Slashdot Mirror
Any Reason To Buy Microsoft?
zymano writes "This yahoo article says that almost everything enterprises once found unique to Microsoft they can now find somewhere else -- without some of the baggage that comes with Microsoft purchases, like ongoing security concerns and mystifying licensing practices and that in a recent survey of CIOs, Forrester Research found that about 25 percent of them were already in the process of replacing Windows servers with Linux."
This isn't my experience at all. I maintain two servers. One is a Windows 2000 server, the other runs the standard RedHat offering (not the enterprise version.)
The Redhat server just works. I never have any downtime, it's never crashed, I've never lost any data -- the thing just sits there, ticking away in the background, doing what it's supposed to do.
The Win2k server, in contrast, is a continuous pain in the arse. Administration isn't at all transparent -- you fill in a few tick boxes, and pray that it's going to do what the manual says it will do. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes things just stop working, with no apparent reason. (File replication was the last thing that just 'broke'.)
With regard to the learning curve, I found that it was slightly more difficult at the beginning for Linux, but once I'd grasped the basic concepts, they pretty well applied everywhere. This isn't true for Windows 2000.
The last big problem is interoperability. With the linux server, connectivity just works. With the Windows server, it's forever disappearing from view.
Both OSes do have certain strengths and weaknesses, but I don't see that Windows has any advantage in either stability or ease of maintenance.
Yes, the configuration of Apache is quite different to many other programs ('wildly different' is somewhat over the top - at heart, configuring almost all Unix programs invloves editing text files).
But is the configuration process for IIS really that similar to Exchange? Not really - they're very different tasks, so in many ways this isn't really surprising.
As for support, IBM and many others will be happy to offer 24-hour help at the right-price - Free software might not cost anything to get, but it's certainly not free to run. Of course, you don't get 24-hour help for Windows by default either.
The major difference between Microsoft solutions and Open Source solutions is in terms of flexibility - instead of getting a 'black box' which you can do little to change, you can adapt the software to your business. There's no way Microsoft can compete with this under the terms of their current licensing, and ultimately this is why Open Souce software will come to dominate computing.
Blaming GW Bush for the Iraq war is like blaming Ronald McDonald for the poor quality of food.
That isn't interesting. See here and here for two more instances of this wrong and redundant troll comment.
http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/mini/Automount.html
It cracks me up when I read people complaining about mounting and unmounting disks. I haven't had to do any of this for a very long time: the last few Mandrake installs (at least!) came with automount or supermount or whatever it's called, and it just works.
And don't think that the disk won't get "stuck" in Windows: it just means that the only alternative is to reboot the machine to unstick it, not type a oneliner into a command line. Just make a link to a shell script, and everyone should be happy.
An important factor in Linux' cost is its maintenance. Linux requires a *lot* of maintenance, work doable only by the relatively few high-paid Linux administrators that put themselves - of course willingly - at a great place in the market. Linux seems to be needing maintenance continuously, to keep it from breaking down.
I don't have experience running any truly important systems, but the boxes I have administered have required almost zero maintenance. Unless I go and screw something up, I have found in my experience that it'll keep on chugging along. Besides the occassional ssh upgrade, I havn't had to touch anything on my NAT box since I installed it three years ago. It Just Works.
Add to this the cost of loss of data. Linux' native file system, EXT2FS, is known to lose data like a firehose spouts water when the file system isn't unmounted properly.
References please. If you are going to make statements this damning you are obligated to provide data backing you up.
Crashes in Linux are a regular thing, and nobody seems to know what causes them, internally. Linux advocates try to hide this fact by denying crashes ever happen. Instead, they have frequent "hardware problems".
Of all of the computers I have owned in the past seven years, all ran linux and one of them crashed once for a reason not attributed to hardware failure. This bug was reported to the kernel developers and was fixed within a few hours.
The steep learning curve compared to about any other operating system out there is a major factor in Linux' cost.
Given a little work by the admin, linux can be dumbed down as much as you need it to be (corporate environment assumed). Oh, you ever installed one of the BSDs? I assure you, linux is nothing. (Disclaimer: I have nothing against the BSDs, they are damn fine operating systems in their own right)
The system is a mix of features from all kinds of unices, but not one of them is implemented right. A Linux user has to live with badly coded tools which have low performance, mangle data seemingly at random and are not in line with their specification.
And would you like to tell us precicely what tools you are speaking of, as well as what your major beef is with them? Or how about one step better: go file some bug reports!
On top of that a lot of them spit out the most childish and unprofessional messages, indicating that they were created by 14-year olds with too much time, no talent and a bad attitude.
Attacking the people you are setting your case against is a sure sign of a weak argument. Also see last paragraph.
I could go on and on and on, but the conclusion is clear. Linux is not an option for any one who seeks a professional OS with high performance, scalability, stability, adherence to standards, etc.
So what are you reccomending for us to use? I beg of thee, please share your infinite knowledge.
E pluribus unum
Microsoft products require licensing, for example Windows 2000 Server requires a "Client Access License" for each connection, where as Linux does not have such a scheme, making Linux servers handle an unlimited amount of connections or you can set the maximum number connections. Making Linux Servers better then Microsoft Servers.
You can configure a Linux Server once and leave, it contune to run for a very long time, where Microsoft Server requires more frequently changing configurations.
Microsoft systems have hidden cost unlike Linux.
First off, his name is Clippy. Clippy is the DEVIL.
/me cries in the corner.
Second off, of course we have an answer to that. We've combined our most evil text editor (vi) with an annoying assistant... BEHOLD! VIGOR!
Yeah, it's evil. Yes. Evil.
Technology - NewsFactor
Is There Any Reason To Buy Microsoft Anymore?
Fri May 9, 1:48 PM ET
Add Technology - NewsFactor to My Yahoo!
Vincent Ryan, www.NewsFactor.com
The development and growth of the Linux (news - web sites) operating system has brought a new question to the lips of IT managers: Why should I buy Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT - news)? Five years ago, the answer would have been easy. With the dominant development tools, client operating system and client applications, Microsoft owned a certain portion of the enterprise (news - web sites).
Linux' New Best Friend: Microsoft Licensing 6.0
Microsoft Embraces Linux! (Sort Of)
What Next for
delayed 20 mins - disclaimer
Quote Data provided by Reuters
But now that the Linux OS is rapidly maturing and companies are looking to shrink IT budgets, the choice is not so easy. Almost everything enterprises once found unique to Microsoft they can now find somewhere else -- without some of the baggage that comes with Microsoft purchases, like ongoing security concerns and mystifying licensing practices. Enterprises finally have a real choice, and that spells big problems for Microsoft.
In a recent survey of CIOs, Forrester Research found that about 25 percent of them were already in the process of replacing Windows servers with Linux. However, the switch may not be quite as seamless as one would hope. In fact, for enterprises that run their entire organizations on top of Microsoft products, a wholesale migration to Linux would be costly, Bill Claybrook, research director at Aberdeen Group, told NewsFactor. "Not only do you have the porting costs, but you have the systems administration costs. You have to retrain a lot of people," Claybrook said.
Battle Brewing
The real threat to Microsoft from Linux is not only that Linux will take away existing Windows business, but that it will overtake Microsoft in product areas where Microsoft is trying to grow its market share. Such a situation currently exists in the market for enterprise servers that run corporate data centers. Companies moving to Intel-based platforms from the dominant IBM (NYSE: IBM - news) and Sun platforms now have a choice between Windows and Linux, and vendors from both camps are vying for this migration business.
Who will win? The market favors Linux, according to Claybrook. "Linux is going to take over all those applications where Unix (news - web sites) is already strong," he said, pointing to the database server market as an example. "Linux scales as well as Windows does and has much better clustering capabilities," he noted.
But in the long-term, the battle centers on the hearts and minds of developers. Historically, the scarcity of applications on Linux has been a major advantage for Microsoft. That is no longer the case.
