Slashdot Mirror
Yankee Group Survey Says Windows, Linux TCO Equal
prostoalex writes "A new survey by Yankee Group analyst Laura DiDio shows Windows and Linux are viewed as equal by U.S. businesses. In the eternal OS wars, '88 percent of respondents said that the quality, performance and reliability of Windows was equal to or better than Linux.' Companies were also asked to rank the operating systems on security. On a scale of 1 to 10 'companies rated Microsoft's security at 7.6, double the rating in a similar survey conducted last year. Linux's rating was mostly the same at 8.3.' Conclusion? 'DiDio said that most companies -- whether large or small -- rarely take the huge step of replacing one operating system with another. Instead, they usually add a mix of Windows and Linux server software to expand functionality.' Microsoft used last year's Yankee Group survey results in their Get the facts campaign."
The survey needs to take into account what OS the respondents are currently using, that's the single most important factor.
You don't use an OS that you don't like, and if that's not true (e.g. you're forced to use a pre-installed OS), then you probably wouldn't know any better alternative if you've been using only one OS.
If a Linux-only user said Windows is better, or vice versa, what does that mean? How does he come to this conclusion? The most credible answers should be from Multi-OS users.
I'm not saying this study is inaccurate, but there are simly too many things to consider, and this may well lead to a simple conclusion - software choice is more on personal preference than anything else.
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
If they say that Windows is better than Linux, there's a shitstorm of comments. Ditto if they say Linux is better than Windows. But either my timing is good today, or no one has anything to say about them being equal. :P
unixkb.com -- articles on practical Unix issues.
Did this bimbo ever have any credibility?
'88 percent of respondents said that the quality, performance and reliability of Windows was equal to or better than Linux.' Companies were also asked to rank the operating systems on security. On a scale of 1 to 10 'companies rated Microsoft's security at 7.6, double the rating in a similar survey conducted last year. Linux's rating was mostly the same at 8.3.'
Notice, it doesn't say security professionals for security, it doesn't say economists for TCO, it says companies. I'm sorry, but the first thing to enter my mind in this situation is a "Pointy Haired Boss" filling these things out. It's basically an opinion survey, pointless in anything but spreading FUD.
That's not something you see very often, usually its a landslide one direction or the other, depending on who did (or didn't) pay for the study.
From my experience, this seems to be fairly accurate (as far as company's interpretations). Can anyone else back that up?
"Instead, they usually add a mix of Windows and Linux server software to expand functionality."
Thus, they have the ability to directly compare between both. If they find Linux to be infinitely better, they would switch. Different tasks -> different tools, however, so they use both.
webpage
...two years ago, I would not believe that such a story can get posted on slashdot.
DiDio is a total shill for Microsoft. I don't know why /. dotes on her every word. She isn't an unbiased source, y'know.
The non-biased information all says the obvious: Linux has TCO ownage on Windows. That said, I'd like to see a TCO study where Linux and Windows are compared to MacOS X, especially now that Apple has a relatively cheap model that could be a great replacement for enterprise desktops.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
Anytime some survery or study claims Linux is superior, the slashbots pound their chests in triumph and accept it as gospel.
Anytime a survery or study comes out that doesn't fellate Linux is immediatly viewed with suspicion including the usual conspiracy theories that Microsoft had something to do with it.
The double standards here are ridiculous.
Actually Windows XP and 2000 are both pretty reliable products. I haven't had any problems with XP/2000 reliability (unlike Windows95/98 crash randomly).
As for performance and driver support, Linux wins on performance but windows wins on support.
I'd say they are equal if you discount price, which this survey did.
.... "Server operating systems are largely commoditized," DiDio said, adding that many companies were not tracking their operating costs closely enough to base their decisions on total cost of ownership, or TCO, the main cost metric when comparing Linux and Windows.
..umm...zero. So how exactly is the windows TCO equal to that of Linux? What a fucking troll of an article.
If they are not tracking operating costs, then that means they are only tracking the initial cost of acquisition, which for Linux, is
Yeah, so a bunch of people are asked for their opinion about which OS is better. How is this even remotely relevant to anyone other than social scientists and marketers?
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
Maybe Yankee Group does see a realized saving and need to do an about-face just to save their face.
Well I'm not surprised because it sounds like they are asking employers which they think is better. And lets face it, when it comes to playing video games Windows pretty much has it in the bag. Well at least thats what my employer uses Windows for.
It would be easier enough to get a "mathmatically" representative sample with very small number of people who have never used linux. I have worked for or with Business that have setup Windows and Linux Networks also mixed enviroments, and for some of them it windows had a lower TCO (thats because they would have had to train too many staff to use Linux and that was awhile ago) Other people find that a Linux network as a significantly lower TCO than Windows. On the topic of training we have got people to sit down on a linux box (properly configured) with no prior linux exp, and they thought it was better than windows. ------ Admiral Trigger Happy
Admiral Trigger Happy
If your intent is to measure their PERCEPTION, this is exactly what you need to do.
Instead of taking it as FUD and discarding it, consider it as a TODO list to increase your favorite OS acceptance (whatever that may be).
In most cases, both Linux and Windows are growing at the expense of Sun Microsystems Inc.'s (Nasdaq:SUNW - news) Unix-based servers
DiDio said that most companies -- whether large or small -- rarely take the huge step of replacing one operating system with another. Instead, they usually add a mix of Windows and Linux server software to expand functionality.
I know all these frontpage stories are framed in terms to churn up a large number of comments, but these quotes have always been true. For all the companies I've worked for/with it has been a mix of windows and linux/unix. The bigger the company, the more diverse the mix. There are actually running business systems that predate both unix and windows. Over the decades linux is taking the place of the Unix boxes. Windows largely rules the desktop. Linux largely rules the server room. And windows quality has gotten so much better with 2003. Windows being better is not a slam to Linux and does not threaten its ascendance in the server room.
I hate to say it, but these Linux vs. Windows stories have been the same fucking story forever. The only thing that changes is the write up.
When i ran Deadly Hosting (we sold up for a nice sum :) lol) we used a combination of Windows server 2000/2004 and FreeBSD boxes, for different things, we used powerful Win servers for the actuel gaming servers but small and easy to use FreeBSD boxes for things like re-direct servers, voice servers and things. Instead of being one or the other, i think companies or jsut end users in genral, benifit from using both.
To be honest, its my personal feeling that Windows is better suited to desktops. I did read one stat one where which said somrhthing like 66% of linux workstations use a cracked copy of windows. I find windows easy to use and install, call me a point a click nub, but if i can do alot without having to remember commands, it works in my favor.
