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.
Security
About three years ago, we made software security a top priority
please... but i think they are starting to see Linux as a viable threat, thus the verbal out crys lately trying to defend themselves
I am so sick of "get the facts" and "Windows TCO is lower". I am a big fan of windows on the desktop, but it sucks as a server. I contend that anyone who says "Windows is easier to admin than Linux" has never had a Windows problem.
Since Tuesday, my DFS has been totally screwed up and not replicating. With Linux, you'd just look at a samba config file or something, but NOOO, not with AD and MS domains. I totally removed all of my replica sets and spent HOURS on google trying everything under the sun.
We ended up having to call Microsoft and paying $245 for the privilege. Well, in case you're wondering, yes they fixed DFS, but now my SysVol is marked as tombstoned. So yeah, my profiles are replicating, but now my SysVol is about to delete itself. Microsoft is trying to figure out WTF it is trying to delete SysVol and every time you set the flag to 0 it goes right back to one, regardless of whether or not you stop or start the File Replication Service(FRS). We had to totally blow everything away in LDAP with ADSI edit and in the registry under HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Drivers\NtFRS and DFS.
Anyway, I hate windows on a server, but you just don't have the same abilities on a Linux domain as you do on a windows domain with windows desktops. We used to have a samba domain, and we're transitioning to AD. I hope Ballmer gets to read this, preferably before my SysVol deactivates and deletes itself.
This message and SysVol will self-destruct in five seconds.
will be the one that the most people that have to interact with it know it. If on the server, and all the admins know unix that would be linux or unix. If on the server and all the admins know only windows then it would be windows. On the desktop windows will win most (read 95%) of the time. Unless you have a very very techly set of employees then it just might be linux.
I read that as something completely unintentional I'm sure:
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.
Balmey wouldn't have meant it that way, would he?
liqbase
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."
Well they have to be...the simple viruses that invade windows machines wouldn't stand a chance against linux.
Also, they totally ignore to state the fact that the frequency of Linux viruses on Linux is pretty much null.
Good to see that Micros~1 is running out of ideas to fight Linux, and must resort to recycling their same old collection of lies, damn lies, and statistics.
BTW, why is it none of these "TCO" studies consider the effects or cleanup costs of Windows trojans, worms, viruses, or spyware? I wouldn't trust any study which doesn't include those figures into the equation for a "total" cost of ownership.
Yeah, but that's beyond most companies concern since they don't upgrade that way, and therefore probably not seen as worth bringing up. Compare to analyzing a marriage between Elaine and LeChuck isn't even discussed, since that shouldn't be able to happen.
Oh drat! You already posted and can't mod!
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
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.
It's more expensive short-term to switch operating systems than to not switch? Shocker.
And nine out of 10 enterprise customers said that such a change wouldn't provide any tangible business gains.
And one of them said it would.
Did any of them say Windows was actually better? I doubt it - if any of them had, they would have mentioned it.
Training for IT employees was significantly higher for Linux than for Windows - on average, 15% more expensive. The reasons: training materials were less readily available, and customers spent more on training to compensate for the lack of internal knowledge about Linux.
There are more Windows admins out there. This surprises who?
So you've got #1, which basically says "If you're already running Windows, stick with it!" You've got #2, which says "If you're already running Windows, stick with it!" And you've got #3, which says "Right now, there's more people running Windows!"
Am I the only one who hears an undertone of "Please, please, for the love of God, keep using Windows"?
Microsoft's marketing, right now, is focused entirely on "Don't switch to Linux". Perhaps this is because many companies still use Windows. Or perhaps it's because they can't come up with plausible reasons to switch *from* Linux. But don't worry - we'll be seeing their first attempts in a year or two, I'll wager.
Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
The single biggest reason for the proliferation of open source software like Linux and Apache is that they are free to own. Most Westerners are relatively honest and do not pirate commercial software; the piracy rate is only about 15%. The sheer high cost of commercial software thus creates a market for free software like Linux and Apache.
Now, consider China (which includes Taiwan province and Hong Kong). The Chinese steal what they do not want to buy; the piracy rate is about 95%. In China, there is no market for open source software like Linux, for all software is free. Windows XP is "free".
TCO is not even an issue in China because Microsoft will not support pirated software. Chinese pirates get support for, say, Windows XP from other pirates; the behavior is similar to Westerners getting support from other open source supporters for Linux.
I depend heavily on M$ products for my paycheck, and have certifications in M$ products. but I am also a realist... there are times that Linux just does the job better.
