Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Rolls Out New Anti-Linux Ad Campaign
Anonymous Coward writes "Microsoft has launched a new ad campaign that purports to give 'objective third-party information' comparing Windows to Linux." See the ad campaign website for more, uh, facts.
In 2001, me and my partner were hired by Microsoft to do a "third party test" over which OS scales better, FreeBSD or Microsoft. We had a bad feeling about it from the get go, but decided that we needed money. And believe me, Microsoft pays plenty of money.
That is, of course, if the results go the way they wish. They didn't, and we argued and argued, and then were shown the NDA which clearly stated that if they aren't happy with it, we can go shove it up our arses. We were told we could "re-run" the tests, see if things changed, they suggested we made a mistake and so on. I just stood up and walked right out of the office while an exec was explaining this. I couldn't believe it. So, a warning:
YOU GET ZERO MONEY UNLESS YOU DO THE TEST IN THEIR FAVOUR.
What kind of objectivity can you expect?
Here's a little NDA violation:
We found out FreeBSD scales 3 times better than windows 2000 advanced server.
Fuck you Micro$oft.
Linux Mainframe?
granted this isn't hard to fake.
lynx -dump -head http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/facts/default.asp
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Connection: close
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 18:38:56 GMT
Server: Microsoft-IIS/6.0
P3P: CP='ALL IND DSP COR ADM CONo CUR CUSo IVAo IVDo PSA PSD TAI TELo OUR SAMo
CNT COM INT NAV ONL PHY PRE PUR UNI'
X-Powered-By: ASP.NET
Content-Length: 19802
Content-Type: text/html
Cache-control: private
Fact #1: Linux is Free!
Fact #2: Linux doesn't lock you into license agreements.
Fact #3: Linux is Free!
Fact #4: Multiple venders means if one company charges too much for support, go shopping.
Fact #5: Linux is Free!
And, from what I've seen in various offices, that's pretty much the argument. And guess what? Most often, I've heard "Well, let's just put a Linux box in there, and maybe replace it later when we have to."
"Replace is later" often becomes "never" after a few months anyway.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
that the documents are in .PDF instead of .doc. Of all the document formats to put it in, they put it in one that they don't support in their OS or office suite.
I have blog like everyone else
"WinTel Servers 10 times less expensive to operate than Linux Mainframe!"
"Microsoft delivers 25% lower development and support costs!"
"Window is 11-22% more cost effective!"
Did you know that 90% of all statistics are made up?
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Ever do the taste tests and find out they are biased as well? Ever go to a Pepsi booth and they say, taste test our Pepsi vs. Coke! :-) Only to find out the Pepsi is ice cold and the Coca Cola is room temperature. It's Fud I say! Fud!!!
The only people who will believe this are the Microsofties and their sales team.
I used to work for a large corporation that was failing. It was being taken apart and broken up by the banks and its creditors. Every week we had the same press releases.
"Business is better than ever" or Profits are Up over last year".
We had those till the last guy in the press release department was finally canned.
It does not make them sound better, only scared.
Here's my favorite...one of the papers is called:
"Lower Windows Staffing Costs Provide a TCO Advantage over Linux"
I'd read it, but it'd probably give me a headache. I mean, how in the world could they possibly tell me that having to have MSCE guys in the building 24-7 just to keep the net up and worm free is less expensive than Linux?
I don't think staffing costs are the best argument to demonstrate windows superior TCO. Kinda like using Little Big Horn to demonstrate Custer's tactical ability.
Weaselmancer
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Also, I bet a big chunk of that difference is the start-up costs involved in switching over from one OS to Linux, whereas the Windows systems were probably just upgrades. Sure, this is a fair cost to consider, but this would be especially high back in 1998.
I also like the study that compares the cost of using Linux mainframes to WinTel boxes. I think even a pointy haired boss would realize the apples to oranges comparison going on...
My next sig will be ready soon, but friends can beat the rush!
An interesting thing happened in my Object Oriented Programming Class for IS majors -- a discussion about open source software. In fact, the professor said that from an education stand point, OSS is much better. He went on to say that the reason that the Department choose to teach Java over .Net is because of the cost to students -- in other words, they felt that using OSS would allow students to fully explore Object Oriented Programing beyond the scope of the class. Further, the teachers (yes plural) pointed out that Linux is a better web server. The other interesting thing today was that the teachers said that they want to teach us IS and programming independent of platform by using Java. That way we would not be locked into a certain platform for solutions and make us more marketable.
Just an interesting thing to point out. Because if Microsoft is to succeed in their FUD, they are targetting the wrong people. When education circles are embracing OSS, it is only a matter of time before it gets trickled down to buisness. Also, when people get farmiliar with an OSS solution, when they are employed they are more likely to deploy something that they know.
