Slashdot Log In
Microsoft starts anti-Linux Group
Posted by
Hemos
on Fri May 21, 1999 11:11 AM
from the counter-insurgency dept.
from the counter-insurgency dept.
It started in the Wall Street Journal, but the story has spread all over. Microsoft has started group, much like in the case of Java to get into the minds of the Linux community. At least we now they see us as a serious, despite claims to the contrary.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Microsoft starts anti-Linux Group
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 553 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Then they fight you... (Score:3)
"First they ignore you,
then they laugh at you,
then they fight you,
then you win." (Ghandi).
type faster - write more code!
world domination is coming!
Microsoft (Score:3)
Counter benchmark with benchmark (Score:3)
We should recognize Linux's weaknesses privately, but play up Linux's strengths publicly.
We shouldn't be too reasonable or fair about this: MS isn't, and being too reasonable will just play into MS's hands and get ourselves steamrolled by MS's massive PR machine.
Just ignore Micros~1 (Score:3)
I read words like "war", "fighting back" and so on. IMHO we don't need this. Why you use linux? Because you like it, you love Linux and it just works.
Nobody could prohibit you from loveing and listening to your favourite music. This is totally equal to using Linux. Just use Linux as you done it in the past. If you have coded some tools and/or programms release them to the public, share your code. If you have some wishes for some programms you use, just write your suggestions to the authors. Most authors will love user feedback. Your suggestions to authors or your own written code enhance Linux. Just ignore Micros~1. Do bussines as usual and use your favourite OS like you listen to your favourite music.
Michael Roth
I'm switching to NT. (Score:4)
I've been using linux as my only operating system ever since I got a computer in December 1994 and I've been pretty happy with it.
At work, they got rid of our Solaris and Linux systems and installed NT everywhere. I was so offended by this PHB decision and opposed it strongly, occasionally rudely. I hated NT at first, but now that I'm getting used to it I think it's ok. It's never crashed and now that I have all the FSF tools installed--- things like TeX, LaTeX, dvi-viewers, Ghostscript, PS viewers, gunzip, tar, perl, a great editor, a pager, etc... I like it pretty well. I've even used Excel a couple times and it seems like a pretty nice spreadsheet (haven't checked out Word yet, but I know people who like it.) I have no complaints and while I was reluctant at first, I really prefer IE to Netscape.
At home, netscape crashes, X freezes and basically my system has never run perfectly since I switched to glibc. I'm going to the expo today and am going to pick up Debian or RH-6 or maybe *BSD and give that a go before I drop a few hundred on NT, but frankly, I hate KDE, GNOME, and all that unstable, resource hungry crap that everyone works on. It's clear that linux has moved to a new target audience and left real users like me behind.
I'm still learning windows and I haven't decided yet and hell, I can always go dual-boot, no?
Best wishes, Tony
into the mind... (Score:3)
No response is required. (Score:3)
Let RedHat, Oracle, IBM, Caldera, Corel, and anybody else who has a vested interest in fighting Microsoft deal with this.
The correct response for Linux users/hackers is to keep doing what you've always done. Use the OS you like best. Code the apps you want to use. If you see a good application for Linux in your company, lobby to get it deployed. That's what will make Linux better.
What happens in the "commercial" world is interesting and I really hope Microsoft gets thrashed, but it doesn't really affect us directly.
If you feel like writing... (Score:3)
Re:I'm switching to NT. (Score:3)
Get ready for FUD (Score:3)
Chris
The Strategy (Score:5)
1) Linux is more stable than NT, that's why people who need stable servers use it over NT.
2) Linux is cheaper, and runs on cheaper hardware.
3) You can't stop people from developing it.
4) Every day, people are less and less afraid of it, wheres many people are afraid of Microsoft and their "roadmap." People are more conciencious about how they are being abused by Microsoft.
5) Even though Linux has weaknesses, and is slower on 4-way Xenon Intel processors with 4 gigs of ram, etc., Linux is continuously being improved and will eventually be superior.
6) Other companies have interest in seeing Linux succeed, and technologies such as XFS are being given away to help OS's like Linux. The goodwill is spreading like Christmas cheer, and the grinches at Microsoft are eager to spoil the party.
