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.
Earlier this year Microsoft and Aruba Networks jointly announced the two companies will work to replace Microsoft's existing Cisco wireless network with Aruba's centrally-managed infrastructure, which eliminates the need for individual changes on the access points. According to an Aruba press statement, Microsoft's new WLAN will be deployed in 277 buildings covering more than 17 million square feet using Aruba mobility controllers, mobility software and some 5000 wireless access points.
What the press statement didn't mention is that Aruba mobility controllers run the Linux operating system which Microsoft has aggressively targeted as being inferior to Windows as part of its "Get the Facts" marketing campaign.
Mark Robards, Aruba Network's Asia-Pacific vice president, said the company's mobility controller switches provide integrated security, including a firewall, VPN, and hardware encryption, and they are "all Linux-based".
"This partnership will allow Microsoft to leverage a cutting-edge wireless and mobility platform that provides us the scalability, performance and security that our environment demands," Sunjeev Pandey, senior director of Microsoft IT said.
Pandey's appraisal of Aruba's technology is in stark contrast to Microsoft's "Get the Facts" rhetoric which places Windows as a more secure, and higher-performing choice over Linux.
View: Get the Facts
News source: LinuxWorld
Earlier this year Microsoft and Aruba Networks jointly announced the two companies will work to replace Microsoft's existing Cisco wireless network with Aruba's centrally-managed infrastructure, which eliminates the need for individual changes on the access points. According to an Aruba press statement, Microsoft's new WLAN will be deployed in 277 buildings covering more than 17 million square feet using Aruba mobility controllers, mobility software and some 5000 wireless access points.
What the press statement didn't mention is that Aruba mobility controllers run the Linux operating system which Microsoft has aggressively targeted as being inferior to Windows as part of its "Get the Facts" marketing campaign.
Mark Robards, Aruba Network's Asia-Pacific vice president, said the company's mobility controller switches provide integrated security, including a firewall, VPN, and hardware encryption, and they are "all Linux-based".
"This partnership will allow Microsoft to leverage a cutting-edge wireless and mobility platform that provides us the scalability, performance and security that our environment demands," Sunjeev Pandey, senior director of Microsoft IT said.
Pandey's appraisal of Aruba's technology is in stark contrast to Microsoft's "Get the Facts" rhetoric which places Windows as a more secure, and higher-performing choice over Linux.
View: Get the Facts News source: LinuxWorld
What do you think about Google Print? Is it a service that you will consider using a regular basis? Post what your comments below.
:drool:
Uh, I mean...
Um..
Go linux.
There, that was sufficiently on-topic.
Next up: linux-powered Pizza Ovens: Wave of the future, or unnesisarly complicated?
umount burrito mmm...
sudo umount /media/burrito/ -l
All depends where the microwave was plugged in.
All you have to do is
That's all! So simple.
There is nothing wrong with a company having both Windows and Linux Servers.
That out of the way, really, this is just a case of choosing the right tool for the right job, no? While it seems to conflict with their whole "Get the Facts" campaign, I don't think even Microsoft would be stubborn enough to put their pride before the reliability of such a project.
Linux simply isn't the point- they're not using it because they decided that Linux was better than Windows, they're using it because they like the HARDWARE. And that product just so happens to run a micro version of Linux.
I've got this feeling that you Linux guys won't be happy until MS makes their own firmware for their network hardware.
God forbid Microsoft uses Linux in their networking ....
It's a story about MSFT. What's you problem?
MS uses Linux widespread linux research labs, MS even owns Linux webservers if the windows server cracks down.
Last I checked Windows wasn't an OS used for being built into such devices and because of the kind of OS windows is, it wouldn't even make sense to do so.
While linux allows them to have a very small image installed on the ROMs in the devices, since these devices also probably aren't X86 based on their internal hardware, Windows isn't really a very good choice as it would be unlikely they'd just get a custom stripped ROM version of win2k3 server with a specially built kernel for their hardware. While Linux offers them the chance to add a lot of fucntionality and such to their devices without custom building a micro-OS thingy for the devices.
I might be wrong and they are X86 based Servers.. but from the article thign.. there's no sign of that.
While linux allows them to have a very small image installed on the ROMs in the devices, since these devices also probably aren't X86 based on their internal hardware, Windows isn't really a very good choice as it would be unlikely they'd just get a custom stripped ROM version of win2k3 server with a specially built kernel for their hardware. While Linux offers them the chance to add a lot of fucntionality and such to their devices without custom building a micro-OS thingy for the devices. well thats whos problem? microsoft that they cant support more hardware.
