Dell and Linux on the Desktop

March 9, 2006 Leave a comment

An interesting interview with Michael Dell about the Dell “Linux desktop strategy”. The fact that he mentions Distrowatch by name means he clearly is following what is going on in the Linux world, even if only at a high level. He mentions the failed attempt Dell made back in 2000-2001 to sell Linux on the desktop. That was a long time ago though, and both Linux and the market have changed a ton since then. While he makes some valid points, his main grip seems to be the shear number of Linux distributions available. While I agree that we need to consolidate in some areas if we want mass market acceptance (search for my past comments on whether we want to make these technically poor decisions for the sole sake of gaining acceptance or not), the reality is that a vast majority of distribution are very niche. Picking say two distributions (which is less than the number of Windows versions they support) would allow you to serve a vast majority of the client base you are targeting. The “Linux Community” isn't the target base here, don't forget – the Dell potential customer is. Much of the Linux community would never buy a Dell anyway. Beyond just that, ensuring Dell ran on those two distributions would ensure that the Linux kernel could support Dell hardware, giving those who wanted to run other distributions the choice. It would also compel hardware manufacturers to either offer open drivers or at least release specs for others to do so. My guess here is that Dell wants to try to make the Linux community happy while they dip their toes back in, while also not making Microsoft feel threatened. On that note, I find it hilarious that he closes with “Microsoft has not talked to us about Linux. If they did, I wouldn't care. It's none of their business”. Now, I find it nearly impossible that Linux has not come up in the price negotiations that Dell and Microsoft obviously have for Windows, but the fact that he publicly said something like this shows you how much things have changed. Just a few short years ago he'd not dared talk such blasphemy in public. We're continuing to make strides…slowly but surely.
–jeremy
, ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Microsoft, Open Source

Is IBM Germany Leaving Vista for Linux ?

March 9, 2006 Leave a comment

That's the rumor, based on comments made by Andreas Pleschek. From the article:
Andreas Pleschek also told that IBM has canceled their contract with Microsoft as of October this year. That means that IBM will not use Windows Vista for their desktops. Beginning from July, IBM employees will begin using IBM Workplace on their new, Red Hat-based platform. Not all at once – some will keep using their present Windows versions for a while. But none will upgrade to Vista.
We've known that IBM has been eying Linux on the desktop for some time, and this may be step one. It's clear they'll never be able to completely eliminate Vista from their campus, as they develop too many apps that will need to be tested for deployment on it. If you look at what they are doing from a platform perspective though, it brilliant. What they are doing with Workplace looks extremely powerful. First, they are turning things like Notes into an Eclipse plugin. This will allow Notes to run on any platform that Eclipse runs on. But it gets better. With Firefox as a browser and OOo as an office suite, the whole package is extremely cross platform. Want to run Windows on your desktops and Linux on your servers? Fine – they can help you. Want to then later migrate from Windows on your desktops to Linux? IBM can help you do that to. Selling you migration services, licensing and support along the way. They can help you know and help you later…collecting some additional cash all along the way. IBM really seems to get not only where the future is heading, but at the same time understanding the realities of today.
Andreas also mentions that they are utilizing the lessons they learned about Open Source development procedures for internal proprietary projects, especially when it comes to integrating multiple acquired products. More proof the the Open Source paradigm really does produce better code and enable developers to do more. With products like Workplace and applications like Activity Explorer on the horizon, it will be very interesting to see where IBM can take Linux on the Enterprise desktop.
–jeremy
, , ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Microsoft, Open Source