Despite the nasty FUD which will no doubt increasingly come oozing out of Redmond Campus, think of it this way: They're wasting their time. And now, they're wasting even more of their money.
Good luck.
Re:Remember - there's an antitrust suit still ongo (Score:4)
If MS wins, then FUD mongering will reign supreme. Look at the whole OJ thing (again). If OJ had lost BOTH trials, there's be a LOT fewer people out there proclaiming his innocence.
If MS loses, then we have the incredibly daunting task of punishing them. Breaking up the company has already been analyzed and it looks like more harm than good will come of it. Fining them will result in the same thing; consumers will end up bearing the cost. Writing up an injunction for them to cease and desist the alleged illegal behaviors will simply not work, because we're dealing with a Saddam Hussein-like attitude here. Remember the 1995 injunction? Bill laughed at it, they were dragged to court, found out of compliance, and won it on appeal anyway.
In any case, MS will probably appeal and get it all thrown out in the end, but the important thing is that they must LOSE this initial trial. MS's strength is in it's PR, and that's what they'll lose by losing the trial. Any punishment the DOJ metes out will be trivial compared to the loss of face MS will suffer. This is the critical opportuninty, and probably the last, best chance for any competitor to make headway. The face MS has lost just by the negative press DURING the trial, has already shown itself, and this is why Linux is making corporate headway. I believe that if MS loses, Linux (and others - the whole MS-alternative mindset) will make enough headway, to actually get enough of a foot in the door to become a permanent fixture. Definately not a dominant one, I think MS's future is secure there no matter what happens with the trial (sadly). But the mindset that alternatives ARE available, and that it's NOT going to be an MS-only world will take permanent hold.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
-jafac's law
Use whatever makes you most productive (Score:4)
The corporation I work for blends the two mainstream operating system classes nicely. For our workhorse applications such as databases, most of our web servers, etc., we use UNIX variants.
All of our desktop systems (and some of our production servers, like for e-mail and some web) are NT4.0. I see quite a few people posting comments that say their NT installations crash *hourly* or at least once a day. No offense intended, but this is more of an indication of poor NT administration than anything else. Our computer support group is responsible for all of our major software packages, service pack updates, etc. This allows them to test everything thoroughly on all of the hardware known to be used by us. The result is a fleet of NT workstations that are nearly as stable as my Linux box at home. I'm not saying they're 100% stable, but I rarely even *log out* of NT but perhaps once every couple of weeks. I've rebooted my workstation *maybe* a dozen times in the year and a half that I've been here.
So, you have two choices. You can train/hire competant Unix people to manage your Unix systems, or you can train/hire competant NT people to manage your NT systems. Reading some of these comments, it sounds like some of you are doing neither.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying NT is superior to Unix in the least, but as far as application support and the fact that most of my work is done for clients using Windows, I need to use it as part of my job.
At home, I own two PC's. One running Linux (without monitor/keyboard) and the other running Win98 along with an X server for my Linux apps. IMO this is an excellent compromise and allows me to take advantage of strengths inherent in both operating systems.
Of course, I still have to reboot Win98 pretty frequently (though usually no more than once or twice a week).
The point is, I do this because I work most productively having access to both operating systems simultaneously. Some people may work in environments where a Unix OS will suffice perfectly, and make them more productive than if they were using Windows. However, there are environments where using Windows IS the best option, because that's what they need to work most productively. It's fairly difficult to develop ActiveX under Unix, for example.
Thoughts... (Score:5)
"How does the free software community fight that!"
I mean, 10 microsoft employees - that's got to be over a million bucks a year to MS... That's some serious effort to fight a free operating system.
But then I relaxed - because we don't have to fight it - we just keep on using and producing quality products, and fight them on our terms - quality, stability, openness, freedom. Those are terms MS finds it very difficult to fight on.
I'm actually quite happy now that they've done this - it means they are totally serious about the free software community, and gives them more credibility than I could possibly have imagined over a year ago.
Thanks Bill.
perl -e 'print scalar reverse q(\)-:
Linux community is not 100% self-sustaining (Score:5)
What I mean by that is that I don't think everyone in the Linux community is completely satisfied with the software generated by others in the "Linux community". I'm sure there are some people who want more commercial software. For example, the engineers who are forced to use NT-based design software because their managers say so or because the Unix hardware is too expensive.
