Microsoft Proposes Cooperative Research With OSDL 352
turnitover writes "According to eWEEK.com, Microsoft has proposed to work with OSDL for a 'facts-based analysis of Linux and Windows.' Could this just be a case of the fox contracting security for the hen house?" Martin Taylor, Microsoft's general manager of platform strategy, declined to comment on the specifics of what was discussed when he met with OSDL's CEO Stuart Cohen, only to say that they met.
The ODSL? (Score:3, Funny)
The Optional Donuts Save Lunches?
The Original Dolphin Saved Lassie?
I'm confused.
java? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:java? (Score:5, Insightful)
Secondly, this is not about co-operation, it is about 'research' or 'study' or whatever else you call it. Looks like MS wants the OSDL to endorse an opinion about the Windows Server OS - so they can FUD the market with something like : "The OSDL, of which Linus Torvalds is a member, has admitted that the Windows Server Operating System has been found to deliver superior performance and TCO in 326 out of 1,028 customer situations... including Clippy, DRM, Windows Media Player, the registry, MSN messenger
Re:java? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:java? (Score:3, Informative)
If there is a standard, complience with that standard is what gives it value. If you and I agree on a standard for the FTP protocol, I can write a client and you can write the server. Then 'people' can use ftp with your server and my client to download files from websites.
However, let's say a company, call it Bugsoft, creates a 'File Trasfer Protocol + Bugsoft Enhancements". Since this company has millions of captive users, they ship "FTP + B" and make i
Re:java? (Score:4, Insightful)
That's no moon! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That's no moon! (Score:5, Interesting)
They had better have really deep packets to try take the wind out of Linux. They have deep pockets, but not deep enough, I'm afraid. Besides I think that their stock price would suffer if they spent enough of their money on this to make a difference.
More likely it is just one more aspect of Microsoft struggling to understand Linux. My suggestion is say "Sorry, Windows is beyond our focus. But if there are other areas you would like to work with us on, such as maybe improving the GCC on Windows, we would love to have your cooperation."
You misunderstand the problem (Score:5, Interesting)
You misunderstand the problem.
Microsoft can hire all sorts of Linux Kernel Programmers. Many of the top tier programmers will not be easily hired, so you will have to focus on the second tier (which is, I think, where a lot of the actual programming is done). Many of these are hired by other companies. Redhat, Novell, Cray, IBM, SGI, and others. These companies often have a fair bit invested in Linux and can't just get by on fewer developers, so they will fill in the ranks. There will be some loss there but not enough to justify the money that Microsoft will be spending.
Now, lets say that Microsoft hires 300 second tier Linux developers at 100k each plus benefits (lets say 130k to be conservative). This means that it is costing them nearly 10M dollars just to retain these people for a year.
So now IBM, et. al. have hired and ramped up 300 more developers. People see that Linux Kernel Development has career potential and more people are interested. Wash, rinse, repeat and voila it is now more expensive the next year.
This is money which *actively* reduces Microsoft's profits. Yet, it doesn't accomplish a whole lot. Indeed it could actually hurt Windows marketshare as bright programmers see all the indications that Linux development is where it is at.....
So you have two problems:
1) Microsoft creating a larger job market for its competition and
2) Microsoft paying lots of money for very temporary delays.
Microsoft could hurt Borland by hiring all their C compiler developers. However, Linux is far different. There are many magnitudes more kernel developers out there on Linux.
Ultimately Microsoft would find themselves overwhelmed by sheer numbers much like the US-led forces were overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of Chinese crossing the Korean border when the Korean war really got going.
Re:You misunderstand the problem (Score:3, Interesting)
It wouln't take much to scare most companies off.
Re:That's no moon! (Score:2)
Dont think MS trying to lure the devs away, most of the major projects are not going to stop just because one person is going to leave.
Re:That's no moon! (Score:3, Informative)
MS is adding the same style unix permission, because people have not used ACLs. They are way too much work for all except the most secured of
Re:That's no moon! (Score:4, Insightful)
There are a lot of OSDL projects aside from Mono. It's entirely possible that Microsoft wants to ensure a certain degree of interoperability, and that they'll want to find ways of improving inter-system security.
Microsoft knows they don't own the server space, and they also know that most of the server vendors have partnerships in place to support Linux on their boxen. Therefore Microsoft has no choice but to ensure a certain degree of compatability if they're to maintain their position on the desktop as the front-end to access the servers.