OSDL, Say It Ain't So

February 24, 2006 Leave a comment

We all know how silly some of the “Get the facts” benchmarks/reports were. When I saw this commentary on the Linux TCO study that was recently co-sponsored by OSDL, I figured it was just the anti-Linux Rob Enderle we've grown accustomed to. Then I read the report. Let me start out by saying there are some very accurate depictions in the report and I think a report like this was something we needed. But, some of the claims and numbers in this thing are so unbelievable that I'm almost surprised OSDL put their name on it. Have we really stooped to this level…even after calling Microsoft out on it like we did? While the commentary by Rob is also full of a few holes and is greatly exaggerated, the fact that we give him any fodder at all is a bit disappointing. Hopefully I'm just missing something, but let me make a few comments:
* The report starts off comparing itself to older Microsoft studies. This study should have merit on it's own, so the older studies really aren't pertinent IMHO. This is tangential at best and makes the report seem biased. To be fair this is more of a personal gripe than a legitimate compliant.
* A quote from within the report: A large hosting site reported 100% availability across 230 managed servers since October 2001 Wow, 100% over almost 5 years? Not a single reboot, hardware failure, power issue, system upgrade or user error in all that time? I guess it's possible, but 100% seems either highly anecdotal (and includes oh, we didn't count foo, bar or zed when considering availability numbers) or the number is a bit exaggerated (which is something you don't want in a study like this).
* They seem to knock Windows for “requiring twice the memory” of the Linux distributions covered, but if you look at the number they give it's 256M. If you are really purchasing production servers with that kind of RAM at the current prices, please see your purchasing department immediately. The cheapest Penguin box I can find won't even let you go below 1G.
* When comparing pricing, they use Apache/JBoss on the Linux side, which is a J2EE-compliant solution. They for some reason then choose Microsoft ISA Enterprise as the “web server” for the Microsoft side. The problem there is that ISA is not a web server! That is a $23,996 mistake but more importantly shows you that there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the platform. This is the biggest blow to the report IMHO.
* Also on the pricing costs department, the compare RHEL 4AS which is a one year subscription to a product that includes top level 24/7 support with a purchased version of Windows 2003 that would need per incident support. That's apples vs. oranges at best. To be fair there is a little disclaimer about the pricing, but it doesn't give someone without an understanding for the two products an indication of what the numbers really mean. They should have really justed used numbers that are fair to both sides, which is certainly possible.
I'll stop there, but you get the idea. So, while the report contains a ton of highly relevant and highly accurate data, the fact that it is marred by such inaccuracies means that the validity of the whole thing can now be called into question. This report could have been so much more – it could have been proof that we do things right and could have been used as a shining example of why Linux really is better.
–jeremy
, , , , ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Microsoft, Open Source

Ask Microsoft's Security VP

January 26, 2006 Leave a comment

An extremely interesting read, Slashdot has sent questions over to the Microsoft Security VP Mike Nash, who agreed to answer them with no PR scrubbing. A ton of information is in the response, which is a fairly long read. As you may have guessed, so of the information is good news and others is not. It's clear that the original Microsoft security push in 2002 was nothing but lip service. It's also clear that, while security clearly has a much higher priority now, some within Microsoft are stilling ignoring that and just don't get it. An anonymous Microsoftie points out a specific example in one of the questions. The article also gives you a little appreciation for just how large Microsoft is. The shear number of initiatives, acronyms, procedures and policies in place is astounding. It's no wonder it's taking so long to turn the security train around. Old habits die hard and business pressures are currently clearly very high at Microsoft. Given the option of not getting a product shipped on time or shipping it on time with security flaws, I think most Microsoft teams are still choosing the latter. It is fantastic to see someone this high up at Microsoft speaking directly to users though and there is a ton from the Q/A that I didn't cover here….so I recommend you read the full article.
–jeremy
, , ,

