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."

Comments

What are they using?

[fembots]

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.

Re:What are they using?

[Cruithne]

Another factor, the study says 88% said windows was equal or better - but how many said it was better versus equal? And were they given an option between the two?

More importantly, how many people said linux was better versus people that said windows was better...

This post seems suspiciously void of those kind of common-sense numbers.

Re:What are they using?

[Monkelectric]

Yep, this is fluff journalism/science, whatever they claim it is. What the study basically says is- peoples confidence in their OS is about the same no matter what OS they use.

Re:What are they using?

[mboverload]

Windows XP is pretty secure if you know what you are doing. Disable the services, get antivirus and a firewall and you are set. Don't forget the router firewall, probably the most important part of securing your machine. I have never gotten a virus doing this.

Then again, this only works with people who know what they hell they are doing. No matter what I would never recommend Windows as a internet-facing server. I run a Windows 2003 server here in my home but it is just to learn it and host a small site with little traffic.

Re:What are they using?

[belmolis]

It's really too bad that we don't have access to the actual study. Without it it is hard to judge very much. I went to the Yankee Group web site and found their press release, which is a little bit more informative than the news item, but not much. Elsewhere on the Yankee Group site they reveal that the study will not be available until JUNE 2005. Funny that they are issuing press releases now about a study that won't be released for two months. I wonder if that is so that they can have their impact now and defer the hard criticism?

Anyhow, there was an interesting bit in the YG press release:

However, Yankee Group's survey shows Linux gaining momentum as a complementary server presence in Windows networks. More than 50% of companies surveyed said they plan to install Linux in parallel with, or in addition to, existing Windows operating systems.

I think that this gives us a hint of what is going on. If MS Windows were really perceived as better than Linux, or even equal, the cost of making a change and general inertia would presumably result in little Linux adoption. The fact that the same businesses in which MS Windows has an overall reputation of being better than Linux are adding Linux or shifting partly to Linux suggests that there is actually a perception of Linux as better and/or cheaper. I suspect that what is going on is that the reputation questions were answered largely by managers with little firsthand technical knowledge, who have, however, been pushed by their technie subordinates to allow a shift in the direction of Linux.

Re:What are they using?

[Zeinfeld]

Then again, this only works with people who know what they hell they are doing.

Which goes the same for pretty much any O/S. If you have a pinhead they will configure the machine insecurely.

No matter what I would never recommend Windows as a internet-facing server. I run a Windows 2003 server here in my home but it is just to learn it and host a small site with little traffic.

You mean even if the figures say that Windows is more secure you will never choose it? Or are you only referring to the current release?

Whatever, I think that Linux advocates should take a lesson from history, it is really hard to maintain an O/S distinction in the security area. The only reason Linux is any better is that UNIX machines have been Internet connected by default for about 15 years while with windows its only about 8. Read the CERT advisories from the 90s, they are almost all reports of UNIX vulnerabilities.

UNIX got cleaned up, Windows will be cleaned up. Back in the 90s UNIX was a byword for insecurity, people still used SUID scripts and shadow passwords were only used by a minority.

What is more interesting here is the derrivative. The perception of Windows is improving rapidly, the perception of Linux is pretty static. I don't see a heck of a lot of new security action going on in the Linux world. There is a heck of a lot going on in the Windows world.

Re:What are they using?

[Anonymous Coward]

A mixed environment is the best environment. using one or the other doesnt make sense.

There is a thing called a Cascading failure that has been hypothesized (sp?) over about using a single Os for everything.

One hole to bring them allll down.

Think smart.

Re:What are they using?

[AstroDrabb]

Why don't we look at this rationally. The Yankee Group doesn't do "studies" for free. The Yankee Group are a for-profit company. So basically someone paid the Yankee Group to do this "study".

Now, who could it be? Could it be Red Hat, SuSE, IBM or some other pro-Linux company? I have serious doubts about that. What about Microsoft? Well, MS has certainly paid for other "studies" to be done in the past. So I don't think there would be any major reason to not count MS in on this "study". Basically we just need to find out _who_ paid for this "study" to really see where the bias lays.

I remember last year I had a phone call from some unknown company that was doing a "study" about MS. I was asked how I felt about MS as a company. How I felt about the products put out by MS and if I "trusted" MS. As soon as I answered that I "did not trust MS as a company", I was told my "interview" was over and "thank you for your time". So it seems as soon as one of these companies get a negative response about the company that are footing the bill, the interview dies.

Does anyone know who _paid_ for this "study"?

Re:What are they using?

[jdwest]

Who the hell are "the respondents"? What was the methodology? What was the exact wording of the question?

The list goes on ..

Sorry, I conduct research for a living. This kind of drive-by "journalism," simply report-what-the-findings-were reporting pisses me off to no end.

Re:What are they using?

[Coryoth]

What is more interesting here is the derrivative. The perception of Windows is improving rapidly, the perception of Linux is pretty static. I don't see a heck of a lot of new security action going on in the Linux world. There is a heck of a lot going on in the Windows world.

If you don't see much happening with regard to security in the Linux and UNIX world, then you simply aren't really paying enough attention. UNIX is getting fitted with a new, significant, very powerful, security architecture. The difference is aking the the difference between a single-user and a multi-user os. It's coming to Linux via SELinux (though there are other implementations of the basic concept such as RSBAC). The BSDs have it in TrustedBSD, and the new (open source) Solaris 10 has it (Trusted Solaris has been integrated into the main branch). Does Windows have anything even close anywhere on the horizon? No.

Sure, for all of these systems the security architecture is new, and by default it is often either off, or in a relatively minimal configuration. The point is that it is already developed, and implemented, and in the respective kernels. From here it's a matter of educating users and developers, getting better application support allowing for stronger/stricter policies by default, and building better tools to configure and administer the system. For Windows any level of Mandatory Access Controls is still in the hazy future, to be implemented, at best, in the release after Longhorn. By the time Windows secures all its holes UNIX may well have moved a quantum leap ahead.

Jedidiah.

Re:What are they using?

[flyingsquid]

Windows XP is pretty secure if you know what you are doing. Disable the services, get antivirus and a firewall and you are set. Don't forget the router firewall, probably the most important part of securing your machine.

Final step: unplug Windows machine from network.

Re:What are they using?

[kbrannen]

What is more interesting here is the derrivative. The perception of Windows is improving rapidly, the perception of Linux is pretty static. I don't see a heck of a lot of new security action going on in the Linux world. There is a heck of a lot going on in the Windows world.

It's not hard to improve faster when you've got soooo much further to go is it? :-)

Re:What are they using?

[skribe]

I'll never consider XP a secure OS as long as it is required to have administrator/enhanced privileges to run consumer-level software.

skribe

Re:What are they using?

[gstoddart]

Who the hell are "the respondents"? What was the methodology? What was the exact wording of the question?

The list goes on ..

Yeah, like who paid for it this time.

Re:What are they using?

[GlassUser]

I'll never consider XP a secure OS as long as it is required to have administrator/enhanced privileges to run consumer-level software

Sounds like you need to stop using crap software. Everything I use (including a lot of MS software like office, project, etc) works just fine in a proper configuration.

Re:What are they using?

[FreeBSD evangelist]

What is more interesting here is the derrivative. The perception of Windows is improving rapidly, the perception of Linux is pretty static. I don't see a heck of a lot of new security action going on in the Linux world. There is a heck of a lot going on in the Windows world.

There's a lot of "security action" going on in Windows because there's a lot that needs to be done. If they were to get close to the security of the average FreeBSD box (like, never) that activity would slow down too.

Re:What are they using?

[galdur]

Maybe you should take a look at those CERT advisories again:

Red Hat:
http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/bymetric?searchview&qu ery=red*hat&searchorder=4&count=100
Microsoft:
http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/bymetric?searchview&qu ery=microsoft&searchorder=4&count=100

Guess which list is longer?
SELinux, Novell's SUSE Linux CC EAL4+ certification (where's XP's/2003's EAL4+ cert?).

Not to mention that the French government is putting 7 million euros into creating a Linux derivative with a CC EAL5+ certification. Windows ahead? Pah.

Re:What are they using?

[czei]

Its very clever of them to issue a press release with findings way before the study, because it makes the conclusions impossible to refute. If they released the actual study now people would be able to find out exactly how it was done and find the holes, which is impossible now. In every single "survey" of this type that I've read, if you read the actual details, the deck had been stacked to reach a certain conclusion. By the time the actual document comes up any complaints about the way the study was done won't be news any more, and all people will remember is the headline from the press release.

Its an interesting parallel to politics, where a politician can campaign for something, say like social security changes, without actually putting forth any concrete proposals. The lack of any concrete numbers in a proposal keeps anyone from making a concrete rebuttal, so that the politicians are free to sell the concept without having to be responsible for both the pros and cons of the changes.

Re:What are they using?

[Facekhan]

Yep, you hit the nail on the head. Serious scientists call these "researchers" who perform studies for-profit and for interest groups "whores". If you pay for a study, even one whose results can be objectively measured and the study is conducted properly, the official conclusions and the way it is presented to the media will push the desired outcome even when not borne out by the numbers themselves. An average perceived security rating of 7.6 vs 8.3 may actually be a signifcant difference if the survey was large enough but because this is obviously a Microsoft commissioned study as the last several DiDio/Yankee Group studies have been that difference is called insignificant and the conclusion is the two are not just percieved as having similar levels of security but in fact do.

Re:What are they using?

[DRobson]

If you have a pinhead they will configure the machine insecurely.

Wouldnt the ease of securing the system have some affect on its overall security level? Something pinheads can secure could be arguably more secure than other systems. It would be nice if such a system existed.

Re:What are they using?

[Lorkki]

The current direction of Windows reminds me of that old quote, "Those who don't understand UNIX are doomed to reinvent it - badly", although all things considered it may not be entirely accurate.

For many years now Microsoft has been patching NT, a single-user system only really suitable for small local networks, into a multi-user system that can cope with many large networks. All the while they're making an effort to retain backwards-compatibility all the way back to MS-DOS, and to avoid doing anything that makes them look like UNIX. This obviously adds up to a very troublesome equation, even when one does not consider the hybrid "Windows 9x" branch (thankfully abandoned, but not yet gone or forgotten).

Now, a few years ago the swiss-cheese nature of the system became so apparent that the general public grew aware of it. That quickly resulted in official denial, then a plethora of security-oriented PR campaigns and, a bit later, more intensive patching. It has recently resulted in some actual improvement, but it's still being made by attacking the effects and not the problems themselves. Longhorn naturally promises to fix everything.

Take a look at all the new toys in Solaris 10, as well as SELinux, and you'll notice that the UNIX world is not just standing still either. There's just not as much noise to be made about being relatively secure compared to the previous version.

Re:What are they using?

[Zeinfeld]

For Windows any level of Mandatory Access Controls is still in the hazy future, to be implemented, at best, in the release after Longhorn. By the time Windows secures all its holes UNIX may well have moved a quantum leap ahead.

You obviously do not know what Mandatory Access Controls are. Butler Lampson certainly does since he invented the idea. so does David Cutler since he implemented them in VMS long before they arrived in any Unix variant. They have both worked for Microsoft for over a decade.

Windows NT had MACs built in from day one. They are not quite the same as the VMS implementation - and for very good reason, the VMS implementation of ACLs was too complex for most people to grasp, particularly when you got into the propagation rules. But they certainly are there and are built into the O/S at a much more fundamental level than they are in Linux.

The problem with Windows security has absolutely nothing to do with lack of security features. The problem is the exact reverse, the problem is too many damn features and applications that can't make use of them.

Re:What are they using?

[Zeinfeld]

The current direction of Windows reminds me of that old quote, "Those who don't understand UNIX are doomed to reinvent it - badly", although all things considered it may not be entirely accurate.

The joke is on Thompson, he reinvented VMS badly.

For many years now Microsoft has been patching NT, a single-user system only really suitable for small local networks, into a multi-user system that can cope with many large networks.

Windows NT has always been at core a multi-user operating system. The kernel architecture is derived from VMS which is itself heavily influenced by Multics and ITS. This is not really a surprise since there are not all than many people who have designed O/S and pretty much everything has its roots ultimately in Multics and project MAC.

The problem that faces both UNIX and Windows NT when it comes to networking is that multi-user security and network security are two absolutely different things. The features you need for one do not help much with the other.

Most production Apache servers run on a system that has at most three active accounts. Root, apache and maintenance. To all intents and purposes the separation of apache and root does little more than help prevent the system partion being corrupted, it does not really do much for security since all the data assets of the machine are going to be accessible from the apache account.

If you wanted to actually use the O/S security mechanisms to bear in a meaningful way you would have to configure the Web server to respond to data access requests by spawning off a new process and locking it down with the appropriate system privs each time a privileged access was performed. This is technically possible in both Unix and Windows but it will grind the machine down if you try it with any appreciable load.

Re:What are they using?

[setagllib]

When Windows can use algorithms other than DES and 3DES for IPSec, then we'll talk. And where are the static keys? It wouldn't be so bad if its twisted way of setting up key exchanges was workable, but it's only barely so. And IPSec, if you'd ever used it properly, you would know to be a VERY valuable security and privacy feature, yet in Windows it's on barely workable levels. Linux got a not-too-bad IPSec in kernel 2.6, and while it's still a lot flakier than any BSD (like having to use -m tunnel), it actually works and can use algorithms that aren't yet obsolete. And it can use them properly. Static keys, IKE, tunnel, transport, whatever, it works. Windows is excruciating and crippled in this respect, and it's a huge lacking in its security capabilities.

That's why many *nix's don't need to make huge progress: they're already on the bleeding edge. With Windows so far behind in respects like these, it need all the improvement it can get.

Re:What are they using?

[nmos]

You mean even if the figures say that Windows is more secure you will never choose it? Or are you only referring to the current release?

Well, if THAT happens I'll be too busy getting my shotgun so I can get me one of them flyin pigs I've been hearin about.

Re:What are they using?

[Anarke_Incarnate]

I believe the parent was trying to say that if the goal is to reach the top, this could be the case:
If you were to climb mountain A, at 10,000 feet, and he were to climb mountain B, at 7,000 feet, if you made 30 feet of progress an hour and he made 23 feet an hour, he's still ahead of you, regardless of how much progress you are making. He is still sufficiently ahead of you to the point where at the rate you are going, you will lose.

Re:What are they using?

[IconBasedIdea]

I suspect that what is going on is that the reputation questions were answered largely by managers with little firsthand technical knowledge, who have, however, been pushed by their technie subordinates to allow a shift in the direction of Linux. Who the hell else has time for filling out surveys?

Re:What are they using?

[mcrbids]

What is more interesting here is the derrivative. The perception of Windows is improving rapidly, the perception of Linux is pretty static.

Eh, you're kidding... right?

I've not seen that AT ALL. Windows security is an oxymoron, and people complain about it BITTERLY to me. I've been delivering Linux-only services for years, and it's all I can do to keep up with all the projects on my plate.

One of my clients is on the verge of switching about 50% of their desktop systems in use by their staff to Linux. They're evaluating it now. Issues I know of are: MS-Word (Hello Crossover Office!) and printing.

What "security action" should be going on in the Linux world that isn't? I have a modest number of servers on the 'net. The only one with security issues is one with a bazillion, ancient CGI scripts on it. (that for various reasons, I can't just have removed - ugh)

But, just in case, do you remember SELinux? Or perhaps LIDS?

Heck googling for "Linux Security" produced a few interesting results, right on the home page!

Next time, listen BEFORE you speak...

Re:What are they using?

[mcrbids]

If you wanted to actually use the O/S security mechanisms to bear in a meaningful way you would have to configure the Web server to respond to data access requests by spawning off a new process and locking it down with the appropriate system privs each time a privileged access was performed. This is technically possible in both Unix and Windows but it will grind the machine down if you try it with any appreciable load.

I don't know. But, this is the *ONLY* feature of Apache 2.x that I'd consider dropping 1.3.x for!
See this for some details on current activity

Re:What are they using?

[Anonymous Coward]

What you think Mandatory Access Controls are and what they realy are are 2 entirely different things from what I can tell.

Windows may claim to have some sort of limited MAC based on certain roles, but Microsoft claims a lot of things about windows which is not true.

For isntance they liked to call the NT kernel a 'Microkernel' back in the day when people cared about that sort of thing. Of course this is bullshit. It has certain aspects of a microkernel, but it is not.

NT security model follows the Unix one which is called the 'Discretionary Access Control', or DAC.

DAC is based on authentication based on identity. You login as a user and that user has certain rights to certain files. Your identity is your username, which is realy just a repsentation of your UID numbers.

You log in as root, you have unlimited access to your system.

Also any rights of programs you run is based on your UID and GUID numbers (unless the program's setuid bit is used). If you can access a file, so can your program. If you can't access a file then neither can the program your using.

In Unix this dividing line between users is VERY strong. It was designed ground up as a multiuser enviroment and if you can't do something, then neither can your programs your running (except for the setuid, or if you use sudo.)

Setuid posses big security risks and is used sparingly and is ignored for certian types of programs, such as shell scripts, which are easily perverted.

Windows, for this sort of thing, sucks. It originally was a single user enviroment and with Windows 2k/XP it has a single user API grafted onto a real Multi-user NT OS. This causes all sorts of exceptions having to be made for all sorts of programs and is one of the reasons Windows is harder to secure vs Linux/Unix.

MAC is not extend access control lists!!! ACLS != MAC.

Mandatory Access Controls are something else completely. It's NOT BASED ON UID OR GUID. In Linux it's used in addition to DAC and doesn't replace it but it allows much tighter controls.

SELinux was developed by National Security Agency (NSA) to provide a framework for building Role Based Access Control.

Say I am root, I can set it up so that under different circumstances I can and cannot do different things. If I login thru SSH I can set it up so that I have different role then if I am logged in at a local terminal.

Literally I can, with a SELinux-enabled Linux computer, give you my ROOT PASSWORD and a let you log into my computer and move around in it with no risk of you doing anything bad to me.

And this also happens to programs that run under my UID. Now with Unix you setup a fake user to run applications/services like Apache.. However with SELinux I could safely run Apache under UID 0. (root).

Even if Apache had a huge buffer overflow and the attacker was able to execute successfully some shell code and gained access as root/administrator to my machine, he would only be able to fuck with files that Apache needs to run. Any other services, any other programs would still be completely off limits.

AND this requires no reprogramming of the Apache server. This rules are set below programs, below the file system, all the way to the very core of the kernel. From hardware to the very top levels of the OS there is no way around MAC, unless the rules were designed badly.

Any violation, or unexpected activity of the Apache server would be logged and recorded.

This describes Windows's security model and gives it the military term of 'C2' security.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/93362/EN-US/

SELinux gives Linux OS the ability to have B-level security.

Redhat ES 4 and Fedora Core 2, and Fedora Core 3 have SELinux, but are not 'trusted' OS's yet. The rules that they use are fairly liberal and are designed to provide maximum compatability with existing applications yet provide high levels of security for servi

Re:What are they using?

[gnovos]

Most production Apache servers run on a system that has at most three active accounts. Root, apache and maintenance. To all intents and purposes the separation of apache and root does little more than help prevent the system partion being corrupted, it does not really do much for security since all the data assets of the machine are going to be accessible from the apache account.

If you wanted to actually use the O/S security mechanisms to bear in a meaningful way you would have to configure the Web server to respond to data access requests by spawning off a new process and locking it down with the appropriate system privs each time a privileged access was performed.

You are referring to SELinux, I think...

The neatest thing about a "properly" configures SELinux box is, I could hand you the root password and sit you in front of the console and you'd STILL be unable to hack the machine. Of course, configuring it properly requires an advanced degree in hyperbolic geometry with a minor in "Being God" studies.

Re:What are they using?

[can56]

I am not a security expert, and know nothing about
MACs, and even less (than zero) about NT.

I'm puzzled ... if Lampson and Cutler have been
working at Microsoft for over a decade, and MS,
with the largest army of developers/software
testers on the planet, cannot make Windows
security easy to use, who can?

"Windows NT had MACs built in from day one.
They are not the same as the VMS implementation-
and for very good reason ...

The problem with Windows security has absolutely
nothing to do with lack of security features.
The problem is the exact reverse, the problem
is too many damn features and applications that
can't make use of them."

So, what use are 'security features' if most
people cannot understand them, let alone use them?

Re:What are they using?

[LizardKing]

The joke is on Thompson, he reinvented VMS badly.

VMS wasn't to be available for another eight years when Unix was conceived.

Re:What are they using?

[BVis]

So, what use are 'security features' if most
people cannot understand them, let alone use them?

Security features built into OSs have become less and less relevant in real-world applications. More significant is the fact that most people cannot understand "security features" because your average user is a screaming moron. Like the man said, make something idiot-proof and they'll invent a better idiot.

