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.
Here is a translation from babblefish for those that don't read bullshit.
More consistent: It crashes the same way every time I press the start button.
Predictable: It will crash at least once a week
Easy to manage: There aren't any extra settings in the windows to set that confuse people.
With Linux, they couldn't figure out what they needed to press to make it crash and couldn't determine out when it would crash.
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
--
Given enough personal experience, all stereotypes are shallow.
The key, as always with these "studies", is to find the portion where it deviates from Reality. That is, where it uses some strange definition or where the sysadmins choose some bizarre action.
...
In this "study", that step into UnReality begins where all systems are required to stay on the same time-line for upgrades.
This means that what would otherwise be a normal upgrade from SLES 8 to SLES 9 instead becomes a strange mix of back-porting patches from SLES 9 to SLES 8. In other examples, the sysadmins are downloading code from the glibc and mysql sites and applying it to those server WITHOUT TESTING. So, over time, the SLES systems become unstable.
Meanwhile, no non-Microsoft supplied code is applied to the Windows boxes.
Of course, the one who commissions the "study" gets to choose the criteria
... an independent study commisioned by the Vatican demostrates that God exist.
$someone_influenced_by_microsoft claimed that Linux administrators took 68 per cent longer to implement new business requirements than their Windows counterparts.
Well, I'm not suprised - They're probably busy reading slashdot half of the time.
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
How pathetic is it when the only people who say nice things about you are the people you PAY to say nice things about you? That's like paying people to be your friend.
MSFT has the best friends money can buy.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Linux administrators took 68 per cent longer to implement new business requirements than their Windows counterparts.
They forgot to mention that 67.3% of the windos counterparts did not solve the problem at all because they did not know of a vendor who had the software available, and those were not included in the statistics. Also, 23.1% of the windos projects were ten times over budget. 17.5% of the windos projects were fast, but in violation of on average 7 EULAs and 3 other license agreements. 55% of the Linux projects were slowed down by the requirement that no Free or Open Source software could be used, while 15.8% were limited by the requirement that no non-microsoft software could be employed, and Wine was specifically disallowed. Also, 97.5% of statistics are made up on the spot, including 87.3% of those who are conducted by so-called "independent institutes" for lots of money. Finally, 99.87% of studies paid for by someone surprisingly reveal exactly what the customer asked for.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
"Most IT guys would rather it take longer to set up, but run smoothly with low maintenance, than to have an easy setup and lots of maintenance."
Nah, most IT people would rather have jobs. Windows will keep the administrators going for years to come. Thanks windows, keep up the bad work!
Am I open minded towards open source, or closed minded towards closed source?
More consistent: it does, start button I press, same way crash.
Predictable: A week crash will once it at least.
Easy to manage: Extra Windows settings to confuse people it will, arent there?
I've been using Fedora for a long time now, but this report has given me some doubts. In the interests of fairness, I should probably give this "Windows" a go. Sourceforge doesn't seem to have anything - does anybody know where I can download it for comparison? ;P
I think the flood of microsoft biased studies in the last year go a long way toward bolstering linux's claims. If they weren't to some extent true, microsoft wouldn't be trying so hard to discredit them.
I don't know why they bother honestly. My bosses bosses boss recently informed me that we use Microsoft almost exclusively. I just nodded and smiled, because it was easier to do that than explain that even our DESKTOPS are mostly Mac, and our infrastructure is 90% unix (Solaris, linux, bsd). The only people who really read those studies don't know what the hell they're talking about anyway.
I don't give a damn what microsoft's studies say. I've been using unix, linux, and windows for years, and unix and linux have ALWAYS been more reliable. I've got a 250,000 dollar machine hooked up to a brand new Dell box running 2003 that goes down as often as a nickel whore, and I am SICK of hearing from Microsoft that this is just my imagination!
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Weekly reboots.
Get a copy of Win2K3 on your box. Create a directory that's 3 directories below the root.
Put 200,000 files in that directory (size of each file does not matter).
Now, watch the application that reads and writes files to that directory get slower and slower over time. Until you need to reboot the box.
For an instant problem, open that directory in Explorer. All of your processor speed will be eaten by the "system" process. Even after you close Explorer. Rebooting is the only thing that will clear the problem.
"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