ESR's Halloween XI -- Get the FUD 771
dave writes "In the newest Halloween Document (mirror), Eric Raymond analyzes Microsoft's 'Get The Facts' road show. The anti-Linux arguments they are using now -- and, even more, the arguments they're *not* using -- reveal how desperate Microsoft is getting. He explains why he thinks we need to focus more on government adoptions, and predicts serious ugliness during the next year."
The beauty of government adoption of open source (Score:5, Interesting)
And since both projects are hosted on a server running GForge [gforge.org], I can help improve GForge during working hours. Good times!
You're missing the point of gov't adoptions (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You're missing the point of gov't adoptions (Score:5, Insightful)
If the DoD switches in near totality to OpenOffice, hundreds of corporations will switch too for the sake of compatability with their primary source of bread and butter. Microsoft is terrified at the idea of losing not just approximately 1-1.5 million defense desktops (not counting the other, smaller, departments) but the corporations that sell to them. A mass move to Linux, or better yet in 2 years, HaikuOS would be a disaster for Microsoft.
Good luck. The generals and admirals want their Exchange/Outlook combo and Active Directory. At least in the Air Force there is a huge push to make Outlook the standard with a truly global address book and all the stupid little "features" it adds that I just turn off because they are annoying. Sigh. This will be an uphill battle. I hope open source can make inroads into the U.S. government, especially the DOD, but it will be a battle fiercer than any we have fought.
Steve Ballmer spoke at a recent Air Force conference that I attended. He let us know that the U.S. Air Force is the single largest customer of Microsoft. Do you really think we can "just switch the whole DOD" that easily? The military/DOD is a huge customer for Microsoft and one they will not give up without an epic battle.
Re:You're missing the point of gov't adoptions (Score:5, Insightful)
Am I wrong?
--
Phil
Something like Meeting Maker wd be cool (Score:3, Interesting)
Collab.net, founded by OS gurus (from Apache IIRC), provides collaboration tools in use by "over 400,000 users", and I think has a free version.
Re:Something like Meeting Maker wd be cool (Score:5, Insightful)
As to the other part of it - honestly, Outlook/Exchange is a pretty decent setup. Outlook as an email client is awful, but Outlook/Exchange as a group calendaring/room reservation/resource reservation setup (yes, we reserve a conference room by adding it to our meeting request on Outlook, and resources similarly for those that are tracked) is a decent solution. It would take a lot of work for an OS developer to come up with something as good, and the companies that most need that sort of solution (giant corporations; IBMs, Intels, Motorolas, Walmarts) are the ones who are most able to deal with both the cost of licenses.
Basically, the problem is that its a big problem that has no use for home users, and none of the big corporates has shown a desire to move away from the 'good enough' solution O/Ex provides.
Re:Something like Meeting Maker wd be cool (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:You're missing the point of gov't adoptions (Score:3, Informative)
Yup...and another problem I've seen fi
Re:You're missing the point of gov't adoptions (Score:3, Interesting)
The DoD mandates IPv6 since Oct. 2003 as they're going to switch their whole network to IPv6 between now and 2008. It is critical to them.
Now, Windows XP SP1 and Windows server 2003 both have IPv6, but it's not a proper dual stack implementation since an IPv6 socket can't connect to (or accept connections from) an IPv4 host. Which means porting Windows Apps to IPv6 is a total nightmare (unless they're written in Java o
Re:You're missing the point of gov't adoptions (Score:3, Insightful)
If the apps are the same acros platforms, the underlying doesnt matter, except for cost and stability.. Guess who wins out on that?
Re:You're missing the point of gov't adoptions (Score:4, Insightful)
Knowing your baseline is now 0$ per OS (if you go with internal support.. who calls MS centers anyways), that gets you more customisation of your environment.
And the way Linux works, you can have a smart-card system of semi-dumb terminals that Sun employees have. And of couse, use the good ol' NSA Trusted Kernel, now in 2.6 verison of kernel by default.
Re:You're missing the point of gov't adoptions (Score:3, Insightful)
My best guess is that the US gov't pays less than $25 per license. Probably around $10. The actual number depends on where the purchasing happens - the higher the level of purchasing, the higher the volume, the lower the per-license that can be negotiated. Also, remember that its the government, which means they likely receive a discount for that as well.
Re:You're missing the point of gov't adoptions (Score:5, Insightful)
---You're leaving out the cost of additional internal support. You're forgetting that customization of your environment leads to additional hassles applying patches and upgrades. Finally, you're forgetting that switching hardware costs money.
Hmm, switching to Linux requires no hardware changes (except for some wacky modems and weird stuff). It runs on mnay more platforms than Windows EVER ran on (thinking of old Mips, Alpha, X86, hmmm days, forget that last one).
---Ask yourself this: On how many thousands of computers would I have to save $100 per license to pay for a small team of programmers with secret or better security clearances for three years? If you figure a small team is 5-6 programmers, it works out to around 20,000 computers.
You assume programmers. Oh, and I manage all my computers from a nice shell script. It updates them all at once, and can give basic commmandline prompt through ssh. And if you NEED clearance, you're doing megabucks of something. Might as well do it right anyways. You'll need those programmers on Windows OR Linux.
---On how many more thousands of computers would I have to save $100 per license to pay the additional sysadmins, QA, and help desk personnel? What about the project managers that coordinate all these efforts? What about the additional oversight and compliance officers that ensure all of these activities meet regulations and standards?
