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.)
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.
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?
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
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 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."
No warranties? Where's Laura Didio when you need her?
Oh, and don't use so many caps Microsoft, it's lame.
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.
"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?
"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.
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.
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
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?
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
Does Microsoft's TCO figure for Linux include the $699/CPU SCO license?
CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.
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
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.
1996 called, they want their browser back.
Mozilla
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."
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.
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
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
Funnily enough, I almost made it. It was a small business comprising of 4 staff in one office (1x17 year old and three over 50's), and a second office with two 30+ year olds.
They'd had consultants in who had said they needed a network and had drawn up a Win 2k server / Win2k desktop / MSOffice set up. The second office was an expansion for the biz so the MD didn't feel like blowing the amount of cash specified at that time. To cap it, he'd also been using Linux for the previous year on his desktop while the minions ran 98 after KAK.worm, SirCAM and a couple of others had bollocks'd up his PC (he got all the office e-mail) despite McAffee virus guard which was subcribed and kept up to date daily.
Anyhows, we ended up with Mandrake 8.2 on server and all the desktops except one which had a 5 year legacy of Quicken accounts. Their database was CSV'd and loaded into MySQL and OO.Org provided the front end. The whole lot took about 12 hours to set up and it's been running flawlessly for the last year with Mandrake Update Robot taking care of updates, Postfix handling the mail and NIS/NFS/Samba doing the file sharing. Their firewall runs IPCop and connects them via ADSL.
Initally, OO.org gave us a couple of glitches until V1.03 which was stable enough. OO 1.1 works fine and retraining was minimal which was surprising when 3/4 of the users are in their 50's and used Works and MSOffice in the past. Once broadband hits the MDs home village, we'll be running an OpenVPN tunnel to his house so he can work from home.
All this and we still hadn't billed him as much as the bill for the software he'd have bought to do the same things using Windows. Maintainence costs are kept low partly by remote admin saving us the cost of going to the office (unless the DSL goes tits up) and the auto update. Mandrake 9.2 is on the cards now that support for 8.2 is off so I suspect we may break the initial 2k quote soon but if it performs as well as 8.2 has with no viruses, no crashes and minimal intervention on our part I don't see that lasting long.
If there is a problem with this customer, it's mainly that we get called in so few times that apart from the initial setup, we didn't make much money from them.
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
...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.
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.
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