Slashdot Mirror
"Get the Facts" Campaign Working
brontus3927 writes "According to a Reseller Advocate Magazine write-up, Microsoft seems to be winning its war against Linux. Info-Tech Research Group recently ran a survey that is now being used on Microsoft's Get The Facts campaign. In it were some surprising results. 'After polling 1,400 IT managers and CIOs in SMB corporations, his group found that 48% were not interested in Linux, 15% were not sure about Linux, and only 10% plan to evaluate Linux." Despite this, two-thirds of all webservers run Linux. The disparity in these numbers comes from the fact that most smaller companies' websites are hosted by service providers running Linux servers even if the company itself isn't."
A lot of Apache webserver installations are used by hobbyists, not companies. You can't say the same for IIS.
Its not like MS can win a fud war against a free / quality product, this they showed Netscape. MS can slow Linux adoption but this by itself wont stop it, but if they combine a campain to slow linux combined with patent blanketing and file format lockin they may be able to marginalize linux.
"It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
GNU/linux that is thanks you very much.
Despite this, two-thirds of all webservers run Linux.
No. Two-thirds of all publicly visible web servers found by netcraft run Apache, but this includes many other operating systems.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
Microsoft seems to be continuing its efforts to rubbish Linux and the Open Source movement, but i've noticed one positive thing to come out of this.
It seems the IT journalists are no longer taking what Microsoft says as gospel.. you read any Microsoft vs Linux type article or report and you'll see that the press regularly question Microsofts reasonings behind its attacks on Linux. In fact, apart from the handful of sites that seem to be permanently pro Microsoft, the majority seem sceptical about Microsoft! The BBC especially does a superb job on giving fair balance in its reports.
Clearly Linux is beginning to get a major foothold, and I still genuinely feel Microsoft is worried and getting more so every day.
"Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"
What about the NFS & AFP corporations? Not everyone runs CIFS.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Two thirds of web servers run Apache, but many of them would be running Apache on Windows!
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/08/ 224225&tid=163
Unfortunately Microsoft may be winning the war. And more scary in my opinion is Microsoft has shifted to more subtle means. What could be less intimidating than a web site dedicated to gently walking managers through the maze of technical issues ostensibly improving their (the managers) effectiveness?
For me, all I need to do to consider which platform costs less to manage is look back over the span of my career... I've managed Windows and Unix systems for over twenty years (which means I've managed Windows systems for "x" years -- you pick when you first think that might be -- I know it hasn't been twenty years). And when I weigh how much I invest to keep systems running, Unix (linux included) always wins, easily.
Of course, I found it unusual for management to ask me or any of my technical peers for recommendations, they typically get/got most of their advice gladhanding on the golf course, or from nice glossy brochures, and now, from slick benevolent web sites.
Microsoft is one of the best at PR, and their "Get the Facts" campaign may be one of their most impressive successes (oh that Microsoft would be so successful developing and creating safe and secure software). But, Microsoft knows perception is 90% of reality. What they say only has to feel true and assuage the fears of managers justifying manager's choices to stay with Microsoft. Unfortunately it has become a Nobody ever got fired for choosing Microsoft world (remember when it was IBM?), and with Microsoft's huge lead and head start in controlling the marketplace I don't see this changing any time soon.
What bugs me is when it bleeds into my area (I prefer doing my work in the Unix world...). For example, the time our team got a new member -- a new sysadmin who previously had been working and support Windows machines at our company. Our main server was a workhorse Sun Server and I had with reverence watched it chug away doing good work with an up time that had finally exceeded 550 days (not a huge record in the Unix world, but it was fun to see it go...). The Monday of week two of our new admin I was dismayed to see that our trusty Sun server now only had an uptime of less than two days. Sigh. Wasn't sure why, but reboots/crashes happen. Before I could do any more checking, "Bob" (not his real name) dropped by positively beaming and let me know he had noticed that luna (the server) had not been rebooted for a long time so over the weekend he had rebooted it for us! Universes collide! Sigh, again.
I'd love to see good technology prevail -- unfortunately today the combination of effective PR and FUD campaigns combined with Microsoft's products turns out to be good cough enough.
Was Linux ever winning this war? Microsoft's been in the lead, it's just that Linux is playing catch-up.
This same group came out with the story '"Mid-Sized Companies Not Interested in Linux - Microsoft Still Dominates, Study Says" - April 5, 2005'.
It looks like the same "study".
