Windows Cheaper When Studied by MSFT Analysts

You can't beat free! by usotsuki · 2003-09-09 01:08 · Score: 3, Troll

Meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeh!

Windows will NEVER be cheaper than Linux or FreeBSD.

-uso.

--
Dreams, dreams, don't doubt dreams, dreaming children's dreaming dreams. Sailor Moon SS

Re:You can't beat free! by MoonFog · 2003-09-09 01:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

This study takes into consideration more than just the price of the OS. Things like support, salary for developers etc.

This study is sponsored by Microsoft, so it's probably biased as hell, but a Linux system is never absolutely free for a corporation.
Re:You can't beat free! by teg · 2003-09-09 01:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

You can't beat free!

Sure you can. TCO isn't just a buzzword, time spent making things work is expensive for companies.

E.g., installing Red Hat Linux on a server or a workstation is quick and will only need a small tweaking, while the same is far from truth on Windows, where installing the OS is just the first 5% of the job. This applies to other things... buying something which works can often be a lot cheaper than trying to find an open source project which works.
Re:You can't beat free! by Falrick · 2003-09-09 01:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

Why is it so hard to believe that developing on Windows could possibly be cheaper than developing on a Linux box? For you, as a developer of an open-souce, I code because I enjoy it, project, you are right. Developing under Linux (or FreeBSD) will always be cheaper than developing under Windows... for you.

However, the corporate world is quite often very different. When you have preasures of deadlines and QA, quite often you don't have the time to work with a somewhat less feature-rich, but free, tool. Some tools just make developing certain kinds of applications more efficient, take VisualBasic for example. There's not much else that can compare to the RAD capabilities of VB. Sure, you might argue that there is no long-term viability for a VB app, but long-term viability isn't always needed. Neither is peak performance. Greater development efficiency directly translates into greater profits. Greater profits may quickly overcome any savings that you may have gained from developing your solution on an open source free OS with free tools.

Take for instance a relatively simple GUI application. Say that it takes two weeks to develop the application under a free toolkit like GTK. Now say that it takes only one week to develop that same application under VB. If we use a $60k developer salary (which is only about half of what it actually costs to employ a developer), then we see that one week of time is worth ~$1154. After one month, the license for VB and Windows has quickly paid for itself.

So, for certain kinds of development, yes, you certainly can beat free.

--
something clever
Re:You can't beat free! by EastCoastSurfer · 2003-09-09 01:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

installing Red Hat Linux on a server or a workstation is quick and will only need a small tweaking, while the same is far from truth on Windows

Look, I use and like linux like the best slashbotter, but lets be real. Either OS you end up using in a corporate environment is going need a lot of time for tweaking and customizing. I wouldn't let a virgin Windows or Redhat install just rollout to an entire enterprise.
Re:You can't beat free! by PainKilleR-CE · 2003-09-09 01:27 · Score: 4, Interesting

The study doesn't really have much to do with Linux, except that it was the OS used to host the J2EE apps. It's a study of the costs of developing web-based software for .Net vs. J2EE.

The study was based on interviews with 12 companies, seven of which use Microsoft's .NET platform and five of which use Linux.

Forrester said that the main difference in cost was not due to price of the basic software, but rather the price of developing the software, including labor costs.

Despite the difference in costs, however, the Forrester report also noted that "many organizations will adopt Linux instead of Microsoft's alternative" because of the expertise they have built up on the Unix platform, Sun's proprietary operating systems used to run computer server networks.

Not that I hold much faith in 'interviews with 12 companies' as a solid foundation for a sweeping generalization on the costs of development, but it's easy, for me, to see how developing for a Java platform would be more expensive for some people than developing for the .Net platform.

--
-PainKilleR-[CE]
Re:You can't beat free! by teg · 2003-09-09 01:32 · Score: 1, Troll

With things like yp, ldap, autofs etc. available, Red Hat Linux works pretty well out of the box.

Windows, OTOH, doesn't, unless you buy it preinstalled.

Installation/initial configuration is just a small piece of the picture, of course, but an area in which Linux excels.
Re:You can't beat free! by brlancer · 2003-09-09 01:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

This study is sponsored by Microsoft, so it's probably biased as hell, but a Linux system is never absolutely free for a corporation.
No, but most of the "costs" that are assigned to Linux presume an existing greater knowledge of Microsoft Windows; it never includes the money spent training these people to use Windows originally nor does it try to compare costs of complete training: how long does it take to get an admin for *nix and Windows (respectively) to go from 0 to 60?
Despite what people say about the "learning curve" of *nix, I believe most of that is due to breaking bad habits they learned in Windows. I picked up Unix exceptionally quickly, in part because I never knew Windows very well. So, if one were to remove the costs of Linux training that they have ignore WRT Windows training, the cost is significantly less. Realistically, the costs should be counted for both, not discounted for both...

--
Someone asked if I had patched against MSBlast; I said yes, I installed Linux.
Re:You can't beat free! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-09 01:55 · Score: 1, Insightful

So, for certain kinds of development, yes, you certainly can beat free.

With that said, have you considered the extremely high cost associated with battling all the worms and virii that seem to be mostly in the Windows world? They have reimaged my machine three times in the last two years! Don't even get me started with the hideous bugs rampant in every piece of software MS has? UGH!
Re:You can't beat free! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-09 01:56 · Score: 1, Funny

Yes, Linux definitely looks cheaper ... esp. KDE.
Re: You can't beat free! by Black+Parrot · 2003-09-09 02:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

> Take for instance a relatively simple GUI application. Say that it takes two weeks to develop the application under a free toolkit like GTK. Now say that it takes only one week to develop that same application under VB. If we use a $60k developer salary (which is only about half of what it actually costs to employ a developer), then we see that one week of time is worth ~$1154. After one month, the license for VB and Windows has quickly paid for itself.

In my experience, companies that want more bang for their buck should concentrate on optimizing their hiring practices rather than their tool purchases. A second-rate developer may only make 90% of what a first-rate developer does, but produces about half the results and lots more bugs. A third-rate developer might make 80% as much, and produce 1/5 the amount of code and vastly more bugs for the others to fix. A fourth-rate developer might actually drag the project backwards. And yet you still see these people on important projects.

If companies want to optimize their IT performance, there's something a heck of a lot more important than tools and platforms that they should concentrate on as the first-order fix. IMO.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re:You can't beat free! by usotsuki · 2003-09-09 02:17 · Score: 1

VB is certainly easier to develop simple apps in, of the kind PHBs want (I say this as a longtime VB user *ducks). Linux does need a free Visual Basic. (Besides, the Win32 API is better documented by far than Xlib!)

-uso.

--
Dreams, dreams, don't doubt dreams, dreaming children's dreaming dreams. Sailor Moon SS
Re:You can't beat free! by Windowser · 2003-09-09 02:22 · Score: 2, Informative

Some tools just make developing certain kinds of applications more efficient, take VisualBasic for example. There's not much else that can compare to the RAD capabilities of VB.

That just show how far from reality M$ as dragged you. Delphi is a lot better at this than VB and you can have the same on Linux with Kylix

By the way, they even have a free version with about the only requirement is that you release your program under the GPL.

And don't get me started on why VB is bullshit, regardless of being an M$ product.
If you had told me back in 1982, when I was programming in M$-BASIC on my first computer (COCO2) that I would still be coding in BASIC 20 years later, I would have laugh to death

BASIC whas a shitty language in 1982. Thanks to M$, is still is today ;-)

--
Avoid the MS tax, always buy I.B.M. PC's (I Built-it Myself)
Re:You can't beat free! by ePhil_One · 2003-09-09 02:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

This study takes into consideration more than just the price of the OS. Things like support, salary for developers etc.
Its a simple formula.
1) Find the categories your predetermined winner has advantages.
2) Weight those areas heavily
3) De-emphasize or omit any areas the predetermined loser has strong advantages
4) ???
5) Profit!
Sorry,
4) Release study!
This has the added advantage of creating contreversy, which:
1) Increases visibility
2) ???
3) Profit
/Quickly runs from room/

--
You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.
Re:You can't beat free! by Lysol · 2003-09-09 03:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

dude, this just doesn't make sense:

"Take for instance a relatively simple GUI application. Say that it takes two weeks to develop the application under a free toolkit like GTK. Now say that it takes only one week to develop that same application under VB. If we use a $60k developer salary (which is only about half of what it actually costs to employ a developer), then we see that one week of time is worth approx. $1154. After one month, the license for VB and Windows has quickly paid for itself."

Let's really look at company A (the GNULinux company) in a real world example, because like always, when people cite Windowze development-office stuff, they only present part of the picture.

First off, let's use a office with 50 people, of which there are 2 full time developers and 3 full time IS people. The below are current prices from MicroWarehouse at their non-discounted prices.

Now, for office B, first, the Windoze office (I'll leave hardware out of this cuz, especially with Exchange, that's a whole other cost issue):

* 50 copies of XP Pro: $21,747.50
* 1 Win2k file and print server with 50 CALS: $3018.72
* 1 Win2k with Exchange Ent. with 50 CALS: $12,107.44
* 2 copies of VS .NET Ent 2003: $4657.86
* 50 copies of Office XP Pro: $21,747.50

This doesn't assume any consulting fees, whatever, since we'll assume the 3 IS guys are Windoze experts and know how to set up everything.

Total just to get office B up and running so that said developers can develop code: approx. $63,279.02

Now, let's look at office A, the GNULinux office. For basic comparisons, we'll use Redhat 9 deployed.

* 50 copies of RH 9: $0 (cost of 3 cd-r's: approx. $1.50)
* Samba for file and print for all 50 users: $0
* Kroupware (I know, not the best Exchange equiv, but the only free thing really avail strongly for GNU/Linux that delivers scheduling that works) for 50 users: $0
* 2 copies of development environment for GTK-Java-whatever: $0
* Ximian XD2 with Ximian Open Office: $0

Cost (not including hardware or labor) to deploy office B to make snazzy app: $1.50

Cost diff between office A & B: B: $63277.52

Now, plugging in your formula of $1154 for two weeks of development which supposedly pay for VS .NET & Windows server ACLs and Windows Clients, we come up with this:

Office A has no deficit, since their software didn't cost them anything. In fact, they probably had one less sysadmin, so they might have already saved $60k.

Office B has a deficit of $62,125.02. Their developer, to make them money to cover said expenses will need to work an additional: 2118.71 hours.

Obviously, company B should call M$ or MicroWarehouse and try to get deals on this stuff, but regardless, they're still going to need more people, more licenses, which translate into more costs to even start a system where 2 developers can program something.

So, I call bullshit on this entire forumla and the like because they only take one fraction of the puzzle in to play. This is typical with most Windows vs. GNULinux comparisons. I've seen it happen in the real world over and over.
Re:You can't beat free! by IamTheRealMike · 2003-09-09 03:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

I have to disagree. I spent years working with IDEs like Delphi, VB and the like, and you know what? The only thing I miss from them in emacs is context-sensitive symbol completion.
On Windows, yes, an IDE is a crucial, critical tool. I've written code for Win32 in C, with no IDE (in fact I'm doing it now), and it's a nightmare. The same is not true on Linux. You don't have insanities like pixel-based layouts to deal with, you can actually construct your GUIs in code if you so wish. Or, you can use Glade, which spits out XML files you can load at runtime. This is far, far easier than Windows.
The equivalent then to VB is something like Python with Glade/GTK, and emacs. Or it is to my mind, at any rate. These tools are not integrated into one super environment, but they don't lose anything for it in practice.
The other reason you tend to need IDEs on Windows is because Windows is not designed to be text-editor friendly. For things like COM, it's often necessary to use wizards that spit out huge amounts of auto generated code. There are no such technologies on Linux, as far as I'm aware (in wide usage).
Basically, I don't find it any harder to write software on Linux than on Windows, despite the lack of an IDE. I mentioned loss of context sensitive symbol completion - yes, that's a shame, but OTOH when in a Windows IDE I miss a proper command line, a strong and powerful text editor like emacs, and sane tools and toolkits like Glade and GTK, so it works both ways.
Oh, finally, I found I much prefer the "just get on with it" approach of emacs to the one taken by IDEs, which tend to clutter your workspace with things you don't need, like class explorers, project trees, widget palettes and so on - I like having most of my screen taken up by the text editor, as programming is mostly about editing text.
Anyway, just my 2 pence.
Re:You can't beat free! by unoengborg · 2003-09-09 03:32 · Score: 1

I agree that the availability of good developer tools is essential for the price of an application.

But you seam to think that the tools available for Linux is much worse than windows tools. That may have bin true a couple of years ago, but today this is certainly not the case.

It's not harder to drag a button from the controls palette to the application canvas in IDEs like Netbeans than it is in VB. Of course you would need to know java and its accompanying class libraries. But java is not harder to learn than VB.NET.

Java and .Net class libraries are quite similar. But this also means that the idea that a cheap low educated VB-hacker is up to the job, no longer applies in the new .Net world of Microsoft. As VB in its new VB.Net incarnation have grown to a more fullblown programming environment, it will require real developers that will ask for about the same salary as java or C++ developers.

And as for simple office related GUI stuff, Open/StarOffice contains a VBA clone including a good IDE. In fact your $60 VB developer might be more productive in this environment than in Microsofts new VB.Net

--
God is REAL! Unless explicitly declared INTEGER
Re:You can't beat free! by Stevyn · 2003-09-09 03:41 · Score: 2, Informative

I don't agree with you because windows is as standard to most people as how to operate a car. Say a company called Mazdafordix came out with a car that used hand movements picked up by lasers and infrared sensors to operate a car. The public would imediatly think it was more difficult to use and their argument of "well you're just used to a steering wheel so you're wrong" wouldn't hold up. I don't think this analogy is that much of a stretch when you see windows users try to do the same thing they're used to on a linux machine.
Re:You can't beat free! by John+Harrison · 2003-09-09 03:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

So well-paid developers tend to choose Linux. A well-paid developer tends to be an experienced developer. Maybe through experience they have learned to develop and deploy on Linux. Note that this study says nothing at all about the quality of the software developed on either platform.

--
Lasers Controlled Games!
Re:You can't beat free! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-09 03:51 · Score: 1, Insightful

I'm sure some day you'll figure this out, but bulk licenses are available to purchase in multiples of ten, I believe. Each license in a bulk purchase ends up being closer to $20 (for the OS) and 15 (for Office). Please, for the sake of the CHILDREN, don't speak of what you know not.
Re:You can't beat free! by BitwizeGHC · 2003-09-09 04:02 · Score: 1

As someone who has learned both Win32 and Xlib from the documentation supplied for each, I can assure you that they are both equally horrid.

The Xlib side is ameliorated somewhat by toolkits like Gtk which tend to be easier and better documented.

--
N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
Re:You can't beat free! by FooBarWidget · 2003-09-09 04:48 · Score: 2, Informative

"There's not much else that can compare to the RAD capabilities of VB."

Oh yes there is. It's called Delphi. Delphi beats VB in every way: language, speed, price, etc. And Delphi is available for Linux too (Kylix).
Re:You can't beat free! by caffeineHacker · 2003-09-09 04:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

The analogy really doesn't fit, since we're talking about Software Development. Developers should know basic operating system principles and have some knowledge of how to use Unix(Unless the college they went to was brain-dead). *nix systems aren't anything dramatically different either(Like laser controlled what-not), the details just aren't hidden as much. Granted GUI on *nix systems is frustrating since GTK on one system won't always work on another. But you can either do Java GUI, or just make a Perl, etc. front-end. Not a big deal...not nearly half the trouble as many of the MS advocates are making it out to be. And for individual users who use the software that was developed there doesn't have to be a learning curb at all. KDE is almost exactly like Windows, just point and click.
Re:You can't beat free! by Chatterton · 2003-09-09 05:29 · Score: 1

Why use free products to develop on a free platform. Kylix is as good if not better than VB and cross platform. CodeWarrior existe on Linux too... There is a lot of non free products for developping on linux as good as the windows one. Compares apples to apples. Thanks.
Re:You can't beat free! by MoonFog · 2003-09-09 05:36 · Score: 1

I didn't say that well-paid developers tend to choose Linux, I said that this study took these things into consideration.
Re:You can't beat free! by Eristone · 2003-09-09 06:40 · Score: 1

And I even had mod points for today... But I couldn't resist. This one just deserves a bit more analysis..

Let's really look at company A (the GNULinux company) in a real world example, because like always, when people cite Windowze development-office stuff, they only present part of the picture.

Real world - okay - I can go along with this...

First off, let's use a office with 50 people, of which there are 2 full time developers and 3 full time IS people. The below are current prices from MicroWarehouse at their non-discounted prices.

3 full time IS people in a 50 person company? We're shifting into an alternate dimension as we speak. A 50 person company is going to be lucky to have 1 full time IS person, little more 3. More likely they'd outsource that task or it'd be one very harried desktop/server guy. But let's continue...

Now, for office B, first, the Windoze office (I'll leave hardware out of this cuz, especially with Exchange, that's a whole other cost issue):

* 50 copies of XP Pro: $21,747.50
* 1 Win2k file and print server with 50 CALS: $3018.72
* 1 Win2k with Exchange Ent. with 50 CALS: $12,107.44
* 2 copies of VS .NET Ent 2003: $4657.86
* 50 copies of Office XP Pro: $21,747.50

This doesn't assume any consulting fees, whatever, since we'll assume the 3 IS guys are Windoze experts and know how to set up everything.

Total just to get office B up and running so that said developers can develop code: approx. $63,279.02

Okay, for licensing, you are already off. You got your 50 CALs for File and Print services when you purchased XP Pro. You also got your Exchange CALs when you purchased 50 copies of Office XP Pro.

50 copies of XP pro at retail at Micro Warehouse is $275. 50 Copies come to $13750 U.S. -- unless you pay $435/copy of Windows XP.

A 50 person office isn't going to purchase Enterprise Edition of Exchange - just the regular one. (Does the same thing - only limit is a pesky 16GB database storage)

Copy of Windows 2k server is $835. You'll need 3 (one file, one print and one box doing exchangy stuff) - so total of $2505 there.

Copy of Exchange is $1115. $3330 to purchase 45 additional licenses (I'm not sure if they changed the rule on licensing for Outlook in Office - give you the benefit of the doubt here...)

So totals now come to a more realistic (I won't argue with your Office XP Pro price) $33500. But back to your world..

Now, let's look at office A, the GNULinux office. For basic comparisons, we'll use Redhat 9 deployed.

* 50 copies of RH 9: $0 (cost of 3 cd-r's: approx. $1.50)
* Samba for file and print for all 50 users: $0
* Kroupware (I know, not the best Exchange equiv, but the only free thing really avail strongly for GNU/Linux that delivers scheduling that works) for 50 users: $0
* 2 copies of development environment for GTK-Java-whatever: $0
* Ximian XD2 with Ximian Open Office: $0

Cost (not including hardware or labor) to deploy office B to make snazzy app: $1.50

Won't argue here... at least not for the moment

Cost diff between office A & B: B: $63277.52

More like $33498.50...

Now, plugging in your formula of $1154 for two weeks of development which supposedly pay for VS .NET & Windows server ACLs and Windows Clients, we come up with this:

Office A has no deficit, since their software didn't cost them anything. In fact, they probably had one less sysadmin, so they might have already saved $60k.

$30k - being generous and not talking about an office that has to run other things besides
Re:You can't beat free! by Sivaram_Velauthapill · 2003-09-09 06:45 · Score: 1

I think the reason VisualBasic is popular is because it is a scripting language. For certain tasks, scripting just rules (in fact, I believe that scripting languages will take over as the most popular language in 10-15 years). This is why people use VB. When I first saw VB, I quickly realized it was a piece of junk. I programmed little programs in GW-BASIC when I was a kid so it wasn't the syntax or anything. Perhaps it was the fact that I was a C programmer so VB sucked compared to it...But VB gained popularity for the simple fact that it is a scripting language, which means that it is easier to use and debug...

As far as Delphi is concerned, I don't know much about it. Never studied it in school and didn't run into it in my work. It's based on Pascal (which I learned in high school) so I guess it must be better than VB. Of course, the fact that a company like Borland was behind Delphie vs Microsoft automatically meant that many will avoid Delphi.....

Sivaram Velauthapillai

--
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
Re:You can't beat free! by red+flavor · 2003-09-09 07:53 · Score: 1

I agree with you - Working with Glade + Python is amazing. You can put together beautiful, responsive applications incredibly quickly (far nicer and faster than a java app, incidentally).
As for your symbol completion - VIM has the ability via CTRL-P to do completion, based on some sophisticated & programmable rules. I wouldn't be surprised if there was some capability within Emacs to do the same.
Re:You can't beat free! by MoonFog · 2003-09-09 08:08 · Score: 1

Note to self, do not reply to replies unless body contains at least 5 cups of coffee ;)
Re:You can't beat free! by chris_mahan · 2003-09-09 09:33 · Score: 1

Except of course in our case where we have piece-of-crap software from thrid party vendor that makes windows XP act funny (not crash, mind you, but irritating as heck), so first thing we do on the dell 2350 is install 2000 pro over XP and spend some time loading video and nic card drivers.

Every company I worked at uninstalled the preinstalled windows and installed their custom version.

Preformatted floppies were a good idea. Preinstalled windows is not in a corp environment.

A good example of that in the wintel world is dell servers. hey come with windows, but it's not preinstalled.

--
"Piter, too, is dead."
Re:You can't beat free! by mjhuot · 2003-09-09 09:42 · Score: 1

But in another article on the same story.
In the large enterprise scenario, the licensing costs for J2EE tipped the financial scales at $208,567 for the BEA application servers, Oracle databases, and BEA development tools. Costs for the equivalent Microsoft licenses, however, would run only $52,591. Advantage Microsoft, to the tune of $155,976. That difference accounts for about a quarter of the cost savings Forrester claimed companies would see by going with the Redmond, Wash.-based developer's platform.
Oracle != MS SQL
s/Oracle/postgresql
s/BEA/tomcat

With only those small changes you cut the difference by 25%, now if we only knew some of the other details. I am sure there are other ways that the costs on the linux side were artificially inflated.
Re:You can't beat free! by stuntpope · 2003-09-09 09:43 · Score: 1

Firstly, the study methodology doesn't even address if developing on Linux or Windows is cheaper -- it addresses the costs of developing a J2EE app on Linux vs a .Net app on Windows. It then weights against Linux heavily by assuming the Linux development would use BEA and Oracle (well-known for their high price), whereas Windows has lower-cost alternatives. Therefore, the study boils down to "BEA and Oracle cost more than Windows solutions". Nothing like a smack in your opponent's knee with a steel bar to make you come out the winner!
Re:You can't beat free! by rifter · 2003-09-09 12:22 · Score: 2, Funny

Developers should know basic operating system principles and have some knowledge of how to use Unix(Unless the college they went to was brain-dead).

e.g. their cs department was funded by Microsoft.
Re:You can't beat free! by rifter · 2003-09-09 12:28 · Score: 1

Would that be similar to Windows 2000's "Configuring Your Server" box that comes up upon first boot of Win2k Server?

No. Kickstart allows you to make an unattended installation disk which you can then use to install Redhat the same way on every machine. It is actually possible to do this with Windows if you learn how to edit unattend.txt....
Re:You can't beat free! by The+Cydonian · 2003-09-09 18:35 · Score: 1

All I can say is this:- I was once asked by my company to develop a solution in VB.net in two months flat. (I usually program in J2EE). In the end, I had to turn to existing code-snippets to tweak, add and enhance; no way I could have learnt, designed, developed AND deployed that project in two months, hadn't it been for that Open Source implementation I found.
Yes, there's Open Source stuff in VB too, and for people like me, it's a god-send.

--
More than mere navel gazing.
Re:You can't beat free! by Ciggy · 2003-09-10 06:16 · Score: 1

The study was based on interviews with 12 companies, seven of which use Microsoft's .NET platform and five of which use Linux.

And how many of the other 1000s of Windoze companies (as M$ would have us believe?) also [(a)] responded [and (b)] with such positive findings?

Perhaps a better re-write of this sentence would be:

The study was biased on interviews with 12 companies...

--

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet;
A chrysanthemum by any other name would be easier to spell

Cheaper when... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-09 01:09 · Score: 4, Funny

SCO charges apply...

Re:Cheaper when... by helpfulcorn · 2003-09-09 01:17 · Score: 1

I don't think those SCO jokes will ever get old. =)
Re:Cheaper when... by BitwizeGHC · 2003-09-09 04:05 · Score: 1

Of course, given that this study is sponsored by Microsoft, I wouldn't be surprised if biased assumptions are made of the sort that Linux will incur hidden intellectual property infringement costs whereas Windows would be considered free and clear, thus fudging the numbers in favor of Windows.

--
N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!

Taking aim at the server end. by grub · 2003-09-09 01:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

(from the article:)
The study compared applications built to run over the Internet on Microsoft's .NET platform to applications developed with J2EE, a development platform backed by Sun Microsystems Inc. favored by the Linux community.

That speaks volumes: the study is aiming at J2EE and Sun. Granted these are the "certain circumstances" mentioned but MS is taking direct aim at its diminishing server market share with this. They know the desktop is still pretty much a lock-in for the time being.

Here's a clue: don't trust studies. They are generally paid for by people with agendas.

--
Trolling is a art,

Re:Taking aim at the server end. by Dog+and+Pony · 2003-09-09 01:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

J2EE, a development platform backed by Sun Microsystems Inc. favored by the Linux community.

Says who?

If they mean favored over .NET, then well duh. I wish I could get money for telling people the obvious.

OTOH, maybe Mono and DotGNU can change that - if it is good enough, there isn't much reason to not choose the better proprietry platform apart from kneejerk anti-MS. But that is just between those two - I sincerely hope that none of those are actually going to be the favored one.
Re:Taking aim at the server end. by rsmith-mac · 2003-09-09 01:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

Here's a clue: don't trust studies. They are generally paid for by people with agendas.
But on the contrary, don't balk at any study just because someone paid to have it done. As odd as it sounds, companies that do studies don't just pull "statistics" out of their ass, they are by and large sizable companies with good reputations doing honest work. The reason why studies seem to agree with the organization funding them is that often, the organization sets the parameters, creating a situation where things would look good for the company that funded the study. Looking at the numbers, I believe that Giga is right; in their subject pool, Windows was cheaper. The study should only be distrusted when the parameters used don't fit a situation you're trying to use it as proof in; for a company similar to the subject pool, this study would seem to be an accurate comparison.
Re:Taking aim at the server end. by grub · 2003-09-09 01:25 · Score: 3, Interesting

Says who?

Says Microsoft. :) These types of sandbag-studies are directed at PHBs with a bit of technical knowledge, even if that knowledge is just having heard the word "Linux". Mindshare is a valuable commodity and by creating a slanted study such as this they take a shot at Sun and Linux in one fell swoop.

MS knows they haven't a chance at swaying anyone with half a clue, but unfortunately most of the people that sign the cheques don't.

--
Trolling is a art,
Re:Taking aim at the server end. by The+Old+Burke · 2003-09-09 01:30 · Score: 1

From the Reuters story:
For large companies, the cost of making and deploying applications on Microsoft's .NET standard was $1.64 million over a three-year period, 28 percent less than the $2.29 million cost for running or J2EE/Linux, according to the study.

and
Forrester said that the main difference in cost was not due to price of the basic software, but rather the price of developing the software, including labor costs.

So even if the TCO is mostly developing costs; if the system is operational more than three years, the cost of MS .NET will sooner or later exceed the cost of Linux/Sun-J2EE.

--
Proud patriot and republican voter.
Re:Taking aim at the server end. by JonathanBoyd · 2003-09-09 01:46 · Score: 1

So even if the TCO is mostly developing costs; if the system is operational more than three years, the cost of MS .NET will sooner or later exceed the cost of Linux/Sun-J2EE.

Where did you get that from? The quotes you produced suggest that over time, the advantage for .NET will actually increase. Nowhere does it say that eventually the Linux/Sun-J2EE TCO will fall below that of .NET.
Re:Taking aim at the server end. by Serapth · 2003-09-09 01:54 · Score: 1

but MS is taking direct aim at its diminishing server market share with this.

If im not mistaken, Microsoft and Linux's adoption on the server side are both increasing. Its the pure unix systems of the world that are losing market share.
Re:Taking aim at the server end. by thammoud · 2003-09-09 02:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

Says the business community. In my second consulting gig for the past two years, the trend has been to deploy Linux in order to run J2EE applications. Spefically JBOSS. They would not have deployed Linux if there was no Java. HomeDepot deployed linux but run Java on top of it.

Java + Linux is a combination that scares the crap out MS, thus the study.
Re:Taking aim at the server end. by iabervon · 2003-09-09 02:24 · Score: 1

There's also the possibility that the people paying for the study also interact with the subjects; if MicroSoft is paying to have the costs of Windows development studied, they could easily reduce those costs in the sample group (or make sure to generate the subjects for the study to find).

You can trust studies paid for by people with agendas to show some things, but cost less so, since money is both the compensation and the measurement.
Re:Taking aim at the server end. by timeOday · 2003-09-09 03:04 · Score: 1

You can argue J2EE isn't favored on Linux, but in practice it's all there is. (Which is fine since it works).
Yes, there are some projects called Mono and DotGNU, but that doesn't mean they're viable. A .Net developer is somebody who knows the hundreds of classes available, and who "programs" by plugging together those components. Mono and dotGNU are just the infrastructure (and not even that, yet); there's no content.
Trying to reverse engineer implementations of all those classes is hopeless, like Wine. Particular targeted appliations will work, with caveats, but the chances of running some application off the shelf without problems will be close to 0.
Re:Taking aim at the server end. by Paisley+Phrog · 2003-09-09 03:11 · Score: 1

Well, of course they'll be true for the company funding them. We don't expect blatant falsehoods from studies like these, just massaged numbers. They're like processor benchmarks; numbers that are correct for that certain test, under certain conditions. Take 'em for what they're worth.

To paraphrase Benjamin Disraeli... there are three kinds of falsehoods: lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Re:Taking aim at the server end. by DarkSarin · 2003-09-09 03:20 · Score: 1

Your absolutely right, which is why you should never ! trust a study that does not inform you of sampling methods, research design, and agendas. If you ignore these, then you run the risk of being a fool. Further more, statistics can be manipulated, even if they are still mathematically correct, they may be theoretically in left field with some hooker (which is what I suspect is happening here).
If you want the truth, even those supposedly large and sizable companies with good reputations are not always very good at pulling of unbiased research. After all, if your boss tells you that you get a bonus to find a certain outcome (or the company will get 25 mil) you will tend to arrange your findings to support that outcome.
It happens in politics, corporations, and just about every setting you can imagine. Fortunately there are some principaled organizations that do this correctly, and let people know this up front. And I applaud them. and hope to work there once I finish my master's.

--
"We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
Re:Taking aim at the server end. by czei · 2003-09-09 03:20 · Score: 1

As odd as it sounds, companies that do studies don't just pull "statistics" out of their ass, they are by and large sizable companies with good reputations doing honest work.

I beg to differ. It takes a lot of time and effort to analyze IT costs, and not many companies do. When an analyst says they've done a "study", you have to remember that usually people do what is fastest, cheapest, and easiest.

All they usually do is call a bunch of their customers, ask them questions, and put the results together. But what you have to remember is the vast majority of companies can't tell you the statistics, and so the "analyst" "extrapolates" the data, in other words "pulls statistics out of their ass".

Don't believe me? Ask your own company if someone can tell you the TCO details of their IT operations.
Re:Taking aim at the server end. by simong_oz · 2003-09-09 03:28 · Score: 1

as any good engineer knows, a model is only as good as the underlying assumptions ...

--
"Because it's there." - George Mallory, when asked why he wanted to climb Mt Everest, March 18, 1923 (New York Times)
Re:Taking aim at the server end. by 4of12 · 2003-09-09 04:09 · Score: 1

Mono and DotGNU

What would be really nice is if Linux server deployment were widespread and both Java and .NET implementations were available.

Just perhaps, then, both Sun and Microsoft would be competing on level third party turf based solely on technical merit.

We might see more genuine developments and innovations in both products and not so much fluffy stuff.

--
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Re:Taking aim at the server end. by WNight · 2003-09-09 04:40 · Score: 2, Interesting

No, companies don't pull statistics out of their ass. They pull circumstances out of their ass to justify the statistics you want.

Microsoft didn't say, "Make J2EE look bad compared to us", they said "Make us look good in one of these (a, b, c) areas." The company then looked around for a competing product that overlapped one of those and didn't perform as well as the MS product in at least one aspect. That's how these paid-for studies work.
Re:Taking aim at the server end. by Malcontent · 2003-09-09 05:40 · Score: 1

The studies are frequently tilted. For example someone can create messy unmaintable code in VB using the wizards in no time at all while a properly coded MVC java application may take ten times longer to create.

Which is easier and cheaper in the long run? Not the VB app that's created by the wizard.

If MS then takes this comparison and says VB is faster then they are lying by telling a half truth.

Of course MS is famous for doing these kinds of things. They are not alone, lying comes easy to most corporations.

--
War is necrophilia.
Re:Taking aim at the server end. by whoever57 · 2003-09-09 07:57 · Score: 1

As odd as it sounds, companies that do studies don't just pull "statistics" out of their ass,

I think it was Disraeli who said: "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics".

I'm sure the raw data for these studies comes from some reputable sources. However, studies can easily be slanted by:
1. Careful selection of the data sources
2. "Analysis" of the raw data that eliminates data that does not support the hypothesis.
3. Careful presentation to emphasise analysis results that support the hypothesis while hiding results that do not support the hypothesis.

So while I agree that there has to be some basis for the raw data, a completent analysts/statistician can obtain pretty much whatever results s/he wants, unless the data overwhelmingly supports the opposite view.

--
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Re:Taking aim at the server end. by Richy_T · 2003-09-09 08:33 · Score: 1

Completely true. I once worked for a company which was very proud of its "impartial analysis" of its products. It could afford to be. For the most part, its products were way better than the competitors. Then one day, a competitors product was brought in for testing and it beat ours by a large margin. The report was couched in language that downplayed the margin and used technicalities that reduced the margin greatly (The competitors product was superior over a much wider range of circumstances but if you narrowed it to the range as specified, it didn't appear that much better.

Rich
Re:Taking aim at the server end. by Overly+Critical+Guy · 2003-09-09 09:12 · Score: 1

I'm curious, is *anything* that shows Linux as not the superior OS always a "slanted study?" Because whenever studies like these come out, no matter who funded by, Slashbots jump on them left and right. Tells you something.

--
"Sufferin' succotash."

Wait a minute... by turbine216 · 2003-09-09 01:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

how come when MS sponsors a comparison, and the results favor their OS and/or software over linux, it's just GOT to be a big conspiracy? Why doesn't the same criticism hold true for the supposedly "unbiased" comparisons that are done by linux-friendly companies like IBM and Red Hat?

Oh wait, i forgot...this is slashdot.

Re:Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-09 01:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

By accepting open ideals, linux-friendly companies tend to be more open and include more detail. We like detail, it means more information and reproducability. With enough information, we can make our own conclusions. Of course, some 'studies' do resort to petty name-calling, but there are good ones too. The key is to ignore /. editor comments and make up your own mind.
Re:Wait a minute... by brlewis · 2003-09-09 01:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

Where's the post calling this a big conspiracy? A research firm finding results that its sponsor will like is not a big conspiracy. Where's the article where nobody criticizes an IBM or RedHat study as biased?
Insightful my foot. Imaginative, maybe.
Re:Wait a minute... by ClubStew · 2003-09-09 01:29 · Score: 1

I have - quite a bit - and they are much easier to use, offer better integration and cross-language development (even without using the .NET Framework), and provide a much better help system than anything I've ever used on *nix (all the way from gcc/make to kdevelop). But what do you expect when Microsoft uses COM throughout every facit of their programming when *nix is a hodge-podge of proprietary APIs (besides the standard POSIX stuff) written by people who are bored and have nothing better to do than write free software all the time?
In the real world - where companies make money - time to develop in-house applications is greatly affected by your development tools, documentation system, and training. MS dev tools support far-better RAD (if used, but support good code as well since it's all based on the developers, people, not the tool or a faceless corporation) than anything on *nix and most of the information you need is in one integrated place - not hundreds of man pages googling for information across the endless user sites.
Re:Wait a minute... by ShadeARG · 2003-09-09 01:32 · Score: 1

Perhaps it's a conspiracy when Microsoft charges an arm and a leg for for their operating systems, development solutions and site licenses, while Linux (downloaded) is completely free in all of those aspects. Even development resources are freely available online, cutting out the need to spend extra cash on learning material. The only arguable point of cost is that properly supported hardware isn't as abundant for Linux.
Re:Wait a minute... by Azureflare · 2003-09-09 01:36 · Score: 1

Does anyone REALLY pay attention to any of the comparisons on slashdot anyway? I know that all of them are biased, and I just choose ths OS which I think is best from my own personal experience, and experience of people I work with whom I trust.
Re:Wait a minute... by DarenN · 2003-09-09 01:50 · Score: 1

On the other hand, MS make you pay once for the license, and again for the documentation (MSDN)

Which isn't nice. And on top of that, their documentation can be ummm, spare, to say the least... And on top of that again... in the main, OSS documentation, especially on larger projects, kicks the shit out of most of MS's (and yes, this is experience speaking)

--
Rational thought is the only true freedom
Re:Wait a minute... by turbine216 · 2003-09-09 01:56 · Score: 1

believe me, if it's on a website, SOMEONE, somewhere, is going to buy it hook, line, and sinker.

Personally, i'm sure most of the slashdot crowd - whether they like MS, linux, BSD, or whatever - don't put much stock into these "comparisons," no matter who publishes or pays for them.

Anyway, I was really just trying to be funny.
Re:Wait a minute... by ClubStew · 2003-09-09 02:08 · Score: 1

I'm speaking from experience, too, and I can assure you that you don't have to buy MSDN. VS.NET, for example (and VS6 and 5, too) comes with all the MSDN documentation regarding the product and the technologies / languages it uses at that point. This documentation is exactly the same as their web site (topics, layout, style) so it's easy to find what you need if you don't want to stay up-to-date with the MSDN Library.
And while you think OSS documentation is better, and the help system that indexes and views them is better, than we have a disagreement of opinion. I prefer Help2 over any help system on any platform I've seen. Having developed collections and help topics (being one of the developers for NDoc and all), it offers a lot of significant gains. That's just my opinion, although I know that doesn't mean anything here on /. unless you opinion favors *nix.
Re:Wait a minute... by johnnyb · 2003-09-09 02:16 · Score: 1

We do all in-house coding on Linux because it's a much faster development time. Emacs is one of the best programmer tools in existence. Couple that with GIMP scripts for making bookoos of templated images, regular expressions for condensing hundreds of lines of code into one, scripting languages out the wazoo with libraries that hook into absolutely every protocol ever made.

As for the information, I've found that it is usually right at my fingertips. Google is just as valid a tools as searching through help, except that it's usually much faster and gives better answers.

As with any environment, there are dusty corners, but nothing that's hampered my company's speed of development.

--
Engineering and the Ultimate
Re:Wait a minute... by nolife · 2003-09-09 02:40 · Score: 1

It is not a conspiracy. Read the article and tell me first hand if this study describes your shop and if you think it would save you money. If so tell us why, if not do tell. I realize the article is very vauge but that is on purpose. You can get take any benchmark, study, or group collaboration how you wish. You need to look at the WHOLE study though if you want to make a real assessment of how it effects you. This specific example is not that it is "cheaper" to develop on Windows, this one states that if you already have a Windows shop and have current employees trained and already developing applications on Windows, it may be cheaper to stick with Windows. Well no shit. What if you are a new shop just starting? What if you are not developing the same applications they studied? What if you already have a JAVA platform and nothing that can run the new MS tools? What if you are already trained in JAVA development? What if you have no .NET setup at your shop? What if you only need to develope a few things for a client and your not selling to the public? What if you are expanding into new areas? Well, then this study is not for you as it would not accurately describe your shop.

