http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/execmail/
One grain of truth:
SB:- "who doesnt like the idea of a free operating system"
the rest? sorry.. same old tired arguments
does he mention virus/trojan/worm/malware/adware downtime? nope
does he talk about vendor lockin.. nope
same old - linux is expensive - even though its free
Someday - MS shareholders will take Steve Jobs advice and get a PRODUCT guy not a sales guy running the company
Until then it's more eye rolling emails from the exec's that USED to spot trends and act on them - not try to fud them / bury them
FOSS: where's MS?
P2P: where's MS?
RSS: Where's MS?
they are no where cause its a new model - power to the people = less power to MS = more FUD!
**im still praying for an MS turnaround - like the internet tidal wave memo - where almost every group was stopped in it's tracks to tackle the net. This needs to be done again
-
Follow
Oops, something didn't work.
Sign In to be begin to follow this thread
What does this mean?
Following an item on Channel 9 allows you to watch for new content and comments that you are interested in. You need to be signed in to Channel 9 to use this feature.Getting "follow" information
Start following this thread
What does this mean?
Following an item on Channel 9 allows you to watch for new content and comments that you are interested in and view them all on your notifications page.Removing your "follow"
Setting up your "follow"
Did you know you can
sign up for email notifications?
-
jamie
Niner since 2004
-
steel300
Who knows, Not me, We never lost control
There are inherent flaws with FOSS that businesses will always shy away from.
1. Linux is not free. Linux requires time. Time isn't free by any stretch of the imagination. Time is the most expensive commodity in existence. Multiple sources all say that linux requires more time to maintain and setup then Windows.
2. No guarantees about future products or backwards compatibility. MS takes great care to guarantee backwards compatibility in it's OS. Example. The original Sim City relies on objects not being freed after they are destroyed. A bug in Windows 95. Even with XP you can install Sim City and it will still run. Even though that bug has been fixed. So, if you install Sim City, then objects that it creates aren't freed even after they are destroyed, but this only happens when running Sim City. Look at GTK as a counter example. GTK 2 is completely different from gtk1. All apps that wish to utilize the new features have to be rewritten. How is that utilizing productivity if your just rewriting the same code?
3. No guaranteed support. The only companies that guarantee support are ones that sell there product to the consumer (Novell, RHEL, IBM). A company/person isn't going to use a product if there voices aren't being heard. MS takes great strides to find and fix almost every reproducible bug that is reported to it. MS even supports software released by other companies. Adobe Distiller requires an exact OS string to be returned in order for it to work. If Windows detects certain version of Adobe Distiller installed, it will return the exact OS string that Distiller is looking for so it functions properly.
I'll post more when I think of them. -
MisterDonut
The Disco Godfather
jamie wrote:
**im still praying for an MS turnaround - like the internet tidal wave memo - where almost every group was stopped in it's tracks to tackle the net. This needs to be done again
As much of am optimist as I am, I'm not feeling like a turnaround is likely.. Not with the bad press and the perception that microsoft doesn't care about the average home user. Microsoft could really take a clue from Apple on that.
As a disclaimer, I am a PC user, a MCAD .NET Developer, and a Media Center PC owner (one of the few and proud).
-
MisterDonut
The Disco Godfather
steel301 wrote:There are inherent flaws with FOSS that businesses will always shy away from.
1. Linux is not free. Linux requires time. Time isn't free by any stretch of the imagination. Time is the most expensive commodity in existence. Multiple sources all say that linux requires more time to maintain and setup then Windows.
2. No guarantees about future products or backwards compatibility. MS takes great care to guarantee backwards compatibility in it's OS. Example. The original Sim City relies on objects not being freed after they are destroyed. A bug in Windows 95. Even with XP you can install Sim City and it will still run. Even though that bug has been fixed. So, if you install Sim City, then objects that it creates aren't freed even after they are destroyed, but this only happens when running Sim City. Look at GTK as a counter example. GTK 2 is completely different from gtk1. All apps that wish to utilize the new features have to be rewritten. How is that utilizing productivity if your just rewriting the same code?
3. No guaranteed support. The only companies that guarantee support are ones that sell there product to the consumer (Novell, RHEL, IBM). A company/person isn't going to use a product if there voices aren't being heard. MS takes great strides to find and fix almost every reproducible bug that is reported to it. MS even supports software released by other companies. Adobe Distiller requires an exact OS string to be returned in order for it to work. If Windows detects certain version of Adobe Distiller installed, it will return the exact OS string that Distiller is looking for so it functions properly.