Yes, Linux can't be "defeated", certainly not the way the Amiga has been. However, if Microsoft can reduce the growth of Linux's marketshare (or even stop its growth), that will do damage to Linux. Few ISV's want to write software for a stagnant platform.
I don't think your "code and passion" is enough for many Linux users. How many, I can't say. But that's Microsoft's angle. For instance, I can't run Linux at work, because:
- Outlook doesn't run, and our email system is 100% Outlook
- There's no PVCS client for Linux
- Microsoft Office won't run (Yes, I know about Star Office)
- Internet Explorer won't run (many of our internal web sites use IE-specific features)
- The DOS support is medicore, and probably won't run all of my old DOS-based development tools
And so on. There are plenty of other DOS and Windows apps that I need to run because there are no Linux equivalents. Yes, I know about Wine and VMWare, but I seriously doubt they'll be enough.The point the original poster is trying to make (I think) is that the current Linux community doesn't care about anyone who doesn't use Linux. I don't think that's correct. I think most Linux users WANT others to use Linux. But that's not going to happen as long as the software that people need isn't available. And if MS does a good enough job at convincing enough people to NOT use Linux, then the software won't be ported.
Yes, the Linux community has created some incredible software on their own. I especially enjoy the Gimp for OS/2, because every other OS/2 graphics package is mediocre at best. However, I just don't think it's wise to disregard Microsoft's attempt at thwarting Linux acceptance.
--
Timur Tabi
Remove "nospam_" from email address
Listen To Microsoft (Score:3)
This is a Good Thing(tm). With Microsoft's eagle eye on the warpath, people are going to be more critical than ever of something that's already blessed with stability and strength. If the cards are played correctly, Linux can use what looks like a negative as an ultimate positive.
Why This Could Be Good? (Score:3)
So with this insight, microsoft has decided to dissuade people from using linux. By doing this they will cause people to actually evaluate their decision more than before hand. If someone says hey "linux can't serve SMB shares as efficently as NT can" then most IT people will look into it. If they do a good job they will find that its not nescessairly true, and in many situations the information that mickeysoft says is wrong.
We've seen them do this before. Saying that Java development was slow, inefficent and lacked a use. Yet we see that Java is alive and very strong today. Partially because the stuff that mickeysoft said was false, partially because the people behind Java were smart enough to change the system to address those faults.
With all the smart people behind linux its likely that the same thing will happen. By showing where the major bulletholes are, linus, alan and the crew will hopefully be able to make it bulletproof.
Here's an idea! (Score:3)
First there was the Windows development team.
Then there was the OS/2 development team.
Hmmm... and the NT development team.
Um... the Bob development team.
Um... Windows 9x development team.
Windows 2000...
Hmmm... Internet Explorer
SQL Server development team...
Backoffice (if there is such a development team)
And I've got a box of dead Microsoft mice too...
This isn't worrisome, because for every person they've got fighting Linux, they've to 2,000 or more developers working to release products that demonstrate its better!
First they ignore you. (Score:5)
Immune Deficiency Syndrome (Score:3)
Microsoft isn't a software company, it's a monopoly company. It doesn't develop its product to survive, it survives by attacking the competition's immune system.
This is not to say that their products are without merit. Their products are of minimal merit. Just barely stable enough (99.9% uptime), barely secure enough (C2 Security), barely open enough (Currently investigating open source) and standards complant enough (Posix, OS/2) to squeak past the IT managers.
I wonder if MS will attack Linux with FUD, attempt to sabotage the codebase, or engineer incompatabilities into their OS. For instance extending SMB further to intentionally make it legally or technically difficult to emulate. Make IE not render pages generated by Apache, or perhaps a warning that perfomance is not gauranteed with Apache servers... kind of like what they did to DR DOS.
I don't like this one bit. Don't doubt the capabilites of MS, the history is quite clear, they fight dirty.
The popularity of linux is all that seems to concern MS. Orignially, Linux did not depend on popularity to continue. I hope that is still the case.
I was worried for a second there. (Score:4)
But naah, they're just going to spread some FUD.
Move along folks, nothing to see here.
