- Related Stories
-
Open season at Linux show
August 11, 2005 -
Microsoft to take direct shots at Linux rivals
September 15, 2004 -
Microsoft ad campaign digs at Linux
January 6, 2004
Of course, he doesn't describe it quite that starkly.
"My life is like a yin and a yang," he said in an interview at this week's LinuxWorld Conference and Expo in San Francisco. "There is just as much time thinking about the competitive...as there is about the cooperation/interoperability/opportunity. It's equal time."
Bill Hilf
Linux lab chief,
Microsoft
Microsoft's Linux and Open Source Software Lab serves as both a place to examine the threat posed to Microsoft products by open-source offerings and a venue for testing software from Microsoft and others that's designed to span that divide. The lab is home to hundreds of servers and desktops that run dozens of different types of Linux and Unix.
The lab's dual purpose reflects an
Linux is still seen as a competitor that needs to be addressed head-on. The company spends plenty of time and money on its anti-Linux "Get the Facts" campaign, for example.
At the same time, though, Microsoft seems to have accepted that Linux is not going away, and the company wants to make sure it's not turning off customers--or leaving dollars on the table--by ignoring its very real rival.
It's been almost two years since Hilf joined Microsoft after a career managing Linux and Unix for corporations, a tour of duty that included a stint at IBM and the building of a Linux-based data center for dot-com retailer eToys.
Hilf said his conversations with Microsoft developers have evolved since he first joined the company.
"Originally there was a lot of 'tell me how this works versus my thing,'" he recalled. Until Hilf arrived and set up shop, Microsoft relied mainly on outside consultants to provide reports on how the other half lived.
Shrewder
These days, Microsoft is growing shrewder about open-source software. The Redmond, Wash., company has realized that some of its businesses--such as the management tools and Virtual Server units--can boost their bottom line by offering better Linux interoperability.
"Microsoft is a very opportunistic company," Hilf said. "It is looking for ways to increase its business. We want to continue to build software that sells well."
Hilf said that on the Redmond campus, in discussions with colleagues, he often finds himself acting as a proxy for a customer who runs Linux.
"They will come to me saying 'Hey, Bill, is this something you think Linux customers would really be interested in, or is this stupid?" Hilf said.
Hilf's ability to straddle the divide between the Windows and Linux worlds also makes him popular with Microsoft customers, who ask him for advice on getting the two to work together. "A lot of customers say, 'I have mixed stuff too; you must have figured out how to do blah, blah, blah,'" Hilf said.
Even setting up shop amid Redmond's all-Windows world was a challenge for Hilf.
He started with the ambitious goal of creating a server room with dozens of flavors of Linux, along with commercial Unix software from Sun Microsystems, IBM, Hewlett-Packard and
See more CNET content tagged:
Linux, open-source software, Redmond, lab, Unix
These OEMs are anti-competitve and anti-consumer-choice.
They continue to maintain Microsoft's desktop monopoly.
I suggest not doing business with these companies
until they offer a serious non-Microsoft choice to CONSUMERS.
Here are some companies that DO offer consumers a choice.
http://www.systemax.com/divisions.htm
http://www.microtelpc.com/
http://www.linuxcertified.com/
http://www.outpost.com/
http://www.walmart.com/catalog/catalog.gsp?cat=395 1&path=0%3A3944%3A3951
http://www.sub300.com/Skins/greyTech/greyTech_inde x.aspx
http://www.linare.com/
http://www.linspire.com/featured_partner/featured_ partner.php
http://www.us.debian.org/distrib/pre-installed
http://www.linux.org/vendor/system/index.html
The moral of that story is that its the company's right to sell the products it wants to sell. Why should Dell sell linux PCs if they dont want to? Didnt they do so in the past? It probably just wasnt profitable for them. This may come as a suprise to people who are stuck in college dorm rooms, but 90%+ of the world still uses AND PREFERS Windows over other OSs.
Apple * IS * anti-competitve and anti-consumer-choice.
They continue to maintain a Macintosh OS monopoly on they computers they sell. Do you realize that 100% of the computers Apple sells run Macintosh? Aboslutely horrific.
I suggest not doing business with Apple
until they offer a serious non-Apple/Macintosh OS choice to CONSUMERS. Power to the consumer!
I DEMAND Apple offer computers that run Linux or some other variant of *nix. There are many Operating Systems that run on the Power PC platform, but because Apple has a MONOPOLY on the OS's that are installed on the computers they sell, the consumer suffers! Free us from the horribly unjust Apple Macintosh tax!
These OEMs are anti-competitve and anti-consumer-choice.
They continue to maintain Microsoft's desktop monopoly.
I suggest not doing business with these companies
until they offer a serious non-Microsoft choice to CONSUMERS.
