| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Ballmer: Microsoft to go after Linux strongholds (ZDNet)Ballmer: Microsoft to go after Linux strongholds (ZDNet)Posted Oct 20, 2005 20:30 UTC (Thu) by mmarq (guest, #2332)Parent article: Ballmer: Microsoft to go after Linux strongholds (ZDNet)
" Because people will take a look at the tools and the technologies we put in the marketplace and decide that they deliver better results at a lower cost. What's the first? High performance clustering. "
That seems laughable at least (bahhh hihihi hahaha !?## puf! hahaha...), and taking in consideration that MS took 5 years to transition from XP to a not so much different design, how many years will take a transition to a much more radical change ??...
By that time tipical web services could be in full steam ahead, to in a ugly espression, to be completly "X"ed or "NX"ed( http://freenx.berlios.de/ ); that is, clients by them, on thin clients or PCs, acess applications servers by something like a combination of NX server with LTSP server, running those applications intirely from the server... what could be more safer and versatile for service providers and clients than this ??... Take that Microsoft!
It could be even more laughable since by that time Linux/OSS could have turned the tipical LAN node into a "big" cluster by the means of PVM ( http://www.csm.ornl.gov/pvm/pvm_home.html ), in which MS can't have any gain due to licence issues!... take that again Microsoft!
It could make "us" stop laughing by Microsoft locking of hardware platform by means of a DRM based approach NGSCB or "treacherous computing" http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html , which MS will try to push into the world silently!... we have troule Linux community!! ( unless we could attrack hardware industry to our camp with a safe, isolated and hardened environment for them like http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/Research/SRG/netos/papers/2004-oa... )
***I belive it is good to have a lot of prespectives. So why cant "we" have a lot of views, without been hipe or dreams, of how and why can "Linux" be so much better than Microsoft products. A good topic for a site like LWN i belive***
IMO 2 topics can bring some hipe back into Linux camp:
1)Desktop/graphics: A *SUPERIOR* FULL 3D DESKTOP. What a wonderfull opportunity is the caming of Xara, with their superior graphics engine for features and specialy *speed*; since the tests claim it has about at least the double performance of GDI+
2)ITS ABOUT TIME TO DELIVER PLATFORMS,ARGUALBLY, COMPLETLY FREE OF VIRUS AND CRACKERS: a good opportunity complementing XEN Safe hardware mentioned above, and since i belive the large majority of desktops, including Linux laptops, will have Xen, is a FULL CAPABILITY SYSTEM. I'll try to explain. The Xen *kernel* could be replaced and integrated into the main Linux tree, by an equivalent Linux exoKernel. XEN will have its VMM and business intact. Exokernel are tiny structures, excelents for multiplexing and securely managing, in a full *capability* fashion if desire, the acess of applications and other processes(aka domains) like a library OS or LibOSes. So this structure integrated into the Linux tree, could turn Xen Safe Harware Enviroment into a real-time LibOS and the rest of LINUX into another LibOS without that many changes involved in the process(search for exokernel) since Linux already have some sort of *capabilitys* in it. And "diamond" or "metal" Hard Real Time is possible because an Exokernel fatalitly brings with it the possibilities of Nested OS + Dua Core/ Dual OS + Migration between OS, which are well explained in here; http://lwn.net/Articles/143323/.
Guess Ballmer could easly start to lose his sleep, and no jumping arround would help.
(Log in to post comments)
Ballmer: Microsoft to go after Linux strongholds (ZDNet) Posted Oct 21, 2005 6:25 UTC (Fri) by beoba (guest, #16942) [Link] Is english your first language?
Ballmer: Microsoft to go after Linux strongholds (ZDNet)
Ballmer: Microsoft to go after Linux strongholds (ZDNet) Posted Oct 22, 2005 1:00 UTC (Sat) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] ... but don't blame Portugal.
mmarq, please take the time to condense your thoughts into the most concise, clear and relevant text you can post. Otherwise, thousands of people must each do the same work to try to extract your meaning. Many (myself included, I admit) tend to just skip past your postings; if you didn't care enough to condense and clarify your thoughts before posting, why should any of us care enough to do it for you?
That goes for everybody else, too. Yes, you. :-)
Style and form Posted Oct 22, 2005 14:25 UTC (Sat) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] While we are at it: mmarq, please stop adding emphasis on one of every two phrases LIKE THIS or *like this* or even ***like this***. It makes for a very distracting reading. If you really have to stress the occasional word, make use of HTML resources like italics.Good writers only emphasize individual words, as a grammatical resource (to display focus); it should be used sparingly. Stress should not be there to attract interest -- if your words alone do not deserve attention, do not write them.
Style and form Posted Oct 22, 2005 20:01 UTC (Sat) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] Likewise for exclamation marks! Save them for the genuinely surprising, or genuinely funny. If the sentence doesn't read right without the exclamation mark, chances are it's better left unsaid: not surprising enough, or funny enough, to be worth the reading.On the subject of focus, consider (from the soap opera actress, in John Sayles's movie "Passion Fish", pondering how to play one of her assigned lines, presumably post-UFO-abduction): I didn't ask for the anal probe. [must have been somebody else]
Style and form Posted Oct 22, 2005 22:35 UTC (Sat) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] Thank you for the good intentioned remarks. I honestly try do to better next time. Never the less, its a pitty there isn't none related to the issues i brought above namely:
NX (for distrib. computing)http://freenx.berlios.de/
and last but the most important, new model for a completely free of virus and crackers platform, which is achievable with a exokernel benneth traditional Linux, since exokernels are perfect and natural structures for full capability systems and some hard real time configurations;
http://www.skyhunter.com/marcs/capabilityIntro/index.html
Sometimes it may seem that i'm doing it on purpose. But the fact is that some very good and future seeking issues, brought into this forum by many people, are invariably left untouched. It seems that there is fear of departing from the official views. Me thinks the contrary! LWN is a perfect site for people discuss new prespectives not code or writing style, and as i type as i go from the simple LWN editor, without italics or other formating tools (dont need), i invariably find myself abusing the marks, to only get remarks of how bad my writing looks... pitty!
Style and form Posted Oct 24, 2005 0:29 UTC (Mon) by njhurst (guest, #6022) [Link] I think it is a dangerous plan to re-implement everything from scratch on the premise that the new design will be more robust or secure. Security comes as much from years of harsh real-world testing as it does from special models. We can probably achieve all that is suggested here by putting the same amount of work into fixing up the existing kernel interfaces and designing tools for detecting bad code patterns.
Auditing also helps, and everytime we build from scratch we lose all the previous auditing work. I say this having spent considerable time working on a security from the ground up system using capabilities (the real ones, not the fake capes that linux has). Time heals many security holes.
I think the general consensus is that we like your posts, but they are a struggle to read. If you wish, I am happy to read your posts before you post and correct the language. (Nevertheless, one word)
I don't think that we have a serious problem with group think here, several times people have corrected popular pro-linux myths and brough us back to reality. If anything I think lwn is one of the least biased linux related sources around. things like newsforge are just full of drivel, slashdot suffers from groupthink to a larger extent and most commercial rags are too heavily dependant on advertising dollars to stay NPOV.
Style and form Posted Oct 24, 2005 17:28 UTC (Mon) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] "" I think it is a dangerous plan to re-implement everything from scratch on the premise that the new design will be more robust or secure ""
I belive the "Grand Beauty" of putting an exokernel beneath the present Linux kernel, is doing it without having to re-invent the wheel.It could go even to a Single Adress Space design with the Linux synchronization mechanisms, locks, semaphores, because the adress space is mandatory handled by a dynamic library in an exokernel design... as in XOK/ExOS(could be XOK/Linux)
Full *POSIX* support can be achieved in this type of designs as in Meshix and Angel http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/cache/papers/cs/294/ftp:zSzzS...
"" Security comes as much from years of harsh real-world testing as it does from special models.""
No. I belive its simply proved, so simply that it hurts, that the present model is inherently *INSECURE*, no matter what. http://www.skyhunter.com/marcs/capabilityIntro/index.html
"" We can probably achieve all that is suggested here by putting the same amount of work into fixing up the existing kernel interfaces and designing tools for detecting bad code patterns. ""
Not likely. Building good interfaces and detecting bad code patterns also has to be applyed, but in less extense and without "crazy hacks", to an exokernel/Linux design with capabilities, or better, to an exokernel/Linux with the actual Unix file acess list protection design on top of capabilities, beying it a SASOS or not.
That is an exokernel/Linux design could be full POSIX, have the Unix file acess list protection style available and yet the ensemble behave like a monolithic Single Adress Sapce Kernel... only much much more secure, to the point a * virus and crackers prove* LABEL can be arguably applyed.
"" Auditing also helps, and everytime we build from scratch we lose all the previous auditing work.""
I belive auditing would also be necessary, and even more because in a exokernel design, you could have as exemple the Apache server having its own virtual memory and file system directly on top of the exokernel (achieving perhaps more than 1 order of magnitude more performance) , and so everything from the OS and every application and service as to be audit to *guaranty* safety. Many of Previous work, and followed disasters, *could* be an example of where and why stating secure a system that is *inherently INSECURE* is a bad policy.
Sincerely thanks for the offer, but one of beautys of posting is learning how to write properly and not get lazy.
I also belive group thinking could be much more enhanced then today, by people losing fear of posting more radical ideas.
Ballmer: Microsoft to go after Linux strongholds (ZDNet) Posted Oct 22, 2005 21:59 UTC (Sat) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] Thank you for the good intentioned remarks. I honestly try to do betternext time.
|
|
||||||||||||