MS admits they are thru.

MS admits they are thru.

Post by kd5ob » Tue, 25 Feb 2003 21:00:41



http://slashdot.org/articles/03/02/24/184205.shtml?tid=109&tid=98

--
Even before 9-11 happened, we had this.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/12/13/0249250&mode=thread&tid=172
By 2005, it will become clear that Linux will become a Globally dominate OS.
http://www.debianpals.org/charlieweb/Linux/intro.html

Charlie

 
 
 

MS admits they are thru.

Post by Paul Cook » Tue, 25 Feb 2003 21:17:54




Quote:> http://slashdot.org/articles/03/02/24/184205.shtml?tid=109&tid=98

Charlie... why didn't you post to the real article and not to the Slashdot
bun fight???

<http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/134639839_mi...>

ps could this be the real reason for Simon's recent grumpiness??? It's in
his daily paper after all...

--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Get it while it's hot... :)
Paul Cooke
  Registered Linux user 273897 Machine registration number 156819

 
 
 

MS admits they are thru.

Post by d2003x » Wed, 26 Feb 2003 00:47:30



Quote:> Huh? I read it and it looks like they are just beginning. NT is a young
> virbrant kernel and full of potential.

So you admitted it's still immature?
 
 
 

MS admits they are thru.

Post by Rexford Ballar » Wed, 26 Feb 2003 00:55:06



> Huh? I read it and it looks like they are just beginning. NT is a young
> virbrant kernel and full of potential.

Actually, NT has been going through "Revolutionary" changes, which are
extremely distruptive to the customer base, almost since it's announcement
in 1992.

Windows NT 3.x was based heavily on VMS, and had many of the same
limitations of VMS.  It was easy to switch between threads, but not very
good at starting new processes, or switching between threads.  At that
time, 10 users connected to a basic file-and-print server was a challenge.
At the same time, Linux was providing ISPs and POP servers with the ability
to service thousands of users on older 80486 machines that couldn't even
run NT.

Windows NT 4.0 was a big improvement on NT .3.x.  It had better scheduling,
better interprocess communication, and faster context switching.  A Pentium
200 running NT 4.0 could handle between 40 and 100 "file and print" server,
or roughly 50-100 concurrent IIS connections (which gave the illusion of
serving up to 1000 users).  If you needed full capabilities of an internet
server, including DNS, HTTP, SQL database, application rules engine, and
firewall, you needed separate servers for each function.  It wasn't unusual
to have 6-8 servers doing the work that was easily handled by a single UNIX
or Linux server on hardware comparable to one of the servers.

Windows 2000 was the best yet.  It had much better memory protection, much
better interprocess communication through message queueing, support for
limited clustering, and better support for SMP service.  Unfortunately,
applications had to be completely rewritten to exploit these new features,
and just as Windows 2000 was released, the funding for new server
application development began to dry up.  Many companies decided that they
had a better chance of getting better "bang for the buck" by
creating/enhancing the Linux and UNIX versions of their products.  Linux
has actually turned out to be very good for the companies who opted in.
The development costs were lower, more enhancements could get to market
quicker, and many of the NT/2000 versions were actually the UNIX versions
with "compatibility libraries" including or similar to Cygwin, or they were
written almost entirely in Java Java 2.  Even the GUI interfaces were
implemented in JDK 1.2+

Microsoft tried to win the public with Windows XP, but quickly XP began to
be known among CEOs, CFOs, and OEM as the Windows eXtortion Program.
Whatever merits may have existed with XP, people were much less willing to
forgive flaws, were openly refusing to switch from Windows 2000 to XP, and
since most Corporate desktop machines were already running NT 4.0 or
Windows 2000, there was very few customers needing to switch from Windows
98 or ME to Windows XP.

Windows ME was such a frustrating release that customers actually purchased
"downgrades" to switch from Windows ME to Windows 98.  Ironically, there
are even XP users who are purchasing Windows 98 "downgrades".

