Report From "Get The Facts"

Richard W.M. Jones writes "Huw Lynes wrote an interesting report from Microsoft's "Get The Facts" show in London (earlier Slashdot story). Along with the report he provides some analysis of their apparent strategy, which includes equating "Shared Source" with "Open Source" and making out that Linux isn't free."

Comments

It's a super bad analogy

[CaptainZapp]

My absolute favourite part of the talk was when Barley started to extol the virtues of Windows because everything in it was made by one manufacturer. A fair point which would have been well taken had he not gone on to draw an idiotic analogy. He asked us to imagine an aeroplane where different components were made by different companies. Apparently he's never heard of Airbus.

Even worse, does Airbus (or Boeing for that matter) manufacture every single of a million parts in a plane themselves?

Hell no! Certainly not. There's an abundance of suppliers supplying parts for a plane, from the altimeter to the leather chairs in first class.

You don't even have to go so far as to look at the airplane industry. Car manufacturers make only a miniscule percentage of the components themsleves. The rest is manufactured and delivered by suppliers.

Otherwise the cost for a car would be comparatively so outrageously high like the cost for some uh! software...

Re:It's a super bad analogy

[pubjames]

He asked us to imagine an aeroplane where different components were made by different companies.

That is a truely idiotic thing to say. There is hardly any manufactured product you can buy today that isn't made from components from supplied by other companies. Even the simplest products - like a pair of shoes for instance - will often be made up with leather from one company, rubber from another, laces from a third, metal components from a fourth, thread from another. And that's just a pair of shoes. I bet Boeing has thousands of suppliers.

Re:It's a super bad analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

It's an even worse analogy, because aircraft manufacturers CAN share components with each other because parts are all built to published and accurate specifications, so if the specs say it will work, IT WILL WORK!

Now compare Microsoft software: It is deliberately designed NOT to work with other software products, so it's a miracle that it actually does work in combination with anything else.

Heck, Microsoft product "A" has even been known to be incompatible with Microsoft product "B"! This even extends down to Microsoft "service packs"!!!

Unfair comparisons... of course they're going to w

[LaserLyte]

Haha... so Microsoft's strategy of pushing the idea that Linux has an equal or greater TCO than Windows basically ignores the fact that Linux is free and that any businesses wanting to use it will naturally go for the most expensive possible distribution (i.e RedHat uber deluxe professional platinum addition for business).

Perhaps if they faced the "facts", their study might be worth something.

And as for the comparison of Linux to a DOS prompt... Microsoft seems to think that adding a huge bloated GUI to a server OS is going to improve things. Well, I say that any half-decent system administrator should be able to do his job completely from a command-line interface and should not need a GUI.

Yeah... Ok

[SamiousHaze]

The overall tone of this event makes it fairly clear as to Microsoft's anti-Linux strategy.

1.Claim that linux isn't free.
2.Pretend that Shared source is the same as Open Source
3.Make a big deal about the migration costs of moving to Linux
4.Use the forrester report to claim that Linux is insecure
5.Belittle the quality of the toolset available on Linux

Point 1 and 2 I won't dignify with a reply.
On Point 3 - Yes, there are migration costs... but that is a dumb argument. There is ALWAYS a migration cost when upgrading (horse and buggy to car - airtravel - spacetravel etc)

4. Yes, linux can be insecure ---- so can windows and anything else (except OpenBSD!! :P)

5. On this point, I dont' care who says what - Microsoft has better (and I mean this in all respects) tools available for Rapid development.

Gandi Quote is germane

[Gothmolly]

First they ignore you,
Then they laugh at you,
Then they fight you,
Then you win.

I'd say that we were at Stage 3 now, we were at Stage 2 last year and the year before.

Things are looking up!

Edinburgh event

[linuxci]

I was at the Edinburgh event last week which was the 2nd event in their roadshow.

Here's some advice for people who'll be at their next two events (Manchester this week I think, and Wales the week after (Newport, IIRC)):

- Plan in your coffee break questions to ask them (be careful about providing them with the question on paper as they reworded mine - try and ask it in person at the end).

- Ask more about IBM involvement in Linux, they tried to claim that IBM were trying to lock people in to Linux, try and provide counter examples as to how it'd be easier to escape an IBM stranglehold than an MS one.

- They cite interoperability as one of Microsoft's main aims, people mentioned the office file formats and recent patents, but they hedged around the question, someone needs to seriously challenge them on this at the event.