Thanks, Slashdot, for giving the lame "study" more legs and contributing to Linux FUD.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
I seriously doubt those data and the credibility of the whole "study". This strikes me as another Microsoft-sponsored fabrication. My company is doing market research on about anything, including the use of operating systems, with sample pools that are more than a magnitude largers and we came to very different results that also indicate that Linux is on the rise in every segment, even on the corporate desktop market. Shame on Microsoft for spreading lies again!
what are the percentages of IT managers and CIO who were not interested in Linux, were not sure about Linux, and planned to evaluate Linux before the Get the Facts campaign started?
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
That survey only shows what people are thinking of Linux now. Suppose that before the campaign, only 5% were thinking of using linux and 90% were dead-set against it? Then the campaign would be backfiring. Without any data points on what people thought before, or what a control group of people who haven't been exposed to the campaign think, we can't tell how effective or inneffective "Get the Facts" has been. -Drachasor
Karma: Positive (probably because of superiour intellect)
This may surprise to the parent poster but quite a few Apache installations are on top of Windows simply because people don't trust IIS - ditto BIND (which people shouldn't trust either, but let's not get into that). It shouldn't come as a shock that IT managers aren't evaluating Linux for servers as much anymore when you look at what's available in Windows Server 2003 and *BSD. I'm not as big a user of Linux as I used to be, so stop me if I'm talking out my ass here, but stripping Linux down to operate strictly as a server simply isn't what it used to be (in terms of effort required if nothing else) due to kernel bloat and dependency hell. Why would you use it when there are other OSes that provide everything else a server needs with less kruft?
--Ryv
For the campaign to work, people whom would be considering Linux would have to change their minds. In the SMB space, 50% of those responsible for IT policy (aka. the owners) likely don't have a clue. The "Get The Facts" campaign is likely raising the noticeability of Linux more than anything else.
The SMB space (especially the S part) often consists of small offices (20) that have grown organically from a workgroup configuration. The migration is often to a single MS-SBS server at the instance of a rent-a-tech. Rent-a-tech'r'us (TM) recommends MS-SBS because the smb staff is comfortable with the MS interface to do simple things (Like backup; add/disable users).
Without Rent-a-Tech'r'us, many SMB operators would not get the benefits of using a server to increase Knowledge flow within the organization. Such SMB operators don't know what a NOS is, or care.
To Conclude: 1) Many SMB operators do not know what a NOS is. 2)The Get The Facts campaign has informed them, and informed them about Linux. 3)Keep up the Good work Microsoft;)
Management isnt going to act on ethics. We need an example - a company that has clearly benefited from switching, and not just "we saved a couple bucks because our IT nerd is running a linux box for something I never knew existed". We need to convince the millions of people who sell stuff for a living that something free is the best option. It's a culture war, and either we fight that or "we had a better product but..." If we want linux to take over the business world then we need business men to do some heavy lifting.
But why should we care? Is Linus doing this for world domination? Is anybody? I'm content with thriving community we have now, I play with it, and I'm lucky enough to work with it. Fuck the boardroom.
If you do the equation above, you find that 37% of responses *AREN'T ACCOUNTED FOR*. Could it be that 37% of managers is using linux or PLANNING on using linux? Seems to be the logical conclusion to draw when 48% aren't planning on using linux, and 15% say they may evaluate it in the future.
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
The stereotypical image of Linux (smelly, overweight nerds wearing Star Trek T-shirts) compared to Microsoft (suit-wearing shmoozers with lunch budgets to burn) explains all this.
Decision makers tend to be more political and less technical in nature, that's how they got to be bosses.
Of course, this is not always true as there are companies that have tech-backgrounded managers that do a great job. Find one and work for them.
Those Apache servers are not all Linux. A lot of Apache servers are BSD or other *IX systems. A few are even Windows boxes. There's probably a MachTen box or two in the mix.
I think Linux is the cat's pajamas, the bee's knees; it does not need to steal credit from BSD and other projects in order to deserve praise.
Cool, so 52% is interested in Linux. Only 15% was unsure about Linux, the remaining 85% have already made their mind up about running Linux or not. Finally an amazing 10% of all SMB corporations is already planning to try out Linux.
I think that's pretty impressive.
How would you like to spin your statistics today?
And how much were locked-in using M$ ?
By the way, 10% seems a good start to me... When 10% would have switched, maybe 10 other percent might consider to switch.
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
I wouldn't worry about lack of Linux adoption due to FUD. Linux will win solely by virtue of its price if it actually becomes a good replacement for Windows. Think about it: if your business spends millions of dollars a year on Windows, a competitor who uses Linux will have a big advantage. It doesn't matter how much propaganda MS puts out, the issue will work itself out.