I can easily handle 5000 clients. Its the servers I tend to want more people on. Perhaps 1 person per 20 servers or so.. Depends how much uptime is worth. Im not quoting Windows numbers either.
----As you can see, it quickly gets to a point where using a free as in beer product and supporting yourself is more expensive than buying from a vendor and getting a support contract.
Funny. Now count how much downtime costs under windows. Now license costs. Now finding INTELLIGENT admins in the windows world (there's not many). There's a good chance if you hire a Linux admin, youre getting more intelligence, problem solving and generally more expertise.
----A small to medium size business may save some money, but once you grow past that, it just makes more sense to pay for support.
Yet more unfounded statements. Why not hire more intelligent people for IT staff. Yes, it costs more, but thats what IT is for... Reducing the amount of Downtime of network and services. IT is NOT for making money (unless youre a software dev)
Re:You're missing the point of gov't adoptions (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally, I've been trying to switch but find little things that make it harder to do - incompatibilities with my clients, things that aren't as usable as I'd like, etc. Without getting too much into it, I just think that MSOffice has had the benefit of time (which has good and bad consequences).
Re:You're missing the point of gov't adoptions (Score:4, Funny)
Big business senses problems,
Sticks finger in dike.
new name (Score:3, Funny)
As always (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:As always (Score:4, Informative)
Offer already expired.!! Don't waste your disposable email address.
From the linked page:
Offer good until June 1, 2004 or while supplies last.
Re:As always (Score:3, Informative)
Perfervid? (Score:5, Funny)
Main Entry: perfervid
Pronunciation: (")p&r-'f&r-v&d, 'p&r-
Function: adjective
Etymology: New Latin perfervidus, from Latin per- thoroughly + fervidus fervid
: marked by overwrought or exaggerated emotion : excessively fervent
Yes, that's exactly what I was going to say.
Re:Perfervid? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Perfervid? (Score:3, Funny)
Eschew Obfuscation! (Score:4, Insightful)
Next time, in promulgating your esoteric cogitations, or articulating your superficial sentimentalities and amicable, philosophical or psychological observations, beware of platitudinous ponderosity. Let your conversational communications possess a clarified conciseness, a compacted comprehensibleness, coalescent consistency, and a concatenated cogency. Eschew all conglomerations of flatulent garrulity, jejune babblement, and asinine affectations.
Let your extemporaneous descantings and unpremeditated expatiations have intelligibility and veracious vivacity, without rodomontade or thrasonical bombast. Sedulously avoid all polysyllabic profundity, pompous prolixity, psittaceous vacuity ventriloquial verbosity, and vaniloquent vapidity. Shun double-entendres, prurient jocosity, and pestiferous profanity, obscurant or apparent!!
From Don't Use Big Words... [abcsmallbiz.com]
Too desperate (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Too desperate (Score:3, Insightful)
To my main point, Microsoft isn't "afraid" or "desperate". Perhaps they've been a bit shallow on innovation of late, but they're not losing any significant market share. Most of these places that Slashdot often reports as "switching to Linux" are either switching from another *NIX, or are only considering Linux.
Microsoft may be running out of ideas (other than finding new ways to keep their stranglehold on the home PC user), but t
Re:Too desperate (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, if Governments (especially the United States Gov't) start using more OSS-based applications / operating systems there will probably be a marked increase in viruses / worms that affect those platforms. Well, other than infecting OSS with a mostly clueless user base.
P.S. I'm mostly joking about Gov't employees, there are quite a few adept Government people, but I'm sure even you guys know about the "lifers" who still pine for their typewriters...
Re:Too desperate (Score:4, Insightful)
This is truly an important point.
Re:Too desperate (Score:5, Interesting)
This isn't all that new a phenomenon. For some years, I've found that a simple way of ending most discussions of the subject with non-Americans (and some Americans
Also, for much of the past couple years, I've been working on a project that amounts to getting a big European corporation (it doesn't much matter which one) from under the thumb of IBM. Several years ago, their management realized that their corporate data was in fact controlled by IBM, and they couldn't access it without IBM's cooperation. My job has amounted to "data raiding", extracting the data from their old computers by any means necessary and stuffing it into a flock of little linux (RedHat) boxes scattered around the Net. There has been much obstructionism in this task from IBM, whose people have been ordered to give us as little information about data formats as possible, consistent with their contracts of course. But they're losing the battle, because for their system to work at all, most of the data has to be exposed to the company and its customers at some point, and that's where we can intercept it and cache the information somewhere else. Thus, most customer information can be found by merely sending us a copy of the billing print files.
Much of our "sales" guys' argument is that we can't do to them what IBM did over the years. They have access to all the source, all the way down to the bottom. If they decide they don't like us, they can simply walk away from us, and they won't lose anything (except some capable consultants
One irony is that we've advised them a couple of times that IBM's linux workstations would in fact be very good machines for their purposes. But we also emphasize that ease of migration is important, and they should always be on the lookout for new suppliers.
You might think that there's another irony in the fact that this approach is being used by a group that is mostly Americans. But it's no irony at all, because many Americans are just as worried about IBM and Microsoft power. Any corporation with that much control over our information is a serious threat to society, regardless of where the borders may be drawn.
I just like to say "giant American corporation" to non-Americans because it gets the idea across better. There is a widespread perception in much of the world that the leaders in America have a very arrogant and possessive attitude towards the rest of the world. Many people view MS and IBM as much more threatening than a "local" corporation, irrational as such an attitude may be. But you can use this to get across the idea that they really should look at approaches that free them from domination by any such giant power center.
