Slashdot Mirror
MS Struggles to Discredit Linux
PrimeNumber writes "The Register has this interesting story about a supposedly "leaked" email from Microsoft Windows division VP Brian Valentine. Although half of it is admittedly suit/rah rah speak, the interesting nuggets mention use of Microsofts "Sun and Linux insiders"."
The whole email is pretty funny actually.
Discredit seems a bit harsh. He just seems to be encouraging his peons to try and make sure that they beat Linux to the punch when they're dealing with their corporate customers, especially when those customers are looking at getting rid of their specialist UNIX systems in favour of PC-based stuff.
;)
He does imply that Windows beats Linux in all corners, but a guy's allowed an opinion, especially when he's trying to rally the troops...
WindowsXP AntiSpy software works pretty well. Anyone running windows xp might want to check out all the various ways ms "phones home".
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
I assure you, this email is very real. I work for the company. I am part of the WW Sales group that received his "Me Again - Linux Updates" and the angry email he sent this morning, pissed off about the leak to the Register. It's very real, and it was not leaked intentionally. Neither was the prior email.
It's not a double standard when you're discussing different things.
The Mac/Linux/*BSD crowd, overall, just tries to point out that the emperor has no clothes. In response, the naked emperor demands that everyone close their eyes. (Consider MS's recent position regarding the disclosure of vulnerabilities. I know, MS is targeted because it's more popular... so explain how IIS has more exploits than Apache even though the latter is far more widely used?)
MS, in contrast, has a repeated track record of funding and trumpeting skewed tests. The Netcraft "study," for example, had the best minds in MS on hand to tune the server. The Linux system, in contrast, warranted a single vague post to the incorrect newsgroup - they didn't even bother contacting Red Hat to inform them of the tests.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
First off, if you think that the copy of XP that came bundled with your new system is "free" you are an idiot. The OEM paid MS a significant amount of money (the exact amount is never disclosed, but believed to be in the $100-$200 range) and it's passed on to the consumer. Same as the cost of the hard disks, memory, CD or DVD drive, etc.
But on the main point, your $500 retail copy of XP-server gives you the right to set up a server. But not to use it - that requires a client license. For every service. You want a database? Again, you need a license - and MSSQL is expensive. Plus client licenses. Ditto upgrades to the back office (exchange), IIS, etc.
I haven't seen price comparisons for XP vs. Linux, but I seem to recall that a Win2K server set up for a reasonably sized workgroup would cost $100k and up by the time you had all necessary licenses. In contrast, that $3000 HP charges for their distribution (which includes their own proprietary tools) is pretty cheap.
P.S., maybe you can find a NT MCSE who doesn't drool, but other studies have shown that you better have one MCSE for every 5 users or so. Your 100-person workgroup will need 20 MCSEs to keep it working. In contrast, the average load on Unix sysadmins in 20- to 100- users per admin (depending on the shop) - you'll need 2-5 unix admins to support the same workgroup. (You need at least 2 to cover vacations, illness, etc.)
Assuming each person costs $150k/year (salary, benefits, overhead), the unix shop costs $300k-750k to support. The Windows shop will cost $3 million to support.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Umm... Mindcraft not Netcraft.
chown -R us.
Quick point, that's "Used to run exchange" - i.e. used to be in charge of the Exchange department at MS....
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
Windows isn't cheap to support, but it's a lot cheaper than those figures. I have 150 users here, and we support them with 5 people (myself and 4 staffers). However, of those 5, 1 does primarily applications support (we have a lot of legacy apps) and runs the 2 NetWare servers, and 1 does mostly database work and development. I run the group and work mainly on security. We really have 2 people specializing in NT administration, and we're just fine that way.
;-)
I'd also estimate the per-person dollar figures to be a lot lower than $150k/person/year. I'd say a figure of $100-$110k for a highly-paid NT person (total, not salary) is still high, but closer to reality. The skilled Unix person is more expensive, but you _will_ often need fewer of them. Total cost for most shops is probably somewhat comparable.
I used to support about 100 Macs pretty easily with 2 people, so that support cost goes even lower...
Also, I don't know exactly what the OEM cost for Windows is, but I believe that it's typically well under $100 in volume (around $50-$60 or so, typically). XP Pro (NT 4 and 2000 Pro, as well) add a little more to the ticket, but most OEMs typically raise the price $100 from what they'd charge for the "home" OS versions for the pro stuff. At least part of that $100 is profit for the vendor.
Retail packages of the server OS usually include 5-25 licenses. But that's still pricey, of course. I can say that our Enterprise license pricing (we're part of a group with a bigger company, so we qualify) is very attractive - it includes the server CAL, desktop Windows (any version), and Office Pro. It almost makes Windows worth using
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
Lets be perfectly clear. MINDCRAFT set up a test designed to make Linux fail. This by itself is a clear demonstration of bias. Never was there a genuine justification for the structure of their particular test or it's relevance to servers as they exist in reality.
That test generated results completely dissasociated from reality.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
(this is my first ever post)
I have to agree with you on that. I'm an admin at Leiden University and my part of the network, though small with about 100 computers and ~180 users, would cost about $10000 if we would install W2k and Office on just 25 computers (even though we also have an enterprise agreement going for us).
This would be all of our requirements as 75% of our desktops run Linux (who said Linux wasn't ready for the desktop? It's been ready for about 2 years now! And these are non-technical users too!).
We spend about 60% of our time on the 25% Windows computers/users however. So I think I can safely say that both in initial costs and in maintenance Windows is quite a bit more expensive than Linux.
--
Program installation is still a pain in the ass for a novice user.
/usr/local/whatever, that is if the package installs it there instead of /root/whatever or god knows where else.
In a great many circumstances users being able to install programs is a big problem with Windows. It costs a lot in support and sorting out the resulting mess. Also employers can end up being liable for their employees installing unlicenced software. There is actually quite a market of third party products to stop end users being able to install software on Windows machines...
Linux distros have a hard time focusing on a desktop only Linux. In reality, my mom could care less if she could spawn a web server on her home box.
This isn't "The desktop", it's a rather specific subset called "The standalone end user administered desktop". In reality even many "home" machines are no end user administered anyway.
Linux's configuration is too difficult for most people. There is no standardization between config files. No end user should have to learn a whole new language each time they want to change a simple option.
Fixing cars is too difficult for many people. Different cars can require different tools to service. But that dosn't mean that everyone must drive the same car... Because most people understand the difference between using and servicing/maintaining/building/fixing a car. Problem is that they don't when it comes to computers.
The filesystem structure is terrible for the end user. Putting an app in "C:\Program Files" or "Hard Disk:Applications" is a hell of a lot simpler than
Have the average driver identify the parts of their car engine. It dosn't matter if they can or they can't, since what they need to know is what driving controls do.
[I will be working on this more in depth later]
Notice the best thing about XP is already in Linux?
Users? Firewall? Services [I can change the OS!]? Themes?
Get your Unix fortune now!