Here are some companies that DO offer consumers a choice.
http://www.systemax.com/divisions.htm
http://www.microtelpc.com/
http://www.linuxcertified.com/
http://www.outpost.com/
http://www.walmart.com/catalog/catalog.gsp?cat=395 1&path=0%3A3944%3A3951
http://www.sub300.com/Skins/greyTech/greyTech_inde x.aspx
http://www.linare.com/
http://www.linspire.com/featured_partner/featured_ partner.php
http://www.us.debian.org/distrib/pre-installed
http://www.linux.org/vendor/system/index.html
The moral of that story is that its the company's right to sell the products it wants to sell. Why should Dell sell linux PCs if they dont want to? Didnt they do so in the past? It probably just wasnt profitable for them. This may come as a suprise to people who are stuck in college dorm rooms, but 90%+ of the world still uses AND PREFERS Windows over other OSs.
Apple * IS * anti-competitve and anti-consumer-choice.
They continue to maintain a Macintosh OS monopoly on they computers they sell. Do you realize that 100% of the computers Apple sells run Macintosh? Aboslutely horrific.
I suggest not doing business with Apple
until they offer a serious non-Apple/Macintosh OS choice to CONSUMERS. Power to the consumer!
I DEMAND Apple offer computers that run Linux or some other variant of *nix. There are many Operating Systems that run on the Power PC platform, but because Apple has a MONOPOLY on the OS's that are installed on the computers they sell, the consumer suffers! Free us from the horribly unjust Apple Macintosh tax!
Is it okay for a corporation to make money if its not good for society? Do we have a right to be angry at a corporation for simply making money no matter the cost? The definitions are difficult to nail down, but clearly we created a working definition with words like "convicted monopolist".
I believe this entire Linux education move from Microsoft is simple mathematics for them. Linux is not going away... They want to better tool up to deal with them intelligently rather than just sending lawyers and marketing people...
Furthermore, I'm pretty sure the international usage of Open Source is probably their biggest impetus to gain traction in dealing with Linux.
They cannot "market away" the fact that for Microsoft to make billions of dollars in another country means a lot of that money will be leaving the country... When it clearly might be better for that money to remain inside the borders...
Shenanigans like what we have seen in the past (purchase Mosaic by offering royalties, give away IE for free... Screw Mosaic while screwing Netscape... Two for one...) won't fly well internationally... I'm sure the French would love to get screwed by a predominantly US based corporation.
Time will tell but once again... Microsoft is simply a typical "want to make money" souless corporation. Nothing more, nothing less.
But the thing that's most important is that what's best for companies is best for the government. If companies were more efficient by running linux and that helped their bottom line and their ability to compete, they would be fleeing in that direction, and the governments would be right to be pushing for Linux. But if Linux is not saving money to the companies, then the government would be wrong to push it, since in the end it would be making its industry less efficient and competitive. If the rationale of not buying foreign software applied, france should not be buying processors, chipsets, LASERs, or almost anything else from the US. But they are, because it's profitable for them to do so. Same with Windows. The day Linux becomes cheaper, companies will notice. Until that day, governments should stay out of the loop.
Is it okay for a corporation to make money if its not good for society? Do we have a right to be angry at a corporation for simply making money no matter the cost? The definitions are difficult to nail down, but clearly we created a working definition with words like "convicted monopolist".
I believe this entire Linux education move from Microsoft is simple mathematics for them. Linux is not going away... They want to better tool up to deal with them intelligently rather than just sending lawyers and marketing people...
Furthermore, I'm pretty sure the international usage of Open Source is probably their biggest impetus to gain traction in dealing with Linux.
They cannot "market away" the fact that for Microsoft to make billions of dollars in another country means a lot of that money will be leaving the country... When it clearly might be better for that money to remain inside the borders...
Shenanigans like what we have seen in the past (purchase Mosaic by offering royalties, give away IE for free... Screw Mosaic while screwing Netscape... Two for one...) won't fly well internationally... I'm sure the French would love to get screwed by a predominantly US based corporation.
Time will tell but once again... Microsoft is simply a typical "want to make money" souless corporation. Nothing more, nothing less.
But the thing that's most important is that what's best for companies is best for the government. If companies were more efficient by running linux and that helped their bottom line and their ability to compete, they would be fleeing in that direction, and the governments would be right to be pushing for Linux. But if Linux is not saving money to the companies, then the government would be wrong to push it, since in the end it would be making its industry less efficient and competitive. If the rationale of not buying foreign software applied, france should not be buying processors, chipsets, LASERs, or almost anything else from the US. But they are, because it's profitable for them to do so. Same with Windows. The day Linux becomes cheaper, companies will notice. Until that day, governments should stay out of the loop.