I suppose this is a good thing for Microsoft.  After all, they are forcing
the "Big 5" OEMs to purchase copies of Windows XP, then selling downgrades
to individual customers.  They are even selling downgrades to Windows 2000
customers who purchased 3-4 year service contracts which are now expiring.

Of course, this has also created a much bigger demand for "White box"
machines, which are then loaded with unsold surplus copies of Windows 98 or
Windows NT.  It has also fueled incredible growth in the Linux enabled
"White Box" machines.  Many consumers are purchasing white-box machines
then installing Red Hat 8.0 personal edition or SuSE Professional for $40.
Ironically, the shift from Mandrake indicates that more and more U.S.
customers are opting for Red Hat with it's better phone support, and better
3rd party support, even though it isn't as "Friendly" as Mandrake.

More and more corporate managers, especially those holding the purse
strings, are now getting much more interested in Linux and UNIX based
solutions.  With Sun using Linux to attack Microsoft's "Low End" customers,
and IBM providing a scalability that totally eclipses Microsoft's
capabilities, Microsoft is finding that the server market is getting very
hostile.  The NT server base doesn't even want to upgrade from Windows NT
4.0 to Windows 2000 (since most sof their applications won't run properly
on Windows 2000), and most are looking to upgrade from Windows NT 4.0 to
Linux or UNIX as much as possible.

Microsoft has also been having problems with credibility.  Most corporate
IT managers have more than enough "hands on" experience with Microsoft's
real costs, actual capabilities, real-world availability, and management.
They also have hands-on experience with UNIX, especially for high profile
databases, Internet Servers, and routers.  To put it mildly, they are
putting Windows on a "retirement plan" and looking for those opportunities
where the machines can be migrated to Linux.

Even the big application vendors such as SAP, Seibel, Peoplesoft, and
Oracle have become very agressevely Linux friendly.  Customers are asking
for, and ordering, Linux based products.

The U.S. is behind the rest of the world in terms of adoption.  Europe,
Asia, India, South America, and Australia have been much more agressively
adopting Linux, not only as servers, but also as workstations.  Ironically,
this is part of the reason why Eastern Europe, India, Indonesia, China, and
Australia are experiencing intense growth while the U.S. is barely growing
at all.

 
 
 

MS admits they are thru.

Post by GreyClou » Wed, 26 Feb 2003 01:31:04



> Huh? I read it and it looks like they are just beginning. NT is a young
> virbrant kernel and full of potential.

A light socket has potential too and it can give you a
rather vibrant feeling.
Try it.
 
 
 

MS admits they are thru.

Post by bone.. » Wed, 26 Feb 2003 01:50:32



> > Huh? I read it and it looks like they are just beginning. NT is a young
> > virbrant kernel and full of potential.

Gwaff. How long has VMS been around? What ever happened to "innovative"
software design.
 
 
 

MS admits they are thru.

Post by Stuart Fo » Wed, 26 Feb 2003 06:28:36




> > Huh? I read it and it looks like they are just beginning. NT is a young
> > virbrant kernel and full of potential.

> Actually, NT has been going through "Revolutionary" changes, which are
> extremely distruptive to the customer base, almost since it's announcement
> in 1992.

Once again, Rex is in full flight in his "this is how I wish the world had
been" revisions of history.\

Quote:

> Windows NT 3.x was based heavily on VMS, and had many of the same
> limitations of VMS.  It was easy to switch between threads, but not very
> good at starting new processes, or switching between threads.  At that
> time, 10 users connected to a basic file-and-print server was a challenge.
> At the same time, Linux was providing ISPs and POP servers with the
ability
> to service thousands of users on older 80486 machines that couldn't even
> run NT.

Wrong, not heavily based on VMS at all, but they did share the same
architect.  Windows NT 3.51 ran very well on 486 machines.  When I first
started working with it, we had a 486 DX2-66, 48MB of RAM serving 150
clients and acting as the domain controller, DHCP, WINS server.  Not exactly
many users, but more than the 10 you claim it would have struggled to
support.

<snip the rest of your pointless drivel>

Rex, why don't you try being truthful rather than fanciful?  Your intentions
are good, but you do your case no good at by posting straight out bullshit.

