Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Microsoft's New Linux-Based Wireless Network

Posted by timothy on Fri Jun 23, 2006 01:54 PM
from the this-is-the-join-'em-part dept.
Communications Microsoft Wireless Networking IT Hardware
MECC points to an article about Microsoft's new wireless network. From the article "The next time Bill Gates sends an e-mail through Microsoft's shiny new Wireless LAN it will be passed through a behind-the-scenes Linux-based network appliance." Microsoft has partnered with Aruba Networks for a large corporate wireless LAN deployment, involving 277 buildings and 5000 access points, 'all Linux based.'"
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Microsoft's New Linux-Based Wireless Network 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • wait (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PunkOfLinux (870955) <mewshi@mewshi.com> on Friday June 23 2006, @01:56PM (#15591527) Homepage
    If their operating system is soooo great for servers, routers, etc, why don't they use it in their own business?
    • They can't even figure out how to centrally manage thier current cisco wireless setup ... I don't think they have it in them to actually get it working right.

    • Re:wait (Score:5, Funny)

      by Volante3192 (953645) on Friday June 23 2006, @02:00PM (#15591567)
      Simply a temporary measure until access points advance in power enough for Windows WAP.

      The current hurdle is getting the HD space to store the UPnP Aero interface.

      • Re:wait (Score:4, Insightful)

        by sumdumass (711423) on Friday June 23 2006, @05:15PM (#15592999) Journal
        More like an expensive marketing campiain so they can replace the APs and routers with WindowsCE devices while claiming linux just couldn't cut it. Then they can make all sorts of claims on the reliability, configuration and service linux offers.

    • Re:wait (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Phillup (317168) on Friday June 23 2006, @02:02PM (#15591587)
      Because they are a publicly traded company and need to improve shareholder value by keeping costs low?

      Just guessing...

      (and no, the extra cost for an MS solution isn't in licensing their own tech... it is all about maintenance and support)

    • Re:wait (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Wow, a company using the most cost-effective technology makes a slashdot headline? And the zealots are impressed? Ironic, yes. Headline news? Only to the linux zealots. C'mon, MS doesn't compete in the embedded network appliance market. (Like they could.) This is just another chance for MS bashing.

      Would there be a headline saying "CEO of United Airlines chooses El Al for flights to Israel?" No, there wouldn't. So what's the big deal?

      MS has its place, just like linux does. Can't we all just get alon

      • Re:wait (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 23 2006, @02:20PM (#15591756)
        Would there be a headline saying "CEO of United Airlines chooses El Al for flights to Israel?" No, there wouldn't. So what's the big deal?



        Its a big deal because the CEO of United Airlines did not run a marketing FUD campaign to discredit El Al, nor did he hire scum like Bill Hilf to spew the same FUD in the media, nor did he use another airline to sue El Al on bogus patent dispute grounds. You get the picture.

      • A lot of posts miss the point (Score:5, Insightful)

        by porkThreeWays (895269) on Friday June 23 2006, @03:41PM (#15592376)
        A lot of you are missing the point. For most instances it's about saving money. But sometimes there are public appearance issues that are more important than immediate cost. By using a direct competitor's product, you are admitting your competiting product is not only inferior, but so vastly inferior that free licenses and free in-house support are still not enough to use it. This hurts sales of that product long term. Even if using your own stuff costs more now, you hope that saving face and eating your own dog food will result in sales that make up for it. Microsoft has no equivalent to Cisco's IOS. However, they have an embedded version of windows that is poised directly at linux. And the real news of this is that Microsoft has been so vapidly against linux. I mean they have fought dirty and mean and lied through their teeth. Now this product they have utter distain for is aparently vastly superior to one of their products? Kinda a big kick in the nuts if you ask me. They probably should have just stayed with Cisco and saved themselves the embarassment. It makes them look foolish.

      • Re:wait (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Duhavid (677874) on Friday June 23 2006, @04:19PM (#15592652)
        The big deal is the hoopla from Microsoft about how
        their product is superior to everything everywhere,
        and it is ready to do everything, yeah.

        If Microsoft historically was saying "Our OS
        is good, and getting better all the time,
        and here are some succes stories", they would
        not be so open to criticism on this point.
        ( I am sure there would be some anyway, but... )

        Yes, Microsoft has it's place and strengths,
        just like everything else out there.

        • Re:Bad analogy. (Score:4, Insightful)

          by ZaMoose (24734) on Friday June 23 2006, @03:37PM (#15592350) Homepage
          I worked for IBM Global Services when Ifirst got out of college - we ran Lucent's UNIX operations for 'em. I haven't checked lately, but back then, Lucent made its own switches, routers, etc. We used to interface with their network techs all the time who eventually revealed to us that 99% of their gear was Cisco equipment. It was more reliable, easier to manage and Cisco cut them a bigger break at volume than their own internal supply chain.

          We used to laugh about that, but I guess their stock troubles of the last 6 years are no surprise, given that sort of internal mess.

    • Re:wait (Score:5, Interesting)

      by toleraen (831634) on Friday June 23 2006, @02:12PM (#15591684)
      When I worked at a fast food joint, we still had pizza/subs/etc ordered in. Just because you produce a certain product doesn't mean you'll never go to the competition.

    • Re:wait (Score:3, Informative)

      by DaHat (247651)
      Shame this is a dupe from many months ago and a non-issue.

      When it comes to electronic devices such as dvd players, routers, WAP's/etc most people do not care what is under the hood, if it does it's job and does it well then that is all that maters as is the case here.

      • Re:wait (Score:5, Informative)

        by IdleTime (561841) on Friday June 23 2006, @02:11PM (#15591665) Journal
        Didn't we hate IBM once, too?
        Not you my son, you weren't born yet....

        But yes, IBM was hated but for total different reasons than MS is. Take a look at the history of Amdahl to see how the HW area was and then look at IBM's pricing back in thiose days. The first laser printer I worked with was rented from IBM for approx $15000/month and we managed to burn 3 of them down to the ground. Oh and they were huge! IBM was a financial vaccum cleaner, people wanted alternatives, IBM didn't.

        • Re:wait (Score:4, Funny)

          by $RANDOMLUSER (804576) on Friday June 23 2006, @02:37PM (#15591894)
          > Not you my son, you weren't born yet....

          You forgot to explain "bundling" to him...

          An interesting comparison here [pgts.com.au].

        • Re:wait (Score:5, Insightful)

          by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Friday June 23 2006, @02:54PM (#15592041) Homepage Journal
          Or of course there's the contractual stipulation that any software developed on their mainframes (back in the day) was the property of IBM. IBM used to be the enemy, it's true; today we should all be congratulating them for coming SO FAR. From "your source is my source" to "open source"... IBM is the closest thing I have to a favorite corporation.

      • Re:wait (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Gherald (682277)
        > I, for one, am starting to warm up to this new "NIH"less Microsoft. Didn't we hate IBM once, too?

        IBM is a hardware company, Microsoft is a software company. There's really no comparison, MS will never embrace and extend open source a fraction of the way IBM has.

  • Perhaps it's their real strategy... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by aliasptr (684593) on Friday June 23 2006, @01:57PM (#15591533) Homepage
    I could see them doing this on purpose to say, "See Linux DOESN'T belong on the desktop. It's only good for doing SOME TYPES of behind the scenes stuff." This way I imagine they cover their asses in the markets they most care about. That's all I thought before even reading the article.

  • Irony? (Score:3, Funny)

    by mrbcs (737902) on Friday June 23 2006, @01:57PM (#15591541)
    My head asplode from the irony...

      • Re:Irony? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Guanix (16477) on Friday June 23 2006, @02:20PM (#15591759) Homepage
        Windows Embedded [microsoft.com]. Used for all kinds of devices, including cars, network attached storage, cash registers, phones and thin clients. And according to this page [microsoft.com] at MSDN, Windows Embedded OS's can act as an access point, though nobody seems to have built a product around this yet.

  • The right tool for the job. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 23 2006, @01:58PM (#15591548)
    It looks like Microsoft understands something the majority of slashdot's users have trouble with.

    • History says otherwise (Score:5, Interesting)

      by pardasaniman (585320) on Friday June 23 2006, @03:05PM (#15592133) Journal
      Is that why they had to put so much time energy and money to convert Hotmail away from BSD?

