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.
Looking at the first PDF file, it says "an IDC Whitepaper Sponsored by Microsoft." Exactly how is a study sponsored by MS considered to be an objective third-party study?
At least they didn't compare Linus to Karl Marx.
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.
A study of total costs of ownership over five years for working corporate infrastructure shows that lower staffing expenses are a large part of an 11-22% cost advantage for Windows...
Where was Linux in 1998? Not even close to where it is today. If you compared Linux and Windows over the next 5 years, the TCO would favor Linux over Windows hands down.
I for one will sleep better at night knowing that Microsoft is out there looking out for our best interests and performing impartial research for which OS is better for us the consumer. With benevolent corporations like that we hardly need to research or even think for ourselves.
"Anything is possible with enough programmers, time and pizza." (Substitute caffeine for time as needed.)
Can't we all just get along?
Linux Mainframe?
Ads are never objective. The try to sell you something, convince you of their truth.
.Net development costs 25% lower than Linux .Net developers are out there? And how much information from those in the field is there about .Net
Even if that were true, to develop cheaply, you need some developers familiar with the language, and an established corpus of ideas and methods about how to get the language to work.
So. How many
Ask the same questions about C
Exercise your right not to vote. thinkoutside.org
There was a time not too long ago when Microsoft barely recognized the existence of Linux.
Now they are actively trying to steer customers away from Linux.
To me, that speaks volumes!
There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
If MS didn't take Linux seriously, it would not need to pay for such studies. Corporate execs are smart enough to do their own research and will use independent reports to make a decision - just as they do with their hardware, or car buying choices.
O'WONDERWe're working on it.
As others are sure to point out, a few years ago Microsoft wouldn't have bothered saying anything at all about Linux, then they dismissed it, and now they are trying to produce evidence against it. So clearly they are becoming more and more worried by the competition, although interestingly their advertising is all aimed at the server market, they are not yet mentioning Linux on the desktop. Is this to do with just where its been hurting them so far or is this indicative that they are not worried by Linux on the desktop just yet?
Fitting cartoon.
In Soviet Russia, the television watches YOU!
Here is where he began...
libertarianswag.com
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
I'm sure there's a formula, but I'm sure M$ isn't factoring RISK into their calculations.
Can I bum a sig?
What's missing in the 'lower TCO' factor, assuming it's true, is what effect this has on a local economy.
Yes, many businesses will feel good about 33% lower labor costs. That's over a 5 year cycle tho. So, you've generally got higher first year costs with most of that money leaving the local economy (unless you live in Redmond). Then, year after year, you can pay people in your area (employees) less money. Paying somewhat more to employees over 5 years ensures they've got money to spend - primarily locally (usually within the state at least) as well as pay more taxes (not just income taxes, but taxes on the local services).
Effectively, MS is arguing to simply extract money from local economies and pay people less. Short term, that may be fine. Long term, it only hurts. Schools/governments/etc should be *vary* cautious about this, if not downright hostile.
creation science book
Instead of making stupid comments like this why don't you try to refute the facts presented
as a poster, this is your job.
We're like rats, in some experiment! -- George Costanza
MacroSolid
The Nemesis of MicroSoft.
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.
Yeah, and these guys don't know WTF they're talking about!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Nothing screams quality like a browser-scaled GIF for the company logo!
I remember reading excerpts of a report last year (I believe from a marketing firm to Microsoft) basically stating that the ethical attacks on GNU/Linux were actually hurting Microsoft, while people were responding to the TCO arguments.
Taking one look at that site, M$ sure took notice of that report.
-t
http://unmoldable.com W:"No one of consequence" I:"I must know" W:"Get used to disappointment"
I used to work for Worldcom doing monitoring of
their worldwide data center. We kept logs of server
outages. Windows-based servers had at least 10
times more failures than any non-Windows servers.
I didn't see that fact listed on the Microsoft site.
From the "Get the Facts" site:
A study of total costs of ownership over five years for working corporate infrastructure shows that lower staffing expenses are a large part of an 11-22% cost advantage for Windows. For file-server workloads in particular:
Staffing expenses were 33.5% better. Training costs were 32.3% better.
