Slashdot Mirror
Latest Ballmergram Bashes Linux TCO
Phoe6 writes "Microsoft chief executive Steve Ballmer has used the software giant's latest executive email to stoke up Microsoft's fight against the rise of Linux. The 2,600 word missive was titled 'Customer focus: comparing Windows with Linux and UNIX'. In it, Ballmer repeated the key themes of Microsoft's controversial Get The Facts campaign. Zdnet has its report here." Linuxworld also has a story.
Yankee's study concluded that, in large enterprises, a significant Linux deployment or total switch from Windows to Linux would be three to four times more expensive - and take three times as long to deploy - as an upgrade from one version of Windows to a newer release. And nine out of 10 enterprise customers said that such a change wouldn't provide any tangible business gains.
Whoda thunk that it'd be more expensive to entirely change your infrastructure from Windows to Linux than it would be to simply upgrade to a new version of Windows????? Wow! We should install Windows everywhere!
Who here also thinks it'd be just as expensive to convert from Linux to Windows?
What would we expect of Ballmer? "Okay, okay, I give in, Linux is actually better, cheaper, more stable, faster" and so on? Of course not. He is lying, true, but that is his job (used car salesmen, bow before Ballmer, for he is your god).
Stupidity is an equal opportunity striker.
Fellow slashdotter Bill Dog
I wonder if their TCO figures include rebooting all your servers weekly to install new patches...
Oh, and let me guess... the Linux vulnerability count includes all issues found in an entire distribution, while the Windows count includes only the base OS. I'll bet we'd get a much more accurate picture if they included IIS, SQL Server, Outlook, etc.
Seriously though, lower vulnerabilities? Where the hell did that come from.
I've seen a number of studies that run something like this:
Windows
Linux
Not sure if this is the case here, but I suspect so.
Yeah, that takes the cake. But it's worded pretty cleverly, dontcha agree? "About three years ago, we made software security a top priority." Notice they don't say they've actually done anything about it, they just say they've made it "a priority". Hell, anyone can do that.
Beautiful piece of marketing doublespeak.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
"First they ignore you,
Then they laugh at you,
Then they fight you,
Then you win."
I'd say we're well into Stage 3.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Okay, but remember, they will then come up with the argument that the only reason that these things are not on Linux is because the people that write the trojans, worms, viruses, and spyware target the largest audience.
Nope. If you read the letter you might notice they came up with an even better one.
Ballmer - And as Yankee Group noted in its Linux, UNIX and Windows TCO Comparison study, "Linux-specific worms and viruses are every bit as pernicious as their UNIX and Windows counterparts - and in many cases they are much more stealthy."
So you see, Linux has all the same problems as Windows. They're just hidden better! Fear the unknown!
But that aside the reason why I as an IT guy am not impressed by Windows is that it is difficult to administer remotely (when Microsoft shows me a version of Windows that I can admin over a 9600 BPS serial link with a CLI I'll be interested) and the fact that I don't want to be Microsoft's bitch. If I don't like IBM's Linux solution I can buy from HP or SGI. If I don't like Microsoft Windows I'm stuck with it.
Microsoft's history of price increases is also an issue. When Windows NT 3.51 came out I could purchase it for $95 dollars a license at Academic discount, NT 4.0 cost 135 dollars, Windows 2000 and XP are $165. Microsoft will counter that Windows XP is more functional than NT was and that that justifies the extra price, but my hardware is more functional than it was 8 years ago when NT 3.51 came out and it's cheaper, why hasn't Microsoft's operating system followed the same evolution? (that's a rhetorical question, but in case you're confused it's because they have a monopoly) In addition I take all of Microsoft's claims of increased functionality driving software price with a grain of salt as a lot of what those new releases deliver is bug fixes over the prior version.
Even if Microsoft can deliver solutions for the same price as Linux a lot of companies are going to look at Microsoft's recent history and say "Do we really want to be their bitches?" and when the answer is "no", go with that Linux solution.
cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
Nice how they use a single metric, cost of switching, Don't say much about cost post-switch that I see (though I skimmed pretty fast and didn't read any of the studies they link).
Under the security part, maybe they should have mentioned something about the extra cost the first time the next big Windows virus/trojan/worm hits the scene. Or the cost of simply keeping up with security and bug fixes.
Its not what they say, its what they don't say.
