Newsmaker: Microsoft's eye on open source

(continued from previous page)

it's more about people taking an anti-Microsoft stance?
Taylor: Well, first you have to define "people" because I can tell you that most IT professionals don't want to be in the business of maintaining system-level software. It's an interesting conversation when you talk about whether you can see source codes or not. But at the end of the day, people want to deploy technology to solve business problems, be it Windows, Linux, BSD and so on.

And what is open source? It is interesting in how you define it. Is it in terms of source visibility? Then, OK, in Microsoft's Shared Source program, people can access up to 65 percent of source codes for our core products. And through the government security program around the world, governments can access even more of our source codes, if they choose to. So we're not an open-source company, and yet people can do that.

And when we talk about projects, things where you build technology and give to the community, with our Windows Install and Template Library, we have projects available today that make Microsoft technology open source. So is that what it means to be an open-source company? Or does it mean that you have technology licensed under the GPL (GNU Public License)? If that's the only definition, then I see a lot of companies that people call open source but aren't, because they're not licensed under the GPL.

One of the issues that have come up in the open-source community has to do with the GPL. Do you think that if they were to make changes to it, it might change the way things are today for the open-source world?
Taylor: The GPL is a very complex licensing agreement, and they are working on different aspects of it.

When you license technology as a consumer or business, you should be comfortable that you're protected from patent (or) copyright...claims from anyone.

I don't know enough to even hypothesize how I would author it, but I would say that in any approach to licensing technology, the following things are important.

First, companies need to have some level of indemnification and protection from the technology deployed.

When you license technology as a consumer or business, you should be comfortable that you're protected from patent (or) copyright...claims from anyone. That should be a core fundamental principle of licensing software.

Second, people should have the ability to monetize that and build on top of it. So if I'm an ISV (independent software vendor), I should be able to take the technology that I've licensed, build something on top of it, and sell it. If I'm a reseller or distributor of this technology, I should have a way that I can build and monetize things around that. I think that's what helps you build a very vibrant ecosystem. It also allows you in some ways to protect the intellectual property in different ways.

So this ability to patent your technology and have some level of protection against it, and in the course be able to build on top of that and innovate on top of that, is exciting.

But software patents have been criticized for interfering in software development. Do Microsoft software developers worry about infringing on patents when they develop a piece of software?
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. I don't think that we work in a perfect system by any means, and we've been pretty vocal about some of these things or ideals (regarding) how to move toward a better system, though they're not perfect.

		Special report Staking a claim Companies are trying to profit from patents. But does the system protect opportunist litigants?

But when I look at the software industry today, we've been getting a lot of innovation from Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, Adobe, the list goes on...of software manufacturers that have built very great, vibrant innovative technologies in a world of patents that allow them to protect what they've built, to monetize it in some ways, and then to be innovative and to do more with it. So I think this notion of unique ideas that can become productized and finally reach the marketplace and be built upon is very exciting.

It's a good, rich discussion to have on the philosophical view of patents and innovation. Do patents protect or encourage innovation? There're obviously two good sides of the argument. I just look at history, and there's been a lot of innovation (in the last decade or so) in the software industry where patents exist and are enforced in so many countries.

So what kind of innovation are you doing in your area for Microsoft?
Taylor: There are things we're excited about, and there are things that are just the basics. We spend close to $6.8 billion in research and development; it really comes in a variety of areas.

One area is just some fit-and-finish, and taking basic simple processes and doing it better. We have a feature called Configure Your Server Wizard, which allows you to go in and choose a server role so you can take a file server and (rebuild it as a) media server. That takes four to five clicks of a GUI (graphic user interface)

More Newsmakers

Give me a break - how stupid do you think we are?

I'll just pick one of the many points where Marin Taylor and Microsoft fail to convince me.

Mr Taylor said "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"

Linux was around back then many people were using it. So if people didn't know about this back then , how did it get to be in a better state in linux.

This gets back to a bigger issue. Microsoft does what they want, security has not been a big issue for them. In the Unix world, were linux came from, it has laways been an issue to have great security.

The rest of the article is the same Microsoft garbage that they have been putting out for sometime now.