 
 
 

MS admits they are thru.

Post by Erik Funkenbusc » Wed, 26 Feb 2003 07:08:14







> > > Huh? I read it and it looks like they are just beginning. NT is a young
> > > virbrant kernel and full of potential.

> > Actually, NT has been going through "Revolutionary" changes, which are
> > extremely distruptive to the customer base, almost since it's announcement
> > in 1992.

> Once again, Rex is in full flight in his "this is how I wish the world had
> been" revisions of history.\

Indeed.

Quote:> > Windows NT 3.x was based heavily on VMS, and had many of the same
> > limitations of VMS.  It was easy to switch between threads, but not very
> > good at starting new processes, or switching between threads.  At that
> > time, 10 users connected to a basic file-and-print server was a challenge.
> > At the same time, Linux was providing ISPs and POP servers with the
> ability
> > to service thousands of users on older 80486 machines that couldn't even
> > run NT.

> Wrong, not heavily based on VMS at all, but they did share the same
> architect.  Windows NT 3.51 ran very well on 486 machines.  When I first
> started working with it, we had a 486 DX2-66, 48MB of RAM serving 150
> clients and acting as the domain controller, DHCP, WINS server.  Not exactly
> many users, but more than the 10 you claim it would have struggled to
> support.

Yes, in fact, the concept that VMS was very good at switching threads is
preposterous.  VMS didn't even get kernel threads until VMS 7.0, which
came 2 years *AFTER* NT was released.

Quote:> <snip the rest of your pointless drivel>

> Rex, why don't you try being truthful rather than fanciful?  Your intentions
> are good, but you do your case no good at by posting straight out bullshit.

I've asked him much the same thing over the years, and all he does is
spew more.  Often times he reiterates the same thing even after
previously admitting he was wrong it.
 
 
 

MS admits they are thru.

Post by DRM » Wed, 26 Feb 2003 07:59:13



Quote:> http://slashdot.org/articles/03/02/24/184205.shtml?tid=109&tid=98

> --
> Even before 9-11 happened, we had this.
> http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/12/13/0249250&mode=thread&tid=172
> By 2005, it will become clear that Linux will become a Globally dominate
OS.
> http://www.debianpals.org/charlieweb/Linux/intro.html

> Charlie

'you can point to Linux being one of the major drivers for this decade.

Yup, driving users to Windows.

 
 
 

MS admits they are thru.

Post by Jeff » Wed, 26 Feb 2003 08:13:51



> Windows NT 3.51 ran very well on 486 machines.  When I first
> started working with it, we had a 486 DX2-66, 48MB of RAM serving 150
> clients and acting as the domain controller, DHCP, WINS server.

That is a real hefty load there. Ever have all 150 clients log into the
domain, a renew their IP, and do a Wins lookup at the same time? :)
 
 
 

MS admits they are thru.

Post by Harry Phillip » Wed, 26 Feb 2003 08:31:32



> Yup, driving users to Windows.

Yeah so they can experence this problem ->
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;267255

I use linux to setup an IMAP server everytime a business rings and has
this problem.

For free (actually just my time charges) I setup SpamAssassin to get rid
of the junk.

--
Regards,
Harry Phillips.

--- Failure is not an option,
     it comes bundled with your Microsoft product.

 
 
 

MS admits they are thru.

Post by Rex Ballar » Wed, 26 Feb 2003 10:23:46


 > Interesting and enjoyable post. I disagree with some of your
 > conclusions. I think the U.S. is probably computer saturated
 > so the explosive growth in PC sales of the late nineties is
 > just not going to be there, whereas China and the rest, are
 > yet to 'computer up' their vast populations .. hence they
 > show growth.

The U.S. has millions of people who use computers, and those
computers have been pre-packaged with Windows.  Ford made
millions of Model T's and only offered them in Black.  It took
them years to adopt standards such as stick-shift, automatic
spark advance, mixture control, and even the clutch, break, and
accelerator pedals we know today.

Just as people who buy cars look for new innovations in style,
engineering, and functionality, which drives new sales, the same
can and should be true with computers.  Part of the problem is
that there hasn't been a healthy competitive market.