First off let's talk about Viruses and Trojan Horses. Is there any reason to believe that Linux or Mac OSX is impurvious to viri, worms, or trojan horses? No. Is it probably harder for those who write such programs to do so? Probably. By default on most Linux distro's security is higher than it is on Windows. If Windows used security like Linux would we see fewer successful attacks? I think so.
Why do people buy Windows? Probably for a lot of the same reasons they buy Nike's. It's a known brand. It works for them. It usually comes preinstalled on the PC they bought. Because the local computer store or resident geek only know how to support Windows. I'm sure there are lots more reasons.
Why aren't people running to linux? Probably most people don't know what Linux is, are scared of it, can't find software they want to use on it, are to lazy to learn something new, etc. The migration from Windows to any other Operating System is going to be slow. People just don't change that fast. Think of how many people are still running Windows 95/98.
Now about open source. I really find it funny that people think of open sources as free source. Open Source, at least to me, doesn't mean free. It simply mean that I have access to the source code. There are many ways to make money off of Open Source other than selling the software. Support is a major one. I figure support is better served to developers or administrators than the average user. Most users won't pay people outside their local stores or geeks for support. I've heard a few arguments about how well Microsoft supports their customers. Well, that's true and not true. They may have free phone support, but on average those people don't know squat. If you want to talk to someone that does, you pay. But you know what? There's nothing wrong with that. Talking to "real" tech's cost money either way you go. Those people aren't the minimum wage temp works that answer the phones. If Microsoft tacted on fees for talking to "real" tech's then Windows would be $1500 right out of the gate, but like most companies they subsidise the cost by hiring common people to field support calls. If they can't figure it out then you are probably going to have to pay (unless of course it is a problem with the software itself).
Complain all you want about any of the OS's, but those who complain are really winning any new supporters. When somebody comes at you with some BS then hit them with facts or at least a resonable opinions. When you comeback with (insert OS here) is crap who's point do you think your proving? All you really show is that you can't come up with a valid response to their point or opinion. For those Linux and Apple users out there. Make sure you help support common users. You want them to switch then help them through the transition.
doing?
Linux does have much higher default security then windows. But that it only half the story.
Even with tweaking every possible setting in windows and loading your windows install with 3rd party security software, windows can not match the default linux security and performance.
You MIGHT be able to come sort of close if you run your computer through a linux box as a firewall, but you still have to deal with crappy MS design decisions like dll's and its software management that slowly degrade your system over a short period of time. Besides, if someone is going to take the time to set up a seperate linux box, why not use it for your computing tasks?
First off let's talk about Viruses and Trojan Horses. Is there any reason to believe that Linux or Mac OSX is impurvious to viri, worms, or trojan horses? No. Is it probably harder for those who write such programs to do so? Probably. By default on most Linux distro's security is higher than it is on Windows. If Windows used security like Linux would we see fewer successful attacks? I think so.
Why do people buy Windows? Probably for a lot of the same reasons they buy Nike's. It's a known brand. It works for them. It usually comes preinstalled on the PC they bought. Because the local computer store or resident geek only know how to support Windows. I'm sure there are lots more reasons.
Why aren't people running to linux? Probably most people don't know what Linux is, are scared of it, can't find software they want to use on it, are to lazy to learn something new, etc. The migration from Windows to any other Operating System is going to be slow. People just don't change that fast. Think of how many people are still running Windows 95/98.
Now about open source. I really find it funny that people think of open sources as free source. Open Source, at least to me, doesn't mean free. It simply mean that I have access to the source code. There are many ways to make money off of Open Source other than selling the software. Support is a major one. I figure support is better served to developers or administrators than the average user. Most users won't pay people outside their local stores or geeks for support. I've heard a few arguments about how well Microsoft supports their customers. Well, that's true and not true. They may have free phone support, but on average those people don't know squat. If you want to talk to someone that does, you pay. But you know what? There's nothing wrong with that. Talking to "real" tech's cost money either way you go. Those people aren't the minimum wage temp works that answer the phones. If Microsoft tacted on fees for talking to "real" tech's then Windows would be $1500 right out of the gate, but like most companies they subsidise the cost by hiring common people to field support calls. If they can't figure it out then you are probably going to have to pay (unless of course it is a problem with the software itself).
Complain all you want about any of the OS's, but those who complain are really winning any new supporters. When somebody comes at you with some BS then hit them with facts or at least a resonable opinions. When you comeback with (insert OS here) is crap who's point do you think your proving? All you really show is that you can't come up with a valid response to their point or opinion. For those Linux and Apple users out there. Make sure you help support common users. You want them to switch then help them through the transition.
doing?
Linux does have much higher default security then windows. But that it only half the story.
Even with tweaking every possible setting in windows and loading your windows install with 3rd party security software, windows can not match the default linux security and performance.