Right now, Linux offers some advantages and has big disadvantages -- such as the lack of Windows compatibility. It would simply be impossible to replace it at my job, for instance, because many corporate applications that I use are only available for Windows (one is an ActiveX application, by the way). Obviously, Linux is not an option here.
The real danger from Microsoft is software, file format, protocol and especially hardware lock-in. Microsoft has enough power to make that happen. Of course, all of this borders on unfair competition, so they will have some legal obstacles in that arena.
When will we have a linux version of get the facts?
We should compile a list of reason why GNU/linux is better or why it's TCO is lower.
There are reasons why UNIX/Linux is better and there are also some arguments why "Windows" or closed source are good in some case.
I haven't seen a objective debate about this.
I am willing to bet that many of these small businesses don't even have a dedicated server. Someone's desktop in a workgroup functions as a "Server" and calling one of the employees an IT Manager or CIO is probably quite a stretch.
I disagree with the tone but not the sentiment. This is a minor set-back for Linux and OSS software in general. It indicates that Microsofts marketing is now effective and the solution is to stop complaining about Mircosofts skill in marketing and start countering it.
There is a need to redouble our evangelisation efforts, to concerntrate on pointing out the flaws in Microsoft paid for studies, to extole the vitues of our software, in particular how these virtues impact the bottom line of the CIO's we are trying to convince.
As OSS advocates we should primarily be concerned with writing good code, filling bug reports and generally producing high quality software. But those of us who engage in marketing need to learn to push the right buttons the same way Microsoft pushes the right buttons. The difference being is we don't have to mislead to market.
Many of us balked and laughed when the Microsoft FUD guns were trained on Linux TCO. This study indicates we (myself included) were wrong to laugh, and we need to appreciate that Microsoft has suceeded in changing perception with thier marketing. We should stop complaining about how good Microsoft marketing is, stop dismissing Microsoft marketing as 'just marketing', and fight back against it.
Switching to Linux for most of these companies doesn't make sense.
Now, on the front end, the websites etc, the e-mail forwarding, they probably are serving up pages using Linux and getting services from Linux and they don't even know it.
We've got an IT mindset and I think it's a bit unrealistic. Those numbers actually look pretty reasonable to me, with or without the Get the Fud campeign.
Luck favors the prepared, darling.
For a great example of infighting, read the latest colomn on pcmag.com by John C. Dvorak. but it doesnt dtop there, ask any linux geek what distro they like and then mention that you like a differant one, that is the quickest way to start a petty-ass flamewar that I have ever seen.
Second: tell an OSS evangalist that you like GIMP, but preder photoshop, stand back on this one, lest rabid drool fall on your shoe as their eyes get bloodshot with anger and they shout "THE GIMP CAN DO ANYTHING PS CAN!" the same can be said for any number of titles. Untill the greater linux community stops acting like all closed source software is rooted in pure evil, this will be a barrier to entry as well.
And lastly, enough with the f***ing superiority complex towards n00bs, at one time or anotherr everyone was a "n00b". There is nothing more irretating to a newcommer to a computer platform to get the same answer to every question, "RTFM N00B" that pisses people off and could drive them back into the windows world where there is at least somewhat professional tech support. The preceding was Just my observations, nothing more or less.
Stripping down Linux is pretty easy. There are many distros that are already stripped down, and every distro I've ever tried has a "server" package, which includes only what you need to run a webserver.
But even if you do the stripping yourself it's not that bad. Whenever you do something mainstream that lots of people do, you can do it the way everyone else does.
The dependencies for apache are clearly known by pretty much every distribution. There's even a project to build everything you need from scratch if you just want to start with nothing and build up. In short, if you have dependency problems when you're dealing with apache, you're using a pretty messed up distro to start with, since virtually all of them solve that problem first.
As far as kernel bloat...I don't know where you're getting this. Even a big kernel is tiny compared to any Windows kernel 95 or higher. Recompile the kernel, or download one of the many, many already created tiny kernels. It takes four minutes to configure and half an hour to recompile and install.
*Note: Poster may be someone looking to Slashdot to do his research for him, and I didn't want to do so. I will, however, say that the links for all the things I mentioned are available at freshmeat.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
You fired someone for making a suggestion that turned out bad and in the end was a decision *YOU* were responsible for?!?
That guy is *A LOT* better off now than he was working for you, that much is clear. You are a terrible leader in the worst sense, someone who will cover their own ass at the expense of others.
