Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Ask Microsoft's Martin Taylor About Linux vs. Windows

Posted by Roblimo on Wed Feb 09, 2005 12:00 PM
from the TCO-studies-prove-whatever-you-want-them-to dept.
Martin Taylor is Microsoft's global general manager of platform strategy, but he's best-known as the man the company trots out to refute claims of Linux superiority. Here are links to several interviews he's done in the past two years: vnunet.com; CMP; Computerworld; and one on Microsoft's own site. As usual, please submit one question per post. We'll present 10 - 12 of the highest-moderated questions to Mr. Taylor about 24 hours after this post appears, and we expect to publish his answers within the next week.
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by stu_coates (156061) on Wednesday February 09 2005, @12:05PM (#11619242)

    Notepad or Wordpad? ;-)

  • Why? (Score:5, Interesting)

    Why are we asking him about anything? He should be asking /us/.

    On second thought, I do have some questions, which I can wrap into a single bundle:

    "Is Microsoft going to pursue a Palladium philosophy in the next 5 years? And, if this the strategy, what guarantees will Microsoft make that protect Free Speech?"

    Ratboy.
  • by greyfeld (521548) on Wednesday February 09 2005, @12:06PM (#11619257) Journal
    For what purposes? What was your personal experience with using Linux?
  • Questions (Score:5, Interesting)

    by abrotman (323016) on Wednesday February 09 2005, @12:07PM (#11619274)
    Why doesn't Microsoft incorporate other OSS software into Windows, such as say Firefox or some of the other software listed at http://www.theopencd.org/?

    Does Microsoft feel that Linux has any place at all in the IT industry? If so, where?

  • Interoperability... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 09 2005, @12:08PM (#11619292)
    When Microsoft seems to tout it's desire to facilitate interoperability, do you mean interoperability seamlessly between your operating system and environment with alternative systems (such as Mac OSX, Linux, Sun Solaris, etc...) or do you mean interoperability between Microsoft products?
  • by ProteusQ (665382) * <[moc.liamg] [ta] [17suetorp]> on Wednesday February 09 2005, @12:08PM (#11619293) Journal
    What applications do you run to protect your Windows boxes from malware (viruses, trojans, spyware, etc.), and what do you pay for this protection per year? How does this cost compare to the cost incurred by other Windows users? How does this cost compare to what you would pay for equivalent protection offered in Debian GNU/Linux?
  • Code Review (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 09 2005, @12:08PM (#11619300)
    How do you respond to people who say that the open-source approach and the associated peer-review process inherently create better code?
  • by lovebyte (81275) * <lovebyte2000@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Wednesday February 09 2005, @12:08PM (#11619303) Homepage
    Dear Martin,

    I have read a couple of your interviews and I would like to ask you to answer to this one in plain English. Please! Could you avoid silly metaphors (try not to mention ballpark for instance) or sentences such as "So someone asks 'Hey can you guys ...'". And try to explain what such a sentence means: "We really [wanted] to go dial down the emotion, dial down the rhetoric, have a more fact-oriented approach and dial up the pragmatic analysis of solutions." (see computerworld interview first sentence!)
    It's painful to read and hardly understandable. Thanks in advance.
  • by GillBates0 (664202) on Wednesday February 09 2005, @12:09PM (#11619316) Homepage Journal
    As GM of a major corporation, you must be expected to be aware of your competition, it's products and what they're saying about you, etc. Linux is different from routine competition, in that you don't have any single company to listen to (press releases, etc) to figure out what they're up to.

    Q. Do you frequent Slashdot and the other Linux boards to say what your competition's saying about you?

  • by JessLeah (625838) on Wednesday February 09 2005, @12:10PM (#11619325)
    I've yet to see a MS-sponsored (or MS-endorsed...) "study" on the TCO of GNU/Linux-based systems versus the TCO of Microsoft Windows that factors in such things as:

    • How Linux admins can easily administrate more machines per person-hour, due to the nature of Unix/Linux's remote administration (and don't even get me started on VNC or Terminal Services; they aren't scriptable, they aren't as bandwidth-effective, etc. etc. etc...), than Windows admins?
    • The "hidden" costs of lost time due to (A) protecting against adware/spyware/malware/viruses/pop-ups, or (B) actually disinfecting machines that got infected anyhow.
    • The "hidden" costs of downtime due to buggy MS software. Sure, F/OSS stuff has bugs too, but when it does, at least the admin can try to fix them. When MS software is buggy, the admin is 100% at MS's mercy to fix the bug (since, being closed source, MS software is often 100% unfixable to anyone outside MS...)
    • The "hidden" costs of dealing with "hacked" IIS servers (vs. Apache).
    And a further question: Do Linux geeks really pull in that much more money salary-wise than Windows geeks!? find this claim hard to swallow, especially in today's economy. I call BS. Show some proof.
  • 3 areas (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jcarte01 (705242) on Wednesday February 09 2005, @12:10PM (#11619334)
    Can you mention 3 areas where you think windows is better than linux and vice versa.
  • by Doug Dante (22218) on Wednesday February 09 2005, @12:10PM (#11619336)
    To what extent are open source applications on Windows helping it to be more competitive versus Linux? For example, I immediately install OpenOffice.org, Firefox, and Thunderbird over a virgin Windows install.
  • by DaHat (247651) on Wednesday February 09 2005, @12:12PM (#11619362) Homepage
    One of the biggest criticisms I have heard of .NET is that it is not portable to non Microsoft/Windows platforms. Microsoft has released Rotor, a CLR/BCL system for FreeBSD systems, that with some work can be made to work with MacOS X. Furthermore, there is the Mono system which provides a CLR for Linux.