Think about it, each time Microsoft has faced really intense
competition, the entire industry shifted paradigms.  When Apple
came out with Basic in Rom, keyboard and motherboard on the same
chassis, and a built-in video driver, it push Microsoft to shift
from toggle switches, components, and S-100 cards to the
Commodore PET.

When Apple introduced the Lisa, Bill Gates scrambled to find
some way to beg, borrow, or steal Windows technology.
Eventually, he got it from Steve Jobs, and even borrowed many
ideas and concepts from X11R3.  Even the look and feel of
Windows 3.1 came from Motif and the HP widgets.

When Sun began shifting the market with it's SLC and IPC UNIX
workstations, Microsoft scrambled to introduce Windows NT,
complete with true preemptive multitasking, protected processes,
and interprocess communication.  Bill Gates announced that
Windows NT would be a "Better UNIX than UNIX".  At the time, Sun
had 15% of the desktop market.

When Yddragasil Plug-n-Play Linux offered self-configuring
installation, Internet access, including e-mail, ftp, and web
browsers, Bill Gates delayed "Chicago" to make sure that it had
these features, even though it caused a delay right into the
last week of Microsoft's Fiscal Year 1995 (end of August).

When Linux began outperforming Windows NT 4.0 in both
performance and reliability, Microsoft made huge efforts to
improve the stability and performance of Windows NT 5.0 which it
reneamed Windows 2000 after numerous embarrasing "Blue Screen of
Death" demonstrations by Bill Gates.

When Linux users began to point out the advantages of a user
configurable interface, with a number of different layouts and
preference settings, Microsoft introduced numerous user
configurable "look and feel" settings, beyond those offered in
Windows 98 or Windows 2000.  They also tried to be more backward
compatible with Windows 98.

Even today, Linux and Apple's OS/X UNIX based system have put
the fire to Microsoft.  Microsoft will probably have to more
agressively persue a true UNIX variant.  In addition, Microsoft
has seen that the Open Source development model is working
remarkably well, and has begun to try and capture some of the
key advantages without sacrificing control of the product.

Competition, real competition in which Microsoft holds less than
60% of the market, and has no exclusive control of the OEM
distribution channels, is good for the industry and the computer
using public as a whole.  It keeps both Microsoft and the
competitiors on their toes.

If Linux were to capture 90% of the market, the distributors
would be less inclined to compete.  They would have less
incentive or need to innovate, and they would be trying to milk
as much value out of the established technology before
introducing new technology innovations, much the same as DEC did
in 1983, as IBM did in 1992, or the way Microsoft did in 2002.

 > The problem with Win959898SEMEWinNT3.142kXP2003 is that there
 > are TOO many versions of Windows and people are balking ..
 > heading to their old favourites because the new ones are not
 > *that* compelling.

This is very true.  Microsoft's biggest competiton is -
Microsoft.  Microsoft had to convince people to stop using
Windows 3.1 and switch to Windows 95, without losing the market
to Linux, Solaris, or UnixWare.  Microsoft then had to convince
corporate users to switch workstations to Windows NT 4.0 rather
than staying with Windows 95.  At the same time they had to make
sure they didn't lose control to Solaris, SCO, FreeBSD, or Linux.

Even today, Microsoft has to try to convince corporate managers
and consumers to purchase new Windows XP machines rather than
stay with Windows 98 or Windows 2000, while at the same time not
losing control of the market to OS/X, or Linux.

What is significant is that Linux has been the most consistent
and persistent threat for almost exactly 10 years.  Microsoft
hoped that Linux would starve itself to death, and instead,
Linux has captured the majority of the server market by unit
volume, and has consistently grown it's Client based market share.

 > The solution, of course, would be for MS to slow down for a
 > while and concentrate on new apps and programs. XP on the
 > desktop and the new Server should be fine for quite some time
 > and Microsoft might contribute more to society by focusing on
 > skillfully patching them and creating innovatative apps to
 > run on them.