      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/08/01/ms_hotmail _servers_begin_switch/ [theregister.co.uk]

    • The point is lost on you (Score:4, Insightful)

      by porkThreeWays (895269) on Friday June 23 2006, @03:51PM (#15592455)
      Time and time again Microsoft doesn't use the right tool for the job. Why? Because it's about saving face. You have to make it appear Microsoft products are always the right tool for the job. It may not be true, but that's what you want the public to think. What's the public to think if you never use any of your own products? They are going to think they are garbage. The idea is that the sales gained by saving face will outnumber the costs in using the wrong tool. The use of a directly competing embedded OS is giving a public image that linux is so vastly superior for this purpose that Windows embedded isn't worth anyone's time. "Windows embedded is so bad Microsoft won't even use that crap". Get the idea?

  • Visionary (Score:5, Funny)

    by Doc Ruby (173196) on Friday June 23 2006, @01:59PM (#15591558) Homepage Journal
    What are you talking about? Gates has left Microsoft to go head up Novell. Where he's spearheading their new Vista wireless network system to challenge the Microsoft monopoly.

  • And for the tin-foil-hat crowd... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ErikTheRed (162431) on Friday June 23 2006, @02:01PM (#15591574) Homepage
    Maybe they'll just make sure the network gets pwn3d so they can point their fingers at it, jump up and down, and yell "See! See! See!" like a bunch of 12-year-olds who just drank a case of Red Bull.

  • What choice do they have (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MrRuslan (767128) on Friday June 23 2006, @02:01PM (#15591580) Homepage
    Well what choice do they have when it comes to imbedded wireless APS. They can't put windows on one and not make it a full blown box sitting there wasting space and resources. This time it will be harder to eat their own dog food because if they end up making there own custom APS based on windows as a sort hey look what our stuff can do maneuver that would be labeled as stupid.
        • NT/embedded doesn't even require that you use the GUI. It's also used successfully within the Xbox (Based on win2k) and the Xbox's OS was ported to the Xbox 360, which as you likely know is a triple-PowerPC system. Obviously NT is still portable, even after it's been hacked to run on the Xbox :) NT/embedded is used all over the damned place. And, if they wanted, they could also go with WinCE, although I'm not sure why they would - but it's a complete, working multitasking OS.

  • Does it really matter what it runs ? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nomad63 (686331) on Friday June 23 2006, @02:02PM (#15591585)
    As far as microsoft is concerned, they are buying an appliance to provide a dedicated service. As any profit minded company, they should not care what it runs behind the scenes as long as TCO is low on the long run. And linux is known to be a robust OS in the embedded OS arena. So most probably it will run without any problems, meaning less out of pocket costs for m$. What do they care ? Also, they do not have any expertise in networking hardware arena, so it is not against their motto of not to use a product from the competition. I am not sure what's newsworthy about this story ? Slow Friday may be ?

  • Outdated (Score:4, Informative)

    by tekisama (161866) on Friday June 23 2006, @02:04PM (#15591601) Homepage
    This is old news. When my organization was looking at managed wireless vendors a year ago we did an eval of Aruba and they were already bragging about getting the Microsoft account.

    That said we didn't go with Aruba, mostly because their pricing was pretty Microsoft-esque. In other words, worse than a prison shower.

  • I'm confused (Score:5, Funny)

    by Cytlid (95255) on Friday June 23 2006, @02:07PM (#15591629) Homepage
    So is it ... "The power of Linux brought to you by Microsoft." or

      "The power of Microsoft brought to you by Linux." ???

  • Sheesh (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Reality Master 101 (179095) <RealityMaster101@gmai l . com> on Friday June 23 2006, @02:09PM (#15591647) Homepage Journal

    Is the average Linux advocate really this pathetic and sad? Microsoft buys a bunch of freaking wireless appliances that happen to use Linux, and this warrants a big freaking article? I bet the Cisco routers they're replacing don't use Windows, either. Is Microsoft supposed to have a "WINDOWS ONLY LOL ROXR" policy on any electronic device down the copy machines?

    I bet they might have a coffee machine that uses embedded Linux as well. Maybe LinuxWorld needs to send in a few spies to rat it out.

    • http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_a rchive/2006/04/03/8373041/index.htm

      Ballmer doesn't let his kids use Google or iPods [cnn.com]. I don't find it so farfetched that Microsoft might have at least a slight bias towards wanting their employees to use their own products, both as a matter of company pride and as a matter of "dog food"--the more people in the company who use a product, the more bugs get squashed before the product gets released.