You MIGHT be able to come sort of close if you run your computer through a linux box as a firewall, but you still have to deal with crappy MS design decisions like dll's and its software management that slowly degrade your system over a short period of time. Besides, if someone is going to take the time to set up a seperate linux box, why not use it for your computing tasks?
Or how to get rid of them...
Watch and learn.
Or how to get rid of them...
Watch and learn.
Now before you guys start giving me a hard time understand I don't care. If Microsoft can get idea's from linux and successfully use them in Windows that's fine with me. Under the same token, in my opinion, there is nothing wrong with Linux, Apple, or anybody else using concepts found in Microsoft products if they can successfully use them in their own products (well as long as it doesn't violate any laws or licences).
Now before you guys start giving me a hard time understand I don't care. If Microsoft can get idea's from linux and successfully use them in Windows that's fine with me. Under the same token, in my opinion, there is nothing wrong with Linux, Apple, or anybody else using concepts found in Microsoft products if they can successfully use them in their own products (well as long as it doesn't violate any laws or licences).
Good for "The Godfather"/Mafia & for Citizen Gates / Monopoly.
IF UNIX / LINUX / MAC OSX are such a "small insignificant
market share" to the Microsith Monopoly, then WHY do they
create a MS-Linux-UNIX Lab to study how to be more
"compliant" with them or to eventually devoir them because they
are SUCH a threat to their illegal monopoly?
Why does MS spend billions on PR/advertising if they are a
monopoly to convince people to "do XP", "Try Windows"
"Windows can be creative & friendly XPerience too"...?
Why does MS have a Macintosh Business Unit on their Redmond
Campus to develop MS software for the latest Apple Computers
UNIX OSX?
A: 90% market share is not enough. Kill ALL competition to own
100%.
Keep you friends close & your enemies closer...
Good for "The Godfather"/Mafia & for Citizen Gates / Monopoly.
IF UNIX / LINUX / MAC OSX are such a "small insignificant
market share" to the Microsith Monopoly, then WHY do they
create a MS-Linux-UNIX Lab to study how to be more
"compliant" with them or to eventually devoir them because they
are SUCH a threat to their illegal monopoly?
Why does MS spend billions on PR/advertising if they are a
monopoly to convince people to "do XP", "Try Windows"
"Windows can be creative & friendly XPerience too"...?
Why does MS have a Macintosh Business Unit on their Redmond
Campus to develop MS software for the latest Apple Computers
UNIX OSX?
A: 90% market share is not enough. Kill ALL competition to own
100%.
Keep you friends close & your enemies closer...
http://www.apple.com/macmini/
Set a space-saving Mac mini atop your PC workstation and add a
KVM switch to share a PC keyboard, monitor and mouse.
One computer that is Mac OSX / Unix / Linux & Open Source
friendly via Terminal / Microsoft Office Suite for Mac is
seamlessly compatible with Microsoft Office for Windows XP /
Virtual PC / SOON (2006) to be INTEL based MacIntel so Mac OSX
Tiger & Windows OS's will run on ONE computer.
Basically it is windows without the bugs.
I also root for Mac. I started on a Commodore PET, then a Vic 20, Commodore 64 and Apple II. I've used every Apple computer except the first one. I loved the Apple II. I used the Lisa and all the Macs right up to the G5. I prefer Windows. I would love to see Mac grow to a significant market share, but I don?t see anything in their marketing or development to actually achieve that. Seems they spend most of their effort with the iPod... Who knows what the future will bring.
http://www.apple.com/macmini/
Set a space-saving Mac mini atop your PC workstation and add a
KVM switch to share a PC keyboard, monitor and mouse.
One computer that is Mac OSX / Unix / Linux & Open Source
friendly via Terminal / Microsoft Office Suite for Mac is
seamlessly compatible with Microsoft Office for Windows XP /
Virtual PC / SOON (2006) to be INTEL based MacIntel so Mac OSX
Tiger & Windows OS's will run on ONE computer.
Basically it is windows without the bugs.
I also root for Mac. I started on a Commodore PET, then a Vic 20, Commodore 64 and Apple II. I've used every Apple computer except the first one. I loved the Apple II. I used the Lisa and all the Macs right up to the G5. I prefer Windows. I would love to see Mac grow to a significant market share, but I don?t see anything in their marketing or development to actually achieve that. Seems they spend most of their effort with the iPod... Who knows what the future will bring.
http://jmaximus.blogspot.com
- More worms than a rotten apple
- by jmaximus9 August 16, 2005 11:43 PM PDT
- More security holes than swiss cheese.
- Reply to this comment
-
-
- worms
- by October 13, 2005 1:16 PM PDT
- What, Linux? If so, bull. Linux makes up a small market than MAC, and harldy anyone writes viruses/worms/trojans for Mac, let alone Linux. Why, when 90% of the market is MSN owned
-
-
(90 Comments)http://jmaximus.blogspot.com