The real trouble is when security is dumbed down (by order of some executive chair moistener) so that the idiots don't sprain the two or three brain cells they've got (which have long since atrophied due to non-use). You can have all the system-level security you want, but if your users get to have passwords like "password1" and never have to change them, it doesn't really matter WHAT OS you have. Seriously, how hard is it to memorize an 8 character password?

Oh, wait, I'm speaking chiefly of Americans. What was I thinking, most of them can't remember "password1" without writing it down.

Re:What are they using?

[hairykrishna]

Yep. My windows XP install is fine now I have a linux based firewall/router in between it and the 'net. Oh wait...

Re:What are they using?

[Anonymous Coward]

Quantum typically means small, at least as it relates to physics.

Er, no. Quantum means (not "typically means") discrete, or packetized. From Wikipedia:

The term quantum (Latin for quantity) refers to the discrete units that the theory assigns to certain physical quantities, such as the energy of an electromagnetic wave.

"Quantum leap" refers to the process of an electron moving from one quantum shell to another, which has always been visualized as a very rapid transition to a much different level. Just as is happening with Linux development, in fact.

The rest of your post was right on par with your understanding of quantum physics.

Re:What are they using?

[TractorBarry]

Well I'm a multi O/S user who uses both Windows (many flavours) and Linux (Slackware & Ubuntu) on a daily basis (not to mention a couple of other O/Ss). Personally I see it as being very simple.

1 Linux is a vastly superior, infinitely more flexible operating system.
2 Windows has a superior set of desktop applications and better support from peripheral manufacturers.

I would also qualify this by saying that it's not so much that Linux doesn't have the applications it's just that many of them have a GUI which is not as good (i.e. as easy and clear to use) as the Windows equivalent.

Having said that there are also applications that are available on Windows but not Linux (and vice versa) so the whole issue isn't quite that clear cut.

In a work context the killer apps are Visual Studio, Visual Studio.Net, SQL Server and Exchange (personally I hate Exchange with a passion but a lot of the idiots "need" it's calendaring facilities). At home the killer apps are Logic Audio, Sound Forge and CDEX.

They're the only reasons WIndows still exists in my world.

Just my tuppence worth.

Re:What are they using?

[ABCC]

the "survey" is here: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/surveys/040213_Lin ux.htm

looks more like market research than a TCO study to me. questions are ostensibly answered by w2k readers : http://www.w2knews.com/index.cfm?id=463

i agree though, reporters need a few classes on statistical methods and sampling methods, far too often they seem to be impressed enough by someone who can calculate a standard deviation so that theyll believe anything he/she says.

Re:What are they using?

[zorander]

If the applications aren't forced to make use of the security features, then what is the point of the security features? If any piece of malware can choose to ignore them then no system is secure. I'm not an expert on the semantics you're touting, but this seems like a fundamental flaw in the NT security model.

Re:What are they using?

[IllForgetMyNickSoonA]

> The joke is on Thompson, he reinvented VMS badly.

Sure. UNIX was available for YEARS before VMS came around.

Re:What are they using?

[LilMikey]

Of course, configuring it properly requires an advanced degree in hyperbolic geometry with a minor in "Being God" studies.

Great! I'm fantastic with hyperbole and have significant real-world experience in the 'Being God' department.

Re:What are they using?

[drsmithy]

For isntance they liked to call the NT kernel a 'Microkernel' back in the day when people cared about that sort of thing. Of course this is bullshit. It has certain aspects of a microkernel, but it is not.

I don't think NT has ever been called a "microkernel". I've only ever seen it called "microkernel based".

NT security model follows the Unix one which is called the 'Discretionary Access Control', or DAC.

This is true from a very broad perspective, but on a closer inspection there are some major differences. The (typical/traditional) unix security model is fundamentally only divided into "root" and "not root". On a somewhat higher level, it's user/group/other, but that only applies to the "no root" side of the equation and. basically, only to things that are accessed via the filesystem.

In NT, individuals ACLs are applied per user - there is no concept of a "superuser" - and to objects within the OS. So stuff like IPC has ACLs. It's far, far more fine grained and pervasive.

Windows, for this sort of thing, sucks. It originally was a single user enviroment and with Windows 2k/XP it has a single user API grafted onto a real Multi-user NT OS.

Bollocks. "Windows 2k/XP" *IS* the "NT OS" - just different releases - and Windows NT was designed to be multiuser from day 1.

This causes all sorts of exceptions having to be made for all sorts of programs and is one of the reasons Windows is harder to secure vs Linux/Unix.

The biggest problem on Windows is lazy and/or ignorant software developers writing their software under the assumption that a) it's running on Windows 95 and/or b) anyone who runs it will be an Administrator. So they do dumb things like write to the program's installation dir, or try and store per-user settings in the part of the registry reserved for global settings (both places which, obviously, regular users can't write to).

This has nothing to do with the API, it's just bad software development. Many developers who should know better do the wrong thing as well. With Doom 3, for example, id have written their software to write to files in the application's installation path. This has *nothing* to do with the Win32 API.

Re:What are they using?

[drsmithy]

I'm puzzled ... if Lampson and Cutler have been working at Microsoft for over a decade, and MS, with the largest army of developers/software testers on the planet, cannot make Windows security easy to use, who can?

Personally I consider this yet another piece of evidence contributing against the idea that you *can* make computer security "easy" (at least, for any non-trivial level of "security).

More specifically, the reason Microsoft "can't" make Windows security "easy to use" is because doing so would, firstly, break the thousands upon thousands of poorly written applications that assume the system has no security and, secondly, require end users to learn more about computers, operating systems and computer security than they want to. For obvious reasons, end users wouldn't like that much.

A much larger issue (affecting everyone) is that using computers in a "secure" fashion requires a level of non-trivial understanding of the concepts of multiuser OSes, permissions, what things permissions are applied to, etc. Sure, for example, running as a regular user stops a bunch of nasties in their tracks at the moment (until they're rewritten to not assume they're running at a higher privilege level) but most people will still happily enter their password - or whatever else might be entailed - to temporarily raise the privilege level of a program with nothing more than a dialog box.

So, what use are 'security features' if most people cannot understand them, let alone use them?

I'd be willing to bet the "problem" has a hell of a lot more to do with laziness and ignorance than "difficulty".

Re:What are they using?

[drsmithy]

If they were to get close to the security of the average FreeBSD box (like, never) that activity would slow down too.

If the average FreeBSD box had the user demographic of the average Windows box, it wouldn't have anything close to the level of "security" it does now.

Re:What are they using?

[drsmithy]

The current direction of Windows reminds me of that old quote, "Those who don't understand UNIX are doomed to reinvent it - badly", although all things considered it may not be entirely accurate.

Nor did it have much to do with security.

For many years now Microsoft has been patching NT, a single-user system only really suitable for small local networks, into a multi-user system that can cope with many large networks.

NT is, and always has been, a multiuser OS.

Re:What are they using?

[drsmithy]

Windows security is an oxymoron, and people complain about it BITTERLY to me.

Considering the depth of of ignorance displayed in this - and other - threads on Sashdot about Windows, its design and its capabilities, the origins - and self-reinforcing nature - of memes like yours are not hard to see.

However, that doesn't make them any less wrong. Those of us who have the knowledge and skills to run intruder and virus-free networks of Windows machines demonstrate your "Windows security is an oxymoron" assertion to be simply incorrect.

Re:What are they using?

[Gnulix]

What good is it to interview somebody with an agenda?

Since when is an opinion the same thing as having an agenda?

A TCO study of Linux vs. Windows where all the respondents were from Slashdot would be worthles.

Why would it be useless? The /. crowd might be more biased towards Linux and FOSS, but that doesn't invalidate a potential TCO study. TCO is measured in dollars and cents, not in feelings.

Re:What are they using?

[Lorkki]

NT is, and always has been, a multiuser OS.

Not that it shows. A lot of things still require Administrator level access for no good reason. File permissions are needlessly cumbersome to manage and there's little to no network transparency in anything. "NT" and "multiple users" in the same sentence usually means that autonomical boxes authenticate to a common authority and use SMB shares for storage.

For all intents and purposes it could just as well be a single-user system and no-one would notice the difference.

Re:What are they using?

[FreeBSD evangelist]

If the average FreeBSD box had the user demographic of the average Windows box, it wouldn't have anything close to the level of "security" it does now.

Doubtful. FreeBSD out of the box is very secure, and the admin has to take steps to make it less secure. That's something the average Windows user wouldn't know how to do. Windows out of the box can't survive on the internet for more than a few minutes without being compromised, because it installs full of holes and the admin has to take steps to secure it. That's something the average Windows user wouldn't know how to do.

Re:What are they using?

[drsmithy]

FreeBSD out of the box is very secure, and the admin has to take steps to make it less secure.

Most security "problems" have little to do with how the OS is configured out of the box and a lot to do with what the user does.

That's something the average Windows user wouldn't know how to do.

They don't need to know much to download and run some random malicious binary

Windows out of the box can't survive on the internet for more than a few minutes without being compromised, because it installs full of holes and the admin has to take steps to secure it.

This meme died with SP2. Please stop repeating it.

That's something the average Windows user wouldn't know how to do.

All it's ever required - and basically the major change SP2 makes - is turning the firewall on [by default].

Re:What are they using?

[drsmithy]

A lot of things still require Administrator level access for no good reason.

Blame the application developers, not the OS.

File permissions are needlessly cumbersome to manage [...]

Eh ? File permissions aren't hard to manage. Certainly, there's *potentially* more involved than there is on the typical unix, but that's just because they're so much more flexible.

[...] and there's little to no network transparency in anything.

What sort of things are you looking for "network transparency" in, and what's your definition of "network transparency" ?

"NT" and "multiple users" in the same sentence usually means that autonomical boxes authenticate to a common authority and use SMB shares for storage.

Just like the vast bulk of unix machines, you mean ?

The world has moved on - lots of green screens plugged into a single server is no longer the dominant model.

For all intents and purposes it could just as well be a single-user system and no-one would notice the difference.

If it was single user you'd end up with something like Windows 95. You'd have no way of restricting anything a program or user could do.

Re:What are they using?

[Lorkki]

What sort of things are you looking for "network transparency" in, and what's your definition of "network transparency" ?

The usual business: I log in on a remote VT, launch xmms which pops up on my local screen, press "play", and sound comes out of my speakers. Network lag aside, it appears the same as if I was running xmms locally. Hence, network transparency. This is something every Linux box can pull off.

Just mounting and running locally isn't always practical, either due to restrictions by software licensing, user privileges and/or differing hardware architectures. Network transparency may be a luxury, but it's a very handy one.

Just like the vast bulk of unix machines, you mean ? The world has moved on - lots of green screens plugged into a single server is no longer the dominant model.

This may not constitute the vast bulk of UNIX machines, but at my local university the boxes (and not just servers) still serve lots of remote terminal sessions. It's a good solution to some things that also allows people to access the network from the outside without involving any extra hassle (both user- and maintenance-wise) from IPSec or VPN.

I might claim that NT in its current state is significantly more difficult to bend to such versatility.

If it was single user you'd end up with something like Windows 95. You'd have no way of restricting anything a program or user could do.

Not really. That only a single user may utilise the computer at any one time doesn't imply that security must be single grained. There's no reason why Windows 95 couldn't have non-superuser accounts, for instance (except that it's built on the original Windows, which probably makes such schemes impractical to implement).

In the simple networks where computers just share data through SMB/NFS and AD/LDAP and all apps are local to each machine, there's probably no real difference besides cosmetics. The differences and shortcomings start to crop up when you want to be a full-blown UNIX replacement, which, consequently, is what NT has been marketed as. It's where design starts to pay off over patching resources.

No comment...

[kwoo]

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

Re:No comment...

[wasted]

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.

Re:No comment...

[Tsiangkun]

I don't see how a report that says corporate users find linux just as satisfing as windows can be a bad thing for linux. In the mid-late 90's, linux zealots were pushing it as a windows replacement to windows users . . . well, now they are equally satisfying to the users.

This could make it very tough for MS to market windows as being worth the cost because of the increased user satisfaction.

Re:No comment...

[Brent_Edwards]

Very true. Also most organizations are using A LOT of Windows especially on the desktop, so for them to admit that Linux is better (more secure, cheaper, whatever) would be admitting they are doing it wrong... Thus not a common trait of managers.

Re:No comment...

[DaFrogBoy]

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

Actually, null != null

Just as "I dont' know" != "I don't know"

DiDio = Shill

[NiceGeek]

Did this bimbo ever have any credibility?

Re:DiDio = Shill

[gnasher719]

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.

Re:DiDio = Shill

[NiceGeek]

I'm sorry, did I offfend the members of the Laura DiDio fanclub?

Re:DiDio = Shill

[YouHaveSnail]

Minus infinity + Minus infinity + Minus infinity = Minus Infinity.

Why use hyperbole when facts will do just as nicely? If you want to make your point and maintain some credibility, put it this way:

0 + 0 + 0 = 0

Re:DiDio = Shill

[JCCyC]

Crap, this is the SCO fangirl we're talking about. If she tells you 2+2=4, check with a calculator. Twice.

Re:DiDio = Shill

[AvantLegion]

>> Crap, this is the SCO fangirl we're talking about. If she tells you 2+2=4, check with a calculator. Twice.

My calculator says 3.9999999.... I think it's using one of those 'good enough' chips though...

Re:DiDio = Shill

[gnasher719]

Zero credibility = no correlation between fact and her claims. Negative credibility = negative correlation. Facts are strongly related to the opposite of her claims. Get it?

Opinion Based

[Anonymous Coward]

'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.

Re:Opinion Based

[I'm Don Giovanni]

Linux and Windows having perceived security ratings of 8.3 and 7.6 isn't interesting, but what is interesting is that Windows perceived security rating doubled in one year. It may be time for Linux advocates to find another argument besides "security". The "stability" argument is no more, the "security" argument is losing steam, so I guess "price" is the only argument left (although, if the perceived TCO is the same for Linux and Windows, even the "price" argument doesn't have much steam).

Re:Opinion Based

[GbrDead]

What about the "freedom" argument?

equal?

[Cruithne]

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?

Re:equal?

[node 3]

That's not something you see very often,

What do you think the odds are that Windows and Linux are actually both equal?

"TCO" is completely subjective--it's not a universal value. It's like trying to define the 'universal frame' in physics. There is no such thing.

Does your company require the features of Exchange? Is the cost of *not* having those features higher than the cost of the support and licensing for the Exchange server? Is your company a science/engineering centered one? In that case, Unix is more of a requirement than having a nice, simple, start menu or the ability to run word macros.

TCO is more myth than fact. As an organization, you have to look at your needs, your limitations and your strengths, and go from there. "TCO" is about as meaningful as "best in its class", for which the proper response is, "says who?"

So consider...

[rasafras]

"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.

wow...

[Suhas]

...two years ago, I would not believe that such a story can get posted on slashdot.

DiDio. Why am I not surprised?

[MsGeek]

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.

Re:DiDio. Why am I not surprised?

[wct]

In fact, her position has often been more anti-Linux than pro-Microsoft. This is the same Laura Didio that signed the SCO NDA back in 2003 and came back to report:

"The courts are going to ultimately have to prove this, but based on what I'm seeing ... I think there is a basis that SCO has a credible case," and "This is not a nuisance case."

Re:DiDio. Why am I not surprised?

[aldoman]

I disagree entirely.

The fact is that the OS is not a big price for a major company. When I can go on dell.com and order 10 2.4GHz Celeron machines with a copy of WinXP Pro for $349, it's not a big deal at all.

Let's say these are for secretarial use. 99% of secreteries know how to use Windows, Word and Outlook.

Let's say I also spend $200-$300 (a day basically) on a techinican to set up a group policy and install Firefox on all these machines. These machines now can't run .exe, .pif etc etc and Firefox means veryl ittle crap is going to come in from the web.

Looking at the Windows startup cost it's $349x10 + $300 = $3790.

Now let's see the Linux cost. I'm going to get a maximum of $50 off those Dell machines for chosing Home instead of Pro, I can't 'not have' Windows on it. So that makes it $299/machine. Let's say the cost of installing Linux on each of these is $0.

Now let's look at my army of typists. None of them know how to use Linux/GNOME, OpenOffice or Evolution. So I train them. I hire a training guy to come in for a day to give them a crash course on how to use Linux, and he charges me $200. However, I've got to pay my typists anyway, $100/ea for the day. So that's $100x10 + $200 = $1200.

Linux startup cost: $2990 + $1200 = $4190. Windows wins.

Now, this is probably a bad example, but training costs, which are not going to change for the short to medium term, are very expensive.

For many small businesses this is the situation they have, and it's even worse if they have specialist apps they need to run on Windows.

So saying 'Linux has TCO ownage on Windows' is a bit unfair. It's very much true (IMO) for servers and workstations. But for average 'business desktops' I don't think it is.

Re:DiDio. Why am I not surprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

Now let's see the Linux cost. I'm going to get a maximum of $50 off those Dell machines for chosing Home instead of Pro, I can't 'not have' Windows on it. So that makes it $299/machine. Let's say the cost of installing Linux on each of these is $0

It was $79 when I checked. But with the right login scripts, it seems you can actually make Home play nice on a Windows network. As for not getting $50 off for not choosing XP home, you can blame MS for that. In order to get the $50 price, OEMs pay for a license for every system they sell, whether or not they actually have Windows installed.

Now let's look at my army of typists. None of them know how to use Linux/GNOME, OpenOffice or Evolution. So I train them. I hire a training guy to come in for a day to give them a crash course on how to use Linux, and he charges me $200. However, I've got to pay my typists anyway, $100/ea for the day. So that's $100x10 + $200 = $1200

If not OpenOffice, would they be using MS Office? Normally $450 for the pro edition, but on Froogle you can get it for $350, or small business licenses for $250, or _academic_ licenses for $150. You can forget about a Windows server with Exchange for all the Outlook users. That'll be another $3000 at least. If you do go OSS all the way for apps, then there's really little or training cost to get them using Linux, except with Windows they're more likely to screw up the system. You'll probably be running Linux on the servers anyway, for Samba file sharing.

A lot of ERP software only runs on Windows. In our case, that's the only thing that seems to be keeping us with Windows. But at the price, operating system cost isn't really a factor. I just like the functionality of Linux.

Re:DiDio. Why am I not surprised?

[Jafar00]

Now let's look at my army of typists. None of them know how to use Linux/GNOME, OpenOffice or Evolution. So I train them. I hire a training guy to come in for a day to give them a crash course on how to use Linux, and he charges me $200. However, I've got to pay my typists anyway, $100/ea for the day. So that's $100x10 + $200 = $1200. You have to spend all that to train them?? I've installed more than a few copies of Linux on Office machines where the boss has been too tight to buy a windows licence
All I do is place icons in the default Gnome taskbar for Open Office, Firefox, or any other programs the secretary/worker need to use.
Not one of them has complained that is is hard to use and they adapt to OOffice very quickly without extra training apart from a 5 minute familiarity crash course in the Gnome desktop. All they need is just one click away! :)

Re:DiDio. Why am I not surprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some WP people have more in-depth knowledge of the little features of Word than anybody I've ever met, they're about the only people I know who might take issue with being put onto OpenOffice. For a start, they have to re-train themselves on every different short cut. I did WP for a while once, and after moving to OO.o I found myself pressing ctrl-alt-F11 every time I wanted to get the style selector (on word/win it is ctrl-alt-1 for H1, ctrl-alt-2 for H2 and so on, on OO it is ctrl-F11 for the menu). That bombs you out of X and onto a black screen last time I tried. Then you have to train them how to get back to X again - ctrl-alt-F7 IIRC?

WP people would be easily the hardest to migrate to Linux in any company.

Sales people, administrators, programmers, journalists... piece of cake. Typists? Quite tricky. Likewise accounts people who know Excel backwards.

Re:DiDio. Why am I not surprised?

[killjoe]

Once you have trained your employees you will keep saving money year after year. All your updates are free you know. With MS you pay and pay and pay.

Re:DiDio. Why am I not surprised?

[colinrichardday]

Courts have to prove stuff?

Re:DiDio. Why am I not surprised?

[clare-ents]

Haven't you forgotten to buy Word and Outlook ? 10xWord + 10xOutlook might swing your calculation the other way.

Now lets add on the fact you might need a server to store the files with 10 CALS. Then you might need a copy of Exchange so that email can be managed. Suddenly your costs are rocketing in both technician time & software costs.

Re:DiDio. Why am I not surprised?

[houghi]

Now let's see the Linux cost. I'm going to get a maximum of $50 off those Dell machines for chosing Home instead of Pro, I can't 'not have' Windows on it. So that makes it $299/machine. Let's say the cost of installing Linux on each of these is $0.

And HERE is the problem. You MUST buy Windows. Naturaly you do not count the moments the machine is down for various reasons about three times a year for about 1 hour with Windows. That is an added cost of 30x12+3x20= $420

So the first year:
Windows $3790 + $420 = $4210
Linux $4190 = $4190

So even though you pay for the XP, Windows is more expensive the first year. Now take away the Windows tax in the beginning and the differences become even more real. Or even pay 50USD for Linux , instead of XP.

Next with 10 people, you will also most likely have a least some kind of file server and print server. Oh and I hope you also buy the anti-virus scanners 10 times for Windows.

How changes from NT to Linux can be done is explained more in detaile on this PDF file of 414 pages. This is written for more then 10 people.

Re:DiDio. Why am I not surprised?

[aldoman]

Let's assume this company has some old copies of Word 97 or 2000 hanging around that can be reused.

But yes, your point is quite valid otherwise and I should of included it in the comparision.

Re:DiDio. Why am I not surprised?

[marcosdumay]

You will see the difference when your Linux computers don't start to deteriorate and consume all your techinicians time.

Windows XP and 2000 arn't bad, just expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Windows XP and 2000 arn't bad, just expensive

[Anita Coney]

I don't even have a problem with the price. What's keeping me from ever using XP is Product Activation. I hate the fact that I'd always be treated like a thief. That'd I have to essentially ask permission to change my hardware (which is something I do quite often, I go through at least three motherboards a year, at the least.)

That's the exact same reason I never bought Half Life 2. I just hate the idea that someone has control over my computer other than me.

That's why I'll eventually switch to Linux. I've been trying Suse 9.2 with great results. And since I have kids, I hardly ever play games anymore, so that's no longer a hinderance.

(I'd love to switch to OSX but I'm too much of a hardware junkie to switch to Apple. I love building them myself, and Apple won't let you do that.)

Re:Windows XP and 2000 arn't bad, just expensive

[NanoGator]

"I'd say they are equal if you discount price, which this survey did."

Seconded. After the switch to NT, Windows was actually quite usable for both servers and workstations at my previous job. Our IIS webserver had an uptime of over 180 days. (Pity we had to move it, I'm curious how long it would have lasted.)

When the engineers switched to Linux, though, there were all kinds of stupid problems getting it working. Some of them were networking, some of them had to do with flawed implementations of stuff we needed to work. (i.e. on dual-proc machines, the clock would sometimes jitter back and forth a second or two.)

I'd like to mention a couple of things, though, since dues with mod-points are often vindictive when legitimate complaints about Linux surface:

1.) This was a couple of years ago. Those problems may or may not still exist. I think it'd even be fair to say that most of the problems were likely unusual. The workstations were both development stations AND custom software was being written on them.

2.) Some of the networking problems we had may not necessarily have been the fault of Linux on the workstations. It was, however, very difficult to tell. I remember watching the engineers googling for various networking tools just to narrow down the list of suspects.

Re:Windows XP and 2000 arn't bad, just expensive

[penix1]

Your problem wasn't with Linux per se but with the folk installing it being unfamiliar with it. Our shop is solidly Windows mainly because of the ludite MSCE's in there refusing to even consider invalidating their credentials...lol.

B.

Re:Windows XP and 2000 arn't bad, just expensive

[NanoGator]

"Your problem wasn't with Linux per se but with the folk installing it being unfamiliar with it."

Actually no, it wasn't. We had a sysadmin with extensive Linux experience plus the project manager who, also, could make Linux sing.

Incidently, before engineering made the switch to Linux, we were a Windows only shop. We didn't need a dedicated sysadmin to run it. I know because I was the sysadmin. It was not, by far, a full-time job. We had occasional problems (occasional meaning: at most, once per month on average) with worms. I spent most of my time working on other projects unrelated to maintaining machines. I'm not certified or anything, I just know my way around Windows. We had about 15 people. If we had considerably more, I doubt it would have run as smoothly. However, because we did switch to Linux, we had to hire a dedicated Linux sysadmin. The dude is quite talented, but theres a few 10's of K a year just for running Linux. TCO in that case was significantly higher with Linux.

Re:Windows XP and 2000 arn't bad, just expensive

[Lehk228]

funny, VALVe has no control over my computer, thank you EMPORiO ;-) but i still like UT better and i paid for that.

Re:Windows XP and 2000 arn't bad, just expensive

[TerranFury]

There's a simple way to avoid product activation: Use the "Enterprise Edition." Of course, the only way Joe Average can get it is by pirating it.

Am I the only one who finds it amusing that you can only avoid antipiracy features by being a pirate?

Re:Windows XP and 2000 arn't bad, just expensive

[NanoGator]

"Pfft, 180 days."

Like I said, the machine was moved before I could find out how long it would have lasted.

Frankly, even if I had to reboot it a month, whoop-de-fuck. The only time I had to go to Google to find out what to do with the machine was when it was discovered that by default, Exchange is a fricken spam relay. Once that was locked down, EVERYTHING else I wanted to do to either the ISS or the Exchange machine was revealed through the UI. Setting up PHP on it was a breeze. Funny thing was, I had NO experience setting these machines up as servers. Despite that, I had no issues with that one exception I mentioned.

Pfft, I probably had lower up-times but I also had virtually no down-time figuring out how to configure things like error 404 pages.

Re:Windows XP and 2000 arn't bad, just expensive

[rikkards]

I think that is part of the problem. Linux is not that hard to figure out. The documentation has improved tremendously in the last 5 years.

Most Linux people like to think that Windows only shops don't want to go to Linux for fear of the unknown as well as inexperience. I don't think it is that at all. I think it is laziness. If it is working fine, you have proper usage policies, all the workstations and servers are patched properly, antivirus updated regularly. Why fix what isn't broken?

Back in the 95 and early NT days, there was a definite window but Linux wasn't ready. Now with the stability of 2000, 2003 and XP and Microsoft appearing to actually be moving towards a more stable platform as has been displayed with the default settings in Windows 2003 and Exchange 2003, the road in for Linux has become a little more difficult.

Personally I think Linux has definitely got to the point where it is a viable workstation OS as well as a more than suitable server but Microsoft has adapted.

Will Microsoft continue to have dominance? Probably not, even Billy has said that but when that will be? Not likely anytime soon.

Re:Windows XP and 2000 arn't bad, just expensive

[DeadBeef]

I accept that windows has been fairly decent as a desktop box since 2000.

I have been running Linux on my desktop machine for almost 10 years now however and it has been decent for alot longer ( not as pretty for as long though ).

Almost certainly weirdo problems you were encountering were peculiar to your hardware / bios versions on the release of Linux you were running. Linux as a whole ( some GUI elements excluded ) is disturbingly stable and has been for a very long time.

I submit exibit A:

2:05pm up 16 days, 12:12, 4 users, load average: 0.18, 0.12, 0.11

So what you say? This is the third time its been around the uptime counter thats approx 1010 days ( 2.7 years ) of uptime. The boot before this one, it was up for over two years before the rather elderly SCSI disk in the box failed. Just about every machine I can find around here excluding those that have been replaced with new ones recently have more than 180 days of uptime.

With any operating system you are going to have oddities where a specific driver or bit of hardware is flakey, it doesn't need to be an excuse to conclude that the platform is immature or not ready in general.

Re:Windows XP and 2000 arn't bad, just expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

You are making his point. You bought it, why do you need permission because of some limit imposed on your purchase? In other words you do not really own it.

Do you have to phone gm and get you car reactivated if you change some components?

Re:Windows XP and 2000 arn't bad, just expensive

[digitallife]

My experience has been that windows xp works fine when used in a constant and safe fashion. I use it daily to work on, but I do the same things every day, and I spent a lot of time at first install making sure everything was up to snuff... all unnecessary services turned off etc. I watch everything that happens to my system and maintain it daily (cleaning up, not installing crap, you know safe stuff!).

On the other hand, I have used systems in harsh environments (program testing etc) and found it does not always handle unstable progrma svery well, often crashing itself. Likewise on computers that aren't actively and knowledgably maintained, it degrades to a useless lump.

Re:Windows XP and 2000 arn't bad, just expensive

[Glowing Fish]

'd say they are equal if you discount price, which this survey did.

Price isn't the only aspect of the idea of licensing software. I think many people don't realize how easy it is to get hardware, and how fluid the hardware situation can be.

Say you have some people doing a data entry job. Say that for whatever reason, you have a sudden excess of data that needs to be entered. With a Linux set up, you could take an old computer, put together a terminal, and have someone enter data for a day, and then you can throw that computer back in a closet. With Windows, you would need to buy a seperate license for that computer, even if you were using it for a day. Similiar situations exist all over, from small jobs like this, to someone who might have a temporary spike in web traffic for a week, and needs another server to cover it. Dealing with the technicalities of getting a license for these things would be somewhere between a nuisance, and a threat (if you do it wrong).

Many people, especially in management, wouldn't realize this is a problem, because they grew up in an era when your computer hardware was too heavy and rare to move. Now, when you could get a P-266 off of a pile, or at a garage sale, and turn it into a backup webserver in one hour, the entire idea of licensing specific computers makes less sense.

Re:Windows XP and 2000 arn't bad, just expensive

[Anita Coney]

Thanks for proving my point moron. YOU HAD TO ASK TO CHANGE YOUR HARDWARE! I'm never going to BUY a product where I have to ASK PERMISSION TO USE IT!

Would you BUY a car where you have to call up the dealership and ask, "I need the car this weekend, can I borrow it?!"

Would you BUY a house where you have to call the realtor and ask, "I'm thinking about having a second kid, can I convert the basement into a bedroom"?

Would you buy a GPU where you have to ask the manufacturer, "I'm thinking about buying Doom3 and I was wondering if you'd give me permission to run it?"

I could go on and on. Product Activation is utterly and completely anti-consumer. I've bought a copy of EVERY Microsoft OS other than WinME. But as long as Microsoft treats me like a thief, I'm never buying one of their products again.

Re:Windows XP and 2000 arn't bad, just expensive

[Anita Coney]

Yeah, I find that hilarious. It also proves my point that Product Activation is a lie. It has NOTHING to do with stoping piracy. This is all about stoping users from sharing with their friends and family.

I'm not saying it's wrong for Microsoft to stop sharing. It's well within their rights. But why lie about it and say it's about piracy when it clearly does NOT stop piracy?!

Re:Windows XP and 2000 arn't bad, just expensive

[drsmithy]

It has NOTHING to do with stoping piracy. This is all about stoping users from sharing with their friends and family.

Uh, *HELLO*, that _is_ "piracy".

Re:Windows XP and 2000 arn't bad, just expensive

[drsmithy]

Once that was locked down, EVERYTHING else I wanted to do to either the ISS or the Exchange machine was revealed through the UI.

And this is why those TCO costs comes out so well for Windows - because doing common tasks is typically *simple*, *obvious* and *quick*.

This does not hold true for the typical unix and linux machine. Setting up or reconfiguring software is typically a difficult, complex, time-consuming task requiring substantially more knowledge and experience on behalf of the person doing it.

Re:Windows XP and 2000 arn't bad, just expensive

[TerranFury]

Maybe. But it's not some-woman-on-Canal-Street-in-New-York-City-shouti ng-"DVD! DVD! Two dollar!" piracy.

From TFA...

[Suhas]

.... "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.

If they are not tracking operating costs, then that means they are only tracking the initial cost of acquisition, which for Linux, is ..umm...zero. So how exactly is the windows TCO equal to that of Linux? What a fucking troll of an article.

Re:From TFA...

[expatsoftware]

TCO in this case I would assume to include labor.

Re:From TFA...

[Suhas]

TCO in this case I would assume to include labor.

and labor is always an operating cost, never a fixed cost. So your point is..?

Irrelevant

[pegasustonans]

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?

Graceful Retreat?

[Dark Coder]

Maybe Yankee Group does see a realized saving and need to do an about-face just to save their face.

No surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

What was their sample?

[Admiral Trigger Happ]

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

Re:What was their sample?

[Admiral Trigger Happ]

Correction - small number of people who have used linux

That's the point

[jerometremblay]

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).

Re:That's the point

[menace3society]

If you read the article, it is not being portrayed as perception.

"Study shows Microsoft and Linux Neck-and-Neck"
Not "Perceived as Roughly Equivalent"

"Most U.S. businesses say there is very little difference between the cost of maintaining a Windows versus a Linux-based corporate computing environment."
Many of whom, the article goes on to say, don't really bother to keep track of the costs in the first place.

"In the independent study, 88 percent of respondents said that the quality, performance and reliability of Windows was equal to or better than Linux."
The article does not say that the quality, performance, and reliability seems to be equal or better, but that it is.

It's also worth noting that it never says a) whether the company has actually used both OSs recently, and who precisely is doing the response. If I were the Director of the IT department or some such at a corporation, the last thing I'd do is admit to anyone, even if they said they were taking a survey (they might be a spy from President's office) that the system we had in place was anything less than the best possible. Even if I knew it for a fact to be otherwise.

Re:That's the point

[endofoctober]

But in this case, it's /not/ a question of what one needs to do - it's asking the proper question to the person who is /qualified/ to answer it. That would be the difference between a good survey ('...we asked network security experts about network security issues and got the following results...') versus creating a good marketing tool ('...we asked marketing experts about network security issues, and got the following results...').

In the first instance, you've provided real information that decisionmakers can use when choosing an OS for their business. In the second instance you've provided tainted fluff that uninformed bean counters will /perceive/ as real information. Sounds like FUD to me.

Not to say that the Linux community can't learn from it, but it's important to recognize that groups like this aren't assessing quality. I don't know about you, but when I have to make decisions about software, I require more than just knowing how someone 'feels' about it. Teasing the facts from these so-called 'objective' studies lately is /not/ worth my time.

Re:That's the point

[nycbicyclist]

I can't tell from the summary whether the "similar study" done last year was also by the Yankee Group, but if so the fact that Microsoft's security rating doubled in one year would suggest that the survey isn't worth much of anything. What's changed in the last year that would explain such a leap?

Re:That's the point

[jerometremblay]

From TA: Yankee Group's survey showed a sharp rise in companies' assessment of Microsoft's security level

They don't clain that they are measuring the security of the product. They basically measure the perception of security by those companies.

If this number represents actual security improvements or simply the impact of Microsoft's propaganda is open for discussion. Notice that Linux's rating is still higher, even if it didn't raise as much.

The only thing that changes is the write up

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

DiDio

[bogaboga]

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...

Re:DiDio

[pmike_bauer]

If DiDio had praised Linux instead, I'm sure there would be no shortage of comparisons to Mother Teresa here on /.

Re:DiDio

[FidelCatsro]

If you want to become an analyist ,
you must learn to touch your toes ;)
You must be willing to take large bribes from companys.
You must be willing to lie out your behind for your new gods
You must learn that 5 > 12
and last but not least , you must quote netcraft

Re:DiDio

[Jagasian]

Give me a break! She is the same "expert" that was claiming, last year, that much of the Linux source code was stolen from SCO. She speaks lies all the damn time. While I agree that the cost of Linux versus Windows is an apple's and oranges comparison in many regards, there are many other cases where this "expert" has flat out lied!

Of course she did

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Not FUD!

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

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.

Re:Not FUD!

[nmos]

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.

Maybe and maybe not. From the article we really don't know who was surveyed. Given Didio's history I wouldn't put it past her to have selected the people/companies being questioned to give whatever results she's being paid to find this week.

Re:Not FUD!

[Trailer Trash]

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.

Right, so we have to wonder why it's so different than reality. Digging deeper, we find that the survey was conducted by a Windows consulting company, and all respondants are subscribers to their Win2K newsletter.

Ahhhhhh. So we'll ask a bunch of Windows users the questions.

It's a very biased survey, and it's FUD.

rather...

[zr-rifle]

"All TCO's are equal, but some are more equal than others..."

Re:I forgot who said it but...

[triffidsting]

I believe it is attributed to Samuel Clemens, aka Mark Twain

It's a step in the right direction from Yankee

[winkydink]

First more expensive and less secure.

Now about the same

Next...

I don't buy this.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Laura Didio

[USCG]

She is just mind-bogglingly insightful.

Enough of this TCO crap

[js3]

The only we learned from TCO studies is they don't know what the TCO is.

I wonder if they surveyed a company

[Fahrvergnuugen]

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.

Re:I wonder if they surveyed a company

[korielgraculus]

Assuming that the server is doing something crucial to the company, you do realise that you have successfully managed to give a 27,000 person company a single point of failure (you) then? Congratulations!

Re:I wonder if they surveyed a company

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

I've lost count of the MCSEs I know that LOOK for a reason to deploy Linux and run it at home.

Re:I wonder if they surveyed a company

[Vegeta99]

Sweet for job security, eh?

Re:I wonder if they surveyed a company

[Fahrvergnuugen]

yup.

Everything depends on YOUR situation

[davidwr]

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.

Laura DiDio is well known at Groklaw

[Nice2Cats]

Anybody interested in this study should wander over to Groklaw and read up on what they have collected on Laura DiDio -- she's not an unknown in the Linux and especially SCO world. Also, it is interesting that Reuters sold Yankee Group, which I don't take as a sign that some of the world's best financial journalists are too impressed with their work.

But then, maybe they're all wrong and Mrs. DiDio is right. After all, she's an analyst, right?

Why fight ? Why get up ?

[SlashingComments]

Why fight and get excited about Linux and open source? Looks like most of the common folks wants to get screwd by viruses, likes unpredictable crah, stupid pseudo-productivity tools and want to watch commercials and buy bad art or uncomfortable shoes or stupid dresses anyway.

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.

Its all in how you chose your words

[dilvish_the_damned]

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.

wow, I must ask them...

[Karaman]

...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 :)

The Shill Speaketh!

[bckrispi]

This actually sounds like a retraction. Laura DaDildo has been spouting MS FUD consistently for years now. Why the sudden change in direction?

Re:The Shill Speaketh!

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

Not too many years actually. Here is a study from 2002 where she certainly isn't shilling. Compare the current feelings to those in the below 2002 article. MS has been doing a much better job (gotta give it to them), and some of the bad feelings may be subsiding. Don't shoot the messanger, lets just respond to this with better products instead of whining "they are out to get us".

link to report

Here is the main article:
Microsoft Corp.'s Windows desktop operating systems are and will remain the dominant client desktop standard for the foreseeable future, but don't count Linux and Apple's Mac OS/X out. That is the conclusion of a newly released Yankee Group Report, "The Desktop OS: Are There Real Alternatives to Microsoft?," which finds that interest in alternatives to Microsoft's client operating system is at the highest level in over a decade.

Apple's Macintosh has found a comfortable and committed niche among enterprise customers with sophisticated graphics and production departments. Linux, meanwhile, has gained a groundswell of support in the last three to four years due to its appeal as the "un-Windows" solution, according to Yankee Group senior analyst and Report author Laura DiDio.

"Corporate user resentment and dissatisfaction with Microsoft and some of its practices are at an all-time high," DiDio said. A myriad of issues ranging from Microsoft's perceived monopolistic practices, hyperbolic marketing, ongoing security woes, and habitually slipping ship dates of major new product releases as well as confusion surrounding the overall .NET strategy have undermined corporate customer confidence. A recent joint survey of 1,500 corporations by Sunbelt Software, Inc. and the Yankee Group found that nearly 40% of the respondents were so outraged by Microsoft's new licensing scheme that they are actively seeking alternative products.

"This cumulative dissatisfaction will not necessarily translate into corporate defections to rival operating systems. But it does open the door a crack and raises the possibility that Linux and Macintosh OS X can gain new footholds in an overwhelmingly Windows world," DiDio said.

Linux Desktop

[eniu!uine]

"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.

This seems...

[Master_T]

...poorly done. look at the piece of information the summary is based on.

"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.

We're still reporting DiDio?

[lakeland]

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.

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 ./ 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?

Re:We're still reporting DiDio?

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

Do I detect a scorned lover?

I've never heard of this lady. Can you prove what you say?

Re:We're still reporting DiDio?

[lakeland]

If you haven't heard of her, you're doing well.

Perhaps the best summary:

http://twiki.iwethey.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/Laura DiDio

Or for a more broad-brush approach, here's the output of a search for her name on groklaw

http://www.groklaw.net/search.php?query=Laura+Didi o&keyType=phrase&datestart=&dateend=&topic=0&type= all&author=0&mode=search

And some articles specifically discussing her:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200404221 15008560&query=Laura+Didio
or http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200401030 40251888&query=Laura+Didio

Re:We're still reporting DiDio?

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

So if I can show you two sites saying that anyone is bad and/or wrong, you would believe me?

Interesting.

I can show you a bunch of sites that say Elvis is alive. I can show you more that say God Exists... Does that mean that either site is correct?

I've never been to that "groklaw" thing you mention, but I've heard of it. Can you prove they don't have an agenda?

Re:We're still reporting DiDio?

