main

Microsoft's eye on Open Source

malebolgia   on 21 July 2005 - 15:03 · 25 comments & 3581 views

Advertisement (Why?)
With the growing momentum of the open-source movement, one could say that Martin Taylor doesn't have one of the most enviable jobs.

As Microsoft's general manager of platform strategy, Taylor has to deal with anti-Microsoft sentiments while evangelizing his company's products. Despite the challenges, he maintains an unwavering conviction that his company can deliver better returns than those offered by open-source software. According to Taylor, businesses that tried out Linux or other open-source tools are now realizing that they are putting in more investment into the technology than they had initially thought.

Q: In the last six months, what have you been focused on in terms of development work?

Taylor: We continue to do the same things that we've been doing in the last couple of years. First and foremost, we are looking to understand some of the scenarios like why customers are considering Linux, and making sure we have the right offerings for the marketplace.

News source: C|Net News.com


Cont...

ESRB president Patricia Vance states the situation rather differently, saying that: "After a thorough investigation, we have concluded that sexually explicit material exists in a fully rendered, unmodified form on the final discs of all three platform versions of the game."

She did note, however, that "the material was programmed by Rockstar to be inaccessible to the player and they have stated that it was never intended to be made accessible."

The "Hot Coffee" mod saw players taking their girlfriend home and then having sex with her in a mini-game that, while present on the game DVD, only came to light after a PC modification unlocked the code. The data was subsequently found to be resident on the PS2 and Xbox discs and could be unlocked on PS2 using Datel's Action Replay cheat-finder product.

The ESRB and another industry body, the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), have come under increasing pressure to act since Hot Coffee came to light, with widespread coverage in the American media and proponents of a ban receiving support from the likes of senator Hillary Clinton, Californian assemblyman Leland Yee, and anti-videogame activist Jack Thompson, who recently compared ESA president Doug Lowenstein to Adolf Hitler over his role in the affair.

Indeed, just last week the BBFC said that while it didn't know about Hot Coffee at the time of rating the game, it wasn't going to update it. "Even if we had been aware of it, we would not have had a problem," a spokesperson told this website. "From our point of view the hidden material does not contravene the 18 rating and so the rating stands."

In Australia however the game could well be banned altogether, with Australia's Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC) - a notoriously strict organisation - having previously refused to classify titles including Manhunt and NARC, effectively banning them from sale. There the OFLC had said: "The Classification Board is compelled to revoke a game's classification if it is found to contain undisclosed contentious material, whether activated through use of a code or otherwise."


Post a comment · Send to friend Comments · There are 25 additional comments
#1 dotRoot on 21 Jul 2005 - 15:12
QUOTE
According to Taylor, businesses that tried out Linux or other open-source tools are now realizing that they are putting in more investment into the technology than they had initially thought.

And...according to what blind study? Oh MS again? Yeah.

The only thing most businesses invest in when using something like Linux is technical training and support licenses from whatever distributor sold their distro (because most businesses want the support lincense to fall back on).

QUOTE
Microsoft's general manager of platform strategy, Taylor has to deal with anti-Microsoft sentiments while evangelizing his company's products. Despite the challenges, he maintains an unwavering conviction that his company can deliver better returns than those offered by open-source software.


You mean like Apache? Is that why it has the marketshare in webservers? MS does have some great closed source suites for businesses such as Office and Exchange. But they don't have it across the board, that's for sure.

QUOTE
Taylor: We continue to do the same things that we've been doing in the last couple of years.

Which is why most businesses that don't want to use the Windows solution have changed. He said it himself, yet in his next statement he says he doesn't understand why some customers are making the switch.

Wow, where do I apply for this guy's job?

Last edited by 46936 on 21 Jul 2005 - 15:18
#2 lbmouse on 21 Jul 2005 - 15:43
QUOTE
...businesses that tried out Linux or other open-source tools are now realizing that they are putting in more investment into the technology than they had initially thought


No we are not. Converting from Windows to Linux systems at our company (major US tire manufacturer) is saving us a lot of money in licensing, reduced down-time (better reliability), and labor... and we are even a Microsoft Solution Provider with a very small Linux support desk. I'm sure that the savings is even greater at companies that focus on Linux.

Hey Neowin.... Microsoft Continues Anti-OSS Strategy How is this news? It would be news if they stopped spreading the FUD. Oh well! Guess if Linux weren't a threat, Microsoft wouldn't be running so many smear campaigns.
#3 LTD on 21 Jul 2005 - 16:29
Linux isn't actually a threat on the desktop. On the server side, Linux has made inroads.

Bill Gates sees everything that isn't Microsoft as a threat, which is natural. Anytime a competitor offers a similar product at lower prices, it is a threat.

I'm not surprised that MS is waging an anti-OSS campaign. I'd do the same.
(8 replies) #4 nacs on 21 Jul 2005 - 16:44
This article is more FUD from Microsoft.

If they are so sure of their software being the best and Linux being so bad they wouldn't need to keep mouthing off. Sadly they know it's actually pretty good and competitive in many areas and will continue to get better. Especially with IBM and Novell on the case. Previous competition was from an OS written by a single company. Linux isn't and some major companies are behind it.
#4.1 mugwhump on 21 Jul 2005 - 19:40
Name ONE other company that doesn't smear its direct competitiorn. Just one.