I'll post more when I think of them.
I think the FOSS people would definately reject your first argument. Loss of time when rebooting for patches, etc. Consider how many people are still running Windows NT 4.0, a much less stable system.
I think Items 2 and 3 can be addressed by saying, "Well, you have the source code, you can change it yourself!" Yep, requires time, but you could do it, if you really needed to.
Just some thoughts.
-
jamie
Niner since 2004
when balmer took over
- every cool product name was stopped and replaced with business names : Microsoft Technology for Smart Phone device .Net names.
- every cool free thing that had to do with IE was dismantled (dhtml / .hta / working code samples)
- the entire website was made over with marketing speak and bland "happy people" using computers
- the internet tools division was dismantled - all IE stuff went to windows group
- Windows went from 99$ to 300 dollars
- Activation and DRM was introduced to for large media companies - at expence of consumer rights
- patents shored up for coming tusenami
- Every new consumer computing trend has been ignored: RSS/blogs / p2p / OSS
it's just sad is all -
MisterDonut
The Disco Godfather
jamie wrote:
- Every new consumer computing trend has been ignored: RSS/blogs / p2p / OSS
it's just sad is all
Not 100%, I think. in terms of OSS, Microsoft is starting to share the source (whatever that's worth) and there are some Application Blocks and other software bits which are free to use.
But, I agree. It's sad. It will be interesting to watch Microsoft slide in the next decade or so and wonder how it happened, when all they had to do is listen to people.
Hope it doesn't happen, though. Really, I don't.
-
steel300
Who knows, Not me, We never lost control
MisterDonut wrote:
I think the FOSS people would definately reject your first argument. Loss of time when rebooting for patches, etc. Consider how many people are still running Windows NT 4.0, a much less stable system.
I think Items 2 and 3 can be addressed by saying, "Well, you have the source code, you can change it yourself!" Yep, requires time, but you could do it, if you really needed to.
Just some thoughts.
One required reboot can't compete with all the time it takes to test every program that makes up a linux system. Every update requires massive amounts of tests to ensure that everything is still working. If rm changed it's syntax, you'd have to rewrite every script that uses rm to make the new syntax work in your current environment. This just isn't feasible in any environment where you actually care that your things still work.
Linux requires reboots as well for a new kernel. You can start and stop services in windows just like you can in Linux. Look at all the people using Linux 2.2, a much less stable feature rich kernel.
Ah there it is too, "you have the source". Not everyone is a programmer. Most businesses don't employ programmers and it's not practical to hire someone to do it for you. Most people want continuity, not more work. Is it not better to spend less time fixing things that should be working but some upstream developer changed some small detail which made all of your apps go kablooie? -
MisterDonut wrote:
steel301 wrote: There are inherent flaws with FOSS that businesses will always shy away from.
1. Linux is not free. Linux requires time. Time isn't free by any stretch of the imagination. Time is the most expensive commodity in existence. Multiple sources all say that linux requires more time to maintain and setup then Windows.
2. No guarantees about future products or backwards compatibility. MS takes great care to guarantee backwards compatibility in it's OS. Example. The original Sim City relies on objects not being freed after they are destroyed. A bug in Windows 95. Even with XP you can install Sim City and it will still run. Even though that bug has been fixed. So, if you install Sim City, then objects that it creates aren't freed even after they are destroyed, but this only happens when running Sim City. Look at GTK as a counter example. GTK 2 is completely different from gtk1. All apps that wish to utilize the new features have to be rewritten. How is that utilizing productivity if your just rewriting the same code?
3. No guaranteed support. The only companies that guarantee support are ones that sell there product to the consumer (Novell, RHEL, IBM). A company/person isn't going to use a product if there voices aren't being heard. MS takes great strides to find and fix almost every reproducible bug that is reported to it. MS even supports software released by other companies. Adobe Distiller requires an exact OS string to be returned in order for it to work. If Windows detects certain version of Adobe Distiller installed, it will return the exact OS string that Distiller is looking for so it functions properly.
I'll post more when I think of them.
I think the FOSS people would definately reject your first argument. Loss of time when rebooting for patches, etc. Consider how many people are still running Windows NT 4.0, a much less stable system.
I think Items 2 and 3 can be addressed by saying, "Well, you have the source code, you can change it yourself!" Yep, requires time, but you could do it, if you really needed to.
