Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft To Start Running Anti-Unix Ads
PhreakinPenguin writes: "According to this article on News.com, Microsoft and Unisys are preparing to pay for a slew of ads to 'undermine' Unix with the theme of 'We have the way out.' They are apparently hyping that Unix is an expensive money trap. One ad states, 'No wonder Unix makes you feel boxed in. It ties you to an inflexible system. It requires you to pay for expensive experts. It makes you struggle daily with a server environment that's more complex than ever.' Unisys is apparently putting up $25 million and Microsoft won't say how much they're chipping in but you can bet it's more than Unisys." As the article notes, this comes after floundering attempts to sell (through Dell, Compaq and Hewlett-Packard) the high-end Unisys machines pushed by these ads.
Nice business practices, MS. You'd think you could prove that your product is superior through example, not slander. If these ads are half as bad as they seem, I say IBM starts making commercials full of BSoD's and says explicitly: "You will never see a blue screen of death with Unix".
We dance to all the wrong songs.
--Refused.
It would be nice to see Sun and IBM, etc.. to start running some straight on anti-microsoft ads. I do like Sun's comment
"As for Unix being 'inflexible,' 'expensive,' and 'complex,' we feel those are terms much better suited to the closed and proprietary world of Windows."
Now if they will only put that into an ad of their own, that whole reply, sums up this marketing campaine very nicly.
If you're talking about an older version of UNIX tied to a specific vendor, Microsoft MAY have a point... but the little secret that Microsoft doesn't want you know is that Unix in general is becoming more open-source AND is becoming more of a commodity rather than a specific that runs only on specific hardware.
I guess what I'm saying is that Unix is losing more and more market share to operating systems like Linux. (Linux is NOT unix, although it's quite similar) This is especially true administrators (rather than corporate commitees) get to pick the operating system to use.
A good case in point is the market share and mind share of Solaris and Linux. Sun Microsystems just recently released the source code of Solaris under a "community license" (which is NOT the same thing as GPL, but it's the best we can expect from Sun Microsystems). Did Sun have to release the source code? Not really. But it knows it would lose MORE mind share to Linux if it didn't.
MS can crow all they want that Unix is hard to use - and I might have thought so, until I used OS X. Great GUI (needs some tweaking, but hell, what doesn't), start ssh, ftp, and Apache with a click of the mouse, and you can go configure the .conf files if you want - or if you don't want.
Yes, Unix is inflexible. That's why open source Linux runs on nearly every piece of hardware you can find. I use it for my Day Job web/general Unix servers, running on cheap desktops or expensive rack mount units.
Consultants are expensive. I can actually go out and buy a book on Unix, then look at the source code of FreeBSD, Linux, Darwin - and change things myself. Oh, good god, adduser is so hard to figure out.
Oh, yeah. Unix is so hard. Especially when those blue screens of death pop up that interfere with my work or those proprietary API's that I can't get all the info to, and - oh wait. Unix doesn't have that.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
Netcraft says:
The site www.wehavethewayout.com is running Rapidsite/Apa-1.3.14 (Unix) FrontPage/4.0.4.3 mod_ssl/2.7.1 OpenSSL/0.9.5a on FreeBSD.
The thing that struck me most was this concept of "expensive experts." I could easily see them expanding this campaign by inserting adjectives like "condescending", "difficult to communicate with", "obnoxious", and even "completely other, alien, and kinda creepy." These are all representative of the impression regular folks seem to have of the sysadmin, from what I can tell. As opposed to the impression of your average MS-savvy (love those two words together) "computer guy" who helps get you back on the network or shows you where your downloads go.
Maybe the bearded ones need a PR campaign.
:wq
For Microsoft to build a campaign against UNIX would be like Coke or Pepsi promoting a campaign against the evils of water.
UNIX is the backbone of the Internet. It started with university and military computers, and is still based on these technologies. It has spawned many successful clones and variants, including BSD, Mac OS X, Linux, Solaris, IRIX, and many more. And virtually ALL of these versions work well together and can exchange code.
Not that this is surprising, but Microsoft is arrogant to point of giving the finger to God. This is really a sign is disrespect for everything built over the years by the blood, sweat and tears of the first network pioneers.
Unisys sounds like it has little to lose since it's been sitting on its corporate butt so long that even the oldest of us have forgotten what they've recently done in the computing world.
I'm not making a righteous stand for just the UNIX world. Microsoft is really a company with poor ethical practices and should be recognized as such.
Microsoft could have it all by realizing that practically all its major competitors have a UNIX base in their OS, even Apple. Instead of fighting the UNIX family, they could cash in simply and easily by moving the Windows NT/XP base to a true UNIX base, and create (the usual closed-source) apps in UNIX versions that can be compiled for virtually every UNIX family OS. (Not that everyone would want the apps, but at least it would be there..)
