Coffeehouse Thread

8 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

Linux operating system, Microsoft's top ten need help

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    peterwillcn

     In the eyes of many Microsoft and Linux is always the enemy, the two sides has been the relationship between life and death. But now reality is, no one has completely let down the other side, and seemingly for the foreseeable future, the two sides will co-exist. Jack? Warren (Jack Wallen) that if Microsoft can truly help the Linux operating system, can be in the following ten aspects to their enormous help.

    1, the standard

    Recently, I have become a standard champion. There is no standard, Linux in which to move beyond the current level is very difficult. Obviously, Microsoft is called the standard master, because it has long been a de facto standard setters. If Microsoft can join the Linux Standards Organization (LSB), will bring great help to Linux.

    But what reason is there to prove that Microsoft's accession will help? Very simple, if Microsoft can help create a compatible now (or future) Windows standard Linux standard, LSB (and the Linux community) will be very happy to accept it.

    Assumptions about people no longer on the Office document format or media file format reverse engineering. Maybe Microsoft can help Linux users get a more suitable general standard. And because Microsoft will support such a Linux standard, Linux operating system, of course, will get more recognition.

    2, code-sharing

    Linux community last year found a matter of concern that Microsoft actually used the code from the open-source software. Apache for Windows Server code will be more powerful. I am sure that tens of millions of lines in the Windows code, there can certainly be helpful to Linux. Moreover, the shared code allows the two operating systems can better work together. War and peace, this is a win thing.

    For a long time, Linux supporters generally will not accept Windows. The above suggestion might be against their character. However, if Microsoft and Linux can co-operate in the code, the hatred between the two sides will resolve naturally. Microsoft also could cooperate in many aspects of this get money in return.

    3, Microsoft, Linux license

    Yes, I support the birth of a Microsoft licensing Linux. If Microsoft can release a Linux, companies no way to refuse to recognize the value of its correctness. Ordinary user acceptance of Microsoft products are still very high, if Microsoft created its own Linux, then Linux will become an well-known name. Hardware companies will start to drive its development, a more likely situation is that the hardware manufacturers have started pre-installed computers in the enterprise Linux.

    Is this not a win-win thing? Microsoft is able to sell its Linux version of the operating system user, although the price will not be as high as Windows, but how much is Qiana. Furthermore, said Microsoft's support services can also be charged.

    4, the application

    This is Linux, Microsoft can actually profit from the place. If Microsoft really wants to help its own, and Linux, it should support the transplantation of its application to Linux. This will let sales were "explosive" growth of the situation (all the Linux users can also purchase the Microsoft software), which also makes the development of Linux has brought an explosion, because people will find that the obstacles blocking their use Linux have been be cleared. If the Office, Outlook, Publisher and Microsoft Money and other application tools can be used in Linux, then Linux's penetration rate will certainly soar! Nature of these applications will not be free, this is revenue for Microsoft.

    This cooperation can also bring a different result: Microsoft will open source applications ported to Windows. What are the benefits which Linux? More people are familiar with open source application, meaning more people familiar with the Linux industry tools.

    5, Marketing

    This point needs no elaboration. Linux operating system has been the biggest problem is visibility problem. If you ask an IT professional awareness of his Linux, you may hear a long story. But If you ask the average user? They will know if the existence of Linux, count your lucky. Why does this happen? Advocacy issues. All know that Windows is because Microsoft is marketing team. If Microsoft decided to become a friend of Linux, it is no doubt there are ways to enhance the average user Linux IQ.

    There is also a point of view. If Microsoft really want to support the penguins, which can correspond to each of its version of the Windows release a free version of Linux. I believe many people see this will ask, "Why Microsoft to promote its competitors?", That Microsoft will not do so. However, if Microsoft is doing to enhance its revenue (as stated in Article IV), the benefits are obvious.

    6, development

    There are now numerous open-source Linux applications. Many of them a number of boutiques, but due to lack of funds or resources, have never been noticed by the people. Imagine, for this reason, Apache may not be successful, and MySQL or PHP may never see the light. This would be a pity thing. If there is a way to make you Ke Yi Ying Yong programs to submit to your own to Microsoft, there may be "Microsoft's open source activities," Suo use, you will Huode from Microsoft's financial Zhi Chi, your application may be transplanted 到 Windows or Linux pre-installed version of Microsoft.

    7, universal

    Many Linux users encountered this situation: After several attempts finally log on a website, but found that the site does not support Linux-based Firefox browser. Since I'm not using Windows systems, I often encounter this problem.

    If Microsoft started to support Linux, such problems will no longer exist. This also applies to document formats. This will be a truly open document format open the door. This is a win-win things, not only Linux and Microsoft benefit to end users is a good thing, because they no longer have to worry about file format conversion.