So in closing, i think you cant say Win or Lin is better because they excel in different things, and I think the geek world needs to accept both in order for it to move on. What happens when say, a linux company starts comming as big as Microsoft, are they being as bad and lets be honest, alot of windows problems are C++ buffer over runs which as it fault of the languge, not the programming, also being the most widly used OS its bound to have more holes discoverd as more people (like 12 year olds now can get on net and learn how to crack programs and find security holes) are doing it on windows systems.
Also another side and my second closing (lol) is that Microsoft does alot of good. Gates give the most to charity (i think he gives the most in the world), there traninig scheme is good with alot of people doing, I for 1 am starting my MCSE in september, and have a big reasearch department, look a mobile computing, wireless, the whole wireless home idear with windows media centre. I wonder how much of the advanced we have today, would be here without MS. I cant say and maybe it made no difference, but i personally think that they have made a big diffenrece.....ermm ok slighly off topic at the end but.... :)
Visit My Blog at http://spaces.msn.com/members/chrisharries
Q:On a scale from 1 to 10. 10 been the most secure. Base on what you know (nothing), since you are a CISSP (right) and have always been doing tests to ensure that you never took the advice of your oncle best friend and never made the mistake of beleving in rumors. How do you find (insert OS here) security?
A: eeee..... 8?
No sig for now.
I'm just tired of DiDio. Isn't she the one who said just last year, that it will take Linux close to a decade to even be percived to be competitive to Windows? I better become an analyst to. How do I start? And there is Gartner too spewing "facts" about Linux all the time...
The main cost difference, said Yankee Group analyst Laura DiDio, is determined by the amount of time it takes to develop applications or ensure the security of servers, the networked computers that store data, crunch numbers and serve up Web pages.
this is interesting. since we all know you *shouldn't* just make a linux server live without patching it first... and let's not even go into windows security from especially a server perspective. windows patching seems more streamline what with SUS and such. even in terms of web services - apache vs. iis... which is better? both require patching. which is more efficient? usually considerations such as bandwidth, cpu, ram, and cost play a role in deciding what to deploy...
DiDio said that most companies -- whether large or small -- rarely take the huge step of replacing one operating system with another. Instead, they usually add a mix of Windows and Linux server software to expand functionality.
again, something that *should* makes sense - deploying systems that are fit for the job, not only from a operating cost point of view, but, also for functionality. cooler heads need to prevail rather than the usual "my balls are bigger than your balls!" flamefest we usually have here...
We didn't always think of her as a 'whatever'. She had to work hard to earn her reputation.
Some readers may not be familiar with her work since SCO has pretty much fallen off the pages of Slashdot. Those of us who frequent www.Groklaw.net are quite familiar with her. Her 'reportage' on the SCO story has been so slanted and devoid of reality that some of us wonder if she's from the same planet we are. To put this in context: Groklaw is Pamela Jones' blog. Pamela will delete a post if she thinks the poster was even thinking rude thoughts. Pamela is really really polite. Pamela was once reduced to calling this lady Didiot. You really have to be something to get Pamela that riled!
I don't see how this survey can be considered FUD. They aren't saying anything either is better or worse than the other. They simply relay feelings of their respondants.
The whole point of this of course isn't to compare the platforms or make a suggestion on which is better, it just conveys the feelings of their respondants.
Should this be used as a basis for a decision for what to use? Of course not!!! Is this an interesting insight into the current thinking of corporate IT departments? Yes.
It isn't FUD and isn't pointless, but if you take any of this as FACT, thats your mistake. This is simply an interesting look at current thinking. If this thinking is correct or not isn't the point. Its like saying a poll finding 80% of people are against the war in Iraq is FUD. That poll wouldn't wouldn't mean we should or shouldn't be there (as the respondants may not really be qualified to know), it would just give an interesting view of what people are thinking.
Read this article as such.
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
88 percent of respondents said that the quality, performance and reliability of Windows was equal to or better than Linux.
Bwahahaha!! Hahahahaha omg, make the laughing stop, my stomach hurts...
Oh man... I tell ya, you can't beat an idiot at her own game. She'll take you down to her level and beat ya with experience. All you can do is laugh.
Man, I needed that laugh on a Monday. Next week, maybe we'll hear more out of Ken Brown.
Please, Laura, tell that one to my friends and families with their spyware-infested Windows machines!
"All TCO's are equal, but some are more equal than others..."
Hack your mind out of its sandbox.
Bear in mind that Ms Didio does not have a reputation for balance; she has consistently taken the SCO side in the SCO vs IBM lawsuit. You can follow the case at www.groklaw.net.
The article and her historical stance, leads me to believe that the TCO costs most likely showed up in Linux's favour. I would LOVE to see the raw data. Ms Didio, if you are reading this, would you consider releasing it?
OS X is everything Linux wants to be and so much more.
I believe it is attributed to Samuel Clemens, aka Mark Twain
Non, je ne veux pas coucher avec toi ce soir.
The title of this article is "Yankee Group Survey Says Windows, Linux TCO Equal"
The articles keep repeating that "88 percent of respondents said that the quality, performance and reliability of Windows was equal to OR BETTER than Linux." NOT JUST EQUAL TO.
Now, I like Windows and Linux. I use both at work. So I'm not biased. But...
It sure seems like the author of this post is.
I come here for information. Let's try to keep these articles honest.
First more expensive and less secure.
Now about the same
Next...
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
This result seems very dubious. I had an experience in our lab that lead me to belive that linux TCO is lower than windows. We recently bought a dual processor server with windows 2003 on it. The system administrator spent a whole month to stabilize the system. In the due process, he has to erase the partitions for atleast 4 times. This was because of the viruses that were infecting the system as soon as it has been hooked up to the network. This was not the case when we bought a *nix based system. It took him a week to do the proper configuration of the system and that was it. It's still going on strong without any problems (from > three years). Where as with our new windows system, we are keeping our fingers crossed for everyday, literally everyday. We don't know when it going to be infected. The twist in the tale is the windows system has been bugged with viruses even though there was a firewall. Now from my prespective, it is clear that TCO of windows is not at all equal to *nix.
More on Microsoft's Get the Facts FUD campaign, and my response to their desperate attempts.
And as a footnote (bootnote for our friends across the pond), a little background on our dear Ms. Didio and her "independent studies" and lets not forget our dear Booby Winderle while we're studying analyst independence.
If Windows and Linux are "about equal" in a report put out by our esteemed Ms. Didio, then hold on to your mouses because the floodgates are about to open on what Linux is really doing to the commercial market. 50% growth rate year after year after year, and this is the best Ms. Didio can manage? Perhaps she decided she can no longer bury the truth and its time to start shifting position lest she be exposed to the "decision makers" as just another Microsoft hack like those of us in the FOSS community have already seen?
She is just mind-bogglingly insightful.
The only we learned from TCO studies is they don't know what the TCO is.
did you forget to take your meds?
like mine where the IT department full of MCSE's hasn't got the foggiest idea of how to even use linux. Sure they've heard of it and know the names of the major distributions, but aside from installing it, they haven't go the first clue how to use it.
