slap in Redmond's face and I bet many of them said "Why don't we have something like that."

    Can you imagine a (borg like) future were Microsoft has (like it does now) two product lines, the client line and the server line. The server line is Unix based, the client line is (who knows what) based.

    Linux in all this? Gets marginalized.

    In essenece what I'm trying to say is "Do not count on Micro$oft letting us slowly chew away at their business. They will come out with guns blazing and the only way to beat them is to do it with their own game, the throwing of literally billions of dollars and tens of thousands of HIGHLY organized engineers at a problem."

    Look how quickly they crushed Netscape when they really put an effort into it. It's, quite frankly, terrifying. 40 billion in cash, tens of thousands of (despite what many of you think) quality software engineers, a first class research group. They're some scary mothers.

    I sure wish SUN and Oracle would just suddenly go ALL LINUX. That'd scare the piss out of old Bill ;).

    • Re:Look, I LOVE my Mandrake BUT... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Thanatopsis ( 29786 ) <despain.brian@g m a i l .com> on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @01:49PM (#8511877) Homepage
      Clearly you have never run a larger scale software project. I would love LOVE MS to do that. Why? Because that project would be one enormous sink hole of MS resources and focus. You cannot throw 20,000 engineers at something and have it work. Read the Mythical Man Month for a great example of how throwing more resources at a project can cause it to run off track. . Keep in mind that would represent roughly 1/3 of MS's workforce. MS already has a server OS, it's called Windows XP. MS wants to have a single OS so that they don't have to support the multiple OSes they do now.
  • Perhaps 2004 will not be the year when Linux makes it big. Maybe not 2005, 2006, or even 2007. But it is becoming clear to every honest observer that Microsoft is running out of time. Their business model sits smack in the middle of that part of the software ecology that has become commoditized. They are selling ice in an age of cheap refrigeration.
    It's hardly even worth asking 'when'. Frankly, who cares whether it's next year or in 10 years.
    The only interesting questions are, IMHO, (a) how can Microsoft survive (and it ain't gonna happen by producing TCO studies!), and (b) what will happen to the software world if MS does not survive. Open Source software is a threat only to some classes of commercial software producer, and it's a boon to every single software consumer.
    Attempts to polarize this debate into "opinion" and "zealotry" miss the point: it's about technology curves and the way they change the economics of doing business.

  • No (Score:4, Insightful)

    by 4of12 ( 97621 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @02:03PM (#8512092) Homepage Journal

    ...going to force Microsoft to spend more time on security and stability, and less time on adding new features.

    His prognostication is late.

    IMHO, Linux is the single most important reason that Win2K was as good as it was relative to previous offerings to Redmond.

    So good, in fact, that knowledgeable customers aren't convinced there are any valid technical reasons for migrating to XP or successors. The cost benefit ratio just isn't compelling.

    In it's effort to stave off the force of commoditisation that Linux and free and open source software is bringing, Microsoft is working furiously to add features that make migration away from Windows less attractive.

    The Outlook/Exchange orbit is a prime example of that strategy.

    But this kind of feature lock-in is only a good strategy for existing customers that are already heavily invested in Microsoft's products. It's not a good strategy for growth of new customers, particularly cost-conscious customers.

    And, even though the recession is over, the cost-cutting activities in businesses are not over, which really puts the spotlight on Microsoft's high-margin products that have "good enough" low-cost alternatives in the free and open source world.

  • Linux is IBM's revenge (Score:5, Insightful)

    by avandesande ( 143899 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @02:04PM (#8512106) Journal
    Remember when Microsoft helped commoditize hardware in the 90? IBM can now get their revenge by commoditizing the operating system.

  • The 64bit changeover (we are talking servers) (Score:4, Interesting)

    by RoundSparrow ( 341175 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @03:02PM (#8512764)
    2GB RAM limits and /3GB hacks in Windows have reached their limit for a lot of server uses. When doing VM style systems or large databases...

    How does Windows complete? To get 'official support' from Microsoft for more than 2GB of RAM you have to purchase the very expensive Server Enterprise Edition. We aren't talking $500 (Windows 2000 Server) vs. free, we are talking $1,500 vs free.

    64-bit Windows is still 'beta'... I think Microsoft has already let the door open... They were ahead on Itanium but now behind on the AMD.

    Giving up the 64-bit Alpha might proove to be the mistake that Microsoft made that lead to this...

    Just some thoughts.

  • Microsoft's greatest advantage.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by innerweb ( 721995 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @03:43PM (#8513199)
    Is that it allows complete computer illiterates to do little things so that they feel like they can do great big things. Kind of like the kid who rides a tri-cycle thinking he can drive a formula 1 race car.

    People like to believe they are empowered. Most people do not use the best product, they use the product that makes them feel the best. So what if Excel is not a database. The last place I worked full time for had so many excel spreadsheet databases that two people sitting beside each other could not agree on what a property's address was.

    MS has the market for dumb users at the moment. Unskilled users can be brilliant at other things (like marketing, real estate, contracts, etc.) but they have no clue (or worse, little clue) how to work with data. They use MS products though and can get a small thing going, so they think the next step is just another click and drag away. Linux lacks this fundamental smoke screen.

    The reason this race analogy is so beautiful is that Linux is slowly creeping up on MS's GUI ease of use and unskilled user empowerment. The key really is to allow people to do damage to themselves easily, then it is their choice. As Linux develops the ease of use, and ease of getting stuck that Windows currently has, then the rest of the world will start to flock to it. After all, these are most of the same people who download music, games and movies without paying. Then, they will not have to pay for the OS or the Office software.

    Microsoft might be able to compete with that, but I doubt they can through legitimate means. After all, GNU applications and Linux development do not have any of the marketing, h/r, accounting or other costs associated with running a company. Pure development without the taint of beancounters or marketers.

    InnerWeb

  • Windows interoperability is a crock. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rastin ( 727137 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @04:30PM (#8513869)
    My official title is 'SQL Server Guru' and I am responsible for 5 servers at a retail mega-corp. If I am not relearning how to create a better wheel in .Net (from having previously known VS6), I am preparing for countless migrations. SQL7 to SQL2K, WinNT to Win2K, IIS whatever to whatever, not to mention countless security patches that all seem to break more than they fix. Not to mention dll hell and what happens when MDAC gets replaced with an older version. All this crap masquerades under the banner of 'Windows Interoperability'. Take in contrast the AIX box I have that runs Apache (IBM's flavor) and uses perl and php to connect to Amazon.com. Our admins load whatever they want, if it breaks they back out their changes. I have a cd with all my code that I can deploy to any system I want, tweak 2 files and I'm back in production. We even had to rewrite parts of Curl to handle nonstandard headers. This machine has to be available 98% of the time. It has been up since November. My mission critical Windows machine has been up since middle of February. It is more important to me that with a text editor and an internet connection I can fix ANYTHING. Than to be sold on software components that have a 3 year lifecycle. Wow, that rant was better than therapy. Back to my damn migration plan. PS: It is easier to run an enterprise with no Microsoft components than it is to run one with nothing but Microsoft components.

Slashdot Top Deals

"I got everybody to pay up front...then I blew up their planet." "Now why didn't I think of that?" -- Post Bros. Comics

Close