OSDL CEO: Microsoft Has to Accept Linux 229
PenguinCandidate writes "The OSDL's Stuart Cohen has been in the news lately following a clandestine meeting with Microsoft about a dubiously independent TCO study; a study that has since been rejected by the OSDL. The idea of an independent Windows/Linux TCO comparison may be dead, but did Cohen have an additional card up his sleeve?
In this interview, Cohen states that while he "awaits the reply from MS's Martin Taylor on the results of his internal investigation" into how an off-the-record meeting became public, he will continue to promote his belief that MS will eventually have to accept Linux as customer demand increases."
Already accepted (Score:4, Insightful)
I hope this is not exposing the lack of maturity in "Linux People", who acts like a little brother, and always try to get recognition and comparison with his older brother, and in trying so, will forever live under the shadow of the latter.
Re:Already accepted (Score:5, Insightful)
MS has recognized Linux's place in the marketplace. They know of Linux's server market growth and its desktop push. Ms recognizes the choices in Open Source software (OO.o vs. MS Office, for example).
MS has not accepted this. Probably will not either. Thus the TCO fudging and other FUDs. If Microsoft accepts the qualities of Linux (and OSS), they wouldn't FUD it. They'd acknowledge its benefits and make THEIR offerings better.
So once you make the distinction between recognition and acceptance, the statement pretty much pans out ok.
Does It Really Matter? (Score:5, Interesting)
No. Microsoft does accept it (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure they are trying to release a cluster edition but nobody I know even at Microsoft takes this seriously. (I think we can call it the Cluster$#%^ edition.)So again, this attack is pretty pitiful on Microsoft's part.
The FUD is directed at protecting Micro
Re:No. Microsoft does accept it (Score:3, Informative)
Re:No. Microsoft does accept it (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft's core market is the corporate workstation market, due to the dependence on Microsoft RAD tools, office suites, and operating systems. If this market falls, Microsoft falls software ceases to be the influence it currnetly is.
Similarly, Linux's
Re:Already accepted (Score:5, Interesting)
I hear MCSE's praise Active Directory to the skies and claim that Unix ACL's can never match W2K's group attribute management. I don't really see anything a competent Unix admin couldn't match with OpenLDAP and efficient automation, but that's not the point, its the idea that whatever Linux can do, Windows has already done it and in a superior fashion. This is the direction I expect the pro-Microsoft argument to run once they've "accepted" that their TCO argument has failed.
The true value of open source solutions involving Linux and the *BSD's is that you're not trapped into one management model, and only the larger adoptees seem to have grasped this. If Microsoft insist on being the gatekeeper in the server market, they might have more resistance than they expected.
Re:Already accepted (Score:3, Insightful)
Thats not true. We're using something OpenBSD/carp/pfsync provides, and I've never seen it offered in Linux or windows. So in a way, I'm trapped by what OpenBSD provides and there's no alternative!
Re:Already accepted (Score:2)
the way i see it, there's problems and solutions. sometimes BSD can prodive a unique solution, sometimes linux, sometimes microsoft. pick which one solves your problem, and be happy that you don't have a problem anymore.
if opensource means so much to you, always takle the OSS solution when available. isn't life gorgeously simple?
Not exactly (Score:5, Insightful)
MS accepts that it must compete against Linux, but I think that Mr Cohen is trying to point out some of the dumber MS practices, in regards to interoperability.
In my experience alot of this is related to how MS wants to integrate it's enterprise level products into the OS. The two biggest examples I can think of are:
- SQLServer
- .NET
Basically they both run as services (IIS, I think) on Windows OSs, making them inherently incompatible with Linux or any other OS. It's all part and parcel to this Microsoft mentality that to make the most money, we need to be an end-to-end solution; for everything.So what is my point? Well, if MS was really about making the best product you could run it on a multitude of OSs. Because if SQLServer and the .NET (web apps) were really that good they could be more OS agnostic. The alternatives, Oracle, J2EE, PHP, etc run almost anywhere. It would also be nice to see Active Directory provide full LDAP support.
And it isn't even the end-to-end solution that bothers me. It is also the lock out of everyone else (but, I guess Microsoft can always say, "Look how well we play with ourselves" ;-) ). This also seems to be half of what causes all of the OS security problems and release delays. Instead of having each app provide its own services (to some extent), the OS comes with bits and pieces for other MS apps. Some of these bits don't seem to get used much, but everyone gets them. This all adds to the complexity of the OS. While Bill and Balmer spout that it makes "everything easier to do", I disagree. I would rather set up a cluster of app servers for J2EE than attempt that nonsense for .NET using the built in configuration options (from the control panel).
I think it is possible that Vista/Longhorn will not be that sucessful. Then MS will have to make SQLServer and .NET web apps run on something else... like everything else in the world. That is just conjecture (or wishful thinking, perhaps), but that will be the only way MS can hold its ground in the long run (at least in the business IT world). Ceterus Peribus.
Windows Vista automatically successful (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Already accepted (Score:3, Insightful)
how is it the little brother's fault... (Score:2)
also, it is the big brother that is constantly doing the comparisons and seeking the recognition against the little brother.
how you got modded '5, insightful' i'll never know.
sum.zero
Re:Already accepted (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Already accepted (Score:3, Insightful)
I wouldn't be surprised at all if Microsoft started making software for Linux in the not too long-term future. At the end of the day Microsoft wants to make software and money - which is what they're supposed to do.
Hell, I wish Microsoft would put out a desktop for Linux, but that's way too much wishful thinking.
Re:BINGO! (Score:2)
Microsoft must be planning to capture the most wealth from Linux. At this point, it's the only thing that makes sense to me.
Linux vendors haven't done such a good job at converting Linux's killer feature set to profits. Microsoft will take their lunch money before they know it's gone.
In many markets, Microsoft is outside IBM's customer base, so Microsoft stands to capture a great deal of revenue from very many new linux customers.
It would be interesting to see if Red Hat becomes Microsof
Re:Already accepted (Score:2, Interesting)
Sure microsoft will be making software to run on Linux but what kind of profits will it be generating, the same kind of profits it generates from it's xbox division or the profits it used to generate from it's office and os division.
Microsoft has to co
Windows is the Younger Brother (Score:2, Interesting)
I am not interested in "recognition", whatever that means, nor comparisons. MS and their customers (pointy haired office managers and Joe Sixpack home users) are welcome to go their own way. Linux has by now established a viable user base.
I just want to see MS pressurised or forced to use open file standards.
Re:Already accepted (Score:2, Insightful)
evolution of a uid (Score:4, Interesting)
you joined to defend your 'review' of the ie7 beta in which you praise ms for creating 'superior software' and for adding new, innovative features.
now you claim the linux destop offers no significant advantage, is only for techies AND is a cheap knock off of windows.
the time lost and costs associated with the removal of adware, spyware and trojans is a significant disadvantage for ms windows. and that is just one of the advantages for linux that i care to mention atm.
there are a plethora of desktop environments for *nix, some of which are nothing like the windows ui. have you seen a modern linux desktop?
what are these missing features for non-technical people? file storage - check. internet browsing - check. office suite - check. media playback - check.
every post by you is decidely ms-centric, so i am thinking your experience with linux is fairly limited.
"you must be young, son
because your head is all wrong"
- me
sum.zero
ps i wrote this on a windows workstation
aren't you proud of yourself (Score:3, Insightful)
reality does not concur with your arguments [and logical fallacies]; linux continues to gain traction in pretty much every area. frankly, considering how effective ms has been at protecting tehir monopoly in the desktop, i'm surprised linux has come this far this fast.
froth away though...
sum.zero
tco and the customer (Score:5, Insightful)
Similarly, if a customer has to hire someone to edit his inittab then it's probably going to cost more than a Windows jockey clicking on services attributes. Dunno, there's just too many indefinite variable to compare complex systems.
Re:tco and the customer (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:tco and the customer (Score:2)
Re:tco and the customer (Score:3, Insightful)
Lets fix that. "My time has value".
Extending the analogy - I would consider the extra 12 dollar cost of the 'professional' oil change in comparison to my willingness to spend the time changing my oil, my ability to do so legally in my parking lot without violating the terms of my condo's bylaws and my enjoyment of the task.
I despise working on my engine, I hate gett
Re:tco and the customer (Score:3, Interesting)
I've got the extra time, and LOVE working on things. I build my own computers, I work on my own guns (rebuilt 2 Mausers and built a 1911 handgun from all aftermarket parts), and I'm working on building my own airplane (a Zodiac 601XL for anyone into the homebuilding scene). To me, I actually take ENJOYMENT out of things like th
Re:tco and the customer (Score:2, Insightful)
This is nonsense. Time spent \ education \ actual costs are all part of the TCO equation. If I'm a lawyer I can probaly earn $100 in the same time its cost me an extra $12 to get someone to do it. And relaxation \ downtime \ rejuvination is also part of TCO. For some people its a nightmare to change the oil - for you not so. You don't relax with stupid TV shows - guess what, others do.
Re:tco and the customer (Score:2)
Re:tco and the customer (Score:2)
Re:tco and the customer (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:tco and the customer (Score:2)
Larger particles usually indicate fatigue wear or
Deep Penguin (Score:5, Funny)
Y'know what's curious? (Score:5, Interesting)
What occurred to me is that there's something rather bizarre about how little interest has been generated by the complete destruction of a major US city a few days ago. I've barely blinked (sent money, couldn't do anything else, shrugged and went back to work) and in general there seems to have been a lot less fuss than I certainly would have imagined something like this would prompt.
Re:Y'know what's curious? (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/n
Re:Y'know what's curious? (Score:2)
I've been looking for recent satellite photos of the affected area. Unfortunately, the aerial photos from the AP pool don't provide the extent of the disaster that a satellite shot can.
Re:It's time for a serious talk about the state of (Score:2)
YOU VILL TAKE THE ABUSE UND LIKE IT!
Re:Y'know what's curious? (Score:2)
I wonder if this will be remembered the next time the military tries to consolidate all its regular and reserve forces to the southern Atlantic and Gulf states.
Re:Y'know what's curious? (Score:2)
Re:Y'know what's curious? (Score:2)
And just a nitpick: people are not dying on the sidewalks from lack of food. It takes more than 2-3 days to die of starvation. Dehydration would do it, but not lack of food.
Re:Y'know what's curious? (Score:2)
MREs are used during battle. I guarantee you that they have unfathomable amounts of MREs on board that carrier - that ship is gigantic. During normal circumstances, they eat freshly prepared food of course, else the soldiers will revolt!
The navy can afford to unload all its MRE supplies on land - hell, they can even unload all their fresh and frozen food too, if it would do any good, since the soldiers can go without food for a week, but the people on land (well, in the mud and wat
Time to die (Score:2)
Without water, 4 days.
Without food, 4 weeks.
Without sex, 4 get abboud it!
Airdropping MREs is problematic in a flood. (Score:2)
Airdropping MREs is problematic in a flooded area: You have to get it to the people. Dropping it in the and mud 20 feet away where they can't get it is useless. But the places they CAN stand are already covered with PEOPLE. Dropping a payload on them could kill more than letting them starve.
They'll have to do it more carefully - and that means helicopters and the like, which hav
Re:Airdropping MREs is problematic in a flood. (Score:2)
Precision bombing requires smart munitions. (Score:2)
And sand, specially wet sand, is HEAVY and, being sand, is GRITTY. The two worst things you can ask to transport in a plane.
I don't see the Navy having any use for precision guided sand bags. Sorry.
Re:Y'know what's curious? (Score:2)
You can live about 2 minutes without air, about 2 to five days without water, and about 2 weeks to 2 months without food.
I'd say that the priorities should be
All of us would hate going without food for three or four days, but most of us
Re:Y'know what's curious? (Score:2, Troll)
Dropping the food and water under the present conditions isn't the answer, but there are other ways. Either lowering in cargo ners or impovised landing areas. Food and water should have been moving in there in large quantities as soon as the winds died down.
If those people in the Toilet Dome were in the tax brackets that Bush and his cronies in Congress gave tax relief to, you can be damn su
Re:Y'know what's curious? (Score:2)
Those people didn't vote for Bush, so therefore they aren't worth saving.
But we are looking into additional Tax Relief for Trent Lott who lost his mansion, so don't you worry none.
Re:Y'know what's curious? (Score:2)
They're airforce. They fly, not swim. They don't have training to operate boats, trucks, buses or even helicopters- and more importantly, they don't have that equipment. The New Orleans superdome contains 4000+ able-bodied young men, who are useless because they don't have vehi
Pissing in the wind (Score:2)
What a load of horse hockey (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What a load of horse hockey (Score:2)
A while back, I saw something that talked about business models and Microsoft. It basically said that when Netscape went about doing its thing creating a web browser, it did just fine. It turned profits, was successful, etc. When it changed and started comparing what it did to Microsoft, it started its downward spiral.
Linux will not usurp Microsoft... nor will Macintosh. However, if Linux and Macs make it easier to have interoperability, there will be an easier path to acceptance in the workpla
interoperability? (Score:2)
tell me how linux and apple are supposed to improve interoperability with these invisible, constantly moving goal posts?
sum.zero
Re:interoperability? (Score:2)
Use the Force to influence the midichlorians?
Re:What a load of horse hockey (Score:3)
Jeex people, it doesn't meen that have to be buddy buddy with them, just accept they're a FACTOR IN THE MARKET!
to make an affirmative or favorable response to
note the 'or'.
Re:What a load of horse hockey --- no it is not. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:What a load of horse hockey (Score:2)
Where have you been? Did you recently figure out how to connect to the net?
If not, then don't spread misinformation. There is no comparison between MS and Standard Oil in terms of penalty, because MS received no penalty!
Wow, so which is it? (Score:3, Funny)
OK, let's base it off something else...maybe security? Oh wait, I got it, who has the easiest to configure applications?
No...it has to be something more. Maybe we should see who has the better mascot. I think that's Linux, considering Windows doesn't really have a mascot; although personally I think I'd vote for Windows is their mascot was a caricature of Bill Gates getting pied in the face.
5 stages (Score:5, Funny)
- Denial
- Anger
- Bargaining
- Depression
- Ultimate Acceptance
Microsoft is somewhere around 3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_stages_of_grief [wikipedia.org]
Re:5 stages (Score:2)
Re:5 stages (Score:2)
That stage is called "retirement". It's certainly an option for Bill and friends, but it's not the same thing as running a successful world-dominating software company.
It seems inevitable. (Score:3, Informative)
Unmeasureable (Score:2)
Unaccountability according to the business world.
Now to Linux users. How many? Who can guess? Nobody... Microsoft measure sales (and as it is almost illegal to sell a Computer without MS Windows [pre]-installed)...
No growth for Linux (Score:2)
here's a good site to check out: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.a [w3schools.com] sp
I look at w3school's OS stats and what I see is steady growth in XP's share and Linux treading water.
Re:No growth for Linux (Score:2)
March 2003, the first month they record, had Linux at 2.3% of all vistors. This month is at 3.3% at the moment and 3.5% for both of the last two months. Basically, 1.5 times as large of a percentage of Linux users as three years ago.
Growth of Windows XP is not at the expense of other operating systems, it is at the expense of previous versions of Windows. In March 2003, Windows 2000 was 41.9%, this month it is 17.5%
What is really amazing is that while Windows holds an 87.59% market share as of this m
Re:No growth for Linux (Score:2)
I'm not claiming that number has any statistical value, just pointing out that your comment has very little to do with reality.
Re:No growth for Linux (Score:2)
Not too long ago, I heard some business students at the table next to me talking, one was promising to bring someone a copy of Office and bragging about how he had all of these copies of all sorts of Microsoft software that he copied/stole, whatever, from someplace he worked. I asked him why they didn't just use OpenOffice - he had never heard of it. Even when I explained what it was they seemed to have about zero interest. It was rather frightening and depressing.
As for a free XP, I don't think that's
Re:It seems inevitable. (Score:2)
Microsoft Accept Linux?? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Microsoft Accept Linux?? (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft Accept Linux?? (Score:2)
Didn't the Sox win the world series or somethin'?
I don't want to hint at any cause and effect... but don't you find it interesting that the Earth has this Global Warming thing going on, while Hell is Freezing over...
If there IS causality and you WANT Microsoft to embrace Linux, get out there with your aerosol cans and fill up your gas tank BEFORE 6PM.
Get a clue (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless it is legally mandated, they don't have to accept anything. Hell, the can say gravity doesn't exist. You can think of them as stupid, but they don't have to accept it. They can go and live with my ex who is queen of the region. You know de Nile.
Re:Get a clue (Score:2)
MS has to accept Linux if they are going to continue to grow.
Accept it as a market force, that is.
And you have to accept that gravity exist if you dont want to be looked at like a loon...or come up with a scientifically valid alternative.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you're looking at it wrong... (Score:2)
Microsoft is having to integrate due to customer demand, customers are really forcing Microsoft to stop acting as if Linux is insignificant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Less Useful Than USENET? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Less Useful Than USENET? (Score:2)
Re:Less Useful Than USENET? (Score:2)
The lethargy is expanding!
Oh, the humanity!
Scoop Johnson! (Score:2)
One can only speculate why this is, but none of the possibilities reflect very highly on Slashdot (Ad revenue? Gross stupidity? Boredom?).
Re:Scoop Johnson! (Score:2)
You are probably right, but overload is not one of those reasons I accept when dealing with service providers. Slashdot has long since past the day when it was a true community-driven entity. If they are indeed fielding that many stories in one day, then they need to reconsider the editing process and allow it to be handled in the same way as the comments - a metaediting function.
It see
Re:Scoop Johnson! (Score:2)
Re:Scoop Johnson! (Score:2)
OUCH!
