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."

Comments

Perhaps I'm missing something but...

[Anonymous Coward]

From the article "...Microsoft Windows, over a five-year period, offered anywhere from 11 to 22% greater TCO.."

TCO stands for Total Cost of Ownership, right? Surely an 11 to 22% greater TCO would be a disadvantage, right? :P

Re:Same old, same old...

[nolife]

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.

Re:Article summary

[Richard Steiner]

> The developers really putting work in open source systems aren't that many; Microsoft can hire more developers to do a better job.

Perhaps they need to read _The Mythical Man Month_ again. :-) Hint: it ain't always the number of developers that makes a project work.

> 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...