Corrections in the ESR documents. (Score:5, Funny)
I made a little chart... (Score:5, Funny)
Stallman GNU/linux Free Software Bearded Chaotic Good
Linus linux Open Source(?) Unbearded True Neutral
Eric linux Open Source Hitler Mustache Chaotic Evil
Bruce P GNU/linux Free Software Beardless Lawful Good
Alan Cox GNU/lin(mostly) Free Software Mighty beard Chaotic Good
Re:I made a little chart... (Score:4, Insightful)
We need more "freedom" emphasis (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux isn't free. Hello? If there is actually anyone still left on the planet who thinks the term free software was a good idea, I hope they're paying attention. Because what Microsoft is doing here is exploiting the old familiar gratis/libre ambiguity of the word free in yet another way. They're setting up for a claim that free software advocates are lying or deluded because Linux has a nonzero TCO. Therefore, goes the implication, you can't really trust them about that other freedom thing, can you?
Maybe we need a better / more effective / less easily confused way to talk about the "freedom" aspect. I'd be interested in constructive discussion of this. But there is a logical flaw in ESR's argument here. It's wrong to conclude that using the term "free software" is a bad idea just because MS tries to muddy the waters. MS may or may not succeed in making our current way of communicating the freedom aspect of Free Software less effective, but this is certainly not a reason to stop talking about "Free Foftware". Quite on the contrary, if after all their studying Microsoft is now trying to discredit the "freedom thing", isn't that an indication that emphasis on the freedom aspect is important, and should be increased rather than diminished!
Re:We need more "freedom" emphasis (Score:3, Interesting)
Semantic warfare -- struggles over the meanings of words as proxies for political or market positions -- is just like other kinds of warfare; you want to fight it on the other guy's turf, not yours. Every minute we spend arguing with Microsoft flacks about what free means is a win for them and a lose for us.
From parent:
But there is a logical flaw in ESR's argument here. It's wrong to conclude that using the term "free software" is a bad idea just because MS tries to muddy the waters.
RMS addresses this issue... (Score:3, Interesting)
RMS addresses this issue in his speech given at Westminster University, entitled "The Danger of Software Patents". His opening line?
"You've probably heard of me in connection with free software, that's free as in freedom, it doesn't mean zero price..."
If RMS has to clarify this in a speech he's giving about something not directly related to the topic at hand, it's reasonable to assume that at least a few people were confused about the term. However, ESR and the Open Source crowd could easily develop simi
a few arguments for free software: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Open Source" can be confused with viewable source. MS can compete against that.
"Free Software" can mean libre or gratis, MS can't compete with either of those meanings.
MS have marketing and business analysts thinking about things like this. They've chosen to say "open source" (and "Linux" for the OS). This should be enough to tell us that these terms are not what we should be using.
Winning depends on us being f
Apache runs on Windows (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sure MS would prefer you use IIS, but this seems an easily deflected statement. I'm positive that MS prefers you using Apache on Windows to you using Apache on Linux.
Re:Apache runs on Windows (Score:4, Insightful)
>Apche vs. IIS differences when Microsoft could
>come back by pointing out you can always run
>Apache on Windows if you want to.
Irrelevant. The point is whether Open Source is a viable alternative or not. MS absolutely doesn't want you messing with Apache on any platform, because if all your apps are open source, you are no longer locked into Windows OS.
Re:Apache runs on Windows (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Apache runs on Windows (Score:3, Interesting)
Not necessarily.
If all your apps are portable across platforms, then the platform is reduced to a commodity, and you can choose the best one based on price/performance. This is not a place where Microsoft wants to be.
Microsoft would prefer that you didn't use Apache at all, but if you do use it, they might rather you ran it on a different platform, separated from Windows by an impenetrable wall of subtle but maddenin
Yeesh (Score:3, Insightful)
(Yeah, OK, that's probably not quite mathematically correct. Here's a proposition -- if you explain that zeta function story from last week, feel free to then go ahead and flame over "asymptotically".)
Re:Yeesh (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't it dishonest to use a title made famous by leaked internal memos to promote what is, when you get right down to it, a rant? Or, if you're being generous, an essay, maybe even a white paper?
M$ vs. Linux "Roadshow" (Score:5, Informative)
The basic messages about selecting MS/Linux for a system are governed by the following:
- Don't change for the sake of it
- Take into account what your people know (e.g. Linux possibly better if you have lots of Unix people)
- Much of the cost saving of Linux over Unix comes from hardware - i.e. using Intel over mainframe/AIX/zSeries etc.
- OS/Platform is just a tool - choose the right one for the job
- MS/Linux TCO's are nearly always within 10% for most projects by the time all costs are accounted for (this was from an independent solutions provider)
- Don't just focus on TCO - look at ROI (return on investment)
- MS is pretty well zero-development (no code or scripting)
- The People and Processes are more important than the technical solution
- Check licensing model of any platform (will any Linux development become your IP, or will it be open)
- Linux still does not have a really good desktop and the office suites available are still lagging
- security issues such as virus updates and patch management are more of an administration issue than a platform one
- Easier porting J2EE->.Net than the other way round (i.e. MS ties you in worse!!!)
Re:M$ vs. Linux "Roadshow" (Score:5, Interesting)
- Much of the cost saving of Linux over Unix comes from hardware - i.e. using Intel over mainframe/AIX/zSeries etc.
