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.

Comments

Re:Double standard

[coyote-san]

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.

comparable XP-server is still far more expensive

[coyote-san]

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.

Re:Three things about this I found funny.

[Dr.Dubious DDQ]

"Used to use Exchange" -- Horrors, does this mean than he uses a REAL email server, like Qmail/postfix/sendmail, now?

Quick point, that's "Used to run exchange" - i.e. used to be in charge of the Exchange department at MS....

Re:comparable XP-server is still far more expensiv

[jht]

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 ;-)