Instead, rather than general application availability, the biggest hurdle for Linux will be support by vendors touting a new generation of enterprise applications, such as customer relationship management (CRM) and enterprise resource planning (ERP). Still, the trend may favor Linux at Microsoft's expense. "There's a lot of Linux development going on, and it's going to make a dent in Windows' market share," Claybrook said.
Microsoft Counterstrike
Microsoft recently launched the Empower program for small ISVs (independent software vendors) to start defending against some of the developer defections. This program gives developers willing to stick with Windows a good amount of free Microsoft software as an incentive. At the same time, Microsoft also is sending out more evangelists to train application builders and help small ISVs get their products Windows-certified.
According to Ted Schadler, principal analyst at Forrester Research, the development-focused benefits of the Microsoft architecture are still a strong lure. Strong developer tools, pre-integrated servers and a consistent programming model on every tier are attributes tha
''Unfortunatly its (sic) for java development''.
Not true. Eclipse itself is a development tool platform, it just happens that Java is the first and most widely know language. There's a C/C++ toolkit now, though, see the CDT. There's also an effort to develop a COBOL IDE!
Draksync and Unison are both included in Mandrake and will do this.
Unison is platform/OS agnostic, BTW.
- Robin
only eclipse is close
Eclipse is better and can be used to develop in langauges other than Java. I've used it for Java, C, PHP and Perl.
At my university we have Sun Ray thin clients hooked up to some pretty beefy Sun Servers. One person looks after the software on those servers, and it only takes him a couple of hours a week. He can roll out a new software package in 5 minutes on all servers so it's available on 300+ Sun Ray terminals.
The same cannot be said for the poor admins who administer the Windows boxes. The windows PC's _constantly_ have problems (hardware and software), and baffling bugs (usually solved by re-imaging the hard drive). Whereas the Sun Ray terminals never falter.
It wouldn't be hard to make some Linux boxes check a "master workstation" for package updates and download and install them. You could have a master workstation where you deploy patches and test to see if it breaks anything, if it's ok, then put the package in the package repositary. At 2am when the cron job goes off on the workstations, they will all auto update to the latest packages on the master workstation.
The amount of automation in Unix (this includes Linux, BSD, Solaris, etc) is incredible and can be unique to your organisation (rather than pre-canned Microsoft solutions). You should try actually looking at it one day so you can make a valid comparison on the managability of Unix.
Enterprises use Microsoft for a simple reason, the alternatives suck. You might think that there is no difference between Microsoft Word and an open source alternative but end users don't.
Yeah, because LOTS of enterprises run Office on their servers, right?
Please RTFA. Or just read the damn summary - it's there too:
25 percent of them were already in the process of replacing Windows servers with Linux
I believe the presupposition that "...Enterprises use Microsoft for a simple reason, the alternatives suck...." is completely incorrect. Rather, they use it because the enterprises up the street and down the street use it. They use it because all their employees and prospective employees (who aren't computer illiterate) can use it.
(Stolen sig) Remember: it's a "Microsoft virus", not an "email virus", a "Microsoft worm", not a "computer worm
You didn't really expect a Windows Sys. Ad. to be able to configure a Unix system, did you? When your IBM PC (compatible) breaks, do you take it back to Apple for repair?
;-) And the fact is, for every Unix (or Linux) Sys. Ad., I have to hire about three Windows Sys. Ads. to keep the workload managed evenly. (Thank goodness there are more Windows Sys. Ads. to employ.)
Look, a PC may look like a Mac, in a way -- it has a Hard Drive and Memory, requires a monitor, keyboard and mouse. But, do you know that they are really two very different systems? They use entirely different CPU's, for one thing (that's short for Central Processing Unit -- the thing that is central to all the work your PC or Mac does).
I understand your confusion on the OS side, as well (that stands for Operating System -- central to all the software programs that run on your PC or Mac). You see the Windows platform is a whole other animal compared to a Unix system. The architectures are vastly different.
Bottom line: If you had matched a Unix or Linux Sys. Ad. against a Windows Sys. Ad., you probably world have still come out slightly ahead on the Windos side -- to begin with. However, over time, your Windows Sys. Ads. would be working more hours per box than your Unix Sys. Ad.
