| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Q&A: Microsoft's Linux strategist Martin Taylor, Part 2 | |
|
||
| Time: 09:18 EST/14:18 GMT | News Source: ComputerWorld | Posted By: Brian Kvalheim | ||
|
Martin Taylor recently marked his one-year anniversary as Microsoft Corp.'s chief Linux strategist. Taylor, whose official title is general manager of platform strategy, recently spoke with Computerworld about his first year in that job. This is Part 2 of the interview. Part 1 is available online. For what server workloads have you noted the most activity around Linux? The biggest uptake on Linux has been in the Web server workload. We also have seen on the [application platform] workload the Unix scenario. Meta [Group] recently did a survey of 24 IT professionals and business decision-makers who moved from SAP or PeopleSoft on Unix to Windows. They found about [a] 50% in aggregate decrease in number of servers needed, 50% savings in administrative cost and cost of ownership, and about 25% increase in their abilities -- reliability, scalability, availability. One of the reasons we asked Meta to go talk [to users] before we go spin up a lot of activities in the coming year [is] I need something to really help me understand. ... "What's our value prop there? Do people really see benefit? How do we win over these Unix people that don't want to do Windows? Are there real hard-core cost savings?" | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 159 Last | Next |
The time now is
3:53:26 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 1658 (24.18.60.13) at 9/22/2004 1:14:34 AM |
|
ORIGINAL ARTICLE STATEMENTS:
"There's a scenario that, when I lose to [it], pains me. It's when it has nothing to do with cost or security or value. They just want something other than Microsoft. There's nothing I can do at that point." YOUR STATEMENT AT THE BEGINNING OF YOUR POST: "Yeah, if someone wants something other than MS, it could never be for any good reason..." What exactly are you talking about? Once again I am shocked at the sheer blindness with which YOU post. You claim that at Microsoft, we go out and do nothing but spread fodder about Linux that can't possibly be true in any sense. We just spread lies, all lies. Where in that article did Martin say that anything said about Linux couldn't be for any good reason? Find me ANY Microsoft employee (and I WILL check their name in the employee manifest) that has said anything of the sort about Linux? You won't find it. We care more about customer feedback and learning about our weaknesses than any company on this planet. I suppose it's individuals like yourself who believe everything they read on Slashdot about how Microsoft is evil and close-minded that will simply never understand it. Your problem is that you've taken all the Windows-only bigots in the world and attributed their speech to Microsoft as a source. And Linux-bigots are guilty of the same by the way. As I said, go find me a Microsoft source that has claimed that anything other than Linux is simply bad. For crying out loud Halcyon, we run non-Microsoft products on this campus ourselves and promote ISV partner products that are NOT solely Windows based every single day. Your blindness is incredible. Do you live in the Seattle area? If so, perhaps you'd let me take you on a tour someday and perhaps that would open your eyes just a little. Perhaps not. I can tell you this much though, if you did come along with me, you wouldn't run into a single individual around here who hates Linux to the point of having not even tried it. Everyone around here has run it, breathed it, and worked with it so we know where we need to improve and where we are already ahead. You won't find anyone telling you that a choice to buy a product other than Microsoft's is one of sheer stupidity. You will find us saying though that we don't like that choice because it means we failed in some way to capture your business. Lest you forget, while we are out to better people's lives through great technologies, we sell products and services in the economy. If we lose your sale, we care about WHY we lost it. Most of what Martin does is based solely around this concept. This post was edited by aamendala on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 at 01:20. |
| #2 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at 9/22/2004 1:40:43 AM |
|
#5 "Fedora is not RedHat Advanced Server"
RedHat Enterprise Linux AS v3.0 OS Source Code: ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/3/en/ All Patches Source Code: ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/updates/enterprise/3AS/en/ Don't want to spend the time compiling everything yourself? No problem, download CentOS v3.3 from here: http://www.caosity.org/. This is a complete rebuild of all the updated packages that Red Hat has included in the SRPM's of their Enterprise Linux 3 Update 3. Not only is Linux free as in speech, you can still download RedHat and SUSE hence it's also free as in beer! Myth #1: Parkker has a clue. Truth #1: Parkker is a Microsoft zealot that knows absolutely nothing outside of Microsoft's realm. And it's debatable as to how much he knows inside of Microsoft's realm! |
| #3 By 135 (69.7.134.5) at 9/22/2004 8:56:20 AM |
| I am here in the UK battling the myths... I have my sword in hand, and my sceptre in the bush, but they are everywhere! |
| #4 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 9/22/2004 9:33:22 AM |
|
Ahh Golly... Will this ever stop? All I know is what I have to live each day and it sucks in some regards. I have some close friends and colleagues that have some great developers and excellent products. Since their dev team was/is most familiar with J2EE and Unices, they bought <deep> into the Linuces/OSS potential. Now, we have a lot of guys with decades of Unices experience [no X-Services here, thank you]. That said, we watch and work [our tails off] to help these guys. We watch how much it has cost them, and us - they do not have the resources to pay us. Now, right next to their gear [gorgeous and monster Dell 4400 and 6600's (enough to make a grown W2K3 advocate weep)], resides highly profitable and far less costly W2K and W2K3 systems. The OS has least to do with the difference; however, the "platform" has everything to do with it. For those that spend equal amounts of time in the CLI and a P&L sheet, you will know what I mean. For now, Microsoft has the better platform, which allows oen to create more, and operate more, and deliver more, more quickly and for less cash. And yes, it is rightly all about cash. Now, say what we will about the desktop and forget it. In this case, it is all about the platform and the framework [or lack of it], that allows companies to build and sustain revenue based upon relevant value. For anyone who has to deal with both worlds at once on a day to day basis that is impacted [personally] by it, Linux [any distro], is a freaking nightmare. Do this, run say five distros - evolved as fast as they come out. Patch them all up to do simple stuff - like talk to one another securely, or apply file encryption to protect data in an idle state - suck that time and cost up for clients/friends and then make up that loss on your own and your peoples' time to cover the delta [that's cash, ya'll], and you will really quickly see my point. Now, I have asked why...been all over...visited Sun and others...and all the while...while they were nicking and picking at Microsoft, I saw and see and even feel Microsoft's culture as decribed by #6 above.
It's true, Microsoft cares about its customers, people and products and really sweats it when people chose alternatives. That sweat, just like our own, has less to do with cash than you might think. It has to do with wanting to matter. Now you can flame me all day - no problem - that will not change what I see each day - as one cube empties after another and one note [providing more runway to friends] after another, is signed - knowing I'll never see it. Say what you wish, just don't try saying it to anyone who has to actually deal with it [OSS]. It just is not there, yet. It may be someday, but not until OSS does just as Microsoft does and that is "Drive their own car, and drive to win not for money, but just because they want to be the best at it." |
| #5 By 1658 (24.18.60.13) at 9/22/2004 12:08:20 PM |
|
Well Halcyon, there is no talking to you that's for sure. You're always right as is evident by your ability to totally take out of context anything anyone every says that may have anything positive to say about Microsoft.
"He addresses an issue like when someone chooses Linux, it has nothing to do with cost or security or value and they just want something other than Microsoft. These are the ideas he associates with choosing Linux. Ridiculous." He does nothing of the sort. He says it pains him when someone makes that choice because Microsoft wasn't even given a shot at selling our product to them. The point is that if we weren't even given the shot, Martin feels bad about that because somewhere along the line, we failed. We try to provide the most well-rounded server solution and the most complete platform anyone could ever ask for. If we are glossed over and not even considered, we feel that we have failed somewhere along the line. That is what he is saying. Instead, you decide to twist it into the most negative anti-Microsoft sentiment as possible to make it sound like yet again, a Microsoft employee is off on the anti-Linux rant for no good reason using FUD and fodder. Perhaps you should read the sentences immediately following the one you ripped on so much... "They just want something other than Microsoft. There's nothing I can do at that point. ... That scenario is one that's hard to swallow because I feel we put our best foot forward and at the end of the day, it really didn't matter if we were two times the price or half the price or two times the functionality or half the functionality. We didn't have a shot. They just weren't going to go with us." "There's nothing I can do at that point..." ".. scenario is one that's hard to swallow..." "...i feel we put our best foot forward at the end of the day..." "...it really didn't matter if we were two times the price or half the price..." Right, those really sound like statements that say choosing Linux was for no good reason. By the way, in your quote in the #8 post, you entirely put words into Martin's mouth. Good going. HIM ----- There's a scenario that, when I lose to [it], pains me. It's when it has nothing to do with cost or security or value. They just want something other than Microsoft. There's nothing I can do at that point. YOU ----- He addresses an issue like when someone chooses Linux, it has nothing to do with cost or security or value and they just want something other than Microsoft. Oh well, I've argued with you once before and all I got back was half-truths and commentary filled with no substance. But then again, I'm just a biased Microsoftie who is forced to work in his little office by Bill Gates and never sees the light of day. This post was edited by aamendala on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 at 12:10. |
| #6 By 1658 (24.18.60.13) at 9/22/2004 12:14:57 PM |
|
"Myth #1: Linux is free. 65% of the Linux market is held by RedHat and SUSE. RedHat and SUSE are not free. Therefore it is a myth that Linux is free.
