×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Continues Anti-OSS Strategy

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the a-little-innovation-here-a-little-bad-press-there dept.

Microsoft 857

MacDaffy writes "Microsoft's General Manager of Platform Strategy, Michael Taylor, continues Microsoft's press blitz against Open Source in general and Linux in particular in a CNET Interview. He says of Linux: 'You can build it, design it, and it will work great. The trouble begins when you want to add things to it...(due to) the brittle nature of the platform, when you do that, other things break.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

857 comments

This is true... (5, Funny)

ebingo (533762) | more than 8 years ago | (#13123863)

... in Windows, you don't have to add things to break it!

Re:This is true... (1, Funny)

ZakuSage (874456) | more than 8 years ago | (#13124019)

In case of install, break Windows.
In case of using IE, break Windows.
In case of using Outlook Express, break windows.
In case of buying a new graphics card, break windows.
In case of using it for a couple months, break windows.

...Need I go on?

Re:This is true... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13124076)

In case of throwing rocks, break windows.

Note: Not meant to imply that parent poster is throwing rocks while in a glasshouse, but to make a cheap pun.

Re:This is true... (4, Funny)

Janek Kozicki (722688) | more than 8 years ago | (#13124029)

what a coincidence, /.'s sig on the bottom of the page says now: "Try to remove the color-problem by restarting your computer several times. -- Microsoft-Internet Explorer README.TXT"

Hmmm (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13123865)

"The trouble begins when you want to add things to it...(due to) the brittle nature of the platform, when you do that, other things break." The words 'pot', 'kettle' and 'black' come to mind. Is Microsoft unaware that their registry is far more 'brittle'?

Re:Hmmm (2, Insightful)

tehshen (794722) | more than 8 years ago | (#13123934)

Are many people aware that the Windows registry is far more than 'brittle'? There are people that will read this and think "You can't add things to Linux", no matter how wrong it is and how worse Windows is.

Re:Hmmm (1)

Ucklak (755284) | more than 8 years ago | (#13124061)

There was an article about MS vs Linux and a comparison about the cost and R&D of the space pen that can write upside down and under water for NASA the the fact that the Russians used pencils for the same task.

When the cost came about, some Microsoft VP stated "but you can't use a pencil underwater, I guarantee that!".

Yeah. Tell that to all of the scuba divers around the world Microsoft.

Re:Hmmm (1)

fshalor (133678) | more than 8 years ago | (#13124089)

I thought he was talking about windows too. I've said almost exactly the same thing discussing that *platforn* many, many, times.

Actually, if I had a nickle for every time I said that particular bit about windows, and I donated all that money to OSS, they'd probably be very happy with me.

As if that article wasn't bad enough... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13124109)

this entire discussion is going to include exactly the same type of statements (as demonstrated by parent).

Fighting fire with fire is pointless, try water instead. My suggestion for water: ignore and use your energy differently.

So.... (2, Funny)

cached (801963) | more than 8 years ago | (#13123876)

'You can build it, design it, and it will work great. The trouble begins when you want to add things to it...(due to) the brittle nature of the platform, when you do that, other things break.'

We heard what the thinks about Windows, but what does he say about linux?

Re:So.... (5, Insightful)

theGreater (596196) | more than 8 years ago | (#13124091)

"people didn't really understand buffer overruns and port 80 and I/O issues 10 years ago."

That's the part that caught my attention. Is he seriously suggesting that 10 years ago no one had ever heard of a buffer overrun? That no one had heard of network security in 1995? Maybe they should have thought of that BEFORE they forcibly tied a Browser into their Flagship product.

-theGreater.

*yawn* (3, Insightful)

Noryungi (70322) | more than 8 years ago | (#13123878)

When you add new things to Linux, other things break?

Like that never happened with Windows... If I remember well, adding SP2 to Windows XP breaks compatibility with certain software. And that's just the latest example.

Note to Microsoft: you have tried FUD in the past, it did not work. Not goona work this time either.

Re:*yawn* (5, Interesting)

RockofSisyphus (760916) | more than 8 years ago | (#13124056)

"Note to Microsoft: you have tried FUD in the past, it did not work." Not true! It has worked in the past. IBM just retired OS/2; an example of Microsoft's FUD working to great effect.