    8, hardware support

    Of the Linux community is, this is a major event. Access to Microsoft's support, hardware vendors will naturally have to support the Linux operating system. This Linux users no longer need to worry about a hardware device can not be used under Linux. From the firm's point of view, write Linux drivers are also very simple. There is a strong Microsoft supporter of Linux, hardware vendors will not be as undecided whether to support this operating system. The credibility of Linux, will encourage them to develop more and better drivers - especially if Microsoft created its own Linux operating system, then.

    9, enterprise-level support

    Many enterprises do not use Linux is one of the biggest reasons for technical support issues. So far, only two companies for their own Linux operating system to provide this level of support: Red Hat and SuSE. But not everyone like to use operating systems from both manufacturers. If users want to use the friendliness and better Linux, such as Ubuntu, how do? This is Microsoft's useful here. Microsoft could easily provide enterprise-class Linux support. Linux version of its free, then it provides enterprise-level support services, this will be a very profitable combination of natural and perfect. This is a win-win move, Microsoft profits, corporate customers need support, but Linux will receive enterprise-level users.

    10 to eliminate the threat of open source

    This is the deepest hurt Linux thing. In the past decade, Microsoft has the true essence of the "FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt, or fear, unwarranted suspicion)" weapon to discredit Linux. Most users (from home users to business users) are because of this reason on Linux shunned.

    If Microsoft is able to support Linux, FUD will naturally end, which will allow Linux benefit. Later will not have Microsoft-funded report to insinuate Windows less secure than Linux good; and Ballmer will not brandish arms roar, to smear all the open source Linux and all things related.

    You may never think of my pen to write this article, but I do think that if Microsoft can sincerely welcomed with open arms Linux, on Linux will have a positive impact. Of course, I will not publish or disseminate any rumors, I only discuss the possibilities.

  • User profile image
    PaoloM

    And why would Microsoft want to help Linux? Where's the money in that?

  • User profile image
    magicalclick

    Asking MS going Open Source != Asking MS to support Linux. And I would rather MS going Open Source than the later. But, no Open Source on major product lines.  Open Source is a leecher community and I don't like it. If it is small free fun stuff like, Windows Live Apps, yeah, open source would make it expend faster.

     

    BTW, I have to repeat, Open Source is a leecher community. At one point, it is good to share knowledge. But, for a major company like MS, it will most likely be a seeder and everyone leech out of it. Sure, if MS is lazy enough, it will just wait for seeders and leech out of it. And I don't like the sound of that either.

    Leaving WM on 5/2018 if no apps, no dedicated billboards where I drive, no Store name.
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    jh71283

    For what it's worth, you REALLY need to proof read your posts.

    this post is very hard to read, it barely flows due to a lack of grammar and (I assume) missing words.

     

    I had to keep stopping and re-reading parts just to try and take it in.

  • User profile image
    AndyC

    1. LSB is a joke. Honestly it is.

    2. If you want to run Apache on Windows, you can. Apache is even optimised for running on Windows. No code sharing needed.

    3. Why would they need to license it? Anyone can release a Linux distro if they want to. Although how that would benefit Microsoft is beyond me. And why the Linux community would need another distribution is another thing.

    4. Linux users don't pay for software. Generally they're trying to avoid costs entirely. Simple as that.

    5. Why should Microsoft pay for this? Why aren't RedHat, Ubuntu, Novell running massive expensive ad campaigns then? Oh yeah, see reply #4.

    6. Name just 1 application (i.e. not Window manager or OS tool) that runs on Linux which doesn't either run on Windows or have numerous equivalents on Windows already.

    7. Or you could run Windows and not make your life difficult.

    8. If Linux lacks hardware support, why are RedHat, Novell, Ubuntu etc not working with hardware ISV's to make it easier to support hardware under Linux? Why are they not funding this? Oh yeah, point #4 again.

    9. Linux support might or might not be profitable. In my experience as a systems administrator, enterprise level support is ridiculously expensive compared to Windows. That's why Windows is becoming an ever more present entity in the datacentre. The "charge only for support" model turns out to be poor for customers.

    10. If many eyes make all bugs shallow, surely many eyes must make all patent threats shallow too? I shall leave you to ponder on why that isn't true.

  • User profile image
    cheong

    AndyC said:

    1. LSB is a joke. Honestly it is.

    2. If you want to run Apache on Windows, you can. Apache is even optimised for running on Windows. No code sharing needed.

    3. Why would they need to license it? Anyone can release a Linux distro if they want to. Although how that would benefit Microsoft is beyond me. And why the Linux community would need another distribution is another thing.

    4. Linux users don't pay for software. Generally they're trying to avoid costs entirely. Simple as that.

    5. Why should Microsoft pay for this? Why aren't RedHat, Ubuntu, Novell running massive expensive ad campaigns then? Oh yeah, see reply #4.

    6. Name just 1 application (i.e. not Window manager or OS tool) that runs on Linux which doesn't either run on Windows or have numerous equivalents on Windows already.

