Microsoft Deploys Linux, Open Software in Test Lab 595
securitas writes "Microsoft has deployed Linux and other open-source software in test labs used by business customers to experiment with Microsoft's products. The products include Linux, Apache, MySQL and Open LDAP directory-access software on Intel-based computers, according to Martin Taylor, who is in charge of Microsoft's Linux competitive strategy. He said the goal was to learn 'what can you do and how can you do it' using open-source software in a competitive analysis. This step comes after Microsoft's recent admission that Linux is Microsoft's biggest threat after economic conditions. Mirrors at CMPnetAsia and InternetWeek." It'd be cool to see some patches come from Redmond, but that's probably wishful thinking.
MIcrosoft Linux (Score:5, Funny)
Re:MIcrosoft Linux (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, though, if M$ thought they could profit from Linux they'd be using it in their products already and biting the GPL bullet. Or figuring out a strategy to get the GPL tossed out so they could use other strategies to be able to use the code.
Re:MIcrosoft Linux (Score:3, Funny)
Re:MIcrosoft Linux (Score:5, Interesting)
hmmm, I wonder what this whole SCO ordeal is?
Re:MIcrosoft Linux / Voiding the GPL (Score:3, Insightful)
hmmm, I wonder what this whole SCO ordeal is?
Yes. That is my worry. First, by drawing legal parallels (not neccessarily common-sense parallels, you understand) between the viral licensing nature of SCO's UNIX (all your derivitive works are belong to us) and the GPL and then by having a massive court battle where IBM ruthlessly smashes SCO and sets precendents...
The danger? Should
Re:MIcrosoft Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually I disagree. Despite what most people think, Microsoft isn't nessesarily just after money all the time. Why wouldn't MS support Linux? It's a matter of control. MS just has to have control of EVERYTHING and they refuse to let go. Release after release of windows shows that less and less of the system can be manipulated by the user/admin, and typically is purposly obscured to make sure that doesn't happen. Linux, being open as it is; goes directly against MS's phylosophy there. So in short, MS will play a game for money, but only if it's in their own yard.
Re:MIcrosoft Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
Because that's how they get the money.
Why wouldn't MS support Linux? It's a matter of control.
Flashback to 1994 and you could say the same thing about supporting the Internet. But once they realized that they couldn't stop it, they had to get in the game, cheat like bastards, and attempt to "move it to their own yard".
Re:MIcrosoft Linux (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:MIcrosoft Linux (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't know about AOL, but Compuserve was there way before the web (read: way before the average user could get a hold of the WWW.). In many mind it is a precursor (read: did address the masses before the internet)
AOL is far more successful than the other two at winning at that contest.
Well, AOL embraced the internet, it is no longer a competitor.
I would rate MSN a distant third to the two above at 'embrace and extend' as far as the Internet is concerned.
Does someone atually use it?
Seriously, MSN was very late in the game. They just pay the price today of their strategic error (not believing in the networks and the internet)
Re:MIcrosoft Linux (Score:3, Informative)
I would beg to differ about Compuserve being started as a competitor to the Internet - Compuserve's roots, IIRC, predate the Internet by a few months. Compuserve did have its own data network up until the great AOL-Compuserve-Worldcom eff-over took place.
Up until 1996-97, Compuserve was very friendly to all sorts of oddball computing platforms - as long as your box could speak ascii to a modem, you could log onto CIS. In the early 90's they
Re:MIcrosoft Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
However the PC revolution led to very high support costs and the customers (corporate workers and corporate management) pretty much agreed they wanted resonably priced reliability more then freedom. The lockdown of NT came from this. However in no meaningful sense is an NT box really locked down for a knowledgeable user.
Gates/Microsoft cares more about customer satisfaction than about freedom but I certainly would not argue they are anti freedom in principle.
Re:MIcrosoft Linux (Score:5, Informative)
Re:MIcrosoft Linux (Score:5, Funny)
>> Control
>> It'd be cool to see some patches come from Redmond...
Yeah. I can see that. The patches coming out of Microsoft would come in stages. Patch number 1 should be worn for two weeks, and then patch number 2 for another 3 weeks, and finally, if the symptoms of addictions were still present, wear patch number 3 for another 2 weeks. Once we've all gone through the patch process, we would finally be free of this awful habit of smok... I mean, using non Microsoft nicot... I mean, software.