    My question is does Microsoft have any intentions of implementing a CLR and BCL for any other non Microsoft platforms where applications built under one would be (relatively) easily used under another (provided the application does not rely on P/Invokes of course)? If not... why?
  • Future... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by JossiRossi (840900) on Wednesday February 09 2005, @12:15PM (#11619417) Homepage
    Since Linux is likely here to stay, regardless of current quality, where do you feel Linux will be in 20 years. Especially when compared to where you feel Microsoft's OS will be in 20 years.
  • by RailGunner (554645) on Wednesday February 09 2005, @12:17PM (#11619438)
    Why do you claim Windows has a lower Total Cost of Ownership, yet you do not add the costs (not incurred by Linux / FOSS) of a Virus Scanner, Microsoft Office on the desktop or IIS / SQL Server on the server, plus the damage that is done by such worms as the Blaster and Slammer worms?

    Especially when the costs of upgrading is recurring.

  • "Platform" (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Knights who say 'INT (708612) on Wednesday February 09 2005, @12:17PM (#11619442) Journal
    As a research economist working in the field of network externalities, I'd like to know a little more about the history of your position at Microsoft. Since when there has been a Platform Strategy division? Do you follow the academic literature on fields like network externalities or produce entirely original theoretical work to support strategical advisory?
  • Free version (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sosume (680416) on Wednesday February 09 2005, @12:20PM (#11619494)
    Will there ever be a free (as in beer) version of Windows, stripped bare of everything but IE and without any network server capabilities? That might compete quite nicely with Lunix.
  • by Askadar (773863) on Wednesday February 09 2005, @12:20PM (#11619505) Homepage
    I assume that you must have evaluated Linux to learn its (supposedly) weak points. While doing that, what did you find out about linux that you think is good? Where is Linux challenging MS the most? (except price, of course)
  • by drizst 'n drat (725458) on Wednesday February 09 2005, @12:22PM (#11619526)
    Linux distros allow you to install on multiple machines. With the advent of home networking, why doesn't Microsoft allow a reasonable number of machines to be installed from a single user license (say 5 machines) rather than forcing a home user to purchase multiple copies (or buy inflated license paks).
  • by Aim Here (765712) on Wednesday February 09 2005, @12:24PM (#11619563)
    All these serial number checks, dial-home schemes, registration schemes, digital "rights" management schemes, crippled 'starter' versions of windows, and now all sorts of anti-piracy checks whenever someone wants to patch ther Windows box - Microsoft does spend an awful lot of time and effort deliberately making sure their software doesn't work unless the customer jumps through the appropriate hoops.

    Aren't you worried that this continual (and increasingly intrusive) process of deliberately breaking and/or crippling your own software is going to alienate some your customers and make them feel like criminals, particularly since the makers of the 'free software' operating systems that you're now competing against have no need of any of it and can concentrate all of their resources on trying to make their software work?

  • One of the myths about Windows is that there is a company behind it you can hold responsible for flaws that impact an organization. If you read the EULA of any MS product, even an update, it disclaims any responsibility whatever. They specifically avow that they are not fit for any purpose.

    So what's up with that?

    Open source licenses usually have the same thing, but those are generally free products. You guys have taken in a couple hundred billion. Plus, we can use the code as we like. So you can't claim any kind of equivalence.
  • by John the Kiwi (653757) <kiwi&johnthekiwi,com> on Wednesday February 09 2005, @12:27PM (#11619630) Homepage
    Hi Martin

    I'm an independant contractor with an MCSE that supports a small customer base of companies that mostly run Windows software. I have four development and testing computers at my house, all of which run Linux and free software solutions, this is because I cannot afford to buy Windows 2003 server, Office 2003, dev studio and a lot of other recent releases.

    With my cost free Open Source testing platform I have designed and implemented quite a few solutions with software such as Open Office, Open Exchange, Samba etc.

    With online activation and licensing restrictions I am not able to run any Microsoft software in a test environment to ensure it is adequately tested and ensure I am able to support it.

    This is driving my skill set and support abilities away from Microsoft and squarely into the arms of the Open Source camp. What (if anything) is Microsoft doing to combat this and ensure that the professionals in the field that sell and support your software have access to the resources they require?

    Thanks
    John the Kiwi
    • by LourensV (856614) on Wednesday February 09 2005, @12:27PM (#11619633)
      One of the key points in your Windows versus Linux ads so far is total cost of ownership. You point out to prospective Linux customers that switching from Windows to Linux is often more expensive than upgrading to the next version of Windows.

      One way to look at this is to say that Windows is more compatible with Windows than Linux, and therefore a better choice. Another way of looking at it is that Microsoft is exceedingly successful at locking in its customers, and that (as a customer) it is best to get out as soon as possible because it will only get worse.

      Do you worry that people will take this second point of view rather than the first, and that the campaign might backfire?
    • by Experiment 626 (698257) on Wednesday February 09 2005, @12:28PM (#11619645)

      I see Microsoft ads in magazines claiming that the TCO a business using Windows is significantly less than using Linux. How can this be?

      These studies typically assume that the status quo is Windows, the workforce is already skilled with Windows but not Linux, Windows is currently installed on the machines, etc. and what is being compared is the cost of sticking with Windows vs. switching operating systems, retraining the workforce, and similar expenses. These transition costs make Linux appear more expensive than Windows, even when the Linux solution itself is cheaper to run.

      So, to make this into a question for Mr. Taylor, is this an accurate summary of the studies, and can you point to any that are conducted from a more neutral perspective, without making assumptions of one OS or the other enjoying a comfortable incumbent position?