Slashdot Mirror
Novell Doubts Microsoft Latest "Linux Facts"
Robert writes "Microsoft Corp's "Get the Facts" campaign comparing Windows with Linux
continues to prove controversial, with Novell Inc describing the latest set of facts
offered up by Microsoft as "misdirection." The latest report offered up by
Microsoft as evidence that Windows is a better bet than Linux is a white paper from
Security Innovation Inc that compares maintenance, patch application, and system failures
related to a migration from Windows Server 2000 to 2003, and Novell's SUSE Linux
Enterprise Server 8 to SLES 9. The report found that there were more system failures
experienced by Linux systems administrators, and that more patches needed to be applied to
the
Linux systems, while more time was required to complete the Linux migration."
I know! I just read about it!
You can even ask the author about it!
The funniest thing I see, is that they actually compare Windows "one patch fits all" to Linux vast number of programs and software, each managing their own updates. OF COURSE Linux demands more updates, there's simply more software to patch!
Blog -
Security Innovation Inc - aren't they owned or at least funded by Microsoft? Move along please ... nothing new to see here .....
Evil Overlord Rule #86. I will make sure that my doomsday device is up to code and properly grounded.
I run a Samba 3 / OpenLDAP network that spans fifty branches in twelve states, and I am here to tell you that once we got rid of Microsoft, our (systems) support problems went through the floor. The Microsoft clients still suck just as bad, though. By the way, all of our routers are Linux based (Freeswan, netfilter/IP2Route, Snort), as well, and for wireless we run Sveasoft's Linux based software on Linksys (Cisco) Wrt54gs's and Wap54g's. I could not be more happy (or late night phone-call free).
Microsoft provides you nothing with windows
This would be insightful if things like this weren't in the shrink-wrap from Microsoft. You know, the OS, a complete web server, mail platform, fax handling, SQL server, firewalling, collaboration suite, and remote access/routing tools all in a single install. Most small businesses that do set up MS-based server solutions go exactly this route and save themselves a lot of trouble and money. And yes, you can pretty much secure and patch all of it with a couple of mouseclicks as needed, or let it happen automatically. Most actual business settings, though, start to require an admin (or rent-an-admin) with enough brains to know when/why/how to perform some of those tasks so as to not disrupt business. But don't assume that all you can get on a CD from MS is an O/S - it's just not like that, and hasn't been for years. They were providing "SBS" packages/installs back with good old NT, and it's been getting better and easier to deal with ever since. It's pretty much just-add-water (um, consulting/training for end users) at this point.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Yeah this is so true. Windows servers usually have to be upgraded every few years or you risk losing access to bug and security fixes. With Linux you always have updates to the security fixes, no matter how old you system is. I don't really see why you would migrate from SUSE 8 to SUSE 9 rather than just update a few key packages you happen to be using. For a web server, update Apache, maybe MySQL or PostgreSQL, and probably the kernel, if there are big changes that actually affect you. No reason to go updating everything on your system.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Migration is not the appropriate word to use. They are talking about "migrating" from one version to the next which is actually an upgrade. The sad fact of the matter is that upgrading from one version of SuSE to another is so bad that everyone in the forums recommends that people do a fresh install rather than an upgrade. Upgrade results are very mixed with most upgrades creating some form of oddity in the resultant system.
Now before we go bashing SuSE too much, I'd like to point out that this upgrade problem exists for most Linux distros. Only a couple of distros, that I know of, can consistently do upgrades without problems. They are Gentoo and Debian.
Windows is easy to maintain for the week required to set up a test system. After a while though, the system gets clogged, something ends up thrashing the CPU, all the icons start to jump from their applications to something else they fancy (hello Windows 2000?!), and you WILL require a reboot, which causes costly downtime - and some poor admin to come in on his weekend. This is NOT good in a situation where even 5 minutes of downtime on the weekend is NOT a good thing.
Sure, I've had monster planning and installs of Linux and FreeBSD - but those servers just don't go down. I almost forget that they are there. We built all the monitoring scripts ourselves so they let us know by email if they are experiencing trouble. A Solaris box we have has been running since 2000 without rebooting, surviving several software upgrades in the process.