Much as they'd like to win the server space, Microsoft isn't about to sacrifice millions of desktop licenses just to get a few hundred thousand server slots. Right now that means dealing with OSS in the server space.
Re:That's no moon! (Score:3, Informative)
That's probably not the case. Windows ACL is much better than the "standard" unixy permissions, and much grainier. SELinux is trying to come close to what Windows already offers.
I am not trying to defend MS or anything, but a statement like that was clearly not thought through.
Anyway, my thoughts on such news is that MS now acknowledges that Linux is a genuine market player that they need to play nice with, much more so than they
Re:That's no moon! (Score:3, Interesting)
No it wasn't, but it is typical of a lot of comments here about Windows, that are based either on a lack of knowledge or out of date information.
As you say, of all the things to rail on Windows about, a lack of user permissions most certainly isn't one of them - unless you've only ever used Win9x. In that case though, it's somewhat like bemoaning the state of Linux desktop environments, based purely on having used RedHat 4...
Re:That's no moon! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:That's no moon! (Score:3, Insightful)
True, and Microsoft doesn't do anything to change the situation. So even though it would be a trivial fix and solve a lot of problems things continue.
Hint: Nearly everyone has Ms-Office. It would be simple for Office to check your user permissions, and refuse to start (with no backdoor bypass) if you ad administrator access. That simple change and the guts to stick with it would force a change on the industry.
Microsoft doesn't care though. They have great fine grain permissions because a tiny numbe
Re:That's no moon! (Score:2)
Granted they're more fine-grained, yada, yada, but to the degree they're effective, and to the degree the defaults are acceptable, I wonder how many Windows admins can make use of them, or, just as importantly, manage them. Using the GUI is brain dead, and the command-line tools are messy and a chore to use, not to mention the lack of complementary tools.
And as for interoperability, the folks at Cygwin, for example, have gone to great leng
Re:That's no moon! (Score:3, Informative)
Using the GUI is brain dead...
This is a viewpoint I've always found kinda interesting.
You took the quote about GUIs entirely out of context.
He was referring to the tools Microsoft provided -- NOT GUIs in general. Specifically....
"Unfortunately the security tab of the NT4 explorer is completely unable to deal with access denied ACEs while the explorer of W2K rearranges the order of the ACEs before you can read them. Thank God, the sort order remains unchanged if one presses the Cancel butto [cygwin.com]
Re:That's no moon! (Score:2)
Re:That's no moon! (Score:2)
Re:That's no moon! (Score:5, Interesting)
Hmm.
<sarcasm>
So I guess that's why they brought out MS Office for Linux instead of MS Office for Mac.
</sarcasm>
Did know that a low-end Mac sold with a boxed copy of Office often makes more money for Microsoft than it does Apple? (Gross margins on software are 80%+ compared to gross margins of 20% on hardware.) Yeah, Microsoft must really hate Apple.
Apple is no threat to Microsoft. If Mac doubled it's marketshare, Microsoft's revenue from it would increase.
Linux, if it can get its desktop act together, is.
Re:That's no moon! (Score:3, Insightful)
Does anyone seriously think they would have brought out MS Office for the Mac if they thought the Mac platform was a serious threat to Windows? Earning a cushy bit of money from the Mac enthusiasts is fine, but there is no way they would risk that if Apple was actually a threat.
"Did know that a low-end Mac sold with a boxed copy of Office often makes more money for Microsoft than it does Apple? (Gross margins on software are 80%+ compared to gross margins of 20% on hardware.) Yeah, Microsoft must re
Re:That's no moon! (Score:3, Interesting)
NO ONE should ever bring up crappy wifi hardware as a reason to use WinDOS.
Linux wins hands down in that area simply due to relative simplicity and transparency.
Re:That's no moon! (Score:5, Informative)
Don't think so. SELinux is a MAC (mandatory access control) framework. ACLs - by their nature are a DAC (discretionary access control) mechanism. MAC and DAC work together - if DAC access succeeds, then MAC can still override it. The graininess of the access control has got nothing to do with it.
The point about MAC based systems is that they enforce system security policy between system subject, objects and actions. In other words, an SELinux policy can say "allow this program to perform only the following actions to this file, and no other". So that, even if a cracker compromises the app on the Linux box, he can't get the cracked app to execute other actions on that file, or even the permitted actions on another file.