The point is that Windows as an OS, is not designed to operate switches. It's made to be a simple and easy to use user experience for a computer.. you know.. the thigns who have monitors, a mouse and a keyboard to interface with...
Linux, TOO, is not designed to operate these kind of devices, but because it's open source and you have access to writing your own kernel supports and pretty much removing anythign that makes the OS useful as a computer OS. you can get by with using it as a OS(though the term isn't really OS) for a hardware device like this. even so. perfomance wise and such it would probably be better for them to write their own system from the ground up.
but as I said this way they can "cheat" and use some OpenSource FTP server and firewalls in their hardware, and get by with a lot less work.
but nice way to flame windows totally out of context of anything, with arguments that simply doesn't make sense.
and about the "can't support more hardware". MS can support more hardware, you can get it for pretty much any server or workstation available for sale. BUT as I said, these are probably custom made hardware chips by the company, HOW ON EARTH do you expect MS to magically have support for those microprocessors and what not. Welcome back to the real world.
Widnows was never designed to power such devices, neither was linux, but because it's open source they can use Linux code in their hardware and call it linux powered(even if it might be a stretch). and as such, this is a None story.
It's like complaingin about a Plumbing company using another company to install the electric wiring in their building.
Most computers don't have a mouse, monitor, or keyboard. Lets look up "computer" on wikipedia and see what we find:
OK, now we have established that HawkMan really doesn't even know what a computer is. Lets further disect his argument:
This comment shows that Hawkman doesn't even know what an OS is. Lets check Wikipedia again:
Ouch! Hawkman is proven wrong again. If Hawkman doesn't know what a computer or operating system are lets look at more of his argument:
If MS supports more hardware, that must be why my mechanic runs Windows on his StarScan, Why I can run Windows on my PS2, and why my grandma runs Windows on her Tivo. Oh wait, Windows doesn't support any of these devices. Here, Hawkman is saying Windows supports desktops and servers, and trying to infer that most computers are desktops and servers. This is a flat out lie. As we saw from the Wikipedia definition of computer, most computers are embedded devices, such as a StarScan, PS2, or Tivo. Thus, Linux supports much more computer hardware than Windows
Wait, chips such as 32-bit PowerPC and 32-bit MIPS micros are now "custom made hardware"? Anybody off the street can order these. IBM, Intel, etc. offer FREE downloadable pdfs documenting these chips. Again, this boils down to Hawkman's ignorance of computers.
Um, no. It's like a software/hardware/services company using another software/hardware/services company to install the software/hardware/services in their building.
To qoute correctly:
He was not trying to say all computers use a KB and mouse. Nowhere in his statement does it even remotely say that ALL computers exclusively use a KB and mouse. Did you even take time to read what he wrote? Granted, he should have said PC instead of "computer", but to take things out of proportion the way you did is uncalled for.
Like I said above, HawkMan should have called it a PC. This doesn't mean he doesn't know what a "computer" is. There are different types of computers, as your wikipedia searching skills should have clearly shown you. You can't sit there and tell me that you have never called your PC just a "computer" right?
If MS supports more hardware, that must be why my mechanic runs Windows on his StarScan, Why I can run Windows on my PS2, and why my grandma runs Windows on her Tivo. Oh wait, Windows doesn't support any of these devices. Here, Hawkman is saying Windows supports desktops and servers, and trying to infer that most computers are desktops and servers. This is a flat out lie. As we saw from the Wikipedia definition of computer, most computers are embedded devices, such as a StarScan, PS2, or Tivo. Thus, Linux supports much more computer hardware than Windows
How on god's green earth did you infer that HawkMan was saying "most computers are desktops and servers"? I'll break this down quick. For starters, none of these devices is a server OR workstation. I understand the point you are making, though (all the devices run linux and are embedded). But perhaps you didn't realize that there are an equal number of EMBEDDED devices that run Windows CE or Windows Mobile? StarScan could probably run Windows CE, however, the manufacturer must have preferred linux. Did you ever stop to think WHY the other devices don't run windows? Here, let my boy HawkMan explain it to you better.
but as I said this way they can "cheat" and use some OpenSource FTP server and firewalls in their hardware, and get by with a lot less work.
What HawkMan said sounds alot like what you said, Colonel. Let me refresh your memory.
NEXT!
