Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Operating Systems Software Linux

Microsoft's Platform Strategist Speaks On Linux 620

Posted by timothy from the odd-analogies dept.
prostoalex writes "Martin Taylor, general manager for platform strategies at Microsoft, was interviewed by CRN magazine on Linux, open source development, and Microsoft's official stand on it."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft's Platform Strategist Speaks On Linux More

Microsoft's Platform Strategist Speaks On Linux

Comments Filter:

  • hell hath frozen over (Score:5, Funny)

    by everyplace ( 527571 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @07:35PM (#8379674) Homepage
    what's next? apple gets sued for music copyright infringement? oh wait...

  • Didn't read the article... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @07:35PM (#8379678)
    ...but I bet he's against it

  • Windows OpenSource??? (Score:5, Funny)

    by stonebeat.org ( 562495 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @07:36PM (#8379694) Homepage
    Didn't MS just released the source code for Windows a few days back???? ;)

    • Re:Windows OpenSource??? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Open $ource Advocate ( 754298 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @07:46PM (#8379837)
      I realize you're joking, but they really should. Open up the code and make it Open Source! Actual license costs for Windows account for a small fraction of the TCO for a company. Along with buying a copy, there's service and support, areas which Microsoft could make a killing on.

      And if other companies are offering "Windows distros", this would enable Microsoft to regain a leadership position in the industry. Not to mention that they would get the benefits of Open Source as well -- when you open the code, you get a lot of developers who are willing to work on it. Microsoft could significantly reduce their development staff and have developers mainly organize contributions from the community. With the headcount reduction, Microsoft's share price would soar as they'd save billions on payroll.

      It's probably only a matter of time before Ballmer finally grasps the true benefits of Open Source.

      • Re:Windows OpenSource??? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by saberworks ( 267163 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @09:03PM (#8380694)
        Have you ever used Microsoft's "support?" The Network Operations Center I worked in for a while had one problem that just wouldn't go away. I don't even remember what the problem was, but there were at least 6 guys working on it and nobody could figure out the problem. Microsofts solution: Reboot it every night when not very many people are using it. I can't believe they charge hundreds of thousands of dollars for that. And they were YOUR dollars (if you're an american) because it was government work.
      • Not to mention that they would get the benefits of Open Source as well -- when you open the code, you get a lot of developers who are willing to work on it. Microsoft could significantly reduce their development staff and have developers mainly organize contributions from the community. With the headcount reduction, Microsoft's share price would soar as they'd save billions on payroll.

        I doubt that many developers would work pro bono on mSFT code base should it ever become open source. Fact it, most OSS de

        • Re:Windows OpenSource??? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by RajivSLK ( 398494 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @11:59PM (#8382504)
          Fact it, most OSS developers contribute for their own benefit, be that notoriety, experience gained or the sheer pleasure of it.

          I think this is the biggest misconception of the opensource industry. The amazing software developers making some of the best software out there today are not working for peanuts. The fact is that most of the work is done by people for their own financial benefit. I've done it, IBM does it, apple does it and tens of thousands of other organizations do it. It is much cheaper to add a few features to an oss product than it is to implement a solution from the ground up or buy a 3rd party solution.

          Lets look at a non-main-stream example. Asterisk - The Open Source Linux PBX. Most of the development of this software is being funded by a company call digium to further the sale of their pbx related hardware and other services (support etc). Pick any other successful project, the Linux Kernel, Apache, MySQL and you will find people working for real money with a vast majority of that money coming from people who are financially benefiting from the software.

          These are my thoughts, correct me if I'm wrong.

      • Re:Windows OpenSource??? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by neurojab ( 15737 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @09:34PM (#8380931)
        >It's probably only a matter of time before Ballmer finally grasps the true benefits of Open Source.

        I doubt MS would gain much by Open Sourcing Windows... for a few reasons:

        1) OSS would put Windows on the same playing field as Linux and BSD. On the same playing field, Linux is just flat out superior to Windows in most respects.

        2) It would be easy to make Windows API clones, given that there could be no more secret APIs. Microsoft would no longer have platform "lock in" to force things like Internet Explorer

        3) The code is likely just plain bad. It may need a major rewrite before others in the community could start to contribute.

        4) Making something OSS does not necessarily reduce your payroll. Someone has to do the development in OSS, and quite often those people are paid. Witness RedHat, VA, and IBM contributing to Linux.

        I don't see MS open sourcing Windows until they're smaller in market share than Linux. Then they'll get desperate, but it will be too late.

    • Re:Windows OpenSource??? (Score:5, Informative)

      by automatix ( 664568 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @07:47PM (#8379849) Homepage
      Speaking of... here is a good review [kuro5hin.org] of the contents of the win2000 zipfile. Suitable for developers to read (no direct excerpts or specifics), and quite amusing.
      • Holy cow! From what I read of the comments, it seems that there's a boat-load of code in the WindowsXX OS that are designed to "make my specific old software work with this newer OS." How incredibly wrong is this?

        I'm not a software engineer, but it seems to me that the OS should offer a rigid set of services and functions to the programs that are supposed to run within the environment provided to them. Am I wrong about this?

        If the programs are misbehaving, the programs should be fixed, not the OS. Th

        • Re:Windows OpenSource??? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by drsmithy ( 35869 ) <drsmithy@nOSPAm.gmail.com> on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @10:40PM (#8381651)
          Holy cow! From what I read of the comments, it seems that there's a boat-load of code in the WindowsXX OS that are designed to "make my specific old software work with this newer OS." How incredibly wrong is this?

          That depends on whether you're an academic or a businessman.

          I'm not a software engineer, but it seems to me that the OS should offer a rigid set of services and functions to the programs that are supposed to run within the environment provided to them. Am I wrong about this?

          Nope, that's pretty much a textbook definition of an Operating System.

          The only catch is it doesn't take into account the fact that program code and requirements will change over time.

          Also, that's pretty much how it does work. APIs that programmers are supposed to use are documented. APIs that aren't documented shouldn't be used because there's every likelihood they'll change suddenly and without warning.

          If the programs are misbehaving, the programs should be fixed, not the OS.

          In an ideal world, that would be true. However, we don't live in an ideal world. Companies go bust. Programs are orphaned. Products become unsupported but remain in use. Developers simply make stupid errors.

          In short, it's not always possible to fix the program - and the customers don't care whose fault that is, they just want the software their business relied on to Work Right Now.