These studies are not put out for the technical folks in the trenches, they are for the guy behind the door making the status quo decisions so he can keep his/her job.

--
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
Re:Wait a minute... by Overly+Critical+Guy · 2003-09-09 05:09 · Score: 1

All the posts saying "oh, it's funded by a certain Redmond company, so much for non-biased." Read a little.

--
"Sufferin' succotash."
Re:Wait a minute... by brlewis · 2003-09-09 08:40 · Score: 1

Bias. Big conspiracy. There's a big difference.

Not cheaper , but.. by adeyadey · 2003-09-09 01:10 · Score: 1

You may make less money selling Linux apps, at least at the moment..

--
"You lied to me! There is a Swansea!"

Re:Not cheaper , but.. by Trigun · 2003-09-09 01:14 · Score: 1

Most programming is done for in-house development. So, that being said, you standardize on what your company runs. Both Java and .NET programming are readily taught, so training seldom plays into it. Hire someone with the right skills and knowledge, and it doesn't matter platform, time to market, etc.

Ohh by jabbadabbadoo · 2003-09-09 01:11 · Score: 1

"...was funded and commissioned by our favorite Redmond, WA based software giant."

Favorite... You must mean Veritas, since /.'ers are irony impaired.

Re:Ohh by Geek+of+Tech · 2003-09-09 01:41 · Score: 1

I thought that they meant Lycoris, the people who make the lycoris distro of linux! Yeah their right! I really like Lycoris. Runs well, simple to use (especially for MS users).
In fact, according to the site, they said
Gary Krakow of MSNBC Loves Desktop/LX
A glowing review of the Lycoris OS "...that's as
mindless to install as Microsoft's Windows."
Runs more stable, and cheaper. Linux that a MS user can use. Now that's amazing!

--
Stop the Slashdot effect! Don't read the articles!

Refresh my memory by Timesprout · 2003-09-09 01:11 · Score: 1

Who is our favorite Redmond, WA based software giant again and will they be our favourite all week or just until the next security alert?

--
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe

Re:Refresh my memory by mahdi13 · 2003-09-09 01:20 · Score: 1

You just mad me realize something...anyone else notice that these "un-biased tests" happen to come out a month after a large virus attack on the Windows systems around the world?

It's almost like thay are trying to prove something...

--
"Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson
Re:Refresh my memory by mahdi13 · 2003-09-09 01:22 · Score: 1

I should preview more often before submitting...

You mad me realize something...
Should read made...sorry

--
"Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson

gotta love this... by ih8apple · 2003-09-09 01:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

"The study compared applications built to run over the Internet on Microsoft's .NET platform to applications developed with J2EE, a development platform backed by Sun Microsystems Inc. (Nasdaq:SUNW - news) favored by the Linux community. "

So, they compared .NET to J2EE development and called it a comparison between Windows and Linux?

"favored by the Linux community"? Last time I checked, .NET didn't run on Linux!

--

Why do I h8 apple?

Re:gotta love this... by Timesprout · 2003-09-09 01:20 · Score: 1

So, they compared .NET to J2EE development and called it a comparison between Windows and Linux?

No they refered to Windows and Linux based applications. They also state the primary conclusion is that MS is cheaper as a developer platform, not a cheaper OS.

--
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
Re:gotta love this... by Poofat · 2003-09-09 01:23 · Score: 1

Quite obviously, they meant J2EE was favored by the linux community. Weither that is true or not is up in the air...
Re:gotta love this... by Vengie · 2003-09-09 01:30 · Score: 4, Funny

Hi.
I'm Mono.
The Open Source .Net Framework championed about a trillion times on slashdot.
I will now beat you with a cluestick ;)

--
When in doubt, parenthesize. At the very least it will let some poor schmuck bounce on the % key in vi. (Larry Wall)
Re:gotta love this... by Sanction · 2003-09-09 09:04 · Score: 1

Hey, when Mono gets beyond being a bare implementation of the CLI and C#, and has the full set of Microsoft libraries with 100% compatibility, let me know. Until then, it is nothing more than a cute toy in the eyes of business.

--
Well I'm the doctor and I say you're dead, so shut up and take it like a man!

I was almost convinced until... by agwis · 2003-09-09 01:12 · Score: 2, Troll

Although I'm not a Windows fan, I actually could believe this, until I read this part:

"Last December, Microsoft released a study that showed that Windows-based servers were cheaper to run than those on Linux in four out of five common server tasks."

You just got to love studies funded by non-biased companies!

Re: I was almost convinced until... by Black+Parrot · 2003-09-09 02:01 · Score: 1

> Although I'm not a Windows fan, I actually could believe this, until I read this part:
"Last December, Microsoft released a study that showed that Windows-based servers were cheaper to run than those on Linux in four out of five common server tasks."
You just got to love studies funded by non-biased companies!

Yep. You basically run a few hundred, thousand, or million tests until you find a few where your platform wins, publish those, and never mention the rest. It's kind of like people who investigate the paranormal and report only the experiments that beat the statistical expectations, dismissing the rest with "the force wasn't with me today".

You can easily turn random noise into a strong signal, if you apply the right filter.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re: I was almost convinced until... by EvilTwinSkippy · 2003-09-09 02:46 · Score: 1

You can easily turn random noise into a strong signal, if you apply the right filter.
(Cough) look I see lines of Unix code in Linux (cough).

--
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Re:I was almost convinced until... by mcguirez · 2003-09-09 05:28 · Score: 1

Troll?

Since when is a joke at Microsoft's expense
not funny. Is this slashdot?

So how the weather in Redmond these days?

--
When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras

some quotes by rokzy · 2003-09-09 01:12 · Score: 4, Interesting

"The world's largest software maker, which is facing increased competition from Linux -- the open-source software standard that can be copied and modified freely -- hired Giga Research, which found that licensing, associated software, maintenance, labor, and training was 25 percent to 28 percent cheaper on Windows for certain types of applications."

and

"Last December, Microsoft released a study that showed that Windows-based servers were cheaper to run than those on Linux in four out of five common server tasks."

how can anyone trust crap like this? WHAT TYPE OF APPLICATIONS? WHAT SERVER TASKS?

Re:some quotes by xxdinkxx · 2003-09-09 01:29 · Score: 1

how can anyone trust crap like this? WHAT TYPE OF APPLICATIONS? WHAT SERVER TASKS?

don't you know?
BSODd of course! everyone has to have remote crashing feature; its a must have in today's high paced enterprise.
Re:some quotes by gl4ss · 2003-09-09 01:29 · Score: 4, Funny

Apps: blaster, sobig
server: mirc-slave, open mail relay

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:some quotes by zulux · 2003-09-09 02:01 · Score: 1

Microsoft released a study that showed that Windows-based servers were cheaper to run than those on Linux in four out of five common server tasks."

The tasks were:

1) Rebooting
2) Blue-screening
3) Patching
4) Playing Solitare
5) Serving Files, Databases and Connections.

--
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
Re:some quotes by _xeno_ · 2003-09-09 02:23 · Score: 2, Interesting
Do we have to go for the cheap shots? Be a little more creative! I'll just give a possibly correct list which I assure you is possible on both platforms.
1. Deploying a web application using Microsoft's Active Server Page technology.
2. Integrating into a Microsoft Windows Active Directory domain.
3. Setting up a file server within a Microsoft Windows Active Directory domain.
4. Setting up a print server using Microsoft's printer sharing technology.
5. Serving static web pages.
Much nicer. Still unbalanced, still gives us the stab at the study being unfairly weighted towards Windows, but doesn't try and attack the same old things that Windows always gets attacked for. And for an added bonus, all are plausible...
(Besides, the BSOD is obsolete as of Windows XP. By default, it instantly reboots and then displays a dialog informing you that the compter has "recovered from a serious error" after it restarts. Apparently the computer randomly rebooting with no explanation until after it's come back up is considered more user friendly than the BSOD. Or at the very least, it makes the user take the blame by thinking they did something to make the computer restart like hitting the power cord or something...)
--
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
Re:some quotes by rokzy · 2003-09-09 02:32 · Score: 1

yeah it's always funnier when you explain it... :-)
Re:some quotes by rokzy · 2003-09-09 03:05 · Score: 1

hmmm... I thought the days of "page 6, paragraph 2, word 3... page 10, paragraph 2, word 8... " were long gone.

maybe (in the spirit of CD keys) next time you should just give me the MD5 of the relevant text...?
Re:some quotes by V_drive · 2003-09-09 03:20 · Score: 1

maybe i'm just skimming too quickly, but when they say "it runs cheaper with windows," i don't see a discussion about how WELL it runs. what about uptime, security, and performance benchmarks?

i suppose it's also cheaper to run *a* database with ms-access rather than oracle--all you need to do is ignore performance!

--
char *mySig;
Re:some quotes by cascadefx · 2003-09-09 04:36 · Score: 3, Funny

Well 2000 does come with 4 games.
They are Solitaire (which is pretty good compared to the Open Source versions), Minesweeper, Pinball, and Freecell.

Lets break it down:

1. There are not as many decks in the windows version of Solataire to choose from, so that would definitely speed things up. ADVANTAGE: Microsoft

2. Minsweeper is small. You can't even resize the window. That's got to cut down on the number of CPU cycles that it uses. Of course you know they only tested it on the easy levels. My suspicion is that it would have only performed better on 3 out of 5 if they cranked Minesweeper up to Expert. ADVANTAGE: Microsoft (despite possible performance rigging).

3. Pinball. That's just unfair. There isn't a version in linux that has the same kicking music. (easy) ADVANTAGE: Microsoft

4. Freecell. Need I say more. That game screams. After all, they've had 10 years to perfect it. (another easy) ADVANTAGE: Microsoft.

I don't know what you guys are whining about... the evidence is there.
Re:some quotes by sharkey · 2003-09-09 07:33 · Score: 1

4. Freecell. Need I say more. That game screams. After all, they've had 10 years to perfect it. (another easy) ADVANTAGE: Microsoft.
But it STILL lacks a decent undo function.

--

--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Re:some quotes by julesh · 2003-09-10 03:28 · Score: 1

Besides, the BSOD is obsolete as of Windows XP. By default, it instantly reboots and then displays a dialog informing you that the compter has "recovered from a serious error" after it restarts.

That's actually a Win2K feature. I had a Win2K machine a while back that was stuck in a constant reboot - bluescreen - reboot cycle.

Why is this news? by Blenderkitty · 2003-09-09 01:12 · Score: 1

Did we expect them to say that buying Windows was a horrible decision and that their product was bunk?

Hey! Let's go and browse Microsoft marketing materials! I'd bet they've got LOADS of good stuff to talk about.

Hang on... by L-s-L69 · 2003-09-09 01:12 · Score: 1, Funny

An independant firm carrying out a survey funded by M$. Is this a new version of "independant"?

Re:Hang on... by zero_offset · 2003-09-09 02:12 · Score: 1

It's certainly a new spelling.

--
Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005

In other news ... by hotchai · 2003-09-09 01:13 · Score: 2, Funny

A woman who recently had a baby claimed that her child was the cutest one on the planet!

Re:In other news ... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-09 02:26 · Score: 1, Funny

And everyone agreed, except some mean hippy communist free-software freaks who said they could make a better baby and then they'd give it away!
Re:In other news ... by TheLink · 2003-09-09 05:12 · Score: 1

She also paid a babysitter USD100 to do an independent study on which baby was cutest.
--
- Too many replies beneath your current threshold

How can it be cheaper? by ScottGant · 2003-09-09 01:13 · Score: 1

How can a software solution that costs money and requires fees be cheaper than a software solution that's freely downloadable, totally supported by 1000s of people, 100s of books written about it and the essence of it is taught in basic CS courses?

Perhaps the questions are answered if I were to RTFA...

--

"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.

Re:How can it be cheaper? by Zamfir · 2003-09-09 01:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

its really not that complicated. you can get a subscription to ms dev tools for around $1000/year per developer. if a developer can gain a weeks more productivity in VS.NET than a competitive suite of products, the productivity pays for the software. if 2 weeks productivity is gained, then VOILA! your .NET solution is now cheaper to develop. /.ers seem to forget that peoples time more often than not costs way more in the long run than actual software licenses.
Re:How can it be cheaper? by Zachary+Kessin · 2003-09-09 01:29 · Score: 1

Well there are more people using windows and more books about it than about Linux. But it can easily be cheaper. If it everything you need is in the box for linux or windows linux should be cheaper. But if you have to develop some custom application software (and many companies do have to do that) it may well cost you more to develop it on linux than on windows.

If it does cost more to develop custom applications on linux than windows, then we as the linux comunity have to get better at building the kinds of tools our users need.

--
Erlang Developer and podcaster
Re:How can it be cheaper? by TheLink · 2003-09-09 05:14 · Score: 1

But if your developers are the significantly cheaper ones in India...

Wasn't there an open source push in India recently...
--
- Too many replies beneath your current threshold
Re:How can it be cheaper? by Lodragandraoidh · 2003-09-09 06:39 · Score: 1

What is your measure of 'productivity' vis-a-vis software development?

If its the number of lines of code a programmer produces, that is an irrelevant measurement if the code doesn't do anything interesting or useful.

On the other hand, if we measure productivity based on production of useful modules and applications - then a person who creates less code than our 'productive' programmer, yet produces less buggy and more useful modules is more productive in my book.

--

Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain

Problems... by mobets · 2003-09-09 01:13 · Score: 1

Am I the only one who read this in the mysterious future and thought the "See any serious problems with this story?" line was funny?

--

It was me, I did it, I moved your cheese

study based on interviews by brlewis · 2003-09-09 01:14 · Score: 1

From the article:

The study was based on interviews with 12 companies, seven of which use Microsoft's .NET platform and five of which use Linux.

I'm curious how they dealt with the variation in project requirements, etc. This is a far cry from a controlled scientific study.

.NET on linux by unixmaster · 2003-09-09 01:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

.NET works on Linux too with Mono. Why not compare Mono/Linux to .NET/Windows so we wont compare apples and oranges.

--
Never learn by your mistakes, if you do you may never dare to try again

Re:.NET on linux by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-09 01:30 · Score: 1, Insightful

More logical would be a comparison between J2EE/Linux and J2EE/Windows.
Re:.NET on linux by pmz · 2003-09-09 02:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

Why not compare Mono/Linux to .NET/Windows so we wont compare apples and oranges.

Because .NET really does not work on Linux. Only a small subset does, and that is with Microsoft's toleration (for now).

Conversely, there are full-blown fully-sanctioned-and-supported J2EE implementations for Linux distributions. In fact, there are several full-blown J2EE implementations available. From different and competing vendors.

Funny how proprietary lock-in isn't a criteria in these "studies".

--
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin

Misfit Analysts? by Ambush · 2003-09-09 01:14 · Score: 2, Funny

The first thing my wife said when she saw the title of this story was that she thought it was 'Windows Cheaper When Studied By MISFIT Analysts'.

What could I say? When you're right, you're right!

;-)

--
There are 10 kinds of people; those who know ternary, those who don't, and those now hunting for a dictionary.

Time Spent by kannibal_klown · 2003-09-09 01:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

While I agree with previous posts that Linux is cheaper than Windows in just about every respect, I'm glad that his article touches on something.

With the current development tools available for Windows, as well as all third-party utilities/db drivers/etc, development on Windows goes by much quicker.

I'm not talking about little apps that could be banged out as a perl script in a few minutes, but more robust applications that companies need internally.

However, this is just for the present. If/when more people adopt Linux as desktops then more people will learn how to develop for it and more/better tools will become available. Say what you will about Visual Studio, but the recent incarnations work exceptionally well, and they have a large user base. If we could see 1 or 2 similar development IDE's for linux that are HIGHLY ADOPTED (I know there are some nice ones out there, but the use-rate is still rather low), then things could change.

Re:Time Spent by codepunk · 2003-09-09 01:25 · Score: 1

Oh you must mean a tool like VB for instance. Back in the real world, I watched all day yesterday as 2 consultants and 2 of our programmers burned the entire day because of a vb runtime error because of a shared component compatibility problem. The application was very trivial, sending text to a rs232 port. To do this in linux would require at most 10 lines of bash script. This was a text book example of the pain caused by a platform that has a lock on it.

--

Got Code?
Re:Time Spent by codepunk · 2003-09-09 01:32 · Score: 1

I was referring to replacing the whole program a few thousand lines that diced some text files as sent it to a display via rs232.

--

Got Code?
Re:Time Spent by javatips · 2003-09-09 01:36 · Score: 1

With the current development tools available for Windows, as well as all third-party utilities/db drivers/etc, development on Windows goes by much quicker.

That is not true. With any large project the benefit of a development tools will be drawfed by requirement gathering, analysis and design. The development process used will actually drive the cost factor. The technology and tools will not be a real factor.

If you apply the same development process to develop an application for J2EE to developing an application for .NET, then you will roughly get the same development cost.

The study look a little weird... The say that 7 .NET application were used vs 5 J2EE applications. It,s kinda of strange that they did not pick more J2EE application as a research by Gartner point out that 67% or companies use J2EE for entrprise application vs 24% who use .NET (the remaining use both). So they should have easily been able to pick a greater sample of J2EE applications.
Re:Time Spent by jatsrt · 2003-09-09 01:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

I have to disagree strongly. I currently work in a shoop that develops applications in .NET and J2EE and we are always comparing and contrasting.
The real conclusion that we find is that Eclipse, ANT, XDoclet and JBoss make a much more usable and more powerful deveopment environment than anything available for Windows.
Our J2EE applications usually have a shorter time to market and a much happier customer when they don't feel like they have been taken avantage of in licensing fees.
However this holds true for J2EE in itself, there overall cost is greatly impacted by using JBoss and MySQL instead of Weblogix and Oracle(for example). It is all in how and what you are comparing.
Re:Time Spent by kannibal_klown · 2003-09-09 02:12 · Score: 1

Umm, no. VB sucks donkey balls. I'm talking about writing REAL applications (not some little tool a 12 year old could do). Visual C++ Visual C# (not a bad language if your client machines can handle the large footprint). Even Borland's products (C++ Builder, etc). Even though VB.Net is closer to a real programming language than it's predecessor, it is still horrible. I feel VB was created to drive developers crazy.
Re:Time Spent by kannibal_klown · 2003-09-09 02:20 · Score: 1

And by the way, I AM in the real world. I'm a full time developer for a large pharmaceutical company.

AND, if you read my post, I SPECIFICALLY mentioned real applications, and not some little tool that can be done in a scripting language.
Try writing a full-blown application that is used by a hundred-or-so scientists to monitor compounds, display molecular structures, show reports of disbursals all in a FANCY GUI (because scientists are like pre-madonnas that need to be catered to) in a shell script.
Re:Time Spent by term8or · 2003-09-09 02:24 · Score: 1

"Windows goes by much quicker."

It depends. If you are generating PC forms, then Delphi / Kylix has to be the way to go... and is just as easy to develop as VB.

If you are trying to write applications in C/C++ you have only yourself to blame;)

--

"As a writer / novelist you might want to spellcheck your sig. :) " - AC
Re:Time Spent by dufke · 2003-09-09 03:09 · Score: 1

If you are generating PC forms, then Delphi / Kylix has to be the way to go

Did i miss some critical development, or does Delphi still require you to write in Pascal...?

(Not much worse than Basic though I suppose...)

Hmm. No time like now to take up Python again. Now there's a language! :-)

--
__
Comment submitted. There will be a delay before you understand what you posted.
Re:Time Spent by term8or · 2003-09-09 03:24 · Score: 1

"does Delphi still require you to write in Pascal"
Nope. It requires you to write object pascal. Could be worse. Could be Modula-2;)

"No time like now to take up Python again."
Python's OK as well. As is Java, Perl, C, C++, and the variety of others. All I was saying is that if you want to write in a windows-style tool, you can in linux.

