MS heads for H.C. [x-adr][x-bayes]

[Garrett Goebel]

Brian Densmore wrote:
> Garrett Goebel wrote:
> > Brian Kelsay wrote:
> > >
> > > "According to ZDNet, Microsoft may be feeling threatened
...
>
> > The move with Longhorn to managed code, CLR, DRM,
> > focus on security, resolution independent display,
> > etc... will cut some of this baggage and help Microsoft
>
> I'm from Missouri, you're going to have to show me to make
> me a believer.

That's fair. Take NT. NT was leaps and bounds better than 95. Excepting
install media, it finally left DOS behind. I do think that NT 3.51 was more
stable than 4.0, but then 4.0 was were they started adding the new cruft.
Which reminds me... at the time 95 was in beta, one of my co-workers told me
that 95 was the test for the next NT UI. I wonder if the same will stand for
the upcoming XP sp.

> > They market themselves effectively and communicate efficiently
> > with businesses.
>
> Really? Since when?

I didn't say I liked their marketing and "communication", just that it is
effective. Look at the results. Corporate lock-in. OEM's that can't easily
sell competing products. Volume licensing and Partner agreements. Cute
jingles on NPR "Your potential inspires us...". Email in my box every other
week for free seminars with free stuff gifts. Free copies of new products to
upper management types who then can't exchange documents easily with people
running older versions. The list goes on. You don't have to like it... but
you can respect its effectiveness.

> > No one has ever accused Microsoft of failing to test the
> > legal limits of competitive practices.
>
> That's not the problem. The problem is the fact they seem to
> have a get out of jail free card. Any small business or individual
> that used the same tactics would be in jail now doing 10-20!

That's a strawman argument. Small businesses aren't in a position to use the
same tactics. The small businesses that grow large are often just as much or
more viciously competitive. Look at Worldcom. So what if Microsoft settles
and pays off every other complaint that knocks on their door? It's legal.
They apparently figure its the cost of doing business. Personally, I think
its a mistake. When you set yourself up on such shaky legal footing that you
have to pay someone off... you're just asking for a world of pain and
follow-on lawsuits. Look at the tabacco industry.

> > Take the Xbox as an example ...
>
> No thanks.

Your choice and mine to for that matter. The only reason I'd buy a Xbox
would be to put linux on it. -Make that loss leader cost a little more when
I never bother to buy the games...

> > Microsoft has displaced Nintendo ...
>
> Nintendo was already dying anyway.

Only Microsoft's market share is growing. Does that mean Sony is dying too?

> > It's more a question of whether or not they were listening
> > to the customer, and whether or not it'll contribute to the
> > bottom line. Neither of which are much of a problem for open
> > source.
>
> Maybe I'm reading this wrong but, many in the open source world
> listen to the customer.

I agree. Open source is usually better at delivering what people want.
Because it usually the people wanting it, that are building what they want.

> > Except where open source faces a problem that doesn't scratch
> > enough of an itch to reach critical mass. Things like centralized
> > machine configuration, inventory, and security management...
>
> Hunh? one word /.

Hunh? Even with my filter set to 5, reading Slashdot still has a low signal
to noise ratio... How many times do you see those questing newbie want-to-be
project leads proposing some new project that never gets started, or is dead
in 6 weeks?


> Read it once in a while. Or cnet news. Or Newsforge. Centralized
> machine configuration is built into Linux and there are several
> tools that help with this too.

Sure the building blocks for centralized machine configuration are
available... There are countless tools of varying relevance and quality at
hand. But point me toward the equivalent of Apache for centralized network
management? Where is the coherent framework that ties it all together?

> In addition to corporate sponsors
> also contributing to this field. Security management is made much
> easier and more effective in 2.6. Also CA is contributing to this
> area too, in addition to the NSA.
>
> Inventory :
> http://freshmeat.net/search/?q=inventory&section=projects&Go.x=0&Go.y=0
> 68 projects found.

A mobacracy of 68 projects, and not one mention of the best candidate that I
know of that fits the bill: Ganymede/GASH2
(http://tools.arlut.utexas.edu/gash2/). Sure there are a couple manual entry
inventory systems, maybe one or two with significant SNMP hooks. Most of the
rest are of questionable relevancy: Shopping carts, accounting progs, music
collection management, 3d action adventure engines, project management, web
frontends to databases, etc.