Re:Control versus $$$ (Score:3, Insightful)
Maximum control leads to maximum $$$. Not necessarily immediately, but in due time it does. Microsoft knows this. They control Office file format and because of that they rake sick loads of money. If they lost this control they would quickly lose a lot of Office sales.
Re:MIcrosoft Linux (Score:5, Interesting)
They really wouldn't need to do that. If they were seriously interested in competing in the open source realm, they could go the BSD route, like Apple did.
Wouldn't it be fun to see a Microsoft OS based on Darwin?
Hey, it was just a thought. Nevermind.
From the secret MS strategic OS file! (Score:5, Funny)
In the next few years, prepare for - Microsoft Hurd!!
And you were wondering why the nextgen OS was codenamed "Longhorn"....
Re:Microsoft Linux (Score:5, Interesting)
AFAIK, there's really no way to tell... for all I know, they could have been using GPL code for quite a while and no one would ever notice.
Well, to help answer your question:
1) Microsoft has over 54000 employees. Around 10% of which are temporary contractors whose contracts can't go over a year. That's quite a few people who could snitch.
2) As long as you sign a NDA, you too can see the source code for Windows NT for academic purposes.
3) Source code is regularly licensed to other companies and governments.
4) The embedded products are compiled by the customer!
5) Microsoft is very visible, people reverse engineer parts of Microsoft software all the time.
6) The legal liability scares Microsoft to death! A couple years ago they went so far as to decree that no Microsoft programmer is allowed to even look at GPL code, let alone contribute to a GPL project on personal time. One programmer I know had to have his manager hire a contractor to reverse engineer sample code for a netscape plug-in because the sample code was GPLed and he wasn't allowed to look at it!
Re:Microsoft Linux (Score:5, Informative)
Regressions - Make sure that previous bugs don't pop up again.
Integration - Make sure that all the pieces work when you put them together.
Globalization - Make sure that none of the user messages / interfaces are hard coded.
Localization - Make sure that it is translated into other languages correctly.
Accessiblity - Make sure that handicapped users (blind / deaf / etc.) can use the product. (Can you use the program without a mouse? Does it work with large fonts, high contrast, etc?)
Scalability - Large numbers of records, large amounts of data.
Performance - Is it sufficiently fast?
Reliability / Memory leaks - Can the system stay up for multiple months without hint of reliability problems?
Security - Do we verify the data before we use it? Do we protect sensitive data?
Update testing - Does data persist and functionality work correctly after upgrades?
Dogfood deployments - run the business on alpha and beta releases to make sure we find problems before the customers do.
etc...
There are hundreds of criteria for each item on this list and there are a number of other major quality areas that most test teams attempt to cover in their test passes.
You would probably be surprised at how much testing actually happens at Microsoft.
Re:Microsoft Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
I AM surprised, that with all this testing, so many ugly bugs get through. Your list of QA is long and nice, sure, then how come there is so many big ugly bugs in MS products? Especially security-related bugs
Re:MIcrosoft Linux (Score:3, Insightful)
Nothing prevents M$ from doing that already today. There are of course a few practical limitations:
It wouldn't get any easier by attacking the GPL. Do you really think authors of the GPL code would like to coo
Re:MIcrosoft Linux (Score:5, Funny)
It sure is. It's scheduled to be out in November:
Microsoft Linux - the premier linux distro [mslinux.org]
Re:MIcrosoft Linux (Score:4, Funny)
Q276304: Error Message: Your Password Must Be at Least 18770 Characters and Cannot Repeat Any of Your Previous 30689 Passwords [microsoft.com]
Re:MIcrosoft Linux (Score:5, Funny)
Only if it includes GNotepad for X written in GNU.Net, and an MS-Ogg version of the Free Software Song sung by Bill Gates.
Re:MIcrosoft Linux (Score:3, Funny)
Re:MIcrosoft Linux (Score:3, Funny)
It wipes your windows clean!
Why do I get the feeling... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd like to see them do this (Score:5, Interesting)
Install like software:
Windows 2000 Server - RedHat Linux 7.3
IIS 5.0 - Apache/Tomcat 4.1
Sql Server 2000 - MySQL Or Postgres Or oracle 8i
Exchange Server 2000 - QMail
Which perform better under a low, medium and heavy load? That is an excellent test because it takes the hardware out of the equation and does a real stress test on the OS & applications.
I did this and believe me it is like night and day. The linux server ran without a hitch. The windows server was painfully slow. I guess being able to run all your apps without a gui is an advantage. Hell ssh versus terminal services is no contest. If you need a gui just tunnel vnc through ssh.