That's exactly the attitude the guy (and MS) has. "If I don't acknowledge it, it doesn't exist!" Right again Halcyon, that's why we have the largest in-house Linux test labs in the world, because we don't acknowledge it, therefore, we believe it doesn't exist. How's that tour sounding? |
| #7 By 1658 (24.18.60.13) at 9/22/2004 12:26:15 PM |
|
"#6, MS has a long history of squashing its competition using predatory business practices rather than producing a better producit. Sadly, I think you'll see increasing noise from MS-funded front goups like ADTI (google for it) saying that open source software is a danger to society."
Well I won't even touch your fodder about predatory business practices. We have been through the anti-trust trial head over heels and it seems to me you need desperately to go back and read the rulings and get a clue as to just what we were convicted of supposedly doing. So we haven't built a better product? That's news to us. Your logic alone is staggering. Basically you're telling me that 57,000 of us show up to work here every single day and all we do is figure out how best we can illegally exploit the competition while spending no time actually building a better product. But in the mean time, the majority of the IT world from both the corporate and consumer side still decide to buy our product. That's staggeringly obnoxious at best and simply stupid to be honest. Now, I'm not going to go as far as to say that the average consumer throughout the global economy is well-informed or well-versed in decision making. However, every ounce of economic data you could possibly scrounge up will tell you this: when a purchase of a product is made that turns out to be a poor choice, the consumer often does NOT purchase said product again. Plenty of terribly made products sell hundreds of millions of units, however, the number of repeat purchases of those products by consumers is extremely low. The Ford Pinto, Edsel, and plenty of other automobiles are a prime example. Brand loyalty is rarely strong enough to maintain a connection from product cycle to product cycle while continuing to product a faulty, inefficient, expensive, or downright broken product. So what you're saying is, that we've managed to force everyone who has bought a copy of Windows into buying one? And the choices made by consumers when they wander into Best Buy for instance to buy Windows XP are all forced? From NT 3.5 through Windows XP Pro and onto Longhorn, we haven't focused on building a better product. We've grown our massive corporation through nothing but illegal means. That's quite shocking considering that if you take a look at our corporate acquisitions history, we've bought VERY FEW large companies. That implies, inarguably so, that our growth has been attributed to our own sweat, not the sweat of others. Unfortunately, it just seems like you're yet another individual who has very little understanding of economics and how Microsoft operates. You prefer instead to take the face value of commentary from the media and from Slashdot-like ranters and call it the truth. Definitely your problem. And by the way, Microsoft does NOT fund anything to do with ADTI. If you'd like proof of that, visit www.microsoft.com/msft and find that expenditure in the itemized quarterly statements. They're available since the beginning of the company, open to the public, and lest you forget, Microsoft is one of the few companies that has made near ZERO accounting "errors" or "oversights" (cough cough, Enron) in its history. Our books are accurate and clean. Find me evidence, then I'll listen. Until then, please, go get educated. |
| #8 By 1658 (24.18.60.13) at 9/23/2004 1:21:46 AM |
|
Should I respond again or should I just consider this one dead?
And by the way... #22, I don't take it as personally as you might think. But I do seek to educate as many as possible on what is true about how we operate and what is not. Thank you for the comment though, I agreed with what you said. Unfortunately this art of working with people to open their minds is a difficult task. But I can tell you that over my 10 years of discussions with quite the range of diverse technical professionals from MIT professors to Oracle employees, I have won over far more people than not. Many anti-Microsoft eyes opened by simply putting away the closed-mind view for just a few minutes. Listening to both sides... the core of how this entire discussion started. Martin doesn't like it when customers won't even consider the Microsoft solution. Something that Hal claims is just outrageous. Perhaps I need to take a closer look at just what the software business is all about. Parkker, as much as everyone seems to hate him, is spot on here as he has been many times before. Microsoft is in the BUSINESS of selling software, not giving it away. It is people like Hal that unfortunately don't get it and never will. Not that they have to agree with what I say, but to at least hold a discussion that doesn't resort to "you spread nothing but lies and FUD and the get the facts campaign is full of crap and Windows is bloat and C# is just Java under another name blah blah blah" is what I seek. It's hard to find though. Unfortunately, most of the comments I read on this site about who Microsoft pays, how we develop software, how the software works, what languages we use, the list goes on and on... are incorrect on so many levels. If you don't work here, you won't know so much of what goes on. (Obviously right?) The speculation that runs rampant that becomes the golden word is the problem. Ten people say that the Windows kernel uses a fifo buddy system for memory page prioritization and BAM, it's true! Sad, but it happens. People would rather take the popular word for the truth rather than researching and learning the technologies from head to toe before criticism is leveraged. I suppose I'll continue to participate every now and then but I gotta tell you... One of these days I feel like I'm going to invite the entire ActiveWin crowd for a campus tour. We can even set it up on a weekend so that many of you Microsoft-sucks heads can talk with us and learn that we aren't nearly as dumb, evil, and closed-minded as you think we are. This post was edited by aamendala on Thursday, September 23, 2004 at 01:26. |
| #9 By 1658 (24.18.60.13) at 9/23/2004 1:52:13 PM |
|
Once again the communication process has broken down. You've decided yet again to take something I said entirely out of context.
