Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Businesses Linux Business Novell SuSE

Microsoft's Chief Linux Strategist Interviewed 369

Posted by CowboyNeal from the shape-of-things-to-come dept.
sl0wp0is0n writes "Computerworld has published an interview with Microsoft's chief Linux strategist, Martin Taylor. It's interesting to find out that Microsoft thinks and predicts Novell (SuSE) will be the dominant Linux distribution they'll have to compete against. The interview also has Taylor talking about indemnification, IBM and his realization that customers generally adopt Linux to get a better TCO than Unix, not Windows."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft's Chief Linux Strategist Interviewed More

Microsoft's Chief Linux Strategist Interviewed

Comments Filter:

  • A most interesting interview (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17, 2004 @08:11AM (#10275342)
    When you're getting something for free, [vendors] get a lot of "get out of jail free" cards. You see [people saying], "Oh well. We didn't pay for it anyway, so we shouldn't care too much about security. We'll fix it ourselves. Oh, there's no regression testing. Who cares? We'll do that ourselves." But once you start writing a check, you now have demands, and rightfully so.

    And indeed, for me, this marks the start of Linux having the potential to be a threat. It means that if a commercial Linux is a viable option, then more commercial software will be written.

    • Re:A most interesting interview (Score:5, Informative)

      by bersl2 ( 689221 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @08:18AM (#10275375) Journal
      Oh, there's no regression testing.

      1. Not always true.
      2. Admins don't (and shouldn't) rely on Microsoft's or anybody else's regression and breakage testing anyway.

    • stealth (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Anyone who thinks Microsoft is going to announce its GENUINE thoughts about Linux to the public world is deceiving themselves.

    • Perhaps this is what... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by geordie_loz ( 624942 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @08:22AM (#10275397) Homepage
      they think of Internet Explorer..

      No one pays for that, so Microsoft "Get Out Of Jail" for that? I think not...

      And also according to those click-through licenses my rights pretty much include "up to but not more than $5".. so that's a comfort is it?

    • Re:A most interesting interview (Score:5, Insightful)

      by salesgeek ( 263995 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @08:30AM (#10275437) Homepage
      When you're getting something for free, [vendors] get a lot of "get out of jail free" cards.

      Exactly how does this differ from Microsoft's EULA which basically says, if you use this, it's your fault. MS telling people that they have some responsiblity for anything is kind of humorous in a sick way.

      • Re:A most interesting interview (Score:5, Insightful)

        by julesh ( 229690 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @10:02AM (#10276066)
        Exactly how does this differ from Microsoft's EULA which basically says, if you use this, it's your fault. MS telling people that they have some responsiblity for anything is kind of humorous in a sick way.

        I think you missed the point. What I think he was saying is that when something goes wrong with Windows, people blame Microsoft and it gives them a bad image, because they've paid for something that doesn't work. When something goes wrong with free software that you've downloaded, you aren't so critical. You haven't paid for it, so you don't really blame anyone for selling you something that didn't work. But, with more and more people paying for "professional" standard distributions, e.g. RedHat Enterprise, Linux is going to end up facing more and more people feeling the same way about its bugs as they do about MS's bugs. He's not apportioning responsibility for this -- he's saying that the consumers will.

    • Re:A most interesting interview (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @08:33AM (#10275446) Homepage
      Oh well. We didn't pay for it anyway, so we shouldn't care too much about security.

      the funny part is that their so call expert has no clue.

      My company is trying to migrate to linux to get away from the nightmare that is windows security. we have the best firewalls you can buy and buy all the software scanners we can yet spyware sneaks into the machines because of the gigantic security holes that windows 2000 and XP has in them. none of this crud should get installed, yet it does, it bypasses the security settings and wiggles in there because of the flaws in IE and outook and Word.

      we Had a Regional VP visit here during the last virus outbreak and he saw that the research department was working away without being bothered while we had to run around and fix machines because the patches and fixes would not reliably push out to the windows machines. He asked why, and the response from one of the IT guys was, "Oh, they run linux and are immune to all this."

      cince that day he has increased our support in the company for researching linux migration 10 fold.

      Companies are looking at linux on the desktop to get away from the nightmare that is computing today.

      granted, it's only a matter of time until the spyware and viruses are written for linux, but I'm betting that having the core web-client-tools open source will keep it under control as things will get fixed.
      • Out of interest, how big is your company?
    • When you're getting something for free, [vendors] get a lot of "get out of jail free" cards.

      From my experience, people always blame Linux for everything that goes wrong (I can't get on the internet, fucking Linux! [5 minutes later] Ok, I've fixed the firewall [Zonealarm on a WinXP box], you can go online. No, Linux doesn't work. Fine then, I'll get your email. [2 minutes later, email on screen] Get off, I'm using the WinXP box).

      On the Desktop at least, Windows gets the "Get out of jail free" cards,

  • This has got to please IBM...not (Score:5, Funny)

    by smittyoneeach ( 243267 ) * on Friday September 17, 2004 @08:12AM (#10275347) Homepage Journal
    So you think, in the long term,
    Novell is your greatest Linux competitor?
    After the Great OS2/WindowsNT Divorce, and all of those cool Developer Works articles since, IBM still can't get no lovin' in Redmond...

    • Re:This has got to please IBM...not (Score:4, Insightful)

      by underpar ( 792569 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @08:29AM (#10275430) Homepage
      " I don't think IBM completely sees the long-term road map for their Linux embracement, which is the reason why maybe they haven't stepped up to indemnify Linux in the way that HP has and some of the ways that Novell has and Red Hat has."

