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.
'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.
From the Article: "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.
So, they ask the bosses "What is the TCO for Windows-based servers?"
"I don't know"
Then, they ask the bosses "What is the TCO for Linux-based servers?"
"I don't know"
Since "I don't know" equals "I don't know", the conclusion is that the operating systems have equal TCOs, at least in the eyes of the business managers.
Does she have credibility? About as much as Ken Brown ("A swedish student named Linux Torvald copied Linus from Minux which his professor Tannenbaum copied from Unix"), Rob PretEnderle (the one with the Ferrari Notebook that makes Vroom Vroom noises) and Maureen O' Gara (Linux is completely stolen from SCO) together. Minus infinity + Minus infinity + Minus infinity = Minus Infinity.
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).
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
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
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
I did read one stat one where which said somrhthing like 66% of linux workstations use a cracked copy of windows.
Non-sequitur.
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.
Appeal to tradition.
What happens when say, a linux company starts comming as big as Microsoft, are they being as bad
Appeal to fear.
and lets be honest, alot of windows problems are C++ buffer over runs which as it fault of the languge, not the programming,
False premise.
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.
Red herring.
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),
Appeal to wealth and honor by association.
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,
Untenable appeal to authority.
look a mobile computing, wireless, the whole wireless home idear with windows media centre.
Meaningless statement.
I wonder how much of the advanced we have today, would be here without MS.
Historian's fallacy and/or hindsight.
Got any more fallacious thinking?
exactly, why does slashdot even give didiot the time of day any more - she's 'proven' her 'independence' so many times in the past year or so with the sco/linux debacle, let alone the fud that she spouts consistently.
it's obvious she's a microsoft employee, and the yankee group have destroyed any credibility they 'might' have had by continuing to employ her.
non-story, complete fud
Gekido's Lair
DiDio is a well known shill. The fact that she is claiming that the TCOs are equal means MS has given up trying to convince people that linux is more expensive.
evil is as evil does