You are lucky I am not *YOUR* boss... you'd be on the unemployment line right behind that guy... no, actually, only *YOU* would be on the unemployment line... I'd hire him back and get him a better boss too.
If a pion (n-) collides with a proton in the woods & noone is there to hear it, does lamdba decay into the source pa
"polling 1,400 IT managers and CIOs"
Polling who? Trying polling the people that actually do things. Those CIOs and managers probably don't even know what Linux and Windows are.
48% are not interested in Linux.
52% are somewhat interested in Linux.
15% are not sure about Linux.
Which leaves 37% who have deployed Linux or are testing Linux for deployment.
The company I work for sounds similar to your's. We have LOTS of server apps that will only run on Windows. Except we have more servers.
Possibly. But "now" isn't "tomorrow".
The key issue is whether you're talking about an EXISTING installation or a NEW installation.
Because you have an existing installation, your company has already spent the money to evaluate and deploy that system.
But, at some time in the future, there will be an upgrade. And you will have to spend more money on your system.
There are 3 items to consider when evaluating a system.
#1. Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) - how much does it cost to run this system day after day.
#2. Return on Investment (ROI) - How much revenue with this system allow us to generate?
#3. Migration cost - How much will it cost to deploy this system.
Now, even though Linux may have a far lower TCO and a far higher ROI, the migration cost can be too high to make a business case for it.
But when it is time to pay for the next upgrade, the migration costs need to be compared. So if it would cost $1 million to migrate today, but it would take the company 10 years to make that money back, no one would migrate.
But then you have to pay $500,000 for the next upgrade. Suddenly, the Linux system doesn't look so bad. Particularly if you're looking at ANOTHER upgrade within the next 5 years.
So you (being the pro-active guy you are) get in touch with the people working on the Linux systems. You have the time and they have the incentive. Can they cut the migration costs to $250,000 within the next 5 years (estimated time to your next upgrade)?
After all, it's just 0's and 1's.
If they can do that, then the next upgrade will cost MORE than the migration.
It's called a "migration plan". Only idiots or people with an agenda try to migrate ALL of their systems at once.
Start by learning Linux and seeing where it can be deployed, reasonably, in your existing network. We're running it for DNS/DHCP/backup/webpages/etc. I also have it protecting an old GroupWise system. I'm also trying to establish OpenLDAP as our standard directory service.
The longer you wait to start, the more proprietary infra-structure you'll have to migrate.
Your IT department needs a plan. Otherwise, you'll be driven by the vendors. And the vendors are only interested in getting more of your money into their pockets.
And "staying with Microsoft" is not a plan.
If you ask me, back when I was new to Debian the #debian on the OpenProjects IRC network was great. I guess that's all changed names/moved to the freenode IRC network now but I'm sure that the support is still the same.
Not to mention, all the people in that channel were volunteers, as far as I know.
Umm yes, they do. That's the whole point. The vast majority of people are not computer literate, and they need to be told what to think and what to buy. Therefore if you tell them the same thing often enough and loud enough and with enough pretty pictures, they will believe that message 'til their dying day.
Most people I know are aghast when they see yet another Microsoft sponsored "research" paper proclaim (yet again) Microsoft's superiority. But it works! If you keep feeding and feeding and feeding this to the public they will believe it!
And that is why it's working - they are believing it. The people that see through this and correctly label it as FUD are a tiny, voiceless minority.
Nice troll, but why would the guy get fired if it was just an evaluation?
See, you're going to have to rework the whole thing now, because if you just did that minor correction alone, we'd still recognise it as a cut-n'-paste troll.
Thank you for playing Slashdot. Please come back again.
The fact that a CIO probably doesn't know anything about Linux and thinks that his servers are running Windows (because it's the only thing he understands) but his system administrator has already been running most of the servers under some flavor of Linux for years is something that happens very often...
Most of them know about the end-result but the ways to provide this end-result are simply not valuable information for them. I think this "survey" only proves this point. They only know about buzzwords like "Windows" "Linux" "Apache" "IIS" but have them explain the difference to you, it's like watching Dilbert's boss on TV...
RedVortex
Problem with this model is while it almost always works, businesses structuring their IT around a solution usually require a concrete guarantee that if it breaks, they *will* be able to obtain support from a vendor on very short notice, preferably with some liability attached to the prospect of the vendor failing. Also, they want they vendor to be on very strong footing in terms of staying power. That means most independent linux consulting agencies are out (this applies to MS as well, few stable consulting companies are around that offer support). The few that are stable and do service arbitrary linux distros are prohibitively expensive. Again, same applies to MS folk.
So it comes down to the hardware and software vendor being the primary source of comfortable support for SMB. Unless you have a significantly large deployment, or could possibly have one (not a possibility for most SMBs), even the Tier I vendors will tell you to take a hike and take up a problem with your linux distribution vendor, while under MS they offer even to individual users first-level support, since they pretty much have to and economies of scale allow them to do this for the customer base drawn by this feature.
Now, putting the Tier one vendor's direct support of MS aside, it would come down to the cost of buying a linux distribution with reputable enterprise support, or MS. Currently, Red Hat and SuSE/Novell are essentially the only options there. SMBs would be comparing MS licensing/support costs to RedHat/SuSE/Novell costs and up front it at least appears MS provides better enterprise support than the linux distros, and so SMBs have little incentive to move.
Other details of the MS support structure vs RedHat/SuSE/Novell and the nature of the platform may change the true support cost picture, but few SMBs will ever have a good way of seeing anything but the up front costs.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
In unrelated news, a recent survey of scientists reveals that most believe that the sun is still pretty darned hot. "You wouldn't want that puppy in your pants" said one source who wished not to be identified. Moon worshipers worldwide were quick to point out that the sun survey was commissioned by sun worshipers. One source, who wished not to be identified, said "Sure the sun makes a pretty good sun, but it would make a lousy moon, but those sun fanboys fail to point that out." Both sides of this hot debate agreed that you needn't fresh or original content to get a bunch of page hits, you can simply rehash something on slashdot.
Making the world a better place, one psychotic episode at a time.
Bunk. 2/3 might run Apache, but that runs on any flavor of Unix, BSD/OSX, even Windows.
This is another good reason why Microsoft should buy Red Hat. Then Red Hat could focus on making some high-quality commercial tiny component of the 'computer solution to management issues'.
Clueless management Barbies and Kens could claim their total allegiance to dominant monopoly capitalism (every met one that wouldn't?) while the real corporate computer system network could be running with Linux under the control of the technocracy (which is you if you're reading this).
Microsoft Red Hat would provide the means for the Linux community to integrate competence and consistency into corporate computing while still testifying to senior management that they are still using the 'secure, stable, safe, and acceptable' Microsoft solution.
For all their talk, deep down senior management only cares that that their computers work. Fear of Linux is simply the general corporate fear of anything unknown.
Does anyone really care about this "war"?
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
So where do you see the decline in interest?
Okay. Stop. You're talking out of your ass.
I use Debian on servers. It is ultra-simple to install a bare system and then add on only what I specifically want.
And that isn't even counting recompiling the kernel or recompiling any packages. I'm sure you could get an extra 5-10% performance, but my systems are already on idle most of the time.
What "kruft"? Which OS's have less? Certainly not in Win2003, as you mentioned. You cannot remove services in that, just disable them.
Your claim to XP and Tiger are highly opinionated, but hardly reasonable. Bare in mind that Open Source desktop systems generally keep a different requirment set than that of XP or Tiger. Some functions overlap, and others do not. Frankly, I can change all that anyway, as I have more options for change on the Open Source system. You see, that *is* the open source requirement, to be able to change anything concievable. This only means that more abstract tools are bound to come later, and rightly so. I suspect that when they do mature, they will be quality tools.
Most of those people probably already have Linux boxes. Their staff has likely snuck some in as firewalls and servers. Furthermore, lots of their embedded devices (access points, network storage, routers, etc.) run on Linux.
:-)
The nice thing is that these people don't have to "investigate" Linux, Linux is coming to them, piece by piece. In Capitalist America, you don't adopt Linux, Linux adopts you
First fact, I make heavy use of Linux and open source and my skills are way way more in demand than my MS counterparts. And that reflects in my pay, and the fact that people are always coming to me for solutions.
Second Fact, I can often provide all the IT infrastructure my company needs without even requesting a PO. In fact, while ohter people get haggled every time they make a purchase, I rarely even get questioned - which I think is because I do way more with way less then my counterparts do.
Third fact, I really have few worries about an unwelcome visit from the BSA, and I don't mean boy scounts of america.
Frouth fact, I rarely need to deal with all the license headaches, and the annual renew crap and forced upgrades that my counterparts do. In fact, upgrades and improvements are not a chore, and I am not terrorized that every upgrade will break everything.
Fith fact, I get the pleasure of doing more RnD, because I don't need financial approval from a bean counter everytime I do something.
Sixth fact, I rarely pay extra for things like compilers, office productivity stuff, graphics programs, and visus scanning is't even a worry accept for scanning linux SMB servers for others.