- Talk to the other delegates in clear concise language why you think Linux should be considered as a serious option. Don't sound like a zealot and accept there's many times when Windows would be more suitable than Linux.

- Point out to people that open source doesn't always mean Linux, in fact doesn't always mean changing an OS at all. There's some quality open source software for Windows - promote Firefox and OpenOffice as examples

Re:Unfair comparisons... of course they're going t

[millahtime]

any businesses wanting to use it will naturally go for the most expensive possible distribution (i.e RedHat uber deluxe professional platinum addition for business).

Many companies like the one I work for require you to be able to get a service contract for any software. So, to use Linux they have to be able to get a service contract. That's why they go for those expensive ones. They have the service.

Well, I say that any half-decent system administrator should be able to do his job completely from a command-line interface and should not need a GUI.

You're figureing on half decent sys admins. Many of the ones I know can't do anyting outside the GUI. And they don't even have half of an understanding of what is really going on. Some have never even herd of /. Sadly many who are called sys admins don't really know a whole lot.

"Linux isnt free?"

[bludstone]

Really, Well, I just installed mandrake 10 this weekend to replace w2k on an old pc. My first linux. And it was, free.

I downloaded it, burned it, and installed. I had minimal help and everything went very smoothly.

Er, right.

"linux ISNT free?" "really? heres 10 free copies of mandrake right now." "youll have to pay to support it." "ah, then dont you mean linux SUPPORT isnt free? Is windows support free?" *insert adhominem attack they are trained to do here*

I imagine the best thing you can do at these is hand out free linux install cds, and allow people to make the choice for themselves.

Again, mandrake 10 was SUPRISINGLY easy to get working.

Re:Spin Doctors

[chabotc]

Honestly that is, and always has been one of the strong points of Microsoft. It's not without reason that the famous Balmer 'developers -developers - developers - developers - developers - developers - developers' chant happened.

Their toolkits are well documented and very easy to get started in. Also a lot of their development (& -tools) is focused not on making the right choice, but giving the most fancy features and ease of use to developers and users alike. Because of this there are many many Windows developers who with limited skill can already contribute to the windows software pool, and thus making more software available for Windows, and making getting Windows developers cheaper then getting Linux developers.

However there are also those who feel this is also the weakness of Microsoft. By making API's and tools that are not technicly the best solution it'll burst in due time (who doesn't know of the socket handle leak that MS can't fix because otherwise they'd break 1000's of apps). Also by making it easy to develop for and maintain Microsoft software, the engineers and administrators often have no clue of underlying issues thus leading to lots of bugs and exploitable situations..

There's something to be said for forcing people to understand a situation before allowing them to contribute :-)

Re:Enterprise Level

[ninewands]

Im sure I am in the minority when saying this, but it has just been my experience that even though I have to continuously do Microsoft refreshes, their software works better ouf of box.

Their software, out of the box, runs Sobig, Bagel and Blaster as well as it does IE or Office.

A large part of the cost of administering desktops in a business environment is repairing the damage done by users who have been given excessive system privileges because their applications require them to have them. Linux/Unix apps, as a general rule, don't do that. As a result, it is possible to lock a n*x box down to the point that a user can still do his/her job but he/she cannot wreak havoc on the machine or the network. When the user can only install "goodies in his or her $HOME where they also store their precious data, and pr0n^W other irreplaceable information, they are MUCH more careful about what they click "OK" on. This reduces TCO dramatically.

Just my USD0.02

"MS is scared" posts

[goldspider]

From reading Slashdot for several years, it would seem to me that Miscrosoft has been "scared" of Linux for some quite time. Every time one of these studies comes out, someone makes the "Microsoft is getting scared" and gets modded up to +5.

But despite their apparent terror, they've still managed to maintain their market dominance. I don't really think Microsoft is as scared as some Slashdotters would make themselves believe they are. Show me where Linux has taken a significant bite out of Microsoft; then you might have a case.

Re:"Linux training costs were 15% higher on averag

[unoengborg]

15% higher. Not a chance

If I took a Unix course back in 1989 (before Linux even had emerged) most of what I learnded then would still be somewhat useful in Linux of today. How much would 15 years old windows knowledge help me in manageing windows XP of today. Not much I think. Most likely I would have to have more frequent retraining if I run windows.

The total cost of being pathetic.

