Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's Magical 'Myth-Busting' Tour
Mz6 writes "Microsoft has launched its 'Get the Facts' road show -- the tech equivalent of a political battle bus -- to tour the country and convince the wavering that Redmond is as at least cheap and as secure as its open-source rival and to spread the word that Windows is better than Linux. Nick McGrath, Microsoft's head of platform strategy, described the campaign as 'a reality check we're bringing out', aiming to tackle the 'myths' surrounding Linux. Microsoft's road show will be in Edinburgh on June 17, Manchester on June 29 and Newport on July 7."
uhm. Me thinks we need a new definition of cheap here.
Cheap as in heineken ? Or cheap as in Duvel promo ?
When will I end this grieving ? When will my future begin ?
I'm thinking stuff like .ogg, etc.
OTOH, if we want to play like msft who probably counts ".doc" and ".ppt" as file formats, we should probably count .fvwmrc, .bashrc, sendmail.cf as well. :)
...That the tour is taking place in Europe, where they were just slammed with HEAVY antitrust fines, and not the U.S. ?
To organize so that people give away free Linux CDs (Knoppix?) to the people attending these events?
Treehugger? Treehugger... Treehugger!
"Our source code is our only intellectual property," said [MS spokesman] Barley
So have all of their thousands of software patents been invalidated, or are they about to donate them to the public domain?
Have you read my blog lately?
If I was one of those guys who doesn't know there's anything but windows (who's to say I'm not?). This van strategy, like a lot of recent MS plans, would only serve to remind me that there is competition. Why would the undisputed leader of the software world need a van tour? Because they're afraid of something, i'd think.
I must admit, yes Microsoft does has more money. But that is because they has a far better product. It is much easier to manage, you generally don't have to worry about the patches being written with a back door (yes I know linux is open source, but really, how many people can actually read the source code??? Not that many). There are many more usefull apps written for it. Need I go on???
That's excactly what we did, but with TheOpenCD. Look here. I've got lots more copies of TheOpenCD for anyone who wants to go to the three other events.
If things continue as they are, this would only be a small obstacle for Linux and other alternatives.
I think, however, that Microsoft is just using as much marketing as they can to hold of Linux until Longhorn can come out. With .NET's browser apps, if they can just keep most of their current customers for the time being and transition them over to this, lock-in is assured.
Linux really needs a better graphics toolkit and GUI framework. Otherwise, people will be going with XAML a lot of the time. Hopefully something can be done about it. Hardware support is part of the problem, but the glitches in toolkits such as GTK+ and Mozilla XUL are also a big part of the problem. QT is crystal clear and lightning fast, but because of its licensing Sun isn't promoting a PLAF for QT. Too bad.
I think Trolltech should give serious consideration to the idea of putting QT under the LGPL. It would allow their platform to grow a lot, and they could start selling development tools and maybe extra controls instead.
In any case, Microsoft won't switch me, nor a lot of Linux devs over to Longhorn. I could see them making my job tough though.
A LOT of companies have testbed installs out to see for themselves what the TCO is. You would expect them to believe their own results in their own company more than a magic MS fud-bus.
I'm also not so sure that the non-tech managers would appreciate the implied 'you wouldn't know good TCO or ROI if it bit you' message.
Every day, Microsoft employees are physically in CIO and CEO boardrooms trying to convince executives that Microsoft is a better bet than Linux. Even with a large body of evidence to the contrary, this is something Linux is missing - the financial warchest to use the media and "war buses" to convince people to the contrary.
Isn't IBM doing this kind of promotion for Linux? Maybe they're not spending quite as much money for that as MS does for their stuff, but anyway.
Other companies also do it in smaller scales; I've seen HP's Linux server advertisements in front cover of Finland's largest business daily for several times. But sure, there are still MS adverts, too...