Wrong. Go buy a license for 100 mail users, or 50 MSSQL user licenses. OUCH. Now compare Postgres/MySQL or Sendmail/Qmail/god-knows-what-free-email-servers
- OS/Platform is just a tool - choose the right one for the job
Not quite. I get a bunch of apps with a linux install that windows doesnt see fit us have. Even compilers come free. Where's a free (stripped down) version of Visual Basic on Windows? You know, include a low VB 5 compiler for quick stuff..
- MS/Linux TCO's are nearly always within 10% for most projects by the time all costs are accounted for (this was from an independent solutions provider)
---As said by Independant firm who just got 50K from Microsoft.
- Don't just focus on TCO - look at ROI (return on investment)
Nope. ROI doesnt work in IT. IT is a loss leader to prevent bigger losses (downtime).
- MS is pretty well zero-development (no code or scripting)
Yep, and it it doesnt fit, you're screwed. Period.
- The People and Processes are more important than the technical solution
Ok, people are stupid. In Linux, you can people-proof more than you can in Windows. Easier to alias and block commands than it is to load some dumb "dont click here" windows program.
- Check licensing model of any platform (will any Linux development become your IP, or will it be open)
USING Linux is free with no strings attached. USING SOURCE code from GPL programs is where you get in trouble. However, using GCC to compile is fully legit.
- Linux still does not have a really good desktop and the office suites available are still lagging
Windows and everything teh sux0r. Face it, THIS IS AN OPINION. The statement is worthless.
- security issues such as virus updates and patch management are more of an administration issue than a platform one
They are? If I hear of root exploit, I take all harmed services down immediately, and patch one by one. I also give calls to the companies I work with. They agree that having a little bit of downtime is well worth the risk of not being auto-hacked.
- Easier porting J2EE->.Net than the other way round (i.e. MS ties you in worse!!!)
That's why you should use Java OR a server side program (who cares about OS then
Re:M$ vs. Linux "Roadshow" (Score:3, Informative)
Not quite. How about that small 4 person financial business... Are they suppsoed to know how to support their computers and network? Thats where I come in. I assess threats and judge how to exterminate them. And they dont want to buy new software every year, as it does cost a bunch. I
They have done us a favour (Score:5, Interesting)
I firmly believe Microsoft have done us a favour.
"Windows vs Linux TCO..."
CIO, "Linux, what's Linux?"
Engineer, "Its that system I have been trying to tell you about that can save us time and money"
CIO, "Ok, tell me about it then"
10 Mins later...
"Ok do it, lets see how it goes."
End of Story. And even though the 'facts' are biased, lets hope most CIO's can consider both sides of the story:)
Microsoft are educating their users on our behalf (Score:5, Interesting)
I gotta wonder... (Score:3, Interesting)
-JDF
Um (Score:5, Funny)
Until I realized, finally, belatedly, what had been happening to me. Until the Great God Pan reached out of my hindbrain and thundered "YOU!" And his gift is music and his chosen instruments the pipes and flutes. And his, too the power of joy; magic so strong that when it flowed out of me, even before I knew what I was doing, it amazed people into awe and incoherence and poetry.
That day I was reborn; from a skinny lame kid with a flute into a shaman and a vessel of the Goat-Foot God, the Piper at the Gates of Dawn, the Horned Lord. And the music was my first power, but not my last.
ESR is off the deep end.
Re:Um (Score:5, Funny)
Just because a religion sounds silly to you doesn't make it any less valid than any other religion.
Re:Um (Score:3, Funny)
ESR on the attack again (Score:4, Insightful)
Can't go one whole article without attacking the ideals of Free Software, can you?
No one thinks the term "Free Software" is a good one, the issue has always been that there's nothing better. I can't use Open Source since the term doesn't mean the same thing.
The only other term I can use is Digital Commons, but Digitial Commons is a larger movement than Free Software.
Anyway, ESR, you can't go one whole article without going on the attack against Free Software, can you? You can't accept that many of the ideals of Open Source haven't panned out, and that with the recent legal attacks, the commitement and idealism of Free Software is what's driving so many to resist so strongly.
You're using such similar tactics to MS that it's startling. At first you ignored Free Software- refused to talk about it in many articles. Then you attacked it. Now you make subtle arguments aginst it in each thing you put out.
If you really wanted a unified movement- you'd stop with the blatant attacks.
Re:Please cite examples (Score:3, Informative)
We suggest that everywhere we as a culture have previously talked about "free software", the label should be changed to "open source". Open-source software. The open-source model. The open source culture. The Debian Open Source Guidelines. (In pitching this to the corporate world I'
Terminology (Score:3, Interesting)
I like the way Raymond asserts that arguing over the exact meaning of "free" in "free software" is meaningless, but then takes care to use the word "cracked" instead of "hacked" when referring to MS IIS websites. :)
SNL Sketch (Score:3, Funny)
Software libre (Score:5, Insightful)
Hello? If there is actually anyone still left on the planet who thinks the term free software was a good idea, I hope they're paying attention. Because what Microsoft is doing here is exploiting the old familiar gratis/libre ambiguity of the word free in yet another way.
Raymond should be less glib and contrive a better argument against the term free software than mere coersion. I see no reason why Micro$oft's perverse attacks should affect my philosophy the freedom of ideas, or dictate which terms are acceptable in discussing it. In these dark days of ever expanding corporatism we need more discussion of freedom, not less.