Just some thoughts.
...which makes me want to consistently ask...how many organizations have spent their time tinkering with the source code of the OS? The option is nice, but if it is rarely used, does it matter then? If your developers are getting pulled every which way and constantly taking on new projects (applications), do you want them messing with the underlying infrastructure a lot?
Seems to me that a lot of it does come down to availability of support and training (time/cost). I would think that in smaller companies that are strapped for resources this would be an even bigger problem. Another way to put it is: sure it's free, but at what price?
And are we really sure that there is not some part of Microsoft Research working on RSS-type technologies, or P2P? Personally, I would have to think somebody is. I'm more interested, though, in how XML is going to change things...and maybe shipping data back and forth between different types of applications won't be such a pain anymore. -
msemack
Embedded Systems Guy
jamie wrote:
- Windows went from 99$ to 300 dollars
Untrue. Windows is the same price it has always been. If anything, it's gone down in price, because the price hasn't gone up to match inflation.
-
MisterDonut
The Disco Godfather
>>> Ah there it is too, "you have the source". Not everyone is a programmer. Most businesses don't employ programmers and it's not practical to hire someone to do it for you. Most people want continuity, not more work. Is it not better to spend less time fixing things that should be working but some upstream developer changed some small detail which made all of your apps go kablooie?
I definately agree with this.. But from a bean-counter's perspective, I don't think the bean-counter in question would think that far ahead. I think they'd start down a path, realize "whoops, didn't think of that", and out of pride (this is America after all..
) not change their minds.
It's like Outsourcing, I think. At some level, people think, "This is great! I can save dollars and get the job done". But as time goes on, more problems come out of the woodwork.
We'll see, right? -
jamie
Niner since 2004
then there's compliance / BSA crap
linux has none of that ( and not redhat / Novel / IBM - NO real linux guys use that - they use Debian - FREE
as for idemnification.. thats for fighting.... MS LAWSUITS? -
Jeremy W
that blogging guy
jamie wrote:as for idemnification.. thats for fighting.... MS LAWSUITS?
Indemnification protection, protected IP, full 24/7 support right down to the kernel, etc are all required by law in healthcare and many other levels of government.
It's one of the reasons these massive "reports" get commissioned by governments so they can see if it's feasible financially, as there's no way they're going to fight for their right to lose money. -
msemack
Embedded Systems Guy
jamie wrote:when balmer took over
- Every new consumer computing trend has been ignored: RSS/blogs / p2p / OSS
"Every" is an incorrect statement. I think the biggest consumer computing trends right now are digital music and photos, which Microsoft is clearly not ignoring.
Now let's look at the trend you claim they're ignoring:
1. RSS/blogs - Funny, it seems to me that Microsoft was one of the companies that STARTED the corporate blogging trend. Also, they seem to be embracing RSS pretty heavily. I don't really know what else they could do.
Do you think Microsoft should start selling blogging tools? There doesn't seem to be much money in it, at least not for the blog tool makers (notice how many blog tools are free or open source). This does seem to be a potentially large revenue stream for Web site hosting providers though.
2. P2P - What should Microsoft actually DO with P2P? I don't really get how the could be embraced by a legitimate company. P2P networks more or less exist for stealing music and movies (yes it IS stealing). There doesn't seem to be much a compelling business case for making a P2P client.
Just about the only legitimate use of P2P I can come up with is taking strain off of download servers. This could be handy for Windows Update. However, I DO NOT WANT to start downloading my OS patches from some random guy plugged into the network. That is a HUGE security hole waiting to be exploited.
3. OSS - I submit that this is NOT a consumer computing trend. Very few consumers are running Linux (at least as a desktop OS). I also submit that Open Source isn't something the average user is asking for anyway. Does your Grandmother wish to see the source for WIN32K.SYS? I doubt it.
On top of that, there is very little money to be had in Open Source, at least from a purely software point of view. The money comes from selling complements to software (computers to run the software, support contracts, etc). This is how IBM and HP profit from open source. They sell HARDWARE that uses open source.
Microsoft isn't a hardware company (XBox aside), so embracing open source doesn't really boost their income. Sure, they could start profiting off of support contracts, but there's very little money to be had there (just ask Redhat).
Also, I think Microsoft has done a good job trying to "meet halfway" with Shared source. If you need access to the Windows source code you can get it.