Hopefully, they can point to more weaknesses! (Score:5)
Lack of a journalled filesystem? Okay, we'll take care of that, with SGI's help, and also the work of kernel hackers.
Lack of a GUI? Let's get KDE/GNOME more robust and stable.
Lack of a good configuration utility?
Any other perceived weaknesses? Other companies/individuals/groups can come in and fill in and then support that subsystem. There is lots to be made in that. Are you listening? Apparently, SGI is.
Maybe MS can help the Linux development effort after all. Haven't you noticed how the more the weaknesses are talked about by people, the more interest there is in fixing them?
This document [kegel.com] shows that in the weeks after the Mindcraft tests, kernel hackers and interested parties have been able to bring Apache and Linux performance to 3 or 4 times what it used to be, and they've identified problems in the kernel that are being fixed as we speak. Sure there are weaknesses, but the biggest advantage of Linux is that there are many eyes to find out where these weaknesses are and how to fix them when they are exposed.
Like someone else here said, this is a guerilla war. The harder MS fights us, the more resources they use to extinguish us, the more people will be turned off to Microsoft and will question their practices. The more desperate Microsoft becomes, the more obvious it is that they are losing.
It's hard to flail at a moving liquid target that cannot be pinned down to one organization or group of people.
Linux grew with the Internet. It grew without any media attention. It grew and still grows because it meets real-world needs. It has nothing to do with hype. It did just fine without media attention. We basically had to force the media into noticing us. As long as it can meet real world needs for the users/developers and has a good chance of providing that in the future, it cannot lose.
Put FUD to Use! (Score:5)
One such rule is to *not* defend one's product as the be-all and end-all. That's a business game, not an open community game.
Promote *ALL* other alternative OSes. Promote the BSDs. Promote BeOS. Promote MacOS and QNX and PalmOS(?) and every other OS.
They all have their place. QNX is a major force in the embedded market. Kicks ass on WindowsCE in every way. The BSDs are incredibly well done and kick NT ass. BeOS kicks everyone's ass in the multimedia department. MacOS is experiencing a resurgence, and is a delight to use.
Don't let Microsoft focus on one thing! Force them to deal with *ALL* things, *ALL* the time.
They can't spread FUD on all the competition...
...change the rules! Keep them hopping --- and learn to use the mass media!
Wall Street Journal Article? (Score:3)
How can Linux possibly be considered competition? (Score:5)
But the simple fact of the matter is that Linux is GIVEN AWAY FOR FREE. The vast majority of people who work on it WORK ON IT FOR FREE. In an economic sense, how does this constitute competition? It's like saying that backyard gardens are competition with supermarkets. The reason the Linux model works is that it DOESN'T depend on sales!
Every commercial competitor of Microsoft's has been woefully unable to generate enough sales to build momentum, even when, as in the case of OS/2, their product was superior and in the market first. Microsoft has too much of a headlock on the sales channel and the mindshare of businesses and corporations. Not enough copies of the OS get sold, and so not enough software companies jump in making software for the OS because the market is too small, which in the turn causes people to not buy the OS. It's a vicious cycle.
The only reason that Linux hasn't fallen victim to this is that Linux isn't being developed for monetary reward. It's like if all the HO scale train buffs decided to build a real train line for the love of it.
Saying that Linux is competition for Microsoft is like saying that ham radio is competition for the telcos. It's being developed completely outside the traditional arena of work for pay. How then can you say that it competes within that arena?
Am I making sense?
Jon Acheson
Re:and the MS anti-Java group was oh-so-successful (Score:3)
This is what CAN happen to Linux and they have been targetting Linux since October of 1998. Remember the Holloween Document? This is serious folks, they are masters at this.
It's a good thing! (Score:3)
Like the Mindcraft benchmark/media event, this will wind up making Linux stronger.
It may be hard for us to accept, but some of their complaints about Linux will wind up being true. Then we show them a strength Linux has that they will never have: the Linux developer community. A solution will be created, tested, and deployed in the time it takes Microsoft to organize a project team.
The only way Microsoft can beat us is if we fear looking at our own flaws, and so don't focus on fixing them.
Re:Not necessary (Score:5)
No, the ability to have a free, stable OS is not hype. It's just good.
>Nothing new from what existed 20 years ago
>(well, actually Unix is older than that...)