I know that I can and have added much onto my linux system without any more problems then I have with window xp. The only difference is that I have saved thousands, and that is just on my home computers. The businesses that I deal with have had simular experiences.

From what I have seen everyone but Microsoft is benifiting, even if you don't use linux.

[katamari]

I'm surprised Taylor still has a job.

I remember when that guy was announced as THE BIG GUY WHO WOULD FIGURE OUT WHY LINUX IS WINNING. I'm amazed Microsoft hasn't let him go by now... but then again, full-timers at Microsoft could literally stab a co-worker and still ensure their employment. Not so for contractors.

Anyways, back on topic. The entire article consists of nothing but schmooze and the usual Microsoft rhetoric -- which you said so yourself -- and it's really nothing new.

Believe me, I'm a fan of Microsoft as much as I am open-source operating systems and projects (meaning I'm fairly neutral), but Microsoft needs to ease down from their high horse and admit that not everything they "invent" is top-notch.

...as I sit here, still waiting for a non-backwards-compatible entire re-write of Windows. Goodbye crappy Win32 API, goodbye broken driver model, goodbye "when the OS comes out you don't have to reboot to install updates, but 2 years later, you're being asked to reboot after installing a single DLL in %SystemRoot%".

[dam7ri]

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Since when does a company that charges so much for a product so flawed have the audacity to criticize a far superior product that is available for free, unless, of course, profits are effected. What's worse is that each release of any Microsoft product is more flawed that the one before.

My advice for those who must use Windows, get a copy of Windows 2000 (by far the best release of Windows), read a book or two about Internet security, and use common sense. DO NOT rely on Microsoft to protect you.

If you still are not convinced that Microsoft doesn't care, think about their strategy on patching their flawed products.

1) Finite support. Any flaws in any version of Windows, other than XP will not be fixed as of now.
2) When a massive DOS attack occurs, their response is to first blame users and not the vulnerable product, then we have to wait until the 2nd or 3rd Tuesday of the month (if they have one) to repair the flaw, which sometimes does more damage.
3) A repeated history of adding new flawed features and not fixing the flaws. Not only did XP have all of 2000's flaws, but it inherited some from Me, read as 98 Third Edition (what a rip off, how do they get away with this crap).

[Philips]

Complete "add" line is cruft.

I was actually very surprised by Taylor saying that it is hard to add something to Linux.

In my Linux experience (6+) vs. Windows experience (8+) it 100% opposite. When you add something to Windows - it breaks. Most dangerous is M$' own software: it has the bad habbit to update system during software installation. I had sad experience of recovering Windoze after *game* instalation, which has completely broke down CAD application. Hint: DirectX traditionally has no proper way to retrive version information. Go figure. Or nightmares of different mfc42.dlls with same internal version number I think well known to most Windoze admins. I had NT with three ones :-/ Recent example is SP2 of WinXP.

On Linux, au contraire, it just work. Most OSS you can recompile specifically for your system. Most of propriatary software comes statically linked and does have no dependencies on underlying OS. Or you can put your /home to another partition and use it under several Linuces. (With VMware even simultaneously.) I did that several times when I was upgrading my SUSE: install OS to new partition and use /home from older one; check if newer OS works and if it does just kill older one. Gosh, how many times I wished I could do something like that with Windoze.

In conclusion, I think -- since Taylor gave no single real problem (real - in my humble opinion) -- we can trust him that Linux pares well against Windoze.
After all, even I use Linux sometimes :)

[jskline]

I agree here.

There is so much "spin" going on by the Micro$oft machine that it's getting silly. Most everyone now can pretty much assume that anything coming out of Mr. Balmer's oral device (aka mouth) is pure poppycock and horse foddle.

What's amazing to me is why CNet of all companies, is buying into this junk???!!!

Cheers

Very well said!

Taylor's comments on the buffer overrun issue was a real crack up. I'm glad you pointed it out in a very clear manner.

Real IT professionals are involved in system-level maintenance

I am trying hard not to laugh. The pull quote "Most IT professionals don't want to be in the business of maintaining system-level software," rings so true. Most IT professionals do not want to be in maintenance because maintenance at the system level is boring unless you are a pure coder. But even then, there is an assumption that the majority of IT professionals, and I use the term lightly, just as Microsoft does, would not have the first clue as to how to maintain systems at the application level, let alone the system level.