Re:*yawn* (1)

eskoperkele (885166) | more than 8 years ago | (#13124127)

Don't forget about the hardware. 40 machines in boot time deadlock ain't funny.

Hell, sure, everyone knows that updating operating system demands BIOS upgrade.

(For sake of completeness: said machines have Asus P4S800-MX motherboards.)

Oh, the humanity! (3, Funny)

op12 (830015) | more than 8 years ago | (#13123879)

Why would you post such an article on Slashdot?!?

*Runs for nearest bomb shelter*

Upcoming article: Why Microsoft is the greatest!

Re:Oh, the humanity! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13123994)

*Runs for nearest bomb shelter*

And just before you close the door to your shelter, Bill Gates manages to throw his rucksack in... Fortunately he's as bad at bomb building that at OS development, and the rucksack just sits there, sizzles, smells acrid and faintly goes poof!

Re:Oh, the humanity! (1)

benjcurry (754899) | more than 8 years ago | (#13124125)

You know, I agree with you...

...and...

Mr. Taylor is still wrong if he is calling Linux brittle in relation to Win.

And Windows never breaks, right? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13123882)

Like say you added a database server to your server installation of windows, and then later on you add an official OS update to the same server, with the interesting side effect of breaking the database.

Which is why many places have test machines to test windows updates.

Re:And Windows never breaks, right? (2, Interesting)

daern (526012) | more than 8 years ago | (#13123961)

Which is why many places have test machines to test windows updates.

So you're suggesting that with OSS it's not necessary to test and you can slap patches and updates onto production servers without trying them out first?

Re:And Windows never breaks, right? (3, Insightful)

Vann_v2 (213760) | more than 8 years ago | (#13124068)

Microsoft can't have it both ways.

Either we're to trust them because they're a commercial business, in which case their code should already be tested and work without hassle, or they're "no better" than OSS in this regard.

Re:And Windows never breaks, right? (2, Informative)

LurkerXXX (667952) | more than 8 years ago | (#13124104)

Mod parent up. If you do this with OSS or any OS in a corporate production environment, you shouldn't be in the job you have. Every good amin I know has test machines of whatever flavor OS they run, for just that purpose.

Re:And Windows never breaks, right? (4, Insightful)

magarity (164372) | more than 8 years ago | (#13123967)

Which is why many places have test machines to test windows updates

Each of which needs its own software licenses. Cha-ching! As long as you can pull it off, it's a heck of a revenue generating business model!

Re:And Windows never breaks, right? (1)

div_2n (525075) | more than 8 years ago | (#13124083)

Not testing any changes to a production system prior to implementation regardless of platform is unacceptable to every single IT shop I've ever encountered and doing so would be grounds for termination without question.

Compared to? (1, Troll)

CoyoteGuy (524946) | more than 8 years ago | (#13123884)

Windows 2003? That breaks when you install it? Or breaks when you apply a hotfix?
Or breaks when you reboot it? (blue screens and dumps)
Or breaks when you add new hardware?
Or... Well... You get the idea..

*confused* (0, Redundant)

HAKdragon (193605) | more than 8 years ago | (#13123892)

The trouble begins when you want to add things to it...(due to) the brittle nature of the platform, when you do that, other things break.'"

Is he talking about Linux or SP2?

In other news (1)

matth (22742) | more than 8 years ago | (#13123893)

OSS advocates are stating that Windows is increadibly robust and stable.. until you start adding to it. Infact, after installing and uninstalling programs, testers were suprised to find information still says in the REGISTRY! In addition... some programs leave directory structures behind sometimes with megabytes of data files in them!

Good Grief... brittle? At least when I do a "make un-install" I'm not left with registry entries filling up all over the place.

How in the world is Linux brittle when you start adding to it?

Re:In other news (1)

zxnos (813588) | more than 8 years ago | (#13124043)

testers were suprised to find information still says in the REGISTRY! In addition... some programs leave directory structures behind sometimes with megabytes of data files in them!

