Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Claims Firms 'Hitting a Wall' With Linux
maxifez writes writes to tell us that Microsoft has released yet another independent study downplaying the viability of Linux at the enterprise level. The study claims that Windows is "more consistent, predictable, and easier to manage than Linux." From the article: "The study, commissioned by the software giant from Security Innovation, a provider of application security services, claimed that Linux administrators took 68 per cent longer to implement new business requirements than their Windows counterparts." Vnunet.com has also provided a PDF of the original report.
Also I am pleased to notice that the "independant company" that spewed out this "commissioned report" (see the microsoft page) lists Microsoft on their partners page, and from what I can tell no one who has even heard of Linux (with the exception of HP). Since it looks like their business depends on selling enhanced security products, I can see why they wouldn't be too keen on having people show an interest in Linux.
Security Innovation designed this study to be repeatable, and we believe that the results are consistent with what customers are experiencing in the real world.
And if I wander over and look at my main Linux file server, I see an uptime of 125 days (it had over a year uptime before I physically had to move the server to a different location). During that time the server's files were available 24/7 with absolutely zero problems. Needless to say we have had way fewer problems with the new Linux server; the old Microsoft server crashed or had to be rebooted on a regular basis; the people before me actually had a planned "weekly reboot every Friday evening". When it came time to replace the Microsoft server, Microsoft didn't fare so well, especially when it came time to pay big piles of $$$ to upgrade it: basically we could have bought two linux file servers for the cost of the Microsoft software upgrade costs alone. Hows that for a real-world example?
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
The study claimed that Linux administrators took 68 per cent longer to implement new business requirements than their Windows counterparts.
yeah, maybe true. But how about maintaining them later, for years, with zero downtime?
#
#\ @ ? Colonize Mars
#
And I suppose the pro-Linux studies are more valid?
According to Netcraft:
My Websites Hosted on Linux:
Last Reboot: 468 days
Last Reboot: 331 days
Last Reboot: 664 days
Other of My Websites Hosted on Windows:
Last Reboot: 3 days
Last Reboot: 9 days
Last Reboot: 11 days
Customers wanting to switch from Windows to Linux: 3
99.999% Uptime and 50% happy customers: Priceless
CP
"As they attempt to increase business capabilities over time, customers are telling us that they are hitting a wall with Linux" said Martin Taylor, general manager of platform strategy at Microsoft.
I am sorry but this is the most sorry ass downhill marketing I have ever seen. It is like Pepsi hiring a guy to wear a Coca-Cola Tshirt and purposely choking. This guy changed title 3 times in a year. Just a couple months ago he was Microsoft's very own Linux strategist.
4 red hat 7.3 DNS servers. Have never required a reboot since installation.
1 red hat 6 machine that lasted 6 years without an OS related reboot (the hardware started to give and the box had to be decommissioned)
1 database/web server running SLES 8 has gone over a year and a half without a reboot.
1 webserver running debian stable no reboot since installation
1 proxy server running SLES 9 w/ squid that was set up in under a 1/2 hour under emergency conditions (old proxy hardware died unexpectedly) running 20 days under extremely heavy load until new server came in.
1 database server running SLES 8. A year since last reboot.
And those are all the ancient boxes. We've got many more linux boxen that are too new to have aquired a long uptime.
From the article:
experiencing significant reliability issues resulting in higher total cost of ownership
*shrug* I've had none of these issues they speak of. All of our installs are quick, stable and long lasting. In fact, I've never had a production upgrade break anything, and never had an install take longer than a couple of hours in even the most complex of setups.
This whole "get the facts" campaign is just silly. I don't know why they keep on with it. I've been working with Linux for years and never run into any of the problems they have "documented".
Hey Balmer, want an anecdotal story of Windows breaking? Our mapping department had a Windows 2000 installation with their mapping software. One day it just breaks. 5 people standing around the box scratching our heads. No one had any clue why. Random reboots, blue screens, the whole works. We reinstall many times. Nothing. Do all the upgrades, patches and fixes. Nothing. Sounds like hardware, right? Nope. Upgraded to 2003 and worked fine since.
The fact that the box could have run 2 years without major issue then break out of nowhere with 5 very smart people trying to solve the issue and can't makes me wonder.
Get the real facts.