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you, three years old? Why don't you try "reading" some of the links the parent posted. A number of the respondents at groklaw call Didio on the carpet for the incredibly abysmal analysis she did regarding the SCO case (among other things). Plenty of quotes and cites if you just look around. Just because you're petulant doesn't mean the world is going to spoon feed you.

Re:We're still reporting DiDio?

[IANAAC]

I've never heard of this lady.

Maybe I just have an enlightened boss, but...

Do you work in this industry? Do you read any of the trade publications? Good God, man. Google for "Laura Didio" and "PC (your favorite magazine)" or "Wall St. Journal" or any other trade publication.

She's been around for a while.

Re:We're still reporting DiDio?

[killjoe]

SO you wanted him to post a link to every single article on the web about her?

Ever hear about google? You must have since you have a gmail account. I would suggest you use their search facility, I hear it's excellent.

Re:We're still reporting DiDio?

[lakeland]

Oh, groklaw has an agenda. However, they've very good about publishing enough details for you to a) make up your own mind and b) check the facts for yourself. You should visit it sometime.

This says it all:

[Sweetshark]

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/facts /videos/didio_video.wvx

com'on guys, microsoft.com needs some traffic ...

Re:This says it all:

[digitallife]

Hmm that was kinda scarey. I'm using Firefox, and when I clicked on that link up popped windows media player, without asking what i wanted to do. I must admit, that downright pissed me off. But more to the topic: Laura Didio looks like a walking talking advertisement for MS. I can understand not taking her word on these kind of issues!

Re:This says it all:

[aralin]

This was actually the first time, (after years of disrespect for this woman and her work) that I have actually seen her. Now you can call me shallow, but the fact she is like 400 pounds brings a certain personal satisfaction to my heart. I know how difficult your life gets with 50 extra pounds, now 250 extra, thats something. I might almost feel sorry for her. .. nah ... who am I kidding? :)

Re:This says it all:

[ezequiel]

Horrible and obvious, fallaciously filled video.

It disgusted me to the guts. How vague and "TV-ad"-like can you make these things?

My favourite line was something like "the Open Source vendors don't give their customers the same level of protection than M$. What are they saying? That Linux is not good enough?". She's completely (and I think purposedly) missing the point.

I'd say M$ is pretty scared. They will be using the media and "research" groups/companies to support their case.

Re:I forgot who said it but...

[bird603568]

yes that is who it is and btw how was that flamebate?

Humor the Thought

[Anonymous Coward]

Suppose they are equal for now. Then what would happen if, say, one of them destroys the other in the next 30 years?

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 /. anymore...)

Re:I love this Double Standard

[swimin]

When is the last time youve seen a study that was pro-windows, and non microsoft backed? Thats why everyone is so suspicious of them.

Deployment, etc

[paugq]

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?

Re:Good as each other

[Lehk228]

alot of windows problems are C++ buffer over runs which as it fault of the languge, not the programming

Wrong, buffer overflows are the fault of the programming, any coder using C++ to write an operating system should damned well know that C++ will allow you to fuck up buffers, and thus it is his or her responsability to ensure any potentially vulnerable code is written properly and securely.

Re:Good as each other

[TerranFury]

Using C++ is a bit like bowling without bumpers: You can bowl a gutterball, but when you do, is it the lane's fault?/0

Pure Genius

[ip_freely_2000]

"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

Question for Accountants

[SunFan]

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.

Laura Didio is a con artist, liar and..

[I_redwolf]

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.

Re:Laura Didio is a con artist, liar and..

[bhima]

I don't know where I read it, but in response to some foolishness reported on Groklaw I read her Bio. I hardily recommend everyone to go find it and read it, it's good for a laugh.

So all OSes are built exaclty the same?

[Infonaut]

The only reason Linux is any better is that UNIX machines have been Internet connected by default for about 15 years while with windows its only about 8.

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.

A guess?

[Anonymous Coward]

...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.

Yankees....

[wpiman]

Yankees suck.....

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.

Re:Good as each other

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

Dude, I think your comment could be insightful but between Windows Server 2004 (?) and the long run-on sentence chock full of spelling errors, I have to admit I have no idea what you're getting at.

here's the survey

[kpharmer]

http://www.sunbelt-software.com/surveys/040213_Lin ux.htm

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=200403240 85956154

Re:here's the survey

[StormyWeather]

I used to subscribe to that newsletter because it has some interesting stuff in it regarding the windows world sometimes, and I'd say that it is very pro windows, but not as anti-linux as you might think.

Re:here's the survey

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

And your post was made exactly at 9:11 PM. (PDT)

Was that intentional?

Re:here's the survey

[killjoe]

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.

Re:here's the survey

[marcosdumay]

And what happened with all that information the survey gathered? They shortened the results into a single line at the article! Also, where did that 88% of users said that windows is better or equal than linux, since there is no shuch question on the survey?

Re:here's the survey

[operagost]

Next time I get mod points, I guarantee that I will not mod up a post with a parting troll like that-- no matter how informative. Don't even get me started on your grammar and spelling.

Re:here's the survey

[kpharmer]

You're right - I shouldn't have taken liberties with Saddam's record in this discussion of linux & microsoft. ;-)

Re:MOD PARENT UP!! :)

[hdparm]

Security will always be the winning point of Linux - that's the matter of system design. I'll argue stability as well, looking at how my production machines perform. Performance wise, there is no comparison on identical hardware, Windows is beaten hands down, even in the area of it's own native services (yes, samba kicks ass out of Win SMB).

Have I mentioned the cost?

Quit trolling, it's pretty lame when you try to do it.

wonder who they are polling

[bxbaser]

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.

Re:Good as each other

[bersl2]

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?

Re:Good as each other

[Lehk228]

Excellent analogy

This is BS

[tuxlove]

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.

Re:MOD PARENT UP!! :)

[ergo98]

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.

"will be"

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows will be cleaned up

This pretty much invalidates what you said about Linux needing a lesson from history somehow having to do something about Windows.

Not on drugs

[paugq]

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! %-)

Yankee Group Microsoft puppet?

[FreeBSD evangelist]

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?

Re:Good as each other

[I_redwolf]

Seriously, this is so void of legible response that it makes it painful to read.

Your conceptions are clearly misguided on the basis that you seem to not know what you are talking about.

This is obviously not a jab at you personally or professionally. I'm sure you are extremely qualified and good at whatever it is that you do.

However, you are clearly lost. Bill Gates personal life and his business acumen and behavior are two completely different things. Praising the man for his general charity doesn't expound to his or the companies he works for behavior in the computing industry. Please learn to seperate the two. That said you would do yourself good to try other operating systems.

Hosting via Windows is russian roulette. I say this because i've done the real life test myself. I'm no windows professional. Infact, in Dec of 1994 I stopped using windows when an OS/2 warp disk of mine died and an IBM engineer at the time gave me a copy of linux. There are so many black magic items in Windows that it would take an increasing amount of time for me to learn them all. Windows isn't easy to learn, it's easy to click alot of buttons and try to get it working but that doesn't enable me to understand what is going on or what is happening with my computer.

This has lead me to believe that windows administrators simply don't care about their systems enough to know how they work. They just want a patch or a quick fix or to press a couple of buttons and reboot. I've even extended myself to try and find a good windows administrator to learn from. I hate windows, but I'm clearly trying to understand where the low cost TCO and ease of use come from. If anyone is willing to help with this please feel free to contact me.

The documentation via Microsoft is often incorrect or not detailed. In most cases the behavior exhibited isn't what the documentation is really for and/or there are completely missing chunks of steps via documentation. An example of this would be smartcards. In Unix land, these problems are mitigated by having the source. Also, man pages usually are exacting, so my questions are answered. This isn't available via windows.

I switched over a heavily trafficed site to Windows based on contract purposes and it crashed, repeatedly. Why? I'm still amiss as to why. There was simply no way to fix this. Microsoft said they would look into this and I'm not sure if they ever did. My caring well ran dry way before that. I took the same site and put it on a Solaris box, that was in 2001. I haven't touched it since. It's still running from the time I powered it on, this is about 3 years and 9 months later.

So my experience with Microsoft has been the complete opposite. I'm not sure they've made a positive difference in the computing industry. Even with the low cost of hardware which can be traced back to hardware manufacturers and competition. Microsoft hasn't provided software that changes people lives or allows for general productivity in the work place. Computers are to be aids, tools to real life work. Has Microsoft changed my life or allowed me to be productive? To date, no, they've allowed me to be less productive. To get less work done. I spend more time fiddling with windows machines than trying to work on new interesting things. It annoys me.
In comparison, if I put a unix box up to do something. I walk away, and usually I don't come back. I go on to other things.

Unix/Linux/Open Source allows me to learn to enable productivity. It allows me to get my job done and go home and enjoy other things.

Re:Good as each other

[jdwest]

Your phone's ringing, Dude.

Re:Good as each other

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

Thank you, Donny.

riiight

[suezz]

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.

Re:riiight

[suezz]

glad I could make you laugh

dependecy hell is a hell of lot different that dll hell - plus with apt-get the depandecy problem is solved and yes I am biased - windows sucks
there is also yum and urpmi for rpm distributions.

I know of no answer for dll hell but there may be one since I don't use windows anymore except when it is rammed down my throat.

dependecies are more of nuisance than anything else - they don't bring a server down. put an old dll on a windows box that expecting a newer version dll - hello blue screen.

Re:riiight

[suezz]

gees - don't have to get personal

that is just my point - if you install some crap software that your client wants and it puts an old dll out there you are screwed and in dll hell.

has nothing to do with the person installing just the crap os/software and the design.

that's all - and also you are pretty brave for an anonymous coward.

Things are a little different in the Enterprise..

[cbreaker]

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.

Lets bring some reality into this.

[Some Random Username]

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.

DiDio is quoted on Groklaw a lot....

[Malor]

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.

Re:DiDio is quoted on Groklaw a lot....

[rritterson]

When TCO is equal why would you pick the software that costs more upfront?

That logic doesn't make sense.

What's a better deal: $0 down and ten payments of $100, or $500 down and ten payments of $50?

Re:DiDio is quoted on Groklaw a lot....

[Malor]

$0 down and 10 payments of $100 is usually better. That is because you can use the asset you bought to help generate the money to pay for itself. And you can use the $500 you DIDN'T spend today to buy something else to help you make money even faster.

It is also better even for a consumption item, because money later is always worth less than money today. You can make interest on the money you didn't pay upfront, so $0 down and 10 payments of $100 will leave a few more bucks in your pocket than will $500 down and 10 payments of $50. Additionally, because of inflation, the money in later periods will be worth a little less than it is now.