      I guess you can't expect much respect from the company that is funding your biggest headache.

    • Re:This has got to please IBM...not (Score:5, Interesting)

      by LnxAddct ( 679316 ) <sgk25@drexel.edu> on Friday September 17, 2004 @08:36AM (#10275455)
      Personally, I think Microsoft is going to underestimate the abilities of Red Hat and their business model (the subscription based thing) the more and more I talk to higher ups from various companies, thats what they want. I mean Novell is definitly going to be a comptetitor, but MS has taken them before, they've never had to go "toe to toe" with Red Hat and they've never had competition that used a different business strategy then they did. As far as I know, Novell uses the typical model, the same one MS follows, the same one that MS has had to crush before. Dealing with RH's model I think will be a bit harder. All of this is in reference of course to budiness related needs. Home users will typically use whatever they work with, but home users won't want to subscribe (or will they? afterall you have people paying for radio now), so novell probably is MS's competition in the home market, but RH is definitly a threat in the business side of things. I think MS is just hoping that RH is the new kid on the block and will lose. They've taken Novell before. MS is underestimating their competition just like they did with Mozilla, they never expected what has happened recently. I have a feeling that we'll see this trend occur more often now.
      Regards,
      Steve
    • Man, MS are just trolling.

      They announce that Novell is the best disribution, and you'll spend weeks arguing over it, instead of writing any code.

      I predict in about 3 weeks time, another MS exec will let slip that Gnome will be the dominant linux desktop, and a few weeks later, they'll claim BSD is dying.

      I just pity the journos present at their technology demonstration show when they present WinGoat Special Edition...

  • I can't work out what this means (Score:5, Funny)

    by random_rabbit ( 647072 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @08:15AM (#10275356)
    And you can end up with Linux not being Linux, but Red Hat Linux being different than Novell SUSE Linux, Debian Linux and Mandrake, or whatever the case is. We're already beginning to see some of that with how they're taking snapshots of the kernel, where the kernel is and putting it into their distributions.

    Could anyone explain that to me? This guy is explaining that people put KERNELS into DISTRIBUTIONS?
    • Redhat have crossed the line this time, putting a kernel into their distribution! I'm boycotting them, and I encourage you all to join me!
    • It's just standard Microsoftie-speak. You get used to it after a bit. They talk a lot about "stacks" and tend to start sentances with the word "so" quite a bit.

      Anyway, he's saying that Linux is fragmenting/fragmented. This is true to a certain extent but I think the general trend right now is to try and reduce needless differences. For instance while Red Hat still heavily patch their kernels, Fedora is trying to reduce the number of downstream patches to a minimum. Likewise with desktop infrastructure, a

    • Re:I can't work out what this means (Score:5, Insightful)

      by 955301 ( 209856 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @09:18AM (#10275704) Journal
      Bah, pay no attention to him. He's looking at linux through corporate eyes.

      The way I see it, the Linux distributions out there are members of a bicycling team. Each distro has a different role to play at any given time. Redhat starts a sprint to wear the competitors (create brand recognition). Debian stays back and steady in case RH crashes (to support the user base). Gentoo attacks on an uphill, pulls Debian (consolidates the lessons learned from other distros and helps them keep up). Suse and Mandrake offer protection to the contenders on the team (making commercial software vendors warm up to support Linux).

      This guy just can't tell which team is winning, Linux or Microsoft. He's used to Microsoft's go-it-alone-one-gorilla-on-a-tricyle approach. So one of Linux' cyclists is gaining fast on his Gorilla, and the others seem to be holding back and doing completely different things.

      So basically he's saying he's afraid of bicycles. Or something like that.

      Yeah, I read Lance Armstrong's books over the past couple of days. So blame my analogy on him.

  • Same as Microsoft's response to the Internet, BOB (Score:5, Insightful)

    by shoppa ( 464619 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @08:16AM (#10275364)
    Remember Microsoft's response to the rise of the Internet? They came out with Microsoft Bob, which completely missed the needs of users while providing some sickeningly sweet eye-candy.

    At least as far as this interview goes, it's all about corporate strategies AGAINST Linux suppliers and integrators. Little to nothing about OSS's/Unix's/Linux's strengths. Again, they are fundamentally missing the point in the interview.

    That doesn't mean they aren't using their legal and financial blunderbuss to defeat the Linux vendors/integrators the same way they wiped out Netscape, though. If so, they almost certainly won't talk about it in an interview.

    • Not Bob, but MSN (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ggeens ( 53767 ) <ggeens AT iggyland DOT com> on Friday September 17, 2004 @08:44AM (#10275510) Homepage Journal

      I'm not sure, but MS Bob probably predates their love of the internet.

      When MS first became aware of the importance of the internet (somewhere in 1995), they started up MSN. MSN was supposed to become a "Microsoft Internet", with all content provided by MS. Something like AOL or Compuserve before they connected to the internet.

      Unfortunately for Microsoft, people prefered the "real" internet over a proprietary online service [1], and MSN had to be revamped into a regular ISP. Since they couldn't provide a real advantage, MSN wasn't very successful as an ISP.

      [1] AOL, Compuserve and other services like them had to do the same.