Again, what is with you taking things out of context? HawkMan is not saying ANY of those things are custom-made (though it can be argued that ANYTHING was, at one point, custom made). He is refering to the fact that windows as an OS for a network switch may not natively support the hardware. The Linux kernel, on the other hand, can be recompiled to NATIVELY support ANY devices.
Now replace "bla bla" with words to make it sounds like I said something really insightful.
Thinking that Microsoft should use a ROM with win2k3 to run the hardware they use is stupid. As hawkman said, Windows was never designed to run on specialised hardware and the same goes for Linux. Microsoft don't HAVE to use their OS to run hardware which require robust and reliable performance, mainly because Windows can't do it on such device and because most of the embedded OSes out on the market are already made to be used in safety-critical systems.
Right, because Microsoft should spend their time and resources and write their own software for WLAN ... God forbid they use anything else built for a specific purpose. How asinine is that?
I believe the big deal is how anti-Linux Microsoft is. THAT, combined with them using a version of Linux as the backbone of their new WLAN rollout...now that is a story.
Why didn't MS use that embedded version of XP they have? I thought the whole idea was to do specialized functions exactly like this situation?
Besides, it's custom hardware. It's not like Microsoft is setting up a bunch of Linux servers in their datacenters.
Microsoft is not using Linux. They are using Aruba products, which just happen to run on Linux. Linux is a total non-factor in this.
Besides, it's custom hardware. It's not like Microsoft is setting up a bunch of Linux servers in their datacenters.
They have
Microsoft tries hard to become a viable choice in the embedded sector, but they don't have the operating system needed for most appliances (except for PDAs or smartphones) - it's either too slow (eg network appliances), inflexible (for almost everything), or insecure (for critical appliances, eg power plants, medical systems, military systems - not even Linux is used for stuff like that. Windows, like Linux, is EAL 4+ at best, LynxOS or Integrity is EAL 7).
That wont happen in this world. becos MS is greedy and want to make money out of it as much as they can.
So you are saying that Microsoft should pay Aruba to throw out it's existing software and build a whole new platform from scratch? Should Microsoft also completely rewrite Windows CE to optimize it for use in network-specific hardware? Last I heard, that was not was WinCE was designed for. It was designed for use in PDA's, phones, and set-top boxes. Not switches.
Bill - please start taking business advice from this guy ...
I'm John Stossel, and I'm saying "Give Me a Break!"
PS: Maybe someone cann help me:
I have a ASUS A8N with 2 Giga-Lan ... and i want to connect my computer twice on the switch (in LAN-Partys) so one connection would be for myself for playing/downloading and the second connection would be the "Sharing connection" where the other ppl on the LAN could download my shares ... smb have a clue on how to do this on Windows (MCE 2005!) ?
Thx
I don't see the point though, you've got Gigabit LAN and playing/downloading won't ever take up the whole bandwidth pipe. You should be able to share resources and game with the same gigabit connection.
This is an example of how people bend backwards to try to prove windows is stupid- when in fact the scenario given is completely ridiculous.
Xbox runs a stripped version of Windows 2000...........Get your facts straight.
MS' embeded software has a completely different sales pitch then their OS. Take for exmample Pocket PCs. Microsoft builds the software but its up to the MO or OEM to decide what to do with it; Microsoft doesn't support or supply updates or upgrades to their embeded software, they hand it off to the OEM.
Furthermore, why do you think you have more flexibility using Linux then Windows for networking? Could you give an example?
Now now calm down... Ofcourse it is a stripped version, you don't need freecel or wordpad on a XBOX do you
Stripped version of XP is still XP, enchanched version of XP is still XP.
So MS is anti anyone using Linux. Why do you care?
Can you not make up your own minds?
The PNG support is also under GPL in windows.
Has anyone seen a Windows powered wireless access point? I haven't. There's no need and no market for such a device- who would pay licensing fees for a router? It sounds stupid, and you know it is.
Microsoft is not "anti Linux". Microsoft just reckons it's product is better than Linux- and they should. After all, if they thought Linux was better, they'd be stabbing themselves in the back, wouldn't they?
They play it pretty dirty calling open source is cancer.
There's a difference between Windows vs. Linux for general purpose use and specific task use though. But I don't see why it matters so much, competing companies don't have to hate each other all the time and never use each others products.
That sentence alone points out the article writer is an idiot. How many marketing campaigns has MS got saying use our OS to power your toaster etc. Linux is more suited to embedded applications, that's all.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.