But NOOOOOO...
I was ranting on how OSS was too disorganized to fight MS in certain market attacks--that OSS lacks a defined leader. This instance is an exception. There are plenty of corporate makers and users of UNIX who might jump on the big MS "screw you" bandwagon and even pump up some cash in the corporate and legal system to get MS to shut their corporate pie hole.
Pissing off the U.S. Government is one thing. Pissing off other big businesses is quite another.
Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
Some facts
- in the REAL world, no one should be left alone. you must be the best to stay on top.
- heavy duty servers will not be replaced by MS. Windows servers simply cannot handle the load, let alone be secured decently
- MS servers are ideal for file print servers and simple user management and file/ print servers. that is why you see a lot of mixed environments unix-NT
- the customer does not give a fk about kernel architecture. he just wants easy to manage GUI.
- geeks are the minority.
... hopefully accompanied by a massive thud as all those flying Windows XP people drop from the sky.
Large servers are where Windows has never done well; Wintel scales up to 4-way reasonably easily, 8-way at a push and 16-way is very rare. 32-way is only available from Unisys, and from what I've heard, there's some klunky stuff in the background to make it work.
Compare this to Sun/SGI who have had >=64-way for years without any kludges to make it that way. A Sunfire 15K with 72 processors handles pretty much like a 2-way E220R.
This was modded as funny, but from our experience, this is more truth than anything. You get what you pay for and our organization (who shall remain anonymous) hired four MCSE's that ultimately cost us many times what a well-trained administrator familiar with UNIX would have cost us. Repeated screwups from the MS certified folks caused data loss, data corruption, and system down-time in addition to attempting to lock us into years of Microsoft products. This move to MS environments was promoted as a cost cutting measure over the objections of our scientists actually doing the work and has resulted in much higher costs overall. Getting rid of these guys and the chaos they wrought has been even more expensive, but at least we have a working environment back again.
MS sales and marketing will tell you ANYTHING to get you to switch to MS. Be careful as for some environments Windows works fine, but for others UNIX is definitely the way to go. What we are concluding is that is you want the power of UNIX, with ease of administration, perhaps OSX is the future. Its cheaper overall than SGI or Sun, has the UNIX underpinnings, but is still kind-of young and needs a bit of optimization. However, there are serious efforts underway to optimize performance and security through Trusted Darwin and I hear tell that serious workstation class hardware from Apple is just around the corner.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Sun responded to the campaign in a statement.
"Sun still does not see Microsoft as a real threat in
the datacenter market where reliability, availability,
serviceability and security are key," [snip]
"We are all about customer satisfactionability, system
uptimeability, and cracker stopability", added Scott McCowboyNeal.
--
It requires you to pay for expensive experts.
And the other side of that coin is, "If you get an MCSE, we're busy telling your boss that you should work cheap." How long can they get away with screwing over the people who support their products?
Nope, no sig
I guess considering the crappy performance of their servers in the marketplace, they now have to bad mouth the competition.
Thank god that all of us here at Slashdot don't ever badmouth or try to undermine Microsoft. Those bastards.
Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?
Businesses don't look to the long run because of a change that happen to the corperate world in the late 70's and early 80's. That change was the concept of 'shareholder value'. Buisnesses used to build their strategies and plans based on providing and acctual service or product, but today (and this ran rampent during the 90's dotcom explosion) they focus on producing money for their stock holders rather that products for a community. When your entire buisness plan is 'how do we make the most money the quickest, all else be damned?' it makes trying to convince your stockholders that doing anything which will pay off in five or ten years (rather than five or ten months) is a good thing. If the choices are a quick buck now, or a solid buisness latter, the quick buck will always win because it increases shareholder value.
Something in my dinner must have been spoiled last night, becasue this dream isn't even funny.
Microsoft, the monopolist, the Marquis de "lock-in", the ace of audits, the prince of product activation, the squire of "We don't need no stinkin' interoperability", is running ads warning IT shops about painting themselves into corner?
Damn!
At least the whine about expensive experts makes sense. Anybody dumb enough to buy this pitch is sure to feel uncomfortable around people who know what they're doing.
Let's have a poll on this subject. Who can name the MS products that have produced the smallest revenue compared to the money that MS invested in development and marketing. Two of the biggest money pits at MS have been:
(1) Windows DataCenter. This product has thoroughly bombed. Last year it was rumored that only a couple dozen had made it out the door.
(2) MS BizTalk Server. Another "MS Enterprise" computing product that despite _immense_ marketing spend, is really sucking ass.
MS is doing this marketing campaign because their enterprise computing strategies have thus far fallen off a cliff. This is just more money thrown to the wind. People aren't buying MS enterprise computing product.
Oh, and give aways like IE don't count for this poll.
I'm thinking of something similar to those car ads where owner one keeps asking owner two if the model he has, has same features.