Meanwhile my Windows 2000 desktop icons have decided to have an icon swapping party, and my laptop seems to get slower every year... not to mention the number of viruses it can get.
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
In my opinion, anyone considering Microsoft operating sytems should consider this: Self-destruction is a "feature".
I guess his sig should have been, "any fool can read, but it takes a wise man to comprehend."
Parent puts expert in quotes and states he runs his own business. I would infer that he does not get paid as a sysadmin because he's not working as an employee for anyone. It's his own small business, get it?
In case you didn't read the whole message, he STARTED A COMPANY AND BECAME THE SYSADMIN FOR IT. Get a clue.
In general, you are correct.
In the specific case of this specific "study", the criteria were such that the SuSE sysadmins were required to download and install code from the mysql site and back-port patches from SLES 9 to their SLES 8 systems, themselves.
Without being allocated the time to correctly test those systems.
Meanwhile, no non-Microsoft patches were installed on the Windows boxes.
It isn't the number of patches, it is the patches themselves. I can apply a hundred patches (or more) to my Ubuntu box quickly and easily. And because 99.9% of them do not require a system reboot, I can easily test them.
This "study" was setup so that SuSE would fail. That's all there is to it.
I imagine sometimes the integration that Windows offers can be convenient, but it's more of an inconvenience when you just need a new feature in one part of the system. With Windows, you need to upgrade the whole kit and caboodle!
Yes. I agree completely. Linux is not for everyone. However Linux is for those of us who want stability security and just plain fun. MSWindows annoys the hell out of me. I end up losing 40-50% of my total system speed to various problems, even with AV and AS installed. AS for server environments. LINUX KICKS THE WINDOW IN. Why just look through the window when you can have the whole house? We used to run our web services on windows and novell Netware. Now we use linux and dont have any problems. As for the .net thing. I'm sorry you program in such an annoying program as that. Mayhap you should spend some of that time that you get payed for to find a better solution. Oh and by the way. Linux kicks MS a$$ and there's nothing your ranting self can do about it.
The parent should be modded up.
I'm not aware of any distributions as old as redhat 5 that are still being patched. Connecting a redhat 5 system to the internet would be a huge security risk. Sure, you could patch it yourself but that is a lot more work that upgrading.
Redhat 7.3 is still being patched by fedoralegacy. Maybe there is an old version of debian that is still being patched?
Most of the rebuttal of this study seems to have focused on both Windows
vs. Linux patch application and the fact that Microsoft funded the study
in the first place. However, the biggest technical flaw in the study
appears to be the deliberate use of at least one 3rd party application
which was never properly designed or developed to run on SLES8.
The central component of the study is the ability of each OS to meet 4
functional "milestones", namely data mining, enhanced search, list
management and finally a platform upgrade (SLES8 to SLES9 and Windows
2000 to Windows 2003).
Anyway, the SLES8 system fell down at milestone 2. This was because the
3rd party "enhanced search" application chosen for the study required a
GLIBC upgrade (which is clearly going to break the system) to accommodate
the particular MySQL version used by the application (the specific
applications are not named anywhere in the report).
So the rather far reaching conclusions claimed by this study appear to be based
mostly on the fact that certain 3rd party application developers are simply
ignorant about developing for Linux. I've seen the "we only support RedHat"
or the "you need to be running kernel version 2.x.x" line often from certain
vendors of commercial software many of whom simply don't have a clue about
Linux software development. Most of these vendors, needless to say, approach
Linux application development in a very "Windows-centric" way.
Is it really too much ask to have commercial software developed to specific
kernel and glibc versions? Perhaps then we can have proper application support
from the big commercial vendors such as the Oracles, the SAPs, even the IBMs
and studies like this could show Linux for part of what it really is:
simply the most reliable, flexible and supportable server platform on the
planet.
Finally, the situation is improving and the efforts of Novell and RedHat in
providing solid "Enterprise" class Linux platforms which can be supported and
around which commercial 3rd party apps can be properly developed are very
welcome.