The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
Absolutely. I deal with marketing people a lot and they generally say that baseing a campaign on trashing your competitors products is a big no-no. It can backfire badly. The fact that they are doing this demonstrates that they feel they don't have any other effective marketing weapons against Linux - i.e. promoting their products on their own merits isn't working so well these days.
Well, yes, of course. But what you're missing here is that the study compared Windows 2000 to Linux over a five year period. And where was Windows 2000 in 1998? So one could argue that Windows 2000 has come a lot further than Linux in that time. (Ignoring the fact that is was 'NT' before that ;-P)
What I *really* want to know, is where IDC keeps the time machine, because, if I count right, Windows 2000 was released less than 5 years ago making this study temporally improbable.
Let's hope that there's intelligent life somewhere out in space 'Cause there's bugger-all down here on Earth.
Programmers are more productive in Visual Studio than coding in vi/emacs/...
The difference between vb and perl/shell-scripting and VC++ and non-graphical C++ is an attitude towards programming. An MS programmer is less informed, even about his/her own program. When something goes wrong and MS programmer doesn't know how to fix it, possibly because its the fault of closed code.
Because the programmer is less informed, s/he has to stumble through coding. One cannot write a vb program and expect it to work, it must be ran countless times (moreso than a perl or bash, etc script) because the programmer does not and can not really know the language. (And they charge for documentation.)
I think that what happened is MS ignored Linux as it was taking market share from propietary Unices in the server market, and woke up one day and realized it was taking out Windows server installations too, so they're responding.
I think in their arrogance they are discounting the effectivness of Linux on a desktop (debate what you will, but depending on your tasks, its either there or darn close) and they'll realize it about the time their Longhorn sales are down 10-20%, and then they'll respond, which like in the server space, will be too little, too late.
They are too busy ignoring and hecking the amusing Penguin to notice it stealing their wallets.
Please send all UCE to scally@devolution.com so I can f
Two things may end up making marketing to "dummies" irrelevant:
1) Smart companies with IT directors who can actually do the job of those under them to a good extent.
2) Smart companies who actually listen to their IT directors.
When companies hire managers who do nothing but manage yet don't understand (read: haven't done) the job of the folks they manage, you get problems. When company CEOs like to micromanage the company instead of leaving decisions to other, more qualified people specialized in their field, you get problems.
I think with the economy on the rise, with companies trusting IT more since the 90's and realizing IT's place in a corporation, and with companies with over-protective, over-bearing and witless gits in management learning that this is a bad thing, we might begin to see changes in the effect of this kind of FUD.
Of course I could be quite incorrect and nothing will change.
~Dalcius
Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
Aren't UNIX jobs historically higher paying than Windows jobs? Even pre-bust, I could get a mildly experienced "windows admin" for $30-40k who could essentially click through the Windows GUI and do basic Windows admin tasks. I wouldn't trust them to do any more than that, but they could do it.
UNIX jobs went for much more 50-60k easily for small installations, and although you had to be careful not to get a piker, they were far more intelligent -- could do scripting, perhaps some basic perl scripts, and often had some basic experience with networking kit.
I'm not sure how the "new economy" has effected unix salaries, but I'd wager the fact that any idiot could and did get an MCSE and would work for $30k is why the staffing costs are so low.
Note to frothing MCSEs: I admin a mixed FreeBSD and Windows environment, and I think there are probably some really smart Windows admins, particularly in large enterprise-class situations. But I do think that most of the low-end smaller office environments have your commodity MCSEs.
"When the PHBs see reports from Microsoft, who THEY see as a trusted name in the industry..."
You must be kidding me. PHB's do not trust their venders further than they can throw them. They are suspicious by nature.
Having said that, they may not trust Microsoft, but they may use this information to avert a switch to Linux-based systems when confronted by their technical staff.
Numerous articles in the NYT over the past few months actually document the decline in trust that Microsoft is experiencing, mainly due to its security problems and licensing programs. Linux is cited as the major benefactor of this mistrust, specifically because of its open nature and track record.
Opinions change daily as new information arrives. Stay tuned.
Back during the "Take the Pepsi challenge" commercials, Pepsi's entire ad campaign was focused on how much better they are then Coke. A sure sign that Coke was beating them in the marketplace.
So is this the equivelant of Microsoft doing a Pepsi?
Reminds me of what Mahatma Gandhi said
"First they laugh at you, then ten they ignore you, then they fight you and then you win"
First they laugh at you --- Linux 0.** huh? that's funny.
then they ignore you -- Linux 1.** Who cares it is only for geeks, and it is only replacing othe unix
then they fight you -- Linux 2.** We can prove that windoze is better
they you win -- Linux 3.**???
