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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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...

[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.

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).

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.

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?

[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.

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

[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

[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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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...

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.

rather...

[zr-rifle]

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

Enough of this TCO crap

[js3]

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

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.

Re:DiDio = Shill

[NiceGeek]

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

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?

[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:

[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? :)

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...)

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: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!

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.

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.

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.

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

[kpharmer]

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

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

[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.

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: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

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...

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: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: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.