M$ to focus on Linux, software-as-a-service, advertising, & chair throwing.

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Have A Nice Cup of Tea, May 13, 2006.

  1. http://www.informationweek.com/industries/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=187202415

    "" Ballmer believes Microsoft can beat open source by ultimately proving
    lower cost of ownership with its software. "It hard to beat open source on
    initial cost of procurement; it is not hard to beat open source on total
    cost of ownership," he said. ""

    This article is just so histerically funny!

    I know of companies that have whole IT departments that do almost nothing
    other than cleaning up the shite that results from using M$ software - and
    that is all a part of the Totel Cost of "Ownership" associated with using
    M$ software.

    Unix is rock solid. Micro$oft is squidgy shite!

    And I notice that OpenSuSE 10.1 was released yesterday - on time. :p


    Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    --
    1/ Migration to Linux only costs money once. Higher Windows TCO is forever.
    2/ "Shared source" is a poison pill. Open Source is freedom.
    3/ Only the Windows boxes get the worms.
    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, May 13, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    Chris Hope Guest

    Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:

    > And I notice that OpenSuSE 10.1 was released yesterday - on time.


    It wasn't released "on time" as there was never a scheduled release date
    until a week before it was released.

    --
    Chris Hope | www.electrictoolbox.com | www.linuxcdmall.com
    Chris Hope, May 13, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    Shane Guest

    Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:


    > Unix is rock solid. Micro$oft is squidgy shite!


    Whilst I prefer Unix to Linux, and Linux to Microsoft products, *none* of
    them are without issues, to pretend otherwise would make you...

    --
    Rule 6: There is no rule 6
    Shane, May 13, 2006
    #3
  4. Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    -=rjh=- Guest

    Re: M$ to focus on Linux, software-as-a-service, advertising, & chairthrowing.

    Chris Hope wrote:
    > Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
    >
    >> And I notice that OpenSuSE 10.1 was released yesterday - on time.

    >
    > It wasn't released "on time" as there was never a scheduled release date
    > until a week before it was released.
    >

    Damn cunning, those open source people :)

    Now, why didn't they pre-announce it back in 2004, just to stop people
    from downloading some other distribution?
    -=rjh=-, May 13, 2006
    #4
  5. Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    Chris Hope Guest

    -=rjh=- wrote:

    > Chris Hope wrote:
    >> Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
    >>
    >>> And I notice that OpenSuSE 10.1 was released yesterday - on time.

    >>
    >> It wasn't released "on time" as there was never a scheduled release
    >> date until a week before it was released.
    >>

    > Damn cunning, those open source people :)
    >
    > Now, why didn't they pre-announce it back in 2004, just to stop people
    > from downloading some other distribution?


    It's quite interesting the way they do their development cycle. It goes
    through alpha, beta then release candidate stages with several builds
    at each stage that the general public can download and test should they
    want to. Once it gets into beta and release candidate stage a build is
    released every week.

    I was expecting 10.1 to be released a week earlier than it was but they
    decided to do a third release candidate so that pushed it back another
    week and I didn't know until Monday if they were doing the final
    release this week for sure.

    I think the aim for SUSE is to release roughly every six months but it
    took 8 months to get 10.1 out after 10.0.

    --
    Chris Hope | www.electrictoolbox.com | www.linuxcdmall.com
    Chris Hope, May 13, 2006
    #5
  6. On Sat, 13 May 2006 13:09:25 +1200, Chris Hope wrote:

    >> And I notice that OpenSuSE 10.1 was released yesterday - on time.

    >
    > It wasn't released "on time" as there was never a scheduled release date
    > until a week before it was released.


    So that means it WAS released on time - on the time they stated. It's just
    that they didn't state when that would be until a week before it happened.
    ;o)

    I'm already running KDE 3.5.2 on a fully patched SuSE 10.0 system, and so
    I don't yet see any real advantage to moving over to useing SuSE 10.1 .


    Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    --
    1/ Migration to Linux only costs money once. Higher Windows TCO is forever.
    2/ "Shared source" is a poison pill. Open Source is freedom.
    3/ Only the Windows boxes get the worms.
    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, May 13, 2006
    #6
  7. On Sat, 13 May 2006 13:37:03 +1200, Chris Hope wrote:

    > I think the aim for SUSE is to release roughly every six months but it
    > took 8 months to get 10.1 out after 10.0.


