NEWS Where does Linux fit into the picture?
Linux is what Unix was in the 1970s: a perfectly reasonable operating system. There's a lot being done with it. Of the two operating systems that are gaining share, one is called Linux and one is called Windows. And Linux is wiping up Unix's share while our overall share has continued to grow somewhat. Clearly, at the server level there'll be intense competition where [companies] like IBM put WebSphere on top of Linux. That's very expensive and we just put the app server into Windows. And then people can do the value comparisons.
But with IBM pushing Linux, isn't there customer interest because they can offer a wider solution?
What do you mean by "wider"? Wider in terms of being more expensive? Wider in terms of the number of consultants required? What's wider mean in this case?
They're putting multibillions of dollars behind the Linux initiative. But what does that mean? They don't develop [Linux]. Now they charge people to run software on top of Linux and services.
Right. But now they're pushing Linux for the desktop.
People have had Linux on the desktop for a long time. It's not a substantial share of what's going on at the desktop.
So at the end of the day it's the Unix guys who are feeling the greater impact of Linux's adoption?
Remember, there are hundreds of incompatible versions of Linux. The fact that we call it Linux hides the fact that this driver works on this version and this app works on that version. But there is a world where you don't test for binary compatibility because you don't have testers. It's just a different world than ours. That approach has certain benefits and advantages in terms of the way things get put together and ours has certain benefits and advantages. It's the primary operating system we'll be competing against.
Five years ago it would have been Windows versus OS/2. A few years before, it would have been Windows versus Macintosh. Before, maybe it would have been C/PM 86 and before that maybe CP/M 80. There's always been some challenger to the operating system. Linux - which is only a kernel - is not where the interesting stuff is going on nowadays.
Talking about security, Microsoft's invested heavily in Trustworthy Computing the last couple years - including stopping all development to get the problems ironed out. How far along are you?
The initial wave of security problems were email-related transmissions of malicious programs. Then a little over a year ago malicious programs spread in other ways as well. That was a big wake-up call because most of our customers didn't have problems with those things. It was the customers that had the up-to-date software and firewalls in place that didn't have the problems. For a high percentage of customers we hadn't made it easy enough for them to really audit that they had the right firewall capabilities in place and make it really easy for them to know which things they should pull through as fixes as opposed to feature improvements.
There's been immense progress on this because it's been the top priority on what we're doing. Our system is actually more robust because people are trying to do things to it. In our case, we have lots of people seeking the glory of saying: "Hey, I found this flaw". They're not actually targeting a particular computer. So we're under very extreme scrutiny in terms of people trying to find these things. The big thing for customers is getting the updating and firewalls in place.
Why isn't the updating happening regularly? Does that aspect need to be automated?
Most of it comes back to us. Every patch has differences in terms of importance and the chance that it might disrupt things. If a patch is clearly labelled that it will cause no regression and you should put it in - you should just click and - boom! It goes in. But if something is a little bit of a new feature or a speedup that might disturb something, that has to be characterised in a very different way. And so you want clear labelling, clear regularity, and as few security critical things flowing through as possible. That's where we've made major advances.
During the negotiations to put the anti-trust questions behind you, have Microsoft's product development plans been affected to the point that you feel you're fighting with one hand tied behind your back?
We've always tried to make sure that as we reach accommodations that our ability to innovate on behalf of consumers is not held back in some dramatic way. So far we feel good about our ability to innovate under the framework we're required to live in.
Jai Singh is editor-in-chief at CNET News.com.
Comments
There are 12 comments. Join the discussion
1. anonymous
Why would so many people say 'Hey, I found this flaw'; remember Bill Gates and the blue screen of death probably the biggest contributor to customer frustration during the network's was software (Microsoft Software). How to remove much of the hassle of being a computer user, hit any key! Joe public highlighted insecure infrastructures corporations responded badly the media glorified incidents as nasty hackers in some kind of anarchic cyber war. Truth be told Sun and Microsoft systems became the focus of the Internet battleground a war over cyberland Microsoft wanted it all and Sun wasn't about to give it up. Part II pirates hahar!