Filed under Main Page, Microsoft, Open Source

Microsoft to Open Windows to Please EU

January 25, 2006 Leave a comment

So says this article in Forbes. Now, that's fantastic, but that's not what the EU wanted and is mostly useless. From the original EU press release:
As regards interoperability, Microsoft is required, within 120 days, to disclose complete and accurate interface documentation which would allow non-Microsoft work group servers to achieve full interoperability with Windows PCs and servers. This will enable rival vendors to develop products that can compete on a level playing field in the work group server operating system market. The disclosed information will have to be updated each time Microsoft brings to the market new versions of its relevant products.
To the extent that any of this interface information might be protected by intellectual property in the European Economic Area(6), Microsoft would be entitled to reasonable remuneration. The disclosure order concerns the interface documentation only, and not the Windows source code, as this is not necessary to achieve the development of interoperable products.
That's right, they specifically said they didn't need source code. What they want is accurate interface documentation. Why? Because in this context, the source code is not of use due to patents. If one of the Samba developers so much as looked at the code and then added a related fix to Samba, both the code and the developer would be legally tainted. What does that mean? That they wouldn't look at the code, of course! What would help, and what was asked for, was something that would be both useful and not legally encumbering. Full and accurate interface documentation. No more undocumented API's, hidden hooks and other measures that don't allow fair competition. What Microsoft has done here (and brilliantly so, from a PR standpoint) is appear to the average person to be offering more than what was asked for, while at the same time offering much less. There are still more details to come on this, so who knows – maybe the only code delivery methods will be braille and/or microfeesh. I've seen no official response from the EU yet and I notice a court date of April 24-28 mentioned, but I hope this move isn't allowed to satisfy the Remedy section of the case.
–jeremy
, , ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Microsoft, Open Source

What do the HoTMaiL Admins Think of the Windows Gui?

January 17, 2006 3 Comments

From this article:
BF: Are there scaling reasons to think about the benefits of a command line for managing over a GUI, or are there other things to think about?
PS: Our operations group never wants to rely on any sort of user interface. Everything has to be scriptable and run from some sort of command line. That's the only way you're going to be able to execute scripts and gather the results over thousands of machines.
I really don't know how Windows admins consistently deal with the limitations of the Windows GUI. While a GUI may be fine, and even preferred in a desktop environment, a GUI in the server environment is nothing short of crippling for a variety of reasons. The lack of easy scripting, the limitation of only being able to access features that are exposed via the GUI, the added overhead of actually running the GUI; the list goes on, but I'll stop there. I also find it interesting that there is an allusion to the fact that some customizations were needed in parts of the Windows stack to scale so far. Of course, the only way that would be possible, would be if you were part of Microsoft (which 99.9999% of the world is clearly not) and had access to (some of) the code, like HoTMaiL does, being part of MSN. There is there power of Open Source – 100% of the world has access. The ability to scratch your own itch is something that I'd not want to be without, especially in an environment that's so conducive to itching.
, ,
—jeremy

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Microsoft, Open Source

Google Pack Released

January 11, 2006 1 Comment

Contrary to many of the rumors that were swirling, Google did not announce a cheap PC at CES. What they did announce was the Google Pack. Am I the only one this doesn't make sense to? Let's put aside the “Google Pack is only available for Windows XP” requirement for a moment (although it's actually worse than that… it's Windows XP with Administrator privileges). A cobbled together mix of unrelated software (some of questionable stability) from a variety of vendors with no integration seems like an uncharacteristically poor decision for Google. Add to that the fact that Norten is actually a time limited product and it gets even stranger. Some of the products focus on some segments and some focus on completely different ones. Firefox is a great decision, but no gaim when they recently hired the projects lead developer? What is the vision for this product and where is it bringing Google and the consumer? I have no idea. What's worse, this actually would seem to help one of their biggest competitors (Microsoft) in multiple ways. Strange indeed.
,
–jeremy

