Weekly Edition
Return to the Announcements page
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Microsoft hires a Director of Linux Interoperability
As announced on Microsoft's 'PORT 25' weblog, Tom Hanrahan, formerly the Director of Engineering for the Linux
Foundation, has joined the company. His title is most likely
new to Microsoft org charts. "Tom will join as the Director of Linux
Interoperability, and will head our Linux/Windows interoperability work,
including leadership of the Microsoft/Novell Interoperability Lab. This
development lab will undertake much of the engineering work involved in the
multi-year technical partnership. Among other things, Tom has much to
teach us on 'developing in the open' -- how to work in a transparent way with a broad engineering community."
(Log in to post comments)
Microsoft hires a Director of Linux Interoperability Posted Jun 9, 2007 4:24 UTC (Sat) by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047) [Link] Hmm...coupled with the recent deals with Novell, Xandros, et al, this has me thinking that MSmay have a different approach in mind than "patent trolling".
I think they might, just might, be trying to set themselves up as still relevant in a post-Windows-
Maybe.
Likely combination: PR and Fallback Posted Jun 9, 2007 6:35 UTC (Sat) by AnswerGuy (guest, #1256) [Link]
On the one hand the creation of a this position, and a whole department to
On the other hand Microsoft can also let this guy (and perhaps a whole
In other words they can have some real work done and left simmering on
Meanwhile I expect the rest of the company will still be focused on
JimD
Interoperability ? Feh. Posted Jun 9, 2007 7:43 UTC (Sat) by khim (guest, #9252) [Link] The most likely outcome: Microsoft will create bunch of binary-only blobs for Linux to achieve "interoperability" - this will be enough for court but it'll slow down Linux development (because it'll not be possible to do a lot of things without breaking these blobs) and put Microsoft back in control seat (because blobs will be "free" but licensing will be restrictive - remember SenderID ?)
It's usual Microsoft's tricks, nothing new there...
Likely combination: PR and Fallback Posted Jun 9, 2007 9:54 UTC (Sat) by michaeljt (subscriber, #39183) [Link] Certainly. Microsoft are not stupid, and are simply hedging their bets. They would rather do without Linux, but they are also preparing for the possibility that they will have no choice.
Likely combination: PR and Fallback Posted Jun 9, 2007 11:54 UTC (Sat) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] They get to pay a degree of lip service to "interoperability" which plays well to the industry pundits and media folks who are looking for it ... and probably will appeal to the management of some of Microsoft's customers who are increasingly using Linux.So true. Plus: if interoperability is still poor, Microsoft can now blame Linux. "See, we have a whole department dedicated to Linux interop, but they still can't get it right; the ball is on their side". When in fact no department is needed, just publishing accurate specs would probably do it most of the time.
Likely combination: PR and Fallback Posted Jun 10, 2007 12:56 UTC (Sun) by smitty_one_each (subscriber, #28989) [Link] >if interoperability is still poor, Microsoft can now blame LinuxWon't such an argument ring hollow when the real problem is non-conformance to standards, irrespective of vendor?
Likely combination: PR and Fallback Posted Jun 10, 2007 19:13 UTC (Sun) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] True, but so many things they say these days ring hollow... Actually, almost everything they say has always ringed hollow, but somehow it seems to resonate with lots of people.
Likely combination: PR and Fallback Posted Jun 11, 2007 1:42 UTC (Mon) by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047) [Link] It resonates with managers, whose skulls tend to ring hollow.
Microsoft hires a Director of Linux Interoperability Posted Jun 9, 2007 12:25 UTC (Sat) by frankie (subscriber, #13593) [Link] Thinking to fast marginalization for a company which has the monopoly of the 90% of boxes around it's a bit optimistic. They are simply found another way to get money by others, as they already does with OEMs. If you NEED to interoperate, NDAs are much more easy than reverse-engineering new formats and protocols, for instance.
Microsoft hires a Director of Linux Interoperability Posted Jun 9, 2007 8:03 UTC (Sat) by Brotherred (guest, #45141) [Link] No matter who they hire or what they say. Microsoft will never like anything that they can not control. What part of that is to be misunderstood?
Microsoft hires a Director of Linux Interoperability Posted Jun 9, 2007 8:57 UTC (Sat) by kripkenstein (subscriber, #43281) [Link] Yes, well said. If one were describing corporations using psychological terms, then Microsoft has a deep neurotic fear of lack of control, and a total inability to trust others.