          I wonder how often "Win32 specs" change with each version of Windows?

          There are changes made at least every major release. Sometimes more often.

          For that matter, I wonder if the same is true of my beloved Linux?

          If anything, Linux is worse. Linus has stated numerous times he makes no effort whatsoever to retain binary compatibility even between minor point releases of the kernel.

          But I suspect Win32 standards among others have changed not only to fix broken software but to thwart competition -- example: Samba. You can't tell me that bug fixes in Windows filesharing also happened to break Samba several times as it has. How often has that happened I must wonder.

          If Samba relies on known bugs and those bugs are then fixed, then it will break. Similarly, if it relies on behaviour that is deprecated, it will break.

          How often this happens deliberately - if ever - is something I'll leave to the conspiracy theorists. I only gamble when I'm going to win.

          This Windows source code leak could prove to be QUITE embarassing to Microsoft after all.

          Given the intensity with which it is probably being scrutinised, I'd imagine any "obvious" embarassments would have already surfaced by now.

          • Re:Windows OpenSource??? (Score:5, Informative)

            by BESTouff ( 531293 ) on Wednesday February 25, 2004 @03:43AM (#8383804)
            If anything, Linux is worse. Linus has stated numerous times he makes no effort whatsoever to retain binary compatibility even between minor point releases of the kernel.

            You're just lying. Linus said he doesn't care about kernel drivers binary compatibility (i.e. NVidia). The kernel developpers do every effort to keep userspace compatibility though, I even remember some performance enhancements have been withdrawn because they were slightly incompatible with some obscure application (e.g. running child first right after fork).

          • Re:Windows OpenSource??? (Score:4, Interesting)

            by IamTheRealMike ( 537420 ) * on Wednesday February 25, 2004 @05:18AM (#8384078)
            If anything, Linux is worse. Linus has stated numerous times he makes no effort whatsoever to retain binary compatibility even between minor point releases of the kernel.

            You're not distinguishing between Linux the kernel and Linux the OS. The parent was almost certainly talking about the latter.

            Userland backwards compatability on Linux is OK but we've certainly had our fair share of cockups. The rollout of the new threading systems (NPTL and the new TLS system) was pretty much a backwards compatability disaster. I currently have to run XMMS of all things with LD_ASSUME_KERNEL because of NPTL. Oh sure, I tried to debug it. Doesn't work when gdb pukes and dies - again due to threading. Don't even get me started on the breakage Wine has had to deal with.

            The glibc/kernel guys claim they know how to write backwards compatible software but in reality they don't. They don't, because unlike Microsoft they treat backwards compatability as a science, as a fixed set of rules that if they follow they think can be held blameless. Of course when you get situations like NPTL where the old system was so broken everybody had workarounds which stop working in obscure ways when the underlying bugs were fixed, this logic breaks. They still break backwards compatability, they just end up playing the blame game instead, which is stupid.

            We could have much better backwards compat without the huge hacks Microsoft use with even a few small changes to process, but I'm not seeing people interested in making those changes.

            Given the intensity with which it is probably being scrutinised, I'd imagine any "obvious" embarassments would have already surfaced by now.

            Hell, if you want a laugh (and if you're a win32 dev you will learn something too) go read Raymond Chens blog [asp.net]. Not only is this guy a near-genius level coder, but he's been working on Win32 (and USER in particular) for a very long time now. Yes, I know some of you think that's an oxymoron. He often posts interesting stories about its development and about the bizarre hacks they put in to work around broken apps (some parts of windows even go so far as to detect and correct stack corruption).

      • Re:Windows OpenSource??? (Score:4, Funny)

        by DrCode ( 95839 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @08:53PM (#8380585)
        Hey, I used the term "Remove this" in my code prior to 2000. That means all Windows users are going to owe me a license fee.

        In addition, I own the patent "Swearing in source-code comments".

    • Re:Windows OpenSource??? (Score:5, Funny)

      by mangu ( 126918 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @08:04PM (#8380074)
      Didn't MS just released the source code for Windows a few days back???? ;)


      No, the source code wasn't released. Actually, it escaped, leaving a bloody trail behind...

  • Taylor says... (Score:5, Funny)

    by agm ( 467017 ) * on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @07:37PM (#8379706)
    Just because you have a bunch folks out in the community that have the access to look at open-source product means that, by default, it will be more secure or higher quality.

    Shouldn't there be a "doesn't" in there somewhere, or is he arguing FOR open source?

  • Does Red-Hat cost more? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sproketboy ( 608031 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @07:37PM (#8379710)
    No troll. Just curious. Anyone have pricing info?

    • Re:Does Red-Hat cost more? (Score:5, Informative)

      by chill ( 34294 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @07:48PM (#8379871) Journal
      Red Hat Professional Workstation [redhat.com] = $99.95
      RHEL 3 - Workstation [redhat.com]= $179+
      RHEL 3 - Enterprise Server [redhat.com] = $299+
      RHEL 3 - Advanced Server [redhat.com] = $1,499+

      The + means you can pay more depending on the support configuration.

      HOWEVER, if you aren't interested in RHN and support, buy one and install it on a thousand machines. Fully legal, according to the EULA. Try that with Windows and see what happens...

      Charles Hill

      • Re:Does Red-Hat cost more? (Score:5, Informative)

        by DarkFencer ( 260473 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @08:10PM (#8380161)
        Don't for get educational pricing:

        RHEL 3 Workstation - $25
        RHEL 3 Advanced Server - $50

        No support included though, but all updates are.
      • RHEL Workstation = $25
        RHEL Advanced Server = $50

        And as everyone knows by now they also offer Fedora for Free. Another interesting alternative is Whitebox linux which is based on the RHEL source.

      • Re:Does Red-Hat cost more? (Score:5, Funny)

        by MyHair ( 589485 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @08:38PM (#8380440) Journal
        buy one and install it on a thousand machines. Fully legal, according to the EULA. Try that with Windows and see what happens...

        Um, I did do that with Windows. Is that wrong? And what's this yoola thing you mention?

        <sound of BSA crashing through the door>

      • Re:Does Red-Hat cost more? (Score:5, Informative)

        by ComputerSlicer23 ( 516509 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @08:40PM (#8380462)
        Here's a copy of the license you had to agree to [redhat.com]

        You really should go read the EULA one more time. No, you can't install RedHat Enterprise on multiple machines and just run it. Not if you have a single support contract with RedHat. If you have original media from RedHat, you have 1 years worth of support that you can't opt out of.