#4.2 dotRoot on 21 Jul 2005 - 19:50
The Free Software Foundation.
#4.3 MrA on 21 Jul 2005 - 20:37
I wouldn't call the FSF a 'company' since they don't sell anything.
#4.4 dotRoot on 22 Jul 2005 - 01:38
Yeah they just provide lincenses and have employees. Its sort of like saying the Mozilla Foundation isn't either. Both have products and employees however.

Because of the nature of open source and depending on the lincense open source 'free' software does sell. They are bought by others using the source code and having to give their source code back into the original codebase's tree. In effect they buy code with code.
#4.5 XML on 22 Jul 2005 - 02:04
they both live from donations aka charity
#4.6 dotRoot on 22 Jul 2005 - 03:04
But my point is that they do have products and they do sell it. Its a different world comparing open source and closed source projects. Also open source projects such as Mozilla not only have products, but they also compete with everyone else.

I've never heard of RedHat badmouthing MS, but I can't say that they haven't for sure. But the point is that the Linux projects at the core have always been about choice, which makes mud throwing at the competition go against the whole spirit of the community. RedHat didn't even badmouth SCO.
#4.7 papy006 on 22 Jul 2005 - 20:05
Google
#4.8 d3v on 22 Jul 2005 - 21:21
Of course the FSF doesn't smear its direct competition.
They do the same thing they do with software development, get some nerds to do it for free.
#5 mr_demilord on 21 Jul 2005 - 18:58
QUOTE
According to Taylor, businesses that tried out Linux or other open-source tools are now realizing that they are putting in more investment into the technology than they had initially thought.


Who the heck is that guy? nuf said
(3 replies) #6 LTD on 21 Jul 2005 - 21:23
It is entirely conceivable that in certain situations, businesses might find Linux to cost more to maintain than initially thought.

This doesn't mean that Windows is cheaper, but that implementing and maintaining Linux in certain cases might cost more than what people have been led to believe.

This is a reasonable view.
#6.1 Magallanes on 22 Jul 2005 - 12:51
Agreed.

The myth say that linux is "more" secure that windows.
The truth is neither linux, neither windows is SECURE (for server). But to install a almost 100%-secure server in windows cost less that hours (but more expensive $$$, because third parties programs), in linux will need a lot of job, can be days or weeks, and the current evolution of linux can force you to reinstall the system many times.

Windows is mainly insecure because the browser and the email BUT, in server you don't need a browser (you don't need to use it), nor email (client), so windows server can be truly secure with less efford (=less support = in long term less money)

#6.2 ichi on 22 Jul 2005 - 20:39
QUOTE
in linux will need a lot of job, can be days or weeks, and the current evolution of linux can force you to reinstall the system many times.


huh... what? have you ever tried to do that yourself?
Hardening linux' security does obviously take some work, but days? more like hours, if anything.
#6.3 threedaysdwn on 23 Jul 2005 - 02:01
We're not talking about hardening one idle system. We're talking about hardening several servers (maybe dozens or hundreds) that need to DO something. It's easy to harden a Linux system by turning pretty much everything off. Same goes for Windows.

But which is easier to set up a web, SQL, e-mail, terminal, etc server on with VPNs, laptops that leave the corp network, and umpteen other security concerns? I'm not saying I have the answer, but I am saying the question is more complicated than it may seem.
#7 TheSarge on 21 Jul 2005 - 23:53
Ah, more disinformation used as a competitive weapon.
It's nice to se that some things never change.
(1 reply) #8 SniperX on 22 Jul 2005 - 09:59
That famous MS tactic:

QUOTE
According to Taylor, businesses that tried out Linux or other open-source tools are now realizing that they are putting in more investment into the technology than they had initially thought.

Now because he said it, it must be true?

It's just the same when they use that damned annoying:
QUOTE
Our customers stated {insert BS here}

to justify something.

We have no way of proving otherwise. We're just supposed to take their word for it?
#8.1 parithon on 22 Jul 2005 - 11:57
Microsoft has testimonies from these companies CEO's confirming what Taylor is mentioning.
(2 replies) #9 LTD on 22 Jul 2005 - 12:18
Usually, when Microsoft says "our customers stated" . . . . they actually did.

#9.1 ichi on 22 Jul 2005 - 13:39
When MS (or any other company) says things like "our customers stated..." or "business that tried out linux..." they are giving the idea that they're talking about ALL the customers and ALL the business, which is not true.
#9.2 LTD on 22 Jul 2005 - 16:49
Correct. Certainly not *all*.

MS caters to its core customers first.
(1 reply) #10 EduardValencia on 22 Jul 2005 - 17:31
holy **** the antique battle of -windows vs linux-

this is epic

but in the last windows will be the winner,and linux the looser

#10.1 LTD on 22 Jul 2005 - 18:35
. . . and hundreds of Linux zealots will emerge from their parents' musty basements, high on Mountain Dew, week-old pizza stains on their shirts, bad eyesight, and hunt you down.

If thrown correctly, those free copies of Ubuntu on CD can be deadly.







(lol, just kidding, folks)

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.

Advertisement (Why?)