That being said, I find it much easier to manage and run my Linux systems than I do my Windows systems. Case in point. I have a small fleet of Windows 2003 servers deployed. They were deployed without SNMP services installed on them and they are scattered around the United States. To add SNMP to them, the Microsoft way, I have to copy a large bundle of files to each and every server, remote in and launch a GUI interface. Ah, but wait say the "experts!" All you need to do is create an file and then use syocmgr and you can do it from the command line! Well, yes, if I know exactly which DLLs I will be asked for, a process that has thus far chewed up more than half a day, identifying the DLLs, writing the answer files (after researching just what the variables should be, which took a half a day trying to find the document with the information on what variables needed to be set to what) and building the bundle. Total time, in excess of 8 hours (I am still testing the answer script since many of the "required values" are set by GPO so I see no point in setting them but the server will not install the SNMP package correctly). Oh, then I have to deploy it to the servers.

On my Linux machines, that I deployed without SNMP, I simply compiled the bundle from source code - no hunting and pecking for DLLs - made some quick edits to a well commented configuration file, tar up the file and push it and install it on all the servers with a six line script. Total time, 3 hours which includes the transfer.

Most IT professionals, the ones that are true professionals and understand how to secure, deploy and configure systems absolutely want to understand and know how the system works so that they can better do their job and thus help their customers. What Microsoft continually forgets is that it is not a receptionist answering the phone who is managing these systems and it requires MORE than just a pretty picture to make them work. As more and more functions are abstracted by the GUI layer, more and more IT professionals are throwing up their hands because it takes more time to do the simple things and it becomes almost impossible to do the complicated things with Windows.

[Sir Limey]

Well Said

Probably the most succinct answer of all. Of course no mentiion was made of Microsofts problems with Active Directory and that you must revert back to command line to resolve most of it's problems!!

Buffer overflows are 17 years old

Mr Taylor says "When you look at the issue of buffer overruns, eight to 10 years ago (...) Who knew that people could go exploit that and use that buffer space to do malicious things?"

Hello ??? Sounds like someone trying to rewrite history.

The worm which crippled the Internet in 1988 exploited a buffer overflow, among other things. This made the headlines worldwide. I even heard about it on TV.

Anyone remotely involved in the Internet 17 years ago became aware of buffer overflows, the hard way. Unix programmers became more careful. As a result, there hasn't been any other disaster of the same magnitude on Unix systems since then.

Look for "A tour of the worm" in your favorite search engine.

[cosmicall]

A tour of the worm

This just speaks of how well (read: ill) informed Mr. Taylor is.

Here is a quote from the article that comes up as the first result from the google search for "A tour of the worm":

-- "The below document tells the story of the Internet Worm of 1988 and how it effectively shut down the Internet. I didn't write it, but it's hard to find it on the net these days, so I offer it here on the theory that those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it." --

Should I repeat that for MS? Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

As far as I'm concerned, Microsoft does repeat the history every day in the microcosmos of so many poor desktop computers today infected with loads of spyware and viruses. And why? Because Microsoft still failed to learn. It is more interested in bullying around than on actually learning and innovating.

Thank you
Daniel

[mszeliga]

You have forgotten...

...that Internet in Microsoft's world started in the early 90'ties... and they were not interested in it...

[rcsteiner]

Buffer overruns are a symptom of a basic problem.

Memory pages which hold data should be marked as non-executable, and memory pages which hold instructions should not be accessable as data by user programs. Keep the two separate. Force all nonprivileged processes to play nice.

Violations of the above should result in a hardware fault, terminating the process.

That's how the mainframe systems I play on work behave, and many of the exploits commonly seen in Unix or PeeCee systems simply cannot occur in that environment.

If you overrun a buffer, you can do harm to other data elements and cause all kinds of reentrancy errors that way if you wish, but you simply cannot overwrite an executable area or accidentally execute a malicious user's input string.

I also think it's foolish to allow application programs arbitrarily and dynamically allocate and/or free memory on their own, but that's another discussion...