        If you have a single support contract with RedHat, then all of the systems are considered "Installed Systems" (as defined section I.A). RedHat has the right to come into your locations, and audit all of your "Installed Systems" (I.4). They can then invoice you for all of the extra systems you have installed. If are over your allotment of installed systems by more then 5%, they are allowed to invoice for an additional 20% penalty (later in I.4).

        I'm not a lawyer, and that is my interpretation of it. However, if you took the binaries off the install CD and put them on a different CD (excluding a handful, primarily being redhat-logos and 3rd party stuff), you could install that, invoking the GPL license. However, a number of binaries on the CD, they could claim copyright on (XFree86 and Apache binaries for instance, and anything else which has a source license of BSD-like). I'm not sure what the license on the actual binaries are.

        I'm not sure if the license inside of the RPM is the license for the binaries, or the original source. I'm assuming that it is only for the source.

        The actual ISO image isn't GPL'ed. They own the copyright on that, so you can't just go give away a copy. They also own the copyright on all of the binaries. They might be compelled to allow you to transfer the some of the binaries, but they don't have to let you do it in the specific structured way they did. In fact they can't, as they have 3rd party software that they can't allow you to transfer.

        Finally, whoever owns the support agreement, just agree to these terms, and can't get out of the terms for the first year after purchase (I.1.2). Everyone who has a support agreement, must not install the software on any additional machines. They got around the GPL requirements, by not making it a requirement on the binaries, but by making it a requirement for support (and not letting transferring the binaries to you, until you agree to this). According to the license you agreed to, unless RedHat makes a material breach of the license, or you agreed up front to a different set of terms, you are bound to the support contract for the term of 1 year.

        So I wouldn't go around telling people they can violate a legal contract they have agreed to. It isn't a very smart thing to do. Unless you have a different agreement, or you have a sound legal analysis that contradicts this, I'm pretty sure you are committing copyright infringement if you have multiple copies installed.

        For that matter, I'm not sure it is legal to use the software without support. There is nothing in the license which grants you rights to use it. (There is nothing saying you can't either, but it's not explicity stated that after the support is terminated you still have a license to use any of their copyrighted materials). However, I'm very doubtful that RedHat will be coming after anyone. That doesn't change the techincal points of the legality or not.

        If anyone has any analysis that differs from this, I'm all ears. I'd love to be able to buy the first copy, and install it lots, and lots. However, I've carefully read the agreement, and I don't believe I can legally do that. Plus if I don't have the support agreement, I have to build all of my own updates. Really not something I'm looking forward to doing.

        Kirby

        • Re:Does Red-Hat cost more? (Score:5, Informative)

          by chill ( 34294 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @08:52PM (#8380576) Journal
          I've read it a dozen times, though IANAL.

          Zip on down to Appendix #1...

          "With the exception of certain image files identified in Section 2 below, the license terms for the components permit Customer to copy, modify, and redistribute the component, in both source code and binary code forms."

          The software (RHEL) and support services are SEPARATE. Don't buy one, install a thousand times then use RHN -- you're in violation.

          Hell, just borrow a copy from someone and install if you aren't going to use RHN or support.

          Or am I mis-interpreting Appendix #1?

          -Charles

          • Re:Does Red-Hat cost more? (Score:5, Informative)

            by ComputerSlicer23 ( 516509 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @09:25PM (#8380863)
            You appear to be correct, you still will have to strip out a couple of RPM's, and rebuild the ISO's before you can distribute them. However, you do appear to have the right to do nearly anything you want with the RPM's you get (which I didn't know until just now).

            While the support and software are separately licensed, you can't get a copy of RedHat's software without support (and you can't duplicate what RedHat gives out to anyone without modification).

            I wonder how much trouble you'd get into just making new RPM's that are named the same, and just switching the blue and red bytes in the images.

            I'm not sure that copying it and running it, will get you out of the other aspects of the terms "Installed Systems", but I'll buy into it for now. I'd actually have to get a real lawyer to be sure.

            For my personal situation, I'd like to have a handful with support, and a ton without it. I'd prefer not to have to prove I did it correctly. Hence, I'm a White Box Linux fan... :-)

            In 7 years of running Linux, I've never needed any support from anybody I couldn't get off mailing lists, deja news, and a good search engine. I don't have a problem paying for a copy, I'm just not interested in paying for that many copies for support I don't want or need. I need the support for Oracle (because Oracle could get support from RedHat on my behalf).

            I think if you went to the trouble to strip off the RedHat RPM's, it'd all work out okay. Depending on how precisely "Installed Systems" is enforced in the Services contract. My next problem will be getting security updates on a regular basis.

            Kirby

    • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @08:08PM (#8380129)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re:Does Red-Hat cost more? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by cbreaker ( 561297 ) on Wednesday February 25, 2004 @12:24AM (#8382694) Journal
        Totally. I've been trying to break into a Unix/Linux job for a while now. I have worked with Windows for a long time now, because it's pretty easy to break into. I've been using Linux for years and I've infiltrated it into my employers systems in one way or another, but I always end up with the same type of attitude from bosses..

        That attitude is "If it doesn't come from Microsoft or some other software company it's crap." What I mean by that is, if I put together a Linux box to serve out files, web pages, whatever, the way I feel is best, it's no good. If I had to write my own shell scripts and compile the kernel differently then there must be something fundamentally wrong with it right? No, of course not, but this is the common thinking of a microsoft shop.

        I believe in "smart admins" where we can design and impliment our own "solutions" and not be a middle man between the users and the software vendors.. It's cheaper in the long run. God, how many times have I seen a company spend yet another 70k on some useless software or server.. if they just used that money to hire another good admin they probably wouldn't need it.

  • Short version.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @07:38PM (#8379711)
    We read about Linux on a website called 'Slashdot' where they've been predicting world domination every year for the past 6-7 years, and frankly, we were quite frightened. We finally got around to installing it to see what all the fuss was about, and maybe figure out why they make that prediction every year, and well, we're not really worried any more.

    Love, Microsoft.

  • Monetizing, workloads, Super Size (Score:5, Insightful)

    by phoneyman ( 706381 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @07:38PM (#8379721)
    My eyes glazed over 1/3 of the way through that marketing drek. It's truly unfortunate that the Corporate World has forgotten how to speak in natural language. This shit's almost as bad as legalese.