    Yeah.

    Do you know if there is a torrent for a DVD ISO image of SuSE 10.1
    available yet?

    I prefer to download the DVD image rather than multiple CD images, and I
    didn't see torrents for DVD images on the download page.


    Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    --
    1/ Migration to Linux only costs money once. Higher Windows TCO is forever.
    2/ "Shared source" is a poison pill. Open Source is freedom.
    3/ Only the Windows boxes get the worms.
    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, May 13, 2006
    #7
  8. On Sat, 13 May 2006 13:22:48 +1200, Shane wrote:

    >> Unix is rock solid. Micro$oft is squidgy shite!

    >
    > Whilst I prefer Unix to Linux, and Linux to Microsoft products, *none* of
    > them are without issues, to pretend otherwise would make you...


    True - there still are issues with *nix.

    For example, it is difficult to get Samba to interface with M$ systems
    without issues - mostly due to a complete lack of accurate documentation
    of server APIs from Micro$oft.


    Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    --
    1/ Migration to Linux only costs money once. Higher Windows TCO is forever.
    2/ "Shared source" is a poison pill. Open Source is freedom.
    3/ Only the Windows boxes get the worms.
    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, May 13, 2006
    #8
  9. Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    Chris Hope Guest

    Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:

    > On Sat, 13 May 2006 13:37:03 +1200, Chris Hope wrote:
    >
    >> I think the aim for SUSE is to release roughly every six months but
    >> it took 8 months to get 10.1 out after 10.0.

    >
    > Yeah.
    >
    > Do you know if there is a torrent for a DVD ISO image of SuSE 10.1
    > available yet?


    Not until Thursday. It is possible to build a DVD from the CD ISOs...

    > I prefer to download the DVD image rather than multiple CD images, and
    > I didn't see torrents for DVD images on the download page.


    but obviously not something you want to do.

    --
    Chris Hope | www.electrictoolbox.com | www.linuxcdmall.com
    Chris Hope, May 13, 2006
    #9
  10. On Sat, 13 May 2006 13:22:48 +1200, Shane wrote:

    > Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
    >
    >
    >> Unix is rock solid. Micro$oft is squidgy shite!

    >
    > Whilst I prefer Unix to Linux, and Linux to Microsoft products, *none* of
    > them are without issues, to pretend otherwise would make you...


    I think that Linux IS a version of Unix. It's just that (like IBM's z/OS)
    it is a version of Unix that has not been derived from any of AT&T's
    original (ss 3,4,5) Unixes, but it complies with the Open Group's Single
    Unix Specification.


    Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    --
    1/ Migration to Linux only costs money once. Higher Windows TCO is forever.
    2/ "Shared source" is a poison pill. Open Source is freedom.
    3/ Only the Windows boxes get the worms.
    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, May 13, 2006
    #10
  11. Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    s.te.v.e. Guest

    Chris Hope wrote:

    > Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
    >
    >> And I notice that OpenSuSE 10.1 was released yesterday - on time.

    >
    > It wasn't released "on time" as there was never a scheduled release date
    > until a week before it was released.


    ....and how long since the previous release?

    6 months? A whole year? :)
    s.te.v.e., May 13, 2006
    #11
  12. Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    Chris Hope Guest

    s.te.v.e. wrote:

    > Chris Hope wrote:
    >
    >> Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
    >>
    >>> And I notice that OpenSuSE 10.1 was released yesterday - on time.

    >>
    >> It wasn't released "on time" as there was never a scheduled release
    >> date until a week before it was released.

    >
    > ...and how long since the previous release?
    >
    > 6 months? A whole year? :)


    From my other post: "I think the aim for SUSE is to release roughly
    every six months but it took 8 months to get 10.1 out after 10.0."

    --
    Chris Hope | www.electrictoolbox.com | www.linuxcdmall.com
    Chris Hope, May 13, 2006
    #12
  13. On Sat, 13 May 2006 19:29:46 +1200, Chris Hope wrote:

    > From my other post: "I think the aim for SUSE is to release roughly
    > every six months but it took 8 months to get 10.1 out after 10.0."


    To be fair, the people who throw SuSE together have been going through
    massive organisational change in the last year or so. :eek:(

    And, it is also well overdue for a proper full debugging cycle to be done
    with the Linux kernel.


    Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    --
    1/ Migration to Linux only costs money once. Higher Windows TCO is forever.
    2/ "Shared source" is a poison pill. Open Source is freedom.
    3/ Only the Windows boxes get the worms.
    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, May 13, 2006
    #13
  14. Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    thingy Guest

    Re: M$ to focus on Linux, software-as-a-service, advertising, & chairthrowing.

    Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
    > http://www.informationweek.com/industries/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=187202415
    >
    > "" Ballmer believes Microsoft can beat open source by ultimately proving
    > lower cost of ownership with its software. "It hard to beat open source on
    > initial cost of procurement; it is not hard to beat open source on total
    > cost of ownership," he said. ""
    >
    > This article is just so histerically funny!
    >
    > I know of companies that have whole IT departments that do almost nothing
    > other than cleaning up the shite that results from using M$ software - and
    > that is all a part of the Totel Cost of "Ownership" associated with using
    > M$ software.
    >
    > Unix is rock solid. Micro$oft is squidgy shite!
    >
    > And I notice that OpenSuSE 10.1 was released yesterday - on time. :p
    >
    >
    > Have A Nice Cup of Tea
    >


    Why funny?

    There are four parts to a deployment, buying it, installing it,
    maintaining it and upgrading it.

    First, Linux might well win on buying but,

    2nd, MS has some state of the art deployment & Integration tools to glue
    a solution together, Linux/OSS often lacks these esential pieces of
    "kit". So arguably First cost - often Linux, second Cost often - MS. NB
    MS knows this and appears to be spending time and money winning this
    battle and OSS is loosing it big time, in fact OSS is not even playing.

    The 3rd one, maintainance.

    Maintaining it is harder to qualify basically because a lot of support
    costs are based on interfacing with dumb users. eg some of who I come
    across surprise me they can tie shoe laces let alone run simple computer
    applications. Linux does not operate significantly in this dumb user
    environment to suffer as MS does, when it does it is hard work. As an
    example I run mailman server which I consider p*ss easy to figure out
    and operate as a mailing list owner but in migrating 100+ odd lists so
    far I have encountered too many who gave up thier lists because they
    could not understand it...I even supplied them with a simple document
    with pretty pictures and suggested settings for the essential
    things.....point and click stuff, 3 months+ later....some people should
    be strangled at birth....

    So, interfacing directly with users, probably MS wins it, viruses and
    trojans, well MS looses that one hands down, but it is trying. ie yes
    its practical security model sucks but that would not matter so much if
    its user base were computer literate and security consious, trouble is
    they are usually neither............given the current state / level of
    how Linux and MS interact with the stupids....I dont think I can mark MS
    down, it provides enough tools, advice and patches to keep its OS secure
    enough. So I tend to a draw on that one.

    The 4th, upgrading.......this often comes back to No2, neat tools to
    upgrade from competitors software and its own versions. NB MS knows this
    and is spending time and money winning this battle and OSS is loosing it
    big time.

    The key here is most products in an Enterprise are not standalone, but
    link and cross link and this is critical to a businesses success, again
    OSS is loosing this one. The battle is the middleware, the glue, OSS is
    never going to surpass MS because of this, hence Balmers comments IMHO.

    This does not mean MS could not fall by the way side and OSS pass it by
    default btw. The saying goes the opposition does not win an election,
    the Government looses it, same here.

    regards

    Thing
    thingy, May 13, 2006
    #14
  15. On Sat, 13 May 2006 20:30:13 +1200, thingy wrote:

    > The key here is most products in an Enterprise are not standalone, but
    > link and cross link and this is critical to a businesses success, again
    > OSS is loosing this one. The battle is the middleware, the glue, OSS is
    > never going to surpass MS because of this, hence Balmers comments IMHO.


    Yes - agreed.

    However, as you pointed out, the Free OSS software community has not even
    begun to address that area.

    When it does... you can expect a total sea change.

    Currently the work is on producing and refining a first class enterprise
    desktop.

    At home I don't need glue to stick my desktop to my server. It was simple
    enough for me to configure that by hand.

    Next step, mixing up a batch of two pot epoxy glue. :eek:)

    I think that, for large enterprises, a great pot of glue would be a stable
    *equivalent* to AD that somehow uses a secure form of NFS (yeah yeah)
    rather than Windows networking - which would entirely leave the lusers'
    documents and email etc, on a server in proper mailbox files - rather than
    constant problems with PST and OST archives.