[thomcarl]

Paid Gun or myth merchant

Well the dolt is a bought and paid for MicroSoft drone, the article is
just more MicroSoft FUD and rubbish. Action talks, MS BS walks.
The Unix community is getting so far ahead of MS that it's
becoming a laugher. MS top brass is getting more and more
unbelievable.

[t8]

Ha ha ha

What rubbish. This is all the same propaganda you always hear from MS. They try to redefine the OSS revolution by saying it is about Red Hat, IBM, etc.

They know that they can't compete with a revolution, only companies. Then they spin all that crap about security. Hey Linux has better security, anyone knows that.

When anyone resorts to propaganda it is because they know that people won't buy it without it being forced on them all the time. It's called brainwashing. You only brainwash people because they won't do the thing you want them to do by their own free will.

[meshvic]

Innovation? Security? --- please! and yes, THERE is the most insecure OS!

"So I don't worry too much about Linux and open-source projects out-innovating us."

(the same guy, earlier in the same interview):

"We continue to run our lab where we analyze and look at open-source software..."

___

Microsoft should not be allowed to talk about anything related to innovation, security, (c) infringement, etc.

Anyway, my government (South Africa) and many universities are moving away from MS; and why does MS have to set up labs in stead of just marketing or whatever type of offices to figure out why, if the reason wasn't with their products?

Even little kids here know how to setup and configure Linux, I guess that makes them super MS IT professionals!

MS goes as far as giving free Win, .Net & MSSQL CDs (< $2 ea) on campuses in trying to attract students who refuse to be brainwashed by their (probably) bribed departments!

"Most IT Professionals" -- ha! sounds like the promoted assistant typists who get amused by flashy popups!

What's so great about doing something you don't even have a clue about? I think this is where HP is going to start looking at when firing and I'm sure MS' goal is to finally automate everything!

I'm just glad people are becoming more and more aware, a simple measure being by how MS responds.

BSFUD

<< Because of the brittle nature of the platform, when you do that, other things break. >>

Never seen it happen, except several times on Windows. We'll need examples.

<< Is it in terms of source visibility? Then, OK, in Microsoft's Shared Source program, people can access up to 65 percent of source codes for our core products. >>

I'll believe it when I see it.

<< First, companies need to have some level of indemnification and protection from the technology deployed. >>

Nobody's ever been sued successfully for deploying GPL'd software.

<< it takes maybe 15 to 20 minutes (to complete) based on size of server. In comparison, some guys I hired who've only coded on Unix and Linux all their lives showed me how long and the amount of effort it took to do that on Linux. >>

Are these comparable setups? I can usually click a checkbox while installing Linux and get a lot of server software preinstalled and functioning. The following customization and tuning can take as long as I'm willing to put into it.

<< From a competitive standpoint, take Linux, for example. There's really nothing innovative today that Linux does that we can't do. >>

If you're willing to put forth the effort, there's very little you can do with one OS that you can't do with another. Windows is just inflexible. Especially its filesystem capabilities and licensing options. You can usually figure out workarounds, but it can be very time consuming or expensive.

[fredblotnic]

i hear what you are saying

<< Is it in terms of source visibility? Then, OK, in Microsoft's Shared Source program, people can access up to 65 percent of source codes for our core products. >>

I'll believe it when I see it.

you would be surprised to know 65 percent of an application is all gui description and behavior code and that the other 35 percent is actually the meat of the program.

[fredblotnic]

I doubt much time has been spent with linux

i doubt your effort in getting things to work in linux. Another problem i have with Microsoft making these claims is that it is all based on an enterprise environment and they ignore the home user. i use linux at home and my TCO is nill. I really am sick of Microsoft basing thier false TCO reports on enterprise environments. And even in the Enterprise you cant tell me that TCO is lower with windows products with all the server CAL's and other related costs above and beyond the cost of the OS and server related technologies. The main reason i get heated about this subject is that Microsoft would be better off co-habitating with linux instead of trying to get it shutdown. I like using linux and will continue to use it. Dont keep wasting your breath i still plan on using linux at home and recommending it where ever i am employed. just make a better product and quit with the blatent product bashing. if Microsoft has a better product it will sell itself and not have to make up FUD like comments. That is why Microsoft frankly likes making these comments is due to thier inadaquecies in both keeping costs down and product stability. I will also leave this last comment that if Microsoft had a better product then why does IT have to do weekly reboots on windows but no have to do the same with linux to keep performace of the OS up. that alone should say alot about what i am talking about.