“Wait for Hurd if you want something real” –Linus
We should have people show up at every stop and ask long, technical questions on how to get the latest virus / worm / malware off their systems. Just work their way through the whole sordid list.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Maybe it makes sense over a five or ten year span
It certainly does. There is this myth that Microsoft products do not require training. This is just not true. The transitions from NT4 to Win2K or XP, for example, are significant, especially for administrators. For users, the change between different MS Office versions have often been highly troublesome, both in terms of interfaces and add-on/script migration. These are expensive matters. A significant issue for corporate clients of Microsoft is that the licencing and support enforces upgrades.
My point is that over a 5-10 year period, the training requirements enforced by Microsoft licencing combined with OS changes could well be much worse than the cost of migration and training for a Linux desktop; a decision which allows a break from the hardware/software upgrade cycle, and can lead to significant cost savings in the long term.
Linux will increase significantly in viability against Microsoft systems because it has rapidly increasing support from companies who have the resources to ensure that it does: Companies like Sun, Novell, HP and RedHat are putting huge resources into making Linux an even better desktop system.
Look at this tidbit from the website:
"Is Linux More Secure Than Windows?"
Laura Koetzle with Charles Rutstein, Natalie Lambert, and Stephan Wenninger
Forrester Research
After collecting a year's worth of vulnerability data, Forrester analyzed Windows and four key Linux distributors on key metrics of responsiveness to vulnerabilities, severity of vulnerabilities, and thoroughness in fixing flaws.
* Responsiveness: On average, Microsoft had a fix available 25 days after a security issue was publicly disclosed.
* Thoroughness: Microsoft was the only vendor to have corrected 100% of the publicly known flaws during the study's time period.
* Relative Severity: Windows has the fewest vulnerabilities and the fewest "high severity" vulnerabilities of any platform measured.
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
Google runs linux right? Millions of people use Google everyday. It's many people's startup page. That's a lot of advertising potential.
So, what if we (/.ers, linux geeks, open source gurus, what have you) kindly asked the people at Google to display on their page in plain sight something to the effect of "Powered by Linux"?
Who needs a silly bus when you have Google?
Just a thought.
Linux Users' Groups should follow the bus passing out CDs for free (or even just the cost of the CD). Challenge Microsoft to give out their OS. The LUG members should also hand out contact info and meeting times for their meetings - that way they can find out where to get good support as well.
Signs such as "Windows is CHEAP, Linux is Inexpensive." should be used liberally as well.
Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but copyright will always protect me.
When I try to load the Get The Facts site in IE, it loads just fine.
When I try to load it under Mozilla Firebird 0.7, I get redirected to http://www.microsoft.com/info/customerror.htm, with the error "We're sorry, we were unable to service your request. As an option, you may visit any of the pages below for information about Microsoft services and products."
Doesn't only showing the page to the people using your product kind of beat the purpose?
There used to be a site called alldas.de where crackers submitted links to the sites they defaced. Apache had, and still has, at least three sites in the web for each site based on a Microsoft server. Yet, when I checked, Microsoft had four defaced sites for each defaced Apache site in alldas. So, the practical reality says Microsoft is about twelve times more insecure than Apache.
dont forget to deploy, patch, re-train, hire, and install all those darn apps
1) Deploying on Linux is very easy, especially with a little kickstart and dhcp.
2) Patching in Linux is easier, especially with tools like yum and what not. It's nice to patch all the apps too, not like MS with just the OS. If you want to patch Office you need to have a cd and all that bullshit.
3) Retraining is a must regardless, every few years MS crams another version of Office down your throat. Hell why bother to retrain, get a few cheap $40 licenses for Crossover, still cheaper than an MS desktop and use the existing Word licenses.
4) Hire? I don't get it...
5) With scripting and yum I can deploy a new app on an entire 200 cluster in less than a minute. Try doing that with Windows!
Can I get an eye poke?
Dog House Forum
When Microsoft states it is more secure they are intentially releasing information to msn.com and alexa.com.
http://secunia.com/advisories/8955/
Sounds secure to me. They could at least be above board and not lie to the world about security.