Oh did I mention the cost for the software?
Windows 2003 Server, Exchange 2000, SQL 2000,
Plus the added bonus of checking technet for patches twice daily.
Re:I'd like to see them do this (Score:3, Insightful)
And about the dev tools: Another post points out that not everyone needs it.
Re:I'd like to see them do this (Score:3)
That is not the hardware Microsoft would choose to perform a comparision between Linux and Windows. Instead they would choose hardware they know works better with Windows than Linux. I remember a test some years ago, back in the days when Linux was designed for no more than 768MB RAM and couldn't possibly use more than 2GB. Personally I didn't have access to any computer with more than 64MB, but of course that was already a lot. However Microsoft choosed to perfo
Re:I'd like to see them do this (Score:4, Informative)
^^^^^^^^^^
If all you want is a pop3/smtp server than of course qmail would be cheaper. If you need a fully collaboration based mail server with calendaring/scheduling/tasks and many features I can't think off the top of my head you got with Exchange 2000. There's nothing remotely close yet that works out of the box in less than an hour. I just installed a seventh exchange server in our environment last week, flawlessly. Note: this isn't for redunancy either. Remote offices prefer to use a local server instead of crossing the internet via a vpn.
Some companies would die without the functionality of Exchange so in their eyes price does not matter.
Re:I'd like to see them do this (Score:3, Interesting)
pop/smtp - qmail
webmail - horde/imp
calendar - horde/kronolith
IMAP - courier
tasklist - horde/nag
Oh it can also do many other things as well [horde.org](mind you for free without expensive plugins).
I can do an installation in about 5 minutes. Here's how:
The first install I do is all the software.
Then make a simple app to change the variables in the config files to each installation.
Compress the whole thing and burn to a CD.
(This takes about 3-4 hours)
Every subsequent i
Re:I'd like to see them do this (Score:3, Insightful)
Hey. That's the "Microsoft" way. That's why they have so many problems with security even with their new "Trusted Computing" paradigm. It's profitable so it keeps them in beer and chips quite handily. But mediocrity is something that all of the biggest, successful companies seem to live on. McDonald's, AOL and Disney all make atr
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What is it running on? (Score:5, Funny)
Jack
Re:What is it running on? (Score:3, Informative)
http://elks.sourceforge.net/introduction.html [sourceforge.net]
Re:What is it running on? (Score:5, Funny)
The last thing Microsoft wants is for its engineers to switch over themselves.
not good enough. (Score:4, Interesting)
They will probably put Red Hat 6.0 with "everything" installed. Hey, even an M$ tech can figure that one out, right?
All kidding asside, this lab is getting set up because they were tired of how lame their lies were. It was so obvious their FUDsters have no clue. They can't even hire a PR firm to lie for them as is.
Check out the quality of the FUD from just a few articles back in Computerworld [computerworld.com] The poor meat head tell about chasing down M$ worms and finding "rogue" computers running Linux. Though he's forced to run all over the place by Windoze poor remote administration tools, he worries about the security of boxes he did not know about because they never had a problem. He worries about the security of "third-party" applications like " file transfer protocol, sendmail and Apache. And other open-source software ..." Total cluelessness. They don't know what they are talking about, so they can't lie about it. It's as simple as that.
Their biggest problem is going to be finding people with both the comptence to run their lab and the the ability to lie enough to please meat heads like Steve Balmer. The truth, "dude, this is kicking our ass." is something they already know [theregister.co.uk] and don't want to hear. I can just hear Mr. Baller, "That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard, tell me something bad about it, bitch or you are out of here!" Yeah, everything I read about life at M$ is like that, they call such abuse "elite". It must take a really wierd combination of high intelegence, low self esteem, big ego, bad morals, and greed to put up with that.
Re:not good enough. (Score:4, Insightful)
Patches from Redmond (Score:3, Interesting)
If that happened and (as one would assume) the source were available, would anyone still trust it?
I'm not sure if I'd want to run MS code on my Linux box.
Re:Patches from Redmond (Score:2, Funny)
The article is about Microsoft setting up Linux and open-source software on computers in test labs.
Hope that clears it up for you.
Microsoft has some very talented programmers (Score:5, Interesting)
If you look at early white papers from Microsoft, it becomes obvious that some very intelligent people worked there at one time. Surely some of them are still there, as well as fresh talent. Many people I know "sold out" to Microsoft in college, but were actually experienced Linux hackers.