    Pierre

  • food (Score:5, Funny)

    by frogsarefriendly ( 723785 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @07:39PM (#8379728) Journal
    So in some ways, we've got a McDonald's No. 5 super-size offering that costs $2.99 and someone just wants a Diet Coke that costs 99 cents. So do we cut the entire super-size No. 5 down to 98 cents, or do we try to find a way to just give somebody the Diet Coke if that's what they want?

    Does that make Linux some kind of free lunch then?

    • Re:food (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kfg ( 145172 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @07:56PM (#8379967)
      He's productizing Linux, as he has to given his position.

      To recognize the Linux isn't a distro available as a boxed product at Borders, and is, rather, the source code, is to leave him with no means of directly comparing the two, let alone comparing the two to his advantage.

      Linux is an instruction set to build an OS, made up out of the common wisdom, and hence is more comparable furniture plans than a chair.

      Only in the case of Linux the computer builds the "chair" for you.

      Red Hat may build "chairs" based on the publicly available pattern, but, as we all know Red Hat != Linux. The source code is Linux.

      KFG

    • Re:food (Score:5, Funny)

      by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @08:04PM (#8380071) Homepage Journal
      "Does that make Linux some kind of free lunch then?"

      It's more like a cow and some un-peeled potatoes.

  • Some ridiculous comments (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MysteriousMystery ( 708469 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @07:39PM (#8379733)
    CRN: On the face of it, one could conclude that interest in Linux is the market's way of telling Microsoft that Windows pricing needs to change. What message do you think the market is trying to send?

    TAYLOR: I would actually look at a similar construct but a different answer. You have to ask one of two questions. Is it either a) Windows is priced too high, or b) are we offering the right product at the right price point? We position Windows server as a multifunction server that does a variety of things. So in some ways, we've got a McDonald's No. 5 super-size offering that costs $2.99 and someone just wants a Diet Coke that costs 99 cents. So do we cut the entire super-size No. 5 down to 98 cents, or do we try to find a way to just give somebody the Diet Coke if that's what they want?

    So Linux servers can't do a number of things and for a lower cost? For free I can turn a Linux box into a webserver, domain server, ftp server, irc server, database server and such. How exactly is Microsoft offering more value? All they are doing is charging more for their product.

    • Re:Some ridiculous comments (Score:5, Funny)

      by GMFTatsujin ( 239569 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @07:42PM (#8379773) Homepage
      I think he's saying the future versions of Windows will dispense Diet Coke, but I could be mistaken.
    • I'm not arguing the merits of Linux vs. Windows here - just trying to get a handle on "free".

      When you're talking about large enterprise installations, or installations where people want the backing or support of a company, Linux does cost money - ie: Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Yeah, you can download new packages and install updates, but it's easier to use RHN, etc.

      • It depends on the organization. For example a number of large univerisities use debian with no commericial backing support. In that case, it IS free.

      • Re:Some ridiculous comments (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Tor ( 2685 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @08:11PM (#8380174) Homepage
        When you're talking about large enterprise installations, or installations where people want the backing or support of a company, Linux does cost money - ie: Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Yeah, you can download new packages and install updates, but it's easier to use RHN, etc.

        This is an oft-repeated argument "against" Linux, however it is a misrepresentation.

        First, a number of different Linux distributions (most notably Debian, but also Gentoo, Connectiva...) offer incredibly streamlined update processes (much more so than, say, Windows or even RHN). Not only for fixes and security enhancements to an already-released "base" version of the OS, but also to update to a newer version of the OS (Debian Woody -> Sarge, for instance).

        Second, commercial support for Linux - including completely free distributions such as Debian -- is available [debian.org]. Although this will be of importance to some "large enterprise installations" wrt. "buy-in" (read: in the mind of PHBs), it turns out to be less important than overall stability and maintainablity of the software in the long run. After all, the best support you can get for an OS is one you don't have to resort to.

        More importantly, both Linux and Windows have signficant "market shares" in settings where commercial support matters less, or not at all. A typical home user will not typically call Microsoft when s/he encounters problems -- s/he has been trained/conditioned not to do so by now. (Basically, they charge an arm and a leg on top of the cost of the OS and rarely, if ever, provide any actual help). A home user is much more likely to search for the answer via Goole, or in online discussions -- environments in which Linux support far exceeds support for Windows.

    • Re:Some ridiculous comments (Score:5, Funny)

      by MySt1k ( 713767 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @07:46PM (#8379827)
      So in some ways, we've got a McDonald's No. 5 super-size offering that costs $2.99 and someone just wants a Diet Coke that costs 99 cents.
      So, Windows is compared to McDonalds ? True : Both leave a bitter taste just thinking of it and both are owned by a clown !
    • I think what he's trying to say is that Windows is bloated and that continued usage can cause serious health problems such as morbid obesity and heart disease.
    • But Windows server also includes Media Player. This is clearly a feature that data centers can't do without!

    • With respect.. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ackthpt ( 218170 ) * on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @07:48PM (#8379862) Homepage Journal
      So Linux servers can't do a number of things and for a lower cost? For free I can turn a Linux box into a webserver, domain server, ftp server, irc server, database server and such. How exactly is Microsoft offering more value? All they are doing is charging more for their product.

      You don't really do it for free. It takes your time to recompile your kernal if you don't want a swiss-army-knife operating system like Windows. There's free software for pretty much each of the apps you've described, with varying capability and premium software you can buy, too, for each.

      The rock bottom difference for me between the two is with Linux I know what I have and can see it all. With Windows I have to have faith in them, because it's a black box.

      • yeah, except... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by rbird76 ( 688731 )
        the people who are telling you to "trust us, we're better" have left lots of people high and dry before. With open source one doesn't require blind faith to operate - one can actually look at the code. If MS had been better at its job or fairer to its users before, their word might be good enough for most people like me who don't want to look at the source code - but they've been neither good nor fair, and so their word is by no means good enough.

        When MS tells you to trust them, the first instinct (as with

  • Better analogy (Score:5, Funny)

    by CB-in-Tokyo ( 692617 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @07:41PM (#8379754) Homepage
    From the article

    CRN: On the face of it, one could conclude that interest in Linux is the market's way of telling Microsoft that Windows pricing needs to change. What message do you think the market is trying to send?