Funny thing is, there are people who say "you Linux zealots are always bashing Windows, but you never try to learn how to configure Windows right". Truth is, it costs less to train people to do basic Windows support, compared to doing basic Linux support. But for advanced support, such as getting it to work correctly and reliably, instead of just getting it to work, period, it costs about as much as training Linux people. Besides, there's another factor, you need less people to support Linux. Most of the support you need for Linux is to get it installed, after that, it runs with far less support than Windows. And, if you have a large number of machines, then it's easier to replicate a Linux installation than to replicate a Windows installation. It's much faster to write a simple script that, given a network address, writes all the required files in /etc than going through all the required mouse clicks in a Windows installation.
there is a expoit for this flaw now though. It takes 4-6 hours of full cpu usage on the vurnable host to get root. It uses some very itricate memory operations that seems to do something usefull but i sure can't explain what the hell is going on.
I'm not sure I agree with you about basic support training. Recently I had to add a new users to a RedHat machine. It was /usr/sbin/adduser, followed by passwd. I had to add users to a customized Win2000 server. I found the icon eventually. It was probably something like start/control panel/system/adminstrative tools, and then something about local accounts. Almost everything under recent versions of windows seems to require a non-inutitive path through GUI tools (different in each Windows version), or else a registry edit, whereas the equivalent procedures under Linux are one or two command line statements.
I would add that Linux admins are usually well able to figure out (eventually) how to configure Windows because they tend to be adaptable. However, put a Windows admin in front of Linux.....
"It doesn't mean bees can't fly, or that engineers say they can't fly. It just means that insect flight is very complicated and, even with computers, our fluid dynamic modeling techniques aren't yet able to quite handle such a complicated problem. Then there's the problem of verification. If you can't measure the pressures and velocities around a wing, how can you verify your calculations?"
At least says Dr. Galapagos
It's how filesystem corruption happens, when something causes the data to be written incorrectly, somewhere along the line.
If Microsoft is telling the truth about the end result of a business choosing their products is security and TCO equal to or better than Linux - the bottom line, so to speak - what a business will actually experience - then I fully support an individual's right to choose whichever software platform they think is best for themselves or for their business.
But if what happens here is that some data gets fed to potential customers, and those potential customers choose to choose Windows, and then five years later they realize that their TCO and their security was not what they thought it would be - the bottom line, that is - then the customers will realize that the data they were fed was wrong, and Microsoft will lose customers.
So in a sense, this is an experiment that will take perhaps a decade. If this information is not suitable or not of the accuracy and appropriateness necessary to help businesses make informed decisions about security and TCO -- the bottom line, the end result for the business -- then while Microsoft might make a sale today, the word of mouth and customer experiences in the future will do significant damage to Microsoft's reputation.
You see how so many people already don't take them seriously and how everyone makes fun of this already. If those folks are correct, which as it has been pointed out, the studies are comparing apples and oranges, then this situation is only going to get worse, and the computer illiterate will begin to not trust Microsoft.
So while it might be easy to fool a computer illiterate person once, it is going to be next to physically impossible to re-gain that person's trust once that trust has been lost. And if you think about it, I don't see how we can expect there to be only one major OS vendor in the world anyway. Maybe when computers were a new thing, when computers were just a new-fangled toy, but as computers become a part of our lives, and as computers become something similar to cars, something that we use every day and something that is a serious part of our everyday lives, I just don't see how we can move forward, given this widespread adoption of computers, with having only one proprietary OS vendor dominant. It's simply unrealistic.
It appears that MS is, unbeknownst to itself, laying the groundwork for a massive alienation of its own customer base. The way that they can prevent this, or at least mitigate it, is to tell the truth. But what IS the truth, and can they even say it?