In terms of talking about the operating system itself, Microsoft's statements come across as the same FUD we'd expect. However there is one thing I noticed in this letter which caused me to think a bit...
"All of the major Linux vendors...have begun charging hefty premiums for must-have items such as technical service and support, product warranties and licensing indemnification."
What this means I think is that Microsoft can't compete with the *operating system itself* on technical merit, and they know this. However, what it sounds like they're realising that they *can* do is exploit corporate ambivalence about Linux based on the major distributor companies' pricing structures.
I understand that in order to make money with Linux, it's always been about the services. What I've also heard talked about several times recently though is how greedy people think Red Hat in particular are becoming. If this is true, RH and the other companies IMHO need to be careful.
Microsoft as I said know they cannot compete with Linux based purely on technical merit. But if Red Hat and the other companies introduce overinflated pricing structures with regards to the services, this will largely erradicate the "free as in beer" element of Linux, at least as far as the corporate mind is concerned. If it gets to the point where Microsoft can compete based on *initial price*, (and no, I'm not talking about ongoing license fees here...I'm talking about the price of the *initial* contract/box/whatever) then they could even afford to cease caring about people knowing that Linux is a technically stronger solution than Windows. All they need to do is sell someone on the idea that an *entry* price is cheaper than the initial price one of the Linux companies is charging. Based on what I've heard about Microsoft's contracts, I'm guessing they could very easily do this.
1) Offer a corporation an initial deal comparable to the Linux vendors in terms of unit volume/amount of support, but at a marginally lower price, and of course with Windows rather than Linux.
2) Fill said corp's heads with usual BS about "independent" (wink, wink) surveys/studies and so on to grease the deal.
3) Include a fixed term no-vendor-transfer clause in the contract...basically specifying that they can't migrate for a certain time period. 5 years, 10 if they can get away with it.
4) Once the time period for the Linux "clone contract" runs out, then we're in purely Microsoft time, and can then commence MS fun and profit. Jack up the price for additional support, service packs, bug fixes or whatever, and justify this on the basis that these weren't mentioned in the original contract, or that these are "optional extras." (Even if they are actually mandatory to keep the corp's machines functioning) Use extra context-specific BS as necessary.
Any client company unfortunate enough to fall into this trap would basically be screwed for the duration of the contract.
The very fact that Ballmer wants to take on Linux gives people the impression that Linux is a worthy opponent.
It's the same with with US presidential debates, where the incumbent usually tries to negotiate his or her way out of as many debates as possible. Why? Because the mere fact that a challenger shares a stage with a sitting president tends to help the challenger.
The lesson those of us who use Linux in our daily work, and who see the value in things like open source and open standards, is just to hang loose.
Ballmer is offering free publicity.
---- Richard L. Goerwitz III
As a systems admin, you don't have to fuss around with kernels, you can also decide on one distribution if you want. Most distros are freely available on the net for download, so a discount isn't even needed. You can install it, set it up. run updates on it once in a while. Baseline security analyzer? Give me a break. Run a port scanner like nmap on the machine and run 'ps aux' to get a complete list of processes. Keep track of these and most security problems should be avoidable. Fedora does this, Red Hat does this, SuSE does this, the latest Ubuntu does this. You can use yum or apt, how much time does it take anyway? Dependencies are also handled by yum and apt, so no problems there. All these work.
Here's my question... if you're a systems administrator that believes that Windows 2003 is so easy to use, and takes little time, then why not use that extra time to learn the other side of things? You might actually like it if you read enough. Imagine the advantages of having both Windows and Linux on your resume. Or are Windows problems a little too much that you don't have time to learn? Imagine how much money your boss could save if you spent that extra time learning. Then he could get you to download Linux distros, and use those, without having to pay for additional licenses. Imagine the possibilities of opening your mind to new knowledge.
As a systems administrator and business owner, all I can say to you is... sheesh.
It seems like they think that if they say Windows is more secure enough times it will become a reality.
That only works if you say the same thing over and over again.
They should put more focus on developing secure software, than simply paying lip service to secure software.
Well, its in the article, and I immediately stopped reading after the quote:
He claimed that Windows was a better choice than Linux in terms of security
Please bear with me, I have had all of the microsoft related stuff filtered off of my homepage for years, but that nolonger seems to work, so here I am being a troll (see I said it now you have to mod me up).