INAP... ...is that a windows problem or just a poor uninstall routine by a software writer?

Re:In other news (1)

jim_v2000 (818799) | more than 8 years ago | (#13124103)

some programs leave directory structures behind sometimes with megabytes of data files in them!

That really doesn't have anything to do with Windows. Installers/uninstallers are created by whoever authored the program being uninstalled. Many times programs leave behind settings files in hopes that someday you'll reinstall.

Brittle!?!? Good lord! (2, Funny)

Miros (734652) | more than 8 years ago | (#13123894)

His comments make me want to hunt him down and whack him over the head with my copy of "programing windows with MFC."

Re:Brittle!?!? Good lord! (1)

DenDave (700621) | more than 8 years ago | (#13124063)

programing windows with
MFC


Last time I took a look at Visual Studio I was under the impression it had more to with KFC...

"Linux" is a Total Generality. (5, Interesting)

torpor (458) | more than 8 years ago | (#13123897)

You can't say that Ubuntu is 'brittle', nor GoboLinux, nor MEPIS. If you want to add something to any of these distributions of a Linux-based operating system, you can, with ease.

Microsoft, however, in their positioning, are exploiting the human incapacity for understanding a generality when confronted with logo/brand positions. "Linux" is a huge field. You can't just say "Linux" and mean "All services that depend on a Linux-based solution". Its pathetic.

Microsoft know this; they frame the fight so that when they say "Linux" they mean all Linux-based distributions. But to a user of Linux who actually wants to use Linux, and knows how to use Linux, "there ain't no such thing as a Single Linux target" .. you either roll your own, pitch a tent in a distro field, or take a pre-packaged solution from a vendor who has done the hard work for you...

I say this having used Linux now for 10 years, quite productively. I haven't used Microsoft-based products in that time. I hardly consider that a "GM for Platform Strategy" at Microsoft will have had that experience ...

baffle them with bullshit (1)

SgtChaireBourne (457691) | more than 8 years ago | (#13124015)

M$ likes to use "Linux" interchangeably in several different contexts to encourage confusion:
the kernel, linux distros, Free and/or Open Source software.

Though I don't doubt that to a certain extent much of M$ staff is confused on the issue, the main goal is to create a distraction which seems to have worked.

Re:baffle them with bullshit (1)

torpor (458) | more than 8 years ago | (#13124075)

Though I don't doubt that to a certain extent much of M$ staff is confused on the issue, the main goal is to create a distraction which seems to have worked.

It only works on people who do not use, or try to use, Linux. It only works on the Linux-un-educated ..

The defeat for this attack: give such a person a LiveCD from Ubuntu, or MEPIS, or Gobo, etc.

The one thing that will defeat all Microsoft anti-Linux FUD: actual use of Linux by a Linux user.

Re:"Linux" is a Total Generality. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13124096)


Microsoft, however, in their positioning, are exploiting the human incapacity for understanding a generality when confronted with logo/brand positions. "Linux" is a huge field. You can't just say "Linux" and mean "All services that depend on a Linux-based solution". Its pathetic.


Yes but many OSS advocates do the same thing. I've seen more than a few arguments where the crux is "Linux can do X" but there is no distro that will actually do it. It's technically possible but doesn't exist, yet the person arguing uses the term as if this product exists.

Microsoft isn't the only one who is using some sly tricks.

I kind of agree (3, Insightful)

Andrew Tanenbaum (896883) | more than 8 years ago | (#13123900)

I can use the 16,000 some Debian packages quite easily and happily, but when I want to add software that they didn't package, I have to fight with dependencies myself and really make a whole mess of my system (thank G-d for checkinstall / installwatch). It ends up taking at least an hour to set up most pieces of software that isn't prepackaged.

Solution: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13124078)

Don't use Debian then.

I had the same experience with Knoppix (which is Debian based)

Try Slackware - it has none of those headaches.