The only IT world Microsoft wants is one where it controls everything and everyone pays them for it. Sure, perhaps other corporations have the same dream, but Microsoft is (1) chillingly close to achieving that goal, and (2) has shown that ethics (or even business ethics) is not something that will stand in its way.
companies can change, remember IBM Posted Jun 9, 2007 18:27 UTC (Sat) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link] I remember when IBM was villified and hated in the industry about as much as microsoft is today, they turned around microsoft can as well.
personally I don't believe that they have yet, but I won't rule out the possibility.
companies can change, remember IBM Posted Jun 10, 2007 22:52 UTC (Sun) by Max.Hyre (subscriber, #1054) [Link] But, IBM's turnaround was largely the result of a court order to expose hardware interfaces, and being blindsided by mini- and (their own!) microcomputers.I remember reading about an IBM exec congratulating the PC division on their record sales, then reminding them that the profit didn't equal that from the sale of one mainframe.
Microsoft hires a Director of Linux Interoperability Posted Jun 10, 2007 10:39 UTC (Sun) by MathFox (guest, #6104) [Link] And that's why they need to look so much harder intoThe Open Source movement is setting the pace in many areas and Microsoft knows that Linux and Open Office are viable alternatives for their products. Losing market share is no fun for a near-monopolist... especially if you're in a market with strong network effects.
Microsoft hires a Director of Linux Interoperability Posted Jun 9, 2007 8:19 UTC (Sat) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] Seems to me that Microsoft is happily using Linux to kill Unix. I think that this is the goal here.
Microsoft's market share is up, it's profits are up. But Unix profits are down, but if you count "Linux" as "Unix" then essentially everything remains unchanged. Less money people have to spend on "Unix" the more money they spend on Windows.
Microsoft hires a Director of Linux Interoperability Posted Jun 9, 2007 13:40 UTC (Sat) by ofeeley (subscriber, #36105) [Link] I'm not disputing what you say, but I'm interested in a source for those market share estimations... is it IDC?
Linux is Unix, for all practical purposes Posted Jun 9, 2007 18:29 UTC (Sat) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] From a longtime programmer's point of view, Linux is Unix (regardless of the legal technicalities that might lead one to say otherwise). Many applications that used to be owned by Solaris on Sparc servers are now mainly run by Linux on x86 servers instead (for example, electronic design automation).It doesn't help Microsoft any if proprietary Unix users move to Linux; their apps recompile with minimal effort, since the same Posix interfaces are provided, and while they save money, there's nothing guaranteeing that those savings will flow to Microsoft. And it's a lot harder for Microsoft to compete against Linux than it was for them to compete against a bunch of squabbling proprietary Unix vendors.
Linux is Unix, for all practical purposes Posted Jun 9, 2007 20:45 UTC (Sat) by xtifr (subscriber, #143) [Link] > "And it's a lot harder for Microsoft to compete against Linux than it was for them to compete against a bunch of squabbling proprietary Unix vendors."
As long as they use RedHat.
No, SUSE!
No, Debian!
No, Gentoo!
Forget all that, they should be using FreeBSD!
No, OpenBSD!
Paugh! They're idiots if they don't use OpenSolaris!
Who cares, as long as all the systems come with GNOME.
No, KDE!
Vi! Emacs! Vi! Emacs! Vi! Emacs! Iceweasel!
Heh, sorry, I seem to have been channeling some developers and IT folks of my acquaintance. Yes, it's good that the days of squabbling vendors (and users) has passed. :)
Linux is Unix, for all practical purposes Posted Jun 10, 2007 5:27 UTC (Sun) by allesfresser (guest, #216) [Link] I think you're mistaking the fanboys for the actual developers of the distributions you mentioned. I have yet to hear an actual lead developer or executive (in the case of distros that have a corporate owner) actually say that someone shouldn't use some other Distribution X... the value of the user's choice being their own actual choice based on their own actual needs is a pretty widespread meme these days.
