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

Same old, same old...

[FyRE666]

"...For example, one thing that normally comes up is that Microsoft is anti-open source, and they've used some of our activities as Microsoft versus open source. This is definitely not the case. Yes..."

And that's the point at which Martin Taylor (the MS talking head) confirmed that this discussion was yet another dull FUD exercise and I stopped reading. Seriously, this is getting very old now. They need some fresh new script-writers over at MS, otherwise they're in danger of losing even their most avid fans!

Re:Same old, same old...

[brad-x]

"yet another dull FUD exercise"

I'm finding it amusing how easily everyone is dismissing this rather than paying attention to it and gleaning important points.

Martin for example quite rightly points out that IBM, Oracle etc. are not throwing their lot in selflessly and wholeheartedly with Linux, they're augmenting a customer solution with open source products where their own proprietary software is lacking (they need an OS stack on which to run websphere, for example).

These kinds of points are strong, not because they're obvious, but because they indicate that in a lot of respects, adopting an open source operating system does not mean embracing free and open software. There is always cost and propriety.

Another point which isn't often raised and which Microsoft is hammering on is yes, their solutions are at times more expensive, but do they provide more value to the customer, and this is the point which is most often dismissed as FUD, although it's valid.

Objectively speaking (objectivity being in short supply in this environment) some Microsoft products do provide better value in terms of functionality. From my point of view, Server 2003 is an excellent turn-key workgroup server, Office 2003 is an excellent collaboration suite (spare me the Linux banter about samba and OpenOffice.org, it's not the same). Whereas for enterprise level services such as public web services, e-mail, border security, I'd place more value in UNIX-based systems.

The foregoing is not FUD. It's "the right tool for the right job". Microsoft doesn't strongly compete in top-level enterprise services like border security, and it doesn't do a great deal of business replacing UNIX systems or placing itself in environments where UNIX would ordinarily be. Why? Because it doesn't provide as much value. But at the workgroup level, they're a competitor and everyone just has to deal with that.

Re:Same old, same old...

[SQLz]

I don't think the community wants MS to open up the Windows source. Even MS said that doing so would be 'a threat to national security'. What we do want is for MS products to better interopate with open source.

Re:Same old, same old...

[nolife]

You are making very specific points about specific products and services being better then others and the most logical choice.

Office 2003 is an excellent collaboration suite.
Server 2003 is an excellent turn-key workgroup server.

Then you comment on having the right tool for the job. I truely do not think you believe that though.
How can you state the specific products above are the right tools for the job but never actually state or define what job they are being used for? In your nameless scenario where you suggest Office and 2003 server is the best and most logical solution, could you explain why Samba and Open Office would not be an option?
I have installed and serviced quite a few small businesses and I have used a variety of solutions including MS servers, Samba, Novell, MS Office, Word Perfect, and Open Office, various data backup methods, and various remote administration tools. What was used was not determined until we discussed what they need, want, and what they currently have. I do not use a hunch that assumes one choice is always better then the others. I'll admit though that given the choice (the company does not know what they need or does not care), I will suggest the Samba/OO route. The only time that becomes an issue is if they later decide they want MS Word installed. Not for functionality, not for stability, not for ease of use, but only when compatibility with others becomes a limiting factor.

Re:Same old, same old...

[FatherOfONe]

You Quote the article
"Martin for example quite rightly points out that IBM, Oracle etc. are not throwing their lot in selflessly and wholeheartedly with Linux, they're augmenting a customer solution with open source products where their own proprietary software is lacking (they need an OS stack on which to run websphere, for example)."

I would somewhat agree but the main point is that companies are now putting large resources behind open source/Linux. Compare this to three years ago. So yes IBM will probably not open source Websphere and Oracle will not opensource their DB, but the fact remains that both companies are now working to improve the kernel and other features of the OS. Also companies like Oracle will now FULLY support a system like RedHat ES running their DB. They will provide you the RPM's and everything. So if you are like say 99% of the mid size companies that run a pure DB server (nothing else special loaded on the server) this is a good thing.

You quote:
"Another point which isn't often raised and which Microsoft is hammering on is yes, their solutions are at times more expensive, but do they provide more value to the customer, and this is the point which is most often dismissed as FUD, although it's valid."

I call you out on this. We need to define value for the money. This is the ambiguous TCO that is talked about. I will gladly put Linux and open source products against most of Microsofts. But before we debate on that issue we need to define TCO. Also, I would like to add that I have been part of one of the worlds largest I.T./Microsoft only shops. I have also been in a pure Linux environment as well. I will say that both technologies have "issues", but if you want to talk about "value" and TCO I would love to debate you on it.