Novell NDS and Zenworks is what I'm talking about. And Microsoft's Active
Directory and Zero Effort copycats. Sure there's PAM?, OpenLDAP, LTSP,
Kerberos, Ximian Red Carpet, etc. There's something to be said for the
understanding one attains by reinventing a wheel. -Too much roll your own.
Some might even say with security it is imperative. But most of us have
neither the time, the inclination, nor the financial backing to wander off
on every tangent in search of personal enlightenment. In the end, I'd rather
use a general purpose framework create by people more experienced and
knowlegible than myself.

> > The HPC problem is actually a simpler problem than the desktop:
>
> Depending on you OS architecture design. Not going to be as easy
> in Windows land as in *nix.

True. *NIX has a longer network centric history. And the simple tools which
do one thing well mentality which avoids a lot of the complexity which leads
to security issues.

> > The fact that Linux is making in-roads via HPC is probably more
>
> Because it is better suited to the application? You'll also note
> that Linux is now a more popular solution than Big Iron
> Supercomputers.
>
> That, at least to me, speaks mountains to the quality of Linux in
> this field. M$ would have a long ways to go to reach this kind of system.

Sure the inherent fact that the source is available makes it that much
easier for it to be retailored by those who would modify it for their needs.
I've talked with people running Beowulf clusters at NASA. If I understood
correctly, Linux is being used for a particular class of problems: those
that can easily be subdivided into chunks and divied out piecemeal. That is
the easy stuff.

Microsoft if fully capable of providing a stripped down minimal OS which
will compete in the bargain basement clustered competing niche. Why they
would want to do that is their question. There's little money to be made in
the bargain basement.

Linux now has kernel developers with financial backers to push Linux futher
into the high end. It also give Linux prestige and acceptability to be used
by scientific laboratories and movie rendering farms... I think that is why
Microsoft is moving in on this new turf. To undermine areas where Linux is
gaining credibility.

> > The reality is that
> > Microsoft dominates the harder problem: the desktop. Check out
> > google.com/zeitgeist.html. 92% of all google queries come from
> > Windows machines. And seeing as how Microsoft has been mopping the
> > floor with desktop competitors for years...
>
> Ummm ... yeah? And the point is? Linux desktops now outnumber Apple
> and that number is likely to double in the next year?

Check out google.com/zeitgeist. Linux stands at 1%. Apple at 4%. Show me a
study that says Linux has displaced Apple. I'm interested. I've got a
running $100 bet that by 12/31/05 Linux will displace Apple. I'd love to
collect on it.

> So here you have this upstart OS that is set to have double
> digit, or better, growth in the next year in desktops and already
> has captured more desktop share than any other OS has since the
> beginning?

Double digit growth doesn't mean much when you're at 1%.

Show me your sources that Linux has displaced Apple. My understanding was
that Mac OS X was if anything contributing to a resurgance of Apple.

> Sounds to me like Linux is a viable competitor in the Desktop
> market. And that M$ is not mopping the floor with Linux on the
> desktop.

Hey, I'm all for Linux doing well. But even with Walmart selling Lindows PCs
I think its a little early to call Linux a competitor on the desktop.
Perhaps an up and coming contender. I do hope efforts at freedesktop.org
lead to sizable payoffs in the next year or so with HAL, event
notifications, plug-in-play, udev, and configuration management...

> > But bringing it back to HPC...
> > Microsoft hasn't gone after HPC because they expect it to fatten
> > their margins. If anything, it'll be a loss leader. They're trying
> > to crush the competition before it can rally any more partisans to
> >  its cause.
>
> Close but not quite. M$ just want to eliminate Linux. This will
> be just one prong of their full-scale war against Linux. I expect
> to see battle line all over the map. Anywhere Linux is M$ is going
> to go. They will attack them with lawsuits on copyright and patent
> and anything else they can. Expect someone to come out with the big
> DMCA hammer against Linux or it's supporters eventually.

Exactly. All I'm saying is don't underestimate Microsoft on any of those
fronts.

cheers,

Garrett

--
Garrett Goebel
IS Development Specialist

ScriptPro                   Direct: 913.403.5261
5828 Reeds Road               Main: 913.384.1008
Mission, KS 66202              Fax: 913.384.2180
www.scriptpro.com          garrett at scriptpro.com