MESSAGE
| DATE | 2004-07-25 |
| FROM | Billy
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [hangout] Windows takes on multiple roles
|
On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 01:10:34AM +0100, einker-at-gam.com wrote:
> This article from vnunet.com has been sent to you by einker-at-gam.com
>
> who has added the following message: Time to start being scared...MS
> runs Linux Software
This article contains a number of technical errors.
It also has some formatting problems. :)
I can fix the formatting, then comment on the tech.
> If you wish to go straight to the page from which this article was sent,
> click here: http://www.vnunet.com/Comment/1156794
>
> Windows takes on multiple roles
>
> As IT Week revealed recently, Microsoft is working to make Windows run
> Linux software, and not before time. Windows and Linux would be much
> more useful platforms if they could each run software originally
> written for the other.
You can't just throw a statement like this one out there without qualification.
This may be a MSFT P.R. tourniquette to stop people from jumping to Linux.
"Hang in there! We'll run those Linux apps soon! Don't waste your
money migrating.." I'm not holding my breath for this one. As for the
"more useful" thing... Windows is useful to MSFT when it makes them more
money. Period. They don't care if it does what users want. If being
interoperable with Linux reduces their feature differential against
a free competitor, they're NOT going to do it.
> Now let's talk about Longhorn. Longhorn is the codename for the next
> version of Windows, currently slated for delivery in 2008. Though
> Microsoft has mentioned the possibility of a 3D graphical user
> interface, and a new database-like file-system, it has actually made
> no promises about what will be included in Longhorn.
A "3D GUI"? They're still using panels of dots to display it, right?
A database-like file-system? Aren't all filesystems databases? (hint: yes)
Hm... Two nonsense statements in tight succession.
> Many people note that 2008 is so far away that without an excellent
> crystal ball, nobody could predict what the update will contain. But
> one thing I reckon for certain about Longhorn is that it will be able
> to run Linux software.
*pphhhhhffff!* Lost my coffee on that one...
> Such a move would provide Microsoft with some excellent ammunition to
> win business from companies looking to deploy Linux, and those
> looking to replace Unix-based Risc systems with Unix based-x86 ones.
> If Microsoft wants to sell more server software, adding this
> capability to Windows would be a fine way of doing it.
x86 isn't going to matter in 2008, anymore than 686s matter now.
Won't the server market going to be IA64 by then?
Is there a real pressure to get off of RISC (all caps, bub!) machines?
> In fact, the new "server roles" installation technique due for
> delivery with Longhorn is perhaps the only other certainty about
> Longhorn. This is Microsoft's new approach to software deployment.
> Rather than install everything all at once, the server roles approach
> allows IT staff to tell the installation program exactly what a
> particular server will be doing, so the installer only installs the
> software needed for that task.
Oh, that the "Freedom to Innovate" we've been hearing so much about?
This is what is produces.. Genius ideas like: "only install
the software you want to install".
> IT Week identified the drawbacks of Windows installing unnecessary
> software last year in our review of Samba 3, which outperformed
> Windows as a file server in our tests. Part of Microsoft's
> explanation was that Samba and Linux combined require far less
> resources than Windows.
Yeah, some excuse....
> I talked this over with the guys in Microsoft HQ, and I'm sure I
> could hear the tears hitting their desk as they realised that an
> operating system so bloated with optional extras was doomed to lose
> ground against products designed for a single purpose.
Are they still talking about Linux? What "single purpose"?
This is stupid.
> In instances like this it is clear that less really is more.
I'm wishing there were less of this article...
> Anyhow, server roles would also provide an easy way to install
> Windows Services for Unix (SFU). This is important because in its
> current form, SFU is quite tricky to install. For example, you either
> need a working NIS server or a few files containing user names and
> encrypted passwords to be present on your c:\ drive.
On your WHAT?
> These things are easy enough for Linux administrators to arrange, but
> they can form an impossible barrier to Windows administrators
> attempting their first installation of SFU.
"impossible" barrier? Setting up a human-readable conf file by
typing 'passwd'? Windows admins are used to MUCH MUCH worse....
> A server roles approach would reduce the resources required by an SFU
> system, but more to the point it would provide a way for customers to
> build Microsoft Unix servers that did not need to be weighed down by
> insecure Windows software, such as Internet Explorer or other
> unnecessary Windows tools. Imagine that.
This has nothing to do with reality. Smart NT admins already DO
strip their boxes.
____________________________
NYLXS: New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....
NYLXS is a trademark of NYLXS, Inc
|
|