This is true. But, the underlying reason that I keep hoping that people "get it", rather soon that ASAP, are a few:
1) The more people start using Linux, the more chance that that's what I'm going to WORK with and on in the future. More fun work.
2) The bigger market share Linux gets, the more people will start taking Linux into consideration with products and services they supply. This means it gets easier for me as a Linux-using consumer to "be a part of the world". This is already getting easier and easier.
However, there are a few things I'm really afraid of, the most notable one is the various e-governement initiatives. I'm dead scared that these will be based on proprietary, Windows-only solutions, making it harder and harder to be a part of the society as a non-Windows-user.
This is the main reason that spreading the word of and furthering the acceptance of Linux is something that I engage in. Once we have true competition, and people have to start factoring in the non-Windows-users or lose significant business, I couldn't care less what people actually use. It's a free world.
is that once again, Microsoft isn't comparing apples to apples. They're running a specifically Wintel system for Windows, and a mainframe (?!?) for Linux.
Next.
Could you imagine the exec who makes a decison based on a study that resides at Microsoft.com. He\she wouldn't last very long.
I disagree. Before you flame me - think about this...
Most small businesses have an external consulting firm setup their Windows servers and install them. Then the internal sysadmin just has to sit there and watch funny graphs and what not - but not really to think.
There are also Windows SysAdmins who know what they are doing. However, IMHO, only about 25% of all Windows SysAdmins really have a handle on what is going on...
For companies that use Linux, usually the internal sysadmins are more savvy and purchase and setup their own servers.
Now the comparison:
Windows SysAdmin who just sits there and monitors the server - prob $35-40k
Windows SysAdmin who takes an active role in their network (and knows what they are doing) - prob $50k and up
Linux SysAdmin (there is no distinction between a moron Linux Admin and a good Linux Admin... you have to admin, if you use/admin Linux you learn and become more savvy) - prob $50k and up...
In general - Windows staffing will be cheaper, if only because Windows is easier and shinier than Linux.
Rogue(n): 1. One who is playfully mischievous;
If MS is claiming any sort of meaningful result from a 5-year study, let's see ...
;)), and the X Window System was happily doing what X did on Suns and SGI machines. Some google searching finds that January 5 years ago is when the "The first 2.2 prerelease kernels appear, starting the final push toward the release of the long-awaited 2.2 kernel."
c e.org/MPlayer/MySQL/etc etc. That is, systems running software to do stuff.
... I'm looking at an over-simplified black and white world for the purposes of illustration :)
5 years ago, it was early 1999. Linux existed, and more than existed -- it was already nicely stable and robust, had inspired some print journals and ongoing festivals (ok, we call them "conventions" and "expos" but c'mon
Now, not that the curves are easy to define, but if you could match up (in your own domain, naturally) the Windows curve of improvement vs. the Linux curve, what would you find? Has Windows gotten better as quickly (for your uses) as Linux has? Do you believe that in another (1,3,5) years that Windows will either remain or have become "better" than Linux for your application?
And Yes, I mean "GNU/Linux" and more to the point GNU/Linux/X/Apache/Perl/Python/KDE/GNOME/OpenOffi
This ignores Mac OS X or other Unix varieties of course, and does not get into the fact that "Windows" describes a gurgling sea of related, slightly different operating systems
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
I couldn't agree with you more.
Microsoft knows that above anything else, Linux wins in the price of obtaining it (~free).
They know that it's only a matter of time before Linux server management becomes easy enough for uncertified sysadmins to manage them at the same cost as managing a Windows server environment. (some might argue that time is right now).
Even more, Microsoft knows that, somewhere between now and Longhorn's release, someone out there probably will come out with a Linux client desktop UI w/office suite that's as easy and intuitive for Joe Sixpack to use.
The day Joe Sixpack can boot up a Linux box and dial-up, surf the web, send emails, install software, burn CDs and play Windows games (via a zero-config version of Wine) using a FREE OS and open source software, Micrsoft will be doomed.
I hope and pray that the open source community makes the most out of these upcoming, critical years before Longhorn.
Who knows, one day we might have an uber Knoppix-like live-DVD distro that does everything I've mentioned here.... for FREE. Then get some weathy entrepeneur to mail the discs out AOL-style to everyone in the world.
That's my dream anyway.
Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
a friend of mine is a sql server consultant. his client is paying him very large sums of money to tweak their kludged distribution of sql server machines so that they can achieve something resembling scalability. in fact, he is making significantly more than me, and i am an oracle/unix specialist.
Microsoft's claims courtesy of Sterling Ball, CEO of Ernie Ball Guitar strings.