Re:I kind of agree (1)

rc3105-Riley (826296) | more than 8 years ago | (#13124082)

BZZZZZZZZT! too bad, thanks for playing

maybe you should stick to precompiled packages, learn to love knoppix, or get a mac?

so some source don't automagically build perfectly on your particular *nix config??? I am shocked! what's the world coming to??? those authors should be shot for providing defective source.

thankfully that's not so much a problem in the win-verse where you generally can't even GET source

Re:I kind of agree (3, Interesting)

Andrew Tanenbaum (896883) | more than 8 years ago | (#13124111)

In Windows you don't NEED source. Either your InstallShield package, or your zipped program, will work fine in almost any version of Windows - that is, 1 package for 90% of the computer using population, versus what, 20 packages for 3%?. This isn't the fault of any particular developer, but a problem with the general state of GNU/Linux.

Ok let me rephrase (0)

Arthur B. (806360) | more than 8 years ago | (#13123904)

With linux you can do much more things than with windows, but sometime those extra-thing won't work perfectly. It's like comparing a bicycle and a car ! MS is riding the bycicle and going: ahah, but what do you do when you're short on gas ?

Re:Ok let me rephrase (0)

Nytewynd (829901) | more than 8 years ago | (#13123979)

What kind of oversimplified example is that? What can you do with Linux that you can't with Windows? I know what I can do with Windows that I can't do with Linux: Run commercial applications that I need.

Re:Ok let me rephrase (1)

RealProgrammer (723725) | more than 8 years ago | (#13124027)

It's more like comparing a car and a helicopter.

Really, it's like comparing a cookie-cutter 3BR ranch in a popular subdivision with renovating a Victorian downtown. With the first, you know what you'll get (except for what they don't tell you). With the other, you may have to think a little bit, but when all is said and done you have a better product.

ha! (1)

Quasar1999 (520073) | more than 8 years ago | (#13123905)

Has this guy tried to write a device driver for windows recently? Any idea how many things can break on windows if you don't do it exactly right? Same bull goes for Linux. If you don't know what you're doing, you can hose the OS and 'break' it.

Add to that the fact that writing an application on linux that misbehaves is less likely to cause as much trouble as a windows app that misbehaves. It's just that in linux the lower layers are more visible, and most people tend to poke their noses in it a lot more than with windows, where everything is hidden pretty well, so you're stuck in win32api world. But if you dig down in windows, just as in linux, you can make things go boom real easy if you don't know what you're doing, or make a mistake.

What distro is he using? (5, Insightful)

ZakuSage (874456) | more than 8 years ago | (#13123907)

It seems like whenever a Microsoft employee speaks they generalize Linux into a huge ball, never mention a distro, and say it's bad. Surely this distro is not using RPM or Apt, which many distros are based on, and surely it is not Gentoo with portage. I also don't think they quite understand how Linux works in that things aren't breaking when the end user is too stupid to configure the program.

It's as if Microsoft made their own distro, coaxed it with unstable software from 5 years ago, give it no package managemnet, and say "this is all Linux is!". Ugh, it's enough to drive a sane man crazy.

Yawn, more non-specific FUD. (1)

Ensign Zatrole (895082) | more than 8 years ago | (#13123912)

Wake me when the clowns at Microsoft have a specific complaint to make rather than sweepingly calling "Linux" brittle.

I thought he meant windows (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13123913)

I honestly thought he was refering to windows and the "change one thing 11 other unrelated things break"

i havent had ththat prob in linux/bsd as i became used to the system, once you know how to certain tasks you start to understand how things interact and what needs to be done. on the other hand in windows, things are not that way

Go on, say it... (3, Funny)

null etc. (524767) | more than 8 years ago | (#13123922)

Q: In the last six months, what have you been focused on in terms of development work?

Taylor: We continue to do the same things that we've been doing in the last couple of years

You mean perpetually patch IE security flaws?

Re:Go on, say it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13124094)

You mean perpetually patch IE security flaws?

No, he means excising previously promised features from Longhorn.

That sure clears things up for me! (0, Redundant)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 8 years ago | (#13123923)

The trouble begins when you want to add things to it...(due to) the brittle nature of the platform, when you do that, other things break.

Well thank God that Windows doesn't do that.

Microsoft don't need to spread FUD about OSS (3, Insightful)

Work Account (900793) | more than 8 years ago | (#13123927)

They just need to keep hiring away our best Open Source talent.

