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."

Comments

More migration news

[DrSkwid]

Windows : migrate or die
*nix : oh, I've not touched that server for 3 years, bulletproof, see : 1 year uptime

Re:More migration news

[endemoniada]

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!

Re:More migration news

[compass46]

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.

Re:More migration news

[doomicon]

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

i read it!

[raffe]

I know! I just read about it!
You can even ask the author about it!

Rubbish

[spikestabber]

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.

Apples and Pears

[endemoniada]

Come on now, people. Don't we all know not to trust simple advertising?

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...

.exe files

[jlebrech]

microsoft has better .exe files that linux.

And don't forget...

[msauve]

MSCEs dress better than *nix sysadmins, too!

Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Security Innovation Inc

[glengineer]

Security Innovation Inc - aren't they owned or at least funded by Microsoft? Move along please ... nothing new to see here .....

From the article

[beq]

"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.

Microsoft = poo

[nkntr]

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).

Re:Microsoft = poo

[nkntr]

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.

Dear Microsoft...

[RootsLINUX]

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]

Statistics are fun.

[SlashAmpersand]

In a non-blinded, non-randomized, anecdotal study, one user (who is a certified Microsoft Shill) found that installing Windows XP Home Edition on a non-networked computer was easier than installing Fedora Core 4 and setting it up as a server using Samba and configuring it to act as a firewall. "We found that in 100% of the cases, Microsoft products came out ahead. Looking at our experience here, why would somebody want to use anything else?" Wow. I think I'm going to go wipe my server and jump right on the Microsoft bandwagon!

Re:Statistics are fun.

[psbrogna]

Actual details of the study indicate that buying a retail PC with Windows on it is easier than buying a PC, uninstalling Windows & installing Linux. While not conclusively established, it was also noted that non-networked Windows PC represent an approximate equivalent security risk to a networked Linux box.

Here are my facts...

[AccUser]

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.

There's only one group to trust

[Billosaur]

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?

Windows Server has built in Entropy

[Neo-Rio-101]

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.

The general vs the specific case.

[khasim]

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.