You quote:
"Objectively speaking (objectivity being in short supply in this environment) some Microsoft products do provide better value in terms of functionality. From my point of view, Server 2003 is an excellent turn-key workgroup server, Office 2003 is an excellent collaboration suite (spare me the Linux banter about samba and OpenOffice.org, it's not the same). Whereas for enterprise level services such as public web services, e-mail, border security, I'd place more value in UNIX-based systems."

I would agree that some of Microsofts products do provide some value. Would you agree that they also provide vendor lock in? That is something that needs to be looked at in TCO. You bash Samba and OpenOffice but I wonder how much you have used them. Microsoft talks a lot about listening to their customers and building software that adds value to them, but I argue that they provide software that tries to lock your company in to their technology, then they try to slowly up the amount you have to pay to Microsoft over time. They are little different than a drug dealer. Their core responsibility is to make as much money as possible all why claiming to add value.

The last core issue that Microsoft and most companies fail to see is that opensource is more about freedom and communication that anything else. Because of opensource software you currently have a 64bit operating system for AMD64, and companies like TIVO are free to "add value" to their customers without having to talk to potential competitors. Now cell phones are starting to standardize on opensource software. Why? Because there is significant value in it. What about the next great gadget out there? What OS do you think they will choose to run on it? Windows? What if Microsoft may become a competitor of theirs?

Another large issue that Microosft seems to fail to mention in the entire article is the enormous growth of Linux and opensource in such a small amount of time. To be honest though, by them "talking" about it, they must realize that they do not add as much value as people think and that far more developers are working on it than they mentioned...

We do agree that Microsoft does "add value", just that value comes at a c

Re:Same old, same old...

[stinky wizzleteats]

Objectively speaking (objectivity being in short supply in this environment)

Indeed so. I've recently completed an intensive 7 month research project in which I compared the performance of Windows 2000 and 2003 with Linux/Samba running on the same hardware. It was very interesting to see how empirical reality stacked up against commonly accepted wisdom on the comparisons between Linux and other solutions.

Commonly accepted wisdom reads very much like your post did - nebulous, dismissive, voice-of-reason style speak that derives an almost guaranteed collective harrumph from Slashdot moderators and the IT community at large. Office 2003 is a collaboration suite? WTF? It's not even intended to be used as a "collaboration suite". It's a desktop application suite, and a rather bad one at that (with the possible exception of Excel). Microsoft's collaboration suite is Exchange. The competing products are Notes and Groupwise. To make a claim regarding 2003 as a collaboration piece, much less a good one, is to ignore the well-known problems of version incompatibility between Office releases, document rot, and the ability to recover hidden information within documents, all of which directly controvene collaboration.

I performed thousands of tests and generated more raw test data than would fit on a DVD because my company needed to know the facts about server performance. I didn't trust what was being said on blogs and fora about the various products. I installed and tested numerous operating system/application configurations. My testing revealed that not only is Samba better, more stable, and faster than Windows file services on the exact same hardware, but Windows can't even remotely compete. Performance analysis baselines and processor utilization levels during testing weren't even comparable. There was no "voice of reason" about it - no comfortable anti-groupthink rhetorical position into which one could arrogantly recline and dispense half-truths and irrelevant tripe. There was only fact - hard cold reality. Sort of like how every major Internet virus disaster, spyware infestation, and countless other sorts of electronic calamity occurs as a direct result of using Microsoft software. You can't spin that. You can't moderate that. It simply, relentlessly, is.

Further standing in plain sight is the source code for Samba. Because we had access to the innards of the file server system, we could further optimize the already exemplary out of the box performance of the system and fine-tune it for our specific needs. We now have a file server system that could never be matched in performance or cost by a monolithic, proprietary solution that attempts to be all things to all people from its ignominious perch within a cardboard box.

So yeah, objectivity certainly seems to me to be in short supply. Luckily for me and my company, however, choice is not.

Re:Same old, same old...

[nathanh]

Windows even goes so far as to call it's program Shared Source, which means you can look, but you cannot touch.

Look, but don't touch.

Touch, but don't taste.

Taste, but don't swallow.

Hrm, if Bill Gates is the devil, as I have now undoubtedly proven, does that mean Ballmer is the person who gets spread-eagled naked in front of me to tempt me into a life of sin.

Oh my god, I've just gone blind, and I think I threw up a little, help, help...

Microsoft compares Windows and GNU/Linux

[PtrToNull]

Please use the correct title, RMS is rolling in his grave right now.

Oh wait.. he's not dead yet.



-- this sig is a speck of your imagination, enjoy it.

Reminds me...