I know they did recently -- article here [builderau.com.au] focusing on their "theft" of Daniel Robbins, the former chief architect of Gentoo Linux.

They claim to be wanting to learn more about Open Source when they try and justify hiring guys who are just getting by financially but are huge braintrusts of the Linux movement. Basically they offer these guys 6 figure salaries to work behind closed doors in Redmond and never release anything of value to OSS ever again.

Many of them being family guys, they cannot turn these offers down due to finances. Kids are expensive, wives are expensive, SUVs are pricy, gas is pricy, taxes, computer hardware, and on and on.

I don't blame them but I think it's a dirty trick by Microsoft. I love OSS and use it at home at work and on project I create. We need to keep our talent.

Shame on you MS.

Re:Microsoft don't need to spread FUD about OSS (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13123996)

Sounds like a great way to change MS from the inside to me!

Re:Microsoft don't need to spread FUD about OSS (1)

daern (526012) | more than 8 years ago | (#13124006)

Shame on you MS.

...but if you offer me the same, I'll snap your hand off ;-)

WTH are they talking about? (4, Insightful)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | more than 8 years ago | (#13123929)

One of the main features of Free Software is that you CAN add things to it, you have the source, and since GNU/Linux is a Unix-like system it's easy to automate tasks, and to interface with any software on the system. Each part of the system is a different project, with it's own interfaces well declared and documented. In the case of proprietary software, you are limited to the APIs provided, since you don't have access to the source, and also, all the system is badly designed, many things are just hacked toghether into random librarys, and the whole OS is a single mess, and you can only use the provided API (which is poorly documented) to interface with the system. In many cases, the SDKs and APIs are proprietary, and you have to pay thousands to use them, in many other cases, you are legally FORBIDDEN to modify/interface with certain software, so, again, how it's hard to add things to Free Software and easy to add them to Proprietary soft?.

Just how many coders outside Microsoft have added parts to the windows kernel?, now think how many coders contribute to Linux, How many plugins are there for MSN, and how many for Gaim?, The list just goes on and on ...

This is anti-OSS? (1)

sheldon (2322) | more than 8 years ago | (#13123930)

Sounds to me like he's bashing Linux. Linux is a subset of OSS, not the whole.

In other news, Microsoft said something bad about Apple, Sun and Oracle. Apple said something bad about Microsoft. And Ford still hates Chevy.

Blue moon? (1)

02bunced (846144) | more than 8 years ago | (#13123932)

"Taylor: From a software perspective, we don't think the patent system is perfect. We had put forward some recommended restructuring to patent laws in the United States which will give (software) innovators more opportunities." Whilst sueing anyone that might possibly interfere with their intent of world domination. Hypicrite or what!

To recap for those in the back (2, Informative)

OctoberSky (888619) | more than 8 years ago | (#13123933)

Its simple really. Microsoft hired a team of scientists to figure out how to implement the third step in the UnderPants Gnome theory of economics. They succeded and thus... profit.
They fear going Open Source would divulge this information and that would put a damper on thier profit margin.

Its rumored that MS is in talks with the Sock Monster as well.

s/Linux/Windows (2, Insightful)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 8 years ago | (#13123940)

"The trouble begins when you want to add things to it...(due to) the brittle nature of the platform, when you do that, other things break."

DLL hell?
Duelling versions of the Exchange client?

only now, at the end, does s/w installation and removal not completely suck, XPs installer is decent, although sketchy programs dont always go cleanly.

Hey, I added a video camera? Oh wait, I have to put the registry into "display nonconnected devices mode" reboot, hand delete some stuff, and then reboot, with the camera disconnected, then connect it, THEN add the drivers! Welcome to Microsoft.

Mr. Kettle, you have a phone call on line 1... (1)

NastyNate (398542) | more than 8 years ago | (#13123943)

"The trouble begins when you want to add things to it...(due to) the brittle nature of the platform, when you do that, other things break." ... It's a Mr. Pot, Something about you being black.

Re:Mr. Kettle, you have a phone call on line 1... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13123990)

It's a Mr. Pot, Something about you being black.

There's no need to turn this into a race thing

Re:Mr. Kettle, you have a phone call on line 1... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13124041)

Does anyone actually think the endless variants of this saying are still funny?

Please stop.

Linux vs Windows (5, Insightful)

onion2k (203094) | more than 8 years ago | (#13123947)

There's really nothing innovative today that Linux does that we can't do.

Actually, I agree with his sentiment. He's bang on. There's nothing Linux does that Windows can't do, certaintly if you're willing to invest the time and effort to produce a solution.

But the opposite is also true. There's nothing Windows does that Linux can't do either.

So the "battle" comes down to other issues, not simply what each OS can or can't do. Those issues are things like cost, trust, support, availability.. And those are when open source really starts to win. Microsoft is a corporate behemoth. Making decisions in a company that size takes real time.. months, if not years. Things have to be discussed, agreed, signed off, checked, signed off again. Compare that to the open source world where someone sees an issue, writes a patch, submits it to the dev tree, and it's in if the maintainer likes it, maybe with a handful of emails bounced around a mailing list, and open source starts to get a real, tangible business advantage over Microsoft.

So yeah, I'd agree with Taylor's analysis that Windows is just as capable as Linux on the CPU.. But if he thinks that's where Linux's fighting ground ends, he's dead wrong.

Re:Linux vs Windows (0)

synchrostart (93516) | more than 8 years ago | (#13124052)

As somone who does enterprise production support, it is exactly what you say about how patches are developed in some OSS apps that scares me. I have managed developers and work with them on a daily basis. Many times developers seperation from the reality of running things in production is downright scary!! I want that scrutiny you claim is a problem. I want that "signed off on." I want that testing from the vendor. Yes there can still be problems, but then there is accountability when it happens. Running a web server for your PHP site is vastly different than running an application that is relied upon by many tens of thousands of employees.

true, but all systems are that way (1)

bluGill (862) | more than 8 years ago | (#13123949)

That is true as far as it goes. However don't take it to imply that Microsoft is any better. There is a reason that most administrators of Microsoft windows have separated things like the web server, mail server, and DNS, even when all three machines never see more than 30% load. (That is there are so few users that the total load is less than one system could handle.) In many cases the t1 internet connection will fall over before their servers, but they still separate services because Microsoft windows is brittle.

Scaling is hard. Doesn't matter what system you have. Even on mainframes eventually you can hit a limit where the system cannot scale easily.

Microsoft does have a couple advantages over linux. However the reverse is also true. Incompetent administrators are everywhere, and they will fail no matter what system you are running. In most cases the administrators inability is a better issue than the OS. This is particularly true in small business where the administrator mostly does something else, but once in a while puts a band-aid on the system to keep it running, instead of a well planned, preemptive upgrade that a large company would have done long ago.

Clearly... (1)

Miros (734652) | more than 8 years ago | (#13123958)

Brittle in this case refers (albeit, somewhat obscurely) to the operating system's probability to fail quietly, or possibly even handle a fault as opposed to simply disintegrating while attempting to save an important document, close a program, or, god help you, surf the web.

Um, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13123973)

Isn't this true in most everything in engineering?


If you randomly decide to add a component, and you don't do it, "right," won't it break, break the system?

But when you want to add something to Windows (1)

mr_rattles (303158) | more than 8 years ago | (#13123974)

The trouble begins when you want to add things to it

Wheras in Windows when you want to add things to it you can't because it's not open source. Microsoft adds to their heap of garbage, says "this is what you really want" and it still breaks!

Microsoft pisses off CIA. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13123989)

>Microsoft Continues Anti-OSS Strategy

Even Bill Gates should not interfere with the highest state interests!

SSDD (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13123992)

If microsoft actually had a decent product which could compete with Linux they wouldn't need to get up to these kind of b/s tactics.

These tactics do work but they also prove microsoft can't compete on the merits.

MARTIN Taylor you fucking idiots! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13123993)

Goddamnit can't anybody there be troubled to put the bong down for the three fucking seconds it would take to proofread and check submissions? What the fuck is it exactly that you are paid to do, anyway?

right... (1)

bad_outlook (868902) | more than 8 years ago | (#13123995)

like back in my tech days, anytime a user had an issue in windows I'd come over and take a look, "Hmmm...when did you install these screensavers?" Fast fwd to today, Ubuntu/Synatpic, and you never have problems adding things. Sorry, sir, thanks for the FUD, please drive through.

lack of cedibility causes fud failure (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13123997)

the reason that ms fud fails so completely is that the vast majority the 90% of the market (or whatever it is) that uses ms products is unhappy with them. unhappy with the complexity, the time it takes to solve problems, the breaking of seemingly unrelated things during updates or "just because."

fud can't work if the fudster has zero credibility and ms has exactly that. just about any criticism they could ever level at anyone (valid or not) is something they can rightly be criticized for as well.

OSS IS stupid (1)

webphenom (868874) | more than 8 years ago | (#13124000)

...

OK, just because you CAN add buggy code to an already buggy codebase, doesn't make that a reason for an Enterprise-level company to use it.

NO Enterprise-level company that wants to stay in business will let "Jason the Tech Guy" mess with operating systems that run their corporation, just because he CAN.

Your next argument "well, we can make it better for the community...", ALL OS's, free or not, continue to add functionality, what makes OSS so different? Thought so, losers.

YOU FUCKING MORONS NEED TO GET A CLUE!

Re:OSS IS stupid (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13124102)

You clearly don't work in an enterprise of any significant size. We insist on having source for all products we buy including operating systems. The only vendor who doesn't like to play ball with us is microsoft.

While someone may want to tinker with code at home enterprises want source to ensure their investments are protected.

OSS may be stupid but that puts it light years ahead of you.

Did I hear... (1)

Eskimo24 (91751) | more than 8 years ago | (#13124003)


Microsoft's General Manager of Platform Strategy, Michael Taylor, when speaking of Linux says "it will work great."

I'm taking a partial quote, but its not too far out of context. He does admit Linux will work great. Do you think he will have a job tomorrow?

Nothing to see here, move along (0, Redundant)

jleq (766550) | more than 8 years ago | (#13124014)

Microsoft complains about Linux by making up random sentences with little or no technical background.

In other news, in an amazing turn of events, the earth continues to revolve around the sun.

Microsoft's security "understanding" (3, Funny)

Timbo (75953) | more than 8 years ago | (#13124016)

"...because people didn't really understand buffer overruns and port 80 and I/O issues 10 years ago...

Those damn port 80 and I/O issues. Such a bitch to fix.

Irony (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13124020)

I've spent the last two weeks sharing quality time with a Windows 2000 server trying to restore something backed up with an older version of NTBACKUP. It's failing because several service packs that have fixed bugs in NTBACKUP appear to not have been adequately retro-tested. Tell me again the problems with OSS?

Oh yeah, people didn't understand buffer overflows (3, Informative)

WolfWithoutAClause (162946) | more than 8 years ago | (#13124022)

The original internet worm exploited a buffer overflow in the finger daemon. So for a Microsoft spokesman to stand up and say that this wasn't understood 10 years ago.

I mean c'mon. That was in 1988; by computing standards that was prehistoric. Everything Microsoft wrote should have been looked at for that bug ever since. They didn't. Microsoft didn't even bother to look at security issues much at all until a few years ago. Unix was ahead of that curve by 5-10 years.

Maybe not at Microsoft... (1)

null etc. (524767) | more than 8 years ago | (#13124025)

This is one of the reasons why I scoffed at the notion that Linux is more secure, because people didn't really understand buffer overruns and port 80 and I/O issues 10 years ago.

At least, people at a certain company didn't...

When you look at the issue of buffer overruns, eight to 10 years ago in software development, you did not know how much space you might need for something so you just create a big buffer zone to allow things to happen. Who knew that people could go exploit that and use that buffer space to do malicious things?

Apparently not Microsoft...

The messsage is changing (2, Insightful)

lurch_ss (865961) | more than 8 years ago | (#13124028)

From TFA: You can do things just great--I want to be very clear about that--but...

