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."
> *nix : oh, I've not touched that server for 3 years, bulletproof, see : 1 year uptime
If your server only has 1 year uptime after 3 years of bulletproof operation, you might want to check the bulletproofing or the real-time clock on the machine.
We can't sue them, because the way they see it, it's true. It's just that we all know that it's not the whole truth, and we know it's not really like that.
In a perfect world, no one would lie. In said world, there would only be monopolized companies, since only one single company could claim to be "The Best" without lying :)
Blog -
As an 'expert' system administrator (albeit unpaid) I have four servers. One is running Microsoft Windows Small Business Server 2003, one is running Microsoft Window Server 2003, one is running Ubuntu Linux 5.10 (Server), and the other is running Apple OS X Server (10.4).
I can tell you now that when I first started my company, although I was a major advocate of Linux, I soon found that I did not have the time to maintain a then Gentoo or custom LFS distribution, Debian was far too heavy to pick up, and Slackware felt a little dated. So I took a look at Microsoft Windows Small Business Server 2003, liked what I saw, and bought a Dell PowerEdge 400SC with an OEM install.
At first Small Business Server was a breath of fresh air. It was easy to maintain, with a full complement of features, having been bundled with Microsoft Exchange, Microsoft SQL Server, and Window Sharepoint Services. I actually enjoyed - yes, enjoyed - using it.
Until backup stated to fail. Until my tape drive disappeared. Until the sharepoint website database got corrupted. Until exchange monitoring failed. Until the POP connector started to thrash the CPU. Until the Windows Update website failed to check for updates.
These things happened. I'm not saying that they wouldn't happed with another system, but that is not the point, since they happened to me, and that caused me grief, and time, and money to resolve. I ended up trying to build a new system based on Microsoft Windows Server 2003, since I already had Microsoft specific data (files and tables), but this proved even more difficult to maintain.
I struggled for eighteen months, and then decided to build an Ubuntu 5.10 server. I use Ubuntu on one of my laptop, and had gently learnt the apt- way, and liked it. I set up a server with similar features to the Small Business Server, using Postfix, MySQL, and Plone, and even went some ways to transferring my sharepoint data. It works. It hasn't failed yet.
I bet the guys who took part in the survey only set up a server, installed some applications, and patched it. I bet they didn't try running a business for 18-months, just to see what it was really like.
I must say that we recently purchased an Apple PowerMac, and were so impressed we are now looking at completely switching, hence the OS X Server. It is a dream to install and configure, but we are going to run it for several months until we are satisfied that it can do the job.
Any fool can talk, but it takes a wise man to listen.
As the other guy said, don't isntall stuff you don't want to support. Also, I would like to point out that you shouldn't complain that things are being patched. With Microsoft you get what you get. That doesn't mean that everything that should get patched does. I don't think that Microsoft has some super secret coding model that makes them actually have less bugs. If there are less patches, then there are more things that are broken. Think about how long it's taken to get Transparent PNGs working in IE. It's still not working, and will only ever be fixed in IE7. I realize this is a non-critical bug, but it kind of shows their attitude towards fixing things that really should be fixed in the interest of providing a good product.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Do you even know what TCO means? If you can find me any system with a 0 total cost of ownership, I will be very impressed.
We have 32 offices in various states and countries, 1500 AD users and over 100,000 franchise users that login. Almost all of our servers are Windows 2003 and very solid. The same team that supports our routers, firewalls, 18 remote unix machines , etc also support over 300 Windows servers (and AD). Not counting our 1st level help desk - that team is 5 people.
We manage both *nix/Windows and I don't think anyone in our team really cares one way or another. They all have pluses and minuses. Most of our user management is in Windows and most of our server monitoring is on Linux. Go with what works.
Why would anyone try to use Gentoo or LFS for production server use is completely beyond me. That's as wrong as trying to use Windows 98 on a production server (although Gentoo/LFS and Windows 98 don't share many characteristics, I was merely pointing out that the writer picked a clearly wrong tool for the job, to represent "Linux".)
RHEL, SLES or Debian Stable are the distributions I know of which have a change process geared to a corporate (or SMB) server environment. How someone could choose Gentoo as a representative of the Linux product family in this kind of comparison is totally beyond me. What were you thinking?
Depending on the user load and the services, its amazing what 'old' hardware can do.
:) ), with 64MB of RAM (recently upgraded to 96MB), a 100MB NIC, and a PATA 100 Interface card ... so its sporting a 100GB hard-drive. Its been very happy running RedHat 7.2 for the past few years, and the department has been very happy about their service.
I'm running a Pentium File and Print server that was first set up in 1999. The hardware itself dates from 1996 but has been upgraded a bit.
Its a Pentium 166 (thats MHz, remember
Granted its now being replaced by a 'young upstart' of a Celeron 400MHz, with 256MB of RAM, and 2x 200GB hard drives (via a PATA 133 Interface Card), running RedHat ES4, but it still seems a shame to retire a valiant machine that has been plugging along, serving in different capacities, for close to 10 years.
