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."
So windows comes with no applications that need patching, and look of all the security patches required for JUST the OS! Linux on the other hand comes with hundreds of applications not related to the OS. You get a complete server in a box with all the tools needed, mysql, php, etc. THESE ARE WHAT NEED PATCHES IN MOST CASES! Microsoft provides you nothing with windows.
We all know Microsoft ain't gonna say anything bad about their product, so why even bother?
I'm sure Windows has it's uses, but you simply can't compare a system like Windows to a system like SLES they way that they do. They're vastly different systems, built with different things in mind.
Apples and pears, my friends. Apples and pears...
Blog -
Microsoft just doesn't understand that one's Linux distro doesn't need to be on the cutting edge to be functional. Case and point:
Windows 98 (latest patches) running Apache = Big security risk.
Red Hat 5 (latest patches) running Apache = Solid
"The study compared the experiences of three expert administrators on each side, a number that Security Innovation itself admitted was "too small to provide conclusive statistical comparisons."
Conclusive statistical comparisons?!?!? How about any statistical comparisons? Why, I could find 3 "expert" linux administrators who'd say just about anything I wanted them to say. Anecdotes do not evidence make, but they do strike that folksy note so beloved of advertisers.
-Brendan
I am sick and tired of your shady and misinformed "studies". Instead of trying to convince people that you have a better operating system, why don't you get off your lazy ass and MAKE A BETTER OPERATING SYSTEM!? I swear to god, my image of this company has been reduced to a 5 year old girl kicking and screaming because another girl in her class has a bigger lollipop. [/rant]
Hero of Allacrost, a FOSS RPG for *NIX/*BSD/OS X/Win
``Come on now, people. Don't we all know not to trust simple advertising?''
Maybe we do know better than that. Still, I think even advertising shouldn't be a blanket license for lies and deception. If the advertisement presents provably incorrect information, I say sue the advertiser.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Novell says Microsoft is wrong.
What part of this is exactly news?
If you go to Microsoft's Get The Facts website, you pretty much know you'll be bombarded with Windows-praising propaganda anyways. Or did you honestly expect them to just stand there and say "We suck at these workloads, and would prefer you to run $NON_MS_OS instead"?
Does Novell have horses in this race?
What team colors are they wearing?
Cogito Ergo Sum
Yes, that's right, if you want unbiased reporting on the facts and a strict comparison done under rigorous conditions, then the only place to turn is Consumer Reports. Unfortunately a peek at their site shows nothing about comparing Linux to Windows. Anyone for a letter-writing campaign?
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
OF COURSE Linux demands more updates, there's simply more software to patch!
And that's not a good thing. It means you spend more time patching Linux boxes than Windows boxes. I admin Linux (CentOS) machines at work and I keep an eye on the Windows ones. I spend more time reviewing and patching my machines than I believe the Windows admins have to. The shear bloat of modern Linux distros makes them a big hassle with fairly regular updates.
Is it just me, or does Microsoft's rhetoric sound a lot like the rhetoric coming from the White House?
I know, deep inside me, there's a Linux nut just waiting to be let out.
Hmm... what's wrong with "don't install stuff you don't want to support?"
And as far as patching goes, naturally you'll need more patches on a desktop computer, since they're running a whole other set of software.
If you're running a server, you already know to shut everything not being used off. And after doing that, there's rarely that much need to update anything at all. Sure, sometimes some critical exploit gets revealed and patched, but that is always quickly and easily installed (provided you've set the system up to be easily patched).
I'm sorry, but I just can't see what argument you're trying to make.
Blog -
Hmmm... what's wrong with "His users might need lots of software?"
OS X??? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/11/sony_bmg_m ac_drm/
I don't understand the arguments in these comments. We run more Linux AND Windows servers than ever before. Both platforms are more solid and more useful than ever (RHL9, RHEL3/4 and Windows Server 2003 Enterprise). Microsoft's policies and treatment of its customers isn't great. The Linux distro vendors do much better, IMO. But, Windows Server is actually quite useful today. This being said, it's far easier to do many network-related things on Linux (open source application servers, primarily), and Microsoft licensing costs keep creeping up, so we tend to do it in Linux first. But if there's an application we need that runs on Windows, I'm not afraid. We know how to skin that puppy, too.
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
In general, whenever you're doing a task with a GUI, and you're within the intended solution space of those tools, they will be faster. And easier. And probably less buggy... because at least in theory, the GUI tool will configure things correctly every time. (actual practice, of course, differs somewhat. :) )
An initial implementation of virtually ANYTHING in Linux/Unix has always taken longer than Windows. Getting off the ground in Unix is slow, because you're often writing your own tools to do what you need.
However, because those tools are written in, usually, fairly simple code, using simple and extremely robust utilities in novel combinations, they don't break much. And if your admins are good, your tools will be far more extensible than anything you could buy off the shelf, because they'll match your solution space almost precisely. Microsoft has to write stuff that's good for everyone, so their tools will rarely be a perfect match to your specific problem.