--

"As a writer / novelist you might want to spellcheck your sig. :) " - AC
Re:Time Spent by 10am-bedtime · 2003-09-09 03:43 · Score: 1

what is a "disbursal"? (thanks.)
Re:Time Spent by shadowpuppy · 2003-09-09 05:00 · Score: 1

But Unix is an IDE. It was developed by programmers for programmers. I come accros instances every day where a typical IDE just can't keep up. I've always suspected the root of this complaint is that many programmers are too lazy to learn their way around Unix.
Re:Time Spent by darien · 2003-09-09 05:23 · Score: 1

Jeez!

How can you possibly take this seriously when.. by maharg · 2003-09-09 01:15 · Score: 1, Insightful

it states

Despite the difference in costs, however, the Forrester report also noted that "many organizations will adopt Linux instead of Microsoft's alternative" because of the expertise they have built up on the Unix platform, Sun's proprietary operating systems used to run computer server networks.

Unix, Sun's proprietary operating system ??
computer server networks ??
Come on.

--

$ strings FTP.EXE | grep Copyright
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.

Re:How can you possibly take this seriously when.. by MoonFog · 2003-09-09 01:23 · Score: 1

Unix, Sun's proprietary operating system ??

Quick, someone change it before SCO sees it..

Full text of the Giga Group report? by mforbes · 2003-09-09 01:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

The Yahoo article doesn't link to it; without seeing the details I'm hesitant to fully swallow any synopsis.

I don't find it unbelievable that some tasks are less expensive to produce under MS products than under Linux, but unless the report indicates other reasons, I'm inclined to believe the difference is due to the trained user-base.

The article does say they interviewed twelve firms (hardly a statistically significant amount), seven of which use Windows & five of which use *nix. I'd be curious to know the sizes of the firms involved and the level of training of the personnel in each of them.

In other words, my question is: Is all else equal? I suspect not.

--

Allegedly real newspaper headline from 1998:
Man Struck by Lightning Faces Battery Charge

Re:Full text of the Giga Group report? by Geek+of+Tech · 2003-09-09 01:50 · Score: 3, Funny

And in other news, a recent study has shown that end-users can play solitare more efficently on Windows XP with .NET.
A survey was conducted with 6 people, 5 Windows users and 1 Linux user, who only knew how to play blackjack. The MS users won more games, all totaled. Proof of MS credibility.

--
Stop the Slashdot effect! Don't read the articles!

Long term costs of windows by CastrTroy · 2003-09-09 01:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

When analysing the cost differences of Windows and Linux, the main advantage to windows always seems to be that little to no training is required, while on the other hand, Linux requires lots of training, with Expensive Admins. However, In the long term, if many companies and schools started using Linux, these cost would come down, as many more people would have experience and require less training. Also the number of qualified people would increase, making the salaries of qualified Linux admins go down.

--

Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.

Re: Long term costs of windows by Black+Parrot · 2003-09-09 01:55 · Score: 2, Funny

> When analysing the cost differences of Windows and Linux, the main advantage to windows always seems to be that little to no training is required ...until the next version comes out, at which point you pack your entire stff off to week-long training seminars.

> while on the other hand, Linux requires lots of training, with Expensive Admins.

Do you include the price of cleaning up SoBig.[FGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ] in that expense?

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re:Long term costs of windows by pmz · 2003-09-09 02:26 · Score: 1

the main advantage to windows always seems to be that little to no training is required

No matter how often this is cited, it will always be wrong. Windows is very complex; however, Microsoft has successfully brainwashed the masses to think otherwise.

For example, how does a person successfully troubleshoot Windows? Saying "I don't know, try rebooting" is not a valid answer.

--
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
Re:Long term costs of windows by wasabii · 2003-09-09 02:31 · Score: 1

As an admin, admining a lot of Windows desktops and servers, let me tell you 'I don't know, try rebooting" *IS* a totally valid answer, and one I hear, and have even suggested many times. There are things Windows does, that cannot be explained by common sense alone. Rebooting tends to be the easiest way to fix them. Example: Clean w2k install on a server. First reboot. Go to Windows update, IE pops up. Hit Scan. Javascript error: Object does not have property (or something like that). Uh.... close IE, try again... same problem. Log off, log on, same problem. Windows update, is breaking???!?! This is a cleanly formatted machine! It's not even on a domain yet, and has NO software installed. This is the second time it has been booted?!?! Reboot: problem fixed. I have stuff like the above happen on my windows boxes ALL THE TIME, in one form or another. Some app mysteriously fails, leaves no trace, doesn't log. A reboot is the only way to solve it! Hence, I dont know, try rebooting, is a perfectly valid answer for a Windows admin.
Re:Long term costs of windows by MisterP · 2003-09-09 03:02 · Score: 1

Why does this seem to be the common perception? In my opinion, it's false.

Becoming a competent unix admin takes essentially the same amount of training and experience as becoming a competent Windows admin. The reason why Windows admins are cheaper is because by and large they are way less experienced and there is a whole lot more of them simply due to the ubiquity of the Windows OS.

An experienced and competent Windows admin is probably more rare and expensive than an equivalent unix administrator. I'm going to go as far as to say that in my 11 years as a sysadmin (working for gov't and a large telco), I have yet to meet a "Windows Guru". It seems as though once a person reaches a state where they have a fairly good grasp of the underpinnings of the Windows OS, they realize how clunky and mysterious it is and instead go down the unix admin path.

From my experience, once you have a decent basic unix skill set and know how to use some of the basic tools, learning how to do more advanced things on unix is far easier than MS Windows.
Re:Long term costs of windows by pmz · 2003-09-09 03:17 · Score: 1

This is the second time it has been booted?!?! Reboot: problem fixed.

This is just more evidence that Windows is a POS. I still think "reboot" is not a valid response. It is an admission of failure for both the admin and the people who chose to purchase Microsoft products in the first place. It is also an admission that Microsoft lies to their customers each time they use words like "innovation" and "more with less" (god those commercials make me ill).

--
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
Re:Long term costs of windows by RHIC · 2003-09-09 06:00 · Score: 1

The problem with your argument is that companies really don't care that in X years, it may be cheaper to develop on Linux. They care how much it costs to develop now.

If, in the future, Linux does become cheaper to develop on, then no-doubt companies will start developing on it. However, since it is not known when, or even if this will happen, it would be financially unwise to begin planning, let alone implementing a move to developing for Linux for those currently developing on Windows.
Re:Long term costs of windows by mpe · 2003-09-09 07:06 · Score: 1

Windows is very complex; however, Microsoft has successfully brainwashed the masses to think otherwise.

Through a combination of marketing and what appears, at first sight, to be a simple interface.

For example, how does a person successfully troubleshoot Windows? Saying "I don't know, try rebooting" is not a valid answer.

Very few people know how to actually troubleshoot Windows. Understanding what is actually going on just dosn't appear to be part of the "Windows culture". A culture which can quite often come across as anti-sysadmin.
Re:Long term costs of windows by mpe · 2003-09-09 07:23 · Score: 1

As an admin, admining a lot of Windows desktops and servers, let me tell you 'I don't know, try rebooting" *IS* a totally valid answer, and one I hear, and have even suggested many times. There are things Windows does, that cannot be explained by common sense alone. Rebooting tends to be the easiest way to fix them.

Which should hardly inspire confidence to use it for anything remotly critical...

Some app mysteriously fails, leaves no trace, doesn't log. A reboot is the only way to solve it! Hence, I dont know, try rebooting, is a perfectly valid answer for a Windows admin.

Yet the phrase "Windows Wizard" never appears to have caught on. Even though it makes more sense than "Unix Wizard".
Re:Long term costs of windows by mpe · 2003-09-09 07:30 · Score: 1

From my experience, once you have a decent basic unix skill set and know how to use some of the basic tools, learning how to do more advanced things on unix is far easier than MS Windows.

With unix quite a bit of the "hard stuff" comes at the beginning. With Windows the hard stuff tends to come after people think they know what's happening. One "learning curve" is of the form y=x^(1/n) the other of the form y=x^n.
Re:Long term costs of windows by Olathe · 2003-09-09 09:42 · Score: 1

What is a good way of learning enough to be a "Windows Guru" ? I'd like to be able to figure out problems that people I know (who all use Windows and aren't likely to switch) have in using their computers, even if I don't plan on using Windows myself.

Are there any recommended websites, books, or courses ?
Re:Long term costs of windows by mattite · 2003-09-09 12:34 · Score: 1

How much training is necessary to ignore updates, let your server die, then blame hackers (on a machine not even connected to the net)? I'd hire one good linux admin over 20 MCSEs any day. Yes, I'm bitter!

Possibly true, if they are comparing RAD by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-09 01:15 · Score: 2, Informative

to a well organized J2EE framework and good development practices. My guess is they compared a development process that has no formal design phase and everthing is designed on the fly without any real thought to extensibility or maitainability. Absolutely .NET will be cheaper, but it also means you have to rebuild 85% of it the next time you need to add a significant feature.

There needs to be an organization that establishes a set of standards about how these kinds of comparisons are made with a detailed list of what needs to be disclosed in the report. Similar to how TPC defines what has to be disclosed for a benchmark to be valid. It's about time the industry come up with a solid set of standards on how these things are measured.

Re:Possibly true, if they are comparing RAD by the-matt-mobile · 2003-09-09 03:45 · Score: 1

My guess is they compared a development process that has no formal design phase and everthing is designed on the fly without any real thought to extensibility or maitainability

So you mean they did this study in the real world instead of in a classroom?

maybe it is cheaper to develop M$ apps by jlemmerer · 2003-09-09 01:16 · Score: 2

... in the beginning, since the linux sourcebase is huuuuuuuge, and imho it is easier to use just a few predefined interfaces that to understand the code and to actually interface with it. but in the end, i think linux si more desireable for

a. they don't switch interfaces and so on a routine basis, linux evolves but largely keeps its backward compability, whereas microsoft sometimes changed their interfaces at will and even dropped support for them
and

b. it is better to understand the whole foundation you build on (or the part of the foundation) instead of blindly trusting foreign interfaces.

isn't that the main reason so many security bugs are found in windows applications? how can i program a secure app when i don't know what the underlying classes do (i don't get to see their source). What do you think of that?

--
".Sig Stealer" was here

Re: maybe it is cheaper to develop M$ apps by Black+Parrot · 2003-09-09 02:03 · Score: 1

> maybe it is cheaper to develop M$ apps

"In a recent survey, 99 virus writers out of 100 said they found it easier to develop for MS applications."

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade

Apples to Oranges But It is a real fact by codepunk · 2003-09-09 01:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

J2EE development is slow and cumbersome and it is no suprise to me that .NET whatever that is beat the pants off of it for development efficiency. But considering that the .NET stuff will not run on anything other than windows it is a dead end road. Now do the same study using php against .NET and the tables get tipped drastically.

--

Got Code?

Re:Apples to Oranges But It is a real fact by asb · 2003-09-09 01:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

Duh, did all the PHP fanboys just moderate the parent up to +4 Insightful? Get a life...

.NET and J2EE are more than just ASP and JSP. Comparing PHP to them is way more stupid than what Giga Research group had to do in order make the /. front page...

--
Antti S. Brax - Old school - http://www.iki.fi/asb/
Re:Apples to Oranges But It is a real fact by Decaff · 2003-09-09 01:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

J2EE development may seem slow, but this is because you are expected to do some serious analysis of a project and write scalable portable code: The time spent is a worthwhile investment. Comparing MS products with something like J2EE is rather like comparing Access to Oracle - you can write apps very quickly with the former, but you would not want to run a business with it.
Re:Apples to Oranges But It is a real fact by BFKrew · 2003-09-09 02:10 · Score: 2, Informative

I used to develop on J2EE and now develop for C# and ASP.NET and think both are very impressive patforms. Apart from one only running on Windows, there's little to choose between them and the only reason I prefer .Net is simply becuase I prefer the development tools for it but I certainly cannot say a bad word about Java. I am amazed you think it's slow and cumbersome, but that is more likely that you do not like or understand OOP.

However, what both J2EE and .NET are able to do far, far outstrips what you can do with PHP. We can argue the details, but with J2EE/.NET you are able to scale from small websites with limited functionality right up to sites running on many app servers, database servers, you name it - they are both Enterprise level systems.

What you can also do with both J2EE and .NET is cross train far more easily between making web and desktop based apps - again something you cannot do in PHP. For example, load up Visual Studio.NET and I guarantee that ANY ASP.NET programmer will be able to make desktop apps very quick, and the same for Java.

I will be very surprised if .NET doesn't end up on most desktops, to say it's a dead end is frankly plain stupid. I guess you've never done a stroke or work on the framework otherwise you'd be able to understand why those who have used it think it is probably the best thing MS have done for a long while.

I don't dislike PHP at all, it has it's uses, but put simply, it's not in the same league as .NET or J2EE. I really suggest you have a look at both products, get hold of Visual Age for Java or Visual Studio, get a book on OOP and don't look back! :)
Re:Apples to Oranges But It is a real fact by codepunk · 2003-09-09 03:23 · Score: 1

Yea I don't understand OOP, get a life look me up on google and make that claim again. I work in the real world where development speed rules. For quick and dirty and just works PHP will smoke the pants off of both of those environments. Now leave me alone one of my linux boxes is trying to relay mail through a exchange server and suddenly exchange quit working today.

--

Got Code?
Re:Apples to Oranges But It is a real fact by BFKrew · 2003-09-09 03:35 · Score: 1

If you're talking dirty and quick, maybe for smaller projects that's fine but as soon as you start developing larger projects and start needing server farms, PHP just doesn't cut it, and when your boss asks for more features and you need to scale you're in trouble.

Quick and dirty may be fine for you, but for anything other than that, PHP is just not a patch on J2EE or .Net.
Re:Apples to Oranges But It is a real fact by Jord · 2003-09-09 04:38 · Score: 1

I must agree with the other posters. I actually took a moment and did a google search and looked at your website. My response? So what. Your page looks "pretty" but does nothing to support your claims. PHP while great for little websites is NOT in the same league, hell even the same game, as J2EE and .NET.
Personally I cannot stand .NET and the fact that it only runs on Windows is an absolute killer "in the real world" since all of the big businesses I deal with run Unix in their server rooms.
PHP is great for the hobbyist but when it is time for large projects it just doesn't cut it.

--
seSales, Point of Sale software for OS X.
Re:Apples to Oranges But It is a real fact by TheLink · 2003-09-09 05:27 · Score: 1

Which of these sites run J2EE or .Net:

Yahoo, Hotmail, Ebay, google, imdb? How many users per how many servers?

Some guy gave me a pitch on how BLAHBLAH developer was scalable. I told him, ok tell me how scalable it is - how many users, how much hardware how much money? Just ball park no need for exact figures (just want to see if it was O(N) or N^2). Never got back to me.

There's so much bullshit about scalability. Sure if you throw enough money at it you can scale.

Sometimes a solution needs a server farm rather prematurely ;).
--
- Too many replies beneath your current threshold
Re:Apples to Oranges But It is a real fact by BFKrew · 2003-09-09 05:53 · Score: 1

I wouldn't disagree with you about bullshit, I've seen many instances where someone says you have to have a farm or whatever and I have managed to not have to use one. However, that it because I spend time planning the coding strategy, planning the resources, optimising the code and I find this alone will save significant amounts of money in both the hardware needed and coding time.

I disagree though that scability is bullshit - it isn't and once you work on a project and you get to the part where you need to scale up, you going to stuggle with PHP and that's a fact. It's great to a certain level, but once you hit that level where you need to scale you'll be sorry that you didn't choose a platform - Java or .NET - that can't handle the extra work. You may have a bad story about ONE pitch, but you will find many more people who simply find that a combination of OOP, design patterns, scalability etc just makes it very difficult to ignore when up against something like PHP.

You talk of 'throwing money' at the problem, you're right of course, but I will gurantee that either .NET or J2EE will be cheaper in the longer term.

Why? Here's a few reasons:

1. J2EE and .NET are designed to handle projects from 20 page sites up to 20,000,000 pages sites by simply adding new servers etc.

2. By adhering to a OO philoshophy it allows systems designers to take a 'higher level' view of the project, and employ tested patterns. PHP means you get bogged down in the implementation detail quite early on.

3. When you start building bigger teams of developers and bringing in new staff, the OO philosophy is understood and it's easier to explain and understand the models.

There are more reasons of course.
Re:Apples to Oranges But It is a real fact by TheLink · 2003-09-10 01:29 · Score: 1

I don't use PHP (I think its design encourages insecure programming). I use fastcgi and perl, or modperl (fastcgi seems cleaner).

Just pointing out that the really large sites typically don't use .NET or J2EE.

Also if you have an RDBMS that scales and you use it in a db backed webapp then you can easily scale webapps by adding webservers. Some judicious caching and decent design will help reduce the load on the RDBMS.

BTW what do you mean by 20,000,000 page sites? If that's hits/day then that's only 230 hits/sec. Almost any decent webapp on a _single_ low-mid end x86 server can do that. With a machine 4x faster (with RAID 10) than one of my _home_ PCs, I'll have enough headroom for the burst periods.

If it's 20M pages on one server, but it doesn't need to serve up many hits, that's even easier.

But if it's 20M pages a sec... Let's see your 160Gbit/s internet connection first ;) (assuming small 1K pages).
--
- Too many replies beneath your current threshold
Re:Apples to Oranges But It is a real fact by BFKrew · 2003-09-10 01:54 · Score: 1

I have seen many large site that use J2EE and can dig out some examples for you. I agree that there are a lot of big sites that don't use .NET or J2EE but there are a lot more large 'smaller' ones that do use J2EE and, to a lesser degree, .NET mainly becuase the tech is still maturing. When I get a little time I can point you to them, but I am tad busy in work at the moment ;)

With regards to the site, it was just an example that because the technology is built from the ground up to scale you won't have any problems from a basic site to a full scale, highly interactive, database driven site! :) PHP won't and once you get to a certain level, the technology doesn't scale in that extra developers who come in have to understand your PHP methodology whereas in a more OO style it is a lot easier to understand in my opinion. A C#/Java programmer will understand the UML diagrams and theory behind the designs whereas in PHP it is not so easy to define the design as clearly.

Of course, a major benefit of using J2EE/.Net is that a class of business logic can be easily reused on the desktop to the website really easily. Try that in PHP and it becomes a problem.

You make a lot of good, interesting and valid points though.

Microsoft Advocating there Software by ExEleven · 2003-09-09 01:18 · Score: 1

Who would have thought?

what were the projects? by Dan+Ost · 2003-09-09 01:20 · Score: 2, Interesting

Has anyone seen the report?

I'd like to know what the 12 projects were that were being compared to
see if the comparisons make sense.

Is there any chance at all that this is an actual apples to apples
comparison?

--

*sigh* back to work...

Its expensive to write applications for linux. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-09 01:20 · Score: 1, Informative

When using the Q-Toolkit. The commerical licence costs $1,500 per developer. Multiply that by a team of 20 developers and thats $30,000! Thats enough money to employ at least another 3 developers. The GTK+ toolkit may be cheaper, but it lacks a lot of features such as the C++ superset that Qt uses and the lack of the more powerful widgets such as Databases, Advanced File selection dialogs. So you have a choice, you either pay through the nose for the Qtoolkit, Use the less advanced GTK+, or write your own, which will be more expensive anyway.

Devil's advocate. by Ride-My-Rocket · 2003-09-09 01:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

Ok, let's assume that within this select subset of applications, developing for Windows is 25-28% cheaper than for Linux per application. There's also the underlying operating system to consider. Windows, for whatever reason -- inherent security flaws or merely higher visibility / threat risk, I don't care -- is more likely to be attacked and infected by worms and viruses. As a result, the cost of maintaining applications and the operating system is higher. I'm fairly certain such a cost isn't factored into the study, and I'm fairly certain it's a considerable amount -- trying to keep things secured in my company's 250-user environment is hard enough.

Biases by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-09 01:21 · Score: 1

A baised study by a company being critiqued by a biased "news" site with an agenda.

Yeah, news for zealots. Stuff that doesn't matter.

Re:This has to be by wazzzup · 2003-09-09 01:22 · Score: 2, Funny

Actually, this is the worst news ever.

10.3 Beats 10.2 In Head To Head Competition

Mmm...Funding by Angram · 2003-09-09 01:24 · Score: 1

Who do you think funded the studies that say that chocolate is healthy? M&M Mars, of course - they've got deep pockets and can gain from the results. While it's possible they influenced the findings, it's also likely they were the only people who would fund such a project.

Privately-funded research comes from those who have something at stake. It can taint a paper, but it can also be groundbreaking. Wait until a major discovered paid for by an involved party has been verified by someone else before you believe or disbelieve it.

--

GL

This isn't totally off base by rnd() · 2003-09-09 01:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

If you consider the productivity gained by using an IDE such as Visual Studio .NET 2003.

You have intellesense statement completion, automatic code formatting and highlighting, and intelligent help that will pull full documentation on any statement you are typing with one click.

You also benefit from languages like VB.NET and C#, which are very high level and make it easy to write conceptually clear and error-free code.

It makes it possible to become comfortable with a new object model without having to flip though documentation or constantly search the web. You'd be surprised how fast and simple it is to create relatively sophisticated apps that perform pretty darn well.

--

Amazing magic tricks

Re:This isn't totally off base by javatips · 2003-09-09 02:00 · Score: 3, Informative

If you consider the productivity gained by using an IDE such as Visual Studio .NET 2003.

You have intellesense statement completion, automatic code formatting and highlighting, and intelligent help that will pull full documentation on any statement you are typing with one click.

You have the same thing with Java IDE such as Eclipse (free) or WSAD ($$$) or JBuilder ($$$). The Java IDE that cost $$$ will have the additional benefit of having wizards and views that speed up the creation and configuration of EJBs and other J2EE stuff (Eclipse has some of these too, but they still have a some way to go).
Re:This isn't totally off base by BFKrew · 2003-09-09 02:14 · Score: 1

I'd add Visual Age for Java to that list. In my experience it is quite impressive but I do agree with the parent poster that using Visual Studio to build apps just makes it far easier to build, do RAD and you're also more likely to find people in the marketplace who will be able to come in and understand the original work.
Re:This isn't totally off base by pmz · 2003-09-09 02:31 · Score: 1

You have intellesense statement completion, automatic code formatting and highlighting, and intelligent help that will pull full documentation on any statement you are typing with one click.

This sounds extremely annoying. What does a person do when they just want to type? Do they have to spend lots of time to figure out each widget to disable to get back to a real development environment? Or, do they just open up Emacs, instead?

--
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
Re:This isn't totally off base by poot_rootbeer · 2003-09-09 03:25 · Score: 2, Funny

[re: Visual Studio] You have intellesense statement completion, automatic code formatting and highlighting, and intelligent help that will pull full documentation on any statement you are typing with one click.

So?

EMACS has all these things too, plus it will make coffee for you!
Re:This isn't totally off base by SToN3MoNK · 2003-09-09 03:38 · Score: 1

well, quite honestly, aside from these "features" which are implemented in other software and was indeed done a long time before MS, I prefer not to use them.. I can guarentee that I can code faster using good old Vi, than a well seasoned windows programmer can in VS... on another note, I have been working on a C application, intended to be platform independent.. so I wrote 2 GUI's one in GTK, and one with the windows SDK.. having no experience with either, i found that the gtk interface took me 2 weeks, while the windows interface took me 5.5 weeks!! I could also mention i didnt use glade, and had an equal amount of resources(books) on each --
Re:This isn't totally off base by ProtonMotiveForce · 2003-09-09 07:47 · Score: 1

Right on. I've recently been working on a Java->C++ product that needs to run on both Windows and Unix. It's fairly OS intensive (e.g. stuff like piping to processes, impersonation, etc...).

Windows is _so_ much easier to develop in. The API is much richer, .NET kicks ass (picture .NET remoting in C++ - no dealing with crappy ass stubs/skeletons, you just develop an object and extend a specific class, and blam - it's remotable). The development tools are so much cleaner and powerful.

It's not close. This is one of the reasons Windows dominates the desktop and holds its own in the server arena - the development environment is so much better.

I know Unix developers who still use Emacs and Gvim, and claim they don't want all that fancy auto-completion, integrated help, etc... In fact, I'm reduced to doing this when I develop Unix code with g++. It sucks. It's god-damned primitive.
Re:This isn't totally off base by rnd() · 2003-09-09 09:19 · Score: 1

It doesn't interfere with typing... if you want to type the rest of the characters (after completion) you can... or, if you want to save time you can hit tab.

--
Amazing magic tricks
Re:This isn't totally off base by rnd() · 2003-09-09 09:21 · Score: 1

How do you turn those features on in Emacs? Does Xemacs have them?

--
Amazing magic tricks
Re:This isn't totally off base by rnd() · 2003-09-09 09:26 · Score: 1

Did you use windows forms and .net to write the windows UI? If not, try that and I bet you'll be able to do it in 1 week (download the 60 day trial of visual studio .net 2003).

Also, you may be an expert who would be roughly as productive with vi as with a more sophisticated editor. You may also cost twice as much as a more novice programmer who could be 75% as efficient as you for 50% the cost. That's where the cost savings comes into play.

--
Amazing magic tricks
Re:This isn't totally off base by James+Lanfear · 2003-09-09 10:16 · Score: 1

JDE.
Re:This isn't totally off base by DunbarTheInept · 2003-09-09 10:34 · Score: 1

I'd consider an IDE if any of them understood that keybindings should be re-mappable. I absolutely love using gvim as a text editor, because none of the more modern ones are as powerful (except maybe Emacs) at the tast of editing text. While the IDE's give me bonuses in terms of language-aware editing (tab-completing function calls, indent fixing, and so on), they take away my ability to edit text lightning fast without resorting to the mouse or even the arrow keys (which, though much more intuative to learn than hjkl, are much slower to actually use than hjkl.) About the only "lose" that vi has in the text editing department for me is that it only makes sense on a QWERTY keyboard. I don't try Dvorak only because it would move the hjkl keys and thus make vi really painful to deal with.

If someone would invent an IDE that would use vi keys in the text editor, I'd take notice.

When I'm entering code, I'm too busy thinking to waste time trying to search for the home row over and over and over because my right hand has to keep leaving it's spot on the keyboard to use the allegedly "easier" arrow keys, pgup, pgdown, ins/del, and the mouse.

--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Re:This isn't totally off base by theCoder · 2003-09-09 14:59 · Score: 1

It's not exactly the same, but (x)emacs does have a form of intellisense. Start typing the variable or function name and press Meta+/ (probably Alt+/ on x86 machines? I usually use emacs on Suns) It's not as smart as true intellisense in other IDEs, but it does a remarkably good job. All it does is look around in your other buffers for ways to complete what you've typed, based on the idea that what you've typed has probably been typed before. I know I use it all the time when I'm coding at work, and I've found it very useful. Not as helpful for those who don't know the object model (where ture intellisense really helps), but I'd be surprised if Microsoft's intellisense didn't choke on my project's baseline anyway (their IDE sure does -- thank goodness for Cygwin).

Emacs is actually a pretty versitile environment and can do a lot of neat things for you. Of course, for quick text editing, vi still reigns supreme for me :)

--
"Save the whales, feed the hungry, free the mallocs" -- author unknown

It's J2EE, not Linux by consumer · 2003-09-09 01:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

This article really has nothing to do with Linux. It's about J2EE vs. .NET. No surprise that J2EE is expensive. The best Java developers on Linux use much better tools than J2EE and EJBs. A good open source stack with Struts, Velocity, and Hibernate will beat the stuffing out of straight J2EE for productivity. Of course there is also the fact that lots of web development on Linux is done in much more productive languages, like Perl, Python, and PHP. Amazon and Yahoo (on FreeBSD) do it, so it's probably good enough for your lame little site too.

Re:It's J2EE, not Linux by Decaff · 2003-09-09 01:44 · Score: 2, Informative

You are confusing J2EE and EJBs (Entity Java Beans). Struts, Velocity and Hibernate are J2EE. Anyone who uses JSP or servlets is using J2EE - EJBs are only one aspect of J2EE. Many of the features of EJBs are now superceded by JDO (Java Data Objects) - an object/relational layer that makes database interfacing hugely faster and more scalable and more portable than with PHP/Perl etc.

A better test would be .Net vs J2EE/JDO.
Re:It's J2EE, not Linux by LarsWestergren · 2003-09-09 02:10 · Score: 2, Interesting

Of course there is also the fact that lots of web development on Linux is done in much more productive languages, like Perl, Python, and PHP. Amazon and Yahoo (on FreeBSD) do it, so it's probably good enough for your lame little site too.

I can't find the post now, but on a recent thread on Slashdot someone made a pretty convincing argument that the oft repeated claim that Amazon have built their site on Perl/PHP is a misunderstanding based on someone seeing that Amazon were looking for Perl programmers. A small part of their site uses scripts, but most of the content and presentation is actually managed by JSP/Servlets/EJB.

I believe you are right when it comes to Yahoo though, they had a big power point-ish presentation somewhere explaining the different choices they had, why they went with PHP and the problems and benefits they had come up with.

Me, I like Java best, but as long as I'm not forced to use .Net... I'm sure its easy and powerful, but its a complete ripoff of J2EE. Plus, I hated being locked into Windows with no alternative, I don't want it repeated with .Net.

--
Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die
Re:It's J2EE, not Linux by consumer · 2003-09-09 02:20 · Score: 1

Actually, I know people who work at both Amazon and Yahoo. I am not just making this stuff up. Amazon is running their apparel store and some of their other stuff on Mason, a Perl development framework, and are moving the rest of their site over to it. They also use C/C++. I don't think they use Java for anything you see on the site. Yahoo uses just about every language there is, but the backbone of much of their stuff is written in languages like Perl and Python, with PHP for delivering final templated pages in at least some cases.
Re:It's J2EE, not Linux by consumer · 2003-09-09 02:30 · Score: 1

You are confusing J2EE and EJBs
No I'm not. I'm well aware of the distinctions, but when people do this sort of study they always use EJB since that's what Sun tells them to do.
Struts, Velocity and Hibernate are J2EE.
No they aren't. They are built on top of J2EE concepts like servlets, but they are not part of the J2EE spec.
Anyone who uses JSP or servlets is using J2EE
Yes. Servlets are unavoidable, but JSP should be avoided if possible.
Many of the features of EJBs are now superceded by JDO (Java Data Objects)
Yes, but I don't think there's any open source JDO that can compete with Hibernate for performance.
an object/relational layer that makes database interfacing hugely faster and more scalable and more portable than with PHP/Perl etc.
Now you're just talking out of ignorance. Have you done serious development with PHP and Perl? Do you have any idea what O/R tools are available for Perl? I do. And O/R tools are typically about productivity and abstraction, not scalability. Those myths that companies like Toplink tried to sell us about how their magical caching layer would do everything an RDBMS have not panned out. Simple caching works though, and is just as easy to do in Perl or PHP as it is in Java.
Re:It's J2EE, not Linux by aschlemm · 2003-09-09 06:08 · Score: 1

Get your terms straight...EJB = Enterprise Java Beans

There are 3 types of EJBs

1) Entity
2) Session
3) Message-driven

I did a fair amount of development with JBoss doing some EJBs using CMP (Container Managed Persistence) and with a tool like XDoclet which generated the boilerplate stuff like interfaces and XML Deployment Descriptors it was a huge timesaver.
Re:It's J2EE, not Linux by Sivaram_Velauthapill · 2003-09-09 06:51 · Score: 1

How dare you call my site lame?

;)

Sivaram Velauthapillai

--
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
Re:It's J2EE, not Linux by LarsWestergren · 2003-09-09 18:28 · Score: 1

Interesting! Thanks for the info...

--
Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die

i stopped reading that article ... by superfast-scooter · 2003-09-09 01:24 · Score: 1

the moment i saw the study was funded by MS.

Story write up by torqer · 2003-09-09 01:25 · Score: 1

So if the study is funded by MS it's hardly an "indepent research firm" as the writeup indicates. I like that way of thinking. I'm going to start a non-profit organization, but the donations that I receive are going straight into my pocket.

Re:Story write up by grahamdrew · 2003-09-09 01:53 · Score: 1

Actually, the article doesn't say the study is independent at all. They come right out and say that it was paid for by Microsoft. I think the independent thing was (incorrectly) added by the submitter. And actually, coming up with a non profit organization and putting all the cash directly into your salary works, in some cases. Your company posts no profits whatsoever. Personally, you're a bit better off....

--
// Dumps core here

They could be right. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-09 01:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

I know I'll get modded down for saying anything positive about MS but here goes:

It's not absolutely damning that MS paid for the study. After all who else would pay. But of course the study would not have been released if it were not positive for MS. Still neither of these makes neccessarily untrue or biased.

And its not unreasonable to believe it could be true. MS does make good development tools. And even just a few days ago there was a slashdot post lamenting the sad state of Java. It really could use a third re-do to streamiline it to a sensible coherent set. After all JAVA or as it was called "OAK" was developed to be an embedded OS for appliances. It of course became much more. And it its underlying fundmentlas and syntax were a much needed re-write of C++ (no damn *pointers and &other crap, garbage collection, better OO tools at a lower level). .NET is infact an even fresher page, intedned form the start to be an internet enabled approach to the net that embraces many different languages as well, including the java reduc C#.

MS visula studio series may noit be the best tools but they are good tools and present a multi-language interface to programming.

Finally, it is quite obvious that stupid people find it easier to program in Windows. This is not true on linux. Linux requires knowing a lot of intricate details and knowledge of unstable APIs written by other people and not maintained in a consistent or even perfectly protable format.

Re:They could be right. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-09 01:35 · Score: 3, Funny

Finally, it is quite obvious that stupid people find it easier to program in Windows. This is not true on linux.

Wow. I guess ignorant, inconsiderate jerks are on both sides though.
Re:They could be right. by molarmass192 · 2003-09-09 01:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

Finally, it is quite obvious that stupid people find it easier to program in Windows. This is not true on linux. Linux requires knowing a lot of intricate details and knowledge of ...

Right, but this is irrelevant in Java. Also, Java suffers from history hangover. It had some growing pains but most of those have long since been corrected. Also, MS seems to have a penchant for comparing unoptimized Java code with highly optimized C# code, hardly unbiased. Finally, with Java 1.5 due out in early 2004, current comparisons between .NET and Java will all become dated. I'm not particularly worried about .NET but Microsoft appears to be particularly worried about Java.

--

Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
Re:They could be right. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-09 02:03 · Score: 1, Insightful

Finally, with Java 1.5 due out in early 2004, current comparisons between .NET and Java will all become dated.

And won't the comparison between Java 1.5 and .NET whatever be dated by the next release of .NET that's due to come out real soon now? You don't do Java any favors by saying that the next release will be better so save your comparisons for 6 months from now (which is more like twelve to 18 given that release dates are always given in dog-years.)

For a business choosing a platform today, the comparison is valid. Are you proposing that they start coding in Java 1.4 and hope that all the problems are fixed with Java 1.5? It seems more likely that Java will still have problems, just as .NET will still have problems.
Re:They could be right. by watzinaneihm · 2003-09-09 02:39 · Score: 1

Funny, I find the exact opposite to be true.
Visual studio I find is a very nice IDE (if you must use an IDE that is ). And I find windows programming to be a pain compared to Linux since I need to constantly refer to the documentation to find out how to do things (okay, I am slightly familiar with what you call "intricate details" in linux if I don't I can always do an "pinfo" on it ). More importantly I hate the fact that windows wont allow you to move even slightly away from what they decide you are allowed to do. Linux on the other hand is a nice mix of smaller pieces I can string together.
Anybody else remember what a pain it was to process multipart/binary in asp sometime ago ? You had to write atleast 30 lines of code to just save a binary that some user had uploaded to a webpage

--
.ACMD setaloiv siht gnidaeR
Re:They could be right. by StressedEd · 2003-09-09 03:33 · Score: 1

...release dates are always given in dog-years.

Te heh hee ;-)

--
Be nice to people on the way up. You will meet them again on your way down!
Re:They could be right. by mormop · 2003-09-09 03:36 · Score: 1

But surely if stupid people were coding on Windows it would crash a lot and have piss poor secur.....

Oh yeah, see what you mean

--
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
Re:They could be right. by alexo · 2003-09-09 04:09 · Score: 1

> Finally, it is quite obvious that stupid people find it easier to program in Windows. This is not true on linux. Linux requires knowing a lot of intricate details and knowledge of unstable APIs written by other people and not maintained in a consistent or even perfectly protable format.

It is quite obvious that stupid people find it easier to program in C. This is not true on Assembly. Assembly requires knowing a lot of intricate details...
Re:They could be right. by GeckoX · 2003-09-09 04:50 · Score: 1

If there is a specific case in this study where you can say that they are comparing unoptomized java code with highly optimized .NET code, then please prove so. Otherwise, you are being a hypocrite.

--
No Comment.
Re:They could be right. by GeckoX · 2003-09-09 04:54 · Score: 1

More importantly I hate the fact that windows wont allow you to move even slightly away from what they decide you are allowed to do.

First, are you talking windows, or .NET. You should be talking .NET based on the context of this thread.

So, assuming you are talking .NET, well, you're plain and simply wrong. One of the beauties of .NET is that you can do anything you want with it. Don't like the behavior of a system class? Doesn't let you do something you'd like to? Then override the implementation and do your worst. It's just that easy.

--
No Comment.
Re:They could be right. by mpe · 2003-09-09 06:34 · Score: 1

More importantly I hate the fact that windows wont allow you to move even slightly away from what they decide you are allowed to do. Linux on the other hand is a nice mix of smaller pieces I can string together.

Thus you close something which Windows allows you to do easily for such a comparison. Which may or may not be something you need to do...
Re:They could be right. by ConceptJunkie · 2003-09-09 07:06 · Score: 1

THat only means stupid people WRITE Windows... there are plenty of smart people who use Windows... /. bigotry notwithstanding.

--
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Re:They could be right. by Tony-A · 2003-09-09 09:23 · Score: 1

Finally, it is quite obvious that stupid people find it easier to program in Windows.
Mash a button. Out pops a program. Very simple and easy, actually. Getting a program that does what you want, however, is an entirely different kettle of fish.

Linux requires knowing a lot of intricate details and knowledge of unstable APIs written by other people and not maintained in a consistent or even perfectly protable format.
Windows requires knowing a lot of intricate details and knowledge of unstable and undocumented APIs written by unknown other people. The state of its maintenance is unknown but it is most likely safe to assume that it is neither consistent and we can be sure that it's not in a perfectly portable format. (portable to what?)

Despite being (intentionally?) intimidating, Linux (or any unix) is easier to use, more forgiving, and less error prone than Microsoft Windows.
Re:They could be right. by tyler_larson · 2003-09-09 09:57 · Score: 1

It's not absolutely damning that MS paid for the study.
Not damning, telling. Companies all over (e.g. IBM) have been doing their own studies in order determine whether or not switching to Linux is a cost-effective solution. And their results have shown that Linux is worth the investment. The article hints at this indirectly, noting that Linux is gaining ground rapidly.

--
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea...."
RFC 1925
Re:They could be right. by mormop · 2003-09-09 22:39 · Score: 1

I know but I couldn't resist a dig ;)

--
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.

My study shows by krray · 2003-09-09 01:28 · Score: 1, Insightful

My study, funded by me, has shown that Windows is the most expensive to maintain (patch, patch, reboot, patch, reboot) and use.

Thank you Microsoft: for security reasons it was determined here that at NO TIME will _any_ operating system gain 100% penetration to the desktops. The datacenter already runs a mix of Linux, BSD, and Netware...

Since the changes started we've rolled Linux out to some people and OS X to others (OS X is my preferred GUI of choice :). Amazing that IT isn't running around chasing their tails with these new systems like they do with the Windows boxes. Help desk calls for the operating system causing another stupid error and confusing the end user have dropped off. It's more than obvious that those users without Windows have increased productivity. Amazing.