The problem for Microsoft is that it's being *ed on all
sides.  The Linux kernel has been radically improved several
times in the last few years, and performance numbers are
substantially better than NT or 2000.  The reliability of Linux
has come to approach the reliability of UNIX, while Windows NT
and 2000 still have serious problems with 3rd party software,
especially in complex configurations.

In the GUI front, KDE 3.0 and GNOME 2.0 are creating whole new
levels of expectations.  Windows will again have a hard time
keeping up, and as KDE and GNOME become more widely available,
especially preinstalled on OEM machines, Microsoft's claims that
Linux is "unfriendly" or "a command line oriented system" will
be completely ineffective.

On the Scalability front, Linux can now scale from PDAs and
"book-case" routers and wireless hubs, to Z-900 mainframes
capable of running thousands of virtual "Linux servers" within a
single chassis.

Linux has completely redefined clustering, and the business
version, Grids, has also become a whole new breakthrough in
performance, reliability, and security.

Linux has even redefined the standards of system administration,
with more autonomic systems, self-maintenance, and superior
remote management which provides GUI interfaces, even over
low-bandwidth dial-up or cellular wireless environments.

Microsoft can't stand still, but they have to do more than try
to use contract changes to the EULA to force corporate customers
and OEMs to accept ultimatums and extortion threats.  At the
moment the EULA of XP, the *y traps, and the "Do or Die"
threats have probably done more for Linux than anything the
Linux user community could ever have done.

Microsoft might even find that Linux could be profitable.  They
could sell the same type of library they sold for Solaris, AIX,
and HP_UX, to enable developers to compile windows applications
to Linux.  They may find that they can get the benefits of
loosely coupled applications such as those available in Open
Source, while providing their own "shells", even such as .NET or
it's successor, to exploit Linux functionality.

Microsoft has figured out that it pays to play nice with UNIX,
as they illustrate in their "1 degree of separation"
commercials, where they show the advantages of having a nice
friendly Microsoft GUI interface to UNIX based CAD/CAM servers.

Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer are good businessmen.  They will
have to make some radical adjustments, but if they can adjust,
they could find that Open Source/Linux could be as profitable
for Microsoft in the next 10 years as the Open Standards based
Internet was in the previous 10 years.

 
 
 

MS admits they are thru.

Post by Rex Ballar » Wed, 26 Feb 2003 10:47:52




>>Windows NT 3.51 ran very well on 486 machines.  When I first
>>started working with it, we had a 486 DX2-66, 48MB of RAM serving 150
>>clients and acting as the domain controller, DHCP, WINS server.

Windows NT 3.51 performed preemtive task switches roughly 60
times/second.  Applications could "yield" to other processes or
threads, but since each context switch required substantial
caching and flushing of memory mapping registers processes had
to be kept to a minimum.  Linux was designed to perform 1000
context switches/second on a 486/33, and could get up to about
8,000 context switches on a Pentium 100.

Recent updates to the Linux 2.4.1x kernel have pushed context
switching capabilities into the millions on multiprocessor SMP
systems.

Quote:> That is a real hefty load there. Ever have all 150 clients log into the
> domain, a renew their IP, and do a Wins lookup at the same time? :)

In my environment, we had to deal with it every morning.

Windows NT 4.0 did a much better job with it, than NT 3.51 did.
    We were also able to run Lotus Notes servers on NT 4.0, and
support lots of users (especially if they replicated to their
workstations only every 30 minutes or so).

Windows 2000 does a really good job with things like SQL Server
2000, or other applications which have been rewritten to exploit
MSMQ, MTS, apartment threading, other windows 2000 enhancements.
  But most of the applications are still NT based, and new
versions are being focused on Linux and GLIBC enabled UNIX,
where a single source tree can be used to not only run on Linux
and most versions of UNIX, but also cygwin enabled Windows NT or
2000 (actually, cygwin on Windows 2000 is quite impressive).