Linux is Unix, for all practical purposes Posted Jun 10, 2007 5:51 UTC (Sun) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] Exactly. The Unix wars of the old days were completely self-destructive; warring camps repeatedly sprung up, and every time unification threatened, a new warring camp would be created. In the beginning there was BSD versus USG/System V. When AT&T and Sun got together to create SVR4, unifying BSD and System V, DEC and HP felt threated so they started the OSF. Sun created NeWS to compete with X, when that failed there was the OpenLook (Sun) versus Motif war. I was involved in what would now be called open source going back to the 80s, and we produced code that had a sea of ifdefs so it would work on about 40 different Unix flavors, or even more (yes, there really were that many) or even atrocities like Eunice, a fake Unix on top of DEC's VMS (later named "OpenVMS", in those days the label "Open" was attached to everything, and was used to mean "Closed, Proprietary, and Nonstandard"). Larry Wall became the hero of the net not for Perl (which he did later), but for doing the first smart auto-configure script as well as the patch program, making development on top of the pile of incompatible crap possible.These wars were not similar to Red Hat vs SuSE or KDE vs Gnome, because the new battles provide choices on top of a common core; everyone runs the Linux kernel with the GNU C library on top with an Xorg server, and you can run KDE and Gnome applications together; besides, the KDE and Gnome people collaborate on efforts like freedesktop.org. In the old days, however, you had to choose one proprietary vendor and place your bet on that vendor's continuing success and willingness to fix bugs, because you can't, you don't have the source. FUD games were very effective in that market. It was possible to kill the small players one by one. Linux isn't killable by the same means.
Linux is Unix, for all practical purposes Posted Jun 11, 2007 10:29 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] In any case, even if you run, say, uClibc instead of glibc, most things *still work* because both provide POSIX interfaces, and neither have gone down the `differentiation' proprietary-extensions-are-great road that so ruined the old UNIXes. (Even X.org, once one of the worst offenders in this area, is strongly against random vendors adding random extensions that their own widget sets use, as used to be common.)
Linux is Unix, for all practical purposes Posted Jun 11, 2007 12:08 UTC (Mon) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link] > I think you're mistaking the fanboys for the actual developers of the> distributions you mentioned
I think you're underestimating the damage the fanboys can do within big corporations, pushing their pet distro in the departments they control instead of the corporate choice, and succeeding pretty well in making Linux a bad choice for every manager that cares about maintenance cost (which is inversely proportional to the number of OS flavours you have to support).
A typical offender are Debian people in R&D deps, who would rather kill "evil" rpm-based commercial Red Hat or Suse Linux than let them succeed.
There *are* differences between Linux distros, and if all the Linux packaging (scripts, install doc, etc) those internal entities produce needs to be redone because it does not target the distro Corp has paid support for, most of the times it will be re-done for Solaris by SUN consultants.
Some people need to get this through their thick skull. Distros not supported by big ISVs like Oracle have zip chance to be accepted at the corporate level, and pushing them against distros which are supported only results in less Linux overall.
Linux is Unix, for all practical purposes Posted Jun 14, 2007 9:03 UTC (Thu) by dark (✭ supporter ✭, #8483) [Link] I think that what you're seeing is an inevitable consequence of having lots of people who are enthusiastic about Linux. We might be able to reduce the effect, but only with a side-effect reducing Linux advocacy across the board.It's a bit like a strong flow creating turbulence :) And we don't know how to design ideal pipes for advocacy. As a concrete example, suppose the corporate choice is for Windows servers. How will Linux gain a foothold, if it's not for particular people pushing for Linux in their departments? It would never get in, if it weren't for people willing to go against the central control.
Linux is Unix, for all practical purposes Posted Jun 14, 2007 10:53 UTC (Thu) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link] Apples and oranges.
There's pushing Linux the OS family, and there's pushing a particular brand of Linux against the one adopted internally, even in the face of clear and repeated evidence all it does is killing both.
Smart advocacy is pushing for what you can achieve, not raising the bar above what others are ready to accept.
Linux is Unix, for all practical purposes Posted Jun 14, 2007 11:27 UTC (Thu) by dark (✭ supporter ✭, #8483) [Link] Apples and oranges are both fruit.I'm saying that both kinds of pushing are effects of the same forces. Without distribution advocacy there would be a lot less Linux advocacy overall. The fanboys you denounce are pushing their distribution *everywhere*, including lots of places where more laid-back "I think Linux-based systems can be a reasonable choice for many situations" advocates don't tread. So I'm happy to take the bad with the good. It's just friction, not damage or loss.
Microsoft hires a Director of Linux Interoperability Posted Jun 9, 2007 22:56 UTC (Sat) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] I think so.
I went into google news and did a search for "linux server market share" and found a few articles. One of them mentioned something along the lines of what I said, unfortunately I failed to take note of which article specificly and now I can't find it. :(
What makes it difficult is all of this market share is based on _revenue_ in terms of sales from publicly traded corporations. Otherwise true market share is difficult to figure out.
Especially with virtualization.
The way I figure it is that Microsoft is confident in their hold on the desktop space.
With their hold on the business Desktop this translates directly to their continued hold on the server/network infrastructure needed to support the Windows users and desktops. So they aren't worried about Linux on the desktop being a real rival. Linux just can't do the tight integration that you get with stuff like Windows server, Active Directory, Exchange, Office, and Windows desktop. At least not without huge headaches. (Talking about it in terms of Microsoft perception)
So by setting up a neutered and controlled Linux to offer compatability, to offer a sort of one-way 'bridge' from Unix-land to Windows-land. Microsoft can't do it without Linux because Linux provides the compatability.
Linux will provide a cheap and acceptable alternative to Unix, not Windows. Windows will provide the ease-of-use that will lower costs and attract them further.
Also Linux is dirt cheap and thus they will starve some of their major competitors in the enterprise space of revenue. Hurting them in the stock market and lowering their ability to compete.
Since IBM and friends sponsor a lot of Linux development, but still make a lions share of their money from Unix it's a chance for Microsoft to 'prove' that Linux is not a secure investment.. that it can be used as a weapon against you.
I am expecting that Microsoft is banking heavily on Windows Server 2008 to right off the Linux server threat and spearhead a push into the lucrative high-end Enterprise space.
I expect Microsoft is very happy to show things like this off to their stock owners:
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2007/06/08/june_2007_we...
*shrug*.
All signs seem point out that Microsoft perceives Linux as their greatest rival in the server room, but it is not a threat to their core money making activities; Windows Desktop and Microsoft Office.
Of course all of what I am saying is just very idle speculation, so don't take it very seriously.
Microsoft hires a Director of Linux Interoperability Posted Jun 14, 2007 10:55 UTC (Thu) by stevan (subscriber, #4342) [Link] > since IDC began tracking Linux server spending in 1998
This has always intrigued me. In not one case of the 30 or 40 servers
I know there are ways of extrapolating polling results, but I just can't
S
Microsoft hires a Director of Linux Interoperability Posted Jun 10, 2007 3:37 UTC (Sun) by Brotherred (guest, #45141) [Link] Wow the obvious has just hit me. That is intriguing. For me and I think many others Using GNU+Linux is about buying more hardware or alternatively buying only the programs I want.
Well that is not counting the system stability and the right to hack my own code.
Back to your point about MS using GNU+Linux to kill Unix. That is down right scary and seems to be true.
Microsoft hires a Director of Linux Interoperability Posted Jun 10, 2007 8:39 UTC (Sun) by eklitzke (subscriber, #36426) [Link] I sincerely doubt it. That would be a really, really unwise strategy on Microsoft's part. It's much better for Microsoft to be competing against a number of small competitors than one, larger competitor. I'm sure it's much easier for Microsoft to steal customers from Sun, IBM, HP, etc. than it is for them to convert Linux using customers. If you're using a proprietary Unix, you're really in the minority. Solaris, AIX, and other proprietary Unices are all costly and fairly nonstandard by now. That makes them expensive to operate. I'm sure in a lot of cases, Microsoft can ensure such companies that not only can they move to a more widely supported platform, but they can also save a lot of money by a move to Windows. Furthermore, a lot of businesses that move from proprietary Unices will also be able to save money by buying more commodity hardware.
On the other hand, it's going to be very difficult to move people to Windows from Linux. It's going to incur the companies a lot of licensing costs of course, plus training costs, etc. Microsoft has to try to make long term TCO arguments, which are very obviously suspect (yes, even to business types).
Microsoft hires a Director of Linux Interoperability Posted Jun 10, 2007 15:35 UTC (Sun) by oak (guest, #2786) [Link] Maybe microsoft wants to sell virtualization services and control softwarefor those services? If the www, smtp etc services are nowadays commodized it doesn't make sense to try to compete on those. They could try to offer software for boxing those into a Linux virtual machines (the Novell deal) that're run inside "easily managed" Windows machines (shiver...).
Microsoft hires a Director of Linux Interoperability Posted Jun 9, 2007 14:12 UTC (Sat) by Quazatron (subscriber, #4368) [Link] ... and the Devil shivered in his sleeping bag...
Microsoft hires a Director of Linux Interoperability Posted Jun 9, 2007 15:45 UTC (Sat) by genius (guest, #19981) [Link] this is such a great news. Windows Server is on the verge to achieve more than 70% market share. Linux interop is great for the customers, me , MS and Novell. Everyone is happy.
Microsoft hires a Director of Linux Interoperability Posted Jun 10, 2007 4:27 UTC (Sun) by rhdxmr (guest, #44404) [Link] If the term, interoperability, is the very word as I imagine,lots of linux users will be happy. May I expect that the Active-X would be performed in Linux?
Microsoft hires a Director of Linux Interoperability Posted Jun 13, 2007 0:01 UTC (Wed) by genius (guest, #19981) [Link] we dont need stinking activeX. we just need java applets. like the one u use for bulk upload to one of the free webhosts. :)
Microsoft hires a Director of Linux Interoperability Posted Jun 10, 2007 16:40 UTC (Sun) by shemminger (subscriber, #5739) [Link] Quit trying to read too many strategic things into what is basically a tactical choice by both parties.
Tom was laid off as part of the deconstruction of OSDL into the Linux Foundation. OSDL had a corporate mission to make Linux play well in the
Microsoft often acts on two fronts as once. They have a negative front to prevent the growth of Linux in existing accounts (FUD). M$ft doesn't want there massive low end installed base to even look at Linux. But on the high end servers, they see an opportunity to co-exist with Linux in virtual environments. For them it is a way to get a foot in the door with big accounts.
Microsoft hires a Director of Linux Interoperability Posted Jun 10, 2007 17:23 UTC (Sun) by jpick (guest, #29470) [Link] There are a lot of smart people at Microsoft.
They aren't going to say it publicly, but they know that they've "lost the desktop".
Because of Linux, Apple, Firefox and Google, plus a plethora of cross-platform frameworks, very few software development shops are adopting a a Micrsoft-only model. You can do everything within a web browser now.
You'll see them pushing .Net/Silverlight very aggressively, and they need to get that onto Linux. If they don't do that, they're going to lose a lot of ground to Google.
Microsoft hires a Director of Linux Interoperability Posted Jun 11, 2007 6:24 UTC (Mon) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] What do you mean by "lose the desktop"? As far as I know, they own the desktop. Linux and Apple together are less than 10%; Firefox and Google have Windows as their primary targets. "Google desktop" is a lot of nasty Windows apps.Indeed, most development shops are adopting a Microsoft-only model, and cross-platform compatibility is just a glint in some manager's eye -- where it even appears on the radar.
Microsoft hires a Director of Linux Interoperability Posted Jun 11, 2007 14:54 UTC (Mon) by branden (subscriber, #7029) [Link] Shareholders demand growth.
There are two ways to grow: increase market share, or increase the profit margin among your existing customer base.
Owning 90% of the market means nothing to the shareholders if you can't show them a plan for getting the remaining 10% -- and the desktop momentum has not been in Microsoft's favor lately.
I think the last few years' worth of developments in Microsoft's licensing have been telegraphing the fact that they've realized this and are trying the other approach -- gouging the existing base for more and more, since they haven't figured out how to produce software more cheaply. (Has Microsoft ever had a substantial layoff? If not, it will be a watershed event when they do.)
In any case, with the volumes Microsoft shift, and with the prices they charge, the cost of production relative to sales volume has to be almost negligible. The great thing about that is that every sale is nearly pure profit. The terrible thing about that is that it's hard for profit to exeed revenue. So they're already maxed out there. That leaves them with having to charge customers more for the same old thing.
The problem with gouging your customers is that it drives your them to the alternatives that do exist, so you end up throwing away your own market share. Then you're back to trying to grow it.
Microsoft hires a Director of Linux Interoperability Posted Jun 11, 2007 12:57 UTC (Mon) by cpm (guest, #3554) [Link] I've had this 'feeling' that there maybe a group of folks @ microsoft who are just hanging on awaiting the day that the Ballmers and Gatesesof Microsoft finally retire, and just get the heck out of the way.
|
|
||||||||||||