[djupedal]

,,,of when my GF compared herself to the x-wife. I knew the outcome from the beginning...who wouldn't?

Re:Reminds me...

[savagedome]

x-wife

X-wife?? I bow to your geekhood. You truly are a geek Sir. And I mean it in a good way.

Since when does Linux compete?

[parvenu74]

Someone just got finished telling me in another thread (the speil on Vadalia Desktop) that the linux community is all about choice and is not interested in competing with Windows. If that is the case and the truth, why do you even care about a story like this, or care that M$ thinks they are competing with you? After all, it's all about freedom of choice isn't it -- or it is only about choice as long as the choice is Linux?

Whew

[mrpuffypants]

Finally, an impartial review of Windows vs. Linux. I have no doubt that at the end of this article the Microsoft engineers will recommend the clearly superior Linux OS over Windows Server 2003.

/me goes to RTFM and weep in the corner.

Alright... as you say

[savagedome]

From the article

We believe the way to integrate software, and the way to get software to work in a heterogeneous environment, is through promoting open standards

Does Microsoft Office ring any bell Mr. Bill Hilf?!
Put your actions where your mouth is and open up .doc

Hey its Bill And Marty from KBBL

[fireman sam]

After reading that I couldn't get the image of Bill and Marty from KBBL out of my head.

Marty: Hey, thanks Bill. Yes having access to the source code or the "building instructions" is evil. And we at Microsoft will keep you save from all the evil stuff.

Bill: That's right Marty. And the next person who rings in will win a months supply of IE updates.

Marty: Watch out Bill, that slashdot crowd is trying to take us off the air.

Bill: That's ok Marty, we have the latest IIS, we are as safe as... NO CARRIER

Decouple the OS from the apps?

[jacobcaz]

• So to give you an example, like I said I've run a lot of Linux shops in the past, I run a lot of commercial Linux here. If we have a particular problem in a certain piece of software, anything from let's say from a Kerberos library to Apache to Samba to any other application that might be on that distribution when we go through that chain of support with our commercial Linux distributor, there is a gap between what they're able to supply and what they have to go back to the open source community to get an answer for to get it resolved. In many cases the response is we need to stick with the version that's available at the time that we purchased that distribution, so for example if I'm running Apache 1.3 on my Red Hat Enterprise server, although I may want Apache 2.0 because it might have new features or it might have some new capabilities, I'm outside of my support model now with Red Hat. This is just an example.

Interesting he talks about this, but don't you usually have seperate support contracts for the OS and your core apps? I have a beast of a box that runs Windows 2000 Advanced Server but I'm free to run any RDBMS or web server I desire on it. I don't like IIS? Fine, I install WebLogic or WebSphere and I don't lose my support of the OS from Microsoft. I am currently running MSSQL Server 2000, but that could just as easily be Oracle 10g and I don't worry about support for either the app or the OS.

In fact I don't want to worry about whether my OS vendor will support my web suite - it should be decoupled so I can run the apps I need to run my business whether it's IIS 6.0, Apache 2.0 or WebLogic 6.1.

Re:Decouple the OS from the apps?

[FreeLinux]

Well, look at it from another angle. One that more closely parallels their example.

Suppose I am running Windows 2000 and it comes with IIS 5.0. I'm tired of all the security problems and it lacks a couple of new features that IIS 6.0 has and I really want. So I install IIS 6.0, from a Windows 2003 CD, onto my Windows 2000 system. Surprise, surprise, it doesn't work. There are all sorts of library issues and other problems.

So, I call Microsoft for support. Their support tells me that IIS 6.0 on Windows 2000 isn't supported. They say that I need to stay with IIS 5.0 or, better yet, upgrade everything to Windows 2003 which comes with IIS 6.0

How is this example any different than the one that they gave?

Hi. I'm Troy McClure

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi. I'm Troy McClure. You might remember me from hosting videos of other impartial Microsoft seminars as "Apple: A Scourge or a Mere Annoyance?" and "*BSD: If It is Not Dead It Should Be"

Re:I didn't RTFA but ...

[Mjlner]

"I didn't RTFA but ... I can guess their conclusion: Windows is better than Linux."

MOD PARENT UP +1 Psychic!

Spoiler Warning!

[Anonymous Coward]

They found Window's was better.

Just the latest MSFT attack

[HangingChad]

Before it was paid for TCO studies that...shockingly...showed MSFT products with the best TCO. This is just a new tact to smear OSS. As illustrated by this recent article.

Some of those efforts are legitimately aimed at making sure a proprietary code base isn't inappropriately using open source code. But it doesn't take much tweaking to try and make OSS look like some kind of virus. An image based on ignorance, but when has MSFT ever hesitated to promote an uneducated view when it suits them?