One of the secrets we've found for dealing with small budgets is to figure out what we can upgrade to get a bit more bang for our buck. We've got an older desktop that was running Windows XP with a 1GHz CPU and 512MB of RAM, for $150 we're upgrading it to a 1.8GHz machine and 1GB of RAM. While this can't address the inherent limitations in any given architecture, most companies rarely purchase the most expensive componenets for a computer that would max out its configuration. A couple of years down the road, it may be possible to get those same components for a much more reasonable sum, and they can help breath a bit more life into an older machine, extending its usability quite a bit (this machine is going to be taking over Database duties "Real Soon Now", just as soon as the hard-drives get ordered).
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
One reason Linux has more patches is because the patches are targeted, that means a patch for MySQL does not patch other packages, in windows a patch isn't well targeted and frequently patch multiple programs, installing a service pack is like changing the whole OS.
Another reason is linux packages are more receptive to plugging security vulnerabilities and are able to do so faster because the code is better organized; Vista is being delayed because they are finally refactoring the spaghetti mess that windows has become over the decades. Cleaner organized code make it faster to patch, easier to test and have less side-effect bugs. Why don't Windows admins install patches in a timely manner, it's because they are afraid of side-effect bugs.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
An uptime of 1yr means you've not applied any kernel security patches in that time; it may not be as bulletproof as you might think it is.
I would love to know what I should post to show what we have done. I wrote the majority of the code, and it works so well, and deploys in minutes (I have a BDC generation script that will take a blank computer and create a working LDAP enabled BDC and join it to the Samba Domain in less than 15 minutes.)
We use Via EPIA Eden chipset motherboards with dual nics (the Router uses the dual nics, and I also use it on the file servers for hardware consistency). The motherboard only pulls 10 watts of power.
Our company has 9000 employees on payroll, but only 600 actual computer users. Everyone in the company logs into a SAMBA domain. We have done some really, great things with SAMBA deployment, and router deployment. I have a script that generates a router as well (just generates ipsec.conf, ipsec.secrets, rules, policies, and init in the shorewall directory, dhcpd.conf, ipcfg_eth0, ipcfg_eth1, and network in the sysconfig directory, it generates). I can demonstrate everything that I have done and written, and *ahem* never signed an intellectual property agreement of any kind with my employer.
In other words, I own it all, and would love to give it back to the open source community, as I think it would make SAMBA a seriously competitive alternative to Microsoft. windows file servers
I use GoSA as a web based interface to all users and group memberships of the users. EVERYONE should check out GoSA who intendes on using SAMBA over a large group of users (if implementing with LDAP).
https://gosa.gonicus.de/
The coolest thing is the auto login script generation -- you simply add a user to a group in gosa, and it automatically (if you are logging on to that server) create you a login script based on group membership. I will try to paste up the script that calls the scripts that generates (ran from a rootpreexec in smb.conf)
I cannot post, throws a lameness filter, so I cant paste code... oh well.
anyway, if I get a decent response from this, and it seems appropriate, I would be glad to demonstrate some things/code. I am just too busy holding this company together as head/only sysadmin/level 3 support guy.
If you don't mind spending money on a solution, there are also things like Novell eDirectory that will likely do what you want. There are vendors that implement group policy the way the MS Active Directory does it, too. Most of those packages will work fine on Windows, Linux, or whatever. It is possible to have all the niceties of Windows servers without any Microsoft software.
I have a rather setup similar to this, too. Integrated mail/web/file server logins, groupware, a nice CMS for web content, issue tracking, etc, and I don't need a Windows server for any of it. I can quickly have a server running as a BDC or mail server, though it isn't nearly as smooth as what the GP was talking about.
1. Choose hardware that has known difficulties with Linux.
2. Plan simulated study over a time period in which the number of patches favors Windows.
3. Compare minor version change - Win2000 to Win2003- against a more complex Linux migration. SLES 8.0 (2.4 Kernel) to SLES 9.0 (2.6 kernel)
4. Deny administrators use of test systems, which is a Linux cost advantage. Test system can be run on available hardware with free license.
5. Run Linux with all available services instead on the needed minimum. This reduces system performance and adds difficulty to patches and migration.
6. Deliver external data from third party in a Windows favorable format.
7. Require several feature changes that are pre-built into Windows but requires customization in Linux
With just a little planning, you can create and sell your very own Microsoft FUD.
Iirc, the 2.2 kernel is still being occasionally patched (does RH5 work with Linux 2.2?), so if you take that, follow security email lists, and are willing to compile your own software, it should be fine.
Might not be supported by Red Hat, and might slowly drift away from a Red Hat source base, but it isn't that hard to do (or even automate provided you are willing to download each source package once).
Some of my customers are still maintaining RH 7.3, RH 8, and RH 9 systems.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP