Steven H wrote:
> Hello Shane,
>
> yep http://port25.technet.com/ it is making for some intresting reading
>
> ----------------
> Steven H
Indeed, Ive concentrated on
http://port25.technet.com/archive/2006/03/31/14.aspx
and I think the fourth paragraph
"Contrary to the belief that Microsoft is anti-open source, the reality is
not so black-and-white,” says Hilf. “Most customers don’t live in an
either/or world, nor do they choose a technology based on its development
model. Instead, they choose a technology based on its ability to serve a
business need or solve a particular problem. By running open source
software in a Windows environment, we’re learning how those technologies
can work better together so that our customers can benefit from a broader
range of choices."
Shows Microsoft is merely adapting to what it views are the markets
wants/needs
It also shows Microsoft takes Linux in particular seriously,
"One recent example is the work the lab did for the Microsoft Windows
Compute Cluster Server 2003, which the company announced in late 2005 as
part of its entrance into the high performance computing (HPC) market.
Today, that market is largely dominated by Linux"
Theres some claim about Microsoft looking for interoperability, although
someone has placed a comment that makes a very good point at the bottom of
the page
"Why did XP SP1 break compatibility with Samba?"
For my 2 cents, this just shows Microsoft adapting to a market it desires,
currently dominated by Linux, with the view (obviously) of dominating that
market itself eventually.
The one thing that Linux (or any OSS for that matter) offers over the
current products available from Microsoft (and this is important in the
target arena) is customisability(eng?) Its not a big issue to have several
specialist programmers on staff customising everything from the top down
specifically for that company's needs (Look at Google.com)
--
Rule 6: There is no Rule 6.