    TAYLOR: I would actually look at a similar construct but a different answer. You have to ask one of two questions. Is it either a) Windows is priced too high, or b) are we offering the right product at the right price point? We position Windows server as a multifunction server that does a variety of things. So in some ways, we've got a McDonald's No. 5 super-size offering that costs $2.99 and someone just wants a Diet Coke that costs 99 cents. So do we cut the entire super-size No. 5 down to 98 cents, or do we try to find a way to just give somebody the Diet Coke if that's what they want?

    Actually it is more like you (Micrsoft) have a McDonald's No. 5 supersize, and your buddy (Linux) is offering for you to come over to cook barbecued steaks!

  • Yeah.. he's right.. pricing needs to change. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by demonic-halo ( 652519 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @07:42PM (#8379759)
    "CRN: On the face of it, one could conclude that interest in Linux is the market's way of telling Microsoft that Windows pricing needs to change. What message do you think the market is trying to send? "

    Hmm... I think the market is saying, take advantage of your monopoly while you still can. Bundle it with every computer and charge a shit load while MS still can.

  • This guy should be a politician (Score:5, Interesting)

    by blunte ( 183182 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @07:42PM (#8379770)
    What unbelievable spin, right in the first answer:

    We position Windows server as a multifunction server that does a variety of things. So in some ways, we've got a McDonald's No. 5 super-size offering that costs $2.99 and someone just wants a Diet Coke that costs 99 cents. So do we cut the entire super-size No. 5 down to 98 cents, or do we try to find a way to just give somebody the Diet Coke if that's what they want?


    So right away he takes a jab at Linux by comparing it to a Diet Coke, while comparing Windows to the full meal.

    In credible. Big balls or no brains, you decide.

    • Re:This guy should be a politician (Score:5, Funny)

      by savagedome ( 742194 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @07:47PM (#8379846)
      I think he is saying that if a customer is ordering a super-size offering and a Diet coke, the customer is as stupid as ever :)
      • I think he is saying that if a customer is ordering a super-size offering and a Diet coke, the customer is as stupid as ever :)

        Not as stupid as the customer ordering a super-size meal and a regular Coke loaded with even more empty calories. Hint: the guy ording the low-cal soda is killing himself more gradually.

      • I think he is saying that if a customer is ordering a super-size offering and a Diet coke...

        I drink skim milk with my Hostess cupcakes, so I'd call that a balanced diet.

    • Read differently... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by mrscott ( 548097 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @07:47PM (#8379856)
      I think you're right in that he's saying that Windows offers a full meal in that Windows includes a number of services. This isn't to say that Linux doesn't offer a lot of services, though. It seems like he's saying that Linux is more flexible in what they're offering so you can get JUST a web server with no other software installed if you want. It's more difficult to break down the Windows services to get just what you want and only have to pay for what you want. It seems like his question is asking "Do we lower the price of the whole meal (ALL of the services) or go to an a la carte menu?"

  • PR guys need a clue (Score:4, Interesting)

    by zoloto ( 586738 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @07:42PM (#8379772)

    CRN: Do you worry that Linux will gain more traction at the edge because of security concerns about Windows?

    TAYLOR: Security is one of those workloads where Linux is getting traction, partly because we don't have a firewall appliance offering today. We have technologies, but we don't have a lockdown, hardened firewall that we can put in.


    I think it's more of allowing anything with a file extention of .com, .exe, or .js to run regardless. Hell, I could name my whatever.txt to whatever.com and try it!! It will actually attempt to run that way! Not smart. A better option for security would be to check the actual files data header (or whatever the hell people call them these days) and run it based on what that is. That, and digital signatures in your binaries and the ability to add them to your "trusted company database" if you please. Or run the untrusted ones in a sandbox with read only access to other materials and NO network access.

    Does that sound like a workable solution to your problem Bill?

  • Diet coke (Score:5, Funny)

    by Camel Pilot ( 78781 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @07:44PM (#8379802) Homepage Journal
    Ah crap... when I read his McDonald's analogy I just blew mountain dew all over my "diet coke" workstation.

  • Monoculture metaphors (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @07:45PM (#8379806)
    So in some ways, we've got a McDonald's No. 5 super-size offering that costs $2.99 and someone just wants a Diet Coke that costs 99 cents. So do we cut the entire super-size No. 5 down to 98 cents, or do we try to find a way to just give somebody the Diet Coke if that's what they want?

    Linux isn't about offering less for cheaper, it's about doing things differently. In the above metaphor, Windows XX is a super-size BigMac (and it tastes just as gross and makes you just as sick in the stomach), the 99c Diet Coke is the Windows 'light' for Thailand [crn.com], MacOS-X is a slightly tastier and less ubiquitous In-n-Out burger, and Linux/BSDs/... are a good solid helping of whatever healthy food you can find in good restaurants, predominantly outside the US, prepared by actual cooks and served by actual servers, who all prefer seeing you enjoy your meal than make you pay by the half-gram of beef patty present in the burger.

    • Re:Monoculture metaphors (Score:5, Funny)

      by Zcipher ( 756241 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @08:43PM (#8380485)
      Actually, I'd think it's more apt to describe it as:

      Windows: McDonalds: Crappy food, Crappy service, but everyone knows where to find it and there's probably one close to your office. Still, it's usually easy enough for users to find, so they stick with it because they aren't willing to go the extra mile for a better experience.

      Mac: A nicer burger joint; good service, great food, but still a resteraunt, so you still have to put up with stuff like "no shoes, no shirt, no service," and occasional mishaps from the waitstaff and chefs that make things less pleasant than they could be. Also, it's difficult to get anything but burgers, because they're a smaller chain.

      Linux: A big potluck in the park, where a whole bunch of people gathered together to provide food for everyone. Food is good, but there's no menu, so you often have to wander around looking for what you really want. And you can bring your own if you'd like; if it's better than what someone else brought, theirs gets thrown out and you get their spot at the table, or if it's something new, they'll make room.

      Yeah, I know; the metaphor now officially out of control. Somebody call the JDF!

      -Z

  • Translation of article (Score:5, Funny)

    by Lane.exe ( 672783 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @07:45PM (#8379808) Homepage
    From MS Marketspeak to plain English:

    Microsoft is better for Joe Small Business Owner who knows about as much about computers as he does marketing his crappy product from his parents' basement. Who cares if his system is taken down every 10 minutes? 3 people a year buy his crap.