It gets much more complex if you are taking out a loan, but on a purely cash basis, no money today is almost always better.

Re:DiDio is quoted on Groklaw a lot....

[khallow]

The TCO measurements probably include inflation so it's probably a bad idea to dwell on inflation considerations. Even if the two are equal when adjusted for inflation, you commit less up front. So let's say a year from now you change your mind about the equipment. With MS, you blew that money and aren't going to get it back. With Linux, the future costs never happen.

Brought to you by...

[BananaJr6000]

The Yankme Group and Laura Didiot.

Oh, yeah; also the letter F and the number 3.

--
Enlightenment in the form of virtualization

Re:Brought to you by...

[abandonment]

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

Thos Anal yst reports...

[cmacb]

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).

moral: invest in marketing not security

[tota]

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.

Problem for journalists

[petrus4]

>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.

Laura Dildo is a Microsoft lapdog

[Anonymous Coward]

Based on Laura Dildo's reputation, I'd take any article written by her as garbage until proven otherwise.

Windows, & Linux TCO Equal

[consumer_whore]

Only half the survey was funded by Microsoft?

Re:I forgot who said it but...

[mamladm]

it's actually attributed to Benjamin Disraeli, British prime minister in the 1860s and 1870s ...

http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Benjamin_Disr aeli

http://www.britannia.com/bios/disraeli.html

MOD PARENT DOWN - M$ LOVER

[Anonymous Coward]

GET OFF THIS CHATROOM!

Yaaawwwnnnnn...

[Master of Transhuman]

1. Look at the source.

2. Drop study in trash can.

3. Curse Microsoft.

4. Install Linux.

5. ??????

6. Profit!!!

Another problem with the survey

[commodoresloat]

This is done by a yankee group. this is hardly representative. What do southerners say?

Re:Good as each other

[TechnologyX]

deaaaamn, thats what you called getting owned

Interestingly enough...

[Ayanami Rei]

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.

Re:MOD PARENT UP!! :)

[Lotana]

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.

100% correct

[aepervius]

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.

It must be

[heybo]

If it is brown, warm and steamy, and laying in the pasture. It must be Bull Shit.

In other news

[fr0dicus]

Slashdot Group Survey Says Dead Horse Thoroughly Beaten

Equal?

[Tablizer]

I don't know about their tech credentials, but calling them equal is masterful diplomacy.

Inversed points of view

[tchernobog]

'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.

Re:Good as each other

[bersl2]

As I interpret that:

His premise is that Windows is more user-friendly for him. His reasoning is that configuration of a Linux system must involve an endless number of shell-issued commands. I argue that these textual configuration commands, for the most part on a well-integrated distro, are not required, since they can be done by front-ends. Sure, if you need to tweak something, you have to go digging in the configuration area---that happens in both environments.

It is traditional for Linux and other UNIX-like OSes to be configured manually. It can still be done so. However, as something like OS X or a well-integrated distro can show, you don't need to anymore.

As for the ad hominem:

I can handle insanely bad spelling, grammar, and style. I can handle Microsoft apologists. I can handle immaturity. But once I read the letters "MCSE", that was the spark in the powder room.

I probably knew at the time that he would be modded down, but I just couldn't resist applying a formal, systematic beat-down. I've already gotten myself in trouble at another forum for doing such a thing. :D

Bzzzt. Wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

How long is a piece of string?

[cardpuncher]

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...

Things you forgot

[J_Omega]

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.

Finding a common playing field?

[pjbass]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Laura DiDio is a piad schill, do your homework.

Re:Good as each other

[njan]

Wow. Actual critical thinking, on slashdot.

Always nice to see. Well done, that man :)

Why are we paying attention to the DiDiot?

[Vengeance]

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.

Mod parent down: -1 WRONG

[swillden]

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.

Re:Wha'cho you talkin about?

[serialXP]

At most OSX is all that a desktop linux wants to be...

Re:subtraction, anyone?

[indifferent children]

RTFQ. He didn't ask "how many thought it was worse?" If he had asked that, then your answer would have been correct. He wants a breakdown of the "two factors that were treated as one".

Feh.

[buss_error]

A new survey by Yankee Group analyst Laura DiDio

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.

Re:MOD PARENT UP!! :)

[ergo98]

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).

Windows? What's that?

[ylikone]

I can't believe people are still talking about Windows like it was somehow relevant.

Re:Good as each other

[Politburo]

You correctly blasted most of the OP's points, but I think you're off on one..

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.

The OP did not say "I use Windows because it's what I'm familiar with." I don't see how not "having to remember commands" is an appeal to tradition. The OP essentially makes the argument that Windows is easier to use. If that's an appeal to tradition, call me old-fashioned... Now, if there is a counter-argument that says "You don't need to remember commands in Linux", by all means, make it. Based on my experience, there isn't such an argument.

Do any TCO studies make sense?

[walterbyrd]

Frankly, I don't see how TCO studies make any sense. To me, it seems that it's completely situational.

Easy

[iehnll]

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.

Things that actually drive decisions in business

[agtwilight]

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

Re:subtraction, anyone?

[lahvak]

You may know how to subtract, but you sure don't know how to read.

Re:MOD PARENT UP!! :)

[iamwahoo2]

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.

Don't forget servicepacks!

[kupci]

Linux startup cost: $2990 + $1200 = $4190. Windows wins.

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.

DiDio is always microsoft biased

[aldousd666]

every single article you read by DiDio and Yankee group somehow seems to put microsoft in the good light, and everyone else in the bad...

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...

Welcome to 2000 Microsoft !

[gosand]

Dear Microsoft,

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?

Re:MOD PARENT UP!! :)

[ergo98]

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?

two words: "Push poll"

[joeldg]

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..

Re:MOD PARENT UP!! :)

[operagost]

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.

Re:MOD PARENT UP!! :)

[operagost]

Dumb users easily run as 'root' on Linux.

Antivirus as a security measure?

[Mordaximus]

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.

Re:Antivirus as a security measure?

[slasar]

Good point, just think of the software architecture that could be developed if we didn't have to worry about those fucked up people who cant keep their sticky fingers out of other peoples pies.

Re:Mod parent down: -1 WRONG

[ultranova]

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.

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.

Re:Good as each other

[Jagasian]

How, exactly, are buffer over runs now a fault of the programming? You do realize that you can have the same problems in C# and Java? The effect isn't as bad because of runtime checks, but it can still crash your program and therefore be a source of an easy denial-of-service attack, i.e. a teenager on a 56k dialup could take down Ebay, if it had such a flaw. Buffer over runs are always due to bad programming. Yes some languages provide features for minimizing the bad things that can happen when such a bug exists, and even better yet, some languages have static type systems that can help catch such bugs... but regardless it is still a programmer bug, whether or not the compiler tries to help find the bug or the runtime environment tries to minimize the effects of the bug.

Re:Mod parent down: -1 WRONG

[swillden]

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.

Re:Good as each other

[Gulthek]

It was an appeal to tradition, as the phrase "call me a point a [sic] click nub" indicates.

While the OP is indicating that windows is easier to use, he is doing so in a way that appeals to what passes for tradition in the computing world.

Pointing it out as an appeal to tradition does not challenge or refute the assumption that windows is easier to use, but highlights the rhetorical technique being utilized.

Now then: "You don't need to remember commands in Linux ever since you could set "Start X on login" at the installation and go straight into KDE or Gnome (etc)." is a counter-argument against windows is easier to use. I've sat more than a few windows users in front of a nice KDE desktop and not one couldn't figure out how to click the mozilla icon. They generally remark on how pretty or cool looking the desktop is and then don't really notice much else.

Re:Things are a little different in the Enterprise

[drsmithy]

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.

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.

Re:Good as each other

[ezequiel]

Your post is spot on.

I would add that the "fear factor" is very important, too. If you read between the lines, most of the times people get quite irrational about choosing Linux/Unix/Non-Windows, and I think that's mainly because of: (a) fear of the unknown, (b) fear of what changes might bring, (c) incompetence.

(a). Some people just don't get comfortable doing anything that they feel would mean (1) effort on their part, (2) something that could prove the previous decisions they've made look bad/wrong. I don't have to ellaborate on the laziness/lack of motivation, I think that in most cases that is directly related to lack of "hard work" culture, and also that -in my opinion- most people in the IT industry don't really like IT. They like what they feel the IT industry provides: easy money, a career with future, whatever. Most people are not geeks, and I dare to say that most people have almost nothing geeky in them. The second point is more interesting, as that is a direct attack on some people's (already low) ego. You see, I've seen (many times) people get quite irrational just by the mere thought of being proved wrong, even by their own line of thought. They feel comfortable, they can find other people to "bond"/relate that go through the same process. I find this subject very interesting. Maybe sometimes the "cool" factor helps to bring some of the defensiveness down, ie. when they feel that by doing the "new thing" (ie. Install Linux/Unix/learning something that is "opposite" to what they already know/believe) they'll be "cooler" or -maybe- earn more money.

(b). This should not be underestimated. As an example, someone already pointed out that he believes ZDNet fears promoting Linux just for the possibility of pushing a change that would "hurt" them (directly or indirectly). While you could argue about this example (which I can't say it's justified or not), this example serves as just that: an example of something I'm sure we all experience quite often: seeing people fall in the strategic position of telling you: "but if what you say is right, then we'll need less people in the department for doing the same job, and that would mean *I* could be the 'expendable' one". Or, "but by using that programming language I would then 'lose' my value, so let's just keep using this language/tool/library/whatever, ok?". I'm sure you all get the idea.

Of course, change almost always means risk. It's just a matter of willing to manage yourself under different circumstances.

Businesses, on the other hand, can quantify risk and go with it. For instance, if employees are not willing to use the new technology, they can hire someone new (they should've factored that in the costs equation), train people, etc.

But ultimately, at some level people can twist facts and make up "suggestions" that they feel will prevent things from happening. In particular, think that while a CIO would think that using Linux would be a good idea, the people that will have to do the actual work can start complaining and can help undermine the proposed changes.

(c). And about incompetence, well... That's clear. I doubt a considerable number of people are really incompetent, but it's still something to consider (that someone could be saying something just because they're incompetent). You should also account for sheer corruption and strategic alliances (such as *having* to support Microsoft because the company you work for has an "agreement" with MS, etc.).

I think the whole subject is much deeper than what I'm saying here, but I suspect it's a good starting point for understanding why these things happen.