They could have a purple Mercedes or some other obviously nice quality vehicle. standing next to a Yugo with all the body panels and doors in mismatched Microsoft colors. Even just a picture of the two vehicles in profile, side by side, with the line "which one would you want?"
for the extra twist of the knife the drivers in the Yugo can squeel that "you don't have to know what you're doing when you own one of these".
Heck I right now freely give Sun the permission to use this idea. No Cost. No such permission is granted to anyone promoting Microsoft.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
There really isn't anything Unix can do that Microsoft can't anymore
What?!??!? This is a troll right? Have you ever spent any time with computationally intensive work? I'm talking calculations that take hours, days, weeks. Even W2k, while improved cannot work with 4GB or more of RAM, crunch on an algorhithm for two or three days, and not have problems. Hell the W98 box I replaced with our W2k 2.2Ghz box would crash multiple times a day.
The SGI Octane on the other hand can work for weeks at a time on a calculation and still be able to respond to queries, launch new processes etc... without ever becoming unstable. My OSX box (while not as fast as the Octane and not as much RAM as the Octane) will crunch happily on problems while letting me write papers in Word, surf the web, serve web pages, download new data and allow me to examine it, and plug in a Firewire hard drive to upload data to ALL AT THE SAME TIME!!! The W2k Dell box chokes badly every time attempting this sort of thing and there is no way you can say that Windows can compete here.
As for your argument about well-trained administrators familiar with MICROSOFT PRODUCTS. That's what we thought we were getting and paying for. The point is that Microsoft products are third rate. They don't scale, they are not as stable as other offerings, they do NOT have the same flexibility versus UNIX, and the ease of use of the OSX flavor of UNIX is unbeatable. This is the problem with people that have been raised on Microsofts nipple. They don't know anything else and they make assumptions about the rest of the computer world without having the appropriate knowledge. Try using other environments before saying that Microsoft can do anything UNIX can do.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Get deep enough into either OS and you'll find they're pretty interchangable.
While 2K and now .NET are getting more UNIX-like as time goes on, they really *aren't* interchangeable. For example, even though I am MS certified, I would strongly advise a company against setting up their Internet presence using IIS. Outsource it, baby. Let someone else have the headaches. Besides, do you really want to have those downtimes for patching, patching, patching?
Windows 2K shines as a departmental-level thing, not as a full-enterprise solution. However, Samba is getting so much better with each release that maybe more 2K Server boxen can be replaced with Linux boxen running Samba. I think that's why MS is really scared.
When the labs in your MOC don't work because of arcane Active Directory crap, then you know that something is very, very wrong. There is a reason why most NT4 shops aren't upgrading. There is a reason why there are lots of 2K networks not deploying AD. When Samba v3 does "AD" better than MS does (with REAL versions of LDAP and Kerberos 5 and DynamicDNS, not the neutered, embraced and extended MS versions) MS knows that its goose will be thoroughly cooked and force-fed to them.
However, there is one thing MS excels in that Linux needs to improve...the desktop. You install 2K Pro and *everything works as expected*. Sure, you have to patch and patch and patch but dammit, it runs out of the box. My Linux desktop experiences have been like rolling the dice...sometimes you get all 7s, sometimes you get hit with Snake Eyes. And you really do have to be a Linux guru to sort things out when something doesn't quite work after installation. This is where Linux people should be focusing their attention. When Linux+KDE *just works* and installs with no *special surprises* we can think of challenging MS at the desktop.
Needless to say, THIS year will be spent getting a lot of experience with Linux.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
Okay, I reproduced it. Simplicity itself, actually.
Just run the irdaping command provided by your favorite Linux distro while there's a Win2K system in range. Whatever it sends so horribly confuses the irda.sys program in Win2K that it crashes the whole system.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
In short retort:
It's all about the fear, uncertainty, and doubt, and Microsoft's firm belief that the decision makers in a company are the ones in air so rarified as to know little enough about technology to be brought in to Microsoft's folds by this bunch of crap.
Kevin Fox
Not that I'm a big fan of their software solutions, but Novell has a new video which may or may not (I don't know for sure either way) become a running commercial ad. It's very amusing and carries the sentiment of virtually every geek out there. Might be a nice thing to mention to the bosses next time they come up with the "great idea" of digging themselves further into Microsoft products.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Your datacenter is the lifeblood of your company. And you don't want to hire an expensive expert to administer it? Fool!
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
This would be great at a ms demonstration show. Remember what happened when Bill Gates demonstrated windows98 in front of 40,000 people in Chicago and it crashed. :-)
I can see it all now. Bill Gates is demonstrating the supperior scalability of MS-SQL-Server.NET and someone like yourself with a palm crashes it and a blue screen shows in front of tech reporters, CIO's, lots and lots of potential customers. If this wont scare the shit of phb's then I don't know what will.
http://saveie6.com/