When I said "It is people like Hal that unfortunately don't get it and never will", I was referring to the fact that individuals like yourself will never hear both sides of the story. You'd rather sit comfortably in your lair of half-truths claiming that what you've heard and chose to believe are the sworn truths of the universe. My point is that you don't listen, don't even remotely attempt to understand the subject matter on which you comment regularly, and definitely don't research most of what you blabber on about on a regular basis. So once again, you chose to take what I said to mean that Windows is PERFECT, Linux SUCKS, rather than realizing that in fact, what I was referring to was the very opposite idea! The idea that both have their strengths and weaknesses and that the concept of being open-minded is what allows people to build better software and learn about what works and what doesn't. How many times do I have to say in my posts that we care more about our weaknesses than anything else? Everyone should! Unfortunately, most in the Linux crowd do not care about the weaknesses of their platform. That is plain to see on so many fronts. Attend LinuxWorld and try to discuss anything that isn't on their agenda with the developers you see wandering around. Now, that doesn't mean they haven't had good ideas, but they care far less about what consumers and companies want versus what they as the developer want. I suppose you've never heard a Linux user say "RTFM?" or something along these lines: "If you aren't smart enough to setup printing in Linux, its not for you, we don't want morons here." I've heard it tens and tens of times before. We at Microsoft believe in oh just a slightly different methodology to say the VERY least. As I said, you'll never get it. You don't listen, you don't care to listen. As far as my latter statement with regards to Microsoft-haters... what am I assuming? I'm not assuming anything. I'm merely stating that it would be open season for people who hate either us as employees, or the company itself, to talk to whomever they want and ask whatever they want. There are no assumptions there. If you walk away still believing what you believed before, fine, at least you tried! If you learn something, great! That's what I'm saying. You do certainly seem to hate Microsoft, and no, I don't feel it's personal even though I devote my entire career to the company. If you read my previous post, you'd have seen "I don't take it as personally as you might think. But I do seek to educate as many as possible on what is true about how we operate and what is not. Thank you for the comment though, I agreed with what you said." So no, it's not personal to me, but at least I try to work both sides rather than immediately dumping on anything the Linux camps do without questioning it first. |
| #10 By 1658 (24.18.60.13) at 9/23/2004 1:57:49 PM |
|
One more thing...
"#25 OSS isn't anti-MS, it's just pro OSS." Good job just glossing over the quote from the Free Software Foundation that Parkker gave for you. Open Source Software in and of itself is not a problem. We have never said it is. However, the GPL we have serious problems with and it is the FSF that most evangelises that form of licensing. MOST open-source software falls under the GPL. If you're going to argue against that, please just save your breath. So, given that most open source software falls under the GPL, and the FSF is the primary push behind such licensing, I'd say it's accurate to say that most open source software is not entirely about but is for the most part against proprietary software. Lest you forget that Linus Torvalds himself has said at one Comdex after another: "Software should be free! I don't believe in paying for software and no one should have to pay for anything but support. The core code should be free." How many video clips of that would you like me to render up and post? When the biggest driving force behind Linux, it's creator itself, says something like that, I think you'll have a hard time arguing that open source isn't at least partially about the destruction of the commercial software model. This post was edited by aamendala on Thursday, September 23, 2004 at 14:01. |
| #11 By 1658 (24.18.60.13) at 9/23/2004 4:55:30 PM |
|
No opinion is ever unbiased. And I never claimed to hold such an opinion either. Hope that wasn't the insinuation... I know that I will hold some bias in my opinion because I work for the company, that's obvious, but that doesn't mean that it is PERSONAL to me. Quite the important distinction. I've worked around the industry myself in many corners that span the UNIX, Windows, OS/2, BeOS, and Amiga worlds... Bias or not though, I do claim to listen and observe both sides at all times.
"I wrote a DOS version of Schedule+ for Microsoft" - Schedule+ was always DOS (Win16 Subsystem) based. Got any more info on what exactly you wrote? Now I'm curious... This post was edited by aamendala on Thursday, September 23, 2004 at 17:02. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 159 Last | Next |
The time now is
3:53:26 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