Heh.. translation... Micromonkies are a dime a dozen because they don't actually have to know anything to get their "certification". I'd love to see somebody try to price out a clueful Microtech once. I'm sure the prices aren't too much cheaper than a *nix admin. One time, I actually had to sit and explain how a web server works to one of our "affordable" Microsoft certified admins here. That was probably the most pathetic point in both of our careers...
Another tasty quote from "Get the Facts":
Microsoft-sponsored benchmarks prove...
I don't understand this at all. How can people take this crap seriously? That's like having McDonald's sponsor a study on the overall health value of its food. Are there actually people so monumentally STUPID in this world that they would believe a study sponsored by an organization with a vested interest in a certain outcome? We must find these people and run them down like animals before they breed!
What amazes me most, I believe, is that there really are people that horrendously dumb and, yet, we've managed to evolve to this point.... now these people are managers and they tie our evolution in red tape, so the human race is pretty much fucked from this point on....
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
But can I just say something really quick? This won't take long, and I believe it is completely relevant to the MS vs Linux ordeal. Okay here goes:
! !
! !
AHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!!
BLAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAH!!!!
BEAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Jean Bozman, Al Gillen, Charles Kolodgy, Dan Kusnetzky, Randy Perry, and David Shiang IDC
A study of total smells of delevopers over five years for working corporate infrastructure shows that lower staffing smells are a large part of an 811-922% cost advantage for Windows. For teams of 4-8 developers in particular:
"Let the dogs bark, Sancho, it's a
sign we're going in the right direction."
1. They ignore you.
2. They laugh at you.
3. They fight you.
4. You win.
5. Profit!
The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them. - Mark Twain
No warranties? Where's Laura Didio when you need her?
Oh, and don't use so many caps Microsoft, it's lame.
Yeah really. What the hell does that mean? A 'consolidator'?
... I set up 4 Wintel boxes to run as a 'web farm' with some sort of load-balancing between them (on my DNS?), or I use a single Linux box and put all my web sites on it... nope, that doesn't make sense.
So, lemme see
This leaves a big fat "eh?" taste in my mouth.
Maybe they're talking about IBM's VM-based system, which puts 'virtual linux boxes' in their mainframes?
From this article, I can only conclude that Microsoft are about as good at PR as they are at writing software. Convoluted, confusing, irrelevant, and frequently non-sequitur...
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
On the topic of staffing, of course it is cheaper, you can just pay the janitor to click Start-Shutdown-Restart a few times a day.
What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
"WinTel Server 10 Times Less Expensive to Operate Than Linux Mainframe" Its a mainframe! not a Intel box! No wonder its 10 times less expensive!
Alright, then, here's a few:
Don't get me wrong. I use MS products every day and I actually think they are a great company despite their severe attitude problems and tendency to play hardball viciously.
But this material is far from the last word on the subject.
Now, show me someone who has documented lower TCO at the same uptime level and load and maybe you've got something.
I would like to know what development software packages they compared. Did they compare the most advanced offerings from Sun with all the bells and whistles to a copy of C# .Net standard edition? Did they compare full blown Oracle database with an access database? This is an exageration but it would be way to easy to skew numbers in Microsoft's favor (and vice versa).
For TCO, I have to comment on where it says that the total percentage cost for IT salaries is higher using Linux. Well duh... you don't have to spend as much on hardware and software which means IT salary will take a larger percent of what is spent.
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.
"Microsoft-sponsored benchmarks prove that multiple WinTel Web servers perform better than a Linux mainframe acting as a Web server consolidator."
This is a pretty fun quote, and implies quite a lot. Note that the "multiple WinTel Web servers" weren't compared to multiple Linux/Intel Web servers, which implies that no matter how the results were fiddled, and no matter what the distribution of Linux used, the benchmarks showed Linux outperformed Windows on Intel hardware.
So instead they compare the Windows setup to a "Linux mainframe acting as a Web server consolidator", because they can't get the results they want, any other way. Why else would they compare apples to oranges, unless there was no way to make the benchmarks favour Microsoft?
They actually used "WinTel" to describe themselves? Interesting how they used such a demeaning phrase to their advantage. Since we (/.'ers) coined it to mock them. Notheless the correct capitalization of "WinTel" (as found on their site). This is undoubtedly the funniest site in a while... although the pointy haired posses (dilbert reference) might actually fall for the flashy moving font and all that eyecandy.
Live for the present, learn from the past, and dream of the future!
"10 times less expensive" compared to Linux, eh? Well, ignoring the fact that they are comparing mainframes to intel boxes, you just have to love their wording. Ten times less expensive? What the hell does that mean? Perhaps it's 1/10th the cost, but even for marketing droids, that's a pretty stupid thing to say.
If you don't know what I'm talking about, consider this. If it's 20 degrees outside, and it's twice as cold at your friend's house, how cold is it there?
I really hate signatures, but go to my website.
Who do they think they're reaching with this site?
Your average PHB has no idea what these words mean. Anyone in a position of power who knows what these systems are obviously had a reason for going open in the first place. Not to mention the cost of migrating to an M$ system from an open one. I think they're trying to piss off some open source people and stir up a little FUD for ye ol' stock price.
Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they hide is vital.
Everyone knows that if you want objective, unbiased information, you find it in articles at places like Slashdot, ESPECIALLY in the comments after each article.
What's the big deal? A company is making their own products look good. It's not the company's job to give an impartial, or even fair, review of it's own products - it's going to publicize and advertise what makes it look good, and ignore everything else.
Anyone buying a product, including a CTO, should understand this. Are there going to be some dumb CTOs who fall for the hype? Probably.
So what? If Linux *IS* really better, the people who are smart enough to realize it will save a buncha money, and their competitors who don't realize it will be spending a bunch of money, and businesses who run Linux will have a better chance at prevailing. That's what free enterprise is about.
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.
Unless, of course, Windows DOES have a lower total cost of ownership, in which case if you're a Linux zealot, you might be pissy. But we all know that's not true, right?
paintball
Microsoft outlines three reasons for Windows being cheaper than Linux.
These are:
1.Lower staffing expenses
2.More efficiency per dollar with WinTel than with a Linux Mainframe.
3.Reduced development costs on Windows.
Number one may or may not be true depending on your circumstances. However, it has little to do with the technical performance of Linux and more to do with people's familiarity with Windows over Linux. However, as I'm still downloading the PDFs I can't comment on their sources for this. I will say that if true on the whole, then it is certainly a situation that will change rapidly even over 2004. I will also say that it is very specific to the company involved. There are plenty of companies out there that are more familiar with *NIX than with Windows and for these people the situation would be reversed.
2. I can't comment on this one too easily either until the report is downloaded, but this seems a flawed reason. The summary on the Microsoft report states
--- $40.25 per megabit of throughput per second.
---$1.79 per peak request per second.
I don't know if these are averages of different systems or what, but to give a figure like this, with no comparison figure for the Linux system (or specs on the Linux system, was it Apache, how was it configured etc) is of dubious value. I would have thought that the areas limited by cost on your server were in the bandwidth / network infrastructure against which server speed was unlikely to hold you back. Please also note that these are using Microsoft benchmarks.
3.This is an equally dubious claim. I have developed on both Windows and UNIX platforms and I can testify to the ease of use of Visual Studio, but not
To summarize, there is a lot of 'it depends,' involved in these tests.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
The Mainframe Linux study put the following machines against each other in a file serving test:
1) IBM Z900 (AIX,fully loaded), $470,$899
2) IBM Z900 (AIX,half the memory), $244,416
3) IBM Z900 (Linux pricing), $393,163
4) Windows Server 2003 (2 x 900 MHz Xeon), $25,440
And then proceded to examine a cost per request table. Which showed the Windows 2003 Server clearly winning. Of course the Win2k machine will win a benchmark where the other machines are clearly designed for a different purpose.
So why would anyone still run mainframes?
Oh, that's right - downtime on a WinTel server is still 100 times more expensive than Linux Mainframes.
