Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Compares Windows And Linux
Halcyon-X writes "Microsoft is hosting a discussion on Windows and Linux between its two top Linux consultants. Martin Taylor and Bill Hilf talk about the various OSS licenses, focus on the open source development model, competing implementations of administration tools, TCO, and risk assessment. Also available in offline formats, doc (which looks fine in OpenOffice.org) and wma as well."
From the article "...Microsoft Windows, over a five-year period, offered anywhere from 11 to 22% greater TCO.."
:P
TCO stands for Total Cost of Ownership, right? Surely an 11 to 22% greater TCO would be a disadvantage, right?
Releasing some of your own tools under some type of open source license is NOT equal to "working with the open source community". Working with the open source community IMHO, would be releasing tools or at least specifications that allow any non MS products to work better or integrate into existing MS products. This may happen on a small scale now but it is VERY limited.
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
> The developers really putting work in open source systems aren't that many; Microsoft can hire more developers to do a better job.
:-) Hint: it ain't always the number of developers that makes a project work.
Perhaps they need to read _The Mythical Man Month_ again.
> Commercial Linux distributors are forced to create incompatible solutions as value-added propositions.
This is different from Windows how?
> Studies have shown that developers believe Microsoft is the top vendor in addressing their interoperability concerns.
Which developers? Windows developers?
> Commercialized Linux distributions limit the flexibility of the available open source solutions.
Not really. They provide additional support options for customers.
> Microsoft provides higher quality support and at a cheaper price than Linux vendors.
Apples and oranges. Microsoft doesn't provide any support to non-enterprise customers without a pricey support contract. Others are forced to find third-party support in both cases, often from the same firms.
> Microsoft stands behind Windows provididing an extremely high level of IP protection and indemnification.
So do many major Linux vendors.
> Microsoft has a faster turnaround between a security disclosure and a bug fix than other open source systems.
That doesn't fit the statistics I've seen from third parties, and I think MS would be VERY hard-pressed to provide service as fast the Linux kernel folks have.
> Microsoft commits resources to do comprehensive QA and testing; the open source model leaves that to chance.
A software's distribution method has little to do with its development methodology, and even less to do with the formal QA methodology in use.
> The Windows ecosystem of certified compatible hardware and software is a lot larger than that of Linux.
Sure, but the actual number of peripherals that are supported by both systems is roughly comparable (with Windows having a lead in newer hardware and Linux a lead in legacy hardware support).
> Microsoft leads in software innovation.
Only in their own minds, I'm afraid...
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
there was also Lotus Notes, but we didn't spend a great deal of time looking into that option
Ummm, why not? Certainly the client software has some warts, but it's been proven in workflow applications for years, has a good security track record, and can sync to palm pilots?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
When it comes down to it, actions speak louder than words. Microsoft talks alot about enterprise class reliability, etc... but I've never seen a Microsoft network that was truly enterprise class. Perhaps I've had a spate of incompetent admins, but every Microsoft shop I've been in has had problems with security.
Case in point: a few days ago I received an email from a friend telling me not to send him emails with attachments anymore (They run Windows exclusively). Apparently, they are having such a problem with viruses that the company has just adopted a policy of firing (without warning, mind you) anyone who receives email attachments. While I don't like it, I'm not surprised; he's told me in the past that virus cleanup has cost this company millions of dollars per incident.
So because Microsoft can't be bothered to write secure systems, his corporate email is essentially useless to the company. How "Enterprise Class" is a mail system which costs the company a additional few million dollars with every virus outbreak? Where's the ROI on a mail system that, for all intents and purposes, doesn't work?
And we wonder why IBM can sell a mainframe with the computing power of a desktop PC for millions of dollars...
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Yes I can. :P Most of the world uses Microsoft software, and therefore most calamitous attacks are directed at it. The same will occur if/when Linux rises to sizeable popularity, but that's a debate for another day.
I see your tired-old-argument, and raise you three:
Apache is the number one http server.
BIND is the number one DNS server.
Sendmail is the number one mail server.(last I checked, anyway)
You're forgetting a couple major points.
1) Most Windows users use Internet Explorer. On SUSE Gnome, the default is Firefox (as of 9.2). On SUSE KDE, the default is Konqueror. On Mandrake, the default is Mozilla (I believe). Some people prefer links( dont ask me why). Or lynx, Galeon, Opera, Netscape, etc. The browser market is much more devided on Linux than Windows with its 91% internet explorer marketshare. That means, I write a virus targetting IE and I hit 91% of all Windows users. I target Firefox, I probably hit less than 40% of Linux users.
2) Same arguement as 1, except substitute Outlook Express/Outlook for IE and Mutt, Evolution, Kontact, Thunderbird, Opera for Linux alternatives.
3) The fact is that F/OSS generally gets patched faster. Please point out one flaw in RHEL or SLES that Red Hat/Novell never plan to patch in their currently supported projects. MS has plenty (IE6 SP1 which is what all Windows users below XP have to use). Plus other ones where it literally says there is no patch planned on MS' website. Oh, and the flaw in IE that allowed another flaw in Windows to be exploited. Still isn't patched after a year. Mozilla had a similar flaw that allowed the same hole in Windows to be exploited...a day later it is fixed.
Plus, can you personally tell how many bugs there are in Windows? Download the source code and let me know.
4) Different distros use different versions of libraries. Some flaws present in a library in RHEL may not show up in Fedora Core, let alone in Mandrake, Debian stable etc. A flaw in X.org will hit precisely 0 enterprise users (assuming they dont use free versions of linux) because they all still run on XFree86. A flaw in DirectX 9.0c will hit all versions of Windows back to 98.
Virus writers are able to hit Windows users with a nuclear bomb (meaning one weapon hits all, or almost all) whereas with Linux they are hitting them with little Tomahawk missiles.
Oh, and then factor in the fact that it is Symantec, McAfee, Avast!, etc. etc. keeping Windows users safe, not Microsoft.