Microsoft could save a fortune (Score:2)
If I was a Microsoft shareholder, I'd be kicking up a fuss about how much more profitable MSFT would be if it stuck to it's strengths of eye candy and API obfuscation and took the free, stable, secure alternative to writing the difficult bits.
Being a front end stuck on an open core seems to be working wonders for OSX. Similarly, Microsoft could stop losing
Re: (Score:2)
Linux just is.. (Score:4, Interesting)
We also have to remember, the majority of users don't switch OSs just because they think Windows is Evil, its almost always down to the "User Needs".
As for all this media coverage over Linux Vs Windows, and TCO Campaigns, when will see news of NEW and INNOVATIVE operating systems, like i recently stumbled on SKYOS(http://www.skyos.org/ [skyos.org]) which looks promising, and is commercial, none of the usual UNIX FOSS dervatives.
Re:Linux just is.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Because, well
this means giving up on 30% profits and control (Score:4, Insightful)
Any such move would mean that they have accepted
Their their control of developers and the market would have to have deteriorated so so much for Bill and Steve to allow ANY MS software product to run on another operating system. MS Office for Mac only exists because they needed Apple in the DOJ vs MSFT case. It only exists now because it's a wash to keep it running and it helps them LOOK like they are good citizens. It also helps that they have a monopoly on Mac for office software too.
The day Microsoft releases a critical business software package for another operating system will the the day Bill Gates and Steve Balmer leave the building. They make billions in profits off Windows and Office. Heck, look at the Palm/handheld market for an example. Palm had over 80% marketshare when all the database companies were releasing Palm versions of db access clients. Microsoft, they announce a version for WindowsCE... Speaking of WindowsCE, they've lost money on THAT product every quarter of every year since they started that project. About $1 billion in losses per year for 8 years. Do you really think they'll bring MS Office to Linux?
Unfortunately, such a statement actually lowers my respect for the guy.
LoB
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Sure they do (Score:2)
Bill Gates: No
Total Cost to 0wn someone's Windows box is lower (Score:4, Funny)
I doubt you can 0wn a Linux box as cheaply.
study (Score:2)
CORRECTION: Will Linux Accept Microsoft (Score:2)
The real TCO debate to be had? (Score:2)
It turned out he was a network administrator. The DJ asked him if there was anything people could do about viruses, worms, spyware and crashes. The caller replied. "No, get a mac".
I see a lot of articles on slashdot about total cost of ownership (TCO) for Microsoft windows vs GNU/Linux.
I think a real TCO debate would ( or might someday ) would involve Microsoft windows vs
Re:MS will never have to accept Linux (Score:2)
Re:MS will never have to accept Linux (Score:5, Interesting)
>Wow. If that's true Apple's in deep shit.
Not really. OSX actually works (so they say), and significant portions of it are open source. Not the eyecandy, of course, but the foundations. If the world really needs what he said, Apple may do just fine. Is that really what the world wants? I haven't seen much evidence of demand for either ``actually works'' or ``open source''. I hope I'm wrong about that, but history suggests that the inferior product has a huge advantage.
The market is big enough for lots of players.
I remember before the IBM PC. Back then, when the market was a lot smaller, there really was room for lots of players. There was Vector Graphics, IMSAI, Altair, Altos, Otrona, Kaypro, Osbourne, General Automation, Franklin, Apple, Commodore, Northstar, Tandy, Heathkit (including a kit PDP-11!) and many others, running Xenix, single or multi-user variants of CPM, Pick, and I don't know what-all. I worked on or with them all. I had a diskette with a program which allowed me to read 43 different, proprietary, soft-sectored floppy disk formats. Obviously, that didn't include the 8-inch floppies and the hard-sectored ones like the Vector graphics. There were many manufacturers, and a huge variety of hardware and software.
Then came IBM. Suddenly the market was huge, and there wasn't room for all those many computer makers and their diverse products. Of that list of hardware and software platforms I mentioned above, how many are around today? How many do you even remember?
I'd say the microcomputer market is either way too small for ``lots of players'', or way too big. Right now, it seems to be about right for Wintel (or WinAMD) and a maybe Apple, and Apple's been dying at least as long as BSD.
Re:MS will never have to accept Linux (Score:2)
Re:MS will never have to accept Linux (Score:2)
No one was mainstream at that time, since most people didn't have (and didn't need) a computer.
I still stand by my statement. There's lots of room for all kind of *nix based systems, some like BSD, some like Linux (a milli
Re:Who cares? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Only on the server (Score:2, Insightful)