Slashdot Mirror
The Hidden Cost of Using Microsoft Software
Glyn Moody writes "Detractors of free software like to point out it's not really 'free,' and claim that its Total Cost of Ownership is often comparable with closed-source solutions if you take everything into account. And yet, despite their enthusiasm for including all the costs, they never include a very real extra that users of Microsoft's products frequently have to pay: the cost of cleaning up malware infections. For example, the UK city of Manchester has just paid out nearly $2.5 million to clean up the Conficker worm, most of which was 'a £1.2m [$2million] bill in the IT department, including £600,000 [$1 million] getting "consultancy support" to fix the problems, which including drafting in experts from Microsoft.' To make the comparisons fair, isn't it about time these often massive costs were included in TCO calculations?"
For example: The State of Vermont's Agency of Human Services just went through a similar exercise and I'm sure it cost them a fortune. The state is suffering financially as it is and yet, we haven't heard a WORD (there really isn't any investigative news in VT) about the outcome or how much it is costing
"Oh my god, not this AGAIN!!"
Error reading device 'Signature'. (A)bort, (R)etry, (F)ail?
You might have a point.... except that Apache is far more popular than IIS and yet IIS is the one routinely attacked.
MS can't include these into calculations for obvious reasons. They must proceed as if such vulnerabilities don't exist in order to market their product. What's funny is they don't want you to either. They want to hold themselves up as either "just as good as" the next guy or make excuses for their lack of security.
In the long run this is a cost that need not be spent. There are alternative OS's and it's high time governments, of all entities, started using open alternatives. It's not just costing them in terms of being beholding to corporations like MS but in real dollars as well.
The question is not "Is Linux inherently as cheap as Microsoft". No. The question is, if we include all costs, including virus and other malware related costs, will Microsoft cost more than Linux.
Just as Microsoft is correct that when considering the real cost of 'free software', you have to include costs such as training, you ALSO have to consider the costs incurred due to malware.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
The change of the user interface in Office 2007 is one huge hidden cost. It was done to make things "easier" with the result that old users instead have to re-learn the user interface completely and have a really hard time to do even the things that were simple before.
And some things that was easy in the old Office version is now really cumbersome. The style handling in Word is one example that can make the blood pressure rise.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Flame War; Didn't Read
But seriously, 2 MILLION to clean up some viruses? I need to move to Manchester and become a consultant!
No comprende? Let me type that a little slower for you...
Yes, your complaint would apply if the entire world was considering switching from Microsoft to Linux. But when I advise my boss about the comparitive costs of using MS or of Linux, I would be foolish to refuse to include costs related to viruses simply because if in a mythical world where people used Linux more than MS then in that mysthical world the virus cost would be lower for Microsoft.
As a busineman, I must live in the real world and base my costs on reality, not your dream world. In reality, currently, Linux has lower virus related costs and I there MUST include the cost to deal with such problems when calculating the lifetime cost of software.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
I am not following your argument, since windows has a higher market share than FOSS solutions it is exempt from malware removal costs? I think the point of the article is that while CSS vendors tout that FOSS solutions are not 'free' in terms of TCO, they neglect this cost that affects them more heavily than the completion.
I don't think the reason behind them having the higher cost (higher market share) is relevant. It is a cost, and they have a disproportionately large percent of it, admittedly for a quite valid reason.
Probably because when the web server is IIS it's always the same operating system platform behind, which in turn means that as soon as a breakthrough occurs it's often easy to continue with the penetration.
On an Apache web server you can't tell what kind of platform it runs on, which means that an attack that works on one server may be completely useless on another.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
How about patching your systems in a timely manner so you don't have to suffer through these reactionary costs? The patch for the exploit conficker used was released in Nov 08. When did conficker start spreading around, Jan 09? Just saying.....
Insert funny smart-ass comment here.
My company was hit pretty hard by the conficker virus. It took a lot of users offline for days. The cleanup effort included bringing in a small army of consultants to help fix the issue. After everything was cleaned up and ready to go, IT's response to the outbreak was to kick our Virus Scanner into some crazy ultra cautious mode. The end result of that is 50% of my cpu is being used up by my virus scanner constantly and opening an app or compiling something in eclipse takes substantially longer than it used to. The fact that virus scanning software decreases worker productivity by tying up substantial system resources should be part of the TCO as well.
Our bugs are smarter than your test scripts.
You might have a point.... except that Apache is far more popular than IIS and yet IIS is the one routinely attacked.
Citation needed? ;)
Seriously, some data would be nice.
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/requested.html
"Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
Fast forward. MS only produces complicated behemoths. To this day MS Windows has not completely understood it is a network OS(perhaps 7 will do it). It is no longer the case that a part time person can keep 20 machines running. And when something does happen, it can be very difficult to fix. A single event can require a complete reinstall of the OS. I've made mistakes of going to a wrong web site and had this happen on a completely up to date machine. I have allowed untrusted parties to run my MS machines and have had significant damage caused within the hour. MS machines are the dependable work horses they once were. It now requires a significant infrastructure to keep MS machines a production. The best case scenario is to treat each machine as a RAID, keeping data off the machine, and using a standard HD disk images. Doesn't this sound like the pre-MS days of the so-called inefficient mainframe. MS is worried about this and has began a defensive campaign against IBM.
I would argue that MS machines are now, overall, as expensive and inefficient as the Unix machines were when ATT tried to save themselves with the introduction of this machine. This does not mean that MS does not have value, at least to legacy customers, but it may not be the best choice for startups, as Unix was the not the best choice in the late 1980's.
I can point to an exact time, around 2000, when MS became too expensive to use. It was a time whem MS would accuse paying customers of theft. Force customer to undergo intrusive and expensive audits. Require support staff to be redirected from supporting the customers need to make a profit, to the MS need to make a profit.
In light of this, I think we are going to see non-MS solution, just like we say non-ATT and non-IBM solutions. The biggest impediment to this is the easy supply of reliable naked PCs with full support to the SOHO owner. I think some companies, like Gateway, made a mistake in continuing to hook their saddle to the MS bandwagon instead of providing *nix solution for common business problems. In many cases, smart firms buy solutions, not an OS.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
No, it submits passively.
waitasec... #4, www.bing.com, runs on *LINUX*? Man, the kool-aid in Redmond must SUCK.
"I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
You've done your part!
"hacked" and "infected" are worlds apart.
This is the difference between your personal server being
rooted and the entire internet being brought to it's knees.
It's like the difference between needing to go to the hospital
because someone decided to stalk you and then shoot you versus
getting some plague like disease for going out in public.
Being hacked generally requires personal attention on the part of ...and there is "anti-exploit" code in Unix. It's probably been
some conscious assailant rather than just some automated bit of
malware exploiting some fundemental design flaw in the software
you're using.
around longer than the comparable "code" in DOS and Windows. The
fact that Unix is a harder target and it's users are intolerably
smug doesn't mean they aren't thinking about the problem.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
The answer is, is that it's because the IT staff obviously were not on top of the maintenance of the computers. Rolling out Windows Updates is not a difficult task, computers can be set to do it themselves, or you can use a centralized roll-out system like WSUS.
You've failed to address one of main reasons why "big shops" don't get updates out in a timely manner: The need for updates must be carefully balanced against the likelihood that updates are going to disrupt mission critical systems.
As an IT guy, you should probably know this. Maybe your systems aren't so critical, and you can afford to believe the absolutist tripe about how it's the IT staff's fault for not getting the update out in time. IME, the real world is rarely so black-and-white, and keyboard badasses that make grand pronouncements are rarely worth listening to.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.