Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Axes 'Get The Facts'
tom66 writes "Seems like a long time coming, as Microsoft today has axed it's Anti-Linux campaign 'Get the Facts', and Microsoft has replaced it with a new campaign, called 'compare'. This article touches up on why they may have done it, and the criticism surrounding Get the Facts."
I'm not going to bother with a line by line rebuttal, I'll note on the compare Windows to Linux page (which actually is about Red Hat, not linux), the last paragraph reads:If you look in the corresponding MS section however, it doesn't touch on Open Standards (and MS's disregard for them) at all.
Typical of the sickening dishonesty we get from this predatory company.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
(Once they had compared Redhat Linux 7.1 with Windows XP!).
Depending on when this comparison was done, and with what service packs and stuff for XP, this may have been a fairly reasonable comparison. If they were comparing XP sans-service packs, RedHat 7.2 would have been the most apples-to-apples comparison. Both were released in October of 2001. It's even quite possible XP was out before 7.2, which would have made 7.1 an even more reasonable choice (though 7.2 would still have been better).
Of course, if this is XP+SP2 for instance, then that's totally off-base.
"Customers want to consume this information in a variety of formats..."
ODF for me please!
Seriously this is just a new FUD campaign. Example:
How can "free" be this expensive?
Red Hat's business is based on annual subscriptions for OS support--you pay a subscription for every server, every year. And, if you want 24/7 support, you'll pay more.
Okay Microsoft, we've been telling you for years but you don't want to get it. Linux is "free as in speech" not "free as in beer." That means that the users get a whole lot of rights that you wouldn't give in your worse nightmare. The freedom to redistribute. The freedome to modify. etc, etc, etc.
Stop with the FUD websites until you know what you're talking about please. Oh, I forgot. You already know all of this but are just misleading your prospective users. Yeah, that's the kind of company with which I would want to do business. NOT!
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Microsoft's fud site claims that the most expensive Red Hat Enterprise Linux version costs $2,499 per server per year for 24/7 premium phone and web support, unlimited users, no license restrictions, unlimited software upgrades, etc.
...and wait for it...
So how about we compare that to Windows Server 2003?
- $3,999/server for the enterprise version of Windows Server 2003 R2
- have to repurchase it every ~5 years when a new version is made available
- maximum of 25 users/workstations ($40 per extra user per Windows version)
- *NO SUPPORT WHATSOEVER!*
And we're not even getting into the real savings such as comparing MS SQL Server with an equivalent Red Hat offer, desktop Linux cost comparisons (including Office/Productivity applications), scaling costs up to 5000 users...etc
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (the product) is free. That is why CentOS exists. The only cost to using CentOS is having employees who can set it up and keep it running. But you have this exact same cost when using Windows Server as well! You pay Red Hat to provide support services to you - not for the actual product itself. If you go down the Microsoft path, you have to pay for the product AND the service (which Microsoft has conveniently ignored on their new fud website).
Their new website is self-damaging. If I was a potential Microsoft customer who was looking at the comparison between Linux and Windows, I'd instantly note Microsoft spreading fud and lies to make up for deficiencies in their offer. It is hardly reassuring that Microsoft is running scared at companies like Red Hat and feels the need to launch a big anti-Linux PR campaign based on lies and fud. The question I'd be asking myself is, "if Windows Server is so great, why can't Microsoft sell it to me based on features and facts?".
If you care to dive into the article, download and read the .doc format 'case studies', you will see there is nothing much to crow about.
.. but its hard to build a case for operating systems around it. You could just as easily say that the original Java/Oracle first cut (which ran on HP proliants) was replaced with a .NET rebuild (running on Dell), and therefore Dell is a better choice than HP.
.. whatever it is that it does. Linux doesnt even come into the discussion - they never used it at all, so its hardly even a comparison. Very lame choice of stories to include in the 'Comparison' site I would have thought.
If you are looking for hard empirical stats on a real comparison of Linux vs Windows, then these case studies are not for you. If you are looking for fuzzy feel-good buzzword-laden coffee table anecdotes, then its worth the download.
In the comparison cases presented, the reasoning is basically as follows :
"I went out with a Blonde once, and she was cool, except she had no job, and was stuck at home with 3 noisy kids - so we rarely got out together. Then I met this independent Brunette chick with a rich Dad and no ties, and we had a ball together. Therefore, based on my extensive experience with such a broad variety of women, I must conclude that in 100% of cases Brunettes make better girlfriends than Blondes'.
SwissAir's initial problem was that their existing Java/Oracle web site was less than optimal, and the code mixed presentation with business logic at all levels of the spaghetti triangle. So they went for a ground-up rebuild using their newly aquirred experience in how not to build a system. The operating systems hosting the bad-build / good-build of their web site are not even relevant to the study, but they happen to be Linux the first time around, and Windows the second time around.
Its a good article if you are interested in the subject of system development lifecycles
The State of Illinois story is no better. Their initial problem is an aging hulk of a Groupwise messaging system running on Novell Netware. They chose to go to an unspecified line of Microsoft products, the prime deciding motivation being 'Because of Microsoft's position in the market'. The IT director even goes so far as to admit that 'We are not a science outfit - we just need something to get the job done', and they forgot to edit out the comment that 'For us, security was not a driving issue'. In other words, here is an organisation that is flat out doing whatever it does, and it just wants to outsource all of it's IT problems to a big outside company, and get on with the business of
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)