    7. Or you could run Windows and not make your life difficult.

    8. If Linux lacks hardware support, why are RedHat, Novell, Ubuntu etc not working with hardware ISV's to make it easier to support hardware under Linux? Why are they not funding this? Oh yeah, point #4 again.

    9. Linux support might or might not be profitable. In my experience as a systems administrator, enterprise level support is ridiculously expensive compared to Windows. That's why Windows is becoming an ever more present entity in the datacentre. The "charge only for support" model turns out to be poor for customers.

    10. If many eyes make all bugs shallow, surely many eyes must make all patent threats shallow too? I shall leave you to ponder on why that isn't true.

    I have some thought about what you've written.

     

    4) Actually as a Linux user, I prefer donation over payment. Payment's like buying license and don't much the theme of "free software". Wink

     

    6) DNS server. Windows server DNS is much much inferior than BIND (*nix equivalent). A certain  Windows ports of BIND that I known of doesn't provide update for a long time that makes it 4 or 5 minor versions older than the origional.

     

    Sure if you want to host your domain names, you'll find some DNS hosting services. But if you want a DNS server in your company to enforce stricter network management, I found working with Linux server is necessary.

     

    9) Not sure in U.S., but in Hong Kong I noticed no significant raise on Linux Administrators' salary / Linux server maintenance fee. IMO, that's one of the reasons why there's fewer people with Linux administration ability out there in job market.

    Recent Achievement unlocked: Code Avenger Tier 4/6: You see dead program. A lot!
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    Shining Arcanine

    1. Linux is meant to be a UNIX clone. It should abide by POSIX and little else.
    2. There really is not much Microsoft could contribute to Linux aside from device drivers for things like XBox game controllers. I am sure that the WINE project could gain a great deal if Microsoft made even its old code available under a MIT license. At the same time, WINE is an emulation layer for UNIX operating systems, and not Linux in particular.
    3. Microsoft does not need Linux at all. They had their own UNIX operating system, which they abandoned like an irresponsible parent for IBM's OS/2, before having a change of heart and creating Windows. They sold Xenix to SCO because of that. See the Xenix article at Wikipedia. With that said, SCO is not worth much anymore and I think Microsoft owns a great deal of the stock anyway (25%, which is worth $250,000). It probably would not hurt them to buy some more stock and force SCO to sell Xenix back to them, although I doubt they would do that, even though it would cost next to nothing for them.
    4. Microsoft is more interested in selling Windows so that other people make software for it than they are in writing their own. The only significant exception to this is Microsoft Office, which I imagine that they could port to Linux if they wanted to port it.
    5. I do not think Microsoft wants Linux to become visible to users. This is why they often offer to give Windows to organizations practically for free to keep their users from learning that alternatives exist.
    6. I think Microsoft wants to be in the position that other people modify their operating systems to run software written for Windows, which ensures that the safe bet for third party developers to make is to develop software for Windows, ensuring that Microsoft gets the lion's share of the market while others fight for scraps. I also think that the European Union helped strengthen this position by forcing Microsoft to release documentation that helped third parties write better software for Windows.
    7. These problems would still exist as that is what happens when people write websites for broken browsers for more than a decade. Microsoft cannot fix that.
    8. I do not think Microsoft wants to help in this area, although to be honest, Linux hardware support is excellent. I think most people that try Linux have issues with hardware support because they use binary distributions that attempt to emulate Windows, which ensures that software people use are roughly a year or two out of date by the time they use it. Since almost all drivers available for Linux are shipped with the kernel, this is a major issue for Linux, while Windows drivers tend to be almost universally available from their manufacturer's websites with bundled installers to make getting the hardware to work fairly easy to do, assuming you can find the drivers in the first place.
    9. Enterprise level support is not an issue for Linux. See consulting services available for Linux and the Calculate Linux distribution. A real issue with corporations is that executives tend to believe Microsoft's deceptive advertising, which claims that UNIX operating systems cost more than Windows through gross overestimation of the support costs. Another issue is Adobe's lack of support for Linux in general, which provides Windows with "killer apps" that is not available on Linux in general. That tends to prevent places like universities from using Linux.
    10. With Google's Android replacing Windows Mobile Phones and Google's Chrome OS operating system poised to replace conventional computers for the majority of users by moving applications to the web, I think that there is little Microsoft can do to avoid irrelevance. They destroyed a very forward looking company called Netscape because it was threatening them. Now Google is doing the same thing, but their anti-Netscape tactics will not work with Google. Netscape's principle source of revenue was web servers, so Microsoft was able to suffocate Netscape to death by offering IIS for free. Google's principle source of money is advertising and short of deliberate sabotage to Google's infrastructure, Microsoft cannot touch that.
    In the US, companies do not want what is best for everyone. They only care about what is best for their incomes, so thinking that Microsoft would be willing to change its business strategy because it would be good for people would be a mistake.

  • User profile image
    Cream​Filling512

    Linux is meant to be a UNIX clone. It should abide by POSIX and little else.

     

    LOL

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.