Software bloat (happens to everyone), company overhead (impossible to avoid in a company the size of MS), and economical agendas driving poor design decisions have all made MS' codebase an unsightly beast, I'm sure. But to think they are incapable of creating working, useable, and even secure code is preposterous. Some of the most talented programmers in the world work for MS.
However, I'm fairly sure that very little help will be given to GNU/Linux from MS, whether by the company as a whole, or specific employees. MS would consider it a waste of time, and dangerously helpful to a competitor. The only reason I could see them doing this is to convince a court they weren't "anti-competetive." Judging by the overly-lenient rulings as of late, however, I doubt they need to do so.
-Dan
Re:Patches from Redmond (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Patches from Redmond (Score:5, Funny)
Old Chinese Tatic. (Score:5, Insightful)
Coming soon... (Score:5, Funny)
You can find the new revised feature set for Longhorn here [redhat.com].
Re:Coming soon... (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, it's here [apple.com].
Flame on!
Re:Coming soon... (Score:5, Insightful)
Fast user switching.
XP has it.
Videoconfrencing combined with IM
XP has it.
HTML Email
XP has it.
Encrypting File System
XP has it.
Folder Syncronization
XP has it.
Hmmm.... you might as well call it "Mac OS XP".
Re:Coming soon... (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong. NTFS
Why did MS choose to have every menu in the entire system cascade down except for the single most important one? Any sane UI designer would put the Start button in the upper-left of the screen.
Click on start bar, drag to upper part of screen. Done.
You are all wrong (Score:3, Funny)
GNU/Hurd 1.0 (Score:5, Funny)
Here's the MS distro (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Here's the MS distro (Score:4, Funny)
Applied Know thy enemy (Score:4, Interesting)
Know your enemy, then attack. (Score:5, Insightful)
And since its 'open' that wont be all that hard.
Re:Know your enemy, then attack. (Score:5, Insightful)
They are setting up a test lab to deploy OSS software in, so they can measure it, find out what works well, what doesn't work, how it interoperates with other software, how it performs, and how hard it is for normal users to use. Then they are going to take that data and use it to improve their products and marketing.
All smart companies do this...why is this news?
Re:Know your enemy, then attack. (Score:4, Interesting)
My guess is they will create another fud attack by studying its weaknesses and then pay someone like the Gartner group to set for the same results under a limited condition and boom. Instand fud, WIndows2k3 can do this but Linux can't.
WindowsNT4 could handle the i/o of 4 ethernet cards by bounding the i/o commands to each cpu. Linux could not so under this ms sponsored Mindcraft fud the Linux box performed poorly while NT was 300% faster.
Just a bit of an exaggeration... (Score:3, Insightful)
do you want me to believe... (Score:5, Insightful)
The most amusing part of this whole thing... (Score:5, Interesting)
If it weren't such a sobering reality that many businesspeople actually believe such BS, it would be funny...
typical MS - aiming at the product (Score:5, Insightful)
IMO The problem with MS is they no longer understand the customer
Re:typical MS - aiming at the product (Score:5, Informative)
But they understand the customers' wallet. MS is doing this to find subtle ways of breaking LinWin compatibility wherever they can. Then they'll offer expensive connector software to restore the broken functionality. They'll spin it like they're playing nice with the other kids, but all the while, they'll just be taking everyone for a ride.
Re:typical MS - aiming at the product (Score:5, Insightful)
I think they understand the customer all too well. Remember, M$ does not target geeky hackers who love fiddling with command lines and compiling source. They market their stuff with propaganda such as "command lines are hard, look at this happy friendly colorful GUI, it'll make you productive even if you're incredibly stupid". You have no idea how much that affects the hearts and minds of people. Over here in the CS department, I've had former classmates who were fanatically loyal to M$, for no other reason than "it has a more colorful GUI" and "easy to use, just clickety click and everything is magically done!". And these are computer science students. Think of how much influence M$ has on PHB's and decision makers.
Microsoft Math (Score:3, Insightful)
and
CEO Steve Ballmer argued that Windows' total cost of ownership is lower than Linux's
What, does Microsoft PAY ME now to run their OS???? I want my check!
Re:Microsoft Math (Score:5, Insightful)
"Microsoft Deploys Linux" (Score:4, Funny)
Not That Weird (Score:5, Insightful)
The suggestions that this is an attempt to create FUD seem a bit off the mark to me. I'm sure MS aren't going to be touting the benefits of Linux, but in a closed environment they have far more to gain from honest testing and competition than they do from convincing a very small number of customers, presumably devoted ones, that Linux sucks.
