LWN: Comments on "Microsoft's changing tune on Linux (News.com)"

Do not underestimate the Microsoft !

alan — 2003-01-24T15:01:26+00:00

It is trivial to avoid scsi devices being renamed on linux. I ran into this pseudo-difficulty on a storage network of SCSI SAN arrays, just pay attention to how your system is configured. And yes devfs does solve this problem.

Pointing out that a windows registry holds similar information as /etc and dot-private hidden files in home directories is a non-argument. You've pointed out the differences, not any failings in one or the other. That said, editing system wide config text files in /etc, and having the ability to set different user settings overriding defaults is very nice. The 'architectural' difference here is the general unix multiuser concept, something imitated (poorly) in NT and variants (like XP). Where NT has needed to run to more complicated schemes like ACL's, octal owner/group/world perms are still fairly appropriate and useful permission scheme. Simple works. Simple good. Be Smart, Be Simple.

That said, do not underestimate Microsoft. They are very good at understanding the needs of Joe Average.

"So from Joe Average (who does not know how to run gcc and do not care) point of view Microsoft is fixing problems while Linux claiming that solution exists and do nothing."

From the propagandist view of Joe Average, 'Linux' is a company or some responsible body. Mr Average doesn't know the freedom given him by an open platform, if he has a problem with LinuxCompanyA he can always take his exact problem to LinuxCompanyB and have his problems solved. 'Microsoft' can be held responsible. 'Linux' is a term used so widely that it can confuse poor Mr. Average's average brain. This is where the commercial linux vendors come in. IMHO they need the full support of the community in this.

Microsoft's changing tune on Linux (News.com)

metacircles — 2003-01-23T13:30:04+00:00

We don't compete in local economies for services business, so those dollars stay in that economy. We did a study and found that, on average, for every dollar that goes to Microsoft, nine dollars go to the local economy. And we think that's a very impressive ratio

In other words, "The total cost of deploying Windows is ten times as much as the software cost/licence fees alone". Is this figure consistent with the TCO surveys they report on?

Do not underestimate the Microsoft !

khim — 2003-01-23T06:56:52+00:00

Microsoft can fix its errors. Examples ?

Windows 2000/XP does not change letters when new drive is added in system while Linux does rename devices when new SCSI disk is added. Yeah, I know: devfs can solve this problem easily (I know as I'm using it myself) but... devfs is optinal and not used by a lot of distributions out there by default.

Windows XP does support work with one application fired on one system with display on another. Even more: you can fire up Office on one system, go to other and continue to work that same Office in the same session (of course if I want to use first computer I'd better buy Windows Server 2003 instead of Windows XP - but it's just marketing, engine is the same in both systems). Yet again: you can not do it as easily with Linux by default (it's possible to do with Xnest - but how many distributions come with support of such thing tyned by default?).

Registry... Registry more or less is heap of files in /etc and HOME/.{gnome,kde,mc} rollen in one. Nothing more, nothing less. The only difference is that Linux programs usually do not change files all over /etc while Windows ones do - not an architectural problem. Oh. And Linux's program expect to populate .gnome (.kde, .mc, .XYZ - whatever) itself while a lot of Windows program delegate this role to installer so you can not just purge HEY_CURRENT_USER and expect reasonable defaults - but it's not architectural problem as well.

The point is that both Linux and Windows have a lot of problems - they are just different. And big difference is how problem is solved: with Linux we can be in situation where soluion exists for years "somewhere around there" and is not included in official kernel or most distributions but with Windows solution is usually pushed ahead no matter if and what (with new version of Windows or with new ServicePack if needed). So from Joe Average (who does not know how to run gcc and do not care) point of view Microsoft is fixing problems while Linux claiming that solution exists and do nothing.

Microsoft's changing tune on Linux (News.com)

blackcloudone — 2003-01-23T01:28:32+00:00

I use both products. What is the point arguing about linux/MS? I seen
great work bringing linux to the forfront in spite of MS.
I am a new comer to Linux. Cost for me and the great software showing up
for linux in making the transition easier.

Did I lose something here? Command line...Huh.. Yes command is
available.. great for linux geeks. KDE or Gnome are great. I know there
are many others. Open office. Works great. Bugs yes.
For all the comments regarding the linux stuff maybe MS should spend more
time putting the tires on the software. Does anyone remember that the day
of release for XP, was the first of many serious patches.

Sorry I can go on and one

Keep it up guys.. Houston, Europe, South America.. That aint bad. Bill is
on the run

Just my two cents

Weasel-word warning...

roelofs — 2003-01-22T23:36:44+00:00

My goodness, such a lot of sidestepping the questions and FUDging the answers...marketing guys must be genetically descended from weasels, methinks.

For example, several of the recent TCO comparisons have pointed to the fact that one person can administer a lot more Linux boxes than Windows boxes, and that's specifically because it's a ``command-line-focused approach'' rather than a GUI monstrosity. (Moreover, the Unix philosophy of ``let each tool do one job well,'' particularly as embodied in the multitudes of pipeline-capable utilities, adds even more bang to the sysadmin buck.)

Microsoft also continues to believe (or claim, anyway) that tight integration is a huge benefit to customers, but if you're running a bunch of servers, do you really want that GUI running all the time? Even if it's occasionally necessary, wouldn't you rather fire it up only when you need it, then kill it when you're finished so it doesn't continue to eat up RAM and virtual memory unnecessarily?

And then there's system replication--it's trivial to clone a pile of Linux disks from a single master (for example, with dd and tar), pop them into a set of vaguely similar machines, and have them all work from the get-go. But unless those machines are completely identical, good luck trying that with Windows. (Here I'm already assuming you can even get an appropriate license to do that from Microsoft. Not a problem with Linux and most Linux apps, of course.)

Even for non-sysadmin users, small home networks are becoming the norm, and it's hard to argue that Microsoft's lack of support for remote GUI applications (e.g., I fire up my office application on machine A but have it display on machine B) benefits anyone but Microsoft. Ditto for binary configuration files (death by registry, anyone?) and--ugh--drive letters that change when a new disk is added to the system.

Houston does make a valid point about consistency of the UI--that's always been a weakness of Linux and even Windows, to some extent (relative to Mac OS). But even though bringing that to Linux may require extensive work across numerous projects, fundamentally it's not an architectural problem and therefore can easily be addressed in an incremental fashion, with benefits that are progressively more visible to users. Windows' limitations, on the other hand, are architectural, and I think Microsoft is going to feel a lot more pain in the next few years because of it.