Where I sit, the average cost of staff is around $45/hour. With 100 people in our organization dependent on mainframe access, when our mainframe goes down, it costs us $4500 per hour.
If we were using WinTel servers for our datacenter, even a single hour of downtime would double the TCO. Even 5 minutes of lost productivity would cost us $375 - and double the cost of Windows. The weekend the Blaster worm hit, for instance, cost a certain well-known local insurance company $50,000. And that was just over the weekend. Total cleanup is expected to cost more than a million dollars!
We can't afford viruses. We can't afford mandatory updates. We can't accept arbitrary updates which change the EULA. Even a single hour of downtime per year is one too many.
Microsoft just doesn't get it. Hardware and Software licensing costs, and even staffing, are far from Total Cost of Ownership. System downtime is the single largest factor in the "real" TCO - something that Microsoft conveniently forgets.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
If MS are benchmarking win2003 server vs. Linux for performance, should the hardware not be the same. Its a winTel box vs IBM Z900.
This does not make sence to me. Sorry if this a point repelication.
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.
Why is this new "anti-Linux" guy Taylor trying all the same "anti-Linux" PR campaign tactics that didn't work before? I'd even swear that some of these were the same white papers MS released last year.
New campaign,
Old campaign,
Still sounds the same,
BURMA SHAVE.
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
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?
shouldn't it be Microhard?
Just in your case....
Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
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.**???
I think the path of the Facts Against Linux document is very interesting.
Doing a pseudo-Google like analysis you see that the main site is of course the Microsoft.com Then is a major folder MS Corp. Then, BAM - the facts.
No sub directories under MS Corp like misc, or not-really-important, or small-fry, or oh-by-the-way, and neither is this one of their numbered documents. The first document on FACTS under MS Corp is comparison with Linux.
It may be reading tea leaves but as someone who likes to design directory structures with some logic - What does it mean to me ? It means M$ is paying big time attention to Linux. And I am sure if someone in the near future did a search in Google on "Facts about Microsoft Corporation" - this will be the first document that will show up in exclusion to almost everything else about M$. Linux is now officially in the Crosshairs of the biggest guns at MSCorp. Amen.
To see a world in a grain of sand, and then to step back and see the beach where the sand lies
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.
Yup, yup. Linux people focus on technical babble that upper management neither understands nor cares about. The question to these management types is wholly total cost and ROI. Intelligent and knowledgeable Linux people need to put out more material that addresses these issues in a "management overview" format. I think many people get lost on the point that IT professionals do not normally have final say on these issues in an "enterprise" business environment.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Does Microsoft's TCO figure for Linux include the $699/CPU SCO license?
CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.
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.
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
Well, since we have to take "God" out of the Pledge, we aughtta replace it with something that makes sense, and doesn't offend the fragile sensibilities of athiests.
There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
The most important criticism of Linux -- the most honest, the most brutal -- the one that you all know in your hearts is true but can't bring yourself to admit for fear of slowing adoption -- is in that PDF, on page 23.
Check it out, it is surely going to be Microsoft's biggest gun.
Most people (other the CEOs) are smart enough to realise that `studies' are sponsored and so unreliable, and similarily that anything that appears in a M$ sponsored advert is not to be trusted.
So decision makers will look elsewhere.
What you forget is that the ``leading IT publications'' get a large part of their revenue from advertising. Very often when you see some full page adverts you will see ``editorial'' on a closely related topic in the same issue - surprisingly the views of the advertiser just happen to be supported.
It is this more subtle ``information provision'' that will have the bigger impact. The up front adverts are a distraction.
http://insight.zdnet.co.uk/internet/security/0,390 20457,39116671-2,00.htm
Go not unto/. for advice, for you will be told both yea and nay (but have nothing to do with the question)
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.
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.
1996 called, they want their browser back.
Mozilla
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.