I know that people have produced MAC enhancements for Windows in the past, but didn't think that type enforcement et al were present in standard Windows releases. However, I am willing to be informed otherwise
--Ng
Re:That's no moon! (Score:3, Interesting)
They didn't put anything good from Xenix (which they owned once) into DOS and NT, and despite having the core VMS people working on NT they certainly didn't get anything that could be compared favourably with VMS - but they had different aims. I don't really think there is anything they want to learn from linux. If there is, they have plenty of people that can just read the code and unde
Overthinking (Score:2)
After all. Microsoft may just be joining up with OSDL so they can see what will happen....
You never know who you might be able to hire way, what standard you can hijack, when getting a picture of Bill Gates shaking Linus' hand might come in handy
Re:That's no moon! (Score:2)
Firstly, that would be a step backwards from Windows's security model and ACLs.
Secondly, Windows NT has had this functionality since it was released ca 1992/93.
Re:That's no moon! (Score:2)
Microsoft knows as much about unix as anybody. They just want people to buy Microsoft products instead.
If only it was so simple (Score:3, Insightful)
Trust (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Trust (Score:3, Insightful)
I see nothing wrong with that, however I don't think it will work.
The real scoop (Score:5, Funny)
Martin "Scarface" Taylor, running his finger along the top of the monitor: "You guys got a real nice operating system, here. It'd be a real shame if something happened to it..."
Re:The real scoop (Score:2)
Should be nice if "Bill Gates meets Stallman to FU(N)D an independent study of the GPL
Re:The real scoop (Score:5, Funny)
Oh no! (Score:3, Funny)
Further Information (Score:2)
Meanwhile, OSDL has reputedly issued a survival kit, knife-proof jackets and antidotes to most known poisons to their staff.
*ObTrivia: The British Civil Service really DO use the cult TV series "Yes, Minister" as training material.
Obligatory quote (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Obligatory quote (Score:2)
Or, a more recent example:
O: It's a trap.
Q: What now?
A: Spring the trap!
In this case, it would be fun to see Obi-Wan Torvalds slice Count Taylor's head off.
But until Darth Gates gets blown up in the Redmond Death Star, the revolution must continue.
Re:Obligatory quote (Score:3, Insightful)
-Ash _Army of Darkness_
Re:Obligatory quote (Score:2, Funny)
"It was I who allowed SCO to know the location of the hidden code, it is quite safe from your pitiful band of hippies" -Emporer Gates
"Your overconfidence in McBride is your weakness" - Cohen
"Your faith in GPL is yours" Gates
I could be wrong... (Score:2, Interesting)
Anyways, I've been wrong before.
Re:I could be wrong... (Score:3, Insightful)
And if that's the case, there's no advantage to Linux to accommodate them.
Always make sure your opponent knows as little about you as possible.
Probably what Microsoft is aiming for is a server "face-off" where they get to tweak Windows 2003 Server against one or more of the Linux servers (Red Hat or SUSE) - and then swing the conditions so they win or can at least spin that they won.
They've steadily lost these comparisons before (by up to a factor of 2 - 2.5.) This way they could "truthfully" say that it wa
Re:I could be wrong... (Score:2)
Who is the fox and who is the hen? (Score:4, Insightful)
Is MS necessarily the fox? It seems to me that open source projects target MS products, not the other way around. Consider Firefox. Take a look at Firefox's lineage and you'll find Netscape Navigator, once upon a time a commercial product. To keep up with IE, NN became free and open source in 1998. The descendants of NN have been playing market share catch-up ever since, even taking out large ads [mozilla.org] in major newspapers.
I think in this case it's the hen opening a dialog with the fox.
Look, how about this. (Score:3, Interesting)
Which henhouse?
Well, specifically, he wants to guard the special henhouse, the one within which the hens are manufacturing tanks, semiautomatic rifles, and other weaponry for the purpose of defending themselves against and possibly overthrowing the foxes.
Now, what do you think is the fox's motivation here?
And more to the point, why the hell does everything on slashdot always come down to strained metaphors?