    We're not as good as Linux for bigger businesses because they can afford to hire someone who might actually know something about how to use Linux, and therefore utilize its power. After all, it's more secure and more versatile, and you can develop your own applications for it.

    Linux is actually more expensive if you choose to buy one of the commercial server distributions like RedHat or SuSE. We're just going to pretend that someone can easily get another distribution OR this same one for free off the Internet.

    Linux support is harder to come by than Microsoft support! Never mind that the costs between getting a certified Linux technician and an MCSE are the same -- you can call Computer Bob who hangs out down at the local bar and have him service your Windows computer because he picked up 2000 Server for Dummies at Barnes and Noble the other day.

    Ad nauseam.

  • Seems to me... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mugnyte ( 203225 ) * on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @07:46PM (#8379821) Journal
    First, I'm not surprised that they position themselves not against the tech, but against SUSE and RH as licensed support vendors. However, it seems to immediately miss the concept that a growing number of home users are exploring Linux as a cheaper alternative to an email/letter writing/game appliance.

    As to those "edge servers" that Linux is capturing, he may want to look at where all the tech logic is flowing: "edge servers". If web services and other distributed apps continue to grow for enterprise solutions, Linux is going to house most of those according to his logic. Just by identifying it doesn't seem to answer the issue of "what is your strategy?".

    The whole price point comment seems too fluffy. Of course you have to look at what you're doing! Haven't you made up *any* clear strategy yet? If he'd said "we're going to show that Windows can scale, can be as secure and reliable, and that the value-added product it competitave with the leading vendors" I'd appreciate the interview. But he didn't.

    • Re:Seems to me... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by hamsterboy ( 218246 )
      Summary of parent comment:

      "I think that the MS guy wasn't very clear. He didn't read off MS's 5-year plan, and he didn't lay out the grand strategy so that any 10-year-old could understand it. All he did was waffle and redirect so that MS's competitors wouldn't get any useful information. The article wasn't worth my time."

      -- Hamster

  • Interesting bits (Score:5, Insightful)

    by randyest ( 589159 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @07:46PM (#8379842) Homepage
    I noticed:

    • He doesn't mention the SCO lawsuit.
    • He admits that desktop Linux use is increasing (but qualifies it with "in public-sector scenarios".)
    • He seems to think that Red Hat is Linux ("Do you ride Microsoft's R&D wave, or do you ride this Red Hat Linux wave, knowing there's going to be some potential conflict with a vendor?")
    • He compares his product to fast food ("So in some ways, we've got a McDonald's No. 5 super-size offering that costs $2.99 and someone just wants a Diet Coke that costs 99 cents. So do we cut the entire super-size No. 5 down to 98 cents, or do we try to find a way to just give somebody the Diet Coke if that's what they want?")


    Some pretty good tough questions, with some not so direct answers. But still peculiar in the ways noted above. I'm surprised he gave that interview to begin with.

  • Security == Firewall for MS? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ErnieD ( 19277 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @07:49PM (#8379893)
    The biggest laugh of this whole article for me was that he seems to equate security as having an integrated firewall:

    "CRN: Do you worry that Linux will gain more traction at the edge because of security concerns about Windows?

    TAYLOR: Security is one of those workloads where Linux is getting traction, partly because we don't have a firewall appliance offering today. We have technologies, but we don't have a lockdown, hardened firewall that we can put in."

    Sorry Mr. Taylor, but a firewall is NOT what the "security concerns" with Windows are. A firewall is a PIECE of a network security solution, but OS security has to be there first. A firewall won't do you any good if your web server is vulnerable to a trivial exploit.

    I guess we can put this guy's comment to the test when XP SP2 ships with the firewall turned on by default. We'll see if the overall security of Windows increases dramatically just because of a firewall. I'm not holding my breath.

    • Re:Security == Firewall for MS? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Ugmo ( 36922 ) on Wednesday February 25, 2004 @01:13AM (#8383087)
      ErnieD:
      The biggest laugh of this whole article for me was that he seems to equate security as having an integrated firewall:

      MS Stooge guy:
      Linux is getting traction, partly because we don't have a firewall appliance offering today.

      I don't think MS Stooge guy is saying they don't have firewall software integrated into Windows XP, 2003 whatever. They have that.

      What he is saying is that commercial products are using Linux as the base for firewall appliances. People are also rolling their own firewalls based on Linux.

      This is one way Linux is getting a foothold on people's networks. Other ways are Scientific Computing, Web Servers, replacements for legacy Unix servers.

      MS sees this as a threat because people get experience with Linux using these appliances and then try Linux in other roles.

      He seems to believe that MS should comes out with a little Linksys like box firewall product running a stripped down Windows Server underneath. This would deny Linux a foothold in people's networks.

      MS would design such a box to be integrated in some way with MS servers and desktops but not with Linux boxes. Maybe the new Virus Checking software in the next service pack would talk to the firewall. Machines not properly updated would be cut off from network access by the MS Firewall. Such features would not work for Linux boxes. This would let MS leverage their monopoly.

      You couldn't pay me enough money to trust a network to a Windows based firewall though. I think he is crazy.

  • I think (Score:4, Funny)

    by Kelz ( 611260 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @07:50PM (#8379898)
    That article needs more cowbell!

  • There's really not all that much choice. (Score:3, Informative)

    by mystery_bowler ( 472698 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @07:50PM (#8379906) Homepage
    The goal of "the company" is to increase shareholder value. Microsoft has to persue avenues that lead to more profits. For the longest time one of the biggest issues with purchasing a Windows server OS was that it couldn't be deployed to handle a single task at mass scale. But, to MS's credit, those same Windows servers - well, the Windows 2000 kernel ones - do pretty at being all-in-one servers for small environments. Anyway, it's been a heck of a lot better - from a cost/benefit standpoint - to put up a dedicated *nix server when you need one task done as consistently as possible.

    Server administration isn't even close to my full-time job, but I can recall many occassions when I've found myself stopping services on a Windows server that had no business running those services in the first place. "SMTP spending resources on the file server? WHY?!?"

    I think the guy makes some good points. I was even thinking that it was one of the best-sounding MS interviews I'd read in a while until he said that Linux was definitely being used in the "fringe".