    • Re:Sheesh (Score:5, Informative)

      by djrogers (153854) on Friday June 23 2006, @02:27PM (#15591808)
      Is Microsoft supposed to have a "WINDOWS ONLY LOL ROXR" policy on any electronic device down the copy machines?
      Actually, as someone who is currently working with MS as a potential customer, this *is* a big deal. MS does have a very strong bias and written policies about using Windows everywhere they can. I could point to several compromises thay've had to make to do this as well, but I like my job. If a project/product cannot be done with windows, it can be justified anyway, but it's an uphill battle. In most cases, the fact that an appliance runs Linux makes it an even harder battle - things like switches/routers etc that run RTOSs like VxWorks get by with no problems, but throw in a management or monitoring solution based on linux and your job is much much harder.

    • Re:Sheesh (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Cleon (471197) <cleon42@NOSPaM.yahoo.com> on Friday June 23 2006, @02:37PM (#15591892) Homepage
      It's really very simple. Microsoft has been talking smack about Linux for years, about how Windows is better, lower TCO, etc. Now they've been caught using Linux-based appliances.

      If nothing else, it's funny. It's like an environmentalist ranting and raving about SUVs driving the environment until someone points out, "dude, you're driving a Hummer."

      Essentially, Microsoft's rhetoric HAS been "windows only lol r0xr." Now they have to eat a little crow.

    • Re:Sheesh (Score:4, Insightful)

      by spun (1352) <.moc.oohay. .ta. .yranoituloverevol.> on Friday June 23 2006, @03:27PM (#15592282) Journal
      Wow, you sound really emotionally invested in this issue. Take a few deep breaths. Repeat after me, "The size of my dick has nothing to do with the success or failure of Microsoft." There, feel better?

      Anytime a big company uses Linux in a large installation, that is news. Embedded Linux is something most geeks here don't get to play with that much, so this is news. The fact that a company that is fighting tooth and nail against open source uses open source, that is also news.

      Your ridiculous strawman, slippery slope, and ad hominem arguments only highlight the growing panic amongst luser admins who have staked their careers on a steaming pile of crap.

  • Slow News Day (Score:3, Insightful)

    by StyxRiver (782565) on Friday June 23 2006, @02:43PM (#15591936) Homepage
    From a story dated 04/11/2005. Right tools for the job, what's the problem? MS made a good choice....over a year ago. When in doubt, search the archives for a story to get the MS bashers drooling.

  • What for? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Efialtis (777851) on Friday June 23 2006, @02:43PM (#15591948) Homepage
    When I was at MS, they were installing a huge wireless network in all the buildings...when I left, it was something like 90% done...
    SO my question is, if they already have a wireless network, and I know they do...why are they installing another one? Or is it really that they are UPGRADING the existing one...???

    Either way, this would make the 2nd Linux installation that I know of over at MS...they have (or had) a set of servers over in building 43 that contained, "sensitive, critical data" that they couldn't (wouldn't??) trust to Windows Server...

  • Wait, I'm confused ... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Keyslapper (852034) on Friday June 23 2006, @02:53PM (#15592033) Homepage
    So, who exactly is getting assimilated?

    I can just see Linus' avatar now ...

    We Are PENGUIN,
    All Your WAN Are Belong To Us.

  • Holy smokes, Bullwinkle! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by HardCase (14757) on Friday June 23 2006, @03:35PM (#15592328)
    April 11, 2005? You've got to be kidding me!

    -h-

  • changing minds (Score:4, Interesting)

    by sgt scrub (869860) <saintium AT yahoo DOT com> on Friday June 23 2006, @04:11PM (#15592596) Homepage
    I've noticed clients are now getting some enjoyment out of exchange after I installed linux+postfix mail firewalls in front of them. It kind of feels bad. I think they are going to forget the reason why stuff is now working. I know their boss'n are ignorant of the reason. But anyway, maybe Microsoft wants to see this "improvement" for themselves.
    • This isn't insightful. Microsoft has written their own embedded software for access points and other devices. Apparently there aren't any hardware vendors that support it yet or I presume they'd use their own software.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.