Deb Shinder (a Microsoft MVP, at least for now) wrote up her top 10 gripes about Microsoft. I agree with some more than others, but one line in there caught my attention:
I think Debs a bit extreme here, especially with the "open sourcerers" crack, but shes got a point. On the server end, Microsoft is trying to make its products more UNIX-ish. This is both good and bad, and the company is going about it in its usual idiosyncratic way.
eWEEKs Jason Brooks recently pointed out some of these, also expressing disappointment with Microsoft along the way. Jason mixes a few related Longhorn topics together, principally virtualization and what is called "Longhorn Core"—a feature that is both exciting and sorely disappointing. For Jason, Microsoft isnt UNIX-ish enough.
Longhorn Core is a special edition of Longhorn stripped down to a minimum of components necessary for a selected set of server roles. Of course, Linux has always been far more modular than Windows and has always had the ability to let the admin pick and choose what was in the installation. Ive worked on some very small Linux installations that had just a few commands available to them.
A Windows Server like that would greatly improve security for reasons which are part of the official security religion at Microsoft: decreasing the attack surface. The less complex an installation is, the less chance that some stupid, unnecessary component (such as animated cursors) could be used to compromise it.
Longhorn Core takes this approach, but the usefulness of it is greatly limited by the limited modularity of Windows. The first role I thought of for it was a Web server. To follow Jasons example, multiple virtual stripped-down Longhorn Web servers running on one box would be wildly popular in certain markets such as hosting. But IIS has some component dependencies that required the .NET Framework, as does PowerShell, and Microsoft didnt want to put the whole .NET Framework on Core. Look for a more modular .NET Framework in the future to make these things possible.
This is disappointing, but I dont think the issue is so much making Windows more like Linux. In fact, Deb Shinder has a point that its easy to go too far with that. Microsoft needs to make Windows better and more secure, which doesnt necessarily mean that a Linux model to follow. "Better" and "more secure" mean different things to different people.
Security Center Editor Larry Seltzer has worked in and written about the computer industry since 1983.
More from Larry Seltzer