;)]
I feel that they both get the job done in different ways, and sometimes one is better than the other. We (the team who manage the servers at my place of employment) have been slowly introducing more and more Linux boxes, just because we can do more with the functions we are introducing them for. [Well, that and the fact that the security team is very Windows centric and can't crack these, much to their frustration and chagrin.
However, Ballmers contentions that Windows is just better are beginning to sound more like the ravings of a man demanding that the wind stop blowing.
As for the facts on the website? My college stats teacher proved that you could make the numbers say anything if you try hard enough.
Here I come to save the da... *thud*
I gotta get me a shorter cape.
As far as updating goes, generally, debian is much easier to update in my experience. Using the packages included in debian (and this is a HUGE number) you essentially never have to worry at all about dependencies.
... unstable. :)
Of course, if you use the unstable distribution, occasionally a package gets uploaded that is a little
But using stable, or even testing, you almost never get this kind of problem. Certainly nothing like the problems with winxpSP2, and of course, the viruses/spyware fun on windows requires far more frequent updating than anything in linuxland.
Anyway, if all your experience has been with redhat, especially if you weren't using yum or apt-get in it, things can be greatly improved.
Check out hosting from http://www.1and1.com/. Linux hosting is $4.99 a month; MS Win hosting with the same features is $6.99 a month. I wrote to 1and1 and asked them why Windows-based hosting was more expensive. I was told that in terms of licensing and maintainence costs, Linux is definitely cheaper.
How do you respond to that, Ballmer?
Thank God I'm an atheist!
Real-world risk management is absolutely key with any OS or software suite, and that essay from the FDIC is spot-on. I might disagree with a few points, but overall it's quite accurate.
I also enjoy their summary which starts:Yep, that's exaclty what Ballmer is trying to convince you isn't so... so who do we trust on risk assessment, federal bank insurers or Microsoft? Heh.
As a systems admin, I don't want to fuss around with kernels, deciding between a distribution, and all that jazz
:) There was some guy who set up a RedHat web/db/mail/cvs server. He wasn't an uberguru, just a guy who knew what he was doing. That machine has been going and going for more than 3 years without being stopped, only on power failures. I had to replace it this summer because it's CPU fan stopped and the CPU just went bye-bye, and it was pretty old anyways.
:)) but that's not the point. The point is, once/month dist-upgrade and it's a runner for at least the next 3 years if the gods of hardware permit :)
Well, you must be some kind of a system admin. One thing certain: you'll never be root.
Thing is, what you say is only true for one type of admin: who raises a hand when asked who wants to do it. No history, no experience.
Ok, didn't want to do this, but I can't hold it
The new one is going on Debian/Woody of course
I would openly directly naturally and severly fight any argument war on all fronts of server capabilities against anyone who would replace it with any Windows server version.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
Look at what he says.
"# Training for IT employees was significantly higher for Linux than for Windows - on average, 15% more expensive. The reasons: training materials were less readily available, and customers spent more on training to compensate for the lack of internal knowledge about Linux."
So everyone and their dog "thinks" they know Windows well enough to run a windows server... Except that it all the security issues that seem to be caused by poorly administrated Windows boxs seems to say otherwise. Linux experts are pretty rare.
"# All 14 companies said it was difficult finding qualified Linux personnel in the marketplace to support their Linux projects. When they did find third-party help, they had less leverage negotiating hourly rates than with Windows"
So if you know Linux you are more in demand than if you know Windows, and you will make more money doing it.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Thing is the UK government have already identified that the upgrade cycle for hardware and software with Linux is less frequent at 6-8 years compared with 3-4 with Windows.
Soon when environment laws are toughened further (in the EU they're becoming so) it will cost a lot of money to dispose of computer hardware and so the TCO of Windows will have to include the cost of hardware upgrades and disposal of old hardware.
If you're doing this twice as often as Linux then you're paying twice as much simply based on the hardware, never mind the upgrade process (installation of new hardware and software) and training (due to software interface changes).
All this and I've not even mentioned licenses.
So, the question is: why should anybody give Microsoft many hours of free consulting just so that Microsoft can turn around and use that to further monopolize the market? Why should anybody donate time and effort to Microsoft just to have the company turn around and charge them for everybody's voluntary contributions to their software?
Microsoft's dirty little secret is that most of the value of their software isn't created by them, it's created by their customers. They are just capturing that value and making a bundle on it. And they are charging their customers for the same effort over and over again, just because they can.
Even if Linux were no better than Windows, with Linux, people can be sure that they are not getting charged for their own and other people's free contributions to the effort.
While [the open source development process] has some validity, it is not necessarily the best way to develop secure software. We believe in the effectiveness of a structured software engineering process that includes a deep focus on quality, technology advances, and vigorous testing to make software more secure.