Seventh fact, things like paravirtualisation, parallel clusters, email, databases, dns, web servers, and remore access to programs come standard in Linux.
Eight fact, I can literally rip a Linux box out of one x86 box and place it in another and run kudzu and it recovers ausomely. Have you ever tried this with Microsoft?
Ninth fact, those are all red herrings. What makes Linux vavuable is that it's not about technology, but freedom. People who talk about business and not freedom are cowards and ingrates to the culture and attitudes that made them successfull to begin with and over the long term they will certainly get what they deserve.
"For a great example of infighting, read the latest colomn on pcmag.com by John C. Dvorak. but it doesnt dtop there, ask any linux geek what distro they like and then mention that you like a differant one, that is the quickest way to start a petty-ass flamewar that I have ever seen."
I agree with you, there are a lot of FOSS zealots quite vocal in Slashdot and other community forums, but you have to keep in mind that Linux didn't get where it is because of them but because of a tech-savvy silent majority, which is way more helpful and way more involved in the real issues than those guys. The zealots have more time and more energy to waste in sterile discussions, but what can we do? Should we spend hours modding down those morons or typing coherent arguments that get ignored or mod down by them anyways?
"OSS evangalist that you like GIMP, but preder photoshop, stand back on this one, lest rabid drool fall on your shoe as their eyes get bloodshot with anger and they shout "THE GIMP CAN DO ANYTHING PS CAN!" the same can be said for any number of titles. Untill the greater linux community stops acting like all closed source software is rooted in pure evil, this will be a barrier to entry as well."
True, but you're talking with an evangelist, what were you expecting? I mean, do you get objective, facts-based analysis when you speak with MS Office evangelists or Mac evangelists? The problem is not the community but a very specific type of guy within the community. Just talk to different people and you'll see the difference.
You're missing his point - it's a good idea to reboot machines now and then just to make sure they reboot cleanly, with all necessary services running. Better to find out something is broken in a maintenance window than after a power failure at 3am Saturday morning or smack bang in the middle of production time.
And you expected it to work?
I now systematically install Firefox as the default browser on all machines, but I first used it myself for several months (started with v. 0.7 I think, called Phoenix), and only recommended it to computer-savvy friends. Then I set it up for a few users (it was at version 0.9 by then), and waited a couple more months. Then I asked for their feedback, before deploying it to normal users. (The feedback was positive).
And that's for a simple web browser.
I understand why your employee isn't at that company anymore, but I don't understand why you didn't leave with him
This is the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy. Namely, the poster believed that since this survey occured after the "Get the Facts" campaign, then the "Get the Facts" campaign is responsible for the survey results. This may or may not be true.
Personally, I found the "Get the Facts" campaign as anything but factual.
We have two eyes and ten fingers so we will type five times as much as we read. http://www.shlomifish.org/
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Freedom has a business case.
Many businesses have a policy that require no single vendor products in business critical areas. This policy seems to have been forgotten in IT.
This type of policy is about securing the future of the company by guaranteeing its freedom to change vendors.
Freedom is good business.
Most of the statistics are pulled from Netcraft surveys, so unless "the gods chosen few" who run BSD lie in their server string, Linux has a huge numerical advantage.
Despite real strategic efforts by Microsoft to slow the adoption of Linux, the real culprit is the lack of coherent documentation for users during the adoption stage. I know this article is about businesses using Linux, but I have something to add to the tale. I graduated from college with an MIS degree (don't laugh). I have 2 Linux Distros running on my Mac at home and yet I haven't installed Linux on my Dell laptop where I really want it (microsoft hate) because the wireless card isn't supported by any Linux distro straight from install. Instead I've spent the last few days trying to decifer the forum posts and web pages of Linux experts to determine how to make an unsupported wireless card work and they use phrases and terminology that make perfect sense until I get to line X of the instructions that says something like "then recompile and make a sldfjksdf-sdf in the sldfjs" and suddenly I realize I'm not anywhere near the solution because I have yet another day's worth of homework to do. I can only imagine what it must be like when considering Linux for use in an enterprise environment. I hate to say it, but I'd rather have my documentation from a single source that has given an ounce of consideration to communication techniques and the end user's experience.
This kind of article always brings out the same argument, which we've beaten to death in this forum.
.NET, because the other developer was a VB guy, and the learning curve for him would have made it impossible to meet our deadline. I am comfortable with the Linux/Apache world, and generally prefer it, but I must admit that we whipped out a smokin' application, thanks to the data support from Visual Studio. (Interesting side note: this app has VB for the data layer, but C# for the business logic and the presentation layer. We had absolutely no trouble integrating the two languages.)
The question seems to be, is Microsoft winning 'the war'?
Oh, come now. All they are doing is fighting a rear-guard action. How could they possibly win in the long-term? The only way would be if we collectively stopped developing Linux and the applications which run on it, and go back to always buying Windows products. Does anyone really think that's going to happen?
I am currently consulting for a company which has a variety of systems and applications going. About half of their software development effort goes to in-house, never-to-be-published applications. The other half is specifically for the purpose of public consumption. You know what? The public consumption side is all running or being converted to Linux/Apache/Tomcat. The internal stuff is still up for grabs, but this is a cultural issue, not a question of the technical merits of MS vs the world.
I had a short timeframe to develop my current project, and I ended up going C# and
The Linux/Apache/Java side of the house is also grudgingly admitting we did a great job getting a fully-functional app out the door in a short timeframe. But they are also doing interesting things with Lucene and some other child projects of Apache.
The state of things now at the comapny are that getting the job done is Job #1, and the folks who write the checks don't care whether MS is in the loop or not. But, as more of our IT staff begin using open source tools, the more our tech staff will start saying to the bean counters, 'hey, we don't need to buy a Microsoft license for this or that project.' And the beanies are going to be happy to go along with that!
What's interesting to me, as a long-time Linux and FreeBSD guy, is that the quality of development tools that MS has had to create is a direct result of having to compete with the open source alternatives. And the quality and utility of those tools is accelerating.
The real story is that WE win.
If I'm looking to the real future of computing, I'd rather know what a bunch of geeks in high school think about technology than some random group of CIOs. They'll have the greatest degree of influence over it in the long haul.
Adolecents are very bad at determining anything that is going to last a long time. There's a lot of quick, off the cuff, rebel without a cause, I just want to be different attitude. High schoolers may determine fads, but not long term statistics. As for the other group, the over the hill stuffy antiques that occupy the highest ranks in companies, they too have problems. They are most likely to stick with what they know too stongly and never change. Many of them did go down with the mainframe. No, I'll take the middle ground on this one, as the guassian curve of change requires. Many of the people now working in the trenches know most what's going on.
I agree with you about technology becoming a commodity, but the problem is I don't see how there is an equivalent between something actually new, and Linux/FOSS. An OS is an OS, and Microsoft's OS isn't technologically different from Linux as say PCs were to mainframes. Even so, I'm still unsure about whether another "revolution" is going to take place in our industry. It would be nice to have a free and open OS, as well as applications to run on it, but development does have a cost in terms of time, as well as money. I'm assuming Microsoft will "eventually" lower their prices enough that makes it pointless to actually check Linux out. The problem is, do we still want them to "control" us?
I would love to see a technologically new, free, and open OS, that is actually different from the OSs we are familliar with, but somehow I don't see this happening. And since it may not happen, I don't know how any CIO (or app vendor) is going to choose between two OSs that basically have the same function, except on price, especially since one of them has 90 percent of the market.
Working in the trenches as I have however has given me good perspective on how a company like Microsoft exercises control over its customer. Microsoft doesn't seem to (or hasn't up to now) actually wanted a stable core that can be built upon as time progresses. They know that if they can get you to "whole hog upgrade" every few years then they can be on the gravy train for life. They know that selling the whole hog is more profitable than selling the pieces "componentized". This kind of thinking yanks my chain, and you can bet our CIO will eventually hear about such problems from the trenches.
At work another IT Project Manager was just saying he didn't understand how Open Source software worked if nobody "owned" it. They just aren't able to visualize what's already there. So he was vulnerable to FUD. When I was a kid Sesame Street had a small bit that took you to a dairy and showed how milk got to your house. It'd be fun to see a documentary about how Apache server is currently run and maintained. How does a bug get handled? How is the Apache Foundation organized?
This is exactly the point. People don't see that they have choices but if they see that they have a choice in one area of technology, they begin to check to see if their are other choices that they can make as well.
Microsoft's big plus is in making consumers think that there are no choices. It is scared of people getting the chance to make a choice and even more scared of consumers making an INFORMED choice.
Just because you use Windows and have always used Windows does not mean that is the best choice for you. It means that you have not taken the time to investigate if there are better choices and have just accepted the fate handed to you by the Microsoft corporation.
One day these other Windows people will wake up abnd learn that they have a choice whether it be a different browser, a different OS, a different Office app, a different web server, a different database or whatever.