If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
... is a relative term I could compile a report like this demonstrating that Linux admins take 68% longer to perform a set of cherry picked tasks you can do alot faster on a Windows machine that has a nice easy to use GUI management tool specially designed to do those same tasks. I could also demonstrate to you that Windows admins take 68% longer to perform certain cherry picked tasks because those same Windows GUI management tools (Windows command line tools tend to suck ass) simply don't enable you to perform those tasks as efficiently as you can by doing them with shell/perl scripts on the Linux command line. Comparing Windows to Linux/Unix is to some extent akin to comparing cats and dogs. The design philosophies of Linux/Unix are fundamentally different from those of Windows. The former are meant to be more flexible and targeted at better educated operators while Windows seems to be geared firstly towards corporations who want something that a relatively low skilled person, preferably without a high level of education (and thus a lower salary), can easily administrate and secondly it is geared towards the mostly clueless average consumer. Then there is OS.X which does an admirable job of being just as easy, if not easyer to use than Windows, (while still being more secure) but it still has all the power of Linux/Unix making it a nice compromise.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Yea, I've got a win2k3 box hooked up as a Raster Image Processor...Basically it processes a binary image, makes it suitable for highrez film printing, does color separation, stuff like that. It takes a moderate amount of traffic, and needs to be rebooted at least once a week. Sometimes it goes into crash cycles on Fridays when the traffic is highest, and needs to be rebooted hourly.
I've got three antiquated Solaris boxes running older versions of the same software, and taking MORE traffic, that need to be rebooted about once a month.
I've gotta say, the software must be brutal because I've never had a Solaris machine have that many problems. Even so, Windows shows it's true colors as usual. On new hardware, with new software and all the patches, it's much less reliable than much older machines running a better os.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
They had a year to study this and came up with some unusual metrics to say the least. For those who did not read the 44 pages of PDF, let me summarize some of my observations:
- They appear to be more comfortable with Windows than Linux. There is nothing wrong with that except they do not account for it in the time to complete tasks.
- They compared a Windows box running MS SS against two versions of Red Hat running MySQL and Oracle. That the did not use the same data bases on both OS slants the numbers from the start. Even if they wanted to avoid MySQL, they could have selected an Oracle installation.
- They counted vulnerabilities at the component level. So a shared library that had a vulnerability, but was used by both the installed OS and the database is counted twice. One used by the OS, the GUI, and the database, three times, etc. They state this is fair, but this would automatically penalize a Linux distribution because MS does not get counted twice in any case.
- The Red Hat installations were done manually and minimal installations. They then had problems, and make commentary on the difficulty of the upgrades. I would be very interested in the detail of what they did for the install. This appears to be a self-inflicted wound claiming to be otherwise.
- They make an big deal about what ports are open in the default installation. They comment that MS continues to allow MSUpdate, a good thing, but that Linux left the port for up2date open, a bad thing. Again, as a minimalist install they should have secured the ports, but that is dumb argument regardless. Admins who leave a machine wide open deserved to be fired. Because MS now ships theirs with everything closed is a side effect of the number of complaints about bad admins leaving the server in its out of the box state.
- Days to resolve a vulnerability are dangerous guides. First, a vulnerability has to be reported, then verified. We are dependent upon the vendor (MS, Oracle, etc) to correctly reflect these. However, almost anyone can and does report one for OSS - and that is a good thing.
In general, they speak of vulnerabilities and the ability to respond to business requests. I would like to see the requests they specifically refer to. While 68% sounds like a lot, is it the difference between 12 and 26 seconds? I just cannot see in my day to day activities it taking me more than half again as long to do anything and it is far less to image entire boxes. I wonder if this is a familiarity thing.
It is really time someone from RedHat or SUSE took a study like this and dissected it for a comparison 1:1 with MS. None of this it counts twice or differing databases garbage, a real compare. The top 20 tasks an admin will perform in a year. If we loose at least we know what to focus our energies upon. (What does not kill us, makes us stronger)
Supporting a mixed (Windows/Linux/Solaris) environment, I just do not see a 68% difference anywhere for an experienced admin.
My biggest problem with the article is the claim to "predictability and consistency". They probably haven't seen any of the past 20 AD implementations. I have seen AD, Windows 2000, and Windows 2003 show extreme unpredictability and terrible consistency. I have seen some crazy GPO get applied to users out of the blue, and I've seen some of the craziest errors ever. I think linux has the predictability and consistency, however, there is a little bit of upkeep required and a little more well trained tech staff, but hey, you get what you pay for. Deal with it.
YOU'RE WINNER !
Another lame blog
OK, it's time for me to repost what's involved installing a private certificate server on Windows 2000 via its "intuitive" point-and-click GUI. (You forgive me if I just link to it, not wanting to repeat slashdot's lameness filter hell for this kind of post.) It compares the Linux way and the Windows way. These were the actual procedures used, that I carefully documented, for two different projects that accomplished exactly the same goal. Here it is. (Scroll past the lameness filter stuff at the beginning.)