I'm the first "IT Guy" in our company (we have 27,000 employees world wide) that snuck a linux based web server onto the network. I maintain it and develop all of the software that runs on it. My coworkers know of it's existance, but if I get hit by a beer truck they're SOL.
Kiteboarding Gear Mention slashdot and get 10% off!
There are too many variables for any such comparison to be meaningful.
Even if one were 150% of the cost ON AVERAGE, it still maybe the BETTER choice for a large % or even a majority of installations.
Unless you can say "BIG-PERCENAGE of the time you will be significantly better off going with A" then any such report isn't too useful, other than to say a customized cost study is probably warranted.
My recommendation to most clients:
Stick with what you have for now, identify the places where you can save a boatload of money by changing, and change there. For SOME clients a wholescale change is appropriate.
For new installations, a cost study is appropriate, taking into account among other things institutional knowledge of the various choices - training costs can be a major factor in new installations or in wholesale replacements.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
"Microsoft used last year's Yankee Group survey results in their Get the facts campaign."
I don't think they will use this one!
But then, maybe they're all wrong and Mrs. DiDio is right. After all, she's an analyst, right?
In Soviet Russia, TCO's equal you.
More and more it seems to me that we really wanted no progress and wanted to stay in the little village as cave man.
But nooooooooo ... some .0001 percent of people wanted to see what's new and made life difficult for rest of the 'normal' people. We were so happy to click and pretend working and blame the microsoft god all day.
Well ... the trouble maker euro-lover open source hippies--give up and embrace microsoft-aaaaaaaaaahh the beauty of close souce, feels like touching God and getting punished by unpredictble ways with a blue screen for sins we committed by opening Visio and Outlook at the same time ...
Learn how to do "Faith Based Computing" ... have faith that your OS will not catch virus if you have microsoft, have faith you will not have spyware if you use windows--have faith you little gal--we the Gartener Priests will tell you show you what's right and what's wrong for you--we will make the choice for you.
Have faith my boy there is still chance for you.
- People who believe other people have no right to live, got no right to live ...
Did anyone else find it wierd to see Microsost referred to as a "private, unselfish company"?
Georgia
In terms of security, Yankee Group's survey showed a sharp rise in companies' assessment of Microsoft's security level, bringing it closer to perceived security level of Linux.
May be more accurately phrased:
In terms of security, Yankee Group's survey showed a sharp rise in companies' perception of Microsoft's security level, bringing it closer to the assessed security level of Linux.
I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
...what talismans do they use on shitdows, cause when I started using legal windoze, the problems just appeared like THE Flood of the Bible! I wonder why secretaires always get the stable versions, and we, technicians, gurus and admins always receive buggy ones. Could it be a show of the Murphy Laws! I think I will need a new towel before the end of the world :)
sex is better than war!
This actually sounds like a retraction. Laura DaDildo has been spouting MS FUD consistently for years now. Why the sudden change in direction?
Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
"To be honest, its my personal feeling that Windows is better suited to desktops"
People seem to say that a lot, but I've had a different experience. I'm NOT a computer professional by any means, but I use KDE on my desktop and Windows on my laptop. Windows is usually just fine.. it doesn't crash all the time etc. The problem I have is when I want to work on a project. If I have a research paper to do and I have multiple search windows open then they stack on top of each other on the task bar and it's hard to sort them out. When I'm using Linux/KDE I have my taskbar arranged just the way I like it and I have multiple desktops to avoid clutter. I run Windows because I hear it's a pain in the ass to get my wireless card working with linux, linux doesn't run World of Warcraft (ok, I admit it), and doesn't run my anatomy lab software. Other than that, I prefer the look/feel/functionality of Linux/KDE. Same software (Open Office and the Gimp), but nicer interface in my opinion. I also enjoyed using Superkaramba, which you could not do with Windows unless you payed. I also don't feel safe unless I have an anti virus, anti-spyware, and firewall. Linux is closer to being secure out of the box.
My Blog
"88 percent of respondents said that the quality, performance and reliability of Windows was equal to or better than Linux.'
That doesn't seem to really give us solid info. Does that mean that they think Linux is what the people surveyed will use as a bench mark? Does that Mean that was the question that asked to the people surveyed (ie Do you think that the quality, performance and reliability of Windows is equal or better than that of Linux?) Do we have any idea how many of those surveyed had experience with both types of systems? The point here is that we don't understand what the heck they are using as a method to gather info and reach their conclusion. From what the article tells us we may as well think they asked it in one yes or no question.
Laura Didio is a paid shill, who writes whatever will give her the most hits, regardless of factual content. I've read tabloids with a better grasp of the truth than her.
./ already know she's a shill, they won't care. And the PHBs reading the article via MS's links won't get to read your debunking. Why waste your time on her?
According to the article, she's now claiming to have done yet another study which no doubt will get debunked within a couple hours but still cited by microsoft (sans the debunking) months later.
So, a simple question for everyone? Why bother debunking it? Anybody with more than half a brain already knows Didio is a paid liar, so she's not going to care if you drive a truck through her arguments. The other people on
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/facts /videos/didio_video.wvx
...
com'on guys, microsoft.com needs some traffic
Anyone with a BA in commmunication and minor in French must be an expert....
_ page.jsp?ID=2E01C474DD294963
http://www.yankeegroup.com/public/research/author
yes that is who it is and btw how was that flamebate?
Suppose they are equal for now. Then what would happen if, say, one of them destroys the other in the next 30 years?
/. anymore...)
Case 1: Linux ends up suiting everyone's needs "for free", so (very) many people leave Microsoft. Cost of ownership (inflation-adjusted): equal or less than today.
Case 2: Palladium (I guess it's called NGSCB now) becomes reality; Linux, Apple, and all other competition is destroyed. Cost of ownership: 10, 100, or 1000 times more, or maybe just whatever your business can afford.
Investment: even if the two actually are equal today, and even if TCO is the only factor I consider (i.e. setting aside my enjoyment of Linux), I still have my preference.
(Did I miss something? It seems like people don't talk about Palladium on
go ahead and /. it to death
"The advertisement is the most truthful part of a newspaper."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Some important features Linux has been lacking for a long long time has been ease to deploy software & patches from a central location and a highly-integrated and easy-to-use directory service.
Sure, you could use scripts and LDAP, but they suck. Those are time-consuming and limited solutions.
With Novell entering the Linux market (I'd rather say Novell is betting everything to Linux), these is changing: eDirectory, ZenWorks (6.6 works great, I can't wait for 7.0), etc are superior tools and services.
A lot of companies (mine included) are starting to use SuSe because of the awesome integration of Novell tools with SuSe. We are even deploying it to our clients. Is this the return of Netware, in shape of a Netwared Linux?