    DISCLAIMER: I don't use Linux in my professional day-to-day work. I rarely touch a Linux box. Or any *nix box. But when a programmer/IT buddy of mine told me he had converted ALL his company's servers AND desktops to Linux without much fuss, I realized that this is not just for the fringe. MS may not be in total denial, but they're still in denial.

  • Change of Tone (Score:5, Interesting)

    by peripatetic_bum ( 211859 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @07:53PM (#8379938) Homepage Journal
    I read the fine article and I have to say. The interesting thing to note is the change in tone. This guy, while I dis-agree with what he says, is saying it in measured tone. No longer is MS just saying this stuff is lousy and we wont demean ourselves to play on the same level of linux, but that linux is now being looked at as a real competitier that customers understand is a real alternaitve and now MS is attacking linux in a mesured way the way they attack other competitors (other than stomping them with their monopoly)

    Anyway, Iw ould like to hear waht you think of the tone of this article

  • Comparing Linux to Diet Coke (Score:3, Funny)

    by Skapare ( 16644 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @07:54PM (#8379950) Homepage

    From the article:

    So in some ways, we've got a McDonald's No. 5 super-size offering that costs $2.99 and someone just wants a Diet Coke that costs 99 cents. So do we cut the entire super-size No. 5 down to 98 cents, or do we try to find a way to just give somebody the Diet Coke if that's what they want?

    Linux is definitely not a Diet Coke. It's more like a grand self-serve buffet, with food from all over the world, for just $0.50 or even less if you do your own cooking.

  • Hmm... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by tsarin ( 217882 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @07:55PM (#8379960)
    And at the end of the day, there are only about 14 to 25 guys that actually check code into the Linux kernel.

    Well, it's not exactly scientific, but...

    $ cat ChangeLog-2.6.1 | grep @ | grep -v " " | uniq | wc
    254 254 5702

    Does that qualify as an order-of-magnitude error?

    • Oops. (Score:3, Informative)

      by tsarin ( 217882 )
      In the interests of accuracy and honesty, I should've thrown a sort in between the inverted grep and uniq:

      $ cat ChangeLog-2.6.1 | grep @ | grep -v " " | sort | uniq | wc
      117 117 2636

      Still.

    • Re:Hmm... (Score:3, Informative)

      by SpaceLifeForm ( 228190 )
      He really meant on any given day.

  • More != Better (Score:3, Informative)

    by dannyelfman ( 717583 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @07:56PM (#8379972)
    Just because you have more people looking at the code does not guarantee a level of quality, because those people might not be the most-qualified people to do code review....I'm just simply saying that more in number does not mean it's more in quality.

    Mr. Taylor, does this statement mean that spending more on a Microsoft product doesn't mean I am getting the best thing out there?

    Just because you have a bunch folks out in the community that have the access to look at open-source product means that, by default, it will be more secure or higher quality.

    Oh, thanks for pointing this out to us as well.

  • Translation Please (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @07:57PM (#8379983)
    I tried babelfish but it made no difference. Is there a web site that will translate that interview into English - or any known human laguage?

  • This is why Linux will win (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pesc ( 147035 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @07:58PM (#8379997)
    They feel threatened by that Linux is free as in beer. So they talk about TCO. And burger meals. And how you can segment the market. The marketeers at MS tries all the tricks a marketeer knows about.

    They totally miss "free as in freedom". The FOSS development model is commoditizing software faster than MS can develop itself out of. And gives the control back to the users. That's why Linux will win.

  • Proof that Microsoft can speak without FUDing (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rdean400 ( 322321 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @07:58PM (#8380000)
    Whether it chooses to do so more often is an open question, but it's refreshing to see a Microsoft exec speaking non-disparagingly about the competition.

  • So what we learned today is.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dmouritsendk ( 321667 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @08:06PM (#8380115)
    1. Linux is the equivalent of a diet coke in the complete meal that is offered by Microsoft.

    2. Free software is more expensive than software with a price tag. (New MS R&D shows 0.99$ > 2.99$. Oh well :D)

    3. To make a modular design, without making the system almost impossible for (professional) sysadmins to mangage, is apperently a very hard problem.

    4. Linux has a bit of traction because of the lack of a integrated firewall in windows(in related news...)

    5. Almost all people reading the open sourced code, doesn't really understand it. On a global scale, probertly no more of 100 can actually code.

    6. Closed R&D work is more likely to still be around in 10 years time(ROFL, a lot :D).

    note to self.. never visit CRN again :D

  • I'm confused (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Tsiangkun ( 746511 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @08:14PM (#8380200) Homepage
    TAYLOR: I would actually look at a similar construct but a different answer. You have to ask one of two questions. Is it either a) Windows is priced too high, or b) are we offering the right product at the right price point? We position Windows server as a multifunction server that does a variety of things. So in some ways, we've got a McDonald's No. 5 super-size offering that costs $2.99 and someone just wants a Diet Coke that costs 99 cents. So do we cut the entire super-size No. 5 down to 98 cents, or do we try to find a way to just give somebody the Diet Coke if that's what they want?

    So In order to parse this jibberish I have to assume that Windows in the full meal, supersized with bloated code. This "full meal" only comes in one flavor, and no special orders are taken.

    Linux is like ordering your items the way you want them from a full menu of items, even diet, if slim and efficient is your thing.
    I get confused when they compare themselves to McDonalds though . . . McD can and will sell me the diet coke I want seperate from the meal. . . but Windows can't be broken apart because a broken window is useless ? Can anybody make sense out of this crap ?

    I think I just want the diet coke.

    --Tsiangkun
    I only need one mouse button to open the terminal.

  • A point Microsoft seems to have missed.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @08:19PM (#8380244)
    A good part of what is driving customers to Linux is the corporate behaviour of Microsoft itself (not just problems with security and pricing -- albeit these aren't helping). It you try to trap your customers, railroad your competition, and blackmail your distributors -- they will all start to look hard hard to see if there is something they can do about it. Quite frankly, if Microsoft hadn't behaved like the very model of 'big-evil-corporation' they wouldn't have fueled so much resentment, and probably wouldn't now be facing rebellion.

  • See, we have a product for everything... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ewe2 ( 47163 ) <ewetoo@gmail . c om> on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @08:24PM (#8380300) Homepage Journal

    Jokes at the McDonald's analogy aside, if you've looked at your local McDonald's lately, you might understand what this guy is saying about Microsoft's future strategy.