[no longer myself]

Back when Microsoft first attempted to use that report they bankrolled as proof that the TCO is in favor of Windows, I thought that someone was probably going to either get demoted or lose their job. They were taking the "low road", and it was just not credible. MS going on a roadshow to convince people not to switch to Linux is just plain sad. I expected better Messers Balmer and Gates.

I'm one of the lucky ones who successfully made the transition away from Windows to Linux. What was my TCO? I'd say I've spent around $300. That includes the cost of books (most of which were of less help than I hoped), and a copy of Lycoris and its Productivity Pak. (It's a nice distro, but it feels constraining.) Ultimately I became a Mandrake user, and it is installed on all three of my PC's.

Had I stuck with using MS Windows, I would still have spent about $300, and two of my PC's would not be "Kosher" according to MS's EULA. Of course if I were to get "picky" I could toss on the cost of all the additional software (Norton's, Office, etc...) and watch the TCO plow through the roof, but then, I don't want to stoop that low.

I just wish MS, and even some Linux zealots out there would get it through their heads: There are places to use MS Windows, places to use Linux, and even places where either will do nicely. (OK, I'll even include Mac's as having a place as well...)

But to make broad claims that draw illogical conclusions based on a pile of inequitable features-- Well, it's just not very professional, and I'm once again disappointed in Microsoft.

Re:Spin Doctors

[WormholeFiend]

Because of this there are many many Windows developers who with limited skill can already contribute to the windows software pool

You might as well have said "there are many many Windows hax0rs who with limited skill can already contribute to the windows worm pool"

Re:It's True About Desktop Management Tools

[aegilops]

Just to expand upon some of your examples a little:

Software package distribution to end-users (a la SMS or Group Policy)

Desktop lockdown policies, e.g. very restricted access for, say, a call centre, "normal" access for the general users, maybe a more elevated level of access for the odd rogue punk

Desktop roaming and profiles, i.e. a user should be able to log on to any desktop and receive all of his/her applications and data

Expanding the above point - if a PC fails, it should be trivial to either re-image or swap out the hardware and have the user back up and running almost immediately. I.e. no local data / no local installs

Strong method of validating integrity of the desktop, particularly in regulated industries (banking, pharmaceuticals etc) - i.e. how can you "prove" that the machine has not been tampered with, and so is operating correctly. Sounds daft? Try working in a regulated industry...

Hardware inventory / monitoring toolkits (in an ideal world, you'd have a single machine image for the whole company to make support of your desktop image easier, but life frequently isn't that simple)

Software inventory / monitoring toolkits (not all software will be freely licensed, you may be distributing some proprietary software that runs on your free systems

Remote control software to enable support staff to assist users remotely

Your examples of automatically distributing patches (and forcing, and preventing logon from un-patched machines) for both OS and applications is exactly right, along with having the control to test and select what patches are distributed to end users. No doubt many of my examples above are already addressed, and this is after all what you'd be paying a Linux expert to help you with (read: commercial support organisation and consultancy - IBM would likely be a good fit, along with many others). Remember, a corporation could well take the view that if it's worth doing, it's worth doing right - i.e. choose Linux for the right reasons, but don't automatically assume that they will want to do it for zero cost - both in the initial purchase price as well as the ongoing maintenance.

Aegilops

Re:Spin Doctors

[kryptkpr]

Their toolkits are well documented and very easy to get started in

Which toolkits are you referring to? VB? VC++?

The toolkit itself may be well documented (in the "this is how you place a button widget" or "this is how you write a click event handler" sort of way), but the actual Windows APIs for doing anything are fucking terrible.

Different portions of it (interfaces to different .DLLs) were clearly written by teams that had never talked to one another. And don't even get me started on compatibility.. write code for one microsoft OS, and pray to god it runs on the others.

For example, running any Delphi-written application on XP (with SP1, this problem does not occur pre-SP1) with a P4 processor with HyperThreading enabled causes the app to crash on startup.. (placing it in Win98/ME "compatibility" mode makes the mysterious crash go away, but it took a lot of snopping to find that workaround)

I'm getting REALLY fed up with windows programming. I don't use Microsoft's toolkits because VB is too simple and VC++ is too complex, but I'm still forced to use their shitty APIs. In fact, I'm so sick of it, that I'm currently learning python, and plan to move most of my development to an OS-neutral platform.. let someone else fight with the Win32 API for days on end.