"rarely take the huge step of replacing one operating system with another. Instead, they usually add a mix of Windows and Linux server software"
Wow. What a revelation. For this information you get charded $200 per hour
Are companies in denial about the costs of lost productivity due to Windows-based outages? Labor accounting sort of sinks that information away, IMO, and is harder for businesses to quantify as an IT-related expense.
IIRC, Bill Gates himself said a while ago that companies lose two weeks per year per employee due to Windows' downtime. Having worked on a mixed UNIX and Windows network, this seems about right to me. The Sun's were rebooted a couple times a year for maintenance, and the Windows PCs got rebooted every day. Even on the Windows side of the place, they conceded to Solaris for all the infrastructure where they could, such as e-mail routing, scanning, DNS, etc. Still, that didn't help the Windows server "cluster" that served many of the user accounts.
-- Microsoft is the most expensive commodity operating system and office suite vendor in the marketplace.
general jokster. In all honesty, who really cares what she has to say? Or for that matter, anything else coming from the Yankee Group in general. It's all joke, smoke and mirrors stuff.
You know what would be a good idea. A bunch of geeks getting together with a bunch of researchers in their respective fields. Creating honest, non-biased "this is the way it is" anaylsis and reports on TCO/Software/Hardware/etc. Sort of like Consumer Reports(tm) but with more detail and analysis of specific topics.
Laura Didio? Whatever.. If I want to run my business or anyone elses into the ground; I'll take her advice. Until then, I won't even pretend to RTFA.
This is the same argument as the old saw about how simply because Windows is the dominant consumer operating system it is the target of more malware. It ignores the fact that operating systems are not all built in the same fashion. For example, what about pre-OS X versions of the Macintosh? What about OpenBSD or Bastille Linux?
These discussions about OS security tend to ignore the fact that the *NIX distro or Windows version you're using can significantly impact security. Just as all OSes are not the same in terms of usability, I think it's a gross simplification to say that they're pretty much equal in security.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
...the study says 88% said windows was equal or better - but how many said it was better versus equal?
A quick guess -
1% preferred Windows, rather than an office in the middle of the building with no natural light.
87% didn't really understand the question or were afraid to show they didn't know, and said they were equal.
12% said Linux was better.
U ARE THE smartyEST. How long til u out of colege?
Yankees suck.....
Woah- I guess the fact that we just got clobbered by NY is bringing back the old bad habits. So much for acting like champs.
Regardless- some businesses are stupid- and will view Windows as equal/superior to Linux. The dustbins of history will be waiting for them.
Since the Yankee Group's web server is running IIS on Windows 2000, what do you think they'd say? To recommend anything other than Windows servers would leave them open to hypocracy, dishonesty, incompetence or all three.
http://www.sunbelt-software.com/surveys/040213_Lin ux.htm
0 85956154
oh, and btw - it was sent out to readers of the w2k news magazine:
http://www.w2knews.com/index.cfm?id=463
So, the sample of survey respondents was about as controlled as a george bush or saddam hussein political ralley.
More at: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040324
Have I mentioned the cost?
Quit trolling, it's pretty lame when you try to do it.
If they poll someone that admins bot linux and windows sytems then this poll could mean something.
Most likely they call up and ask if there is someone they can speak with and they get whoever isnt busy at the time, which certainly aint the admins.
Yankee Group Survey Says Windows, Linux TCO Equal
I have rows of Linux servers running for a fraction of the cost of comparable Windows servers (if such an apples/oranges comparison can be made) that say otherwise.
Security will always be the winning point of Linux - that's the matter of system design.
Wow, where do you get this stuff from?
What is the amazing system design element of Linux that yields such remarkable security? The reality, you know here in the real world, is that there is nothing special about Linux. In fact the architecture of the NT line of Windows operating system has more embedded and pervasive security functionality. Security is far more of a system design element of NT and greater than it ever has been with Linux, Microsoft just has a habit of grabbing defeat from the hands of victory.
Of course then there is Windows 2003 - I know you're probably arguing based upon the same old tired rhetoric from the '95 days, however 2003 is a rock solid operating system. Apart from being tremendously stable, it is extremely secure by default. SP1, released a few days ago, enhances and improves on the security that was even there.
If you really think security is the big winning point of Linux, then you lost the game two years ago.
This pretty much invalidates what you said about Linux needing a lesson from history somehow having to do something about Windows.
I swear I was not in drugs when I wrote that! I don't know how could I wrote so many grammar errors in so little text! %-)
Say, how come (according to Netcraft) the Yankee Group's web site is running on Windows 2000? Don't you suppose Bill would want that to be Windows 2003? Does Yankee Group not care about hurting Bill's feelings? Or, more importantly, don't they care about security?
Dunno about you guys, but 8.3 and 7.6 isn't "mostly the same" to me.
I got rows of linux blade servers running that windows tco couldn't come close to.
windows sucks including 2003 and XP - they are dll hell ridden pieces of junk and I will never touch any of their products any more.
Didio and yankee group are nothing but microsoft's sock puppets
they probably polled EDI.
I work in a Microsoft shop. We've got 600 servers, all Windows 2000 and 2003. We use the hell out of AD, we have 50 sites, and over 6,000 workstations. It's not a huge company but it's formidable.
Anyways, the bane of any Windows IT person these days is patches. Almost every single Windows patch requires a reboot. Even some of the IE patches.
Microsoft releases new patches every Month. On Feb 8th they released 12 of them. That's 12 patches we need to determine if we're going to install, test the ones we do, and deploy. We have tools to make this easier but the server environment is so diverse that it's a daunting task to face every month, with the coordination and downtime windows. Fortunately, they released none in March. But they usually do.
You could never run your IIS server for 180 days now, because you'd be patching it every 30 or less. I understand the need for the patches, and we do them to maintain the system, but if the system were a little more secure in the first place it wouldn't be so bad.
I really think they should tally up the patches for each system based on whether or not reboots are required and see how many Linux has versus Windows.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
I have done exactly what you are talking about. Taking a gaggle (or is it a murder?) of sales drones who know jack about computers and need to have a room full of computers they can log into when they are at the office, without it mattering which actual computer they use, profiles/home dirs are on a server.
The machines cost $200 each (walmart specials), and their cost to have me set it all up was $200 (2 hours work). It was 12 machines, but for comparison lets pretend it was 10 machines. That would mean $2200 vs windows $3790. No training was needed, these guys only applications are email, opening a single template word doc and filling in the blanks with customer details, and using a browser to look up and print maps on google to get to their sales appointments. Their desktop had nothing but "Email", "Internet", and the same bizzare name for the word doc they had always used. They had no problems and never needed any more help than they did with windows.
Render some zealot moderator handing out undeserved trolls impotent.