    McDonald's used to sell just burgers, fries and Coke. Not anymore. Now we have a McCafe, and salads and chicken wraps. Why? Because they were missing out on a market segment and want to dominate that, too.

    Remember, everything Microsoft does, it learnt first from IBM. And market segmentation is the name of the game here. Invent three boxes, small, medium and large, and claim that's more choice than Linux gives you.

    Apart from the fact that such tactics won't work against an open-source model, isn't it a strategic mistake to chop op a major OS/Applications platform like this? Joe Average might be confused enough to think that Linux is a simpler alternative :)

  • My fave quote: (Score:3, Interesting)

    by cant_get_a_good_nick ( 172131 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @08:25PM (#8380302)
    I'm just simply saying that more in number does not mean it's more in quality.
    So, higher Windows OS sales doesn't make it better than Linux?

    Jokes aside, he says security concerns are because Windows doesn't ship with a firewall. Umm, it does, it's poorly documented, but it does. I'm not sure how a firewall would help against email viruses.

    The scary thing is email viruses work because everything is working just the way it should (at least the way it was at some snapshot in time, a snapshot in time that many people are obviously still at). Outlook is hiding extensions, like it was told to. The people are opening attachments, like they should be able to (MS has taken the obvious action in some situations, made it dangerous, and then blamed the user for doing the obvious). The OS is doing what it is told to when opening ANY .vbs (local or remote), which is to execute it. The VBS engine has free rein over the system, including being able to read addressbooks, open network sockets (most viruses now have primitive SMTP mailers) and do anything else they pretty much want.

    Rant mode OFF

  • Whose value is being added to? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Bystander ( 227723 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @08:33PM (#8380398)

    Our value-add is really in the R&D in the technology.

    A disconnect with customers happens when Microsoft confuses who should be the beneficiary of added value from R&D. Have the enormous sums spent annually on R&D resulted in superior performance in areas that are most important to customers: security, reliability, affordability, and flexibility? Or is it the case that R&D spending is concentrated on technologies to displace existing products and vendors from the marketplace (Internet Explorer vs. Netscape, .NET vs. Java, etc...) in favor of Microsoft, but without seriously addressing the needs of its customers?

  • PR to English Translation (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pjrc ( 134994 ) <paul@pjrc.com> on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @08:54PM (#8380589) Homepage Journal
    Q: Is windows too expensive?

    A: No, we just need to make stripped down copies for people who won't pay full price

    Q: Is Microsoft soul searching?

    A: No, of course not. We're categorizing customers to figure out how to customize to their needs and extract as much money as they will pay.

    Q: Are you going to make Windows do this automatically?

    A: No, we're not that good.

    Q: Where is linux successful today:

    A: Firewalls, appliances, supercomputers, legacy unix migrations. But we're not worried because the ISVs are not big yet.

    Q: Are you worried linux will get more traction?

    A: Nope. It's all because we don't have a good firewall, and we're releasing one soon now.

    Q: How do you respond to the notion that peer review leads to better code?

    A: Very few people read the code, and most of them are idiots.

    Q: Is desktop linux a threat?

    A: Only in gov't and third world countries. We're working on customizing for them, slashing prices, changing license terms, or whatever other "challenges" are needed.

    Q: Why should solution providers use Windows instead of Linux?

    A: Microsoft doesn't give a damn about the serice and support business. So you can depend on Microsoft to throw you that bone, year after year. A linux distributor can't reap excessive profits from licensing terms, and they have crappy business models based on giving stuff away for free. In several years down the road they might decide to compete with you and stab you in the back. Microsoft would never do a thing like that its solution providers, honest!

  • Geesh... you have to love it. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Slime-dogg ( 120473 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @11:11PM (#8382034) Journal

    You have to love this shit.

    CRN: Where do you see Linux being successful today?

    TAYLOR: Definitely on the edge. You're just seeing edge services continue, such as firewall, appliances and those types of devices. Obviously, Unix migrations are happening. That's where, primarily, custom applications that people have written in-house are being moved over to Linux. But you're not seeing this huge ISV community created. Yes, some ISVs are being created, but not any massive ones. And the other place we see it is high-performance computing, scientific computing clusters that have lots and lots of servers.

    Huge ISV's. Hmm... Wall Street. Amazon. Yahoo. Google. IBM.

  • I'm Gonna Get You Linux (Score:5, Funny)

    by yoshi_mon ( 172895 ) on Wednesday February 25, 2004 @02:41AM (#8383552)
    Customer: How much for an order of Windows?

    MS: (With a big smile.) $2.50

    Customer: $2.50!? ... How many bugs do I get with that?

    MS: Uhhhhh...About 5 bugs.

    Customer: Ahhh... (Counts change.) Well, I guess thats about 50 cents a bug?

    MS: Uh yeah, about. But they are some doozys!

    Customer: Ok, lemme get 1.

    MS: Right on, (calls into the back) 1 order of Windows!

    (Back): One order!

    Customer: No no...1 bug.

    MS: (Smile fadeing.) One bug?

    Customer: (Rubs belly.) I sure need a server!

    MS: (Calls to back again, smile is gone.) Make that 1 bug in the server.

    (Back): One bug?!

    MS: (To back.) One bug. (To customer.) What else?

    Customer: Do you have any webservers?

    MS: (With thinly veiled patience.) One dollar!

    Customer: Awww, come on now look out for a brother. Linux costs less than that. Why don't you just let me get some http for 15 cents?

    MS: (With anger.) My middle mangers cost more than 15 cents!

    Customer: Allright, fuck the http, just give me the source for a dime!

  • Is there a MS spokesman who can give..... (Score:4, Funny)

    by rspress ( 623984 ) on Wednesday February 25, 2004 @03:55AM (#8383842) Homepage
    Is there a MS spokesman who can give as straight answer? I mean, he talks a lot but says very little. Does he know the words "Yes" or "No"?

    Magazine: "Is Windows over priced and is Linux a threat?"

    Taylor: "It is like a number 5 at McDonalds, you want it supersized and carrots are in season. If the bun has sesame seeds and they had coke and not pepsi do you get a sprite or just settle for the double decker taco with hot sauce"

    After reading the article I was not sure if I wanted to move my windows machine over to Linux or go out and get fast food!

    Remember always question someone who answers a question with a question.

Slashdot Top Deals

Remember, UNIX spelled backwards is XINU. -- Mt.

Close