Fortunately my Company Finance Guys talk to me in first instant - and they believe me when I explain what M$ are really saying (plus the fact of being tied in for the next 5 years of unwanted costs). I am currently about to turn down the expense of MSSQL 7.0 sp2 for the very reason of this 'stuck with it' prinicple in the licencing. Nick
but my small ( 3 people ) group manages a linux cluster of > 4000 CPUs fairly easily as well as the servers directly related to it's and operation ( and a hell of a lot of other sidework as well ), and we have 3 *nix admins who handled everything from desktops to large Netapps filers.
On the other hand, for about the same amount of desktops in the Windows side of our operation, we have 3 people just to handle the them ( no server work, no production support, handling of data transport to remote sites, helldesk staffing, etc. ).
I'd laugh my ass off to see how many people it takes to handle that many Windows cluster nodes, or server-level functions ( some of which Windows can't even provide ).
PC moderators can suck my White pierced, tattooed dick. If you think pride == hate, s/dick/Aryan meat mallet/g.
Except, that's a cynical approach. I sell a lot of stuff on eBay, and I go out of my way to make sure people know what they're getting. It's not that uncommon a practice on eBay. People list an antique piece of furniture, and provide detailed closeups of all the flaws and dings.
It's because eBay has this 'feedback' feature and if you want to have credibility as a seller, you have to make sure you're selling to people who want what you're offering.
A Good Intro to NetBS
Your claim for Linux is obviously spurious. You cannot know if TCO will rise or fall.
However, IDC's report is much more conclusive. Measured to within an order of magnitude (and when comparing TCO, which is highly volatile and often subjective, you really can't extract information beyond an order of magnitude), it shows clearly that Linux has exactly the same TCO for every environment sampled as Windows...
Consider that this is a MICROSFT funded report, and yet they were unable to demonstrate a TCO delta of more than a few percent in the real world! I really wasn't sure until I saw it on MS' site, but now I'm certain: Linux rocks for business!
The report also avoided application servers, an area in which Linux shines, normalized for the fact that Linux handles higher workloads, ignored early adopters of Linux. Given all of those factors, I would say that this is quite the rosy report card!
but rather they are marketing to the upper managment and accountants who need to focus on costs
True. But wanna know what convinces these people more than a Microsoft-funded study and website? The stock market.
These guys pride themselves in tracking stocks and predicting trends. They get the WSJ and join stock clubs. They brag over their portfolio at the gym with their buddies. The market is their self-definition of their sophistication and competence.
When dot-bust happened, Microsoft bought itself time by using the tech bubble collapse as "proof" that shaky companies were too dangerous to rely upon. They worked hard to spread disinformation that Linux somehow had something to do with the collapse (and with the demise of so many Linux-related companies, it didn't help. SCO may think it's pal'ing up to Microsoft by its assault on Linux, but Microsoft is only using SCO as further proof that 'one does not bet his/her career on the UNIX ilk').
If you want to get the executive in your organization's attention, point to what's been happening to Redhat's stock (RHAT). I recommended this stock to a bunch of the PHB's last August. They bought between $6 and $8. It's now just under $20. Any time you can double someone's money in just a few months, you'll get their attention. I had a presentation last month about open source to them all - now that they're believers - and they were diligently scribbling notes and believing in the message (Granted, I've become concerned about Redhat's move per RH Linux, but that's too esoteric for the PHBs).
If Redhat is taking off, the PHB will assume there is something significant happening. Combine that with Microsoft's flat revenues and you'll scare the crap out of them. Make them believers in Linux real fast.
Try it... it works.
We have clothing plants in dozens of countries around the world. We have a huge inventory of supplies, payroll, and iventory to manage. Some of this stuff is in transit, some of it is warehouses. There is no way we would trust our world-wide operation to Microsoft. We are completely prepared for catastropic failure in ways that Microsoft could not comprehend.
For another opinion:
http://news.com.com/2008-1082_3-5065859.html?tag=l h
"The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates." - Tacitus
Interesting that one of Microsoft's top examples is a comparison of TCO between wintel servers and an IBM z-series (formerly known as s/390) mainframe running SUSE. Of COURSE mainframes cost ass-loads of money, and people who buy IBM mainframes are more likely to be using them for their reliability than flat-out performance per dollar. Let's see a comparison between Win2K3 and Linux on the same Intel boxen, guys.
Anonymous Luddite: "What do you think of the dehumanizing effects of the Internet?"
Andy Grove: "Not Much."
as you can imagine we do everything from open source to java and microsoft. we have many GPL products out there to compliment our paid for solutions. We also write many proprietary solutions - such is the way of the world.
My study found that .NET development was indeed cheaper for small projects less than 200,000 euros. This was primarily down to the ease of use of Visual Studio. After that, diminishing marginal returns begin to set in much faster than equivalent J2EE development projects. This was largely down to more mature development choices in J2EE (open source Eclipse, Apache Jakarta et al). Simple things in life like MS SourceSafe are great for small projects but a bloody disaster for big projects - CVS comes unto its own when you have geographically dispersed workforce. Big projects had good success with PVCS (even thoug I am not a fan!!!)
We also found that Visual Basic 6 developers were having a hard time migrating their skills to VB.NET and many VB programmers were unable to complete VB.NET work packages on time. On the whole Java programmers felt at home with C sharp. When it came to deployment, things were not so good with terrible problems with garbage collection (reminds me of Java 6 years ago) and scalability being poor value for money in large soak tests.
I felt that one of the reasons that larger projects were becoming expensive was that .NET did not have a consistant development methdology and was trying to be all things to all people. This costs a lot of money when you have 50 developers on your project books. Rational XDE certainly has helped but I imagine that the new owners (IBM) will direct Rational software towards J2EE and their websphere product set.
From a rollout and maintenance perspective (not covered on the MS website) we found that it was easy to get commercially locked into .NET. E.g., with J2EE, we have been able to play BEA off against Oracle (9iAS) during contract negotiations in order to hammer down on licence price but more importantly on ongoing support pricing. Java based systems also gave us a freer mandate to buy varying types and configurations of hardware from the large 64 bit unices to linux on 32 bit intel again playing off the likes of HP against Dell, IBM, Sun and so on.
We make our money from winning work based on price. If we get the price wrong then we lose money on a software development exercise - thats why we do studies like this and monitor developer acheivement.
When I did the research in early 2003, 85% of the workforce claimed Oracle skills of varying levels. VB was the highest dev language followed by Java and then .NET languages (bulked into one group unfortunately due to our skill tracker system). (~5000 staff).
2p worth.
rd
If someone doesn't run Linux, that's no skin off anyone's back but their own. Let them pay for their poor choice and move on with your life.
... hypothetically, let's pretend) well, they've managed to hype and market and move an inferior product, garnering billions of dollars in the process. All of this is money that could be going into Linux and OSS for development. I'm not saying we should capitalize and proprietarize Linux, but Bill Gates is buying islands and building mansions (and stocking schools with Windows boxes) with money that could be used to develop a cheaper kernel into something more secure, usable, or flashy (or whatever). Hell, there'd probably be plenty to get the schools even MORE, BETTER computers running a free and communally supported OS.
Yes, but it does impact other users. IF Windows is inferior (er
Let's say (God forbid) that you really loved Crystal Pepsi. You can buy it all you want and drink it and love it, but if nobody else buys it, the product will be discontinued and you'll end up losing a product you enjoyed because the market moved that way. Yeah, it's the way of the world, and that economics and free enterprise, but that doesn't mean we won't lose a potentially better product in the process.
So they compare a high end mainframe with a low end Intel Xeon box. Z900's can have up to 64GB of memory. Windows 2000 Server can only access 4GB. When you request a quote from IBM for a Z900, the options for the amount of storage space you need are listed in TBs!!
So they are comparing a large enterprise size mainframe with a small departmental server. Talk about comparing apples with oranges. The results of the study must have been REALLY bad for MS if they had to waste $200,000 - $400,000 on hardware to prove that MS has a better TCO.
Go not unto/. for advice, for you will be told both yea and nay (but have nothing to do with the question)
there was an article recently on CNet that basically stated MySQL has been making a noticeable impact on MS Sql Server sales. MS would be stupid to just let this slide by without fighting back. The best part is, the more they fight, the worse it gets for them. Had microsoft focused on fixing things back in 98, OSS probably wouldn't have made any difference. By ignoring OSS for so long, they brought this on themselves.
Instead of jumping right in and converting boxes over to Linux and FreeBSD I quietly received permission to build a couple of FreeBSD servers out of PCs slated for the recycle bin.
Reciently I was involved in some meetings to look at network and server monitoring tools which included Deep Metrix's IP Monitor and Ipswitch's What's Up Gold. Both are pretty "entry level" but we only needed to monitor 25 servers for (mostly) non mission-critical reasons.
I took it on my own to install Nagios on one of my "play" servers over a long weekend. The following Monday I pulled the people together from the previous meetings and showed them what Nagios and FreeBSD could do...monitor everything they had defined as being critical to be monitored and send notifications via a TAP gateway to our IT pager.
Everyone was thrilled, the cost was about 8 hours of my time (they gave me a freebie day off!) and there was no MSFT tax paid.
Now that open source solutions have a) proven themselves in our organization and b) reduced some of our IT costs management is much more interested and much more flexible in investigating and implementing alternative solutions.
As long as Microsoft keeps charging us an arm and a leg for the privledge of implementing their systems (and sometimes they do have a better tool, I can admit that) Linux will have a strong ally in cost-concious managers everywhere if we can tone down the rabid fandom that scares a lot of "normal" people away!
Be polite and political about Linux and alternatives in your organization, and just show what it can do and you'll find people are more receptive to the idea!
IT people are used to seeing vendor ads claiming high performance and low TCO. I doubt that these ads will create a groundswell of professional enthusiasm for Microsoft or against Linux and Open Source. The community of IT peers MS is trying to discredit is growing, not shrinking.
What's significant and encouraging is that Microsoft has moved from worrying about servers to worrying about *everything*.
From a related article: In his platform-strategist role, Taylor succeeds Peter Houston, senior director of Microsoft's Windows Server Strategies, as chief Linux watcher. "Pete was more focused on server, but I'm more cross-group focused, and focused on the whole Microsoft software stack," Taylor said.
I other words, they are realizing they are in more trouble than they thought.
Counterpoint: The methods for administering Linux boxen must be measured in several ways:
Cost to install and initially setup OS for intergration into an environment, including security
Cost build and configure a default user account
Cost to write/configure health monitoring scripts for indication of adverse events
Backup/Restore capabilities and costs
.NET development, SQLServer, IIS, Exchange servers, etc all come with an ongoing license fee (License 6 model). Also comparing ramp-up time for each of these tools may involve training materials which MS does not give away, versus Linux information flow online and in published info/man pages the costs are stacked highly against Microsoft.
This is only to scratch the surface of admin. In detail, a Linux admin has many capabilities transferrable from older Unix-style OS's. Windows OS's, OTOH, have routinely changed their server administration methods, both through updates and through versions. NT/2000/XP each have delicate nuiances that must be published. This doesn't mention services like ActiveDirectory etc that can radically change a administration model.
More efficiency per dollar
Counterpoint: Not counting continuous uptime, Microsoft and Linux can each be tuned to comparable speeds for dedicated servers (mail, file, print, web). This immediately clouds when comparing details since scripting hosts, programming style, cache arrangements and developer expertise may be vastly different. However, given that most tools for Linux are also free, Microsoft must admit the costs for not only the OS, but all their server offerings.
NOTE: Counting continuous uptime, MS loses by such a overwhelming amount that it makes the above counterpoint moot. Cycling a Microsoft box because of a update (forced or not) - across all installed packages - is not uncommon. Keeping the Microsoft tool compatability across these installations is also a hit or miss operation with a poor historical record.
Reduced development costs
Counterpoint: Installing all tools from a end-user Linux distro is under the "free" cost of the OS itself. The tools from Microsoft, best bought in a corporate level using a bulk package, are per seat and difficult to transfer (MSDN subscriptions, namely). The scripts and methods used to program many *nix boxes over the past 30 years are still highly applicable to learning and building your own system. MS OTOH has published a new OS or set of tools to interact with it on average ever 2 years for the past 15. Also, the speed of MS's updates are pushed by forces that may not be required of your installation, but must be installed to patch a security risk or other problem. IE, Only by upgrading to Office 2000 do you close certain security holes, since 97 is no longer supported. You want to close the security hole, but cannot/do not want to upgrade your entire corporate environment, especially when losing backward compatability (Access 97, for example).
OVERALL
The ONLY conclusion one can make about a MS to Linux TCO comparasion is by encompassing a use-case scenario driven from the most common demographics of users: corporate installations, home-users and industrial embedded applications. MS has seen their market share erode on all these fronts, due to simple arguments like the counterpoints above. No whitepaper fronted by any agency of Microsoft can refute that in the few CDs of a common Linux distro, the entire capability of their OS, their development platforms, their servers, their documentation and more (security, stability) show up for free, and work out of the box.
Real TCO in Linux can be kept to intelligence of the owners and 0 in currency. There is simply no way for Microsoft to compete against that model without offering better software. To this end, they lose when those use-case patterns do not adopt their innovations, while Linux tools methodically become more stable and approachable.
If Microsoft really believed what's in the ad, they wouldn't be running the ad. The existence of the ad says, "Linux is a strong competitor for Microsoft products. We are willing to pay millions to try to prevent that perception." The ads don't sell Microsoft, they sell Linux and BSD and Open Source, by showing that the 800-pound gorilla takes them seriously.
Remember this about Windows XP and Windows Server 2003: The file system is crippled. You cannot make a working backup of your OS installation using Microsoft tools. (This has been verified many times by Microsoft technical support. Don't tell me about Sysprep; it is not a backup tool. Yes, I know about third-party tools; they are all buggy, not supported by Microsoft, and may cause problems that remain hidden for a while. See Experiences w/ Drive Imaging Software? No, NTBackup does not back up the operating system. See the comment, There are many limitations to Sysprep, for Microsoft's notification of hidden problems.)
That's all you need to know. If you can't make operational backups, it isn't sensible to use the software. By crippling its file system, Microsoft has made it imperative that you choose some other operating system.
Also, any government that allows the use of proprietary file formats owned by someone else is not really an independent government, is it? You can't reliably work with your intellectual property created with Microsoft products unless you pay Microsoft money! Microsoft's international government customers are under the control of a foreign company controlled in part by a foreign government that runs the biggest spy organizations that have ever existed.
Who was using the more than 60 serious security vulnerabilities found in the last two years in Microsoft products before they were fixed?!!! Foreign governments? Your competitors? Hackers?
Microsoft can change the license terms to which you are bound after you have made your purchase and agreed to the terms!
I'm definitely not anti-Microsoft. I want Microsoft's top management to take these limitations and problems seriously and fix them. Until then, Microsoft products must always lose, unless a feature at present available only with Microsoft products is needed.
Microsoft has a policy of assisted suicide for its products: Windows Desktop Product Life Cycle Support and Availability Policies for Businesses. This enforced software death is different from the support schedules of Linux companies. Microsoft's software death involves being forceably pushed to an entirely new operating system, with new hardware requirements and many, many new bugs and training problems. This has certainly been true of the switch from Windows 98 to Windows XP. It certainly appears likely to be true of a switch from Windows XP to Windows Longhorn. In contrast, a Linux upgrade is to something very similar. It is likely that no hardware upgrade and little or no new training will be necessary. And, since you have the source code, there are many companies who will be glad to support old products, and even update them where necessary.
Do you want Microsoft as a business partner? Here are three articles about Microsoft:
So their TCO comparisons are like comparing a gasoline-powered pickup truck to a diesel-powered Tractor-Trailer and saying it clearly shows that using gasoline is cheaper for moving frieght.
Nice.
Yep. MS created Linux. Or more accurately, they created the environment for it to succeed.
First, Win31x and Dos were heavily pirated. AKA Free as far as the consumer goes. Bill himself realized that marketshare > profit margin, and even tried to tell apple that back when they made $$$ selling excel for mac. This was back in the days when mags compaired win pcs $2000 to $6000 macs. The same PC was even cheaper for hobbyists, who could get a free copy (pirated) of windows, dos and doom and maybe still use their last computer's case, floppy drive, etc. Sound familiar? MS was built on free software. Alot of why MS succeeded 20 yrs ago is also why linux is succeeding now. It's cheap. It allows hobbyists to do something. MS has lost all of those advantages.
Second, MS killed their competition. They were either better or cheaper. If that didn't work they bought the company (or just broke the competition's software in windows). They can't undercut Linux. They can't buy linux. They can't break linux. That leaves them to only be better, which is only one way to fight.
Competition & monopolies is a lot like germs -- if you kill off the weak, eventually what you face will be immune to the techniques that you killed everything else off with. Pay software couldn't compete -- MS would undercut them. Regular companies couldn't compete -- MS would buy them. The traditional software model didn't work against MS, so something evolved that could. This competitor is been specifically crafted/evolved to resist many of the attacks MS has used in the past.
It's just natural selection at work...
I've been with my company for five years. For the first two and a half years we ran on a Solaris network. We had one network failure the whole time. It was because a harddrive failed. It was replaced within half an hour. Then we got bought out, and the last two and a half years were with a Windows network. Network outages are a weekly event.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Here's a question for the /. crowd: in your experience, how much do development tools/environment affect "development costs"? I'm working on replacing a billing application for a large utility, and very little of my time is spent *coding* and a lot of my time is spent in meetings and gathering requirements.
...but I have to say it. Who Cares?
We all realize that the success of Linux has not been because Linux has a large marketing arm that allows Linux Open Source Developers to produce a weak product and make up for it with pretty little catch-phrases like "Do more with Less!" (Windows Server 2003...I kinda though it was less too).
Allow me to admit something (Without being lit on fire). I was a huge Microsoft Advocate up until about 2 years ago. I argued with all of you "*nix People" until my keyboard wore out. I laughed at all of you who said it was better, faster, more reliable, and scoffed at the notion of Microsoft being an indestructable Monopoly. But yet, today, I sit in front of my Gentoo Linux based OS, running KDE, viewing Slashdot on Konquerer (something just couldn't get me away from browsers integrated into operating systems). Why? Because it works better, I can run my one copy on all of my computers without paying for it, and I genuinly like the Linux Experience over that of the Windows Experience (Hey, I can run an FTP server, mail server, file server, and still browse the internet without paying for a server based license).
Linux *never* provided me any kind of candy coated marketing slogans or white papers. Microsoft did. And they're only doing this because they realize that Marketing is the one place where they can over-power Linux. Too bad marketing doesn't run my computer.
Honestly, from my perspective the learning curve was difficult (still is, actually), and it is harder to find lower-wage technical staff that can troubleshoot Linux...but that's only because Microsoft has the operating system that is on most peoples' computers. It's not always going to be like that, and it appears to be trending in a direction away from MS. What in the heck are they going to do when they can no longer depend on support staff being unfamiliar with Linux?
When people realize that their next Windows is going to give more control to the Software Vendors and Content Providers than it gives to the user as it "Checks in" to ever-more-common Activation Code systems on the Internet to make sure you're not stealing crap that isn't worth what they want to charge you for it in the first place...how is Microsoft going to market their way out of it? It's doubtful that they will be able to depend on their "Hey, what other choice do you have?" attitude anymore.
But from my perspective: I don't treat my OS with any more reverence than I treat my toaster. I don't care who runs it, I don't care who doesn't. There's plenty of software for it, plenty of reasons I wouldn't run anything else, and I think others would agree regardless of what a Microsoft Sponsord report from IDC says. Linux is like a virus. We got the "brass" to allow us to install one of them into our shop about 2 years ago. Everyone was so happy with its performance that now we have several and are planning to move ever more important enterprise based functions in that direction.
"God is dead!" - Nietzsche
"Nietzsche is dead!" - God
... where I can go into a small business staffed by complete computer illiterates (that part is actually easy to find), and offer them a complete system that will handle all of their word-processing, spreadsheet, AR, AP, payroll, and CRM without a lick of MS software anywhere in it. Of course, as part of this dream, the total cost and effort of the installation is practically nil, and I get a lucrative maintenance contract to do the stuff that the staff can't or won't figure out how to.
So far, I have been unable to do that, but the solution to this appears to be fairly close at hand. When it is, MS will have competition that it can't effectively deal with in any way except to improve the quality and reliability of its software.
But for now, I keep running into problems where things simply don't work. OpenOffice is great for techies, but when it acts up, it's enough to piss off a saint. Techies put up with that because they can come up with workarounds easily, but little old secretaries with blue hair are going to be utterly confounded when something doesn't work as expected, or an import doesn't quite keep the same formatting, or the margin just won't go where you want it, etc.
I'm still working on it (suggestions welcome).
Concealed Handgun License Courses in Plano, Texas
For a real example of this, see the XP SP2 discussion, and witness all the posts complaining that 95% of the world is stuck on a browser that has piss-poor standards support, and there's very little we can do about it. Yes, we have a better alternative. No, sheep^H^H^H^H^Hpeople aren't going to switch to it in droves, for whatever reason. It's partially consumers' fault, but microsoft is also complicit in holding everyone back.
I think most of them did that because of compatibility requirement and lack of alternatives.
So, in other words, they want it.
Just because a consumer isn't thrilled with every aspect of a product doesn't mean it's not the best product available for their needs. If someone wants compatibility with large proprietary vendors, then they want microsoft.
By the way, I think the real distinction between a "want" and a "need", economically speaking, is that you need something general, and you want something specific. For example: you need food; you want steak. You need an OS; you want Microsoft Windows 2000.
Back to my original point, things people say and things people do are different. Somebody might feel like they want security, but when it comes down to it nobody will pay for it. Do you think people would pay an extra $150 for the OS, and an extra $100 for the email client, for the sake of security? How much would you pay? How much would the average network admin pay? How much would the average home user pay?
My estimation is that people would pay far less than it would cost Microsoft to actually design a secure platform.
By your definition, everyone wants everything. Heck, I "want" a mansion on the beach and a new 'vette. But I'm smart enough to not go around saying it until I have the money.
The original poster was talking about IBM and how people wanted security. He said that IBM could sell "worm resistant" linux. But I'm saying all the talk about security is just talk. The people who care about security now are the same people that cared about it before, and the worms changed nothing. The people who really care: banks, CIA, etc., never had their networks open to worms in the first place. Name me one CTO who announced that he would buy IBM and replace windows because of worm attacks. Nope, they complain and that's it. Whatever miniscule amount of money that people who care about security were willing to spend because of a few worms was spent on Microsofts month-o-security (or whatever they called it), which was also mostly talk.
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
That all changed when the idiots ran the company into the ground, and got booted out by disgruntled stockholders. To be replaced by management that is always looking for the next big thing, and looking to cooperate with everybody in sight -- Java, Linux, whatever. For those of who grew up with an IBM that wouldn't tolerate aftermarket add-ons in any form, this change in philosophy seems unreal, even after all these years.
Now IBM is making noises about totally replacing Windows with Linux for in-house work. If this happens, I will be forced to take back every pessimistic post I've ever made about the future of desktop Linux. Which I will do with extreme pleasure!