[Tsu Dho Nimh]

He's confusing DB and web design with the OS!

"The systems were running fine until the company had a huge spike in traffic, and there were all kinds of downtime issues. So they did the upgrades, added a few servers, some hardware, some memory and new technologies around the Web site to do more customer relationship database tracking. It was all very complex, and some of the seams of the Linux architecture were beginning to show."

Sounds to me like they had a wimpy database back end, a badly designed database structure, a server-hogging web site design ... and on top of that they underestimated the chances of a traffic spike. None of this can be blamed on Linux being "brittle".

Good development

Microsoft makes a few interesting statements:

1) it doesn't matter that much wether you are using Windows, Linux or BSD under the hood, as long as it works.

In other words: Windows has no natural advantage, and one should carefully review the merits-demerits on a cost/benefit basis. And that cost basis should legitimately include current *and* expected TCO. As Microsoft's properietary solutions (and Windows software in general) tend to be so firmly bound to the OS (often through undocumented system calls) and subject to Windows' strong (but undisciplined) interaction between application programs and the OS, choosing Windows-only software will tie you to Windows. And since this will leave you open to the classical single-source dependency trap, you have a strong argument right there to go with application software that is OS-agnostic.

By that logic, Open Source is a credible competitor to Microsoft's proprietary / Windows-only solutions.

2) you can build solutions based on Open source, and expect them to work just fine. Nice to hear that confirmed from such an authorative source. :-)

And did we mention that Open Source solutions are totally easy to migrate *out* of should the need ever arise? Because it adheres to open standards? Because having access to the app allow syou to write a dump / conversion routine in a week or so? Unlike some proprietary solutions we could mention ...

3) It tells firms that if they *themselves* wish to extend their Open Source apps they will face a learning curce.

*shrugs* Any takers amongst run-of-the mill businesses for in-house development that involves hacking the OS? I think not. Parties for whom this is an interesting option will have technical expertise already, and will appreciate the ability to have access to the actual source code of the OS and third-party Open Source apps used by theirs. I can't really see that as a disadvantage.

And what about firms that just want their employees to use standard software with minimal hassle?

How many need more than a custom-made application to enter customer/order details? Wouldn't it be nice to have that app be as simple as possible and the OS as locked-down as possible and run on really cheap hardware? As in a totally stripped customised version of Windows ... or perhaps ... Linux?

And as regards Office suites ... MS Office is expensive, resource-consuming, and requires all kinds of licensing hassles (managing licenses, compliance monitoring). And be fair ... what percentage of people actually needs all those bells and whistles?

As I recall, only about 15% of the workers actually create content, and how many among those go beyond 'simple' documents or spreadsheets? What would the cost-benefit calculation be in this case?


In summary I think Microsoft's statements in the article plead as strongly for Open Source solutions as they do for Microsoft's properietary ones. Well done!

[cyber_rigger]

nothing innovative ?

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


Try matching the GPL for starters.


.... and how about Munich?

Brittle? See how I install a program

Linux is brittle? First of all, this is a blanket statement. There are brittle distributions that handle package installation just as badly as the Windows registry does, yes. But on a good distribution (Gentoo), see how easy it is to install something, say, the Gnome Desktop:

You type:
% emerge gnome

And emerge does the rest! emerge downloads all necessary software packages and merges them into the system flawlessly. Nothing breaks, and it's all automatic. Who could call that brittle? Or hard to understand?

This article just shows that Microsoft is not interested in innovation or the truth, and cannot come to terms with the fact that their day in the sun may soon be over. So they have to tell lies about other OSes that are sure to take over before long. Very unbecoming, Microsoft!

Windows App breaks after upgrading to XP.

Although I'm not an expert in Linux system yet, I, along with many others, have witnessed plenty of application breaking whenever Microsoft push a new system. They might argue it's the faults of those specific applications. But they cannot argue solely based on "the brittle nature of the (linux) platform, when you do that, other things break" statement.

