Slashdot Mirror
OSDL Skeptical Of Joint Study with Microsoft
Jac writes "An interview with ZDNet reveals the low opinion Stuart Cohen, chief of Open Source Development Labs(OSDL), has of a recent Microsoft proposal to conduct a joint study on on deploying Microsoft Vs Linux. From the article: 'As far as working with Microsoft on a study, Microsoft could probably find one negative line on Linux in a 100-page research report that it would spend $10 million marketing while ignoring the other 99 pages...' An interesting follow-up to a recent Slashdot article.
"Oh look! The OSDL is unwilling to objectively compare Linux to Windows, because they know that Windows is the obvious choice for any enterprise!"
Hardly surprising.
Lemon curry???
Well, I don't know why compare just two operating system, why not bunch of them, but I can figure out the reason. There is so many rumours about Windows that are causing harm to Microsoft. I don't know how average slashdot troll ("OMGXIITLOL! My XP crashes ALL THE TIME") affects corporate managers though.
But I'd like to see comparison between Windows, Linux, Open/Net/FreeBSD, Solaris and some other UNIXes if it would be rationally made and conducted. Of course there would be some issues like "why didn't they use kernel option X and Y or software option Z" but it would be fun to read.
You don't know what you don't know.
What's in it for Linux? It's only going to say what everyone knows already - Linux is cheaper, TCO is lower but there are weaknesses in some domains such as desktops. It probably sounds fair and reasonable that Microsoft wants a chance a neutral report (instead of their usual tainted, biased, paid for reports), but you just know they're going to capitalize on the air of respectability of a joint study to report the same distortions and negative PR as they always do. So why bother?
...the results of a study on the supposed negative effects of cigarette smoking that was funded by a tobacco company? Or the myth of global warming as espoused by an oil company? Or the necessity of being ready for war as delineated by a weapons manufacturer? Or the lack of corruption in politics as found by it's own members? Or the utter impossibility of paedophilia within a church because of the pronouncement of some most holy reverend blah blah... If there is money and power involved there is sure to be lies as well. That's why it is such a good thing that GNU/Linux is *FREE*
No sig for now.
I can see the M$ propaganda now: "Even Linux experts agree that ...some small negative thing blown totally out of proportion...."
The only way committed and respected Linux people should agree to cooperate on a report would be if Microsoft would agree to 'equal air time' for Linux people to reply to their allegations in subsequent exploitation of that report.
That's not going to happen - so just say 'No'.
"Wont microsoft take this skeptism, and then spend 10 million in marketing to say that OSDL backed out of an open test because they know linux is inferior?"
I think the world has built up a healthy skepticism about anything coming from Microsoft, so another $10m FUD marketing is gonna go down the drain. There's some key points with this "joint, independent" study:
1. OSDL is just one of the agencies involved in the creation and upkeep of Open Source projects. MS is the only one developing Windows.
2. FOSS projects get used and adopted by word of mouth, whereas MS depends on Gartner reports and 'funded, independent' research to propogate their products. How many Gartner reports and mainstream media reports could forecast the spectacular growth of Open Source?
3. The OSDL could rather focus on their core area of writing and distributing quality software - money invested in 'research' activities such as this is pure waste.
4. Microsoft's philosophy is 'one-size-fits-all' - totally contrary to the FOSS world. If there's an issue with IE it's impossible to (completely) remove it from the OS and be secure - it's possible to install a Linux server that does not include a browser. Hardly any purpose would be served comparing the two.
If people are going to adopt and deploy FOSS, they don't need any of these 'sponsored' reports. Microsoft has no choice.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Pepsi vs. Coke is a comparison over a marketable item that doesn't take much effort to change in your daily routine.
Linux vs. Windows on the other hand is "geek" stuff that would take phenomenal effort from standard users and businesses to switch to either platform.
Linux (and OSDL) are better suited to word of mouth and niche sectors of the market. Pepsi is better suited to TV ads and advertising slogans. OSDL should stay out of this comparison.
How long would Microsoft drag out the negotiations regarding precisely what should be tested and the methodologies that would be used?
How long would Microsoft drag out the guidelines for interpreting the results of the testing that is performed?
What more productive things could the ODSL people be doing instead of being sucked into this quagmire?
Why the hell doesn't Microsoft just tell the truth? If they had a get the facts program saying that most of the programs available for Windows don't have a Linux equivilent, especially those that are a little obscure, and that the vast majority of games don't work on Linux, it'd be reason for home users and corperate users to not use Linux. There's got to be some people out there not taking this into account, and all the stuff they're saying now most people don't believe or trust. And if they were honest they wouldn't get such bad press about it all the time!
You are correct, use what works best for the job, but how do you know which is best for the job if you never compare the competition head to head?
r ing_the_gpl_to_eula.pdf
I personally don't like the "use what works" reasoning because in most cases its used as a cop out or excuse to maintain the status quo.
That said I don't pay much attention to most of the studies that are thrown back and forth because 1) there is a lot of misinformation (pretty much from one side, yeah you know which side), and 2) most of the studies fail to start at the beginning before any features are speced or any pricing is quoted.
The first step in determining what works for the job is to examine the fine print. That is the licensing agreement which binds you once you make your decision.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~cybersrc/about/compa
If you do your due diligence and start with the licensing then in most cases you won't need to go any further.
Statistically speaking it may make sense to ignore the licensing as most individuals and companies do, however, that wont play well as a defense if the licensing and your practices are in conflict and the licensee demands retribution.
Sadly, you're correct. At the community college where I teach, the whole IT department worships Microsfoft products. I teach mathematics, and Microsoft tools are so woefully inadequate for formatting mathematical documents that for years I wrote them out by hand. Finally, I learned LaTeX, and convinced them to let me install it on one machine in our tiny teachers lounge. Later, they removed it, claiming it had broken their e-mail client. What a bunch of geniuses. Now, the only use I have for their equipment is to surf the net and print .pdf files that I prepare at home.
And those people are not valid targets for FOSS anyway. They essentially have unlimited budgets and a mandate that it has to work and must have a vendor who can provide support. A big company can lose millions of dollars a day if the software has an issue.
The FOSS market is targeted at people who have limited budgets. They want it to work but can forgo vendor support since they are smaller and can't afford to spend 80% more to get 99.9% reliability instead of 99.7% reliability.
Part of the reason FOSS has been making inroads is that in some cases (web servers) it provides 99.999% reliablity AND it's free/cheaper.
Microsoft doesn't want to lose the little customers because they are the only ones who are really paying $500 a seat for office. The big companies are paying $50 a seat (Hell- I can BUY a copy of most microsoft software for $20 to use at home since I work at a big company).
Most people I know see microsoft marketing as fud, and the company as being dishonest, unethical, and scummy. The first level that seems to change is up at the VP level where the decisions are usually made.
Despite the downsides, microsoft does deliver a lot of support and reliablity in return for lockin and large amounts of money. That is good- but they embrace and extend that to other products we could be getting for free so there is a definate tradeoff.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
The people they are targetting are, as you correctly point out, those wavering on the edge of Linux adoption.
The trouble is that (IMHO) a great many of these people are moving primarily because they're pissed off at Microsoft. For this reason, they're unlikely to give much weight to a Microsoft sponsored survey and such propaganda may rebound against MS, further harming their credibility. We've already seen this happen with the Get The Facts campaign
So that's why MS so desperately needs a linux insider to endorse the study. If ODSL come on board, then they can claim a degree of balance and impartiality to the report, however illusory it may in fact be.
But without someone from inside the Linux camp, all they're going to do is dig a deeper hole for themselves.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
Maybe the OSDL should say, "sure, we'll participate in a TCO study that excludes the costs of interoperating with existing Windows apps and infrastructure". In other words, a study based strictly on the inherent quality of the two systems.
And if you want to do a study that doesn't exclude that stuff, give us the info we need to implement interoperability, and we'll participate in that too.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...