"Switching from Windows to Linux Prohibitively Eexpensive, Extremely Complex"
I did this 2 days ago. Rebuilding a fried box, reinstalling Windows took about 3 hours (including a 45 minute search for my legitimate license key), I had to constantly babysit the computer for a each prompt, and when it was finally complete, did not work properly. Rather than waste the rest of the night trying to troubleshoot the damned thing and get it all working I gave up, stuck in the Lindows cd I got for free, clicked I agree and started smoking a cigarette. Before I was done smoking the install was completed and was waiting for me to reboot. Now all I have to do is apt-get the programs I want to use (already using the windows version of just about every GNU/Linux software anyone needs on a pc) and I'll be done.
I'm kinda lazy and cheap, but not stupid.
Do I pick Windows (Pain in the ass to install, Hell to operate and protect, and expensive to buy and get support for, which needs to be periodically reinstalled when it stops working for no apparent reason)
Or do I pick Linux (easy to install, free to get, and millions of developers that give you the info you need to keep things going for free on a stable platform that can be trusted not to inexplicably decide not to work)?
-Yeah, I know I picked Lindows in this example, but I've tried installing other distros, and they were all easier and faster than the Windows Reinstall Hell I've been through many times.
-Yes I do still use windows, they have some of my important data locked up in some of their apps that I can't use without their platform. I've learned from this mistake and am going through the painful transition of RECREATING the info in opensource formats.
-Damn. That last one let me know that Microsoft is right. It really is a complicated, expensive and painful procedure to transition from Windows to Linux: Complicated because you have to free your info from their locked-down shitty closed source applications-usually fixing a crapload of errors generated by these same apps, wasting a lot of time(=money), and wishing you never made the mistake of using Microsoft crap in the first place (painful).
1.Netcraft confirms:In Soviet Russia all your base welcomes a beowolf cluster of CowboyNeal overlords. 2.? 3.Profit!!1!
Name one other computer business that's used a bus tour.
1. First they ignore you,
2. then they laugh at you,
3. then they fight you, <--- you are here
4. then you win.
- Mahatma Ghandi
Steve Browning http://www.sbrowning.com
Except all the reports I've read show UNIX admins administering several times as many machines as your MCSE point-and-click mouse monkey...so your $80 UNIX sysadmin is actually being paid the same as four or five $50K mouse monkeys...
Oh, wait, you can script in Windows? Wonder why nobody does...
Maybe it's because it's so "command-line-like"?
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
So far as I know, no GNU/Linux advocate has been convicted in a court of law of bending the market to their will in illegal ways.
This sig space intentionally left blank.
He said this "jihad about technology" between rival operating systems ignored the bigger problem that IT is badly regarded in the boardroom. "We need to better communicate the value of IT to business," he said.
Wow, he's admitted that his company's hype and poor performance has pissed on everyone.
Other than that, these "open and honest" Microsoft debates have the stink of a fake town meeting. The USSR had a few after Chernobyl and Bill Clinton never stopped having them. They were staged affairs with ringers in the crowd called to ask "insightful" prearranged questions. These questions were answered by a few talking heads who would blither on with distracting and meaningless abstractions, on the order of "wouldn't it be awful if we nuked the plannet." I can imagine the M$ equivalent, "we see your potential," (hand over your cash!) and, "Linux is Hanson's dissease."
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
This is not a technical tour.
after all, I think that Microsoft reps do not think they do corporate business at the county fair, especially given the fact that most of their FUD concerns total cost of ownership, admin costs etc.
No corporate buyer in its right mind would go to the higher up to justify buying MS server by saying: "Well, Bill gates said that the alternatives cost too much.".
Linux has come to be known outside the junkies, and THAT is the fact that MS is trying to fend off: Now, even the great unwashed ask: "have you considered Linux?"
So, if MS can measurably change the PERCEPTION of their product, (which now is basically: ms products=problems^users)in RELATIVE terms, they have won time. they cannot change the basic perception of their product, because everybody uses it, and no one is enthusiastic. That would not be a problem for any other monopoly, but the perceived quality for middle users has deteriorated over time, which by itself makes people willing to try an alternative(do you recall excel 4?).
"If a boss demands loyalty, give him integrity. But if he demands integrity, give him loyalty." (John Boyd, 1927-1997)