    • Re:Same as Microsoft's response to the Internet, B (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mpcooke3 ( 306161 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @08:51AM (#10275560) Homepage
      It's sensible in a 'spin' interview like this to focus on persuading people that windows is better than what's currently out there.

      I'm sure they also have an anti-OSS strategy internally but this is likely to be very sensitive information. Probably their anti-OSS strategy includes creating new standards for the Web via Avalon/Indigo that become reliant on having the windows .NET API, Office/music/video DRM, putting increasing resources into the .NET versus Java battle, dropping the price of windows to emerging markets and encouraging the use of non-standard MS technologies by bundling new API's and apps into windows at every opportunity.

      These are the kind of strategies that are neccessary to discourage linux adoption. Every change to windows that makes it less easy to migrate to linux must be hidden as either eye-candy, ease-of-use or a DRM "feature".

      Matt

  • Really? (Score:4, Funny)

    by ShadeARG ( 306487 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @08:17AM (#10275366)
    From TFA:
    When you're getting something for free, [vendors] get a lot of "get out of jail free" cards. You see [people saying], "Oh well. We didn't pay for it anyway, so we shouldn't care too much about security. We'll fix it ourselves. Oh, there's no regression testing. Who cares? We'll do that ourselves." But once you start writing a check, you now have demands, and rightfully so.
    Pot. Kettle. Black.

  • 2 pennies.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jwcorder ( 776512 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @08:17AM (#10275368)
    I would say this is accurate. Mainly because I believe that MS feels that linux isn't ready for the desktop and that the biggest threat they feel right now is in the Enterprise markets.

    I didn't RTFA though so troll me if you wish.

  • He recently attended the MS FUD school (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sgant ( 178166 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @08:17AM (#10275371) Homepage Journal
    As you can see here with this little nugget:

    And you can end up with Linux not being Linux, but Red Hat Linux being different than Novell SUSE Linux, Debian Linux and Mandrake, or whatever the case is.

    Very nice. His teacher at FUD school must be beaming now.

    Oh well, did you really expect a MS Linux Strategist (nice title btw) to say or do anything different then what we read in the article? The same would be expected from a Linux MS Strategist (if there is such a thing) doing spin on Windows.

    Circle of life...
    • In far too many ways, he is right! From a commercial software perspective, supporting "Linux" is almost impossible...because "Linux" means so many different things...Redhat, Fedora, SUSE, Debian...which release of Fedora...which version of Redhat? It makes a big difference when your commercially distributed builds need to touch different versions of glibs or different kernel versions. It runs on Redhat 7.3 but not on Redhat 8.

      Honestly, as a big Linux advocate, this is the biggest problem I see for the f
      • Is that the purpose behind the Linux Standards Base?

      • Re:He recently attended the MS FUD school (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Znork ( 31774 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @09:53AM (#10275999)
        "which release of Fedora...which version of Redhat?"

        Which release of Windows? 98SE? ME? 2000? XP? Pro? Which servicepacks? With what patches?

        You're inventing a problem that frankly isnt real. Most commercial non-opensource Linux programs run as well today as they did five years ago.

        The trick, if you're desperate to avoid system update conflicts, is called static linking and it works just fine.

        It's not like shared library version issues is a new or linux-only problem.

        And if you're talking actual enterprise-level 'we'll help you fix this' support, that's never a problem. You support what's profitable to support and ignore any segments too small to sell profitable support to.
    • There's no fud there. Its a valid opinion, from a business standpoint.

      Ever seen big RDBMSes, App servers or any substantial business solution offered on anything except Redhat or Suse? Nope. Appmakers need to target a platform.

      They cant afford to specify glibc 2.234, Make 43.23, autoblah 23.. etc.; nobody in a enterprise setting would bother cobbling together all these little things and making them work. Moreover, distros tweak their libs quite a bit nowadays - its near impossible to test dozens of comb

  • TCO (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Judg3 ( 88435 ) <jeremy@pa[ ]ck.com ['vle' in gap]> on Friday September 17, 2004 @08:19AM (#10275379) Homepage Journal
    customers generally adopt Linux to get a better TCO than Unix, not Windows

    While that may be more or less true in the US, from what I've read it seems like a lot of foreign countries are switching to Linux from Windows for the better TCO as well.
    In the US, it seems like a lot of big Unix companies are switching - but eventually there will be a large Windows to Linux switch here to.

    • Re:TCO (Score:3, Insightful)

      by killmenow ( 184444 )
      What his statement fundamentally misses, though, is that a lot of customers adopt Linux to reduce their dependency on a single, proprietary, monolithic, control-freak of a "business partner" who has their own greed (oops, I meant profit), rather than the customer's best interest at heart...if they have a heart at all.

      What's worth remembering is that many Unix vendors (*cough*Sun*cough*) fit this mold as much as Microsoft.

      Didn't read the FA, but doubtful he gets this point anywhere else in his interview.

      L

  • TCO ~! TCU (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mirko ( 198274 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @08:20AM (#10275383) Journal
    Total cost of Ownership ?
    I thought and it was Microsoft and its BSA/SPA satellite that software could not be owned, hence the EULAs.
    So, they imply one might OWN a system ?
    • Total cost of Ownership ?
      I thought and it was Microsoft and its BSA/SPA satellite that software could not be owned, hence the EULAs.
      So, they imply one might OWN a system ?

      Oh, OWNing a system is easy...especially if it has as many security holes as Windows!

      <ducks>

  • indemnification (Score:4, Interesting)

    by R_Growler ( 84235 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @08:24AM (#10275405)
    One other thing that's come up more over the last 12 months is this notion of indemnification [against patent and copyright claims]. More and more customers are asking us, "Help me understand what you do from an indemnification perspective versus HP or IBM or Red Hat or Novell." That's weighing into decisions more and more. ... Customers began introducing it and asking me about it more than I was introducing it to them. And I began to say, "Wow. We really stand behind our technology in a pretty aggressive way. We should make sure that we get credit for that compared to Linux in many ways."

    Indeed, My guess is that this started right after you "funded" SCO's litigations and started to pantent every damn thing under the sun.

    And you are surprised customers brought up something you brought on? Puhleeze..

    -RG.

  • Let me tell you about TCO. (Score:4, Informative)

    by MongooseCN ( 139203 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @08:25AM (#10275410) Homepage
    I just setup a linux file server for my business. If I bought a windows server with enough licenses for the computers in my store, it would cost me $3000. Linux on the other hand cost me $0.

    Now if a person who needed a server like this didn't know anything about linux, I'm sure he could hire someone for less than $3000 to set it up for him. $100 to hire someone for an hour would be reasonable.

    I just thought I'd throw in that example...
    • You clearly don't understand TCO.

      Let's look at the acronym itself: Total Cost of Ownership.

      That means the cost of the system goes beyond the initial purchase of the software and hardware. It includes installation and maintenance of the system, the REAL cost of any system. Claiming that Linux is free (as in beer) because the software doesn't cost anything is a naiive and uninformed stance.

  • Novell (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Quixote ( 154172 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @08:25AM (#10275412) Homepage Journal
    It's interesting to find out that Microsoft thinks and predicts Novell (SuSE) will be the dominant Linux distribution they'll have to compete against.

    That's because Novell has withstood the onslaught from Microsoft and still managed to eke out a survival. The folks at Novell know how to fight back against Microsoft.

    --
    A neighborhood journal [elmwoodstrip.com]

    • That's because Novell has withstood the onslaught from Microsoft and still managed to eke out a survival. The folks at Novell know how to fight back against Microsoft.
      Or perhaps thats how they want it to be. One big target is much better than many small ones.
      Think Napster. Its was much easier to sue Napster (they even disrupted the service), than to sue individual users in decentralized p2ps.
      So, they probably expect one linux vendor to dominate the market, so then they hit it (patents, advertisement, what

    • Novell also has some promising stuff (Score:4, Insightful)

      by HighOrbit ( 631451 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @09:37AM (#10275846)
      The MS guy was comparing what novell offers "stack-for-stack" to what MS offers. Novell has things like Directory Services (NDS) and ZenWorks that are as good or better than MS's Active Directory stuff. With the acquistion of Suse and Ximian they get things like OpenExchange & Evolution that also potentially challenge the Exchange-Outlook team. Add in the fact that Ximian's Mono could help break any MS stranglehold over .Net. The question is whether Novell can get their act togather and integrate all these *potentially* great things into a coherent and polished suite that would let you run a complete "Novell Shop" with a Novell server-OS (e.g. Suse), Novell manangment solution (e.g. ZenWorks/NDS), and Novell application servers (e.g. OpenExchange) in the backroom and a Novell client-OS (Suse Desktop) and applications (Evolution) on the desktop. Add in the ability to itegrate a "legacy" windows enviroment and tie it all togather with Mono. That is Novell's potential. We will soon see if they can live up to it.

    • Re:Novell (Score:4, Insightful)

      by base_chakra ( 230686 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @10:30AM (#10276295)
      That's because Novell has withstood the onslaught from Microsoft and still managed to eke out a survival. The folks at Novell know how to fight back against Microsoft.

      While I agree that Novell has proven their tenacity in withstanding Microsoft in the past, I think Microsoft is considering Novell's market position as a whole. Novell has a level of experience, an infrastructure, and a market position with which no other distribution vendor can compete--and now they have an excellent, well-established product.

      Novell has a customer base and a positive reputation developed over the course of more than 20 years. Can Mandrakesoft or any other distribution vendor claim that? Even more importantly, the other vendors have already competed and, apparently, failed to impress Microsoft--from Mandrake's quasi-Chapter 11 to Red Hat's disavowal of the desktop market. (If IBM acquired Turbolinux or a robust Debian-like distro, they might get Microsoft's attention, too.)

  • Really an anti-Linux strategist (Score:5, Insightful)

    by njdj ( 458173 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @08:26AM (#10275414)
    The title of the article is misleading because, of course, the job of this guy is to coordinate Microsoft's anti-Linux strategy. Back in the old days, when companies used to consider their customers' needs, a title like this used to mean someone who worked on interoperability. For example, I worked for Digital long ago, and their "IBM strategist" pushed products like VAX-to-IBM connectivity as well as researching competitive factors.

    Microsoft's anti-Linux strategist, on the contrary, will probably be recommending more changes to Microsoft networking to put more roadblocks in the way of the Samba people, more file-format changes to Word and Excel to screw OpenOffice, and stuff like that. It's rumored that Microsoft has in the past hired actors to behave like really obnoxious Linux fanboys at trade shows, damaging Linux's image - if it's true, no doubt he'll have a hand in that, too.

  • Jeez.. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Mephie ( 582671 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @08:26AM (#10275417) Homepage
    I think his answer to the question "Where do you see IBM fitting into the competitive picture?" (Page 3) says a lot about how Microsoft views and treats strategic alliances versus the rest of the world.

    Just unreal. It sounds like he's basically saying that IBM, Novell and RedHat will start stabbing each other in the back, and fuck over customers in the process, pretty much for the sake of stabbing each other in the back.

    In the real world, strategic alliances exist because you realize that by co-branding or working with another company, you can make more money, grow market share and benefit customers.

    Apparently, that's not how it works at Microsoft.

    • Well, the last time everybody got together to do the great Unixy thing back in the 90s that's exactly how it happened: First the big peachy Unix-lovefest, Unix on the desktop was expected to arrive any day now (really ! that's how it was thought back then !), lots of big names announcing proud initiatives (OSF anybody ? At least CDE was adopted by more than one vendor...), then in the end nothing really got out of it, most things were only implemented by single vendors if at all, and in the end the great Un

  • Surprised that Windows is not an option sometimes? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Lonewolf666 ( 259450 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @08:28AM (#10275424)
    From the linked article:

    When I talk to customers and they say, "Hey, we can get better TCO with Linux," they're not always saying better than Windows. They're saying better than Unix.

    Hardly surprising. For a customer migrating from a commercial UNIX version, the switch to the UNIX-like Linux will probably be much easier than the switch to Windows.
    In this case, the difficulty of switching to a completely different environment works against Microsoft. But this merely balances out some of the Windows environments, whose owners find the switch to Linux too difficult.

  • The FUD is working. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by StrawberryFrog ( 67065 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @08:30AM (#10275434) Homepage Journal
    Any other surprises? The surprising thing, a little bit, is how predictable our conversations are now with customers. ... One other thing that's come up more over the last 12 months is this notion of indemnification [against patent and copyright claims]. More and more customers are asking us, "Help me understand what you do from an indemnification perspective versus HP or IBM or Red Hat or Novell." That's weighing into decisions more and more. ... Customers began introducing it and asking me about it more than I was introducing it to them.

    The FUD is working, and working well.
    • The FUD is working, and working well.

      Keep in mind that this is Microsoft, saying that Linux is losing. They would lie about this, to make it appear a much larger issue than it really is.

      So there's FUD alright, just different from the SCO FUD. And whether it is working is still open for debate.

    • There are a tremendous number of half-truths and misstatements in what is, in reality, a very short interview.

      From bringing up indemnification, to the implication that IBM can only implement Linux because it has so many wonderful techs to throw at a problem-child operating system, through the implication that IBM, Novell and Redhat will begine infighting over the code, this interview is pure Microsoft FUD. It's a rather well-done piece, though, and it is easy to get confuzzled by it all.

      I'd just like to

    • He says the FUD is working well (Score:4, Insightful)

      by PotatoHead ( 12771 ) * <doug.opengeek@org> on Friday September 17, 2004 @11:34AM (#10276842) Homepage Journal
      He says the conversations are predictable, he says they are saying those things.

      THIS DOES NOT MEAN IT IS HAPPENING EVERYWHERE.

      Just because this guy says there is a trend toward these FUD items, does not make it so. What else is he going to say?

      Don't get me wrong, I think the FUD is having a negative effect. However, you can't simply take his word for anything really. He is a paid spin doctor. The first interview posted here demonstrated that.

  • IBM strategy (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17, 2004 @08:30AM (#10275438)
    IBM has had a deliberate strategy of not having its own distro. This guy obviously thinks that is a bad idea. He is implying that IBM has no idea of where it is going with Linux. He seems to like what Novell is doing though. Personally, I think he is totally underestimating the enemy (IBM). IBM has shown that it can totally re-invent itself if necessary.

  • Microsoft's Chief Linux Strategist? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17, 2004 @08:35AM (#10275452)
    You got to love the title.

    It's like:
    Chinese government's Chief human rights activist.

    Vatican's Chief birth control strategist.

    McDonald's Chief vegetarian strategist.

    What a great title!
  • --QUOTE--
    Do you have any lined up for the future?

    They're going to continue to be around the scenarios that customers say are important -- TCO, security and reliability.
    --END QUOTE--

    Well, one out of three aint bad. MS don't have a super reputation for either reliability or security and even their TCO studies in favour of MS are very suspect. I guess these must be future goals for the company.

  • Note the MS Linux strategist spin... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by LinuxParanoid ( 64467 ) * on Friday September 17, 2004 @08:39AM (#10275469) Homepage Journal
    It's kind of sad to me actually. If customers *are* talking (to Microsoft) about indemnification issues, then any of Microsoft's allegedly behind-the-scenes investments in SCO's legal actions have paid off for... for Microsoft at least. Another FUD issue successfully on the table.

    And notice how the TCO issue is spun... "oh the real Linux TCO issue is versus Unix"... so one might overlook the savings one would have using Linux rather than Microsoft. Why do I run Samba rather than paying $1000 for Windows Server? Or Apache rather than $1000 for IIS+Windows Server? Why does Microsoft cripple their software so that "Software Update Services" (which allows me to check from a central workstation if the PCs running on our network are patched to fix *Microsoft's* security holes) so it only works with Windows XP Professional? In a small/medium business, I now have to run around to all the PCs to doublecheck them because Windows XP Professional on every desktop is one more expense we don't need. And one has to take care that all the laptops which come and go at the end of the day get checked. Compare that to remote administration of Linux systems where it's super-simple to login remotely in the middle of the day or scan programmatically...

    Linux isn't strategic for businesses because it lets them reduce a few Unix expenses (although any shrewd businessperson will take what they can get)... it's worth pursuing so you don't end up beholden to one big vendor for all your software. Microsoft's prices *do* keep rising over the years you know...

    --LP
    • And notice how the TCO issue is spun... "oh the real Linux TCO issue is versus Unix"...

      This seems very disingenuous to me. On the one hand they say that Linux really isn't a threat to Microsoft, but if that was true, then why does this "Microsoft (anti-)Linux Strategist" even have a job?

      FUD and spin, FUD and spin.

  • When some company starts offering cash for tradeins of original Windows cds for a linux/bsd install, then you will know linux is a commercial threat.

    Unfortunately unless I invoke the underpants gnomes, I can't quite see the business plan - unless I am IBM flogging services.

  • Now I see Microsofts game plan... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tod_miller ( 792541 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @08:40AM (#10275483) Journal
    One other thing that's come up more over the last 12 months is this notion of indemnification [against patent and copyright claims].

    Yes I wonder who [eweek.com] is [theregister.co.uk] making [shortnews.com] it [geek.com] an [com.com] issue [itvibe.com].

    More and more customers are asking us, "Help me understand what you do from an indemnification perspective versus HP or IBM or Red Hat or Novell." That's weighing into decisions more and more. ...

    Yes because again Microsoft are trying to tie people down with fear that what they will touch they will loose again because the big Microsoft guys will spoil thier fun.

    Customers began introducing it and asking me about it more than I was introducing it to them. And I began to say, "Wow. We really stand behind our technology in a pretty aggressive way.

    Hahahah yes you are plenty aggressive, like a cornered animal, even the Ministry of Truth [online-literature.com] could learn from you guys.

    We should make sure that we get credit for that compared to Linux in many ways." And it's actually been something that tips the scales sometimes when people are on the fence.

    Is that the barbed wire elecrified fence of 10 year supply deal, licensing terms, special backhanders, propriatary formats et al.

    Lets all hug this guy. Anyone notice how Microsoft are finding security holes in its own software right when it wants you to upgrade?
    • See for yourself:

      R.I.P.? [mikerowesoft.com]

      I really find the opengl to be a far more worrying story, who will get linux for free, and pay EXTRA to play games on it because Microsoft want to huddle in opengl.

      Someone should rule that Microsoft cannot buy openGL, just like big company ABC might not be able to buy other big company XYZ if they become to big.

      Shocking.

  • Consolidation to be the Free Software's deathknell (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17, 2004 @08:52AM (#10275563)
    To make this quick (and hopefully readable/coherent), as long as there are quite a few Linux players (and even *BSD ones) competing with each other, multiplying centers of FLOSS development, M$ will have a hard time dealing with the FLOSS movement, especially if volunteers keep playing a significant role, because Bill & co. just can't wrap their minds around the whole phenomenon (sp?).

    As long as the various Linux distros and the BSDs don't play in the "traditional way", in the way that M$ understands, as long as *anyone* can contribute to the FLOSS movement, "we" will stay an elusive, hard to kill target. This was said repeatedly over the years, that what makes GNU/Linux a nightmare for M$ is the fact that there is no single company to buy out or to Netscape (the "cutting the air supply" thing).

    The minute you shrink the field to only two (big) companies behind GNU/Linux (doing the bulk of the heavy lifting in development, BTW), you've just ~agreed to play on M$'s terms. M$ understands other, traditional, companies following a traditional business plan and getting traditional results/objectives/whatever.

    The minute M$ can understand you, the minute they can "frame" you, you are f**ked.

    This is why I sincerely hope that Novell will only be one of many players in a field where the loss of one of these players will not be a significant loss to the FLOSS movement because it will be able to pick up and continue more or less as if nothing happened. The same goes for Red Hat.

    I want to go back to a world where I can choose between 4 or 5 shrinkwrapped distros updated at semi-regular intervals, each contributing in his own way to The Movement but not being *the* cornerstone of FLOSS.

    If Novell or Red Hat become too important, if they "become GNU/Linux", M$ will simply have to kill them off (which should be easy in the case of Novell, sadly) and simply sit back afterwards, reaping the rewards of having killed off yet another (potential) competitor.

    We just cannot let M$ define the playing field and play by its rules. Not to sound too much like ESR, but prior/current behaviour on M$'s behalf leave no room for peaceful coexistence unless they've been kicked in the nuts very hard and brought down a few notches, just like IBM was in the '80s and early '90s. We, nor anyone else, cannot compete in any traditional fashion with M$: they only way to do battle with The Beast From Redmond is gerrila tactics, more or less like the FLOSS movement has done up until now.

    Change tactics, start playing the traditional game and see your dreams go down the drain.

  • GNU (Score:5, Funny)

    by wikinerd ( 809585 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @08:52AM (#10275565) Journal
    It should be Microsoft's Chief GNU/Linux Strategist, except if they feel that only the kernel threatens them.

  • They should hire a Chief FLOSS Strategist (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lkratz ( 243841 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @08:54AM (#10275578) Homepage
    To some extend they miss the point focusing on Linux only.

    Firefox, OpenOffice on MS-Windows are very good mid term alternative on the road to the linux operating system.

    Once a user is used to these FLOSS tools on MS-Windows, the cost of change towards Linux as the OS becomes marginal.

  • Not so subtle.... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by corporatemutantninja ( 533295 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @09:00AM (#10275601)
    Know what really annoys me about this interview? How this guy continues to spread FUD while trying to make it look like something other than FUD by attributing it to his "customers". I.e., "our customers keep asking about indemnification" or "before Linux was commercialized customers were willing to cut it some slack for poor security". Nice try, Martin.

  • We need a 10 questions to Martin Taylor (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mr_z_beeblebrox ( 591077 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @09:08AM (#10275637) Journal
    I offer this as a first question
    You state that MS should get credit for how aggressively they stand behind their product. Are you referring specifically to Lawsuits and indemnity? I sure have never seen MS step up to bat about the damage to the internet, small and large businesses etc... caused by the uncountable number of viruses written to your platform. Please do clarify.
  • More and more customers are asking us, "Help me understand what you do from an indemnification perspective versus HP or IBM or Red Hat or Novell." That's weighing into decisions more and more. ...

    "Well let's see first we find some really angry people, then give them tonnes of money to engage in a lawsuit on a completely spurious charge. Oh yea we get them to threaten ridiculous buisiness proposals if they win.

    It doesn't really help anyone but um it won't hurt you as long as you join us.

  • Yawn (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ewe2 ( 47163 ) <ewetoo@gmail . c om> on Friday September 17, 2004 @09:21AM (#10275723) Homepage Journal
    Another marketdroid Information Minister. As long as they're paying this fool, we have nothing to worry about. Clumsy attempts to differentiate between Novell and Red Hat. Bizarre statements about IBM. TCO pie in the sky. Regression testing my ass. Lame kernel jokes.

    Keep this one, MS. We like him. Cute, clueless and cuddly.

  • MS stands behind its products? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Quila ( 201335 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @09:35AM (#10275829)
    One other thing that's come up more over the last 12 months is this notion of indemnification [against patent and copyright claims]. ... We really stand behind our technology in a pretty aggressive way. We should make sure that we get credit for that compared to Linux in many ways.

    Okay, let's look at the XP license:
    Privacy: (MS) 16. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES.... ALSO, THERE IS NO WARRANTY OR CONDITION OF TITLE, QUIET ENJOYMENT, QUIET POSSESSION, CORRESPONDENCE TO DESCRIPTION OR NON-INFRINGEMENT WITH REGARD TO THE SOFTWARE.


    That's really backing up your software guys.

  • Microsoft's three step plan to eliminate Linux (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anita Coney ( 648748 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @10:01AM (#10276055) Homepage
    Step one, ignore Linux.

    Step two, bad mouth Linux.

    Step three, file patent suits against anyone who uses Linux.

    BTW, we're at step two now.

  • Ducking responsibility, Part 2 (Score:4, Interesting)

    by theolein ( 316044 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @10:02AM (#10276067) Journal
    Microsoft commissioned analyst firms to do reports to help you "get out the facts" about Linux. Are you still doing that? If someone says, "Hey, Customer X says, 'If I had this data, it will help me make a decision, comparing Microsoft to Linux.'" And I basically hop on the phone with all the folks [at the analyst firms] and say, "Hey, I talked to four or five customers in the last two months, and they all care about x versus y. It's something that I think people care about. Can you guys go do something?" And sometimes they come back and say, "Yup. We've heard that, too. We're going to go do some analysis." Or, they come back and say, "Actually, it's not that interesting to us, but if you care about it, we'll use our methodology and stand behind it, but you have to fund it, because it costs money to get the samples, get the customers, get everything." That's going to continue to be my process. If there are facts or things that are needed, I'm going to hope that I can entice the analyst firms to go do it on their own because they think it's also important. But if they don't, then I'll commission it.

    I have an enormous amount of difficulty believing this guy when it comes to his answer to a question on Microsoft's FUD tactics. Him claiming that Microsoft is nice and easy going about the methodology used in Microsoft commissioned analyses and that Microsoft doesn't use financial pressure (or that Analyst firms don't offer to cook the report in exchange for cash) on analyst firms strikes me as a total lie.

    For example, the most well known example of Micorosoft's lower TCO claim (and the one displayed prominently on MS' website) was made by comparing Linux on a mainframe vs. Windows on cheap x86 commodity harware. There was no mention of the reasons a customer would go for a mainframe (reliability, bandwidth, scalability), just the FUD about Win2k3 on a dell box.

    I think this is just the new (old) MS tactic of pretending to be nice in public and fucking everyone over in private.

  • I agree - $Linux $Unix (Score:4, Insightful)

    by csoto ( 220540 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @10:11AM (#10276131)
    Yes, the lower TCO of Linux versus Unix is a valid argument. I agree that Linux adoption is seen as a means to lower the cost of providing services on Unix systems. However, these services are generally provided on Unix systems in order to provide sufficient power, at a lower TCO than a suitable Windows system. So, ultimately , Linux is just a cheaper Unix, which is cheaper/more capable than Windows.

  • What a crock (Score:3, Informative)

    by Trailer Trash ( 60756 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @10:24AM (#10276243) Homepage

    Do you have any lined up for the future? They're going to continue to be around the scenarios that customers say are important -- TCO, security and reliability.

    So, when Windows "wins" any one of these, we know the research is pure bullshit.

    I love the talk about indemnification, too. People are worried that they won't be indemnified, so they'll run to Microsoft. Brilliant. Is that the same Microsoft as here [slashdot.org]? Surely it's another Microsoft we're talking about [theregister.co.uk]...