Microsoft has some real competition, and it's not sitting still.
For Windows 2003 (is that really when it will be released), they
have purchased a Virtual Machine kernel, which will be
integrated into Windows to make it possible to run multiple
instances of Windows NT, Windows 2000, or Windows 2003 under one
server.  The original product also let you run Linux instances
as well.  It will be interesting to see if Microsoft leaves that
capability intact.  It might improve the Market for Windows 2003
if it can run Linux instances as well.  Otherwise, vendors may
opt for VMWare's GSX and run a mix of NT, 2000, and Linux.

 
 
 

MS admits they are thru.

Post by David Kastru » Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:07:06



> For Windows 2003 (is that really when it will be released), they
> have purchased a Virtual Machine kernel, which will be integrated
> into Windows to make it possible to run multiple instances of
> Windows NT, Windows 2000, or Windows 2003 under one server.  The
> original product also let you run Linux instances as well.  It will
> be interesting to see if Microsoft leaves that capability intact.
> It might improve the Market for Windows 2003 if it can run Linux
> instances as well.

It would kill Windows more reliably than Windows capability killed
OS/2.  You don't want to roll out a red carpet on a migration path to
your competitors.  Microsoft is known and several times convicted for
sabotaging compatibility if they can hope to pull it off long enough
to have an effect.  Don't expect compatibility from them voluntarily.

--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

 
 
 

MS admits they are thru.

Post by GreyClou » Wed, 26 Feb 2003 20:13:06








> > > > Huh? I read it and it looks like they are just beginning. NT is a young
> > > > virbrant kernel and full of potential.

> > > Actually, NT has been going through "Revolutionary" changes, which are
> > > extremely distruptive to the customer base, almost since it's announcement
> > > in 1992.

> > Once again, Rex is in full flight in his "this is how I wish the world had
> > been" revisions of history.\

> Indeed.

> > > Windows NT 3.x was based heavily on VMS, and had many of the same
> > > limitations of VMS.  It was easy to switch between threads, but not very
> > > good at starting new processes, or switching between threads.  At that
> > > time, 10 users connected to a basic file-and-print server was a challenge.
> > > At the same time, Linux was providing ISPs and POP servers with the
> > ability
> > > to service thousands of users on older 80486 machines that couldn't even
> > > run NT.

> > Wrong, not heavily based on VMS at all, but they did share the same
> > architect.  Windows NT 3.51 ran very well on 486 machines.  When I first
> > started working with it, we had a 486 DX2-66, 48MB of RAM serving 150
> > clients and acting as the domain controller, DHCP, WINS server.  Not exactly
> > many users, but more than the 10 you claim it would have struggled to
> > support.

> Yes, in fact, the concept that VMS was very good at switching threads is
> preposterous.  VMS didn't even get kernel threads until VMS 7.0, which
> came 2 years *AFTER* NT was released.

That's a load of bull.  When we received our update to VMS
5.8 we received new manuals that included DEC threads.  I've
got OpenVMS 6.2 now and it includes threads.
VMS and NT have no relationship whatsoever.  The only
relationship is NT and David Cutler.
Again, ol' Ewik Fudd is posting his ignorance.

Quote:

> > Rex, why don't you try being truthful rather than fanciful?  Your intentions
> > are good, but you do your case no good at by posting straight out bullshit.

> I've asked him much the same thing over the years, and all he does is
> spew more.  Often times he reiterates the same thing even after
> previously admitting he was wrong it.

Just like you, eh Ewik???

Guffaw!!!

 
 
 

1. Ok i admit it, I am an arsehole

You'd better go out and hang yourself right now, or at least eat a worm
or something.  Make a public apology to Usenet Steering Committee.
--
Bombeck's Rule of Medicine:
        Never go to a doctor whose office plants have died.

2. How can I change the controller device name

3. I am an admitted unix idiot-please help!

4. Writing Linux Device Driver

5. Gates admits MS "engineers" suck?

6. slip

7. EXTRA EXTRA MS ADMITS!!!!

8. module problem with new kernel

9. MS admit's they were dumbasses.

10. Warren (wjbel) admits Linux is better than MS-Windows

11. MS admits to industrial Terrorism!!!

12. MS Admits NT Unstable

13. MS's admits NT 4.0 was designed from the ground up flawed.