It's not a war! (Score:5, Interesting)
Now what should be worrying people like Mr. Raymond is that Linux-based desktops (which is what we're really talking about, not simply "open source"), is that Linux *isn't* so blindingly superior as to carry the day. Truthfully, I think this is the case. I've used UNIX, I like Linux, but we're essentially having a big battle of the old and huge operating systems here, and none of them is a revolution. None of them is so much better than all the others is wonderful and positive ways. (Mostly they're all negative: don't get virii, don't have to deal with Microsoft.) In fact, the entire concept of the big operating system is a relic. Does anyone argue about the OS in a digital camera? Or a Palm? Or a cell phone? No. And those are more akin to what an "OS" of the future needs to be: thin, small, and unobtrusive. We need the Commodore 64 of the next decade, not the next VAX.
Thanks for listening
The gloves are off. (Score:4, Interesting)
appears as if they are on the attack again.
I recently had the chance to 'lunch' with a team of boiler room types on the topic of ' Interoperability, Integration, Extensibility'
subtitled 'Unix interoperability'
After enjoying a excellent meal at one of the better steak houses in town I began to notice that this 'meating' wasn't so much about working with Unix systems as it was about providing unix services from Windows servers; After being seeded with 'free' software (funny that, free tools just not free source) title:Windows Services for Unix 3.5 and looking closely I saw that they are now providing NFS, Syslog, NIS, DNS, Mail and a tool to 'port' your Unix 'legacy' (their words) apps to a modern OS.
What frightened me most was that my inclusion to this meeting was last minute and that my 'peers' didn't have a technical bone in em, they were all either Microsoft partners or middle to upper manglement types.
The last 'free' software I saw from Microsoft was IE, I wonder if this latest offering will have as profound an effect.
One problem in ESR's logic (Score:4, Interesting)
The difference here is that as he says, Microsoft employs 22,000 programmers. If we assume these are full-time employees, then they're working 40 hours a week on whatever Microsoft wants. Do the 220,000 theorized open-source programmers have 40 hours a week to spend on co-ordinated open source projects?
If this wildly conjectured figure is true, it may be that the case that the number of "man-hours" availble in the two camps is comparable, if the open source coders can find an average of 4 hours a week to work on nonpaying projects. Counting heads doesn't make for a very useful comparison in this case, though, unless someone's going to hire the 220,000 to do open source work (and let me know if that's happening, because I'll show up for an application).
I don't think "we" should get too overconfident about the "capability gap." "We" certainly have fabulously talented coders, but Microsoft certainly does too, and never underestimate the power of a focused monolith. Could we get our army to proceed with even one-tenth of Microsoft's coordinated corporate project discipline? How much potentially productive time do open-source coders lose just bickering with each other in lengthy flamewars about what "free" means?
Very disingenuous (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Claim that linux isn't free.
ESR seems to think all MS is talking about here is that it isn't free because it "has a nonzero TCO." Sure, that's part of it, but I think the argument goes deeper. The point is that the majority of corporate customers are not going to just download a freely available distribution of Linux, because most enterprise customers NEED support. Therefore, they are going to buy a supported distribution from a major Linux vendor, and that most certainly costs money. In that case it's most certainly not free (as in beer), and while it is still free (as in speech), those companies are not going to really exercise that freedom because they can't just modify their distribution and still expect support from the vendor.
2. Pretend that Shared source is the same as Open Source.
ESR's basically just belittles this statement, but again, there's some truth behind it. If you consider a company as above, namely, that they have bought a Linux vendor's distribution with support and they are not going to modify that distribution and lose their support. At that point, what IS the difference between 'Shared Source' and 'Open Source'? Either way, they're only looking at the source code and not modifying it. The only real difference I can see is that with Open Source (or really, Free Software) they could try to create a patch and get it into a future release in the hope that their vendor will pick it up and support it. This is really only marginally better than relying on your commercial software vendor for new features, because you're still dependent on some external entity (in this case, your vendor) and their decision making process to get that feature.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
ESR, a factual case is the best case. (Score:5, Informative)
1.) " Like the dog that didn't bark in the night-time, these omissions are significant, because Microsoft marketing is thorough and ruthlessly opportunistic." The first part of this statement is rather confounding. I assume that you mean that that fact that they have dropped these arguments should be indicative of the thoroughness of the marketers.
2.) "Do I even need to point out that most of the factual claims are blatant lies brought to you by the same people who got caught faking video evidence in their Federal antitrust trial?". Unless you can show that the actual forger is at work here, refrain from painting all MS employees with the brush of a criminal. This only serves to undermine your objectivity.
3.) "Hammer them without mercy -- but do it in a quiet, reasonable voice and keep control of the terms of argument. " Do it "ruthlessly [reference.com]" perhaps? This also serves to undermine you credibility as it shows you too are playing the word game. Ruthless is a "charged word" even though it used to mean "without emotion" it implies some bitter, hateful vengence now. You used it to describe MS Marketing before but you don't use it now, but just be consistent. The rest of the statement is good though, stick to the facts and definitions, and keep the argument in your favor.
4.) "...higher Windows TCO is forever" Please quantify "higher" with a number.
5.) "Shared source is a poison pill." Shared Source may be a misnomer but calling it a "posion" pill is just imflamitory.
6.) "Can you explain why Windows IIS websites are cracked or defaced more often than Apache ones, despite the fact that IIS runs less than a third the number of sites Apache does?" Please quantify "more often". Also, attempt to separate this into 2 questions, as the answer will undoubtably be "Hackers hate Windows, hackers attack Windows" which will only be to their advantage because it implies that they are top dog. The top dog is perpetually being challenged. Saying that they are attacked often is handing them the opportunity to say that they are top dog.
Otherwise, this is good article and it's got some great questions for MS PR about the Shared Source == Open Source nonsense.
Sherlock Holmes (Score:3, Informative)
Inspector Gregory:
"Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"
Holmes: "To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."
"The dog did nothing in the night-time."
"That was the curious incident," remarked Sherlock Holmes.
From "The Adventure of Silver Blaze" by Arthur Conan Doyle
yeah, yeah, yeah (Score:3, Insightful)
1) good code isn't propoganda
2) destroying Microsoft shouldn't be a goal
3) beggars can't be choosers - (I won't beg people to use Linux)
not to mention...
Using patents as anything other than a form of insurance or a form of fake currency is entirely unproductive and will only serve to reduce their value as a fake currency and as a modern-day form of insurance. Unless, of course, people would choose to use them for what they are meant to be used for...
The DMCA is going to be rewritten
Someone is going to take what this Halloween document says and twist it and try to prove that Linux is out to destroy proprietary software and your paycheck, which will generate more arguments back and forth.
Just because Red Hat might be right doesn't mean that they are the best choice in software for your organization.
Imagine a cool, calm, peaceful, beautiful, and very blue body of water - a fresh cool breeze blowing through your hair; the smell of flowers and other good-smelling things; the sounds of birds and leaves blowing in the breeze.
Microsoft is a company. What is a company but a collection of individuals. The problem is not Microsoft, the problem is individuals who work, used to work, know people who work, etc... at Microsoft. The same thing can be said for government. It's not Microsoft + the government out to destroy Linux, it's individuals + individuals being selfish, greedy and stupid.
The first thing that can be done is to show respect for Microsoft. Sure, Linux costs more, but IT'S BETTER. (which is true). Linux is more expensive because it's better. (it's actually less expensive). Now all the rich folks will want Linux because it's the "Cadillac" of operating systems. Microsoft gets Chevrolet status by their own request.
I recently though of an analogy after reading Stephen Hawking's book - it's about entropy, or the direction of time. Glasses fall off of tables and shatter, they don't pick themselves up from pieces on the floor and magically un-break themselves and fall "up" back on the table in one piece.
But God, or in this case, let's compare God to the public - to the individual who is observing what is going on, and making a decision, a judgement, as to which software solution is the best to buy.
Can God, or the observer, in this case, press "rewind", and have the glass re-assemble itself? If this is true, does it really matter who threw the first punch? For all anyone cares, they are just "fighting". It doesn't matter who started it.
Imagine a cool, calm, peaceful, beautiful, and very blue body of water - a fresh cool breeze blowing through your hair; the smell of flowers and other good-smelling things; the sounds of birds and leaves blowing in the breeze.
Re:Say it ain't so! (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux IS free.
It's just not neccessarily "free as in beer". It may cost you some money, but you're free to do with it (to a degree) what you wish, so long as you contribute any changes back.
Over-simplified, sure. But go download the windows source code, add a few features to explorer (heck, squash some bugs and security flaws while you're in there), and re-release the source back out there with a Makefile.
Let's see how long until your pants are sued right off of your legs.
Re:Say it ain't so! (Score:3, Insightful)
Fine, but that's the sort of "free" that this particular audience is mainly concerned about - the corporate world does not generally set out to make a political statement via their choice of operating system, not at the expense of the bottom line.
Corporations cannot run their companies for free. Every bit of maintenance and operational activity costs money. The free as in speech aspect of OSS benefits them by offering choice: it's difficult to lock a company into an upgrade cycle (with its caascading eff
Re:Say it ain't so! (Score:3, Insightful)
my experience across 8 years has been that commercial support from a specific vendor can be hit or miss. Sometimes great (really great... Cisco comes to mind). Sometimes really really bad.
At my old job, they still had to hire independent consultants for some Microsoft tasks.
Re:Halloween Documents? (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally I think while his points may be valid he just ruined the value of the Halloween series.
The Halloween series worked because it was criticism of real leaked Microsoft memos.
This so-called "Halloween" memo is just counter-fud.
Re:The clueless userbase to propagates the worms. (Score:5, Interesting)
This "worm" was about 1 MB, self contained and ran quite fast.
The full intention of this worm was as an auto-hacker for linux machines. It used a IRC seession, DES encrypted and MD5 checksummed. Once 1 machine was infected, it would use a large library of exploits against other known linux machines (with use of nmap-like scans) and attempt to dupe it to others.
Ive been able to isolate it, but whatever the coders did with it, they made it into semi-encrypted spaghetti. Crashes damn near every debugger Ive tried. It's now a collection on one of my cd's now. "Strange and infectous stuf"
Re:The clueless userbase to propagates the worms. (Score:5, Interesting)
Ive ran all the common unpackers, and Tron against it. Tron gives "unknown packer" and some pack detecters just crash...
Ive tried hand decoding it (fun fun
Take a look at trying to crack AZPR.. Ill pay you 100$ if you can. AZPR password somehow has the key as part of the executable so when correct, it correctly decrypts the packed part. No softice or asm dumps can beat it. In my opinion, it seems to be the perfect packing setup.
Admittley its way over my head. I can do stuff like DDD debugging, or looking over deadlists (ala MS VC++ compiler errors and inline asm command switching). I just cant even comprehend what exacly its doing.
And yes, anonycoward, I am telling the truth. You actually think that there's no worms at all for Linux?
Re:The clueless userbase to propagates the worms. (Score:5, Funny)
I'd like to see it, too, please. I've set my root password to "querty". Please ssh onto my box and run this fascinating software so I can look into it.
Re:The clueless userbase to propagates the worms. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The clueless userbase to propagates the worms. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The clueless userbase to propagates the worms. (Score:4, Insightful)
Apache has a much larger base than IIS, yet most of the exploits are for IIS.
Hey, FUD-packer. (Score:3, Informative)
I'm going to write up a painfullly malicious script that executes when you view an e-mail.
What, that's not possible? Okay...uh...
You're a pretty dumb user, and I'll name the file Brittney\ Spears\ Nekkid.jpg.sh.
So you double click the file, and it launches. You're a plain old user.
rm -rf
Oops. Didn't work. Why not? No permissions.
rm -rf ~
Now that might, but I want to think that laun
Re:Hey, FUD-packer. (Score:3, Informative)
Most Windows viruses will just need to be executed by Joe Clueless Luser. Upon execution, they will exploit some aspect of Windows or Office or another userland program (such as an ActiveX exploit in Outlook Express, for example.) It can then gain superuser-level priveladges and do whatever destruction it wants to the system (remove core files, modify registry entries, install keyloggers, etc.)
Now, going back to your scenario, say we have Joe Clueless Luser
Why did it do that? (Score:3, Informative)
So you double click the file, and it launches. You're a plain old user.
And just how did the file launch? It's not executable yet...
Re:Hey, FUD-packer. (Score:5, Informative)
Uhm. OS X already does this. As a normal user, you don't have write access to larger parts of the filesystem. To install applications or update the system, you have to give a password, which is then sent to sudo.
Under Windows, there's no easy way to go from "joe user" to "super user", so everyone stays as "super user". Linux and OS X make it pretty easy for the user to upgrade their priveleges temporarily.
Re:Hey, FUD-packer. (Score:5, Informative)
Sure there is, but few people take advantage of it or understand why it's a good idea - runas /user:user_name program_name, where user_name is the local administrator. Enter the password and away you go. If you have a proggy that you regularly need to run with admin privs, create a shortcut and pull up the properties sheet for the shortcut - check the box marked "Run as different user". Enter the username and pw when prompted, and away you go.
Anyway, the point is, people who are confused by this, who don't understand it and why it's not a good idea to not run as root all the time, they are not suddenly going to grok the mysteries of sudo when switching to some other OS. People who are clueless will not become clueful just by switching wallpapers on them - unless and until people are better educated in safe computing practices, nothing is really going to change.
Re:The clueless userbase to propagates the worms. (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to argue that, despite MS's other claims, I agree that TCO will be higher, primarily because most linux programs require a lot more user support than your average windows program, installed and patched with "software wizards". If you're a user installing openoffice and you don't have a certain library, or you have an outdated one, you're going to spend a lot of time learning about ldd and ldconfig. Personally I think the library linking issue is one of Linux's biggest achilles heels, despite a few relatively intelligent attempts to fix it.
I also think that the linux office products out there are simply substandard to Microsoft. That probably has to do with the fact that MS has been at that game for a long time. But nevertheless, linux office products like openoffice, while reasonable facsimiles, simply don't reach MS in terms of functionality and behavior. I spent four hours writing up a macro-enabled, data-validity-using spreadsheet for my company's linux users, while the identical spreadsheet in Excel took me about 45 minutes, and the linux version just didn't compare, and I'm not even a spreadsheet power user.
MS's dominance might be eroding, but it's not simply due to their being entrenched in the marketplace.
Re:The clueless userbase to propagates the worms. (Score:5, Insightful)
Could you explain to us how using "software wizards" instead of package manager (yum, apt, urpmi, whatever your distro is based on) and related GUI for software installation and patching could translate into TCO saving ? Remember, most software installation and patching is not being done by the end-user anyway, but by their IT departement.
If you would be equally proficient with both MS Office and OO.org, that would be telling something. However, I am pretty sure you are not. With that assumption, the only conclusion I can draw ATM is that using software you are not familiar with take more time, especially for advanced stuff like data validation. Duh.
Re:The clueless userbase to propagates the worms. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The clueless userbase to propagates the worms. (Score:3, Funny)
It's a wholly cromulent conclusion to draw, though.
An office that currently uses MS Windows and Office is going to incur larger migration and retraining costs if they migrate to Linux and OO.org than if they upgrade to the next MS versions.
Yes, a completely objective comparison would make sure that users had equivalent experience with both platforms
Re:The clueless userbase to propagates the worms. (Score:3, Informative)
If anything, I am more proficient with openoffice because I use linux at work, OS X at home and I'm too cheap to shell for the MS version. Like I said, I'm not a spreadsheet guru, but after rea
Re:The clueless userbase to propagates the worms. (Score:4, Insightful)
So your point is.. what exactly? My point would be that *right now* you could use Linux and not have all of these problems *right at this moment*.
Whereas if you'd continue to use Windows you *do* have all these spyware and worm problems right at this moment.
Maybe in 5 years Linux will have many more (clueless) users, and also more problems like Windows currently has. That still leaves me with the period between now and 5 years in the future where I can just run it and see if the problems get worse. Whereas in Windows it's hell already so I don't need to wait 5 years to make up my mind about that.
Maybe in 5 years Microsoft will finally have their security act together and you could consider switching back if Linux really starts to suck by then. Not that I think this would happen, but by looking at it pragmatically this is what I'd say.
Re:The clueless userbase to propagates the worms. (Score:4, Insightful)
While you make a valid observation, you are talking about something that has not happened, and that you cannot prove will ever happen.
In an argument, the hypothetical must take back-seat to the reality of here-and-now.
