Ask the Author of the Latest MS-Funded Windows vs. Linux Study

Last week on Slashdot you saw a (Microsoft-funded) research study on Windows vs. (Novell) Linux reliability by Dr.Herbert Thompson. Novell disagreed with the study's conclusions. So did most Slashdot readers. Thompson's work been mentioned on Slashdot before, especially his famous five-line script that could change electronic voting machine results and his novel, The Mezonic Agenda: Hacking the Presidency. He's a real, genuine-article computer security expert (and regular Slashdot reader) who is happy to put on his flame-resistant suit and discuss his Microsoft vs. Linux study with you. So ask whatever you like, one question per post. We'll send him 10 of the highest-moderated questions and publish his answers next Monday. He'll jump into the discussion then, which ought to make it rather lively.

Comments

"Real World" scenario

[Gehenna]

If this is a "real world" scenario why is a default install picked? Part of the job description for a sysadmin is to secure a system. If this install "attempted to simulate a "real-world" enterprise e-commerce environment over the course of a year." then how could it be the default configuration? The bugzilla example you annote is for samba, not port of a reasonable database server install.

Also is there a list of the vulnerabilities quantifued in your study?

Doesn't change the TCO

[everphilski]

But the thing is why should they port to Linux? Why should I purchase Linux versions of software when I already own the Linux versions? So I can say I'm cool and run Linux? No. The cost of a windows license is next to nothing and the cost of the software will be the same on either platform; and when you are talking TCO of engineering software the engineering software costs run in the thousands to tens of thousands of dollars. When we buy our workstations from Dell/Xi/any bulk vendor the windows license runs about $10-$30. Whats the point of recoding part of the software, in the pov of the engineering vendor, to avoid $10-$30 windows license? That's absurd.

-everphilski-

Re:A better way of putting it:

[Jerry Coffin]

One thing I did not see in the study was a good description of assumptions you made.

I guess I must have found a different study -- the one I found has a section titled "Assumptions and Rules" starting on page 11, then an "Additional assumptions on Quantitative Data" running from around the middle of page 12 through about the top third of page 14.

Is this a different one than you were looking at?

--
The universe is a figment of its own imagination.

Re:Why risk your creditibilty?

[miffo.swe]

In my work as a network administrator i work more with Windows than i do with linux. Still after i have worked with Windows since Windows 95 and Linux since a couple of years back i still think its easier to manage linux servers. The ones having most difficulties with linux is the ones trying to use it like they was using Windows. You have to grasp the ground rules first and then linux aint hard at all. Finding an error in Linux is much easier than in Windows for eg. This is ofcourse if you dont see a reinstall as a successful error checking style. Personally i want to know why something break and how to prevent it the next time. Thats impossible with Windows from my experience.

I agree with your point

[Oldsmobile]

I agree. I am a power user, I suppose, and have had computers set up with Linux. I find certain things on Linux much better than on Windows machines, but taken as a whole and looking at the things I do everyday, Windows comes out on top. It really isn't a case of "operating system X is crap and Z is simply wonderfull" but a case of looking at what your needs are and what system works best for you. I do believe that Linux has the very strong potential of overcoming it's weaknesses and would in that case truly win over Windows. However, we are not there yet so in the meanwhile, Windows will do. Also, Windows will probably work on getting better and perhaps Apple will come closer to the proletariat equipment wise, and make it a three way match.

Re: Your sig

[Krach42]

effect:
tr.v. effected, effecting, effects
1. To bring into existence.
2. To produce as a result.
3. To bring about. (*See Usage Note at affect*).

Usage Note: Affect and effect have no senses in common. As a verb affect is most commonly used in the sense of "to influence" (how smoking affects health). Effect means "to bring about or execute": layoffs designed to effect savings. Thus the sentence These measures may affect savings could imply that the measures may reduce savings that have already been realized, whereas These measures may effect savings implies that the measures will cause new savings to come about.

Either way, it's wrong to say that "effect" is not a verb... in fact, it is.

This is besides the whole point that the sibling post made, that it's Grammar, not Grammer.

Re:What do you have to say about Novell's statemen

[Anonymous Coward]

Spelling tip of the day: "Although".

Re:What are you talking about?

[julesh]

What commercial apps on Linux did he use, exactly?

See Appendix 5.

During the experimental trials, 3rd party best-of-breed components were chose to satisfy the needs of the solution. [...] The specific 3rd party vendors are not disclosed because the focus of the study is the methodology and not a specific component.

The commercial apps in question, though, had dependencies on (1) a very recent version of MySQL, and (2) a more recent version of glibc than is included in the version of SuSE in use. These two dependencies were the root cause of almost all the problems described in this paper.