Re:Who is the fox and who is the hen? (Score:2)
As for some of the products you mention, remember, Netscape was out for a while before IE. NN was affordable, IE was an afterthought in the Plus package, and IE only became a center piece of the OS when MS realized the web was popular and had potential. Then they did everything they could to torpedo both the Navigator program and the Netscape company. If you can say NN reacted to IE, you have a minor po
Re:Who is the fox and who is the hen? (Score:2, Insightful)
I think it's more like the big bad wolf (Ballmer) and the three little penguins. First he huffed and puffed and he blew down the straw house.
Then he blew down the house made of sticks.
But as hard as he puffs, and as hard as he puffs, he can't blow down the house made of bricks. So now he's trying to sneak down the chimney.
Re:Who is the fox and who is the hen? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Who is the fox and who is the hen? (Score:2)
I'm inclined to think the OSDL would be better off focussing on Open Source Development in their Labs; rather than engage with research projects with MS. The OS is not the only concern of the OSDL, it's the ma
Re:Who is the fox and who is the hen? (Score:2)
As I'm sure you've concluded, the only purpose for this suggestion is to get the OSDL to look like it approved the conditions for a Microsoft "win", thereby allowing Microsoft to claim it was truly an "independent" comparison.
Right - like the 9/11 Commission was "independent" - they wanted Kissinger on it at first, but that was TOO fucking obvious.
Now we're finding out how the REAL facts about 9/11 - like over 20 intelligence agents having specific information about the attack before the attack - were "left
Re:Who is the fox and who is the hen? (Score:2)
The slippage your quoting is a fraction of 1% as far as I remember. Judging browser usage is a muddy thing. Right now my site is at around 85% firefox users, however the majority o
Re:Who is the fox and who is the hen? (Score:2)
Bollocks. IE and Navigator were basically equal at their respective version 3.x (ca. 1996/97) and IE was the better browser as of the 4.x releases (ca. 1997/98).
That's real nice of them to ask first (Score:2, Insightful)
But the friendlier post-monopoly suite MS politely "proposes" you drop 'em and bend over for some "embracing and extending".
how sweet.
But seriously, OSDL would have to be freaken nuts to even consider this offer to be in their interest for even a second.
Re:Don't be so sure (Score:5, Insightful)
This has everything to do with empirical evidence of MS actions in regards to "cooperating" with other organizations and efforts.
Funny how any techie could rattle off at least a few well known and high profile cases of MS shafting it's "development partners". And yet you sit here and rattle off some crap about religious zealots and "not being so sure".
Well... that about sums it up don't it.
Obviously you're too much an idiot to bother trying to explain anything to , or too much an asshole to bother with.
but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt either way.
- lest I be too quick to judge.
So here's a bone:
Name 1 competing software manufacturer that MS has dealt with on a cooperative basis that MS hasn't stolen from, lied to, killed out right or simply aquired.
Re:Don't be so sure (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Don't be so sure (Score:4, Interesting)
Show me one quote where Linus thinks Microsoft are in any way "good guys" - however you or he defines "good guys."
Yes, Linus is not a "free as in beer software" fanatic. However, he DOES believe in open source and in Linux as a process and a product, as well as a technology challenge. The latter may be what floats his boat, but he's not exactly an SCO supporter, either. And he's not stupid.
Stallman may be a socialist or semi-socialist or pseudo-socialist or whatever, but even the GPL allows people to sell open source software as long as the source is included.
Bill Gates and Microsoft have NEVER been about free as in freedom OR free as in beer, ever. Go back and read his "You Hobbyists Steal Your Software" rant and his poker days at Harvard.
Why should anybody in OSS concern themselves about "cooperation" (in other than a technical interoperability sense) with Microsoft?
Morons and Oxymorons... (Score:5, Insightful)
How can this be 'joint' and 'independent' at the same time? Specially when MS is one of the parties?
Re:Morons and Oxymorons... (Score:2)
Hey, I've copyrighted, trademarked and patented the use of the term "morons" on
You owe me money!
And you need to sublicense "oxymorons"!
Sorry, couldn't resist...
(No, this wasn't a slam at Linus, I support trademarking Linux!)
Totally agree with your point.
Fun (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey, Microsoft wants to "collaborate" with open source? Maybe they could never mind the PR movements and "research", and just fucking document their formats and protocols so that open source software isn't left a second-class, reverse-engineered citizen in the world full of computers Microsoft owns.