But not for the last twenty one years, apparently:
About three years ago, we made software security a top priority,..
So they think that the open source approach to development has some validity, but that their approach - THAT THEY ADMIT THEY HAVEN'T BEEN USING FOR 20+ YEARS - is better.
Hmmmm....
They found that Microsoft addressed all of the 128 publicly disclosed security flaws in Windows over the 12-month period studied, and that its security updates predated major outbreaks by an average of 305 days.
There are only 360 days in the study period. That means their average is nearly the timeframe covered by the study.
I get suspicious when I see this kind of conclusion. Have they only been in business a year?
After careful analysis, farmaCity concluded that Windows would reduce network administration by 30 percent compared with Linux, and would also simplify identity and desktop management..
And this is proof of security... how?
What was the analytical methodology? Why is network administration such a large burden? I don't even see the update activities on my Linux machine, but I have been warned by our IT group not to deploy XP SP2 due to breakage problems.
Hmmmm....
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
Being a former technical software salesman myself, I've experienced and used the TCO defense as the last resort before I lost a sale. That is what Ballmer is doing here. Features and benefits aren't enough to sway the buyer into purchasing Microsoft software, so you have to resort to a different value proposition.
Features and benefits are valued more than anything else by the customer. It is the reason to even consider a purchase. This being the issue, it simply means that Ballmer realized that Linux has better and more value to the customer than Microsoft Winblows. Hence, the last justification is the TCO stand. And like political races, truth is meaningless, it's only what the voter will believe.
Analogy mode on:
If you need to move a refrigerator, then you need a good size pickup truck. A used car salesman will try to sell you a hatchback Honda and give you advice on how to turn the 'frig on it's side and shove it into the hatchback. The Honda may get great mileage and be cheaper, but it doesn't do the job. What good is it?
Analogy mode off:
In this case the TCO figures are an out and out lie.
The "independent" sources of TCO and general IT practices analysis live by the motto: "Never piss off the 800lb gorilla in your house" (Microsoft).
Linux and all Open Source groups have no fear of the 800lb gorilla.
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.
This is actually a good response. But I would caution that when a network admin says "unstable" a user thinks "flaky" rather than "there are periods of planned downtime." So do other network admins. If Windows servers have more planned downtime (likely) then that can be clarified and quantified just fine without putting it under the blanket of "unstable" where it will be assumed something else is meant.
Our Windows servers have about the same uptime as the Netware servers sitting right next to them (no, not Suse based), but actually have less unplanned downtime. I'm not trying to crack on Netware, or anyone else, but if the servers are up unless we take them down on purpose then that's certainly not something I'd call "unstable", especially if the users is going to hear "flaky".
TW
But I'm curious how Linux distro's compete with Active Directory and the slew of enterprise configuration utilities available on Windows 2003 Server?
I'm a full time Linux user, but as a workstation doesn't require these types of tools I've never actually come across them before.
To be honest, in my Windows server classes I've been pretty impressed with some of their enterprise solutions. Considering, for the forseeable future, we'll be developing networking around mainly Windows clients whats Linux got to compete or outdo Windows on the controller end?
I'd guess Suse is going to have the best chance, if Novell really tosses everything they had going in Netware into making Suse Enterprise a competative product. I'd be curious to hear what Linux admins are doing in the real world.
Does Linux have a serious enterprise grade alternative?
Quack, quack.
I don't get it. Do the people who mod this stuff up (or the people who post it, for that matter) say "Boy, there's a new thought! I've never heard that quote before!"
Because each time it comes up it looks more and more like reality. I remember a long time ago when that was being quoted on Slashdot and things were firmly in the "ignore you" stage. People criticized the quote because (quite reasonably) just because someone was ignoring you was hardly a sign you were going to win.
Over time though the "ignore" slowly faded, and Microsoft was mostly mocking Linux as a laughable option written by pimply teenagers in their basements, so again out comes the quote, this time with a little more weight because things had actually made the predicted progression.
A year or two ago Microsoft kicked into gear with a serious range of attacks on Linux, and now they really are fighting it very bitterly even though they still dominate in market share. More and more people are seeing Linux as a viable option. More and more stories about Linux that get posted to Slashdot are, instead of appearing in Wired, eWeek, are from Time magazine or the Wall Street Journal. As the poster points out, presuming things follow this prediction (and they have remarkably well so far) we're well into stage 3, and winning isn't far off.
Of course it depends on what you mean by "win". Realistically, myself, I see winning as Linux gaining sufficient market share and respect to always be considered as a viable option by anyone looking at buying a computer. That's not 90% market share, and that's not crushing Microsoft, that's just crushing Microsoft's monopoly grip.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts