Slashdot Mirror
The Truth About Linux and Windows
petrus4 writes "Groklaw has an update on the Laura DiDio saga. Apparently, her complaints about "Linux extremists" notwithstanding, cooler heads than the usual suspects are asking questions about her research. A very interesting read, and one which will hopefully encourage corporate readers to regard the Yankee Group's findings with the requisite metric ton of salt in the future."
They even subscribe to some Enderle research because they see him "well connected" to important companies like microsoft.
I can't understand how being a paid shill _incresease_ their credibility with management; but somehow it does. MBA's. go figure.
This should settle all these arguments going around once and for all.
The truth of the matter is that you should choose the operating system that suits your needs. If you want an inexpensive machine for Computer Science studies or to learn UNIX networking or even as a SOHO server for the advanced user, Linux is your game. Similarly, for gaming, business applications, enterprise servers or streaming media from your computer to your TV you won't go wrong with Windows.
But to get caught up in "OS 1 is better than OS 2" debates is pure silliness, especially when you can run both easily.
I never vote for anyone. I always vote against.
-- W.C. Fields
1. Linux still isn't ready for prime time zero hassle common user usage. Install Knoppix from the live cd at 800x600 and oops, now you gotta go to change the config as root to explicitly tell it your card can do 1024x768 because the installer sets as maximum whatever you were using the live cd at. Fedora's installer tries to relax you regarding Grub, but most of the time forcing LBA32 is needed or it sits there doing nothing at boot. Etc. Small potatoes for techs being paid to support it and used to all sorts of crockery, but not for casual users who shouldn't have to read inaccessible man pages because you can't even boot one machine during install.
2. Linux is being adopted and the rise in compromised roots is testament to this. I salute the geniuses who've sold Linux without regard to education of the average business user on security.
3. Windows will not be killed. Not going to happen. We will have competition indefinitely. And this is a good good thing.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
Why does Truth, Linux and Windows in the same sentence seems so awfully wrong to me?
A computer makes it possible to do, in half an hour, tasks which were completely unnecessary to do before.
you're so funny.
No - everything is not relative. To say "everything is relative, even this statement" would suggest that for some people the statement isn't relative, which would mean that for some people truth isn't relative. Truth exists outside your perceptions, Dewey-wannabe. "Realitity is as you experience it to be?" No. Reality is that stuff that continues even when you choose to ignore it.
Saying "for some things, MS Windows is better. For other things, Linux is better" doesn't mean it's relative, it merely means the statement is vague. There are explicit things that Linux is better for. There are explicit things MS Windows is better for.
"Everything is relative?" So, a rock is only a rock when I percieve it to be one? No, if it's a rock it continues to be a rock until something changes that state. If it is not a rock, then it continues not being a rock until something changes that state. Merely wishing it one way or the other doesn't make it so.
The more i read that name the more my mind begins to replace Didio with Dildo.
And the more i read what Dildio has to say the more i think my dyslexia is right
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
Since almost all wireless routers and firewalls (and many other embedded devices including digital projectors and printers) out there are already running Linux, and the vendors of these devices usually don't bother to point out to the customer what OS is it using, I'd say that many small business are already using Linux and don't even know it!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
I did a straw poll among work colleagues and they all had windows XP installed. Why? Because it was the same price as Linux (i,e, they either got it off some thai market stall, or they paid for it with with the system and they had no choice -e.g. Dell)
If dodgy Microsoft volume license copies of XP weren't doing the rounds so much, then many home users would much rather use/try a free OS (Linux) than pay a hundred pounds for each incarnation of Microsoft Windows.
We will have competition indefinitely. And this is a good good thing Oh I definitely agree, competition is good. But I also don't agree that open source software necessarily needs competition (at all) to improve. If a user wants a new feature or a bug fixed, then it actually happens, even without a competing product including that feature. That's the genius of open source. Not to mention that anyone can fork a project at any time if they don't like how it's going (although this isn't always true for what I consider shared-source projects, like under the CDDL). With Windows, if you don't like it, you have no choice except to not use Windows. With Linux, you do have a choice, and THAT is the fundamental difference.
Take off every sig. For great justice.
We will have competition indefinitely. And this is a good good thing.
/.er embrace economics. It's like hearing a Mac zealot say that 2 mouse buttons are better than one.
It's so nice to see a
"No beer until you finish your tequila!" -Leela's Dad
2. the exact same situation exists with Windows, billions of dollars of damage has been done by worms, trojans, viruses, etc. in the last four years due to failure to keep current with Windows patches to known problems
3. What happens when the expanding markets of India and China grow a new customer base that is bigger than all existing computer users at present, and they choose not to use Windows in those systems?
Haha! The term "Linux-extremist" is redundant. The very definition of a "Linux-user" already contains the connotation of "extremist," inasmuch as all the users are zealous users and defenders of Linux. I have never met a lukewarm Linux user.
Well, think of it like this: we stepped outside, noticed the house was on fire, and we're trying to tell you to get the fuck out of there while you still can. Yes, I'd say we're a pretty zealous lot.
... that this is a pissing contest, and it has nothing to do with the real issue. The core issue is that Linux is compatable with the information age, because it treats the unrestricted ability to copy and manipulate itself over the internet like a benefit. Windows is not, becuase it trys to treat information like "intellectual property" and sees the unrestricted ability to copy and manipulate information over the internet as a threat and "piracy". They (MS) have simply held themselves accountable to a paradigm that has no place in the information age, and they're trying to shift the argument to issues like "tco", and "features", and "hidded costs" to avoid it. In the long term, this is all totally irrelavent as to who wins. It doesn't matter what's Linux's flaws are - they will be remedied by market forces sooner or later.
I built a small office server for a company.
Spare Dell 400 mhz - 50$
mandrake -$
mysql - $
The office unknown to me had bought this very expensive win 2004 dell server (there network/computer consulting co told them they needed it to host my appliation). It was over 2000$. They didn't need it and the company couldn't install apache/mysql/php (Who do I call for support?).
I installed the linux and everything in about 4 hours. Linux installs have gotten much much better. Scary easy.
Basically the linux server has been chugging away for over a year with no problems. hardly maintenance. Nothing (Its behind a firewall). The windows server has had all sorts of networking issuse that keeps a tech visiting the office once a week.(granted its doing more but still).
Which is cheaper again???
I disagree very strongly. My main operating system is Windows, which I operate on my University desktop. But, due to restrictions at my collate at my Uni, I can't use bittorrent or other peer2peer programs.
I have therefore got my old P2 350 running at home, and via SSH, bittorrent all my wanted TV shows to that, before FTPing it to my Uni box.
I'm a linux extremist? No, it just gets the job done.
Joe Zwers wrote a good article about Truth in benchmarking and how some companies blantantly manipulate data to reach marketing goals.
Slashdot coverage on earlier Linux vs Windows studies: here, here, here, here and here.
We also coverd a Microsoft study on W vs L
Okay, here's a novel thought to settle the argument: Windows is better for some applications, and Linux is better for others. If I want to set up a desktop that's easy to use for those without engineering degrees, I'll probably recommend Windows. If I want to run a data center which requires high flexibility, fast file access, and reliable, reduntant storage, I'll use Linux, or possibly Solaris. And finally if I want to deploy a large number of engineering workstations, I'll go with Linux.
It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
As a veteran of selling on TCO, I've always got a kick out of these studies because they are so disconnected from reality. How can something that is like getting a five course buffet-style dinner for free somehow cost more than buying a meal a la carte, one dish at a time? I suppose it's the fact you've got to help yourself at the Linux buffet while they'll spoon feed you over at MS (and they really don't spoonfeed).
Linux has five advantages that simply render the conversation moot:
Cost of licenses
Customizability
Training Costs
Security
Out of box functionality
Linux licensing costs are self-explanatory. Hard to beat zero.
Linux is completely customizable. You can change anything and everything to fit your need.
MCSE certs are expensive. Linux certs are less so. Conversions from windows end users to linux are fairly painless. Sorry, Yankee, but learning how to operate a one windowing user interface is pretty easy when you are familiar with another.
Linux Security isn't perfect - but it's a quantum leap from Windows.
Where Windows cannot compete is with the out of the box capabilites of most every Linux distro. With Windows, you have to purchase thousands of dollars of software licenses to do what I can with my free download of Mephis or whatever. End user software is included. So is Server software. I'm out a minimum of $300 just to be able to do basic productivity. All those CALs add up with Windows.
-- $G
I've personally tried about a dozen times, and none of those installs worked correctly, and they all required a substantial amount of work to get them working even close to a Windows system working out of the box (none of the attempts ever yielded a 100% functioning PC). Thus, I know that a server would require a high-paid consultant to set up.
I don't respond to AC's.
The only problem is that while you're out there yelling and screaming to get the fuck out before someone dies, most of the real world is inside getting on with life, annoyed in equal parts with the poor construction of the house and with the maniacs outside who are screaming bloody murder all night.
Linux / Windows is *not* a life or death choice for most of us who have jobs to do. So-called advocates who would present it as such do far more harm than good to Linux's reputation in the business world.
Cheers
-b
If I wanted a sig I would have filled in that stupid box.
Niether is Microsoft Windows. Ask almost anyone who uses Windows. It's a hassle.
The issues you mention are installation. Few people could do a full windows install, including all vendor supplied device drivers.
The actual truth is BOTH systems are far beyond the capabilities of average, unsophisticated users, or anything other than casual day-to-day usage of common applications.
3. Windows will not be killed. Not going to happen. We will have competition indefinitely.
If you call 90% Microsoft market share with exclusionary back-room deals at all major computer manufacturers so that virtually no PCs ship with competitors products... then yet, looks like it's gonna be that way for some time. I just wouldn't call it "competition". "Monopoly" might be a much better word.
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
What's sad to me is that this kind of spin can be seen in just about every poll/survey you'll see in the mainstream media. The numbers and wording are often spun in a way to imply a conclusion that has nothing to do with the real question at hand.
There was one recently that in a survey of over 600 kids, the ones who played video games were responsible for two-thirds of the violent acts recorded for the group.
How horrible! Ban video games, now!
Of course nowhere can it be found what percentage of those sruveyed played video games. If over two-thirds played video games, its just possible we should be forcing kids to play more video games.
Thus, I know that a server would require a high-paid consultant to set up.
Dude, you really need to have a talk with my boss then. Tell him he needs to pay me more. I set up and maintain a few linux servers and firewalls here where I work and I'm sure as hell not high paid.
Slackware
or some kid in high school who needs a little extra weekend cash...
I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...
Speaking as a person who has installed many differnt distributions of Linux and has been using Linux for 11 years. I would agree with the Grand Parent. It is not just about installing the packages it is configurating them to do what you need them to do. To a group of people who think in terms of Microsoft and have them start working in Linux is a bigger push. Concepts like mounting drives, Finding the print driver for one of the many possible print servers, best ways to share files, Samba or NFS?, Dealing with RWX RWX RWX based permissions, and groups, writtig shell scripts, the CronTab, Finding drivers and worse installing them, knowing where the logs are and how to read them. Working with Linux is much differnt then working on windows. I am not saying one is harder then the other but just that they are differnt way of thinking about solving problems and to switch a group of people from one OS to an other will be at best problematic.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I understand what you're saying, but your analogy is flawed, nonetheless.
.
.through the nose.
The difference is like purchasing a Fiat as opposed to being given a Ferrari.
Now, I've never owned a Ferrari, but I have owned an equivelent Maserati as well as several Fiats, so I can appreciate the difference that cost of operation alone can entail.
But here's the thing, if you can already do your own Fiat repair and maintenance in house you already have most of the skills and physical plant needed to maintain a Ferrari in house. Yes, you'll need a bit of training, but can acquire that bit by bit as you need it, while you keep your Fiat fleet running alongside until you're up to speed on Ferraris.
But here's the other thing, your Ferrari parts and much tecnical information is going to be available just as freely as your Ferrari was . .
But the Fiat stuff is going to continue to cost you. .
Yes, as well as a being a Maserati owner I have also converted a business from a Windows only shop to a Linux only shop.
We handled everything in house because the very first time we called MS for support they told us, "Ummmmm, have you tried reinstalling?"
So what the fuck good is their "support" anyway? We learned to do things ourselves, and when we started to wonder what the fuck good MS was in general we learned to do things with Linux ourselves as well.
You can too. For God's sake man, go read a book or something. (Unless, for some reason, you really want to give me $500/hr to read the book for you, I've got my eye on a bench built violin. I'll take your money, but, believe it or not, I'd really rather spend my time learning a Bach violin partita on my cheap Chinese fiddle)
When you do you'll find you've plugged into a source of free Ferraris for everybody, forever.
KFG
I don't get your point, since the article is from BusinessWeek.
Unless you believe that BusinessWeek has no consideration for corporate interests.
Whilst reading all the replies to Mr. Hamm's blog, I ran across one respondent who said he's used Linux the past two years and hadn't found a need to use Windows.
I have a dual-boot XP/Gentoo box. I love Gentoo (and Linux in general) to death. Why do I persist in keeping XP on my box? For the games. I am a games fiend to the point that only XP can feed the passion. Do I keep any critical information on the XP side? Hell, no! I use XP for games, nothing more. Linux is what I use when I need to get work done.
That having been said, I remember someone from the Microsoft camp (Ballmer?) claiming that "Linux is a toy." Well, MS if I only use XP for games, which OS do you think is more deserving of being called "a toy?" Although, I'm sure Yankee Group and her collection of didiots could put a different spin on it.
Mr. T pitied this fool on 27 July 1992.
...I'm sure you can find a teenager at the local elementary school...
You might want to rethink this. This usually means they've been held back a year.
Translation: "Linux is too expensive 'cause I'm retarded"
Face it, the ability to change operating system code is a benefit for .0001% of people and of absolutely no use to the other 99.9999% of people
That's just not true. I may never edit the source of a project or fork it. But I still benefit from the fact that others more knowledgeable than me can. Because of the forking and bugfixing that exists in the open source world I have:
Firefox instead of Netscape or IE
BMP instead of XMMS
Xorg instead of Xfree
Bug fixes that come faster than in the proprietary world
And I'm sure there's more that I'm just unaware of since I'm not a coder. A recent small example is that the latest Gnome didn't come with a menu editor. People complained and eventually a user (a non Gnome developer) made one. Now we're happy. Wouldn't have been so easy if they didn't have the code. See this article about how someone had to reverse engineer OSX just to get a desktop switcher. Which will probably become broken with the latest OSX release.
Well I have installed linux servers thousands of times.
I have not had a problem with bad installs in years.
I would agree years ago linux installs were not as easy
as they could have been, but time have changed a lot things.
If I get new hardware in, I test it to see if I have the drivers
I need to do the install. It is true linux does not
have all drivers for every piece of hardware out. If you have tried
installing linux lately, and it did not go well for you,
You still do not need the services of a consultant. What you
most likely need is the url of the hardware compatibility list.
Administering a linux server in not unlike maintaining
Microsoft servers. You will need to take the time to get accustomed to
the administrative task and applications. It is not out of your reach
to accomplish this. You should use the same sticktoitness that you
used to learn the Microsoft Os.
Good Luck on your next install.
Here's my own invalid anecdote (personal anecdotes are invalid as evidence of an overall trend):
We needed an Oracle server for a project at work. Because of the non-critical, but fairly high demand, nature of the app it needed a dedicated server, rather than getting to run on the shared Oracle server on the departmental Solaris box. So a simple Dell desktop was purchased with the fastest P4 available, plenty of RAM and IDE RAID-1 disks. This was fast enough to meet the needs, and it was decided stable enough for this application. If the server died it'd take at most a couple days for Dell to replace it, and that was an acceptable amount of time for it to be out of service.
Now because of anti-Windows zealotry of some people, it was decided that the server had to run Linux, SuSe was what they wanted. We didn't actually have anyone that was very experienced in Linux, mind you, just people that didn't like Windows, and Linux was the only viable x86 alternative to run Oracle on.
I tried several times to get SuSe to work, but it wouldn't. I did a net install from a CD, but after it was up it wouldn't get on the Internet anymore. I couldn't figure out what was happening. Answer turned out to be the network card was listed as unsupported by SuSe. Odd, given that their installer supported it fine.
So we switched to RedHat. Now I couldn't get the mirroring to work. Our Solaris guy came and fought with it for a couple days and got it working. I then went back to getting Oracle installed. This I could never get working, despite repeated attempts. The documentation didn't help, since it was assuming different things than what I had. Turns out this is because Oracle supports RedHat Enterprise Linux, not normal RedHat. Finally I was fed up and said "You want Linux, you install it." They fought with it for a few mroe days before calling Oracle who said "If it's not a supported OS we won't talk to you."
That put everything on hold since RHEL is quie expensive. I asked if I could please just try to install it on XP. They said fine, but it wouldn't work. I installed and patched XP, then installed Active PERL since that was needed for interfacing. I then put in the Oracle CD, told it to install, and it did so flawlessly.
So in the end what was about 2 weeks of fighting with Linux to no resolution was fixed in about 2 hours by installing Windows. The Windows license was to the effect of $100 (we got a discount). RHEL was looking like $1500 I think. Who knows what cost in staff time it would have taken to hack it to run on non-supported Linux, if it was even possible.
So in this case, Windows was a MUCH cheaper option.
Now this isn't to try and claim Windows is always cheaper, but rather to point out that little anecdotes, espically when related to s tiny server for a small project, aren't valid as evidence of a trend. Yes, there certianly are situations where Linux is the cheapest option, because it is available at no cost. However there are certianly cases where it's not, because the costs of making it work, or costs because of losses due to problems exceed the savings of not having to pay for it.
It's not a black and white issue.
It's a matter of admiration. Programmers/Open Source supporters admire people like James Gosling or Linus Torvalds. MBAs admire people like Steve Jobs or Bill Gates (and probably have neutral opinions of Gosling/Torvalds) because they have "achieved" things that MBAs strive for. And therefore progammers admire/respect programming/design/Open Source etc. MBAs admire Microsoft, Apple etc. Thus, programmers/Open Source supporters give more regard to technical facts and Open Source personalities. MBAs give more regard to "research" funded or supported by companies like Microsoft or Apple (Apple supporters wait, don't stone me to death yet. I'm not necessarily saying that Apple does such things. I'm just saying that if it did, then MBAs would swallow it.)
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
$50/hr is very cheap for a consultant. Especially for a short term job like a system setup. You're probably talking about 4-10hours of work depending on the system requirements. At most that's $550 bucks. If your business is that tight with $$, then you've got bigger problems.
BTW, If you *need* apps that only exist on one platform, you should probably stick with that platform. It would be foolish to pay for a custom build of a shrinkwrap product, especially when you consider the cost of maintenence.
hey - they make ok hardware :p
I think that this is the funniest thing about Microsoft. They tout their perpetually-[insert bad thing here] operating system and expensive software while they really should be pushing their pretty good mice and keyboards. Dunno about the Xbox though, I generally prefer my consoles not randomly catching on fire.
When you look at the state of the world, how can you not become a radical, liberal anarchist?
After surveying a number of IT professionals about what they thought of Laura Didio.
75% said she was a stupid b%$^*
12.5% said she was a mindless whore.
12.5% said "who's Laura Didio".
Powerpoint presentations are currently being edited. This is a 3rd party survey so we can't give out any particulars of the survey or how it was presented. But we can tell you that no corporate sponsorship was involved.
Here's some insult to your injury...
.h files she doesn't even understand!
From the linked article:
When SCO first made its claims that IBM had misappropriated some of its code and handed it over to the Linux community, SCO showed samples to several analysts to prove its copyrights were being infringed. DiDio, a former journalist and not a programmer, was one of them. She reported that SCO's claims seemed justified. She told me: "It appeared to be a direct cut and paste right down to the developers' notes." A couple of months ago, the judge in the case wrote that he had seen "an astonishing lack of evidence" backing up SCO's claims. On the phone, I asked DiDio's reaction to the judge's statement. She said: "I can't reconcile it. I want to see what's presented in court."
So... what you have is a woman who is not a programmer, making conclusive statements after looking at
There's a point, like the boiling point... let us call this point the Enderle point... at which you have simply lost all professional credibility. You are seen as nothing more than a suck up, a Nathaniel Branden of IT (Little Ayn Rand hatred slipped out there, sorry).
Can we now write DiDio off as a shill? Like that woman who did fake newscasts for Bush, or Robert Novak?
I personally, welcome shills like DiDio. Every day respectable journalists let a woman like her survive, they put another nail in their coffin and the net and social-based expertise groups become authoritative sources for real news pulling from many sources to draw complete conclusions. So, I say, good on her. Make a few bucks at the Microsoft trough. Sell credibility you never had in the first place. Kill the industry rags. More opportunity for other people to emerge as experts when the people you used to listen to are revealed as phonies.
Actually, it takes a lot less time to setup a Linux server than a Windows server -- at least to set it up right.
A typical Windows server requires a huge amount of work making sure that everything is properly disabled, and that permissions are set up right.
Linux usually consists of saying chkconfig XXXX off a number of times, for everything that doesn't need to be running.
Then you get the security issues. With Windows, you need to update quite often, while with Linux you can get away with about once a month. Plus, on Linux, you get your updates in pieces, so you only have to update what you are actually vulnerable for.
The maintenance cost of a Linux _server_ is much less than that of Windows. The cost of a Linux desktop is smaller if used as a thin client, and greater otherwise.
Engineering and the Ultimate