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
Who include IT decision makers and IT buyers for the 7 largest health care providers in the US. They have all been making noises about Linux, but nobody wants to be the first to take the plunge- I've been keeping a short mailing list updated with news items, like Israel asking for Thai pricing on MS office. This is the email I sent:
s p
----email below-------
You've been wondering when Linux will become mainstream enough for you to use it extensively in your organizations: I think you'll be interested in this recent response by Microsoft. When you have to buy research that says you have a better product, and the research companies need to skew the comparisons so heavily that it's obvious an apples-to-apples comparison would reflect unfavorably on the product you're pushing, the market has already made its choice; and then it's only a matter of time.
http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/facts/default.a
My restatements of the "facts:"
1. FROM IDC: it's cheaper to hire someone straight out of college who earned an MCSE in an online training course than it is to hire someone with 5 years of real-world Unix/Linux sysadmin experience. Especially if all you consider is the direct compensation those people recieve, and you don't include the costs associated with systems downtime, security breaches, and the ratio of sysadmins to machines, which is typically lower than 1:20 in windows environments and 1:50 or higher in unix/linux environments.
2. FROM META: it's cheaper to buy 5 or 6 $5000-per-box commodity 4U windows servers than it is to buy a $470,000 proprietary RISC 42U mainframe, even if the software that runs on the mainframe costs you nothing extra. Especially when you don't consider the costs associated with downtime, redundancy, security, or the cost of buying new software for your six commodity boxes every 3 years. And never mind comparing the performance of free software on those same six commodity boxes- that's beside the point.
3. FROM GIGA: you can save development money by forcing all of your customers to upgrade so that their systems are compatible with yours. And if your customers don't want to upgrade, they don't really need to buy your stuff anyway.
all of these so-called "market research analyst" jokers should be ashamed to have their names associated with such obvious distortions of reality. I hope we never have to resort to this kind of chicanery to prove our value to our customers.
Humpty Dumpty was pushed.
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."
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!
Looking at the style of writting you'll notice that throughout the paper they use quality, professional writting. But as they get to Appendix A, they start discussing "rules" of Linux publication, how the growth of Linux comes in "Waves", and how people run "Beowulf" clusters and write "custom" software. Look. Either it's the right word or it's the wrong word, but placing quotation marks around it significantly reduces the confidence the reader has in what is being said. The "rules" of Linux publication is interpreted as 'Linus wakes up and emails it to some people. or not. whatever'.
Regardless of what is said, the style speaks volumes.
Chris
Surely you don't distrust common sense..."Wintel server 10 times less expensive to operate than Linux mainframe"...and that's only counting the hardware! When you throw in the software, that brings up the mainframe cost another $80! And it is irrelevent to consider the cost of the Windows software, just ask them. Leave it to Microsoft to discover that mainframes cost more than servers.
Professional Wild-Eyed Visionary
But a lot more believable.
First, IBM didn't lie in court and didn't fake evidence.
Then, IBM stands for reliability and predictability, which is exactly what the industry wants today, after years of constant worm-attacks. Microsoft on the other hand stands for unreliability, unsecurity and arrogance.
IBM's position is quite easy: Just ask the manager how much money they lost last year on Worms/viruses and sell them the Worm-resistant Linux. (Yes I say resistant, all morons please note that resistant does not equal proof)
Microsoft became big offering products that were cheap and "good enough".
Microsoft told the managers for YEARS how much money they can save in hardware costs by dumping Unix and going for Intel. Now all of the sudden Microsoft changes it's mind and proclaims that initial costs (like hardware and licensing costs) are irrelevant and starts to put forth dubious TCO-studies?
This campaign will backfire, it will just encourage managers to get more information about that Linux-thing that gives the previously thought invincible Microsoft so much grief.
Is it just me, or does the whole ad sound like the marketing department reworked a "Netcraft confirms it: BSD is dying" troll?
philcrissman.com.
Notice that the page acknowledges the Windows trademark, but not the Linux one (which belongs to Linus Torvalds).
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.
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:
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...
Let's see....Windows server hacked 12 times in 2 months resulting in 5-10 hour clean ups each time until they finally released a patch (no joke, this actually happened to me and yes I know how to lock down a winderz box). 20 minute MINIMUM reboot time atleast once a month if not once a week for patches.
Linux boxes....never hacked, never down for longer than 5 minutes for kernel reboot every 6-12 months.
