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?
Excerpt from last paragraph of Ballmer memo:
If the evidence at our www.microsoft.com/getthefacts Web site doesn't sufficiently convey the benefits and value of the Microsoft platform, we want to hear from you so we can work even harder to get that information to you.
I can't wait to read the the response to his invitation.
http://www.fdic.gov/news/news/financial/2004/FIL11 404a.html
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
I don't. It'd be much more expensive IMO to convert from Linux to Windows. First off, you gotta buy it. Second off, you'd have to hire all new IT staff, because the previous guys would've committed hari-kari in the bathroom. Second, you'd have to figure out how to get all of your applications running again in an environment that is as stable as a drunkard on a fence.
-Jesse
Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
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.
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
how ironic.
^_^
"You worthless post!"
-Shakespeare, 2 Gentlemen of Verona, 1. 1. 147
Security
About three years ago, we made software security a top priority
s/three years ago/ten years too late/
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.
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, this is just the marketroids doing their thing. When the accountants start warning about threats from Linux, we know there's a real threat. Linux is getting mention in the latest annual filing, too.
See what I've been reading.
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.
As a completely unrelated aside, my mp3 player chose this moment to start playing "Everything You Know Is Wrong" by Chumbawamba, which has, as part of the bridge, the title and some guy saying "Misinformation!" in the background. I find this highly appropriate.
Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
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.
you gotta learn how to count
Getting Linux TCO news from Ballmer is about as reliable as getting news about Iraq from Dick Cheney.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
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.
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!
Roses are #FF0000, violets are #0000FF, all my base are belong to you
With an educational discount, Windows 2003 server costs my department $142 (sure, it's more in a commercial environment), I can install it, set it up, run updates on it once in a while, run the baseline security analyzer on it, and forget about it. Give me a linux that does all this in an easy to use manner, and I'll switch. 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.
At $142, that's $142 more you have to spend compared to FOSS solutions. What you've described, proved either that your educational institution is filthy rich and caters only for the rich and snobs, or you're just plain lazy.
Most educational institutions, whether state-run or even privately operated (esp. private with visions of education rather than for profit), are almost always tight budget! This is especially true in third world countries! That is why various bodies such as SchoolForge (and their Case Studies), K12OS, Moodle, OpenSourceSchools, KDE Edutainment Project and a lot more others are being founded and.. surprise! Thrives!
Personally, I love the K12LTSP Project. A branch out of the K12OS Project, which when deployed properly throughout the campus, can provide access to all students to high-grade apps in a very stable environment. Access from any terminal in any labs, authenticating via NIS, LDAP or whatever you prefer and access your mail accounts, website or whatever. With backend support tools available such as MySQL or PgSQL and PHP/Perl (okay, maybe that's a bit far out, but I've met 12 year olds who can code!)
Software cost? $0
Will sys-admin for food
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.
Users are limited to 16 groups??
32, I believe. Still, it isn't perfect, and we should perhaps look at ways to improve it.
Only one group can have permissions applied to a file?
Not true. All major Linux filesystems support POSIX ACLs now, enabling you to apply whatever permissions you like.
And no group nesting allowed?
What are the security benefits of allowing this? Personally, I am not aware of any, as I believe whether it is allowed or not the systems are actually equivalent -- it is merely an implementation detail that should be ironed out by any reasonably well written management system.
You can mod this comment down, but you can't propose a security system like THAT to a company interested in protecting their assets. WAKE UP SLASHDOT.
Even without ACLs, it is more than adequate for 99% of companies. Hell, most of them wouldn't want to spend the admin time required to manage anything more complex.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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!"
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
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.