I know this to be true because I employ both kinds of Sys. Ads.
We have Unix systems that have been running for more than three years without a re-boot; Linux systems with an average up-time of more than a year; Windows systems that must be re-booted nearly every week.
Our patch-cycle for Windows is at least weekly; Our patch-cycle for Linux is, on average, monthly; I can't think of when we've had to patch our Unix systems. The Unix/Linux systems do all the "heavy lifting". Windows is used only when a software vendor supports that platform, exclusively. (Are you listenning, software vendors?!)
By the way, we serve financial institutions (e.g. Wells Fargo), CPA offices and a variety of other types of businesses -- quite a mix, actually. We see the trends, first hand, in our little circle of clients and they aren't headded in the Redmond direction. I'm constantly surprised at how tech-savy clients can be, these days.
Another surprise: Unit cost isn't ever the issue! What my clients want are servers, hidden away, quietly doing their job without having to be mucked with. They will pay more for that!
There's a big wide world of alternatives out there that offers exciting new prospects. One only needs to look to discover.
Perhaps one should pay more attention to Wall Street. Tomorrow.
Clearly, over time, money given to BeelzeBill is money not spent elsewhere. However, in a land where near-term is the next quarterly statement, and long-term the next election, who can expect courage from the leadership?
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
The main problem for me with Mozilla and OpenOffice is not their performance -- both are "fast enough" once they are running. The biggest difference between those and the Microsoft equivalents is (1) load time [especially on windows] and CPU-hogging. IE and Office load really fast, and remain zippy as the system incurs load. OpenOffice is worse than Moz for chewing up resources, but both are bad.
Linux in general "feels" like it's serializing tasks (except consoles), but maybe that's me not tweaking the kernel (I run Debian's 2.4.20+patches, plus CK low-latency patches, but maybe it's misconfigured?)
Sorry, but I'm pretty skeptical about your story. Mostly because that type of usability test would be a complete waste of time and money since it completely ignores major factors.
For one thing, I haven't met a Linux (or *BSD) admin that wasn't proficient with Windows as well. By proficient, I don't necessarily mean a proficient Windows admin, but proficient in using Windows.
Now, take your average "Windows Server Administrator"--most have no experience with other operating systems. For the most part, novice MCSA's are one-trick ponies that only know how to do things within their niche.
It's easy to see why a Linux admin would perform better in a Windows environment than an MS admin would in any non-Windows evironment.
The first time I set up DHCP in Linux it took me about 20 minutes including download and compile time. I could probably do it in less than 10 minutes now that I've already done it a couple times.
I've never set up a DHCP server in Windows, but I have needed to make configuration changes to one that was already set up. I can see why you chose MS DHCP for your example. It's pretty intuitive to use, and would be pretty easy for anyone to use that understands DHCP.
Still, having used both, I much prefer the Linux configuration. In Windows, you have the little tree on the left with expandable branches and the objects on the right. It only takes 4 or 5 clicks to get just about anywhere. In Linux it's a single text file with comments and examples interspersed. If you know how to use a text editor it's pretty simple. In fact, it's easier than clicking around a bunch of eye candy, just not as sexy looking. But it's a DHCP server so who cares if it looks sexy?
Your last line is completely ridiculous. It's not going to take any Linux admin 10 hours to set up DHCP. Get a grip.
Where did you get that information? I went to nyse.com and did a "Symbol Lookup" for Microsoft, which sent me to this page showing that Microsoft is a NASDAQ company.
So obviously it's not "now traded on the NYSE." Is it going to be?
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
CDT just has syntax highlighting for some keywords and thats it. You can't even compile with it. This is something I can do with the Unix version of gVIM by running
It is a java ide for the time being untill CDT improves.
http://saveie6.com/
I have a Microsoft Wheel Mouse Optical USB and PS/2 Compatible (according to the label underneath). when I booted from the redhat installers (or knoppix, for that matter), it was picked up and automatically configured by the default hardware sweep. the scroll wheel worked immediately, in the installer, as well as in the OS. remember 90% of people use a 2btn or 2btn+Scroll mouse...