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.
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.
Who here also thinks it'd be just as expensive to convert from Linux to Windows?
/.ers' hands shoot up, then returns as they come back down.)
(Entire planet moves a fraction of an inch further away from the sun as millions of
The difference between spam and poop is that you don't have to dig through septic tanks looking for real food. -- Me
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.
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.
Am I the only one who sees a strong parallel between a billionaire CEO like Ballmer telling his employess he "wanted truly independent, factual information" and say the President telling his intelligence analysts that he wants to know about, say WMDs in Iraq or ties to terrorists? I'm only 26, but I'm pretty certain that if a "senior Microsoft team led by General Manager Martin Taylor" had come back to Ballmer and said, "Sorry boss, but we just can't beat free when it comes to TCO between two functionally identical products" then our man Mr. Taylor would be out of a very very well paying job, and the assignment would be given to the next peon in line and the procedure iterated until the boss has the "facts" that he wants to hear. Then again, I believe this is the kind of thing they teach in MBA programs, so I suppose any executive worth their $200,000/annum would get the message the first time.
The Christian in me says it's wrong, but the corrections officer in me says, 'I love to make a grown man piss himself.'
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
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!
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!
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.
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.