The catch! by agwis · 2003-09-09 01:28 · Score: 2, Interesting

"Here is a study done by an independent research firm which claims that under certain circumstances, it is cheaper to develop applications and enterprise solutions for Windows than for Linux."

I had to go back and read this. What do you suppose are the certain cirucumstances? Is it when you have a room full of developers all clinging onto their copy of Visual Studio and sitting in front of a linux box?

I wish they had elaborated on this somewhat. I've been seriously trying to figure out for the last few minutes how I could develop cheaper on Windows and I cannot come up with one idea!

One word by gosand · 2003-09-09 01:28 · Score: 1

Munich.

(if you don't get it, search Slashdot for it)

Cheaper (price) isn't always the biggest benefit either. However, I think it is safe to say that Windows will never be "more free" than Linux.

--

My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

Not hard for me to believe. by chrysrobyn · 2003-09-09 01:29 · Score: 3, Interesting

Here is a study done by an independent research firm which claims that under certain circumstances, it is cheaper to develop applications and enterprise solutions for Windows than for Linux.

My initial instinct was that this was a combination of "absurd" and "special case so specific it's mostly useless". But then I started to think of a Slashdot thread from just a few weeks ago about the big worms that started recently...

The thread discussed how much cheaper it was to hire just any person and have [him|her] maintain the "Windows Server". Of course, an affordable admin in many small business cases would be unable to keep such a server patched well enough to fend off all the attacks and the machine would be compromised. The thread continued to say that if you compare a competant Windows admin with a competant *nix admin, not only are the costs similar but so is the security-- but you could have a Windows box up, running and making money with an incompetant admin.

No offense is intended, by the way, in calling such a person an incompetant admin, just that many small businesses can afford neither a service contract nor a full time "real admin", so someone who does not specialize in such tasks part-times it. This is a rare situation with *nix, where the barrier to entry of a steep learning curve usually causes entry admins to be better than Windows (I have no real evidence to back up this assertion, only personal observation). The theory is that a small business can't afford to keep 100% uptime, but can afford to go down for 12-24 hours.

This makes me wonder about programming on Windows in a general case. I can understand how someone can develop a Visual Basic program for cheaper than a C (or whatever) equivalent on Linux. Instead of comparing .NET to J2EE, as the article does, I'd be interested in seeing a problem solved by a beginning application developer in Windows (would (s)he choose Visual Basic?), another in Linux (C/C++ plus GTK or similar?), and then someone experienced on the two platforms solve the same problem and find out where the added costs present benefits. Can we tell the difference in benefits between the two skilled solutions or the two unskilled solutions? What benefits are gained by keeping one platform but redeveloping with a skilled developer?

Re:Not hard for me to believe. by pmz · 2003-09-09 02:36 · Score: 1

No offense is intended, by the way, in calling such a person an incompetant admin...

No one should be offended by what is true.

--
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
Re:Not hard for me to believe. by voss · 2003-09-09 04:15 · Score: 1

Your use of the term "competent" is subjective. If you mean competent as in the person can do his job, and keep his server patched. Then it is easier to find a competent windows administrator. The fact that an admin is part time does not in of itself make them incompetent. They are a "BASIC" admin , they are not a wiz or a pro. Most people who run windows dont need a "wiz" to run the servers...they just need the servers to run and they need people who can simply step in without having to understand someone elses custom setup.

Both Linux and Windows have their place in computing. If windows serves someones needs better then they should use it. If linux serves their needs better than then they should use it.

Cost of _developing_ applications by Woodie · 2003-09-09 01:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

OK -

First, RTFA. It talks about _developing_ applications. It wouldn't really suprise me if it were cheaper to develop applications on Windows.

Visual Studio .NET is a kick-ass development environment. Even the older non-.NET edition is a lot better than most dev tools out there. Sure, it's pretty expensive - but say you're paying programmers $40/hour (ignore benefits, etc) - the fact you just spent $1200 on a development environment is no big deal: less than a 40 hour week of paying said programmer. And, I'm willing to bet he'll save a lot more than a week of effort by using a better tool.

Say what you will about the quality of MS, and how buggy/bloated their software is. It seems to work well enough for a bunch of people out there. Their developer programs are excelent (maybe they need to be to cover up their crappy underpinnings).

In the open source area you might be able to download some open source code, and cobble a system together to do what you want... But I think I remember reading a statistic that said something like 85% of all software written is custom, internal, business software. So you might have a tough time finding something that solves your problem exactly... But since it's open source you can modify it to fit - sometimes; sometimes it's more trouble than it's worth.

With things like Eclipse for Java development in the open source arena the gap should close up in that area too (dev tools) - but don't kid yourself; we've still got a long ways to go.

Re:Cost of _developing_ applications by pmz · 2003-09-09 02:38 · Score: 1

Visual Studio .NET is a kick-ass development environment.

I feel for you man. Ballmer's steel-toe boots hurt like mad.

--
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
Re:Cost of _developing_ applications by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-09 03:54 · Score: 2, Informative

As someone who codes every day in version 6 of Visual Studio, I'd just like to say...
Damn Bill Gates and his buggy, unstable, unpredictable, bloated, non-ANSI IDE to hell!

And spending half the day accounting for Visual Studio's antics isn't my idea of productivity. But then, browsing /. isn't either. So there goes the other half of the day.

Re:Old by PainKilleR-CE · 2003-09-09 01:31 · Score: 1

The link you posted is to a completely different study covering something completely different: cost of administration.

The study in this article is about cost of development of web-based applications.

Frankly, I don't think Linux factors into this study much, since the major cost differences cited are mostly related to J2EE vs .Net rather than Windows vs. Linux. You don't need a lot of OS-specific knowledge to write software in either environment, as long as you know the environment (though, of course, you need to make sure you don't use platform-specific extensions).

--
-PainKilleR-[CE]

Well, I can believe that. by Dog+and+Pony · 2003-09-09 01:32 · Score: 1

The comparison was, as many already ponted out between .NET and J2EE, and then we have this quote from the article:

Forrester said that the main difference in cost was not due to price of the basic software, but rather the price of developing the software, including labor costs.

I don't know much about .NET development, but that J2EE is expensive is without a doubt. Long time to develop, and all those licensed experts that costs a ton. I wouldn't be surprised if MS has better tools too - for those that are used to them. Hate em myself.

So, that choosing .NET might hinder you from piss away as much money as J2EE would, the real question is why anybody would use either? Why don't use something that works, is fast to develop and run, and doesn't need certified "experts" to do a great job? There are plenty of such tools oy there.

This just in... by Cap'n+Canuck · 2003-09-09 01:33 · Score: 1

A study commissioned in Detroit announced that American cars are better than Japanese cars.

That which works by SgtChaireBourne · 2003-09-09 01:35 · Score: 3, Interesting

buying something which works can often be a lot cheaper

Yes, going with something that works reduces the TCO. That's why there is a market for OS X, QNX, and Netware.

From my past few years, I've found that RedHat and SuSe are much easier to maintain than the MS offerings, and installation seems easier and faster. Debian and OS X still lead on ease of maintenance.

--
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.

may be... by GundamFreedom · 2003-09-09 01:37 · Score: 1

Yeah, may be Windows more cheaper than linux in developing game (coz not all graphic card well supported by linux yet), but not in enterprise level. therefore comparing J2EE and .NET is not fair at all ... we can develop J2EE both on linux and windows, and we can use same code ... then the development cost will be equal or less in Linux (you dont need to buy Linux server right ... or buy database 'coz we got PostGreSQL inside distros)

--
./me --G--

My report by thung226 · 2003-09-09 01:37 · Score: 1

My new msft inspired sh*tty pick up line:

I just did a report on myself that says I'm really f*cking good in bed.
Now sleep with me.

--
-n-

Hmmm... by BJH · 2003-09-09 01:38 · Score: 1

because of the expertise they have built up on the Unix (news - web sites) platform, Sun's proprietary operating systems used to run computer server networks.

So UNIX belongs to Sun now? Hmmm... I think Darl's gonna have something to say about this...

platform independence and scope by andyo · 2003-09-09 01:38 · Score: 1

In particular, I'd like to know where those applications were running. Did they allow communications only among systems running Windows? Were they for the LAN (an easier environment to program for and administer) or the Internet?

It also occurred to me by Pac · 2003-09-09 01:40 · Score: 1

My first thought was how the hell VB fits into such a low level task, but re-reading the post I guess it doesn't. The rs232 bit is probably done by the component that lost them their day, which in turn will be a C++ COM component. VB then must be only the front-end.

Could be true... by Zog+The+Undeniable · 2003-09-09 01:41 · Score: 1

There are probably more MS-trained people out there looking for jobs than Java or Linux experts. A PFY with an MCSE who knows a bit of Visual Basic and .NET will probably work for less than a bearded *nix guru.

--
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.

Well, true, Windows can be cheaper to use by thepoch · 2003-09-09 01:42 · Score: 1

Well, true, Windows can be cheaper to use than Linux. Imagine getting the electricity bills for a Linux server running several months as opposed to a Windows machine running on a desktop. Of course I have to compare these two situations, considering that MS has 95% on the desktop and Linux has 95% on the server (numbers bloated to show my lack of mathematical skills and unending bias). I'm sorry what was the study about again? Electricity conservation right? Or something.

YAY! I KNEW IT! by negacao · 2003-09-09 01:44 · Score: 1

Windows is a much better OS than Linux/FreeBSD/JomommaOS because it costs money!

Go Windows!

[/troll]

Why is this a shock so people??? by AwesomeJT · 2003-09-09 01:45 · Score: 1

Anyone knows any survey, research, or the like that is funded by Microsoft is going to biased in favor of -- guess who -- Microsoft. Run this through the "BS filter" (a well written perl script), you get a M$ advertising document slamming anything non-M$.

I don't think the report took into account time taken to recover a system that got own3d because of poor security.

99% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

--
SPAM solution made easy: 1 spammer, 5 cords of rope, 5 hourses, and fireworks. Be creative.

.NET vs J2EE, not Win vs. Linux by mystran · 2003-09-09 01:45 · Score: 3, Redundant

This studies the costs between .NET and J2EE, not really Windows and Linux.

One could also say that it compares native Windows and J2EE, but Java is by no means a native system to Linux, which is to say that this is like comparing apples with oranges.

Having supported a largish J2EE application, I can tell that the it's equally awful platform, whether it runs on Windows or UNIX. I'd suggest that if one compared J2EE on Windows to J2EE on UNIX, UNIX would probably win.

--
Software should be free as in speech, but if we also get some free beer, all the better.

develop, maybe by martin · 2003-09-09 01:47 · Score: 1

But what about the whole TCO?

you've got to pay real money for the end server software, the SQL-server and all the really big latest fancy hardware to run it on a cluster (ok so the hardware might not need to be bleeding edge anymore).

You need lots of admins who need to pass their little exams and of course a company car for the remote admin :-)

When you can all this for 1/2 the people costs with a *nix, never mind the s/w costs if you go for a free-nix.
Of course should you wish to goto big iron (SUN/IBM/HP and Oracle/DB2) alot of the skills are transferable.

Just a thought

Linux cheaper when studied by Slashdot drones by essdodson · 2003-09-09 01:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

We should be aware by now that any company can manufacture a TCO, even those behind Linux. The only valuable TCO is the one that your company produces and uses to make its decisions.

--
scott

So.. by shish · 2003-09-09 01:50 · Score: 1, Flamebait

So paying a VB script kiddie to make something shiny costs less than getting a java guru to make something that works? wow!

--
I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment

The Netcraft Study by cyber_rigger · 2003-09-09 01:51 · Score: 2, Redundant

Of course the Netcraft study shows that

only Microsoft can afford the more EXPENSIVE

Linux based server caching (Akamai)

http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=www.micr osoft.com

independent? by LMCBoy · 2003-09-09 01:51 · Score: 4, Funny

"...a study done by an independent research firm...funded and commissioned by Microsoft..."

You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means...

--
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.

What the ..? by pguerra1 · 2003-09-09 01:52 · Score: 1

Why is this even up for discussion? Why are we even discussing a clearly bogus study? Why does the media even cover these things? I feel like commissioning a study to study bogus studies like this. Why did I waste my time posting this?

--

"And I for one welcome our new insect overlords."

bottled water anyone? by *weasel · 2003-09-09 01:54 · Score: 1

you -can- compete with free.
and you can -win-.

concentrate on arguing tco or stability/security. but please give up the sticker price rhetoric.

even when independent researchers take the measurements - the price of the box isn't the deciding factor to the business user.

--
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"

This is a bad thing? by Snarfy · 2003-09-09 01:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

Of course, the story is quick to state that the whole study was funded and commissioned by our favorite Redmond, WA based software giant." Uh... You sound like its a bad thing they pointed this out? The whole /. community would be up-in-arms if they didn't point it out right off the bat. While true that there is possible bias because Microsoft performed the study, it does not mean there was definite bias.

This is a Logical fallacy by Matey-O · 2003-09-09 01:56 · Score: 1

And no, it's not the one you think.

There's a typical behavior to dismiss any research funded by someone who COULD have a bias. The only problem is, the truly unbiased people don't have an interest in the research!

--
"Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."

Re:This is a Logical fallacy by cK-Gunslinger · 2003-09-09 04:02 · Score: 1

True. Consider for a moment that the statement "Windows is cheaper than Linux" was absolutely true. What would MS do to make this known? Well, they'd declare it so. They'd put it in their advertising. They'd commission an independent study. In short, they'd do everything that they are doing now, so how can we look at these actions and simply assume they are biased? We can't.

Now, if it came known that MS paid the group a "bonus" to ensure that they came out ahead *wink, wink* THEN we could assume something.

Study funding and ethics by fmaxwell · 2003-09-09 01:56 · Score: 1

Of course, the story is quick to state that the whole study was funded and commissioned by our favorite Redmond, WA based software giant.

That's what we call "ethics." It would have been unethical Microsoft to use a study that they funded without revealing that they funded it.

But by Doesn't_Comment_Code · 2003-09-09 01:57 · Score: 1

They didn't include the cost of upgrading and patching for every .Net, VB and Microsoft library you use, which will have an average of one root level security hole found per month. That raises the cost of MS development.

By the way, I've never written a program that costed me a cent.

--

Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.

It depends on the application by BanjoBob · 2003-09-09 01:58 · Score: 1

I've coded a lot for major global 1000 corporations on Sun platforms. Enterprise for a printing environment of over 1000 high-volume printers using a variety of input systems and databases. Time to code and debug was about 2 weeks. A network management solution for another global enterprise - about a month. An X11 application utilizing everything from vax to commodores running a nation-wide application - about 9 man months. I wouldn't even try to do projects of this magnitude on a windoze environment. Use the right tool for the job.

--
Banjo - The more I know about Windoze, the more I love *nix

Essential reading.... by Channard · 2003-09-09 01:59 · Score: 1

No, not the 'study' in question, but 'Tainted Truth: The manipulation of truth in America' by Cynthia Crossen, available on Amazon, ISBN 0684815567. It may seem obvious to some Slashdot readers to take any studies funded by the organisation that they favour with a pinch of salt. But it's still an excellent book about a variety of studies and how they were skewed in the favour of the organisation funded them yet somehow got press attention. Definitely worth reading.

Not at my university. by willy134 · 2003-09-09 01:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

I just finished school and by the time I left almost all of the computer science classes were using linux (red hat to be specific) all the electrical engineering classes were using hpux and linux (debian --old debian) all the programs we made were designed to run on *nix. That implies the cost of educating people to develop on *nix is dropping dramatically.

There is also a large microsoft group called dev hood. They give away free msft products so there is large support for it. But the actuall classes that require msft are all those with minor programming. Most of them use VB.

--
Can you ping me now?... Good!

Why is this story 'Windows vs. Linux'? by laird · 2003-09-09 02:02 · Score: 2, Interesting

It's really .Net vs. J2EE. I'm not sure that .Net is cheaper to develop on than J2EE, but I am sure that there are less expensive ways to engineer software than J2EE. If price is the critical factor (which it must be, since it's the only actual information in the press release) you'd think that they'd compare to PHP/MySQL.

The lack of details makes me suspicions. Did they choose projects based on very expensive application servers and databases, rather than free alternatives, in order to offset the cost of Windows and .Net? Did they choose projects that weren't deployed on a large scale in order to minimize the per-server costs of .Net/NT (which are extremely high)? Depending on the details, the report may really be saying '.Net Server and SQL Server is cheaper than WebLogic and Oracle', which really has nothing to do with Windows or Linux.

--
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!

Re:Why is this story 'Windows vs. Linux'? by Tony-A · 2003-09-09 08:59 · Score: 1

but I am sure that there are less expensive ways to engineer software than J2EE
Oh, definitely. I see J2EE and I see gaggles of mainframes. Stuff that works and keeps working 5, 10, 20 years into the future. Regardless of what's free or freely available, that is not cheap territory. PHP/MySQL is capable of some heavy lifting, even in enterprise settings, but in doing so will become very much a highly specialized niche. The phenomenon is essesentially that of painting yourself into a corner. Small size, no problem. Large size, with many painters, can easily dominate all other considerations.

Long Term Stability.
I would expect J2EE to be very much around in 20 years. To die off, it would need both Sun and IBM to lose interest, and further that it not be picked up by Open Source. Concurrently. Sun and IBM losing interest alternately will not kill it.
Five years from now, .NET will become "that old thing" to Microsoft and it off to the next mirage.

The choice of projects, scale, and time scale all affect which one is "better". It's pretty much always better in the short term to stay with what you've already got. Seems like the reality is that sea changes are ultimately cheaper if they're done earlier even though studies will fail to attribute anything to the real costs of making the change later, essentially take cognizance of "Pay me now" and ignoring the "or Pay me later".
Re:Why is this story 'Windows vs. Linux'? by laird · 2003-09-09 14:22 · Score: 1

I agree that there are many values other than the raw cost of development. My point was (somewhat sarcastically, though that doesn't appear to have come across) that since the _only_ actual fact reported was the cost of development, that must be the most important factor. And if raw development cost is the critical factor, they should have optimized for low cost, and chosen a set of technologies for comparison that are the lowest cost.

--
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!

Only M$ support for any issues by Pitawg · 2003-09-09 02:08 · Score: 1

High level training for all, and noone but M$ can fix deeper problems. Proprietary OS and noone but M$ can fix OS problems.

This is great news for M$ and their support division, but is a big red flag to companies. Why would anyone put their company in a future of unfixable bugs and support/training subscription debt for cheaper programmers. Use your own OS, software, and "qualified" programmers, and you will have a product/service that will make money. Don't feed the Empire!!!

M$ is killing the education given to our young by lowering the percieved level needed by anyone to advance computer technology. All have to spend more after schooling for M$ specific low-level training once computers "can be used/programmed by anyone". Even new M$ employees will need to blow more than they do on their cars just to get a support job with M$.

Study shows that studies always favor sponsor by ByTor-2112 · 2003-09-09 02:10 · Score: 1

Now that's one I would like to see!

always garnish statistics with a grain of salt by Mr+Coffee+Cup · 2003-09-09 02:14 · Score: 1

Supposing for a minute, the statistics were accurate..

What might be the deeper truth behind them? I think that the large number of MS developers relative to a smaller number of Linux/OSS developers is key here. With a smaller userbase, and a smaller developer base, costs will be higher, as the tools are slower to evolve, and there are not as many 'off the shelf' products in a stable state to support some types of rapid development. (Key phrase, SOME types of rapid development)

The more userbase Linux develops, the lower the costs and times for development. Tools will evolve faster, and the sheer numbers of folks who know what it means when 'lpt1 is on fire' will grow. Development costs will drop as the number of monkeys grows.

Linux isn't yet as mainstream "end userish" as MS. YET. Any advantage MS has now will slip as Linux gains market share. These statistics might be interesting in two years time. (I'm betting my business on it)

Not surprisingly, the article contained no statistics comparing reliability or uptimes and their associated costs. My uneducated guess: It probably costs many more man-hours to support MS based products. If you want a superior product, you develop in Linux. Yes, you will have to invent some wheels, and adapt many other people's (often poorly documented) wheels to your particular application, which may take more time.

Which brings us to the grain of salt:
Statistics are generally cited in such a way as to favor the citer.. after all, if they were not cited as such, why would they even be cited at all.

Initial development vs. total lifecycle cost by Joey+Vegetables · 2003-09-09 02:15 · Score: 1, Insightful

In my experience, initial development of Microsoft-centric solutions is often less expensive than Java or even OSS-based solutions. This is especially true for the one-off or "quick and dirty" stuff so prevalent in Microsoft-centric shops.

However, the initial cost savings are eaten dozens if not hundreds of times over by higher total lifecycle costs.

Basically, for every dollar we spend writing, say, a VB/IIS/MSSQL app, we spend dozens or hundreds of dollars maintaining it and rewriting it.

The comparable development using superior technologies does cost a bit more, mainly because you have to hire better developers - people who, for instance, know how to sort an array, without resorting to writing the rows to an invisible ListBox and then setting its .Sorted property to True (don't laugh - I've seen this seriously suggested multiple times, both on comp.lang.basic.visual.misc, and among people I've worked with).

But well-written Java and/or OSS apps stay written. They don't break over time due to DLL incompatibilities or the obsolescence or poor scalability of the toolset or a decision to move to another platform or the virus/worm/trojan of the week.

If it were up to me we would allow the use of M$ development tools only for the "quick and dirty" stuff - prototypes basically - and those would be absolutely unsupported by IT. Any production system requiring IT support would need to be based exclusively on open/Free protocols, standards, and products.

--

Nonaggression works!

.NET is better than J2EE by Rogerborg · 2003-09-09 02:20 · Score: 1

Therefore Linux supports terrorism.

--
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.

New study results: by Fishbone · 2003-09-09 02:22 · Score: 1

Cigarettes are actually good for you! They've also been linked to hot monkey sex with supermodels and free bags of money. All those stories about cancer and premature aging have proven to be nothing but urban myth.

Study sponsored by Phillip Morris.

what I want to know is by alx512 · 2003-09-09 02:24 · Score: 1

how come they never post cost breakdowns when they do these studies so we can see how they arrived at their results?

This reminds me of... by cplater · 2003-09-09 02:25 · Score: 1

when a local university hired Sun Microsystems to do an evaluation on server consolidation. You'll never guess what they suggested. Buy an E15K. This was after the university had major failures with an already implemented E10K. FWIW, I think that suggestion is still being considered. Sun also suggested that the university switch to iPlanet for their LDAP directory. I still think that some people at the university thought that Sun might actually suggest another companies product.

--
-- Charles A. Plater

Apology by kannibal_klown · 2003-09-09 02:26 · Score: 1

Sorry for the irrate comments. Bad day at work.

Whats the Cost With Viruses? by MoronBob · 2003-09-09 02:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

What is the cost when your developers are interupted by worm and virus outbreaks? Is that considered in the study?

--
Telecommuting! What about socialization?

in Other news... by MarvinMouse · 2003-09-09 02:30 · Score: 1

A few other insightful headlines:

Americans say that the United States is the best

Sony claims that PS2 beats X-Box anyday of the week

New York Times denies that media is biased

President Bush states that according to his sources war in Iraq is just

Like, geez... you can say anything is better or worse than anything these days... Too bad relativism hasn't caught on that much in the real world.

--
~ kjrose

Re:in Other news... by EvilTwinSkippy · 2003-09-09 02:53 · Score: 1

Too bad relativism hasn't caught on that much in the real world.
Like in religion?
I'm just imagining the big guy, doing his best drill Sergent impression: What part of THOU SHALT NOT was not clear to you...
Islam is supposed to be a religion of peace. Christianity is supposed to be about treating all humanity with dignaty and respect, regardless of what the other guy practices. Judiaism... I don't know enough about.
I think it's time for folks to stop practicing their religion, and maybe start living it.

--
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Re:in Other news... by MarvinMouse · 2003-09-09 03:17 · Score: 1

Like in religion?

Actually, relativism is the belief that every person can believe their own beliefs and not be wrong. Since everything is relative.

Now... religion, or at least the mainstream ones, have nothing to do with that.

Christianity = Love thy neighbour... even though you know deep down he is completely wrong and going to rot in hell.

Islam = Love thy neighbout... until he threatens your beliefs in the least way, then beat the living shit out of him with any method possible.

Judaism = Love thy neighbour... as long as they follow the same faith as you. Otherwise just accept that they are there, and eventually will die out while judaism will not.

Western religions are far from relative. They all believe that they are totally right and there is no chance anyone else can be. But that's just my personal view.

--
~ kjrose

Questionable Methodology by Wymanator · 2003-09-09 02:30 · Score: 2, Interesting

For medium-sized companies, costs for .NET-based applications totaled $661,012, compared with $881,445 for J2EE/Linux.

One has to question the study's methodology when it quotes costs to the nearest dollar. The study was based on phone interviews. The margin of error in these cost estimates must be at least +/- 10% (or $80,000 on the $881K figure).

J2EE? by bill_mcgonigle · 2003-09-09 02:33 · Score: 1

Java is pretty easy, J2EE, somewhat harder.

Somebody educate me, but I thought C-pound was roughtly equivalant to Java, not J2EE.

The hard part about J2EE isn't the synatax but the vast number of components and services that it provides. That it's done in Java is secondary, learning that size of a framework in any language is pretty tough. If C# implemented cross-cutting or had a declarative mode, it might be easier, but I also though C# is a similar-generation language as Java.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)

Re:J2EE? by darien · 2003-09-09 05:00 · Score: 1

I thought C-pound was roughtly equivalant to Java, not J2EE.

Just FYI, C# is pronounced "see sharp".

As an aside, why do some people say "pound" to refer to "#"? It doesn't look much like a pound sign to me.
Re:J2EE? by bill_mcgonigle · 2003-09-09 05:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

Just FYI, C# is pronounced "see sharp"

That's what Microsoft says, but any musician will tell you that a sharp sign has upright verticals and slanted horizontals - a pound sign has slanted verticals and level horizontals. There's a separate unicode and HTML character for sharp, but Microsoft uses pound.

As an aside, why do some people say "pound" to refer to "#"?

It's a grocer's pound, not a pound-stirling, as in :
banannas 5 #
oranges 2 #

I guess it was faster than writing 'lbs' - never been a grocer, but I've seen the old guys write orders on a paper bag.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)

Anyone interested in working on VB.NET by bizcoach · 2003-09-09 02:35 · Score: 1

We have the beginnings of a VB.NET compiler (derived from the C# compiler) in DotGNU, waiting for someone interested in this kind of thing to come on board and champion that subproject. Right now it does "VB.NET syntax with C# semantics", the hard parts of building a compiler are taken care of, finishing it is a matter of plain old programming (lots of it).

Any takers?

Greetings,
Norbert

Re:Anyone interested in working on VB.NET by usotsuki · 2003-09-09 06:57 · Score: 1

I only wish I were a better programmer. A portable VB.NET compiler would be very useful.

-uso.

--
Dreams, dreams, don't doubt dreams, dreaming children's dreaming dreams. Sailor Moon SS

Windows programming cheaper by totallygeek · 2003-09-09 02:37 · Score: 2, Informative

If it is cheaper; you get what you pay for!

Seriously, I developed programs under many Unix flavors, and enjoyed developing solutions with Linux. But, when we needed to interface our software with Word for mail merges, or Excel for spreadsheet drop-ins, then (at least at the time) Windows programming was a necessary evil. Development of databases was done on Unix for stability, web applications using PostgreSQL and Perl, but front ends were usually Access or some VB application.

There was also a problem hiring programmers. Salaries asked for by experienced programmers were much higher (IMHO rightfully so) than salaries demanded by Windows programmers. While the Windows programmers in general were less flexable to learn new languages or stray from mainstream programming, they were quite efficient. And, the tools they were using allowed them to create and alter code quicker than us Unix-folk. That having been said, we never had to cuss-out our monitors because of a blue screen...

If I were a shop doing custom programming, it would be a mix of Windows and Unix, and Windows programmers would be about 2/3 or 3/4 of the programming population in the office. It is simply good business to sell a comfortable solution, and businesses are comfortable with Microsoft. Now, you don't have to disclose that MS-SQL will not be on the back end of that Access application...

--
Click here or here.

No Doubt by Multiple+Sanchez · 2003-09-09 02:42 · Score: 2, Interesting

I hate this. This is business. This is what business is. This is all it takes. Just fund the study that says what you want. On its face it looks rediculous, but who'll see it on its face? What you're really buying is the references to the study. The argument that "independent studies show..." All you need is that little bit of doubt, and you'll get sales.

We need stricter rules! This is how businesses succeed, and it's awful! I hate the SCO lawsh^Huit, I hate the RIAA lawsh^Hit, I can't stand these false studies and it's just infuriating.

Any reference to this study down the line should be required BY LAW to be labeled as "funded by Microsoft." Then there would be no manufactured doubt, and the study wouldn't happen in the first place, and businesses would have all these extra resources to spend on things like research and development, instead of things like fake false lying lies that confuse people and make it impossible to know what's really real and gee while they're scratching their heads let's just reach over and take the money out of their pockets. Monsters.

Let's get rid of the "D" and just tell businesses like Microsoft, "F U."

Monsters.

in other news.. by tommten · 2003-09-09 02:47 · Score: 1

resarchers find that it is cheaper to replace a fuse with a nail than bying a new fuse

oh.. and kids.. don't try that at home!

--
- I choked on the red pill and now I'm stuck in limbo

Re:in other news.. by tommten · 2003-09-09 02:49 · Score: 1

and of course typing fast is cheap too.. saves a letter now and then :)

--
- I choked on the red pill and now I'm stuck in limbo

Why... by Illbay · 2003-09-09 02:52 · Score: 1

Is the first reply nearly always modded up to about "5" and marked "funny"? When about 90% of the time, subjectively speaking of course, it isn't funny?

Just a newbie questioning authority, you understand.

--
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.

The all important Question: by AftanGustur · 2003-09-09 02:53 · Score: 1

... under certain circumstances, it is cheaper to develop applications and enterprise solutions for Windows than for Linux. They cite costs from more education, time developing, etc ...

What they totally ignore is that education and other "inital investment" doesn't apply for project 2,3 etc ...

It would therefore be interesting to see how project #2 would compare cost-wise on the different platforms.

--
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc

A retraction is in order by Our+Man+In+Redmond · 2003-09-09 02:58 · Score: 1

Of course, the story is quick to state that the whole study was funded and commissioned by our favorite Redmond, WA based software giant.

You take that back. I had nothing whatever to do with this.

--
Someone you trust is one of us.

The problem with Slashdot by RzUpAnmsCwrds · 2003-09-09 03:00 · Score: 1, Insightful

When Microsoft funds a study that makes their platform look cheaper, we all laugh and write it off as "bogus". Even the editors are jeering at the results.

Yet when Apple funds a study that makes their G5 look really fast, Slashdot cheers. The savior is here! The headline isn't "Apple Claims G5 is World's Fastest PC", it's "G5 Is World's Fastest PC".

Sheesh. Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field indeed.

Re:The problem with Slashdot by cranos · 2003-09-09 11:01 · Score: 1

Actually from what I remember, most of the non "Apple is my god" posts for that one questioned the validity of the G5 benchmarking, comparing it to MS TCO studies and such and such.

Let's do our own study! by bizcoach · 2003-09-09 03:03 · Score: 1

It makes sense from the MS perspective to compare .NET with Java since the whole point of .NET has been from the beginning to build an improved competitor to Java.

However from our (developer's) perspective, a comparison of only two development environments is of very limited interest. Let's do some serious research into what is truly beneficial to developer productivity, and then build a Free Software IDE which meets these needs.

Greetings,
Norbert.

Contact me at: nb at cisto dot com

I agree by gfxguy · 2003-09-09 03:06 · Score: 1

But it depends on where you come from.

Obviously, people who are accustomed to development on Windows platforms using MS development tools (Visual whatever) are going to have a hard time developing on Linux/J2EE.

There is also a steep learning curve to obtain "oneness" with emacs. I think once that occurs, development time using emacs over an IDE is actually much smaller, but then you are also required to learn a lot of command line tools. If you know them, and are really good with them, I have no doubt that that environment is much faster.

I am in the exact opposite situation. I come from Unix (Sun, SGI, Cray, Convex...) and my department has slowly switched from *all* SGI 8 years ago to *all* Windows 2K, and I've had to adapt - I didn't do it by learning Windows tools, I installed the latest java runtimes on everyones machines, I use Cygwin extensively, I use perl, and my ace in the whole is a small department server running Linux to create my J2EE applications (and other things, too).

Frankly, though, it takes me a lot longer to write applications now then it used to. Now, reverse the situation, and you will see TCO go up for people trying to move from Windows/.NET to Linux J2EE.

--
Stupid sexy Flanders.

That's right... by cygnus · 2003-09-09 03:08 · Score: 1

Of course, the story is quick to state that the whole study was funded and commissioned by our favorite Redmond, WA based software giant.

Nintendo of America! :)

--
Just raise the taxes on crack.

Ford faster than Chevys, says Ford by Rogerborg · 2003-09-09 03:10 · Score: 1

Therefore all Chevy drivers are gay.

That's about the standard of independence, evidence and conclusion we're seeing here.

--
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.

It *is* cheaper and faster... by jbottero · 2003-09-09 03:14 · Score: 1

Man, with a bootleg copy of Visual Studio and Visual Basic for Dummies, I can can write mission critical enterprise level three tier stuff all day long!

Refine the Questions by Carcass666 · 2003-09-09 03:20 · Score: 3, Interesting

It may indeed be easier cheaper to develop apps under Windows when the shop is all Windows; but is it cheaper to build cross-platform, interoperable applications that can communicate and run across the multiple platforms that may be encountered within (and outside) an enterprise? I would argue that J2EE development platform is a far more cost-effective, scalable and portable approach than .NET/COM +/DCOM/etc. Microsoft can put on all of the XML window-dressing it wants, it doesn't change the Windows-centric underpinnings.

Re:Refine the Questions by g_bit · 2003-09-09 03:38 · Score: 1

but is it cheaper to build cross-platform, interoperable applications ...
It's never cheaper to build cross platform applications. The more platforms you must support, the more work you must do. This has nothing to do with windows or operating systems though.

A better question is if you *should* develop a cross platform app. What is your market like? Not every application deserves the effort.

On the other side of the coin, if you made all your applications "web apps" (yuck) and you didn't try to take advantage of any one browser's features too much, it shouldn't take too much longer. But that's just the client-side. If you want to develop a cross-platform server/script you'd better be prepared for more work.
Re:Refine the Questions by spruce · 2003-09-09 17:28 · Score: 1

.NET will pull out the Windows centric underpinnings - eventually. They have the problem of supporting an API which still works with existing apps, plus a whole new bread of beast.

Eventually Win32 will disappear - and the OS will run on the .NET framework. When? When clients of MS stop writing Win32 apps. Wait a few years - it will happen. My company will never go back to the older MS techs, and that's the direction every sane MS shop will take.

What an insightful study! by overbyj · 2003-09-09 03:38 · Score: 1

This is like saying there was study commissioned that determined that North Korea was the best country on Earth. Of course, the study was commissioned by Kim Jong Il.

--
No trees were harmed in the composition of this; however, numerous electrons were inconvenienced.

Web Services by krumms · 2003-09-09 03:39 · Score: 1

I'm yet to see an IDE that has the power to automate the generation of web service proxy classes via WSDL ala VS.NET.

I think axis comes with command line tools for something like this, but it really doesn't get any easier than VS.NET.

But then you could argue that J2EE isn't necessarily web service based, preferring EJBs to SOAP and web services. Well, that's fine. If you only want to work in Java (and, of course - sometimes you do). But isn't that lock in?

- TL

zerg by Lord+Omlette · 2003-09-09 04:09 · Score: 1

News Flash! Linux Cheaper When Studied by Open Source Experts!

--
[o]_O

Priceless! by BigGerman · 2003-09-09 04:26 · Score: 1

4 Visual Studio licenses - $8800
2 Development Server licenses - $16000
2 Production Server licenses with CALs - $120000

Knowing that your enterprise app will be developed with the best Visual Basic traditions and patterns - priceless.

Why do you ask why? by TheLink · 2003-09-09 04:33 · Score: 1

Doh. Coz some of us have memories? If someone is a habitual liar and another one is an average joe and they each pay someone to say something for them. Don't tell me you give equal weight to what is said.

I don't know about you, but I'm inclined to regard a company known for regular habitual lying and misleading actions/statements differently from other companies which aren't habitual liars.

There are plenty of big and successful companies which don't make it a habit of lying, cheating, etc.

e.g. MS's "grassroots" campaign, that turned out to be "astroturf". MS and stitched video evidence. MS and Stacker. MS and their patches which supposedly work. MS and Blue Mountain. MSN and Opera. MS and their sneaky change in licenses from just "updates". MS and their Win95 registration wizard which sent them data on OTHER companies products.

You can go dig deeper yourself, the dirt goes a long way.

AFAIK the MS bosses have hardly ever admitted that they are doing anything wrong. So what are the odds of them changing for the better?

--

Too many replies beneath your current threshold

Windows probably IS cheaper to develop on by harlows_monkeys · 2003-09-09 04:40 · Score: 1

Suppose you want to do, say, web services, starting from complete ignorance.

On Windows, you buy one development tool (Visual Studio.NET) and one or two books to learn how to use it. There are special "learning" editions of VS available for about a hundred bucks that will get you started quite nicely.

On Linux with Java, you first have to figure out what you need. There are a zillion projects for enterprise-level Java stuff. There are a zillion books, and no two seem to cover the same thing, so you can't compare them. I'm still not clear on what I actually need to install on my Linux system to get servelets working...which is OK, because I'm not clear on what I'd want servelets for, anyway...they are just another part of this big lumpy mess that is J2EE.

When talking about development costs, the tools and documentation are probably more important thant the technology, and Microsoft is very good at tools and documentation.

Bad comparison by GeckoX · 2003-09-09 04:46 · Score: 1

You cannot compare J2EE or .Net to PHP/MySQL, that makes no sense. You would be comparing platforms to 2 specific technologies (apples and oranges).

You can compare C#/MSSqlServer to PHP/MySQL if you like, but that is not what this study was about.

--
No Comment.

Re:Bad comparison by laird · 2003-09-09 07:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

You can certainly compare PHP/MySQP and .Net (and J2EE), as they're all technologies that can be used to implement web applications. I'd agree that they are significantly different (.Net is immature and only runs on NT, J2EE is very complex and runs everywhere, PHP/MySQL is simple), but you can certainly compare them in terms of the overall cost of the project. You could argue that one or the other is a more appropriate approach for a particular application (I don't envy anyone trying to implement robust transaction processing in PHP/MySQL, for example) but that doesn't mean that they can't be compared...

--
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
Re:Bad comparison by julesh · 2003-09-10 02:03 · Score: 1

I don't envy anyone trying to implement robust transaction processing in PHP/MySQL, for example

MySQL's transaction handling has been working stably for me for about 2 years now, I think it is. It can be used quite easily from PHP. I don't see the issue.

I've developed web applications in Java (using Apache + Tomcat) and PHP, and I'd say PHP is definitely the cheaper and easier of them for almost all applications (Java would be my language of choice if I needed to perform complex calculations or carry out extensive business logic checks before committing transactions).

I haven't used .NET, but my guess is that in most cases it is largely indistinguishable from Java. The real benefit is that you can hire cheap monkeys who will program it in Visual BASIC, because that seems to be easier than doing it in C# (it isn't, it just looks easier, so the people who can do it are cheaper). So that's where the real saver is. Yeah, I'd say .NET is cheaper than Java because of this. Java programmers tend to be graduate level and want salaries (in the UK) of about 20-40 K. Most VB.NET positions I see advertised are in the 10-15 K range.
Re:Bad comparison by julesh · 2003-09-10 02:06 · Score: 1

Should've previewed that, I know, but does anyone know why slashdot stripped out my pound signs?

I can't even get them to show up with £ - I just get this: (maybe that works for you, could just be my daft browser, a fairly old beta Mozilla...)

Bias? by SuperDry · 2003-09-09 05:01 · Score: 1

I don't think this study is any more biased than one than a thread on /. concluding that open source is the way to go. There's more than one party with an axe to grind, and there's probably more than one right answer.

Let's break this down... by Shamashmuddamiq · 2003-09-09 05:02 · Score: 1

The study compared applications built to run over the Internet on Microsoft's .NET platform to applications developed with J2EE, a development platform backed by Sun Microsystems Inc. (Nasdaq:SUNW - news) favored by the Linux community.

So we're not really comparing Windows and Linux. We're comparing .NET and J2EE.

Web-based applications are seen as the next step in computing that will allow software and services to be widely available on a variety of devices, not just personal computers.

What is this, 1997? This is just FUD. Linux works on a greater variety of devices than Windows.

For large companies, the cost of making and deploying applications on Microsoft's .NET standard was $1.64 million over a three-year period, 28 percent less than the $2.29 million cost for running or J2EE/Linux, according to the study.

We chose this study because, out of the dozen or so studies performed, this is the only one that came out the way we wanted it to.

For medium-sized companies, costs for .NET-based applications totaled $661,012, compared with $881,445 for J2EE/Linux.

We won't give any more detail of the cost analysis, since that will expose us as quacks.

"The primary conclusion of the study is that Microsoft offers a substantial cost advantage over J2EE/Linux as a developer platform for the applications considered," Forrester Research Inc., which owns Giga Research, said in a report by analysts John Rymer and Bob Cormier.

Microsoft told us exactly "which applications to consider."

The study was based on interviews with 12 companies, seven of which use Microsoft's .NET platform and five of which use Linux.

Thus the difference may or may not be statistically significant, depending on the standard deviation.

Forrester said that the main difference in cost was not due to price of the basic software, but rather the price of developing the software, including labor costs.

Linux developers get paid better. Microsoft weenies are a dime a dozen.

Despite the difference in costs, however, the Forrester report also noted that "many organizations will adopt Linux instead of Microsoft's alternative" because of the expertise they have built up on the Unix (news - web sites) platform, Sun's proprietary operating systems used to run computer server networks.

Trust us, it's not because Linux is better. It's just because companies like to cling to old, outdated operating systems.

Last December, Microsoft released a study that showed that Windows-based servers were cheaper to run than those on Linux in four out of five common server tasks.

They could only find four??? I could give you a dozen off the top of my head that are easier/cheaper with Linux. By the way, clicking a mouse instead of typing a command doesn't make things easier!

--
...just my 2 gil.

Uh by Fjord · 2003-09-09 05:10 · Score: 1

Of course, the story is quick to state that the whole study was funded and commissioned by our favorite Redmond, WA based software giant

so then why is this news?

--
-no broken link

The problems J2EE, not LINUX by digrieze · 2003-09-09 05:21 · Score: 1

If you read the report the issue is not LINUX-OS vs. WINDOWS-OS, it's app development on top of the two platforms. That automatically neutralizes the LINUX-OS advantages in terms of OS cost and stability.

The issue is the app development, which SUN has totally screwed up since JAVA was introduced. This should be read not as a dis on LINUX but on SUN. Let's face it, Scott McNeely has been desparately trying to change SUN from a hardware company (overpriced, but I did love that SPARC) to software with JAVA. Unfortunately just as the hardware was overpriced compared to equivalent INTEL solutions SUN jacked up JAVA to unreasonable levels aby charging for development tools that Microsoft was giving away for practically nothing (downloading DOES cost money, although very little). I hate to say it but basicly except for the religious JAVA shops anyone that looks at the costs are going to come back with the same figures as in this article, no matter who picks up the tab.

Don't blaim microsoft for doing the obvious, SUN just missed the boat with their packaging. Java enterprise servers will only go over when it's reasonable to write apps for them. Don't blaim SUN too much though, after all, there are still companies trying to sell DEC VT100 emulators for PCs (they don't get it either).

--
It doesn't matter what you wrap your emotions around, Reality is a brick wall specifically designed to scramble eggs

Re:That'll be true for a while. by mic256 · 2003-09-09 05:40 · Score: 1

If you consider the productivity gained by using an IDE such as Visual Studio .NET 2003.
intellesense statement completion, automatic code formatting and highlighting, and intelligent help
You have the same thing with Java IDE such as Eclipse (free) Plus

automatic error detection while you type - similar to Word (but without the clipper!)
suggestions to correct your errors, like:
1. import a particular class you are using
2. surround a part of code with the try / catch clause
3. correcting simple misspelling
4. and others
refactoring - choose a variable whose name you don't like and simply rename it - eclipse updates all references
organize your imports

The automatic error detection and suggestion(s) how to correct it are addictive - I found it impossible to return to vi after trying eclipse! At work I use VS and MFC and I miss things like refactoring. The problem is speed - eclipse runs perfectly well under windows - comparably to VS. It uses native widgets - not Swing like Forte (which is sometimes 10 - 20 times slower - try code formatting for example). However this seems to be a disadvantage under Linux and GTK2 - it seems to be tenfold slower than windows and even slower than Swing! I am more and more convinced, that the main problem with Linux is not it's lack of functionality, but unnecessary bloat and slowwwwwnesssss.
P.S. The main thing lacking is debugging - it is there in theory, however I was never able to do anything useful with it.
P.S2. Has anyone tried WebSphere, which is built on top of eclipse?

Something about getting what you pay for... by BlueF · 2003-09-09 05:45 · Score: 1

"...the main difference in cost was not due to price of the basic software, but rather the price of developing the software, including labor costs." Hmm, while I doubt this is accurate -- M$ licenses are ludicrously/criminally -- I'd still rather go with the 25% "more expensive" (development) platform when it means running a more stable and secure system.

Of Course it is. by spurious+cowherd · 2003-09-09 05:46 · Score: 1

It stands to reason.

With a Linux app you need to make it reliable
a Windows app only has to run for 30 minutes until the next unscheduled reboot

--

Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana.

So MS an easy path to outsource IT jobs to India by danieleran · 2003-09-09 06:06 · Score: 1

The Wintel world has reduced IT to a commodity service. MSFT is advertising how cheap it is to find lowpaid workers for their platform. This is probably true.

America seems happy to sell off and outsource all their needs to the lowest bidder. The result will be that soon all Americans will be fat idiots wearing sweats and working at WalMart so they can afford their hourly dose of Pringles, smokes and a Super Big Gulp.

But corporate profits will be high.

Oh wait, we're already there.

then by korgull · 2003-09-09 06:11 · Score: 1

Why are the apps for windows more expensive ?

Sorry - have to agree. by cheeseflan · 2003-09-09 06:21 · Score: 2, Interesting

I realise this will gain the hate of the majority of Slashdot's posters, but I have to make the point that my company (i.e. the R&D dept - i.e. me and a couple of other geeks) has done a fairly in-depth study into moving our internal apps to Linux. Or rather to start developing onto Linux rather than continuing on the MS treadmill.

The fact is that at the moment costs for obtaining Linux skills so far outweigh the licencing costs of using MS that it is still worth using MS. This INCLUDES all the licencing costs of both the new servers and the cost of the commercial closed-source app when applied to an open-source app...

The important point here is that just about all of our IT function is outsourced - so we see costs directly rather than by using internal staff (who are "free" ).

I realise you are probably spluttering by now, but just think... You can hire a low-IQ MCSE to follow the wizards and work through the install routines for a heck of a lot less time than an expert is required to configure and set up a Linux server and add an open source platform, and then configure and sort it out.

Please remember that outside of IT firms, the driving attitude is to get the system working now, rather than working right. Apart from financial systems (e.g. payroll) you can always backfill later to fix issues - so the up-front costs really do become meaningful.

MS really do know this - and know just how far they can push us. Linux will get better - and the skilled staff required will get cheaper. That will simply drive down MS's prices. At the moment - it is cheaper to have a wizard-driver and pay the licence fees. Linux-skilled staff just cost too much and take too long.

--

Pimping my Karma Whore since 1847.

Actually TCO IS a buzzword by Sivaram_Velauthapill · 2003-09-09 06:31 · Score: 1

TCO isn't just a buzzword...

I know that isn't your main point but I felt like I must respond :)...

TCO IS a buzzword. I am not taking a position in favour of Windows or Linux but the way TCO is used is biased and almost meaningless. The people who popularized that term, the business crowd, has even given up on that and started using another concept: ROI (return on investment)... Again, I think ROI is a useless concept when it comes to tech...

Sivaram Velauthapillai

--
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)

windows 2003beats self on same hardware! -segfault by JimmytheGeek · 2003-09-09 06:37 · Score: 1

There was an article on segfault, I think, reporting that some version of windows beat itself on the same hardware. Nice send-up of this kind of thing.

Too bad segfault seems to be down.

Cheap Development by Lodragandraoidh · 2003-09-09 06:49 · Score: 1

Here is cheap development under Linux (or Windows for that matter):

Load Zope on your Linux server.

Learn Python, if you don't know it already.

Build web based apps quickly and easily via any web browser that supports frames from any location that can route to the server.

Zope has built-in functionality for http server, ftp server, Berkley DB, and allows you to access external SQL databases as needed.

Using simple templates and python programs you can build sophisticated applications quickly.

--

Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain

Eclipse does all this by Decaff · 2003-09-09 07:00 · Score: 3, Informative

All of these features are present in eclipse (www.eclipse.org) with Java.

Dotnet problems by alext · 2003-09-09 07:12 · Score: 1

it is good enough, there isn't much reason to not choose the better proprietry platform apart from kneejerk anti-MS

From a technical point of view, the better platform, on Linux at least, is undeniably Java. Given that high quality VMs are freely available from BEA, IBM and Sun, plus a vast array of tools and other products it would be absurd to pretend that Mono/DotGNU are offerings in the same league. So far, Mono consists of half-completed APIs that rely on WINE and a poorly performing VM, it currently has negligable industry support, very limited tools and a role in Novell's game plan that is far from clear.

From a business point of view, the actual decision is likely to depend on just two factors:

1) Herd instinct

The investment being made in Java on Linux is orders of magnitude greater than any other platform technology. It is probably the single biggest driver for the deployment of Linux beyond the web-server tier, so it is no surprise that MS has taken aim at it.

2) Risk

Dotnet is proprietary, patented and is not licensed for use on Linux (only the CLR is "shared-source"). No company in their right mind is voluntarily going to make itself a hostage to MS indulgence, particularly given Ballmer's stated position against clones and for retaining all rights to Dotnet.

Microsoft API - unstable by kupci · 2003-09-09 07:20 · Score: 1

knowing a lot of intricate details and knowledge of unstable APIs written by other people and not maintained in a consistent or even perfectly protable format.

Gadzooks. You mean the Win32 proprietary API with all it's arcane, unwieldy, undocumented features right? You can't possibly be talking (with any knowledge) about Unix/Linux, when there are *great* libraries such as TrollTech's QT, or GTK that you can use to program circles around those using that MFC monstrosity. Granted .NET is an improvement, but they've only caught up to where Java was 5 years ago.

"Protable" format? Dunno - Linux seems to be ported to just about any device imaginable from PDA's to Mainframes.

It's posts like these, oddly defensive of MSFT that make me wonder whether Bill hasn't sent a decree out to his employees to logon to Slashdot and post crackpot stuff about how great MSFT is.

Rose-tinted programming aids by alext · 2003-09-09 07:27 · Score: 1

Championed? Prodded warily with a long stick, more like.

RMS doesn't have to be paranoid to be against Mono.

J2EE vs .Net by snoopdug · 2003-09-09 07:28 · Score: 1

Note this article mentions that .net development takes less time that j2ee.

I heard that .net training may take longer.

IMHO, it takes a lot longer to actually set up a J2EE server.

IBM Websphere usually takes like 4-5 days to install and that is for a development system.

With .NET all you need to do is buy Visual .NET Studio.

So, it seems to me that they are probably do it something like this.

40 hours * $100 / hr = an extra $4000 bucks

I mean an extra $4000 bucks doesn't even come close to the $400,000 .... but...
What about hardware.... Generally java software needs more memory.. I don't know if .net requires more memory.

I hate microsoft too. But, this independant research firm MAY have some real data that we can use. Maybe instead of slashdot microsoft haters bashing the data. Maybe we need to take the data to sun and say see LOOK your J2EE sucks... Fix it!

And in other news by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-09 08:05 · Score: 1, Funny

NEWSFLASH: Sex doggie-style is much more enjoyable for women

(Reuters) -- In a study paid for by men, analysts determined that frequent doggie-style sex, including anal intercourse, provided women with much greater pleasure than alternatives.

"Clearly, the women preferred bareback to positions usually thought to be more stimulating for women," said a senior analyst. "Traditional favorites, such as cunnilingus and vibrator usage, were surprisingly found to have no stimulating value whatsoever, in our research. We're also absolutely certain that the funding for our project had no influence in the outcome."

seriously...

What's next? A study paid for by McDonalds claiming to discover that fast food makes you skinny? It must be really, really hard to get a journalism degree today when you run "dog bites man" slop like this.

Studies for Windows Shops by BrianMarshall · 2003-09-09 08:17 · Score: 1

This may not apply to this study, but I saw something similar where the basic story was that, if you already have Windows developers and admin people, then Total Cost is lower because you won't have to go out and hire expensive Linux people. For many shops this is true because there are a zillion Windows people out there.

BUT... As Linux becomes more popular and there are more Linux people out there and maybe you already have Linux people in your shop, Linux becomes cheaper.

--
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" -- HST

Real men use Oracle... by aquarian · 2003-09-09 08:25 · Score: 1

...and Oracle uses Java. Mostly. My point is that these arguments are irrelevent. Use the tool for the job at hand, the one that dovetails best with your existing technology, and the one your own people are most comfortable working with. All of 'em work fine, in their own niches.

Above all, don't get yourselves all wound up, only to be spun like silly little tops by Microsoft's spinmeisters (or anyone else's). Techies are supposed to be smart, and certainly like to think of themselves that way. But every day the PR flaks prove themselves to be smarter...

12 samples? by UnknowingFool · 2003-09-09 09:15 · Score: 1

If I interpret the study correctly, 12 companies (7 .NET and 5 Linux) were asked about costs of developing, implementing, and maintaining their software over a 3 year period. Some questions I would have are:

1) No specifics are given about the companies. What industries are they in? What kinds of applications are built. Are there apples to apples comparisons? A company managing their supply chain is going to spend more than a company building a web site. How large is "large?" Someone like IBM is going to spend a great deal more on an application deployed worldwide than Mary Kay will spending on a national application.
2) 12 samples is a very small sample size. Statistically not really valid.

Really if you wanted to compare costs, you would get 20 of Linux and 20 of Windows in the same industries for the same applications for the same sized companies so that all your variables are minimized. Then all you really comparing are actual TCO.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.

cost of "learning" is a skewed measure by DunbarTheInept · 2003-09-09 09:22 · Score: 1

Every time someone includes a 'cost of training' or 'cost of learning' in such a study they are being dishonest, because they don't include the cost of learning Microsoft's sytsems - they just assume everyone already knows them. While that is probably true, it is still a lie to state that this means the Microsoft solution is cheaper. It just means it's been partially paid for already. Using that to claim it's cheaper would be like me claiming that go-karts are more expensive than cars, based on the fact that most people already own a car. It would be like claiming that television is a cheaper form of entertainment than a boardgame of Parchesi, based on the fact that more people already own TV's than Parchesi games.

There is a distinct difference between claiming "X is cheaper" and "X is already paid for", and it would be nice if these studies had the honesty to be more careful with their statements like that.

--

Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

Attention: worm writers. by Tony-A · 2003-09-09 09:29 · Score: 1

Don't like the behavior of a system class? Doesn't let you do something you'd like to? Then override the implementation and do your worst. It's just that easy.

Wrong on both counts by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · 2003-09-09 10:01 · Score: 1

>A second-rate developer may only make 90% of what a first-rate developer does, but produces about half the results and lots more bugs
This sentence is fine.

Five years ago, perhaps. Back then, a second-rate developer might have taken home 90% as much as a first-rate one. Today, half the second-raters are lucky to have jobs at all, and those who do are unlikely to get anywhere near what a good guy with a proven track record will command. It's an employer's market now.

A third-rate developer might make 80% as much, and produce 1/5 the amount of code and vastly more bugs for the others to fix.
This unfortunatly seems to be re-itterating the stupid notion that it is about the no of lines of code you right.

It is about the number of lines of code you write, in part. I suspect your point is that it's not just about that, it's also about what you can do with those lines. Obviously one clear and maintainable line of code might be worth more than two lines of spaghetti that achieve the same end result.

Both volume and quality increase with developer skill, and the latter (though not the former) tends to increase with more powerful programming languages.

--
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.

The dishonesty is in the summarization by DunbarTheInept · 2003-09-09 10:09 · Score: 1

for a company similar to the subject pool, this study would seem to be an accurate comparison.

True. But the dishonesty is that the company that paid for the study usually (as in this case) tries to make the claim that the study applies to the general case. They bury the admission that it only applies to a specific case very deep down in the text, where if sued for fraud, they can claim they disclosed it, but far enough buried that it won't stick in people's minds. Somewhere in the body of the text it admits "Windows is cheaper, under the circunstances of the study, which were as follows", but up in the summary at the top it will just say "this study proves Windows is cheaper." and in the headline it will just say "Windows is cheaper."

--

Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

Stating the obvious by iamatlas · 2003-09-09 10:53 · Score: 1

They cite costs from more education, time developing, etc.

So... let me see here- they're saying windows programmers, on average, aren't as educated/knoweledgeable and don't take as much time to ensure quality before releasing? That doesn't sound like news to me.

Lets review... by Nuclear+Elephant · 2003-09-09 12:09 · Score: 1

- gcc 3.2: FREE - java sdk: FREE - gdb debugger, libefence, and other debugging tools: FREE Not having to use Windows: PRICELESS.

Gravity Pull People Towards Earth by jelle · 2003-09-09 13:49 · Score: 1

And there is indication to believe that water is also affected by gravity.

Oh, and light makes the darkness go away.

Green is a color, and dogs bark.

And honestly, this is not funny.

Why does something like that story get accepted on /.?

--
--- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.

Thanks by caffeineHacker · 2003-09-09 15:35 · Score: 1

I'm glad someone got it :)

And Oracle's JDeveloper isn't bad either by rune2 · 2003-09-09 16:33 · Score: 1

You can even freely download it off of the Oracle Technology Network for free and try it out for non-commericial applications.

Windows cheaper eh? by rune2 · 2003-09-09 16:40 · Score: 1

Next they'll be telling us that the G5 is faster than the Pentium 4...

Orange to Oranges by spruce · 2003-09-09 17:02 · Score: 1

Oh, let the bullshit flow. Give me some examples! If you don't think .NET can compare with J2EE - especially making the comparison between Access and Oracle similar to .NET and J2EE, then you truly don't have a objective viewpoint.

Of couse, enterprise applications (SAP, JDEdwards, etc...), which have the highest TCP ratings were on the Win32 platform - but they must have taken a step back with .NET! Fools - and I only thought that now that I'm cranking out apps with .NET I was much more efficient. Damn, time to break out the C++ ATL COM bible.

Now, if you're only talking about code that can run on a VM anywhere, then you might have a point. That's the only place where J2EE/Java has an advantage, and I'd argue the reason is it's an older technology. Don't be surprised when you see the .NET compact framework on your precious Java enabled hardware soon.

I have respect for both technologies, but you made a very unfair comparison, just wanted to point that out.

Re:Interested to know what university... by willy134 · 2003-09-11 03:34 · Score: 1

University is Brigham Young University

--
Can you ping me now?... Good!

Slashdot Mirror

Windows Cheaper When Studied by MSFT Analysts

327 of 425 comments (clear)