Doing some quick math.....
Windows
5 * 12 * $35/hr = $2100
20 minute reboot = $4000 lost each reboot * 12 = $48000 in 1 year.
Grand total = $50,100
Linux
5 minute reboot = $1000 lost * 2 = $2000
No hack clean up.
Grand total = $2000
Training is nothing more than a lame way to make the numbers go up. You need MORE training to make MS products even somewhat secure than you do Open Source.
IT staff? Actually you wouldn't need to have all these Highly trained MCSE techs around since 1 Linux tech can maintain 3 times the machines a windows tech can simply because there's less issues.
Well I work part-time for a small local company with ~40 Windows clients, 1 GNU/Linux-samba server and 1 firewall running GNU/Linux. There are also 2 expensive Windows 2000 servers. The windows 2000 servers are there because of one person in the management wanted exchange, and he would not reason with us. All computers, except the windows servers, are home built.
:) And results in several hours per year to keep all the licenses "in sync", etc. Total hidden cost for license management: 5 x 50 USD = 250 USD. (we charges per hour).
/year (for managing licenses)
HARDWARE:
1 x samba server (hardware): about 2000 USD (2 x 73 GB RAID (mirror), 512 MB RAM, Athlon 600 mhz.)
1 x firewall (hardware): about 400 USD
The management in the company contacted "windows experts" regarding the windows servers, and we just bought those that was recommended. Total cost: 10'000 + 8'000 USD
So this far:
Linux servers, 2'400 USD
Windows servers, 18'000 USD
Well, you say, we could have run windows on cheap home-built systems too so that should not count into TCO. Well I agree a little, but it is important because of the expensive system WAS recommended by Windows Experts - and according to them it was impossible to run at home-built computers at the same performance. (The computers in question was nothing special, with 2 x 36 GB RAID discs, 512 MB RAM, intel 1200 mhz CPUs). We, as Linux-experts, "recommended" cheam home-built systems.
(a side-story; the home-built systems has now after 2 years of operation been much more reliable. The Dell servers had some hardware problems (due to bad motherboards, according to dell) wich resulted in the erasing of the Raid configuration)).
SOFTWARE LICENSES:
2 x Windows server licenses + CAL + Exchange licens: About 10'000 USD (and on top of that there are some yearly fees, and fees when you have a total of over X GB of emails, etc etc).
2 x GNU/Linux installations, debian, cost: 0 USD.
So on the license front, Windows is infinite more expensive
Now I also wish to add that before exchange we had the email system running on the samba server. Even though the GNU/Linux hardware was not as good as the shining Dell servers, and even tough this GNU/Linux system also ran (in addidtion to qmail) Samba, apache (internal webb), lpd, and a few other maintenance stuff, like backup (backup of the other servers goes thorugh this server), windows virus program updates, and with all these services running, the email system could handle more load than the new exchange servers. The windows servers feel a bit slughish actually, compared to qmail+GNU/Linux, and exchange is extremely inconvenient to configure versus qmail IMOHO.
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS:
Overall we put most of our administrative time to the windows clients. Often there is someone who has done something (for example accepting to install programs they get via e-mail) wich often makes the computer or the software to behave strangely (or crash), wich often results in reinstall of windows (this is especially painful on those laptops where windows does not have drivers for the LAN, etc). (on the client side Linux would be a winner with an "if"; if the users could adapt to Linux well enough to not need help all the time. OTH training of the personel can be seen as a investment).
However, if we are going to compare windows servers vs. GNU/Linux servers, we put about 80% of our time on managing the Windows servers. This means that (if we exclude the firewall) that the windows servers costs about 0.4x USD ea and the GNU/Linux maintenance cost about 0.2x USD ea. (where x is the total server management cost, wich is about 350 USD / mo).
CONCLUSION:
GNU/Linux:
Hardware: 2'400 USD
Software: 0 USD
Maintenace: 70 USD / month
Total for three years: 4'920 USD
Windows:
Hardware: 18'000 USD
Software: 10'000 USD + 250 USD
Maintenance: 280 USD / month
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.