It's interesting that we're even having the discussion... it used to be completely taken for granted that Linux was way, WAY harder. The upfront cost was tremendous in comparison, but then your maintenance cost was very low.
Now Microsoft has to go out of its way to point this out. That is an ENORMOUS shift, a sea change. Microsoft wouldn't bother pointing this out if everyone already knew it. This implies that many administrators are finding the tools (GUI and otherwise) in Linux to be perfectly functional for what they need, and they're able to get things built fast enough that their bosses aren't pissed off.
It's probably a mix of free software getting better and administrators getting more skilled. Both are very good news.
<rant>Now if we could just get a stable kernel to put all of this cool infrastructure on..... </rant>
I would suggest rethinking your update strategy. I support 21 Linux servers where I work, all my updates are automagic.
I have a couple of test servers that receive updates first (via scheduled cron job, totally hands off). If everything goes ok, the production servers follow suit (again totally hands off). If something doesn't seem quite right on the test servers, I disable the automagic update job on the production boxes with one command. All jobs are logged, and I recieve emails on status. After a year have never had a problem, never had to disable any scheduled jobs.
As far as "bloat", again rethink your deployment strategy. I use Kickstart for all new deployments, while in my opinion not as flexiable as jumpstart, but it's a great tool. I have configurations for specific server types (Oracle, Tomcat Server, etc.). When I do a new deployment, I just pop in a CD, type linux ks=http://xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx./kickstart/.cfg and walk away. No bloat, just installs what is necessary for the specific servertype, it's pretty easy.
peaCe
doomicon
Awesome!
I work as a unix administrator in a mixed shop. The windows and unix guys are in the same group, so we get their email and go to the same team meeting. From everything I see, the bane of their existance is trying to keep everything patched. They have people in every weekend doing patching, and seem to be getting farther and farther behind. Every time a new "critical" windows patch is issued, you can hear the groans from over the cube wall. We run Solaris, and apply a patch cluster 4 times a year. When we need to patch to address a security vulnerability, we rarely have to reboot. Also, our uptime reports put theirs to shame. It boggles my mind that MS claims that maintaining their systems is less work.
http://cubemonkey.net/quotes -- fortune-mod quote generator
Debian is probably the best, but I would like to point out that he's also not a good administrator if he needs X in redhat. It's a matter of competence, and he seems to be lacking.
Yes, much like you have to reboot your computer from time to time, we're going to reboot our computer from time to time to make sure it doesn't happen again. - this is the last sentence found in this story. As you can see it is now a popular attitude - computers need to be rebooted time to time. Did this perception came out of GNU/Linux world? No. Not even Macs. It came from the MS/Windows world and I am not going to disagree with it. MS builds these so called OSs that create this perception in the peoples' minds. People don't even understand that computers/software built right do not need to be rebooted at all. Ever.
You can't handle the truth.
Ever try admining Red Hat purely from the command line before?
/etc/sysconfig/ is commented and sometimes you just need the RH GUI tools. The initscript docs are lacking in a number of cases cases, especially for the networking scripts.
Yeah. It works pretty well actually. I have a few headless RH and Fedora servers that I administer entirely remotely from the command prompt.
I need Gnome installed because nothing in
Because you can't read shell scripts?
The initscripts are virtually the same in all flavors of Linux. rc runs rc.system then rc[initlevel].d/K* scripts with a "stop" argument thus stopping these services, then it runs the rc[initlevel].d/S* scripts with the "start" argument. After that it runs rc.local. There may a *little* more to it than that but it is all pretty simple. Inittab is a bit different but most admins don't play with that one unless they have to.
Basically sometimes you just have to fall back to the Linux basics and know how to hack your conf files. If you are a home user you don't need to know how to use the command line, but if you are an admin, you shoudl know your conf files.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I must say that with two to three days of developing and testing I scripted our installation manual for a Linux based email server with all the customizations done by us and even some compilations. The install time for a server went from 1 hour and a half to an unnatended time of 15 minutes.
The next time we migrated our 27 email servers it took us just one day to reinstall all of them, instead of the 1 week it took the previous time.
Kickstart rocks!
- Sbenza
Dear folks, I think Linux has a higher variance. 1) Windows works to a mediocre, acceptable level even if configured by someone of mediocre qualities. 2) Linux works amazingly good if configured by a real expert, a real hacker. 3) Linux works bad if configured by someone of mediocre qualities. Linux is not forgiving of incompetence. Do you agree? This question is similar to politics: the Left consists of people of mediocre intellectual qualities. The Right consist of a bunch of complete fascist assholes and some geniuses of exceptional qualities, like Simone Weil in The Need For Roots (L'Enracinement). Average folks use Windows. Geniuses use Linux. However, there is a bunch of 19-years old "wizards" who convice customers they can configure a system for them and they use Linux. Because it is free and and cool. Besides geniuses, Linux is the playground of many big losers. And then it does not work. Linux is not forgiving of incompetence.