Windows simply is not designed for security and where I work when we have "major problems" its from the microsoft side of the house, not the UNIX side.
Windows will run anything with the proper couple of letters appended to the end of the filename. UNIX has to have the executable bit set to it, regardless of the name, and no mailer that I know of will dump an executable file so that some luser can just click on it and wreck the LAN and up to a good part of the internet as a whole.
Windows comes with bunches of stuff turned on by default, and an unpatched system directly exposed to the internet is likely to be compromised in I believe 20 minutes now.
Windows uses the nebulously defined "current working directory" as the first search path for executables and libraries. Everyone else in the world knows the problem with this.
Windows must be used from a GUI that is tied to the OS (including a browser) which has caused a couple of problems in the past.
Windows still does not get multiuser/administrator stuff right.
Windows service packs/patches frequently break stuff, and take a considerable amount of time to test within an organization before being deployed.
I mean, windows is OK for my dad to use AOL to do whatever he does online. It doesn't crash too often on him, and its ok to run at home or on someone's desk where nothing really important is done with the machine or the data on it. I wouldn't suggest Linux for this kind of work at all. Using Macs would simply put too many IT people out of business. But when it comes to important stuff, people tend to look for more robust solutions. I don't see any microsoft based machines on the top 500 list. I don't know of any instance where important database kind of stuff is run off of windows. I'm sure there are some, because Oracle and whatnot "works" on windows, but I don't think its any accident that windows is the minority when it comes to server room kind of stuff, nor do I think its any kind of accident that windows is vastly the majority when it comes to desktop stuff.
Why can't MS figure out what they are good at and do that, instead of talking a bunch of shit and doing things half way? They are already the largest software company in the world, why don't they use these resources to be the best?
Spoken like a man who has never used linux.
"don't want to fuss around with kernels, deciding between a distribution, and all that jazz. "
Futzing with kernels? Who does that anymore? How many times do you decide between distributions? I'll give you a hint, once.
"Sure, I could use apt and the others, but it just takes too much time, and you have to worry about various dependencies and what not."
Who the hell modded you up after saying something this collosally ignorant. Apt takes too much time? You have to worry about dependencies with apt? What the fuck? The parent does not know what they are talking about or is lying mod them down people.
"I'd like nothing better than to run a Unix variant, but until you bring me a monolithic distribution that just works,"
What you mean like debian or suse or something?
"I'll have to stay Microsoft for now."
Yes you do that. Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about.
evil is as evil does
Ballmer's missive landed in my mailbox last night (somehow it escaped my spam filter), and I wrote this response. I know no one there will read it, but it was still fun to write.
Don't read what Ballmer wrote since (IMHO) the focus is NOT on lower TCO...instead read in to what Ballmer meant. This is a public salvo thrown out that clearly signals their intention: they're coming after Linux and open source hard.
Read in to what Ballmer meant when he said, "Given the growing concern among customers about intellectual property indemnification, what's the best way to minimize risk?" Read this and then think about it.
With the way some defects are published, you often see the same Linux defect published multiple times because it exists in multiple Linux distributions. I've seen "statistics" that claim enormous defect counts that include defects across all Linux distros, where defects are not only aggregated from a whole bunch of irrelevant software, but also counted multiple times.
This gives Microsoft a huge margin in which to twist their statistics.
So basically you're lazy and incompetant, unwilling to investigate solutions and make a decision.
I can download Fedora Core for free. Or Debian, Mandrake, Gentoo, ... the list goes on.
Oh, but wait, you can't make a decision.
More laziness and incompetance. You don't pay attention to advisories? Make sure your setup is tuned for your installation?
So you just want a system that lets you be a lazy, incompetant administrator, because you don't want to have to do anything other than click a button now and again?
Linux actually is easy to administer. A bit of setup and one or two people can maintain a thousand or more Linux boxes. Without that much headache. Sure, they'll have to know Linux, how to use the tools, and maybe even be good. But paying 2 people $80k a year is cheaper than paying 20 people $30k a year.
Ignorance. Anyone who is familiar with these tools knows that dependency maintenance is part of what they do.
Please do. We don't need lazy, incompetant idiots running our critical boxes.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
I think the general response would be that they seem stable because you don't have any *nix servers running next to them for comparison. Virus vulnerabilities and patching issues are still instability, just going by a different name. Planned downtime is still downtime.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.