Other than SCO and Darl McBride, I think DiDio is probably held in the lowest possible esteem over on Groklaw. They quote her a lot, and she seems to get it wrong nearly every time. The opinions that I have read by her are consistently pro-SCO, pro-Microsoft, and anti-open source, to the point that I don't think she can be considered an even remotely reliable source.
So it's particularly interesting that "TCO is equal" is the best she could come up with. If that's the best they can manage, it's a huge win for Open Source. When TCO is equal, why on earth would you pick the software that costs more up front?
The claim must be that Linux costs more to run, since it's free to install. That was the exact method that Microsoft used for ages to get ahead in the market... it was cheaper up front but cost more to run. That can actually be a very smart business decision, since presumably you'll have more money later than you do now, particuarly if your business is just getting off the ground. (That's part of why leases do so well.)
Of course, we all know that Linux is probably cheaper to maintain once you have the skills to do so, possibly by an order of magnitude, due to the absolute control you have over the system and the enormous power of the built-in scripting languages.
But even if you grant that it's more expensive to run, this study shows that Linux is a good choice for many businesses, particularly small ones, or companies growing very quickly without a lot of capital to do it.
The Yankme Group and Laura Didiot.
Oh, yeah; also the letter F and the number 3.
--
Enlightenment in the form of virtualization
Windows is easier to use and run, but less secure.
Linux is harder to use and run, but more secure.
You take the good with the bad IMO. If I was to run a server, I would use linux, for a workstation, i'd use windows.
are a pile-o-crap.
What company would rely on such advice rather than do their own tests with their own unique situation?
A brain-dead company thats who.
These former "research" companies are having to rely more and more on funding by very interested parties to the tests becuase nobody in their right mind takes them seriously any more (and thus don't subscribe to their privately issued studies).
interresting how the whole "trusted computing" FUD campaign has had an impact on the perception of security (large increase for MS), whereas in the real world their crapware is still as insecure as it ever was.
TODO: 753) write sig.
don't forget that the windows people's motives are to keep windows so they'd be employed. their answers will not be very pro linux
>You know what would be a good idea. A bunch of
>geeks getting together with a bunch of researchers
>in their respective fields. Creating honest,
>non-biased "this is the way it is" anaylsis and
>reports on TCO/Software/Hardware/etc. Sort of like
>Consumer Reports(tm) but with more detail and
>analysis of specific topics.
The problem is, there have been analyses done that have at least try to make it sound like that. The worst ones of all are the whining, seemingly apologetic ones written by trolls like Eugenia from OSNews. They start with statements like, "I really love Linux, and want to see it succeed in the marketplace, *but*..." and then proceed to launch into a litany of ignorant misconceptions and FUD.
The main problem is that these journalists who keep doing Microsoft's PR work for them, are I think people who unfortunately believe that their livelihood is tied to the maintenance of Microsoft's dominance. They think that if Microsoft were to collapse, the "ecosystem" around Microsoft (as MS themselves call it) would collapse along with it.
We need to somehow reassure ZDNet and their spiritual kin that if Linux was to gain more market share than Windows, it wouldn't automatically mean that they would be out of a job. Linux has heaps of events, activity, and issues of various kinds that media people can report on...ZDNet's peeps only need to look at Newsforge or LWN to find that out.
I guess my point here is that the trade press do not need to feel that they have to keep trashing Linux in order to protect themselves and their employment. ZDNet could quite easily go from being Microsoft's unofficial Ministry for Propaganda to being wholehearted Linux advocates if they wanted to...and aside from still making a very satisfactory income, they'd sleep better at night knowing that they were engaging in a far greater level of journalistic integrity than they have in the past, as well. It *is* very possible, guys. Just ask O'Reilly.
Based on Laura Dildo's reputation, I'd take any article written by her as garbage until proven otherwise.
Only half the survey was funded by Microsoft?
it's actually attributed to Benjamin Disraeli, British prime minister in the 1860s and 1870s ...
r aeli
http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Benjamin_Dis
http://www.britannia.com/bios/disraeli.html
the macintosh asterisk mailing list http://www.astm
GET OFF THIS CHATROOM!
sorry, i'm disappointed. linux is ASTOUNDINGLY cheaper, at least for me.
Suppose I need a database, development tools, network sharing and services for 50 people. go ahead, do the math. It's expensive (and time consuming) to get all the licenses set up, all the software keys purchased and maintained, all the s/w licenses tracked (ad infinatum).
with Fedora, it's called "kickstart" and "yum install (whatever)". that's it...instant on, no restrictions, no time-consuming, expensive POs, no hardcore licensing, no license servers. with rsync, you can have all your machines update locally...no keys, no remote "big brother" questioning the legality of your update.
and that's before we discuss "dll/ocx hell"...vendorA1.02 needs vendorB1.03 needs vendorC1.04 needs vendorA1.01...ARRRRGGGGHHH! under fedora it's called "yum upgrade".
other distros, other management systems are similar.
who am i? someone who has been on both sides of the fence, since 1991. Linux is the present, linux is the future--game over.
1. Look at the source.
2. Drop study in trash can.
3. Curse Microsoft.
4. Install Linux.
5. ??????
6. Profit!!!
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
This is done by a yankee group. this is hardly representative. What do southerners say?
If you read the parent article, you'd realize they had said in the 90's for CERT advisories.
Have another twinkie linux fatty.
You can get this kind of seperation if you go to a three tier architecture... one where apache is a user that has large read-only and resource management capabilites... and then a "data" user runs behind the scenes in the internal (or external) application layer running J2EE or Zope or something.
Here you provide an application-level disconnect. You control the code that turns public access requests as one user over an internal network into operations running as a user with database trampling privledges.
Ultimately you have to define a "policy" which validates the external requests and proxies access... through some sort of abstract permission based hierarchy or in this case with front-end and middle-tier validation/business logic.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
What is the amazing system design element of Linux that yields such remarkable security?
How about the fact that only the root user is capable to make changes to the core system files?
Sure, Windows also have its Administrator Mode and you can make users accounts, but it is NOT enabled by default AND it is optional. In a matter of fact, almost all home computers run in the administrator mode all the time.
This non-enforcement of the administratior policy is IMHO one of the greatest design flaws that plagues Windows.
I think all your points are good ones
You know what though, I really hate these patch tally counts. MS comes out and says things like "we only had 3 patches so far for IIS6. In the same time, the equivalent redhat server has had 200 patches..." or words to that effect. And people buy it!
What they don't pay attention to is the language. IIS 6 has had a small number of patches but the Windows 2003 system overall has had many and a lot of these make the IIS component vulnerable.
THEN they compare every patch for a complete RedHat install, so now we've got patches for completely non-OS things like GAIM, Mozilla, being compared to a single component of the Windows OS.
This is the kind of stuff they release to the public and then we read about in newspapers. "Windows has 2 patches to RedHat's 20!! Windows is the Better OS!!"
As another poster wrote in a thread above, some question do not include all vendor, and some are obviously slanted to force an answer in a direction.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
If it is brown, warm and steamy, and laying in the pasture. It must be Bull Shit.
How many times are we going to play this left vs right, black vs white, dogs vs cats game. If we where doing windows vs apple then we might have something.
Linux is a whole other ball game. Because of the diversity of distros you can't really compare the world of Linux with any thing else.
Maybe that's what pisses a lot of people off about Linux. They can't fit it in there two way only spectrums (like Libertarianism for example.)
So like fish out of water it drives them mad.
Slashdot Group Survey Says Dead Horse Thoroughly Beaten
Microsoft has been a long time client of Yankee Group.
I don't know about their tech credentials, but calling them equal is masterful diplomacy.
Table-ized A.I.
'88 percent of respondents said that the quality, performance and reliability of Windows was equal to or better than Linux.'
Three years ago, it would have been "respondents said that the quality, performance and reliability of Linux was equal or less than Windows". Think about it; words are important, even when coming from a largely biased source like Yankee Group.
42.
Windows never had Mandatory Access Controls. And never had. NT didn't have it.
Unix and Windows use what is called 'Descresionary Access Controls', or DAC.
What your talking about is, probably, ACL. Access Control Lists.
ACLS are normal, Windows has ACLs so does Linux.
What you mean are extended ACLs. Windows NT had support for Extended Access Control Lists. Which goes beyond the model created for Unix which is:
user, group, everybody else (world)...
read, write, execute.
EACLs are NOT MANDATORY ACCESS CONTROLS. Mandatory access controls are something else completely and is not based on your username or what groups your user belongs to. Windows simulates certain role based authentaction, but it's not realy MAC.
MAC in SELinux are also RBAC. It allows a framework to be developed so that you can have a truly 'trusted linux' setup and is used in addition to the normal DAC that is used in Windows and Linux already.
NT does not, nor ever had, MAC.
What's a "corporate computing environment"?
The number of Linux *desktops* in "corporate" environments is vanishingly small, so I don't know how any responses could be statistically significant.
Linux *servers* will be more in evidence, but the role they play will vary significantly. In smaller companies, they may well be used for file and print services. In larger companies, they probably won't because AD makes much more sense in that environment. Mostly, Linux servers will be web servers and the TCO will depend almost entirely on the type of application you're trying to build and the development and support time using the chosen tools (J2EE/PHP/CGI/Perl/bash...).
So for *most* Linux deployments, it's not a question of Windows vs Linux, but the TCO of Visual Studio/SQLServer/IIS vs Websphere or some FOSS solution.
Which might explain why the survey "reveals" so little...
Yeah, more variables are factored in to TCO. Like hardware...
And in carefully choosing your hardware example, you arrive at the goal in which you started off on achieving. By picking hardware costing $349, you find a number that meshes with your TCO premise.
If your premise were true, it would only be off by a mile. But since your premise is false, you're off by more. Switching to Linux, no company needs your cherry picked hardware for new desktops. This Microtel is almost half the price of your pick. At $200 a piece, they are plenty powerful for desktop use with any Linux operating system, but in enterprise use they would be used as thin clients on Linux, where they would last for at least 3 or 4 releases of Windows. And as has been stated by Walmart, Tigerdirect, and other distributors in the past, companies are buying these by the dozen and they are (were, don't know if they still are) having trouble keeping them in stock. Are they any good? We have some older ones with 900 Mhz to 1.4 Ghz processors and 128 MB SDRam, and after wiping Lindows that came on the ones we bought, I can tell you that they have been working flawlessly as both desktops and light duty servers. And they fly when clustered.
Is the company stuck with Dell as their sole supplier? Then maybe one of Dell's whitebox divisions or partners can supply boxes without an OS or with a Linux distro installed as has been reported previously. Most figures put Windows Pro at $100 and Windows Home at $50 on new hardware, but as most of us know, that gets wiped and imaged with the company approved image. And as some of us also know, companies start with XP Pro as part of the license on their images. So we really are talking about $100 Microsoft tax that gets thrown right out the window whether switching to Linux or using the company image of Windows.
Why? I know secretaries (and business owners) with decades of experience using computers who don't have a clue that they are using Windows (which version of Windows? What do you mean which version? I'm using Word/Wordperfect/browser, not Windows, what do you mean?). I know secretaries who type letters and reports all day, every day, who don't know what I'm talking about when I ask them which version of Word or Wordperfect that they are using. Or who know how to save a document in a format other than default.
If they are blissfully ignorant of the operating system they are using, why would you need to bring in a trainer to train them to use Linux?
You really don't have a clue how much secretarial labor costs for 8 hours, do you? Or what the real costs are once you add in taxes, insurance, bookkeeping/accounting costs for each additional employee, etc. Maybe you should start asking employers why they defer hiring employees at the end of a fiscal qu
The $349 per Dell PC doesn't include licenses for Word and the full Outlook, does it? x10 it, and that's considerable. Plus then you need that technician to install them, and do setups.
That's the short-term startup. In the longrun, factor in upgrades, mainly from more MS Office liscenses. (Assume the OS is upgraded/replaced at the same time the boxes are - no net difference.)
OpenOffice isn't THAT much different from Word, and if the typists plan on being useful past a few years, I'd expect them to adapt to changes in MS Office. An adaptation to OOo seems reasonable. Similar argument for Evolution. As for Linux/GNOME, what exactly does a typist need to know? "Click THIS icon for xOffice." "and THIS icon = email." Your folder with your name on it is "My Documents". Lookies down below, and you'll see a "trash" can.
I'm sure many people have success stories of where companies have replaced an OS with Linux (Windows, Solaris, HP-UX, etc.), but here's a few examples I've been able to see directly: 1) Anyone remember the recent NASA Columbia simulator? That huge Intel Itanium 2 cluster built by SGI, which was toying with top dog for the fastest supercomputer? That ran Linux (in favor of other "hardened" OS's). 2) I work for Intel, and I must say, we have a Linux environment not for the faint of heart. In the chip design world, my group manages ~7,000 Linux servers in a distributed computing environment. Add up all the design groups at Intel, and you're totaling ~25,000 Linux machines, and growing rather fast. The job these things are doing were being done by Windows machines. However, the powers-that-be actually listened when we said "it doesn't work," and let us implement a Linux solution. This is a huge risk, at the core component of the world's largest chip maker, and what a win.
I love Linux, and will take it any day over Windows. But it really pisses me off when a company won't look closely at the problem they're trying to solve in order to make the correct decision for their environment. Our correct choice (so far) is Linux. A small publishing business, Windows or Mac OS X (or OS 9) is probably a better approach. These studies of who has better TCO is dumb in my opinion, because if you try to fit Linux into a role it's not intended to be in right now, it will fail. If you try and fit Windows into a role that it's not designed or built for, it will fail. They need to first define what a common field is (file serving, web serving, mail serving, etc.), then do the TCO studies. Asking someone if they feel that Windows or Linux is more secure is asking me how I feel on a Monday before I've had my second cup of tea. You should already know the answer based on the look on my face.
Laura DiDio is a piad schill, do your homework.
Im no math genius, but Im going to guess... um, 12%?
Its this little thing called subtraction, maybe you heard of it? See, how it works is a percentage can only total 100. So 88 subtracted from 100 leaves 12. Thus, 12%.
Pretty neat, huh?
Sending her business, expanding her audience, when all along she's a Microsoft/SCO shill?
Jesus H. Zeus, let's put a stop to this. Ignore her ravings, maybe she'll disappear.
It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
I routinely have all kinds of people, seniors, handicapped (both mentally and physically visit my lab), and regular students. It takes, oh, perhaps five minutes for them to sit down and start typing out letters, reports, etc. on Open Office. This "training cost" crap is a typical M$/Didiot, etc. ploy.
Or perhaps the secretaries in your organization are from another planet and have an IQ considerably less than a 3 year old?
Something tells me this will not be worth an effort to read further...
Next Years article: "Laura Didio of the Yankee Group says Linux may be a viable operating system."
You obviously do not know what Mandatory Access Controls are.
Sorry, you're the one who doesn't know what they are. Windows does not have them, and neither did VMS. MACs are not ACLs (which VMS had, NT has and Linux and Unixes now have, but only acquired fairly recently and don't much use).
MACs are a tool for setting up other access restrictions, based on how you access the system (console, SSH, HTTP, etc.) and are orthogonal to user identity-based access controls. If I configure the system to disallow anyone who logged in via SSH from touching any system or user files, I could give you my root password and you couldn't do any damage. More importantly, I could rest easy about remote root exploits in OpenSSH, or any sort of privilege escalation attack. Even if you manage to fool the OS into thinking you are a different user, you're not going to be able to fool it about how you're talking to it.
I repeat: Windows does not have Mandatory Access Controls.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Frist, I've not especially noted Yankee Group as a reliable source of information. And second, if Laura DiDio said the sun rose in the east, I'd call NASA to confirm. Everything I've read that she's written has had serious factual flaws.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
I cannot understand what's new here. This is not a study of which OS is best, but a statistical survey of what business users think is best. We already know they think Windows is best because most of them use it. Personally, what most people think is best does not interest me as much as what is best, and I would not regard Yankee Group as experts on that particular matter.
Sure, Windows also have its Administrator Mode and you can make users accounts, but it is NOT enabled by default AND it is optional. In a matter of fact, almost all home computers run in the administrator mode all the time.
There isn't an "Administrator Mode", and Windows is precisely the same that all system (and most application) files require administrative access to modify, just as the HKLM branch in the registry requires Administrative access.
Of course the problem is that users run themselves as Administrator to save a bit of hassle, and this is no different from a Linux user running as root to save hassle (and there are, sadly, a lot of Linux users who do exactly that).
I can't believe people are still talking about Windows like it was somehow relevant.
Meh.
Why bother publicising this nonsense? Laura DiDio is, always has been, and always will be, a shill for Microsoft. This "study" isn't news.
The moderation of this post demonstrates exactly why no one takes Slashdot seriously.
Frankly, I don't see how TCO studies make any sense. To me, it seems that it's completely situational.
W2Knews readers are not representative of all administrators. Therefore, Yankee group can only make conclusions about W2Knews readers. It's also a voluntary response, which is a problem. In no way should it be taken seriously. Hey why don't we take a poll of slashdot admins to see if they prefer windows or linux! What? 90% Of administrators who read slashdot thinks linux rulz0rs and windows blowz0rs 10% Run windows because their boss said to Wow that must mean 90% of ALL administrators LOVE linux. They aren't just bad statisticians, but liars! But Dirty, stinking liars too.
1. Value, the ability to make or protect earnings
2. Enterprise quality - any idiot can make a webserver, but making 500 of them or rolling out the app to 10,000 people is what you need
3. Vendor Stability - he who has the most money in the bank wins kthxbai
4. Audit/lawyering - SOX needs to die, but right now its important
Notice in here there is nothing about Linux, Windows, Opernsource, blah blah blah. If the business needs an app that they are going to make a buck on that needs SCO - YOU BUY SCO. If its runs on MSSQL YOU BUY MS. If it runs on Oracle - YOU BUY ORACLE...you have to have controls and process around all systems - just because you are using apache doesnt forgive the need to have security, patching, monitoring, and compliance.
I know I am talking to a brick wall..but I thought I would try - my cynicisim hasn't kicked in yet this morning.
twi
You keep telling yourself that there is no difference. The cost of repair for dumb users running as admins does not count because it can be paid with Monopoly money.
You're convieniently forgetting the high maintenance cost of Windows, just take a look at the number of fixes you are required to install. For example, on my Windows XP box (biz desktop, mind you), there are 32 (yes, thirty two!). Now think about service packs, and note the time needed to test these before you install. In fact, many companies are not jumping right in and installing SP2 for this very reason.
This is just one reason why Didio's simple minded survey is meaningless.
I have a hard time swallowing anything Yankee Group feeds me because at times it seems like they're blindly accepting any load of BS that microsoft feeds them. (Or possibly deliberately slanting the facts)
Microsoft's get the facts campaign took the most expensive linux servers and compared them to the cheapest microsoft ones -- now that's just silly. If these are the kinds of facts that are supposed to change my mind...Speak for yourself.
Welcome to the year 2000.
Sincerely,
Those cancerous Linux bastards
P.S. We all know this study is BS. Is "as good as Linux" the best you can do, or is that the threshold of plausibility?
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
You keep telling yourself that there is no difference.
What are you going on about? Yes, it's a problem when users run as admins, just as it's a problem when a Linux user runs as su. What's the big profound difference that you apparently aren't revealing?
old way to skew results as you see fit.
I am sure part of this had push poll questions like the following:
"Would you feel safe if linux destroyed all your personal data and offered no protection for your data like microsoft does?"
Where here in camp-linux we don't have to bother with silly polls... Just let people continue to use windows and they *all* end up looking for something/anything that won't be infected once per week (trashing their mail, contacts etc..)
My wife finally gave up on windows and switched to a powerbook.. I am gentoo user.. Have an old copy of windows installed dual-boot to play a couple games that cedega chokes on.
She has been on a mac for a few days now and after her experience is happy..
anime+manga together at last.. in real time.
Ridiculous. There's nothing stopping a Linux user from logging on as root and using it like his personal account. And as someone else pointed out, no "Administrator mode." Perhaps you're thinking of the ability to have the system automatically log on as a particular user. That feature has its uses, and from a critical security standpoint it's irrelevant as physical access is full access.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Dumb users easily run as 'root' on Linux.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
I agree with much of what you say, but if you need a piece of software to detect and prevent malicious userland code from performing operations that the operating system should never have permitted it to do, is the operating system secure? Yes we need an antivirus to secure Windows, but we certainly shouldn't.
As an avid but aging volleyball player, I'm starting to suffer through joint problems, mostly knees and rotator cuff. For the time being two Advil before a game and I'm usually fine for a couple of hours. Regardless, the conditions that cause the pain still exist, the medication has just removed symptom for the time being. Next time I go to play, I'll have to take Advil again. What really needs to be done is physio, rehab and better conditioning.
An antivirus is just like Advil, treating a symptom without fixing the problem. IMHO of course.
What happens if I use the 0wned OpenSSH session to contact some other server in your machine, and 0wn it in turn ? The other server, being local , would be free from these restrictions. For example, suppose there was a vulnerability in authentication of programs for the X server - you connect to OpenSSH server, 0wn it, and then have it connect to the X server.
Besides, I could simply install a memory-resident spam relay which would also look for more victims while relaying spam. Sure, you can get rid of it by rebooting, but it won't take long after power-on to get infected.
And you'd still need to worry about privilege escalation attacks in the kernel itself.
Besides, if you're not allowed to touch any files, then it doesn't matter who you're logging in as, so you could simply have OpenSSH drop root privileges after binding the port.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
What happens if I use the 0wned OpenSSH session to contact some other server in your machine, and 0wn it in turn ?
Only if OpenSSH has access to that other server. Depends on configuration.
Besides, I could simply install a memory-resident spam relay which would also look for more victims while relaying spam. Sure, you can get rid of it by rebooting, but it won't take long after power-on to get infected.
Sure, there are still problems with having vulnerable software on a system, but this technology isolates the damage.
And you'd still need to worry about privilege escalation attacks in the kernel itself.
Yes and no. Privilege escalation attacks depend on there being some legitimate way to switch to another UID with more privileges. Because UID-changing mechanisms exist, it's just a matter of finding a way to activate one when it's not intended. The "Mandatory" in "Mandatory Access Controls" is there because there is not intended to be *any* way for a process to escape its controls, even if it manages to become UID 0.
The best analogy I can think of why this is better is a wall: It's much harder to break through a solid brick wall than it is to break through a solid brick wall with a locked door in the middle of it. For the latter, you can try to break the door, dismantle the hinges or frame, pick the lock, etc., there are many options.
Besides, if you're not allowed to touch any files, then it doesn't matter who you're logging in as, so you could simply have OpenSSH drop root privileges after binding the port.
Assuming there are no privilege escalation vulnerabilities, yes.
Also, consider the fact that MACs need not be used alone. If I put my apache server in a chroot jail, run it as nobody and use MACs to restrict it to the set of files it needs to read, an attacker is going to have to find holes in two or perhaps three separate sets of restrictions before he can gain control of the rest of the system.
That's good security design. Multiple layers of security do not necessarily equate to high security, but if each layer is fairly difficult to break on its own, and if the layers are "orthogonal", so that breaking one doesn't automatically break another, then the resulting "defense in depth" can be very, very good.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
A reboot should be the least of your worries when it comes to applying patches.
If a server reboot is a major issue, then your environment isn't ready - or isn't properly designed - for 24/7 operation. If your operation isn't 24/7, then a reboot is irrelevant because it can be done out of hours.
It amazes me how much some people harp on about rebooting servers when it simply shouldn't be an issue worthy of more than cursory notice. It's like people who think the only way to judge availability is from server uptime.
The critical difference of MAC vs DAC is that under a MAC system the application can not fully determine the access which is to be granted to resources it creates.
/tmp with mode 0777 and thus grant all other programs full access to it. If the application in question has some secret data it can write that data to the file in /tmp and give it to everyone (many Unix applications have done this).
/tmp directory it will get type user_tmp_t. On a system with multiple user domains in use no other non-administrative user domain will be able to read a file of type user_tmp_t. This prevents users accidentally granting inappropriate access to their data, sym-link race condition attacks, and buggy applications can not do unexpected things.
With "Unix permissions" any application can create a file in
With a MAC system such as SE Linux an application can not grant such access. For example an application run by a regular non-privileged user will run in domain user_t. When a program in the user_t domain creates a file/directory/sym-link in the
Russell Coker
Do tell us, why can't you buy a Dell computer without Windows? Have you ever even bought a Dell business computer? You can't buy a Dell Home Computer with Linux. If you took a moment and went into the Small Business section, or any business section, you would find that nearly all of their Precision workstations and all of their PowerEdge servers can be purchased without Windows.
Dell Business computers come with your choice of Windows XP Pro, Windows 2003 Server, Novell/SUSE Enterprise Linux or Red Hat Enterprise Linux preinstalled. For Linux systems, Dell Technical Support requires you to maintain a (fairly inexpensive) support contract with both Dell and Red Hat or Novell, respectively. If you maintain the subscriptions then, as a small-to-medium business, you get better technical support than you ever could with Windows. If you don't need tech support then you don't have to pay for it, of course.
Have a look around the Dell Linux website sometime.
TCO is entirely debatable and I think it misses the point of what you get for your money. But, here is one example of initial cost using real, verifiable numbers.
For a 20 user Windows system from Dell you need 1 server license ($1299), 20 Client Access Licenses ($90 X 20 = $1800), and 20 Workstation licenses ($379 X 20= $7580). You still need to buy Office for $700 a pop ($700 X 20 = $14,000). And you still need all the other essential business software that isn't included with Windows.
For the same 20-user Dell system running Linux you pay for a 1 year support contract for Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server ($349). Optionally, you can renew that contract yearly ($349/yr). Dell RHEL workstations appear to come with the first year of RHN access for free. Beyond that you can renew yearly if you choose to do so ($99/yr X 20 = $1980). These systems come preloaded with a fairly complete office suite, full compliment of non-crippled network services, numerous popular programming and runtime environments, and almost anything else you need to immediately start working.
Hardware costs for both systems are about $14,500. Which means that Windows licensing costs almost as much as the hardware itself. Microsoft Office alone costs as much as all of your hardware combined.
Were these questions asked of the board, the accounts dept or the sysadmin dept? Each would probably give you conflicting answers, that if chosen from carefully, could say pretty much anything you want.
-- Howto: Get +5 (1) Whine about M$ (2) Namedrop Gentoo (3) Casually Abuse Mods (4) Namedrop Early Computer Model