I don't see why IBM couldn't be objective -- they sell both Windows and Linux systems, and to be honest, they probably sell more systems with Windows installed. IBM has the technical competence and the experience with both technologies (and more -- AIX, OS/390, OS/400, OS/2, ...) to reasonably compare the two.
A reseller that sells two product lines, even if somewhat biased, is going to be a whole lot more objective than the manufacturer of one of those product lines.
...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
They don't take into account the cost of downtime. There's many environments where each hour of downtime - due to either scheduled maintenance (which occurs more on systems that need to be rebooted to apply security patches) or crashes costs tens of thousands of dollars an hour.
MS, and most of the other TCO phonies, ignore this.
NOBODY ever got fired for buying IBM. On the other hand, we just fired a whole bunch of guys that bought into the iplanet/microsoft solution for email and replaced them with TWO admins and two IBM Linux servers....
For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
For those and other reasons, Worms will never be such a huge problem for Linux as they are now for Windows.
Yes, things won't become perfect, but an inprovement is still an improvement even when it doesn't lead to absolute perfection.
Even if the people posting the numbers might. Either way, Windows is cheaper AT THE MOMENT because Windows trained IT people are a dime a dozen, where as Linux-phites are much harder to come by, and can demand more money for their "rare" skills. In the future, this inequality will balance out, and the cost of Linux versus Windows will balance out also. At that point it will all be about who actually has a better operating system all the way around.
Gee, imagine that. A comparision based on true performance merit and everything that goes along with it. What a strange concept.
Dude. Dude. Dude. Dude. DUDE!!!! Duuuudde. Yeah, I guess you have a point there. (Baseketball)
I don't know, maybe I'm crazy. As far as I can tell, there's really no need for Microsoft to go around advertising against Linux. What part of the market is Linux, the kind of Linux that can really compete with Windows on the *desktop* market (the market that I happen to think is most important considering businesses are still blowing $8,000 on AIX servers from IBM) is left completely unaddressed.
Let me put it this way: if you're on Microsoft.com reading this website, chances are that it's not going to convince you to switch from Linux to Microsoft. Businesses that are already running Linux aren't going to have CEOs seeing a Microsoft.com website that says they'll save some mysterious percentage of money if they switch over to something new.
The average citizen is easily duped, but businesses are not. Most businesses that use Linux, UNIX, and variants realize that it's the better choice *already*. This Microsoft ad is basically designed to prevent CURRENT Microsoft customers from switching over to Linux, basically. Even so, that would be pretty silly. Businesses would be better off switching to BSD if we're talking about servers, security, and reliability, but that's a completely new can of worms.
This truly is, as many others have said, a measure that Microsoft clearly felt it had to take before it lost MORE of the market share to Linux, UNIX, and variants rather than actually convincing anyone who's already spent the money to change.
Sorry if that's a little long and drawn out.
...Linux has never needed huge advertising campaigns to get the penetration that it has got so far.
Consequently, Microsoft mentioning Linux can only serve to bring Linux into the minds of those that don't already know about it's capabilities.
Surely, a lot of CEOs reading their IT publications with "Microsoft vs Linux" advertisements in them are going to be intelligent enough to realise that if Microsoft are scared of Linux enough to place the adverts in the first place, then Linux must be worth investigating.
Maybe Microsoft will succeed in spreading some FUD about Linux but I don't see them achieving much overall with the ad campaign.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
...there are 40% more letters in the word "Windows" than in the word "Linux"... ..."Bill Gates" sounds like your friendly, neighbourhood policeman, "Linus Torvalds" sounds like a pillaging and raping viking... ...You can get an MCSE just by doing a few CBTs while sitting in a chair with a nice coffee and the answer sheets, you have to actually make and fix a dirty grubby server to get an RHCE... ...Windows always reminds you of what year you are in (95, 98, 2000, etc,) while Linux uses dirty, smelly dotted decimals that only mathematicians with poor sanitary habits can understand (2.4.22, 2.6.0)... ...Windows was written for families by the Microsoft family, Linux was designed by dirty, smelly, pot-smoking, conscietious objector hippies...