Think about what you say before you say it. New apps are developed every day. Besides, if you'll step out of the box and see features as more than command line syntax, you can see that being FREE is a new thing for UNIX. How much did it cost relative to now 20 years ago?
>Lots of special effects, but no real content
>(show me something that Linux can do that other >OS's can't)
It can stay up under large loads without crashing.
It allows you to continue to use your computer for longer periods of time without upgrading.
Forgive me, but I must include the Bewolf clustering and the fact that I don't see a NT cluster making the worlds 16th fastest computer.
Someone please provide the link for that because I don't have it handy.
By the way, how many users can log onto NT Enterprise Server at a time? one?
>Can't hold up on it's own (you still need to >dual boot to nt or 95 to run your real software, >or get any work done, or play any good games.)
The games part was true, but now Quake III, Civ III, Myth II and such are comming out for Linux.
I can't run virues in Linux though. I always have to reboot to Windows when I want to use them.
>We have to wait 3-6 years for it to be worth >anything (who wants suffer waiting for linux to >mature, I'll install it once it can do the >things i need it to do and runs the programs i >need to run).
I can do more with Linux than I can with NT. The only thing NT does better is crash. It does that quite well.
You've obviously either never used Linux or just don't have the disire to be the best. I've used NT. I can speak from experience on both sides. Linux is far superior.
I'm not being mean, but you really just don't have a clue about Linux. Seriously, give it a try. I think you'll be surprised.
Romans 10:9-10 [gospelcom.net]
MS Versus the world (Score:3)
{It's true that OS/2 was technically superior in many respects, but it also had some pretty severe technical problems, such as being very closely tied to IBM brand hardware in the earlier releases, and a UI that actually was difficult to use, and a $300 TCP/IP stack, and so on. However, OS/2 Server's biggest problem it was a PC application server before most people decided they needed PC application servers, and probably was before it's time in this respect.}
Windows NT has stolen server market share from just about everyone (OS/2, UNIX, NetWare, VAX) except the AS/400 in the 1990s. Sure the good press helped, but Microsoft was able to do this primarily because their competitors were bloated and slow and stuck in their own little vertical markets and high prices. A revived Novell, IBM, and Sun are starting to change this equasion, so Microsoft's problems look like they're running deeper than just Linux.
As far as "targeting" Linux goes, what does everyone expect? Every vendor "targets" their competitors. It's not as if Microsoft is going to sit there and say "Well, they're just a bunch of idealistic kids, so let them eat our lunch!"
What's more likely is a very cheap version of Windows 2000 Server to make their products look more cost effective.
--
do something about it (Score:4)
The problem is I have way better things to do with my time that reinvent the wheel for the 600th time. I'm not going to write an Outlook clone just so I can use linux. I'm only going to use linux when there is an Outlook available.
Doing something about the lack of software only makes sense if you have a vested interested in seeing the platform survive. I don't. Linux is just an OS.
Re: Oh yes it can. (Score:5)
Can't be bought? Maybe all you Linux fans can't, but the MIS or IT who has to decide between doing work on Linux or getting a fat check from Microsoft for switching to NT can be. I can already name several game developers who've been offered six-figure "developer assistance" to switch their development away from Macs and SGI machines.
How to beat Micro$oft (Score:3)
Re:Linux community is not 100% self-sustaining (Score:4)
But that's the best part about it!
As for Outlook, we run Outlook here too and I get by just fine with Linux. Outlook supports web mail and POP3, but who cares anyway, Outlook sucks
Don't complain about a lack of software, do something about it!
The point the original poster is trying to make (I think) is that the current Linux community doesn't care about anyone who doesn't use Linux.
This couldn't be further from the truth. We've got to stop looking at this through the same old models. This isn't a "I'm part of this group, and everyone else sucks" kind of a situation. We're not talking about mutually exclusive sets here. I think you should use whatever Operating System is best suited for your needs, and I would hope everyone shares that opinion.
Anyway...My real point wasn't about what we have, it was about what we can do.
Cooperative World Domination (Score:5)
Criticize us! Please! It only gives us ideas to better our software. Here's my impression of the situation:
Micros~1: "Linux doesn't do this, and Linux doesn't support that."
Linux Community: Gee, thanks for the ideas, we'l