One day they will realize that they have choices and that is what Microsoft fears the most. They want to convince you that even if you do have a choice, that it isn't a REAL choice. And they are losing.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
Looks like someone is busy running:
...in 32 parallel processes by running this:
Shhh, I weren't supposed to give people bad ideas ;)
The campaigns against Linux seem to treat it as if it's something that used to be widely used but is now dwindling. We all know that this isn't true.
Linux has really jumped up out of nowhere, and is now being considered by quite a large percentage of businesses.
The 'facts' seem to show that Linux is growing in popularity at a phenomenal rate, and is battling extremely well against Microsoft's considering the lock-in/lock-out situation.
The world complained about stability, and Microsoft made Windows more stable.
The world complained about security, and Microsoft... well, it seems to be having a good try.
Now, the world is complaining about lock-in, and Microsoft... oh dear. Is Microsoft going to open its protocols, APIs and file formats? I think not.
Linux/Open Source/Anti Microsoft News
Who's talking about unemployment? "not with us anymore" means the he got hung with a CAT5 cable, 'cause that's what we do with Open Source commies.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Now with open source software there's not much free support
You have GOT to be smoking crack with this one. Nothing the size and scope of the linux user community exists in windows. If you recall, the linux user community has won AWARDS for its support.
You can say a lot about linux, but you cannot say it doesn't contain free support. Linux is the epitome of free support.
Let the businesses run their IT the way they want. That includes letting them run Windows.
Then, be their competitor with an OSS solution. If it really makes a difference, you'll have the edge and it'll be that much easier to plow the other guy into the ground. Or they'll swicth over in order to survive.
Honestly, why does anybody care what OS businesses are running? A bank or something with my money in it, yeah, but really, what difference does it make for Generic Company X, Y, or Z?
You are missing the other point: Reboot if you do something that affects the boot process. Normally you don't have to do anything to the boot process or the software involved in the boot process. Only if you patch kernel and loadable modules, you have to reboot. /etc/init.d/ directory (or /etc/rc.d/init.d or /etc/system/init.d or whatever...) where all the scripts are to be used to start and stop services.
If you patch software that is started at boot time it should be enough to just restart the services. That's why you have the
The one who screwed up his firewall was actually recompiling the kernel without testing if it runs. That's bad. The one with 550days uptime didn't have any kernel patches to test. So no reboot.
If you look at the patch descriptions they actually tell you if a reboot is necessary after applying. And no. You don't fiddle around in the boot scripts of a working server. You have a second server where you can happily reboot as you like to test necessary changes to boot scripts. And even then above said still applies: Restarting the service using the changed boot script should be a sufficient test. UNIX is designed to have as much as possible independent of each other. And a vendor changing a boot script in a way that it requires to change the sequence the boot scripts should be called will always put BIG WARNING SIGNs at this patch. As does the free and open source community.
Lets read between the lines
'After polling 1,400 IT managers and CIOs in SMB corporations,
The ones we got out of our registeration records who are only using windows.
This group
The group hired by Microsoft to do the survey
found that 48% were not interested in Linux,
Because they already paid for windows
15% were not sure about Linux
Becuse they never thought about it before.
and only 10% plan to evaluate Linux."
Because they will get a discount from Microsoft for taking the survey
Despite this, two-thirds of all webservers run Linux. The disparity in these numbers comes from the fact that most smaller companies' websites are hosted by service providers running Linux servers even if the company itself isn't."
"My my we didnt know that. We thought they were windows based."
I trust Microsoft as far as I could comfortably spit a dead rat
instead of talking about their reports,
how about the ugly reality of using Windows instead?
Aggressive, Mass-Mailed Sober.p Worm Poised To Smack Users
By Gregg Keizer, TechWeb News
Monday may be a very bad day, a security researcher said Friday as he warned that the aggressive Sober worm of early May is timed to download new code the first day of next workweek.
Sober.p, the mass-mailed worm that spread voraciously by virtue of its offer of free World Cup tickets, is poised to launch another attack Monday, said Dmitri Alperovitch, a research engineer with an Alpharetta, Ga.-based security firm CipherTrust"
whenever someone gets the urge to post another stupid article about how MS is winning the FUD war, they should just post another REAL worm/virus/update/phish article complete with catchy tagline, links to other important security sites, etc.
chris
"...that's as white as it gets; all the bits are on..."
I've been reading studies that are comissioned by M$. They seem to be spending a lot of money coming up with "studies" that are derogatory to Linux. I'd like to know if anybody in the Linux comunity has ever paid for a study to show how much Windows sucks, or is that knowledge just free and word of mouth?