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...

[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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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