Re:Fun (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. I wish that the people involved will remember what you wrote. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Microsoft is not to be trusted. Maybe, MAYBE after they have had a complete change of leadership (starting from Ballmer, Gates and the board of directors, followed by heads of divisions) and complete change in operating philosophy. Maybe then they can slowly start to regain the trust they have lost over the years. But as things are right now, MS has screwed competitors and potential competitors over and over again. And Linux is a competitor. Why eaxctly would MS NOT screw Linux over, if they had the chance?
MS does not want to "cooperate" with OSDL because they want to help Linux or open source. They want to do it because they feel that they have something to gain. And in this case, it would most certainly involve harming Linux and open source.
I repeat: Microsoft is not to be trusted.
TERRIBLE news. (Score:5, Funny)
. . . somehow. At all.
Oh, I'll find a way.
Two possibilities (Score:5, Insightful)
1) They seek to make their own "Get the Facts" campaign appear more legitimate by having OSDL create a similar one. Right now, a lot of people assume that Microsoft isn't telling the whole truth in their advertising, but if Red Hat or some other Linux company started doing the same, then some people might start believing it. By not fighting back, they actually make Microsoft seem almost desperate.
2) They want OSDL to do market research for them from their "customer base" so Microsoft can take that research to improve Windows in these areas. If Microsoft can absorb the features that people value most about Linux into Windows, the theory goes that they can then crush Linux.
Re:Two possibilities (Score:2)
Number one theory is the most likely. They want a rigged comparison to seem to be supported by OSDL.
They don't need OSDL to find out where Windows is weak against Linux - they've been told that over and over by everybody - including their own people in the famous "Unix memo" - and I'm sure a lot of their customers switching away from them have told them, too.
Re:Two possibilities (Score:2)
1. A proper shell and programs to use with it. Being able to combine the functionality of programs by using pipes adds a degree of flexibility that is hard to achieve with monolithic and/or GUI programs.
2. Easy updates of al
Re:Two possibilities (Score:3, Insightful)
#2. Unlikely. Microsoft doesn't believe it has flaws. To MS, a problem is something that is either a) already fixed by in the next version, b) user/admin error, or c) 'a feature'. Most likely, a security feature
Politely decline (Score:2)
Never believe anything... (Score:4, Informative)
who stands to win? (Score:3, Insightful)
MS stands to gain everything.
OSS/FS stands to lose everything.
MS stands to lose nothing.
Questions -
Who has it?
Who doesn't?
Who wants it?
What will happen if they get it?
Which brings us to: Why agree to this in the first place?
Re:who stands to win? (Score:2, Funny)
Huh?
Re:who stands to win? (Score:3, Funny)
So we have:
1) Who has it? Duh, women.
2) Who doesn't? That'd be the guys.
3) Who wants it? Most men and a few women.
4) What will happen if they get it? A certain percentage of them would become fathers. The rest just a little less tense for a few days.
Which brings us to:
5) Why agree to this in the first place? Because it feels good.
But in all honesty, I agree with the other reply you got, which said "Huh?"
Re:who stands to win? (Score:2)
Reminds me of Gary Bussey in "D.C. Cab" complaining that he didn't know what women were upset about, because "they have half the money and all of the pussy!"
keep your friends close (Score:2)
Not gonna happen (Score:3, Interesting)
Regardless of whether you think this is a good idea, and regardless of whether OSDL is going to take the offer, I just don't think any _meaningful_ "facts-based analysis" of Windows vs. Linux is ever going to happen.
The problem is that there are so many aspects that matter in such a comparison, and so many different Linux distros that get these aspects differently from the next one; so many potential users of either OS that have differing needs with respect to those aspects, and so many aspects that are not going to be covered in any given study, that basically any study conducted by yourself or someone else is going to be less than what you need.
If someone else conducts the study, they are going to cover some issues that are important to you, but not others. For example, they are going to find that security updates work better under the Linux distro they evaluate than under Windows, but ignore the fact that one application your business uses doesn't run on Linux. Or they are going to find that many applications don't run under Linux and suggest that switching to Linux would severely reduce productivity, whereas no such thing would happen in your particular case.
If you do the analysis yourself, you are not going to be aware of certain things. For example, I could well imagine that someone doing the comparison would notice differences and similarities on the surface, apps that do and don't run, how it takes time for people to adapt if they make the switch, etc. but not find that eventually, some employees are going to really take advantage of the new features and use the shell to greatly boost productivity. Or that this shiny distro they opt for is going to be a horrible mess come the next major upgrade, because of RPM hell. Or that an open-source effort is currently underway that will provide an app that is just what their business needs, but it will only run on one of the operating systems.
I believe that the only way to _really_ determine if Linux is right for _you_, is to actually look for (with the help of more experienced users) a distro that matches what you want to get out of your computer, install it on a computer that it works well with (don't go telling yourself that Linux isn't user friendly because it doesn't support your wireless network card), and run it for at least a full upgrade cycle. Get used to the way things are done on your system. Customize it to better match your desires. See how the distro copes with everyday needs. Maybe report on what you don't like, and let people recommend you a different distro based on that; then try that one and see if you like it better. Ask more experienced Linux or Unix users how they would do things. Maybe even try to do some programming or at least scripting on your distro, and then on the system you were switching from; just to get an idea of the functionality you don't use now, but could at some point. In other words, evaluate how the system fits your current needs, how well it behaves over time, and explore all the capabilities it has to offer. This will get you a much better insight in what Linux (and Windows, if you're thinking of switching the other way) has to offer you than any study conducted by others.
Re:Not gonna happen (Score:2)
Well, that's kind of the point. You can't really evaluate an OS without actually using it extensively. Because people don't use the system extensively when they do evaluate it, they are going to miss certain things. Things that _are_ important to them. If you let somebody else do the evaluation, they are not going to focus on all the things that matter to you. That's why I said it's not going to happen at the beginning
Not that I think it would happen, but I wonder... (Score:2)
I may be completely wrong here, but I am under the current impression that Microsoft Office, SQL Server, and other such things are responsible for the majority of MS's bottom line. Now I need to go look at their reports to find out if that' true.
--S
Re:Not that I think it would happen, but I wonder. (Score:2)
For FY05, Microsoft reported 30.75% of their revenues as being from "Windows Client", which includes Windows XP, Windows 2000, and Windows Embedded. I'm guessing there's a fair amount of Windows Embedded business, given all the WinPhones out there.
Strategically, it could make a WHOLE lot of sense for M$ to drop Windows as an operating system in the long term, assuming they believe that Linux is a true threat on the desktop in that same long term. If they make their other software and so
Re:Not that I think it would happen, but I wonder. (Score:2)
I don't see Gates thinking that way.
I see him thinking like this:
1) Our apps only run on Windows.
2) Our apps dominate on the corporate desktop because they only run on Windows.
3) Our OS's dominate on the corporate desktop because they run our apps - and because we have business contracts and marketing to convince people to use our OS because it was cheaper than UNIX for years. So we got there first.
4) If it ain't broke, don't fix it - unless it makes us more money DIRECTLY to fix it.
5) Security ain't "it" -
Re:Not that I think it would happen, but I wonder. (Score:2)
Microsoft is a software company. There will be software from MS which runs with Linux (or BSD, or what have you) as the host OS in the next 5 years. But they will always play to strengthen their core monopolies, so we're unlikely to see workstation software running on Linux.
Whenever MS provides software for another platform, it is always as a move to strengthen their dominance of the industry. MS Office on Macintosh is not only a solid revenue stream in it's own right (as MS acknowle
Re:Not that I think it would happen, but I wonder. (Score:2)
The theory that I'm putting forth, summed up, is that the costs of Windows development, end-user support, etc. etc. might make the net profit from Windows fairly insignificant. If that's the case (and I can't tell if it is from their financial statements since they don't break it down that way), then they could win big by controlling the applications through purposely conceding control of the OS envrionme
What is the motivation behind this? (Score:5, Insightful)
There must be strings attached.
Whatever the trap, a) we should avoid the bait or b)figure out what they are up to (I'm not smart enough to see it) because whatever the case - Microsoft isn't about to fund a study that shows it bad in security.
And what's the need to analyze Microsoft security?
First: The computers in research studies can be unrealisticly hardened on both sides - Windows more so because the default installation isn't tested most of the time - just a dream system hardened by EXPERTS. How many Windows users turn off the default services they don't need along with turning off ActiveX.
Second: How is this a learning experience? Microsoft already knows what it does wrong. But it can't take the cure because they think it's too painful - rip out ActiveX, make Internet Explorer and Explorer more removable and more modular so it's not soldered to the system, same with Outlook, etcetera.