Filed under Main Page, Microsoft, Open Source

Linux/Unix Vulnerabilities Outnumber Microsoft Windows' 3 To 1

January 6, 2006 4 Comments

Or do they? This is a fantastic example of numbers not meaning anything if you're just throwing something against the wall. Actually, these numbers are less than useless, they're just plain silly. The original stats are from the US-CERT site, but that fantastic headline came from this article. From the article: Tallies kept by the U.S. government's computer security group show that Linux and Unix operating systems faced nearly three times the number of vulnerabilities in 2005 than did Microsoft's often-maligned Windows.
In the US-CERT (United Stated Computer Emergency Readiness Team) year-end vulnerability summary, Linux/Unix accounted for a whopping 2,328 vulnerabilities, about 45 percent of the 5,198 total.
Now, before you get worried… let's dig into this numbers a bit. First, why are they lumping Linux, UNIX and OS X into a single group and then comparing it to a single vendor? Would you lump Lexus, BMW, Infinite, Toyota, Honda, Porsche, Volkswagen, Saab and Volvo into a single group, compare them to Chevy and then say that Chevy's are safer? I'd hope not. It gets worse though. They note only include things that are in no way related to the OS (GNU GNATS Gen-Index Arbitrary Local File Disclosure/Overwrite, Yukihiro Matsumoto Ruby Infinite Loop Remote Denial of Service (Updated), and Yapig Cross-Site Scripting & HTTP POST Requests Validity are three good examples, but you'll need to take a look at the full list to get a real appreciation) but they include multiple reports from different *NIX vendors about the same issue as different bugs. A bzip vulnerability is on there 10 times! The disturbing reality is, someone giving this a cursory glance might believe these asinine numbers. Never mind that they include safari in the *NIX number, even though that can't possibly impact you if you run Linux. Complete junk. Beyond the stupidity of the numbers though, there is a bigger issue. Security issues in Open Source actually get spotted and fixed on a regular basis. This is a *good* thing and it makes you much more secure in the end. The security by obscurity and closed source aspect of Windows means that a bug is only acknowledged and fixed when Microsoft decides to do it. Remember those png/jpeg issues from a couple years ago? They are just getting fixed now in Windows, where the Open Source world addressed them in 2003. You decide what is more security, but always look into the numbers you are given as opposed to just reading a headline that is meant to get readers. I look forward to the day when journalism like this just doesn't happen. Why do I think I'll be waiting a while?
, , , , ,
–jeremy

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Microsoft, Open Source

Dell vs. Microsoft II

December 30, 2005 2 Comments

A sort of follow up to this post. It looks like Dell is standing strong in its decision to back Blue-ray (which it had a hand in creating) despite Microsoft pressure and incentives to back HD-DVD. The Dell/Microsoft partnership definitely is not what it was just a few years ago. The power balance is slowly shifting and when you add in the legal scrutiny that Microsoft is under, they just can't strong arm like they used to be able to do. If a major vendor like Dell starting to preload OpenOffice.org as a default and then offer Office as an upgrade, it would have major implications. Not only would it impact the profit center of Microsoft, but the precedent would be set. Dell is poised to step out of the shadow that it has been in and be able to make decisions like this without fear of retribution. Does that mean you'll soon see real Linux preloads from Dell? I doubt it, but some day I think it'll be inevitable. It's just a matter of how far away some day is.
, ,
–jeremy

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Microsoft, Open Source

Microsoft’s Top 10 Challenges for 2006

December 27, 2005 Leave a comment

Directions on Microsoft has listed Microsoft’s Top 10 Challenges for 2006. While a couple of them are interesting, one really stood out to me. Deliver Clarity on Managed Solutions (I should also note that I think at least two items are missing from the list, but that's a post for another time). So, why does that one stick out to me? One area that Microsoft has usually gotten kudos in, is the way it treats its channel. It may have strong armed its customers and business partners, but the channel was immune to that. The fact that they are now cannibalizing that is a sign to me that they are a little nervous and looking to generate cash in ways that are somewhat short sighted. If they lose even a portion of that huge channel, their sales will eventually suffer…and with them scooping up huge clients like Energizer, it's inevitable that some channel partners will get a bit jaded and start offering non-Microsoft solutions. After all, if you have to actually compete with Microsoft for the “managed solutions” business, how can you win? This may be the sleeper downfall of Microsoft in 2006 and is something I'll definitely be keeping an eye on.

–jeremy

Filed under Main Page, Microsoft

← Older posts

Newer posts →