TCO for MS systems must include the cost of viruses and other malware. Linux does not currently suffer from this problem. Maybe, at some future time, that will not be the case. However, we can't use the future as an argument because it hasn't happened yet.
Re:No. (Score:3, Insightful)
Even assuming that Linux is inherently safer than Windows (and I will not argue that point), you cannot just discount user stupidity like that and claim superiority because you think you can engineer a solution for it.
The current Windows worm du jour requires the user to open a ZIP archive and provide a password before extracting the executable.
A password.
If you think you're going to engineer away that with open source and still provide users wi
Re:I think you misunderstood me. (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft has a consumer OS they're trying to secure. You have a server OS that you're trying to make usable as a workstation. You can argue endlessly about how each side could have done things differently, but most of the time most people who attack Microsoft because they're (in your words) "unable to write good code" also discount the fact that they have to deal with a huge user and legacy application base. They can't just change the default shell action of a VB script from "Run" to "Edit" (which pretty much eliminates script worms) without getting themselves into a hell of a bind. There is no easy solution. But the attitude from people like you is mostly "lock it down and let the user fight it". You won't sell a lot of anything like that, unfortunately. As long as open source continues to think of users as developers who don't mind opening a console and typing 'su' to get anything done Linux won't get far in the desktop.
The Apple comparison is dumb, as always. Just by virtue of sheer user base size.
You just wait until Linux gains some market share in the desktop thanks to IBM or Novell. The day some fuck starts sending tarballs with bash scripts that delete ~/ or zombie the box to send spam we'll have another chat. There's no need to run as root to do damage to a machine.
Re:ESR, again. (Score:5, Insightful)
Stunningly accurate predictions, like MS's monopoly collapsing in 2001, and Windows becoming obsolete when computer prices dipped below $350.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/12/13/216
http://slashdot.org/article.
He's got a knack for predicting the future. You can rest assured that MS really is getting *DESPERATE* now, especially now that they're obsolete and their monopoly had collapsed years ago.
Re:ESR, again. (Score:5, Informative)
A few things [catb.org] although I agree with you that predicting the future is not his strong point.
Re:ESR, again. (Score:5, Insightful)
You're right, his ability to prognosticate is badly flawed when predicting end results. OTOH, I think he's been pretty accurate in how MS would fight the war, don't you? Go back and re-read the Halloween docs and you'll see what I mean.
Re:ESR, again. (Score:5, Informative)
Well, strictly looking for new and under $350, I found this [walmart.com] at Walmart's site right off the bat. They also have a 2.4gzh one for $398.
I'm sure I could have found even better deals, but I don't really have a lot of time to spend looking (and I'm happy getting a used box from retrobox).
Re:ESR, again. (Score:5, Informative)
n.
1. A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.
2. A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.
3. The use of sarcasm. See Synonyms at wit1.
Re:ESR, again. (Score:4, Insightful)
Its name?
Re:ESR, again. (Score:3, Insightful)
software anyway.
Re:ESR, again. (Score:4, Informative)
Aunt Tillie mods you down (Score:4, Informative)
The Jargon File [catb.org] comes to mind. I owe quite a bit of my knowledge of computer history to its print form, the New Hacker's Dictionary.
He also brought us the infamous Aunt Tillie Builds a Kernel [theaimsgroup.com] lkml thread.
-jim
Re:ESR, again. (Score:4, Funny)
Sorry there, but besides Fud, what has ESR brought to the Open Source community ?
The aqueduct. . . and the sanitation! And the roads. . .
Re:We're winning, people. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think we are.
We're winning because MS isn't banging on about the same arguments year after year?
Sure. They're wasting resources trying to follow Linux. And refute what the project is about. And give massive discounts to companies that consider going to Linux. Any cut in revenue for MSFT I consider a good thing.
We're winning because MS is creating in the minds of the public a wide variety of flaws in the idea of open source?
Trying to. The simplistic reasoning that MSFT gives for not going to Linux can be easily refuted. I was given the "there's fewer viruses for Linux and MSFT because of usage". If that were the case, then Apache would have more vulnerabilities than IIS, right? Right??
We're winning because MS still has the same market share?
For desktops? Sure they do. Linux has a long way to go before it can pass the Non-tech-spouse test. For servers, that's harder to figure out. I can build one Linux box that handles e-mail while Windows needs 3 to do the same task. Does this mean that Windows has 3X the servers as Linux? Well yea, but what else does it say?
We're winning because we've driven out the smaller OS's without making a dent on MS?
No, but we've made other companies (Sun, IBM, SGI, HP) realize that they can either work with Linux to compete with MSFT, or go it alone. The UNIX wars showed that companies can't go it alone.
We're winning because we still have ESR as our spokesperson?
Ha. Uhm. Well. You got me there.
Motivation for the anti-ESR movement (Score:4, Insightful)
Apparently people like to cling to all the things they consider personality flaws like starving worms, using them at all opportunities to attack the persons other opinions and activities.
It kinda pisses me off to see valid Microsoft criticism from an Open Source evangelist being attacked just because some asshat takes ESR's hackers dictionary too seriously. Do you really think someone is just trapped in the shadow of ESR, mourning that if ESR was taken down just a notch, he could steal the limelight and rescue the true spirit of open source?
You guys should just pause for a while, and think whether petty arguing among ourselves is more important than the war of spin & fud between us and microsoft. Unless you are working for AdTI, of course - in that case I understand your motivations perfectly.
Grow up. Your mom still lives you more than she loves ESR, no need to feel all sad and droopy.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)