    For those who don't want to click:

    In a curious press release announcing the judgment, Osenbaugh appears to be threatening legal action against some SQL Server developers,
    "particularly those Microsoft customers who relied on Microsoft's assurances, failed to investigate them thoroughly, and knowingly continued to provide material steps in an Infringing Combination. These infringers, if any, may face treble damages for the entire three and one-half years the case was tied up in the courts. Microsoft is not a law firm. Relying on its advice should not constitute acting in good faith; which is the required defense to treble damages for failure to investigate and honor patents once on notice of their existence."

  • Users of Unix as primary Switchers to Linux (Score:4, Insightful)

    by divisionbyzero ( 300681 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @10:54AM (#10276509)
    If I may revert back to high school, "No, duh!" Man, it is totallly revealing how clueless that Microsoft is regarding Linux that it took them this long to figure that out. It was obvious to me about four years ago, despite ALL of the industry rags saying otherwise (i.e. saying Linux is a threat to Windows) that Linux's first victim would be flavors of Unix that had ossified and weren't innovating but were charging huge fees.

    The primary reason is that the people supporting these ossified Unixes already had the skill (for the most part) to support Linux. As Linux gained the requisite features it was a relatively simple substitution for the Unix in question.

    In order to switch from Windows to Unix, all of your admins would need to be trained or replaced and their salaries would go up. The cost of salaries can in some cases (especially in small to medium sized deployments) add more to TCO than the licensing. That's why some of the first companies to switch to Linux from Windows were huge companies that were paying millions of dollars in licensing fees. They couldn't care less if they were paying a few hundred thousand more in salary when they were paying millions less in licensing fees.

    Of course, this begs the question of why they were using windows at all, but it may relate to the cost of development on windows. It is still easier to develop on Windows than on Linux or Unix. That's why many developers prefer Windows and that's why Windows is so appealing. It has tons of software available. Therefore more people are willing to deploy it. That's why Billy Borg Gates is always saying "it's the API, stupid."

    Anyhow, Windows will only move upmarket where Unix and Linux rule now, if it can lower its licensing fees, which it is doing (note Malaysia Thailand, etc) or get such a critical mass of software developed on its platform that customers feel compelled to deploy it, which it is doing (note .NET). The biggest threat to the current installed base of Linux is generally recognized as .NET. Linux developers need to develop a competitive offering (Mono, Java, whatever) as a purely defensive move to maintain share, assuming .NET allows developers to do things that they cannot do on any other other platform for a comparable price.

    If Linux wants to eat Windows' lunch, it has to become easier to develop on. An IDE needs to be developed that is comparable to Visual Studio. Once the software is easy to develop it will start to happen. It also needs to be at least as easy to use as Windows 2000. People can point out all of the flaws that they want about 2000, but it is good enough and it wins on ease of use for most people. Linux is getting there on ease of use, but it's not quite there yet.

    Although, I have to admit that ease of use is less of an issue than getting developpers. Incidentally, this is why Apple hasn't grown share. There is nothing special about MacOSX other than ease of use and that is not enough to get it in the door of any corporation. Apple hardware and software are more expensive and in many cases cannot do as much as the competition or are simply comparable and not significantly (i.e. order of magnitude) better.

    So, in sum, it's not Linux that will kill Microsoft. It is the insular, narcissistic, navel-gazing culture that has its blinders on to the rest of the world. They were blind-sided by the Internet, then Linux, and most recently by the "search paradigm". Linux just needs to not fall into the same trap. It can't be just software written by geeks for geeks, assuming people want Linux to succeed, where succeed means being ubiquitous and spreading freedom to everyone. Of course, on technical grounds, Linux in itself is already a success, but so was the DEC Alpha. Listen to the customer!

  • This is typical marketing crap from MSFT (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Locutus ( 9039 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @11:19AM (#10276686)
    It's obvious from the first 2 sections. You know it's FUD when Microsoft executives start telling us what "the customers" are asking them...

    First he says that it's about Linux TCO vs UNIX and not Linux TCO vs Windows. He tries to solidify this point by saying that when customers are telling them they're getting better TCO with Linux, that it's not always about Windows. Why would a Microsoft customer, say to Microsoft that they are getting better TCO on Linux vs UNIX? Remember also, they don't have to prove any of this and can make it up as they go. Heck, they do that in court too. :-/ This is categorized under the Uncertanty part of FUD. Uncertant about all the positive press Linux is getting with regards to being cheaper than Windows.

    Next was how he was saying that MICROSOFT CUSTOMERS are asking Microsoft about protection from patents and copyrights. Is SCO going after Microsoft or something? This just seems silly for a Microsoft customer to be asking them. Especially with all the Microsoft licenses they have to agree to in order to use the software. IMO, this is another on of the "the cutomers are asking" PR stunts to try and add credence to the SCO vs Linux issue. ie, the Fear part of FUD.

    I could go on, but it's pretty obvious this is just a PR presentation and ComputerWorld offered up their stage for it.

    That part about Novell just means they now have a target they can shoot at. Especially since Novell is once again going after the desktop OS market( Ray Norda started this back in the mid 1990's. With Linux too! ). Anybody else notice how they've been using 'birdshot' in their PR gun against Linux/OSS the last couple of years? They are no better off today though. IMHO.

    LoB

Slashdot Top Deals

Get hold of portable property. -- Charles Dickens, "Great Expectations"

Close