Were they do do that, they'd just end up looking like fools. And while marketing may help in the desktop market, those who spend large amounts of corporate money on enterprise software research it thoroughly. MS won't beat Linux in the server market just by marketing, no matter how much they spend. They know that, and have clearly decided to take Linux seriously as a competitor.
spin control, not head-to-head (Score:4, Insightful)
I would wager that they are going to simply let business customers loose in the environment, and those PHB will try to do the same plug-and-play things they are used to doing: downloading software off the internet, drag-and-drop spreadsheet into word, find servers across a network...
The key here, and what M$ is banking on, is their GUI, and their idiot-level engineering (clippy being the extreme example). No one will go down to a terminal to do their file transfers or configure a network, they will all want to compare GUIs and wizards. Admittedly, M$ has an edge of Linux on this.
Were they to compare raw computing power and stability, they would lose-- and they know that. This is about spin: M$ will spin the comparisons to their advantages (just like anyone would).
OSS/FS community should do the same (Score:4, Insightful)
And the OSS/FS could do more of the same. It always worries me when OSS/FS advocates say bad things about Windows and then you find out that they never use it. If you don't know your enemy IN DEPTH then you are missing out. I think every OSS/FS developer ought to have access to a copy of Windows.
John.
Re:OSS/FS community should do the same (Score:5, Insightful)
Destroying microsoft is beside the point. As a matter of fact I'd be happier if more developers would ignore windows and stop copying windows. KDE, OpenOffice, Evolution. Give me Blackbox, vim/latex, and mutt any day. Remember, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Re:OSS/FS community should do the same (Score:4, Insightful)
Hear here! I don't write code thinking: "This will get 'em!". I write thinking "Gee, wouldn't it be nice if...?".
Act as though Microsoft isn't really the point, and it won't be.
Why this won't work (Score:5, Interesting)
First off, lets talk hardware. I'm assuming here that both sets of hardware are going to be identical and normalized. By that I mean no paladium test beds, or winmodems, or other odd hw pieces that would skew things in one direction or another. Just some off the shelf dell's would be good. This is the easy part.
Next, on to the software. We have a company that doesn't know much about linux (I do mean as a company. I'm sure there are some very smart folks up there that know what they are doing. Its just in MS's best interests not to have them around the linux machines.) setting up a linux system. Heck, this sounds like it is just slightly more shady than an "independant testing" lab doing the comparision.
Now, software tuning. Somehow I doubt that the win2k installs are going to be stock. They will tune everything to get every last cycle they can out of it. Now, I wonder if they will do the same in the linux boxen? Heck, I'd put money on them actually slowing down thier benchmarks for thier tuning efforts.
The only set of benchmarks/comparisons I'd respect is a side by side setup. One side has MS's lackies fiddiling with thier server to tune the heck out of it. The other side would have the folks from MySQL*, Apache, RedHat*, and probably ESR for good luck. Then some independant testing machine connected to both doing the same task. (i.e. an actual demo transaction). Why hasn't anyone done something like that?
And tell ESR that hacking the Windows machine before they had a chance to patch it is no fair.
[*] Please substitute your favorite software package if you feel the need to do so.
MS Patch to Linux Kernel (Score:5, Funny)
--- ms-linux/CREDITS Wed Jul 31 17:39:29 2001
+++ linux/CREDITS Wed Jul 31 17:41:45 2001
@@ -973,8 +973,8 @@
-ALL YOUR BASE
+BELONGS TO US
*/
MS uses Linux internally (Score:4, Informative)
I have heard from MS employees, while talking to them in person, that MS uses Linux internally in certain places. One person stated that his first account there was on a Linux box. Apparently they also use Perl too. (Any MS employees care to comment? Even as AC?)
Which makes this story that much funnier.
Re:MS uses Linux internally (Score:3, Informative)
For example, what happens if you stick HTML files on a samba share, and point IIS at it and tell it to serve those files?
(the answer, btw, is that it works, sorta, as long as you have a fairly recent version of samba)
The other reason that people set up linux boxes is because they are GEEKS, and like to mess around with stuff.
Re:MS uses Linux internally (Score:3, Insightful)
Thanks for your replies!
Re:MS uses Linux internally (Score:4, Informative)
I just laugh everytime people view Microsoft as the BORG. I used to think that way, hence my handle, but Microsoft is actually filled with unique and interesting people that most of the slashdot readers would love to have as co-workers.