    And I fail to see why somebody couldn't come up with software that would
    enable a delegated user group to maintain users' accounts via a database,
    and that periodically produces updates to the necessary server config
    files.

    I think that is definitely possible to do, and would be relatively easy to
    implement. All it requires is a little effort by a few developers.

    That, and an easy way to roll back any corrupted or deleted files from a
    recent backup,

    and an automated way to roll a new piece of software that could produce
    something like a NAL that would allow the means to remotely
    install-&-configure-everything necessary to get the end Luser working,
    would, I think, substantially reduce the time necessary to maintain a
    large hurd of lusers without needing to resort periodically to a LART of
    some sort or other (on management or otherwise).

    There is already more than the beginnings of an OSS equivalent of M$
    Exchange.

    I think the above addresses what you were referring to. Does it?


    Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    --
    1/ Migration to Linux only costs money once. Higher Windows TCO is forever.
    2/ "Shared source" is a poison pill. Open Source is freedom.
    3/ Only the Windows boxes get the worms.
    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, May 13, 2006
    #15
  16. "thingy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
    >> http://www.informationweek.com/industries/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=187202415
    >>
    >> "" Ballmer believes Microsoft can beat open source by ultimately proving
    >> lower cost of ownership with its software. "It hard to beat open source
    >> on
    >> initial cost of procurement; it is not hard to beat open source on total
    >> cost of ownership," he said. ""
    >>
    >> This article is just so histerically funny!
    >>
    >> I know of companies that have whole IT departments that do almost nothing
    >> other than cleaning up the shite that results from using M$ software -
    >> and
    >> that is all a part of the Totel Cost of "Ownership" associated with using
    >> M$ software.
    >>
    >> Unix is rock solid. Micro$oft is squidgy shite!
    >>
    >> And I notice that OpenSuSE 10.1 was released yesterday - on time. :p
    >>
    >>
    >> Have A Nice Cup of Tea
    >>

    >
    > Why funny?
    >
    > There are four parts to a deployment, buying it, installing it,
    > maintaining it and upgrading it.
    >
    > First, Linux might well win on buying but,
    >
    > 2nd, MS has some state of the art deployment & Integration tools to glue a
    > solution together, Linux/OSS often lacks these esential pieces of "kit".
    > So arguably First cost - often Linux, second Cost often - MS. NB MS knows
    > this and appears to be spending time and money winning this battle and OSS
    > is loosing it big time, in fact OSS is not even playing.
    >
    > The 3rd one, maintainance.
    >
    > Maintaining it is harder to qualify basically because a lot of support
    > costs are based on interfacing with dumb users. eg some of who I come
    > across surprise me they can tie shoe laces let alone run simple computer
    > applications. Linux does not operate significantly in this dumb user
    > environment to suffer as MS does, when it does it is hard work. As an
    > example I run mailman server which I consider p*ss easy to figure out and
    > operate as a mailing list owner but in migrating 100+ odd lists so far I
    > have encountered too many who gave up thier lists because they could not
    > understand it...I even supplied them with a simple document with pretty
    > pictures and suggested settings for the essential things.....point and
    > click stuff, 3 months+ later....some people should be strangled at
    > birth....
    >
    > So, interfacing directly with users, probably MS wins it, viruses and
    > trojans, well MS looses that one hands down, but it is trying. ie yes its
    > practical security model sucks but that would not matter so much if its
    > user base were computer literate and security consious, trouble is they
    > are usually neither............given the current state / level of how
    > Linux and MS interact with the stupids....I dont think I can mark MS down,
    > it provides enough tools, advice and patches to keep its OS secure enough.
    > So I tend to a draw on that one.
    >
    > The 4th, upgrading.......this often comes back to No2, neat tools to
    > upgrade from competitors software and its own versions. NB MS knows this
    > and is spending time and money winning this battle and OSS is loosing it
    > big time.
    >
    > The key here is most products in an Enterprise are not standalone, but
    > link and cross link and this is critical to a businesses success, again
    > OSS is loosing this one. The battle is the middleware, the glue, OSS is
    > never going to surpass MS because of this, hence Balmers comments IMHO.
    >
    > This does not mean MS could not fall by the way side and OSS pass it by
    > default btw. The saying goes the opposition does not win an election, the
    > Government looses it, same here.
    >
    > regards
    >
    > Thing
    >


    You know, I only see his messages because you reply to them.

    He makes a wonderful addition to anyone's kill file, give it a go :p

    Perhaps I should just create a new mail rule, anything with M$ of Micro$oft
    gets ignored.

    Steve
    Stephen Williams, May 13, 2006
    #16
  17. T'was the Sat, 13 May 2006 21:49:38 +1200 when I remembered Have A
    Nice Cup of Tea <> saying something like this:

    >However, as you pointed out, the Free OSS software community has not even
    >begun to address that area.
    >
    >When it does... you can expect a total sea change.


    I disagree. Where is the total sea change when it comes to the
    desktop? Last time I used Fedora Core 5 (don't blame the distribution,
    it's one of the bigger ones out there), I didn't see anything
    radically different with the desktop. Worked much like Windows XP. I
    do quite like the changes that Mac OS X implemented (Expose etc...)
    and I like the direction where Project Looking Glass is going, but
    I've yet to see total sea change on the linux desktop.

    Having said this, I see minor change with Vista but I haven't really
    seen major desktop change with Vista. This doesn't mean it's not
    there, more like no one's pointed it out to me. The Windows Key + Tab
    thing is nice, but Alt + Tab has the same functionality.

    <snip>

    >I think that, for large enterprises, a great pot of glue would be a stable
    >*equivalent* to AD that somehow uses a secure form of NFS (yeah yeah)
    >rather than Windows networking - which would entirely leave the lusers'
    >documents and email etc, on a server in proper mailbox files - rather than
    >constant problems with PST and OST archives.


    IMAP?

    >And I fail to see why somebody couldn't come up with software that would
    >enable a delegated user group to maintain users' accounts via a database,
    >and that periodically produces updates to the necessary server config
    >files.


    Uh, Active Directory delegation, and then having those changes
    replicated throughout the domain?

    >I think that is definitely possible to do, and would be relatively easy to
    >implement. All it requires is a little effort by a few developers.
    >
    >That, and an easy way to roll back any corrupted or deleted files from a
    >recent backup,


    Shadow Copies on Windows Server 2003?

    >and an automated way to roll a new piece of software that could produce
    >something like a NAL that would allow the means to remotely
    >install-&-configure-everything necessary to get the end Luser working,
    >would, I think, substantially reduce the time necessary to maintain a
    >large hurd of lusers without needing to resort periodically to a LART of
    >some sort or other (on management or otherwise).


    Application deployments (well, MSIs anyway) though Active Directory?
    --
    Cheers,

    Waylon Kenning.
    Waylon Kenning, May 13, 2006
    #17
  18. On Sun, 14 May 2006 00:04:38 +1200, Stephen Williams wrote:

    > Perhaps I should just create a new mail rule, anything with M$ of Micro$oft
    > gets ignored.


    Go for it, Mate. Go for it. I don't mind. :eek:)


    Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    --
    1/ Migration to Linux only costs money once. Higher Windows TCO is forever.
    2/ "Shared source" is a poison pill. Open Source is freedom.
    3/ Only the Windows boxes get the worms.
    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, May 13, 2006
    #18
  19. On Sun, 14 May 2006 00:04:50 +1200, Waylon Kenning wrote:

    > Application deployments (well, MSIs anyway) though Active Directory?


    Well, if you have Active Directory working on Linux you're doing better
    than most. I didn't realise it was GPL'd software!


    Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    --
    1/ Migration to Linux only costs money once. Higher Windows TCO is forever.
    2/ "Shared source" is a poison pill. Open Source is freedom.
    3/ Only the Windows boxes get the worms.
    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, May 13, 2006
    #19
  20. On Sun, 14 May 2006 00:04:50 +1200, Waylon Kenning wrote:

    >>When it does... you can expect a total sea change.

    >
    > I disagree. Where is the total sea change when it comes to the
    > desktop?


    I think you don't understand the meaning of "total sea change" in that
    context.

    It kinda has a similar meaning as "paradigm shift".


    Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    --
    1/ Migration to Linux only costs money once. Higher Windows TCO is forever.
    2/ "Shared source" is a poison pill. Open Source is freedom.
    3/ Only the Windows boxes get the worms.
    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, May 13, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.

Share This Page