Microsoft-Funded Linux Studies Benefit ... Microsoft

mr.big_pig writes "The Seattle PI had a front page article analyzing the Microsoft's Get The Facts website and related ads compairing Windows to Linux. The short and sweet: follow the money and see just how 'independent' is this research. What caught my eye was that this was on the front page and not buried in the business section."

Comments

Interesting

[LochNess]

I think this part of the article is significant:

One problem, he said, is that companies will tend to keep under wraps the results of commissioned studies that turn out unfavorably. That means the public may get only part of the story when it reads a report sponsored by one of its subjects. "We're only seeing the ones they want us to see," Cherry said.

Re:Interesting

[Eivind]

But another, much more common problem is sadly not adressed by the article

The article does hint that whoever pays for a report may also get undue influence on the outcome. If not for any other reason than that the research-firm wishes to get similar tasks in the future.

But much more blatant is the influence of the commissioner on the questions asked in the research.

Thus the "Get the Facts" website has reports with summaries like:

Microsoft-sponsored benchmarks prove that multiple Windows Web servers perform better than a Linux mainframe acting as a Web server consolidator.

Thing is, that's not comparing Windows to Linux. That is comparing the cost-structure of "Mainframe" computers with "heaps of cheap boxes". It is well-known that generic boxes provides unparallelled price/performance for tasks that are easily divisible, such as web-serving.

Had you asked the oposite question, you'd have gotten the same answer: "Eivind-sponsored benchmarks prove that multiple Linux Web servers perform better than a Windows mainframe acting as a Web server consolidator.

What is the value of a study where you can swap the words "Linux" and "Windows", and get the same result ? Other than if you're wondering what is cheapest as a webserver for static web-pages: a mainframe, or half a dozen generic x86-boxen. But noone is really wondering about that anyways.

This is only one example, there are many.

My point is that even if the commissioner does not unduly influence the research, he still has a huge influence simply in deciding which questions to ask.

Re:Interesting

[awol]

Classic example from Yes, Minister. About getting the desired result by asking the right questions (cut and paste of the quote from http://www.asmallvictory.net/mt/mt-comments.cgi?en try_id=1879);

Sir Humphrey: "You know what happens: nice young lady comes up to you. Obviously you want to create a good impression, you don't want to look a fool, do you? So she starts asking you some questions: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the number of young people without jobs?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think there is a lack of discipline in our Comprehensive schools?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think young people welcome some authority and leadership in their lives?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think they respond to a challenge?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Would you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?"
Bernard Woolley: "Oh...well, I suppose I might be."
Sir Humphrey: "Yes or no?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Of course you would, Bernard. After all you told you can't say no to that. So they don't mention the first five questions and they publish the last one."
Bernard Woolley: "Is that really what they do?"
Sir Humphrey: "Well, not the reputable ones no, but there aren't many of those. So alternatively the young lady can get the opposite result."
Bernard Woolley: "How?"
Sir Humphrey: "Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Are you worried about the growth of armaments?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think there is a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think it is wrong to force people to take up arms against their will?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Would you oppose the reintroduction of National Service?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "There you are, you see Bernard. The perfect balanced sample."

A classic.

Re:Microsoft's new PR war

[Killswitch1968]

I've definitely noticed in the last few mnths that Microsoft seems to be REALLY ramping up its PR war against Linux. They've been talking about it for a while, and now we're seeing it.

Linux's true downfall has far less to do with MS's market dominance than it does with basic marketing. It's nice to have a product, but it's useless if no one knows about it.
For example the people that use Internet Explorer do so not because "other browsers don't work with ActiveX" but because they are not even aware of the existence of Opera or Mozilla. The only browser ever mentioned in the same breath as MS is Netscape, which is massively inferior to the aforementioned browsers. At best it's marginally superior to MS, but not enough to have a significant competetive advantage.
Take a look at iMacs, often cited as one of the most brilliant marketing programs conceived. Personally I hated those ugly things, nevertheless they did exceptionally well.

Bias aside

[Kolinar]

Given the "LINUX performance analysis" from Microsoft in the past, I tend believe these "independent reports" are more or less propaganda. Bias aside, I think the point is made, that the problem isn't whether Microsoft attempted to influence the reports or not, but rather the fact that Microsoft sponsored the study puts (conscious or unconscious) pressure on the analysts performing the study to be bias one way or another.

It is the same reason why drug companies need to perform double blind testing on new medicine to see whether the effects are merely due to influence from the people performing the study and the patients being told that they would get better.

similarly, though Microsoft may demand that the reports be objective, the analysts employed may just by association, subconsciously put Microsoft products in a slightly better light.

This just in...

[macshune]

It doesn't really matter *who* does the study...the results are almost guaranteed to be biased unless the study is comissioned by a truly independent organization and carried out by a truly independent studying group.

"SCO study proves Linux is built on SCOde."
"Linux study proves SCO is build on false-promises and deception"

hmm...SCOde is now the term one can use when describing copyrighted/poorly written code that might have fallen into a software product.

Usage:

"Dude, there's some SCOde in your program. Check out the variable."
"What variable?"
"$SCO_rocks"
"Crap..."

Sun and IBM...

[MosesJones]

The IDC study is such rubbish. It talks of Linux developers and ISVs...

And fails to mention the two corporate giants who are backing and rolling out Linux across the globe. Sun and IBM.

Its like talking about the Superbowl, but not mentioning the teams.

Well Guh!

[Greyfox]

Microsoft funded studies have been popping up since my OS/2 days. They all have some things in common: They seem to try to obscure the fact that the study was funded by Microsoft, they all come to favorable conclusions based on questionable premises and they all seem to end up on a forum like this one, with everyone calling shennanagans.

Studies are a marketing device for Microsoft. We may as well get used to being on the sharp end of their marketing department's pointed stick.

Re:By your logic

[Crypto Gnome]

Yeah Yeah I know - don't feed the trolls/ACs, but this just needs a comment.

If JimBob SixPack funds research comparing three mechanics, and he's a mechanic ,and he's One of the three in the study, and "it just so happens" that the study finds JimBob SixPack is the best place to get your car serviced - that's suspicious (ie we "suspect" that the study results were influenced by the source of funding)

If , on the other hand, the study found that JimBob kinda sux, and you should go elsewhere.

This is just common sense

The fact that Microsoft often/regularly funds studies which (surprise!) are very complimentary about Microsoft is well-known. The fact that neither Microsoft and nor the group doing the study makes even the slightest mention of the fact that Microsoft Funded the Study (therefore, at least in theory, it's possible that the funding influenced the results) hints even stronger at a conflict of interest.

Again this is just common sense

In no way is this Linux Geeks Against Microsoft this is purely people with more than an ounce of common sense saying Business A funded some research which shows their product is the best - YAWN, why am I not surprised

Fact: when business XYZ funds "research" which says (in conclusion) many nice things about their product, and said research is publicized, anyone with more than half a brain realises this is not "research" but advertising.