I have had to explain simple network concepts to co-workers, and I have had co-workers that sit around until 11pm on a friday discussing operating system internals. People take a lot of ownership in the components that they work on. Frequently I interact with fewer than a dozen people. Some groups are made from only three people, other groups are composed of thousands of smaller groups.
I can take an hour in the middle of the day to play soccer or baseball with other people in the company, or watch university level research lectures every day over the corporate network, or walk across the campus and attend the lecture in-person.
I have a co-worker who was tossing a football in the hall, knock off a sprinklerhead, flood a lab of computers, and the only result is that the VP asked the team to stop playing football in the hallway!
As for linux, I have been running a linux box for interop tests for a couple years, I just run the binaries and avoid downloading the sources.
How many slashdotters would be surprised to hear that the Microsoft "campus" is like a business park or a college campus? There are no "walls" surrounding the campus.
Don't believe the propoganda (in either direction), the truth is somewhere in the middle. Microsoft is a very nice place to work. It isn't a utopia of super-intelligent people, and it isn't an oppressive slave-driving monolith either.
Re:MS uses Linux internally (Score:5, Interesting)
Internally, corporate policy has always been that we can use whatever tools we want, provided that they serve the purposes of our jobs best. The only restriction under which we work is that developers or other people who have direct check-in rights to any of our trees (think "committer privileges"; it's the closest thing in the FOSS world) are not permitted to examine code released under GPL or any other viral license.
So, yes, for testing interop, we have a lot of Linux/Apache boxes around. We have a lot of Perl. (We've been supporting ActiveState for years, after all.) If there were a competitive FOSS compiler available, I'm sure that some groups would use it. There isn't. We've certainly had teams do comparitive analyses.
One of the developers in my group is a forty-something year old guru who run XEmacs on his main dev machine. Whenever he reformats his machine, he does a pure binary install and deletes the
Maybe he's drunk too much of the KoolAid -- but my experience tracks his. Think about it. Why would we care? If one of our gurus is more productive using XEmacs, that is at worst a data point for the Visual Studio folks.
Good to see (Score:5, Interesting)
Everybody wins.
Re:Good to see (Score:3, Informative)
WIndows 2k, and 2k3 are quite stable. The reason being was that NT4 was not the unix killer it was supposed to be. NT 5 was supposed to come out in 97 but MS decided to do a kernel rewrite instead. Less reboots and more stability are certainly supported since MS listened to their customers.
Java = c#.
Having worked with Linux at MS... (Score:5, Interesting)
BTW, my work was investigating Linux desktop environments to see what the state of the art was. Lots of the devs monkeyed around with Linux, but everyone was very hardcore about not touching the sources.
Ridiculous assertion. GPL doesn't work that way. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, looks like you got modded up. But you're wrong just the same. The assertion that Microsoft might have to release Windows, Office, or some portion thereof, because a copyright holder, who happened to license under the GPL, claimed -- and proved -- copyright infringement within one of Microsoft's products, would therefor force Microsoft to release some or all of their product line under the GPL, is plain absurd. It would never happen, nor should it.
Suppose SCO is right and within a few files of the Linux kernel it's proven that someone illegally copied a section, or even whole files, from their source tree into the Linux kernel. Does that mean SCO owns all of the kernel, even those parts they didn't write? No. The outcome would be that those parts which were infringing would be excised and then rewritten.
Suppose it turns out that an engineer in Microsoft illegally copied gzip into Windows, and then Microsoft distributed Windows under their proprietary license. The FSF would have cause for a copyright infringement suit, and they would win. But could they demand a judgment that Microsoft release Windows under the GPL as a result? No. The best they could do would be to demand financial damages plus the removal of their code from the Windows source tree.
Suppose Microsoft management distributed gzip withing Windows, even knowing it's licensing terms under the GPL, could the FSF then enforce the redistribution terms license beyond Microsoft paying damages and removing the infringing code under court order? I seriously doubt it. And that's willingly breaking copyright law by corporate officers (which they have done -- see Stacker).
So, the assertion that Microsoft doesn't allow it's engineers to view GPL'd source under the assumption that said source could illegally make it into their product line and then force them to release their product under the GPL is patently ridiculous. It wouldn't work that way, period. This is, of course, speaking as a layman and not a lawyer.