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
This TCO crap is really really starting to get annoying. Who cares about TCO when your locked into proprietary software that is probably not standards based that crashes all the time. What about cascading network security meltdowns. Did they factor in the costs of the network being taken over by Virii and Trojans once or twice a year because Martha open up a bad email attachment?
What these studies always mention is that its going to cost you quite a bit more to find Linux people than Windows people. What they fail to mention is that a good Linux person will normally have the knowledge and skill set that makes most MCSEs look like pre-schoolers. Don't you want the best people possible? Isn't investing in a competent employee worth the extra 10k to 20k per year? It is, here is why.
A typical Linux guy is going to be versed in network security, advanced firewall techniques, databases, multiple programming languages, a solid grasp of computer science concepts, how to leverage the outdated hardware and old systems, how to basically do more with less, NOT just what he learned in MCSE class. They usually have experience with a very wide range of enterprise level software as well, simply because its always been free for them. They are very good at thinking on their toes and have a knack for gluing different systems and interfaces together using simple scripts and programs they write.
So, the point being, one good Linux guy can start working at a small business and completely change they way they do business by using open source software, possibly saving the company huge amounts of money in the long run, not just on the current project but everywhere in the company.
Lower maintenance costs?
I really doubt it. To fully automate system operations you need considerable freedom to customize it, otherwise you waste all of your time on repetitive tasks. By definition Linux systems are more customizable than Windows and therefore better automated. Linux wants to be understood and modified, Windows doesn't, except within well defined boundaries.
Also, Microsoft has many non-technical interests in their products, which often results in technical tradeoffs being made which all increase maintenance hassles. They're no different from other proprietary software companies in this respect.
Cheaper than a mainframe running Linux instances?
No doubt it is. The question is, who the hell does this? Very few people, this is a comparisen to an IBM offering, not Linux on x86 servers.
25% faster development time?
It always bothers me when people try to deterministically measure software development. I'd completely disregard this point as irrelevant.
I'm risking valuable karma :P here but sitting here, staring at the thousands of comments with Win users argueing against Linux users, and the Linux users writing pages and pages about why Linux is better, and the windows users doing the same... I realize somthing...
Slashdot users are a bunch of idiots.
Rose: Did anybody come to you and say, Look, you can be as rich as Bill Gates? /*rest of the interview at
d =75234&ID=44749&ListID=44694&public_view=true&kbns =1.html
(quote)
Linus Torvalds: They have. Later. Not during the first version. Because, it was a very limited system at first. But, sure, people did later on--especially when Linux started taking off. And people really hadn't gotten the idea of open source. People said, "Why did you do that?'' Especially in the United States, but also in Finland. People just did not understand the concept of creating a program because you like programming, and they did not understand the concept of Hey, sure, I like money, but on the other hand I'm a programmer, I will get paid.
It's not as if programmers go hungry in this world. So, I wasn't worried about money and making money. At the same time, I'd done this project for myself. I didn't want to commercialize it because I didn't want to go through the headaches. And I had no incentive to.
(end quote)
original link
http://business.cisco.com/prod/tree.taf%3Fasset_i
my b.s.
This is a perfect example of why this whole thing is totally irrelevant. We arent in it to beat microsoft thats just a by product of what we are doing. Coding because we love good well written functional code. and giving it away because that way we get what WE want. What the techies love and use. Good clean secure peer tested code. Coded for fun or the challenge of it. M$ can spread fud all it wants the proof is in the pudding and we CANT lose any market share. More of a movement than a market.
/ my b.s.
Panel F, Relay #70
Windows vs. Linux on the Server and the Desktop :->
Co-operation beats competition
Microsoft-sponsored benchmarks prove that multiple WinTel Web servers perform better than a Linux mainframe acting as a Web server consolidator. An independent review by Meta verified the integrity of the results. WinTel's superior performance costs....
Does that kindof hint at bias to anyone else? And how about comparing similar offerings? (Mainframes aren't always the answer)
... when they make 5 year averages of TCO with an OS that hasn't existed for 5 years.
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!