-
msemack
Embedded Systems Guy
Beer28 wrote:
2. no gaurantees???? 3 words friend, redhat package manager, RPM. It WILL NOT ALLOW YOU to break software by installing or upgrading.
Really? If I switch from Redhat 8 to Redhat 9, my application will work EXACTLY the same, without a recompile?
Can I take a Linux application written 10 years ago, and run the compiled executable on the latest Fedora?
RPM has little/nothing to do with this.
-
steel300
Who knows, Not me, We never lost control
Beer28 wrote:
1. linux is free, it's GPL, it MUST be free. Time is only a question if you are unqualified to run the linux system. I am a linux administrator and I can admin a linux server just as efficiently as a windows server. I also personally run a linux desktop as well as win.
Did you even read my first point? Cost is alot more than just money.
Beer28 wrote:
2. no gaurantees???? 3 words friend, redhat package manager, RPM. It WILL NOT ALLOW YOU to break software by installing or upgrading. As long as you install software with RPM from your linux distro, you can try, you can grunt, you can yell, but you won't be able to break your linux programs no matter how hard you try
rpm -i software, rpm -U software
If you are running a linux desktop with X, you will have a GUI package manager such as the mandrake harddrake, or the Redhat RPM manager, that does all of the package managing just like the windows add/remove programs in the control panel.
It's that simple friend. Any dependancies are tracked system wide in real time and conflicts are listed. It will never install to break something unless you --force it, and that's pure stupidity unless you mean to do it.
And we all know how efficient and wonderful rpm's are. RPM's are a horrid way to do anything. Apparently, you've never been stuck tracking down rpm's to get something to install. Not all software comes in rpm for either. RPM's can't guarantee that my in house software will be working after an upgrade of a program.
Beer28 wrote:
3. all linux distro's pretty much have support aside from redhat and ibm. I run redhat fedora for my server, and I run mandrake linux for one of my desktop machines, http://www.mandrakeclub.com I am a silver member of the mandrake club and I get support up the yinyang along with free torrents of costly products ect... Just like MSDN universal, except a silver membership is about $100 where as MSDN is about $3000 retail.
The support isn't __GUARANTEED__. It's a few people who will get around to it when they feel like doing it. How is that guaranteed support? I'd rather not rely on the good nature of men for this when something mission critical is on the line.
Beer28 wrote:
You are misinformed to the max. The only advantage win server has is better performance on double CPU systems, and for that it's not worth it, especially if you're running a standard raq mount or tower server
Misinformed you say? Linux is the clear winner on SMP machines. No one can argue otherwise. I'm not saying that Windows is perfect, but Linux is even farther from that goal. They still don't have a proper ACPI implementation, let alone decent graphics drivers. It took them how long to figure out how to properly autmount a CD when it's inserted? 12 years you say? No that can't be right, Linux is next to godliness. Alas, it is true. It took the twelve years and multiple revisoins to even get the basic framework down for proper automounting support. -
jamie
Niner since 2004
msemack wrote:
jamie wrote: when balmer took over
- Every new consumer computing trend has been ignored: RSS/blogs / p2p / OSS
"Every" is an incorrect statement. I think the biggest consumer computing trends right now are digital music and photos, which Microsoft is clearly not ignoring.
like google giving away free picasa software MS charges 100+ for?
Now let's look at the trend you claim they're ignoring:
1. RSS/blogs - Funny, it seems to me that Microsoft was one of the companies that STARTED the corporate blogging trend. Also, they seem to be embracing RSS pretty heavily. I don't really know what else they could do.
Well they cant buy Blogger - already been done
Do you think Microsoft should start selling blogging tools? no - they should be giving them away under new business model
There doesn't seem to be much money in it, at least not for the blog tool makers (notice how many blog tools are free or open source). yes i do - so does google
This does seem to be a potentially large revenue stream for Web site hosting providers though. i run my blog on my own server
2. P2P - What should Microsoft actually DO with P2P? I don't really get how the could be embraced by a legitimate company. P2P networks more or less exist for stealing music and movies (yes it IS stealing). There doesn't seem to be much a compelling business case for making a P2P client. It is not microsofts job to be our social concience. Windows should have built in web sharing - if i choose to turn it on
Just about the only legitimate use of P2P I can come up with is taking strain off of download servers. This could be handy for Windows Update. However, I DO NOT WANT to start downloading my OS patches from some random guy plugged into the network. That is a HUGE security hole waiting to be exploited.