Cheers,
--Maynard
Re:Ridiculous assertion. GPL doesn't work that way (Score:4, Interesting)
Your interpretation of the GPL also differs quite a bit from the way most people here interpret it. The typical interpretation I read is "if you put GPL code in your software that you release as a binary, you have to release the source, no exceptions." Since nobody has taken it to court yet, nobody knows if it can be enforced that strictly -- and likely, as you suggest, nobody would force MS to release the source code for, say, Office.
However the risk IS there, and they'd be incredibly stupid if they did have a policy that allowed a single employee to open MS up to that kind of damage.
Re:Having worked with Linux at MS... (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides which, if you know anyone who works there now, they'll happily tell you that it is indeed the policy.
Oh my... (Score:4, Funny)
And that's why some exploits found in IE in Windows XP are ALSO vulnerable in Windows 95.... and why it takes so long to put patches out... faster my foot.
here's the lab testbed (Score:4, Funny)
and here is the windows one [icwhen.com]
And the winner is......
the linux computer, since it didn't crash.
This reminds me of the Ghandi quote... (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's hope that's the case here too. Hey, he could beat the UK, MS can't be that much harder... right?
netcraft says microsoft has been using linux... (Score:3, Interesting)
another example [netcraft.com] (a linux router for a day??)
a little freebsd in the mix [netcraft.com]
Patches from Redmond are not cool (Score:3, Interesting)
Old news (Score:3, Informative)
Because I supported the desktops for call center people, I didn't have direct access to the ITG (Information Technology Group) management software. So instead, I found an old DEC dual p200, installed Linux on it, set up Nagios and started monitoring the ITG servers. I could call ITG to alert them of a DHCP server not assigning addresses before they could. And this happened a lot actually.
The most shocking thing about working at Microsoft during the Code Red, and Nimda outbreak, was finding out how much Microsoft eats their own dogfood. And they really do, even if that means putting untested servers into a production enviroment. The Nimda outbreak literally brought the whole corporate network to it's knees. Even the phone systems were down.
But Microsoft running Linux? Old news, in fact I think the Linux machine I made and placed under my desk in my office, is probably still monitoring the network better than the Microsoft software they used. Probably has better uptime too.
Respect (Score:5, Insightful)
You would gain an amazing amount of respect that you desperately need if you stopped fighting Linux and made an effort to join the community. Many of my customers are chomping at the bit to dump Microsoft and go Linux on the desktop. The day is coming when that'll be possible. I've already begun the migration with the help of CrossoverOffice [codeweavers.com].
Inaction on your part is creating a vacuum in the marketplace. Someone will fill it like they always do. Unfortunately for you, this time you won't be able to use your competitive advantage to stop them.
Its a cauldron to burn Linux (Score:3, Interesting)
But look at the situation in a positive light. Who better to criticize the weaker points of Linux than Microsoft?
The real reason (Score:5, Insightful)
If they do succeed in discouraging OSS coders from coding to fill application requirements of business, then this will not kill Linux but it will surely entrench MS as the only business software you can get. Do they deserve the market share that they have? No. How will they keep the market share? Like they always have by destroying anything they cannot absolutely control. Fortunately Intel has been getting a little pissed at them lately, as have alot of hardware manufacturers. Hopefully the industry will gang up on them and finally kick the shit out of Billy and Co.
SCO Connection! (Microsoft paid SCO license fees) (Score:5, Funny)
wish (Score:3, Interesting)
It'd be cool to see some patches come from Redmond, but that's probably wishful thinking.
Yes. Yes that really is just wishful thinking. That's not the way Microsoft does business. Instead, they'll:
- research the Linux apps thoroughy,
- determine if the Linux apps really are better in any obvious ways (read: the marketing dept. can't pull the wool over potential customers' eyes with fake numbers in these areas)
- Now, with this info, they'll make their code just barely good enough to show that it's better than the equilvelent Linux version.
They can do it. They'll look at Linux source and modify it if necessary. And, if they do that, no they won't give it back to the community and yes they will get away with a GPL violation.If you think Microsoft isn't willing to do this sort of thing, you're living in a dream world with "lots of fru-fru, happy bunnies."
DISCLAIMER: I AM WEARING ASBESTOS THOUGH I DO NOT HOLD A MATCH:
This post is not intended as troll or a flame. It is not a statement of fact. It is, of course, only my (strongly worded) opinion.
The begining of the end for Microsoft. (Score:5, Funny)
In order to get it's performance down to a level that they can compare Microsoft software to it they start storing internal documents on it and tell internal users to use that store to stay current.