[lumbercartel]

Cute trick

Anyone notice this:

[i]Your Server Wizard, which allows you to go in and choose a server role so you can take a file server and (rebuild it as a) media server. That takes four to five clicks of a GUI (graphic user interface)screen to do that, and it takes maybe 15 to 20 minutes (to complete) based on size of server. In comparison, some guys I hired who've only coded on Unix and Linux all their lives showed me how long and the amount of effort it took to do that on Linux.[/i]

Notice he just said that there was a comparison, not how it came out. Wonder why? For all TFA says, it could have been five minutes but Taylor leaves the impression it was more like five hours.

Do you really think that he would fail to mention the actual time if it were flattering to MS?

Is this guy being bribed??

Linux is brittle and breaks once you want to add things to it? I don't thik so.

What about Windows, hrm? What about all those incessant problems that occur when developers are too lazy to remove every registry entry upon the uninstallation of a program? Or what about those programs that incorrectly report that a shared file is no longer being used by a program, and asks you if you want to delete it, and upon deleting it, half of your other programs won't work because at the time, they were not running? Is this guy smoking crack or is he getting bribed?

I also love the way he beats around the bush.. "That depends on what you call people" People are human beings, you '****. Trying to say they're anything else is typical MicroSoft BORG strategy. I am a person, a human being, and a fairly intelligent PC repairman. Most *NIX systems do not break because of things being added, they break because of shotty code, which Microsoft has more than a blatant history of, and is more glaring because they take forever to fx it, whereas OSS community members will rush to fix the problem.

Typical MicroShaft tactics.

[bootiack]

Why pay if linux does job free?

I never get the bizarre stuff these guys chant about. Linux works, and many say better than microsoft. Linux has programs to do everything. Why pay Bill? These total cost ideas are fuzzy logic at best. I am using slackware linux and mozilla right now. I would never pay for software in my own company when linux can do the job.

[spongeman57]

Microsoft FUD: good for Linux

Something else the industry has learned over the past decade is that FUD from Microsoft is directed at technologies that threaten their dominance. We're smart enough now to know that Microsoft reacts against viable technologies and true innovation.

So I guess I'd better check out this thing called Linux. If it scares Microsoft, it must be good.

Do these people ever read the comments

Do these people ever read the comments posted after their interviews? Id be interested in hearing what they have to say afterwards - I genrally don't see too many "Good for you Microsoft" comments.

Breaks?!

Ok I've tried rpm, deb, portage, tgz and self compiling packages. I couldn't get the system to break. Sometimes the installed programs didn't run because of dependencies (only self compiled and TGZ) but they didn't affect the system in any way.

My experience in windows is limited to installing games and codecs but I'm sure that you all agree:
After installing the n-th (n>=10) codecpack/game things become slow, unstable and prone to BSODs.

Do theses guys ever test anything before they open their pieholes?

This Gentlemen Is a Deliberate Liar

Let us be entirely clear about this.

This is NOT a difference of opinion, this is NOT "spin", this is NOT "marketing".

This man is issuing deliberate, focused, paid for LIES.

He is a not a "General Manager for Platform Strategy" (whatever the hell that is to begin with) - he is a paid Microsoft LIAR.

EVERYONE who works for Microsoft and is allowed to issue statements to the public is a deliberate, unabashed LIAR.

The OSS community needs to start identifying these people as liars and their statements as lies publicly and immediately whenever any of them opens their mouth.

Bill Gates is a liar and he runs a company based on and built on and supported by lies, not technology.

Corporate America needs to be made aware that Microsoft is no more a reliable company than Enron or WorldCom. It is a company devoted to cheating its customers, the taxpayer, the government and everyone and everything else simply to put our money into Bill Gates' pocket.

It makes crap products and lies about its products, its policies, and its competition in order to con people into buying those products.

That simple.

Martin Taylor is a liar, all of his remarks are lies, and he knows it. He is paid to issue these lies to the public by Microsoft senior management.

Read my lips, Mr. Taylor. You are a liar.

[Earl Benser]

Just what is it that you're trying to say?????

:-)