Mom: Play nice and share
3. OSS - I submit that this is NOT a consumer computing trend. Very few consumers are running Linux (at least as a desktop OS). Whats blogger? picasa? gmail? do i pay for those? are they not free? There are lots of new consumer "free" things.. Firefox is one I also submit that Open Source isn't something the average user is asking for anyway. Does your Grandmother wish to see the source for WIN32K.SYS? I doubt it. no but she wants all the trojans and worms off her computer - better go to adaware and spybot for FREE
On top of that, there is very little money to be had in Open Source, at least from a purely software point of view. true - thats why ms business model needs adjusting - like the internet tidal wave The money comes from selling complements to software (computers to run the software, support contracts, etc). This is how IBM and HP profit from open source. They sell HARDWARE that uses open source. and google inegrates un-obtrusive - relevant - key word - relevant ads into their offerings - ms nickel and dimes everyone - everywhere - every point
Microsoft isn't a hardware company (XBox aside), so embracing open source doesn't really boost their income. This thinking will be the end of microsoft Sure, they could start profiting off of support contracts, but there's very little money to be had there (just ask Redhat).
Also, I think Microsoft has done a good job trying to "meet halfway" with Shared source. If you need access to the Windows source code you can get it.
No comment
-
jamie
Niner since 2004
msemack wrote:
jamie wrote:
- Windows went from 99$ to 300 dollars
Untrue. Windows is the same price it has always been. If anything, it's gone down in price, because the price hasn't gone up to match inflation.
windows is now the same price Windows NT has always been (Win pro is over 300 - winhome is over 200 at Satples in canada) - Win98 used to be 99$ in a box
as scott mcnealy - or was it ellison who said - "must be nice to just double your prices in a recession" -
steel300
Who knows, Not me, We never lost control
Beer28 wrote:RPM's are awesome. How is it horrid, explain please, or can you?
tracking down RPM's? It freaking lists the dependancies when you install something that needs more files to work correctly, are you saying you can't read?
1. Not all RPMs are Redhat certified. If you only use software that is supplied with Redhat or Mandrake then you'll have no problems. However, grabbing an rpm off the net and expecting it to work is just lunacy.
2. Not all RPMs are located in one central reopsitory. Tracking down the exact version of the rpm that you need is often not worth the time and energy.
Beer28 wrote:
Yes, yes it can, if you package your software with rpm. If you make your own software with C, and you don't rpm it for the rest of the machines in your company, you are an incompetant fool. It's called the redhat package MANAGER. It manages the software on your system.
Not all systems use RPM. What about poor old Debain or Gentoo? Where is the advantage of RPM then? Sure I can package it into RPM form, but that makes a lot of assumptions about the end users system. Not to mention vendor lock-in which you're so avidly against.
Beer28 wrote:
If you distribute a tarball to people in your company that don't know linux to make install, and then they upgrade it's your own darn fault.
This is why companies don't allow the end user to administer there own machines. I guarantee that the user of the system will try to do something stupid and break it all. This is why people have so many issues administering there own linux machine. Just read any linux support forums. The entire thing is filled with "Why can't I do this?", "Program X isn't working for me, what did I do wrong?", or "Why isn't this piece of hardware supported?".
Beer28 wrote:
You know what? Windows software installer doesn't even so much as issue a warning if you install software that's going to overwrite a dll version which is a dependancy of installed software. It's what they call DLL HELL. Ever heard of it?
Which is why you should lock off C:\Windows from writing by third party software developers. All DLL's that are used by a program should be installed in there own folder and not a dependancy of any other program. This is not the fault of MS, but the fault of the third party software providers. If you want to play the blame game, blame the right people at least.
*sidenote: Ever heard of RPM hell? I've had a lot more issues with RPM hell than I'll ever have with DLL hell.
Beer28 wrote:
Windows software installer doesn't track any cross folder dependancies AT ALL, ZERO, period. It belongs on a Commodore 64, not a modern OS. It's part of the reason they're pushing people kicking and screaming to develop with .NET.
Windows installer shouldn't have any reason to support cross folder dependancies. If you need a dll, you should provide it and place it where only you can get to it. It's called good software management.
EDIT: The only DLLs that the Windows installer should protect are the ones that come with Windows. And this is already being done.
Thread Closed
This thread is kinda stale and has been closed but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums,
or Contact Us and let us know.