Microsoft's message has changed over the last while. Once it was "Linux is no good", now it's "Linux is good, but we're still better".

I think they're making a strategic mistake by admitting that Linux has any credibility at all. Publicly recognizing the competition is not a good decision because it makes people realize that there are alternatives.

He must not be using gentoo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13124033)

emerge somethingnew works 99% of the time for me

Looks like this guy did not go to the Blue Hat eve (2, Insightful)

mir (106753) | more than 8 years ago | (#13124053)

For example, this new feature tool we have would allow me to tunnel directly using HTTP into my corporate Exchange server without having to go through the whole VPN (virtual private network) process, bypassing the need to use a smart card. It's such a huge time-saver, for me at least, compared to how long it takes me now. We will be extending that functionality to the next version of Windows.

Indeed, who needs smart cards, VPN, or security in general. Just send everything over HTTP. This kinda puts in perspective the previous story about the changes in Microsoft's attitude towards security.

Comparison (1)

josquin9 (458669) | more than 8 years ago | (#13124060)

Sure, Windows will do anything most people ask of it with minimal effort. That's because people have learned better than to ask certain questions if they're in a Windows environment.

Linux users generally have learned that they don't have to take "NO" for an answer.

It's not made of glass... (3, Interesting)

GPLDAN (732269) | more than 8 years ago | (#13124071)

Nice analogy. Makes Linux sound like it's made out of glass. Oh, don't touch it!

It's using the myriad of custom distributions against it. There are Linux distros for forensics, for security, for graphics, for portability, for a myriad of specialties. These distros are usually booted from CDROM, etc. They have nothing to do with an average workstation distrubution installation of Linux, which has perfectly capable package management using apt-get or rpm. Dependency checking is part and parcel of every decent installation shell. Across a boggling array of packages for every conceiveable app.

Microsoft is just working the edges, trying to make the somewhat busy rate of new distros into a negative. It's true, I just got the LAST Fedora Core in when the next one comes out. But it's hardly orphaned, is it? apt-get works just fine for something I may want to add.

Microsoft's war strategy is to drive major Linux distrubutions to being more static, to stop re-releasing new distro updates at such a frenetic rate. They can't compete in this area, it's too costly for them to do major Service Packs all the time.

MUSLIMS BOMB LONDON... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13124077)

... again.

Yeah... (0)

buffy (8100) | more than 8 years ago | (#13124086)

because running

emerge package

or

apt-get install package

can be _just_ so brutal.

Say it enough (1)

harrypelles (872287) | more than 8 years ago | (#13124092)

Microsoft is working under the strategy here that if they say the same thing enough, their target audience will begin to believe it is truth. Target audience here being many of the home users that have no experience with *nix whatsoever. I have to admit, before making the move to Linux, the vision I had of it was some really tough techie-only OS that had was really complicated unless you had the knowhow. I can understand that many of the home users feel the same as I once did. As they hear more of a particular propaganda about Linux over and over again, the more it becomes enforced in their mind - in this instance, the building of the opion akin to, "I don't know much about Linux, but I hear a lot about it being buggy..."

This strategy isn't exclusive to the Microsoft camp - how many times have you heard the same from the OSS community, be it all true or not?

No more blue screen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13124097)

Wouldn't it be more pleasant to have a peach screen of death? or maybe lavender? that dark blue is so harsh. death should be peaceful.

where do you want to go today... (1)

ackdesha (572569) | more than 8 years ago | (#13124122)

You can build it, design it, and it will work great. The trouble begins when you have to upgrade to .NET and scrap all of your VB6 code.

No supporting examples? (1)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 8 years ago | (#13124126)

You can do things just great--I want to be very clear about that--but (when it comes to) the adding of modules...it becomes more and more difficult (to manage). You almost have to start from scratch in some ways.

And just what modules would those be? How can you toss out something like that without even a single supporting example? Wait, this is MSFT, that explains it.

Hey, let's not plan our user environment in an organized way, let's just toss "modules" in there. Sounds like a great new game: Module Toss. I had the idea first, I get the patent!!!

It's the attack of the random modules!!! Run for your lives!!!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...