2. anonymous
Why didn't you ask anything about the liceanses that MS bought from SCO?
3. Chaaos
Bill Knows little about Linux. He shows this by saying there are incompatible versions. This is not true Linux is just a kernel even he admits that. To say that nothing intresting is going with linux is a lie. I have yet to see anything intresting happen with Windows, as of yet. All I have seen in the last years is exploit after exploit etc. Yet I can put together a server that can rival Windows 2000 for very little cost with Linux and Samba. As for web applications I can use Mysql and PHP to build low cost web apps. To my customer's stability, reliability and security seem much more intresting than anything Windows can do.
4. Lawrence Ricci
Bill is being very generous with Linux. Points he does not mention:
a) The messey, viral GPL, coupled with the penchent of the Linux community for 'shareing' makes it effectivly impossible to invest in IP on Linux and build a business.
b) The current pile of Linux code includes the fruit of perhaps five to ten billion dollars of investment from IBM and the .bomb investors looking for 'the next Microsoft'. This investment, largely, has stopped.
c) The concept of community code is completly contrary to ISO9002 or any sort of quality program.
5. Jukka Ylönen
It shouldn't be so hard to find truthful information - you should check those "points" again.
About GPL's being "viral" ? ---
http://www.linuxelectrons.com/article.php?story=20031121080951304
6. Jiri Baum
Viral SSI (Shared Source Initiative).
The previous comment (by Lawrence Ricci) complains that Bill Gates didn't note that the GPL is viral. One possible reason is that Microsoft's own Shared Source Initiative is viral in the same way or even worse: incorporating any SSI code in your program makes it either belong to Microsoft, or illegal altogether.
To paraphrase the previous comment, this makes it effectively impossible to invest in IP on Microsoft Windows and build a business. Or, rather, if one wishes to invest in IP on either system, one must be careful about other people's copyright. Important, but hardly news.
7. Tomi Kemikalzen
He's quite right about Linux being what Unix was in the 70's, a quite reasonable OS. So he admits it's a good choice. While MS keeps "innovating" (read:rips old *IX technology, buying up companies, hijacking technology or borrowing BSD-licensed code) they increase the complexity of their OS , while Linux retains it's simplicity.
8. anonymous
What sort of imbecile counts on hearing something honest from Bill Gates, especially when he is talking about something that is kicking his ass?
I mean, there are lots of stupid people out there, but that's more than stupid. That's insane.
9. Felipe Borrero
10 years ago Mr. Gates said that the Internet was no that very important and later he had to jump into the bandwagon a bit late. By underestimating Linux power he is commiting the same sin. We have to wait and see if he still can get to heaven.
Its true that Linux is still far from the core corporate market but Ii's also true that there are much more developers working on it to reach that point than developers at microsoft.
The market will finally decide on this. Not Bill nor Linus.
10. Pen Dragon
When Gates says "The reason you can't is because that's at a higher semantic level than just how to put the stuff on the screen. And it's far more complex." He means, "We want to be able to violate the industry standards anytime we want. I AM the holy grail."
11. Dan House
The ISO 9002 comment -- complete lack of compliance -- is a fascinating observation that I hadn't actually thought of in ages.
That Linux has taken over the basic spot that the 76 flavors of Unix used to have, and that the various server companies have all been forced to partially or wholly adopt it as an internally competitive (if not replacement) OS platform says a variety of amusing things about the place that both Unix and Linux have in the grand scheme of things.
Worse, the idea that anyone not a technological socialist would want to invest largely in apps on top of Linux does create a bizarre development future for the "professional" level app companies...
So it goes..
12. anonymous
Boring. Sure, Linux offers some benefits by its reduced functionality - less to go wrong. However, I am an **average** user and none of my software runs on Linux and it's not intuitive. At least there's parity between Windows and the Mac - you need to be a rocket scientist (or too mean to pay for software) to use Linux!