Since the internal servers are now getting fewer hits, they start consolidating some of the services they had spread across several servers onto fewer servers, freeing up those servers.
A few of the free servers get rouge installs of Linux with Samba, and people discover that they can actually store files on these servers with some reliable expectation of seeing the files again a couple of minutes down the line.
The Micorsoft Win2k+3 servers start to respond even faster to the test systems and more consolidation goes on.
Someone in the test lab isn't happy that the Linux boxes are still outperforming the Win2k+3 boxen, so he convinces management to use them as DHCP servers for the campus.
This frees up even more of the internal Win2k+3 servers from consolidation, and someone says, let's show that SQL Server is better than (insert favorite Open Sourc or proprietary RDB engine that runs on Linux here) and people in the company realize they are actually getting close to real time results off of these servers, and start migrating applications over to them.
Since Microsoft is trying to move to a dbfs anyway, even more of the internal infrastructure starts getting moved over to Linux as the original Microsoft OS servers are relieved of the duties that they were originally tasked with.
Marketing comes along and asks how the new Windows 2K+3 is going, and IT is able to say with a straight face:
"We were able to consolidate the entire campus server farm down to a single system runing Win2k+3. And since no-one in house is actually using it, response time and recovery from failures has become a non-issue. We are saving millions of dollars every year because the quiet migration to an all Linux infrastructure has reduced the actual demand for systems to the point that we have been able to reduce our electrical usage by shutting down systems and reducing the demands on the cooling systems significantly. Our phone support teams are somewhat confused as they are getting calls about server issues that they have never experienced, however our developers have been able to get Win2k+3 running on a VMWare image under Linux and we have been able to simulate the issues that customers have been experiencing, without actually loosing any data or having any significant down time."
Marketing, "Huh?".
Ok, it's not likely to happen, but we can fantasize.
-Rusty
Windows command line and tools. (Score:3, Insightful)
The thing I dislike most about windows is the lack of a decent command line. If Windows had a full command line environment similar to Unix, I'd really love it. And no, cygwin and friends don't cut it. I'd like much more unix compatability than that. Not to mention something more integrated into the OS so that it runs similar to a UNIX as well.
I heard such features are coming. That would be slick.
What Microsoft Linux would be like (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm pretty sure it would include patches to the kernel, and they might even play by the rules and release the source for those. But there might very well be some closed source kernel modules as well. In addition you will not be allowed to copy those kernel modules. We can start guessing about what modules there will be. But I'm pretty sure one of them would be an ntfs driver.
Microsoft could get their usual GUI to run on top of Linux. Since others [winehq.org] have done most of it, Microsoft could do it as well. The exact details about how Microsoft would do it are not easy to guess. They could use parts of Wine, but maybe, Microsoft want to do it another way. If they are going to use Wine, they could either use the latest version, or the last non GPL version.
But Microsoft could take a completely different route and not use any Wine code at all, instead they could use as much of the existing Windows code as possible. I wonder if this would be best done in a library or a kernel module. Probably they would like a real binfmt_exe.o kernel module with its own personality. It is probably going to map some large DLLs into the process address space, and maybe even some shared memory.
I believe programs written for Windows when running on this Microsoft Linux will have access to some NTFS features, that are not easilly accesible by normal Linux programs. It could be done either by the closed source library knowing about some secret ioctl implemented by msntfs.o, or by cooperation between msntfs.o and binfmt_exe.o. Possibly a combination; an ioctl, which is not only secret, but also only allowed to programs running with the exe personality.
I wonder what graphics drivers are going to look like. I guess they will probably ship with closed source kernel modules implementing drivers for various graphics chips. But of course they are probably going to be incompatible with XFree86. And might even prevent the ones needed for XFree86 from being loaded at the same time.
Why are they announcing this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Be careful (Score:4, Insightful)
Be careful what you wish for.. The last case of a competitor contributing to Linux [theinquirer.net] isn't going very well.
Secret test lab??? What!?!?! (Score:4, Insightful)
It would shock and amaze me, for all the energy Microsoft has put into Linux FUD, if they DIDN'T have a secret test lab somewhere with a Windows compatible desktop for X, a Linux Active Directory integration module, and ports of MS Office and all of their other software underway. It makes sense for them to speculate in secret about what they would do if they needed to shift their market focus.
Doesn't anyone else find it a little bit bizarre that MS has submitted the specs for their next-generation platform technology to ECMA for certification as a standard?
Nobody finds that to be weird?