They're really turning into a sad, pathetic company. It's bad enough they produce bloated, insecure, DRM crippled, overpriced software, but to magnify it by being such low class PR whore is just embarrassing.

MSFT is living proof that no good deed goes unpunished.

This says it all:

[rabbit78]

As General Manager of Platform Strategy, I'm responsible for ensuring that our customers understand the benefits of the Microsoft platform. I also spend a fair amount of time doing a level of comparative analysis, making sure our customers understand the differences between Microsoft and some of the key alternatives in the marketplace, specifically Linux and open-source alternatives. Today, Bill Hilf and I will be spending time talking about that. Welcome, Bill.

We both work for Microsoft...

[DarkRecluse]

But hey, we're just technologists talking about the best solutions for customer issues...we just happen to agree on everything and lead eachother from one issue to the next.

Discussion = earnest conversation.
Propaganda = The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
( ref. www.dictionary.com )

Misunderstanding

[Decaff]

It's obvious that Microsoft still does not 'get' key aspects of open source:

"I always ask the question of customers and yes, there's always a free version, there's Debian, there's Gentoo, there's different distributions that they can pull down and use in a different environment, but when you really want to deploy it in a mission-critical way, when you really want to have something that's broader from an infrastructure perspective, they want something that has support"

The freeness of the version has nothing whatever to do with the support. I use a server that is Debian but has commercial support.

I also found the following comment very amusing:

"in Windows Server particularly, some of the things that struck me as innovative were some of the server management tools. The ability to take a Windows server and literally dynamically change it from a DHCP infrastructure server to a streaming media server, or more importantly, taking a file/print server and adding a variety of other services, maybe make it a domain controller, maybe also make it a Web server."

Wow! How 'innovative'! Maybe he should look at a tool like 'dselect' under Debian. I can also 'literally dynamically' add and remove services from my server. Anyway, the idea of having a single machine that is nothing more than a DHCP infrastructure server suggests Windows is not the most powerful system.

Re:Misunderstanding

[Decaff]

I guess Microsoft doesn't accept something as existing unless they do it themselves so everything they do is "innovative" to them.

Yeah. Reminds me of a description on their website of Object-Oriented features in VB.Net as 'innovative'. Considering those features were in Simula 40 years earlier, I found this amusing.

Don't complain, write a lucid response.

[Anonymous Coward]

The linux community needs to write a lucid response. Calling them names does not win the marketing battle.

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:Great marketing - Set phasers on "ignore"

[zarr]

In my opinion his opinion is fact.

Re:Fair and Balanced!

[Alan Cox]

I think you are being grossly unfair to Al-Jazeera

Article summary

[Diomidis Spinellis]

• The developers really putting work in open source systems aren't that many; Microsoft can hire more developers to do a better job.
• Commercial Linux distributors are forced to create incompatible solutions as value-added propositions.
• Studies have shown that developers believe Microsoft is the top vendor in addressing their interoperability concerns.
• Commercialized Linux distributions limit the flexibility of the available open source solutions.
• Microsoft provides higher quality support and at a cheaper price than Linux vendors.
• Microsoft stands behind Windows provididing an extremely hight level of IP protection and indemnification.
• Microsoft has a faster turnaround between a security disclosure and a bug fix than other open source systems.
• Microsoft commits resources to do comprehensive QA and testing; the open source model leaves that to chance.
• The Windows ecosystem of certified compatible hardware and software is a lot larger than that of Linux.
• Microsoft leads in software innovation.

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...

Re:Here ya go

[hawkeyeMI]

Something a little more informative (but not much) than the previous comment. Hope you know (pseudo) Perl:

foreach ($potential_problem) (@linux){
print "Linux is okay but it has this $potential_problem\n";
print "Yes, and I think you can see that Microsoft addresses this $potential_problem to the benefit of our customers!\n";
}

Re:They still don't get it.

[Quixote]

We believe the way to integrate software, and the way to get software to work in a heterogeneous environment, is through promoting open standards

Can somebody hit Bill with a clue-by-four and ask him about
1. Samba, and why the Samba project had to reverse-engineer everything?
2. Microsoft Office, and the hoops OpenOffice.org had to jump through to reverse-engineer their document storage format?
3. NTFS, and why Linux still can't support NTFS write natively (without using a MS DLL)?
4. All the hidden system calls that Microsoft uses internally, and which came up in the anti-trust case?

I can't understand how people like this guy Bill can look themselves in the mirror every morning. Lying pathetically to make a living is no living.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion