Microsoft is refining its “Get the Facts” Linux attack, taking specific aim at Red Hat, Novell and IBM rather than the broader movement around the open-source operating system.
Microsoft to take direct shots at Linux rivals
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
I just like the fact that MS employees actually admit that there’s a security problem.
1) Dealing with attacks will make the community’s resolve stronger
2) If Microsoft actually find’s founded arguments, it will help us take out the trash. Just think of it as a focus group
3) It will raise awareness and let more people know there are real alternatives
4) It sounds like they’ll be identifying themselves more and more as neoconservative republicans, maybe we’ll even get a twofer
Should be tc cuz you can’t and don’t own Microsoft software. That copy of Windows XP on your laptop, not yours. Read the EULA.
When I moved from Windows 95; only 5minutes stop off from Amiga to Linux; the disgust to find that my Amiga was more stable than my brand new, $1999 PC, it was shocking surprise.
My move to Linux had nothing to do with the opensource community or a hatred of Microsoft. My move to Linux had to do more with the fact of wanting a UNIX like operating system than any crusade or “rage against the machine.
If Microsoft want to win back “geeks” like me, rip the NT crap out of Windows, fine grain FreeBSD 5, throw a nice GUI and voila, you’ve won me and a whole heap of others over. Until such time, I’ll sit on my sofa and use MacOS X, the sexy marriage between a rock solid UNIX kernel and a drop dead sexy GUI.
Good points. Not sure what you meant by the last one, though.
I misread this:
discouraging Microsoft executives from making any more inflammatory comments that open-source software is a “cancer” or “un-American.”
I have the same attidtude (and also a Amiga background <1998>). I want a machine which I control, where I decide what is running and what is not. Not a OS that hides it workings from my eyes.
I’m not sure we want to stoop to their level. You can’t throw mud without getting dirty. ATM, MS is so covered with mud that they can’t see clearly where to throw.
That would take far to long with far to much computing power wasted in it’s creation. We would have to borrow the Army’s in Xserve Cluster in order to achieve that list.
I would instead take Gorilla.bat’s idea, and let’s keep the moral, and honorable high ground.
over the last 20 years teaching using unix, ms, and more recently linux.
seems to work just fine. the practical side of a cs degree sure seems to have serverd american high tech rather well.
It seems to me that they have change the meaning of the “D” from Doubt to Derision. Gone from “We are Cheaper” to “Who Needs Linux?”
This is phase two of their plan to give them time to complete the next stage of their cunning plan to rule the world.
So, gazing into my crystal ball in 6 Months (sorry slipped to 26 months) time there will be MSUNIX powered by a SCO kernel with a version of IE/Unix so tied into the system that killing the running process will BSOD the whole box. Sales will be absolutely huge and they will claim to have invented Unix. The DMCA will be used to avoid them from to ship sources. No one would dare sue them as they will have more cash reserves that the total held by all the G7 government put together.
Just Joking Really….
Microsoft is refining its “Get the Facts” Linux attack because it is feeling the footsteps of a rather large Penguin about to pounce. I would be scared too.
I’ll have him know I don’t run Linux because it’s open, I run it because of the wealth of well documented free libraries and compilers, that and the wealth of good tools which I can modify. It’s not political, it’s entirely pragmatic.
I hate misrepresented truths. OSS supporters are entirely pragmatic about why they support OSS. It’s amazing how easy it is to twist the truth your way with just one little phrase that borders so close to the truth.
I’ll have him know I don’t run Linux because it’s open, I run it because of the wealth of well documented free libraries and compilers, that and the wealth of good tools which I can modify. It’s not political, it’s entirely pragmatic.
Agreed. Apart from a very small group who rigidly stick to the Stallman like OSS beliefs, the “movers and shakers” like linus will use the best tool for the job. Just take the move to Bitkeeper for linux kernel version control.
Its the best tool for the job and as such, Linus chose to use it. Same goes for many other groups. Red Hat, for example, worked with Intel to ensure that the ACPI can be easily integrated into the kernel without any licensing issues.
I hate misrepresented truths. OSS supporters are entirely pragmatic about why they support OSS. It’s amazing how easy it is to twist the truth your way with just one little phrase that borders so close to the truth.
I wouldn’t even call many people OSS supporters, many people who appear to be OSS supporters are mearly those like me who just so happen to find that a large number of the tools we require are produced by the OSS community to a higher quality than what commercial companies do.
I love GNOME and KDE, and both have done an awsome job moving UNIX forward onto the desktop, be it *BSD, Linux or a commercial UNIX.
No, you are wrong, it is totally political, because we belong to a world economic system. Microsoft has nothing to do with operating systems. Microsoft has a product line, and it’s based on the idea of an assembly line and control. The types of technologies that they market are only the technologies that take control away from the users and that seduce them to give up control.
I wish it wasn’t political, but you better believe it is, and if you live in Mexico, than you better believe that your country is being targeted as a cheap labor workforce, to work the Windows assembly line (product line).
But SCO’s UNIX, is MS version of Unix (XENIX):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenix
http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/unixad.html
http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/xenix.gif
Cute, eh?
Microsoft can’t stop Linux adoption, it can’t control (GPL Linux). It can however do other things to CONTAIN Linux, by incorporating it into the Windows product line.
Microsoft is a software company, so when IBM released that code for voice recognition, it hurt Microsoft more than it hurt IBM who profits from other markets such as hardware.
Microsoft has the ball right now, but it has to do something with it, it can’t sit idle, or else it will be ripped apart, and that’s not a bad thing (in it’s current state).
And whoever said that Torvalds is the shaker and the mover, I don’t think so. I think that IBM is the shaker and the mover. I trust Torvalds will do the right thing, he’s a superstar, but he is powerless without the permission to move forward.
And my last comment, is about the myth that Linux can’t keep up to Microsoft development. The truth is that Linux can surpass Microsoft development (without patents), but it just can’t keep up to Microsoft hype, and people tend to believe hype due to the nature of this industry.
I’m not done yet, I lied. I forgot to deal with this “pragmatism” issue.
I don’t consider companies as being pragmatic when they choose Windows over Linux because other than a temporary price reduction, they don’t get anything out of it “control” wise. What I would find to be a pragmatic compromise would be if Microsoft found some way to incorporate Linux into their product line. That’s what I would call pragmatic because rather than being completely screwed, at least I would be getting something out of a deal.
Looks like having 200 distros can be a Good Thing afterall.
Good luck taking a “specific aim” at all of them, MS.
Microsoft was never “cool.” The Internet was “cool.” Getting out from under a 900-pound gorilla (IBM, at the time,) was “cool.” Sharing software source-code was (and is) “cool.”
Being able, willing, and free, to do stuff yourself is “cool.” Having rights and freedom of any kind is “cool.”
Telling people that XXXXX is a bad idea because it’s “un-American,” when what you really mean is “I am a paranoid, shrewd nerd who thinks the only important view on life is mine,”….
…is not cool.
Having control of one’s *own* destiny, hardware, software, architecture, and all the rest of it is “cool.”
There. Now you heard it, Billy and friends.
But does it matter?
I remember one “compare” where the hardware was totally different. Makes me wondering at which point it becomes slander. If MS is gonna use direct compares it opens up interesting possibilities…
I am a Senior In college Studying Software Development. I have been using Linux for about full time for about 16 months now. I don’t use it just because it is OSS. I use it mainly because I felt very limited using windows. I could not do what I wanted to, and I felt that I was getting lazy using windows. When I switched to Linux I could customize my system to the way I wanted it. Also I was able to use any software I wanted with out having to use trail or student versions.
I develop all my code using vim and a command line compiler this way I am not stuck to the constraints Microsoft imposes on its student versions of its IDE software.
We got some Microsoft FUD in the mail at my work. It said on the fornt “Get the Facts about Linux” Then on the inside it had a chart comparing prices of hard ware but if you notice on the chart it said “UNIX” vs “Windows” It was saying hardware for UNIX would cost 19000$ this is because most UNIX systems need to be run on specialized server platforms.. LINUX however can be run on any system for 0$. Their comparison was way off the wall because it was comparing apples to oranges.
I have a dual-boot XP/Linux box and a Mac. I use Linux 90% of the time nowadays. The biggest thing I like about Linux and OS X (since I’m a computer eng. student) is that both come w/ programming software for free. I don’t have to buy extra sw to build my homework programs.
There’s so much free documentation on the ‘net for *nix; I don’t have to buy a “Windows Secrets”-style book to figure out how to do things.
I don’t have to make sure I’ve got the right drivers; Linux supports so much more than Windows. And if something is broken, I have the oppurtunity to fix it myself (well, not until my coding gets better) or report it. It’s fixed in days rather than months; and that’s if MS decides it’s a big enough concern.
Bluntly, *nix just works. Sometimes it can be harrowing, but that’s part of the fun for me.
For various reasons i happened to read quite much about those “facts” that Microsoft has friendly offered for us.
The IDC study that says “Linux was more expensive in 4/5 taks” comes to this conclution: Linux is more expensive, because Linux is more difficult to use. It needs more talented admins, and this costs money. Microsoft ordered these facts on 2000, and Linux has come a long way since then: it’s a lot more usable, more common and easier to maintain/admin. These “facts” are so old they really need new facts.
“These “facts” are so old they really need new facts.”
very true, linux has improved. it is better. it is more user friendly.
but dont forget, the most expensive part of using computers is the people that run them.
they have not magically lost their long time experience running, using, administrating, windows networks.
retraining people is the expensive part. not buyin a new machine. or buying a linux subscription. or even downloading a free version. its the cost of the people using the technology.
Why do I use Windows? Well, it just plain old works. Cant say the same thing about most Linux distros I have tried. Always seems to be something that doesnt work on my PC. Try 5 different distros, and I have 5 different problems. Thanks, MS for making a product that just works well, despite what anti MS zealots would want the public to believe.
You should add a caveat, it works for you. Does not mean it will work for someone still clinging to their old hardware, or someone who can’t afford to drop some Rupees to up their RAM.
Still I’m glad that you find Windows useful. I’ve tried Miscrosoft’s Operating Systems for a while and it felt like driving an automatic, I didn’t feel as if I was in control. Don’t get me wrong, nothing wrong with driving an automatic. In fact some of my bestest friends drive automatics. It just doesn’t work for me, is all.
Not impressed!!!!! This is 2004 and computers still randomly lock up for no apparent reason!?!
“Taylor’s methods include…discouraging Microsoft executives from making any more inflammatory comments that open-source software is a ‘cancer’ or ‘un-American.'”
Are we beginning to see a friendly giant, or is this just a T-Rex relaxing its jaws to get a better grip?
I had a very good experience last week learning how to use SQL Server—good instructors, good educational materials. Came away very happy.
That’s why I hope for the former, not the latter, to be the result of Taylor’s efforts.
Back in the beginning, before I found out they were murdering Netscape, I thought maybe they’d participate in the Linux thing….
Maybe they will change.
Microsoft, many of these young people make strong deductive arguments for wanting to using Linux. You have to rise to the challenge and accomodate them, rather than taking a militaristic stand (patents and apartide). Please rise to the challenge and liberate, do not innovate, but liberate instead.
I don’t think MS needs to get ride of the NT crap and keep Windows. Its quite the opposite. Besides UNIX has nothing to do with the kernel as the GNU people can tell you.
I’m also a former Amigian (A1200 + Blizzard 030@50Mhz with 8MB) and still use it in UAE (Ultimate Amiga Emulator). And I think Linux distros could learn something from it. Most of the Windows GUI is based on the Amiga anyway. Commodore cross licensed it to IBM for OS/2 (in exchange for Arexx) and I guess that MS got the GUI (innovation) from IBM like a lot of things in the MS/IBM (OS/2) days.
BTW: Was just thinking about it, Dashboard vs. Konfabulator, Amiga OS3.0 had commodities which basically do the same as both.
/end amiga rant>
Apple hardware and MacOSX are nice but I don’t want to be locked into a vendor. x86 is more or less open and anyone could start a clone if he or she wanted.
the big cost isn’t retraining… the big one is… people by itself…
Any admin worth his salt will admin anything that is administrable…
It will cost loads of money if you want to switch from one day to another… but if you do it gradually during one or two years, the retraining is dispersed in current internal training programs… and not something special!
In reality, you will be expending less money in training, because in unix/linux, stuff like the control panel and the admin tools don’t change in every new version of them… (unlike in windows).
Apple hardware and MacOSX are nice but I don’t want to be locked into a vendor. x86 is more or less open and anyone could start a clone if he or she wanted.
BTW the Amiga tought me that I don’t want to be locked in. As at the time any piece of hardware would be 4-10 more expensive for the Amiga then the PC. However now that Apple Hardware is more like a PC clone with a power PC processor running OSX you have a little more choice.
They result in be having more, and better, control over my system.
They protect me from vendor lock-in. And thus protect me from price-gouging and from forced upgrading.
They give me flexability in deployment and maintenance, as well as development.
They allow me to know what short-comings (bugs, security holes) exist on my system *when* they are discovered, not merely when the vendor deigns to admit there’s a problem.
They let me fix — or get someone to fix for me — any such problems promptly, and not be forced to wait until the vendor releases a patch (usually only some time after the previously referred to admission), or worse, until said vendor is prepared to *sell* me the next version.
This also prevents various parties from mutually sloughing off problems by blaming each other’s software, which helps me get it dealt with expeditiously.
They give me the ability to rely on reasonable compatability being maintained both within and between software solutions. If something doesn’t work out I can replace it without having to tear down and rebuild the entire works. I can use a newer version, a different program, whatever.
They let me get on with my work, without fear that some para-police unit will descend on my business and blackmail me into outrageous penelty payments and not-so-sweet contracts simply because somebody mis-placed or mis-understood one of the confusing deluge of licenses for software I might not even be using. And I don’t need to devote extrordinary resources to keeping track of the useless things.
I don’t care if it’s “cool” (OK, maybe a little).
I just want to use my software. I just want it to work — reliably. I just want to use it how I want. And I don’t wan’t to be hassled about it. That’s not merely philosophy; that’s pragmatism.
Bernard Swiss
So if retraining is such a huge issue, why doesn’t a group of people who know more than myself create a free, comprehensive Linux/BSD curriculum which companies and independent contractors alike can use to both lower costs and work around various corporate road blocks? Even if retraining isn’t as big of an issue as Microsoft is trying to make it, such a curriculum would bring Microsoft down one trick.
Or is there already a good one available/in the works which we can raise awareness of?
—
Michael Salivar
I’m with you there. If the use of something threatens my freedom and peace of mind, I’d rather go without it. This is the life I’m living, and I’m not going to let someone threaten it for the sake of something so trivial as an operating system, snack food, or system of government. Of course, once that threat is posed, it’s no longer a trivial matter.
—
Michael Salivar
Why I use linux:
Cost.
Flexibility.
Security.
Good tools.
The ability to upgrade major components, and fairly independantly from each other, at that.
It works for me, and does what I need and want it to. My camera, usb mp3 stick, radeon 9200, printer, etc, etc, etc work.
[The price of tools outweighs the cost of the OS, easily].
It’s open source, as are most of the tools. This is a very nice bonus, at the least.
Usability. I actually prefer modern (>= 3.1) KDE desktops to the UI of XP. Yes, I can spend hours tweaking my UI, but to be honest, I’d rather it just work….
Why I don’t use Windows:
Vendor lock-in.
Security. [Yes, I’m aware – keep up to date on patches, use anti-virus software, use spybot, use ad-aware, don’t use IE…. Look, highly placed Microsoft people keep admitting in interviews that Windows isn’t highly secure atm. Microsoft software has not, historically, been designed for security. Ad nauseum.]
Price. Yes, I could buy a PC with Windows. Yes, there is a lot of freeware for Windows. However, I’ve found most OSS software that I’ve tried runs better on linux. Many tools are expensive, and not all have alternatives.
Microsoft. I don’t trust them. They’ve got quite an interesting history.
Stability. I hear this has gotten better; it’s what drove me to linux in the first place, though. Given all the above, I see no reason to go back, regardless of if Microsoft’s current operating systems crash less than their previous ones.
I have no pressing need of a Windows-only app, or device driver.
Caveat: Obviously, linux security also sucks. However, it sucks much less badly, due to things like not having kernel/web browser integration, and having been designed as a multiuser system, and generically letting one replace components with more secure alternatives.
Do I try to get everyone I know to use Linux? No; it needs a lot of work, and I don’t see the point of making people who only check their email transition. [Although given the amount of spyware and viruses I’ve found on XP/ME computers, it would argueably be easier than teaching them how to use Windows update, Ad-aware, antivirus, and updates for the latter two…] My point is merely that, for -me-, Linux is currently a good tool. Coolness has exactly nothing to do with it. Being able to do what I want to on my systems does. Price and security are considerations, and in both, I find that linux, -for my uses- comes out ahead.
Microsoft is never going to get me to go back to Windows through a marketing campaign, no matter how slick. DRM isn’t going to convince me to use Windows. Neither are patents. FUD isn’t going to convince me to use Windows. Leaked source code isn’t going to convince me to use Windows. Are there things which could convince me to use Windows? Sure… but I’ve been sufficiently burned by it that I’m perpetually wary.
The only time I actually care about Windows is when I’m forced to use it, or when the memories of that are sharp; in general, I’m much happier just playing with Linux.
That guy has screws loose. I cant begin to discuss how many stupid comments he made.
KDE
Previous posts mention retraining costs, and of course MS’s “study” implying higher cost for Linux. Yeah right.
Heres how it HAS worked:
http://www.newsforge.com/business/02/12/04/2346215.shtml?tid=19