AoooGaaa (Score:2)
they already have the facts from Hotmail (Score:2)
it's telling (Score:2)
But that's no accident, nor is it anything to boast about. The UNIX principles are to keep things as simple as possible, to ruthlessly eliminate features, and to live with inefficiencies in places where they
Next week's news ... (Score:2)
Facts? HAH (Score:2, Interesting)
Again, I beseech thee . . . (Score:2)
This metaphor is a lot like a duck riding a chainsaw to the primary school. It makes no sense at all.
This came up on Groklaw a few days ago (Score:3, Informative)
It's telling that Microsoft were the ones who went to eWeek with the story, without consulting Cohen or asking for his OK on telling the world about the meeting. Since Microsoft were also the ones asking for the meeting in the first place, one has to wonder whether it was done solely to be able to place a piece like this?
Actually one doesn't have to wonder, knowing Redmond.
From the friendly article (Score:2)
There's nothing like waking up with a good laugh.
Re:NO NO NO (Score:5, Insightful)
But you can bet your last cent that Microsoft wants to `cooperate' under a BSD license.
Re:NO NO NO-All about us. (Score:3, Interesting)
It wasn't. Just a knee-jerk response that has nothing to do with the story.
> And les you all forget, there is some good code buried under all that other stuff that MS puts out. If MS ever got their act together and stripped away the bad code and added bits and pieces from others in the Windows domain. They could actually have something that would compete.
Are you refering to something specific, such as web servers? Because it would appear that ove
[Semi-OT] Linus on Slashdot (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:NO NO NO (Score:2, Insightful)
1) Microsoft has absolutely no control over the Linux kernel code. No legal trick or hollow threat from M$ will affect the avid Linux user.
2) Besides, anything they "screw up" would have to be re-released under the GPL. They're so freakin' scared of the GPL they'll just stay away from the code and
3) fuel their anti-Linux marketing. The best/only thing they can do is keep Windows users running Windows and make money as population increases.
Re:M$ won't mess with Linux (Score:2, Insightful)
Most people are completely unaware that Microsoft is a convicted monopolist.
Most people have no idea what Linux is. By the way, who owns Linux again? Who exactly is going to sue Microsoft?
Microsoft has been screwing around with Linux in every possible legal way it can. (Follow the SCO money trail or their many funded TCO studies and other FUD campaigns).
Microsoft's track record speaks volumes about their lack of respect for every company they hav
Re:M$ won't mess with Linux (Score:2)
smash.
Re:M$ won't mess with Linux (Score:2)
And, honestly, do you think that if MS started providing IE, Office, etc, for linux, that would cause people to switch to linux? I doubt it; it just allows them to control the app-space of another OS. MS Office & IE are standard Mac apps. Windows media player, MSN
Re:Why is the OSDL and Redhat not up for studies? (Score:2)
Red Hat says why in the article: they believe in using customer testimonials, rather than a lab environment which may or may not - usually not - resemble the real world.
They also know how easy it is to tweak such an environment to produce the results you want.
I don't entirely disparage lab tests. When the trade journals run a test on Windows 2003 Server vrs. SUSE or whoever, and come up with the figures that a Linux distro with Samba is twice as fast at file and printer sharing as Windows, I can accept that
Re:Good thing? (Score:2)
First, Microsoft hasn't admitted one damn thing about Linux or open source, other than that it exists (duh!) There comes a time when ignoring your rival just makes you look stupid, which is not helpful for marketing.
Second, we have absolutely NO evidence that this
"study" isn't a setup to gain publicity advantage by making it look like the OSDL agreed to an "independent" study which is then tweaked somehow to let Microsoft win or appear to win.
Third, Microsoft has the advertising budget to take advantage of
Re:Get the facts? (Score:2)
No problem if you assume Taylor is a paid Microsoft liar.
His stated motivations are "billshit" (no, I didn't mispell bullshit.)
Very smart PR move for Microsoft (Score:3, Informative)
They're calling out Linux in a public setting, and publically promising an end to FUD and biased studies. If OSDL doesn't take the bait, it looks like they're snubbing a perfectly fair (even friendly) offer, and the only conclusion people will jump to is that they're too scared to compete.
If OSDL agree and the study does take place we all know exactly what it'll say - Linux is better for servers, and Windows is better for end-users and enterprise desktops