Slashdot Mirror
Rick Moen Debunks Gartner Myths
An anonymous reader sent us a bit where Rick Moen speaks about the recent Linux Myths thing
that has raise MS once again to the top of everyone's "People We Love" list. Its a good summary piece that pretty much explains how valid the Gartner Report was.
In the subject line: "has raise MS once again to the top of everyone's "People We Love" list."
Gosh, and I'm sure you were all starting to embrace and appreciate the contribution of Microsoft, but here they've gone and done it again. Sounds like a little kid, after being beat up for being a little shit, yapping about how he was "gonna" give everybody a lollypop, but not now gosh darnit.
Face it: The majority of you, and I'm saying >80%, are just either psychos that do anything against the mainstream to prove you're "smart" (a guy with a 76 IQ will install Linux to belong to the club and will suddenly believe he's smarter than the rest of us Windows dummies... uh...whatever cowboy. You're still a stupid idiot, hanging on Linus' ripoff of his teachers OS or not. The other portion of you are slackjaws who can't make it in the commercial coding world so your life is defined around whoring yourself for hypothetical accolades because you sifted through someone who's actually talented's code looking for buffer overrun problems.
Spot on. Rick Moen doesn't even attempt to address the claims made in the Microsoft Web Letter, because, for the most part, they're accurate.
Unable to argue against the facts, Mr Moen attempts to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt (something the Linux community are far better at producing than they are at producing quality software).
Fear: Microsoft is trying to trick you!
Uncertainty: Can the Gartner Group really be trusted?
Doubt: In light of the above, can you really believe any of the claims being made?
The intention is to divert attention from the accuracy of the claims, a tactic which appears to have worked with most of the Slashdot readers. I can see right through it, and I suspect most people who aren't blinded by fanaticism can as well.
There is no Rick Moen.
Linux (GPL more correctly) is overtaking every type of computer faster than anything. Microsoft conspired to charge you to use your own PC. They have been planning it for years, because there are no new features to throw into the same 3 apps, and they are out of new solitaire games to add in. We are witnessing a beached whale flail around trying to get back to the water.
Bullshit. Perhaps you should read the report, before shooting your mouth off? MS had nothing to do with the report - it was a completley independant study. Jus becuase you don't like it doesnt mean that you can hide your head up your ass and scream lies and half-truths. This kind of thing will be the undoing of linux - factions fighting amongst themselves and losing view of the real aims and goals; in short, it will all just degenerate into a screaming and slang match. Linux doesn't really matter in the general scheme of things. It lacks the stability and performance to become a really usefull high-load OS. Linux's market will lie with the sub $200 device market, where a free OS will prove to benificial. (Oh, FYI one of my boxes has been running W2K Beta 3 since March... 7 months of uptime. This is a public server, with high hit rates as well. W2k will be your nemesis... )
I read Rick's analysis as being one of context, not content, and forwarded it myself to several contacts and online fora on these merits. It doesn't address the assertions made by Gartner regarding Linux (some of which are reasonably plausible, some of which are not), because they are far less interesting than the circumstances in which the articles appeared, disappeared, were defended, and explained.
Rick's own comment to his writing -- which has taken on a life of its own -- was that it was mostly a very humored look at what seems to be a pretty laughably rediculous situation.
I have to agree with Rick that the circumstances, cozy relationships, apparant conflicts of interest, blatent attempts at exploitation of this "independent review" by Microsoft, and frantic spinning by Ellen Cresswll (two articles in one day!), make this incident more laughable for its incompetence than an ominous indication of the Mighty Microsoft Marketing Machine (TM).
There is little real content to any of the three articles. Linux faces a battle to win the desktop -- but the desktop may disappear. Linux revenues are low relative alternatives -- but that's its nature. RedHat may fail to meet some of its investors expectations that it will match Microsoft's market cap -- but one of RH's goals is to take the money out of the OS market. The criticisms largely manage to miss the point.
What's clear is that Gartner has greatly compromized its integrity in its very, very tangled relationship to Microsoft for this article: Gartner research of unspecified sponsorship, appearing on a Microsoft webpage as Microsoft content -- but hosted by Gartner, and referred to by Microsoft as "new reports from Gartner", and the subsequent disappearance and reappearance of the pages from Gartner's publicly viewable areas....
Webbed fingers or not, the duck-men appear to be taking us seriously these days.
Karsten M. Self, posting anonymously.
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
The USA doesn't exactly do a whole lot of exporting of MS software in foreign countries, Linux (of Windows and Linux) is the more popular. Look at Germany, Sweden, Japan, and India for example - those countries run twice as many systems on Linux than NT (or any other flavor of Windows) MS products generally stay in the USA because: 1. costs too much 2. expensive stuff doesn't have as much meaning in other countries The USA focuses on large and expensive everything the person with the most expensive car is bettert han the guy next door with the Honda but whats so bad about the Honda? it gets ya from A to B and for sure has ebtter gas milage than the expensive sports car you don't need 12,000 horsepower to get you the 3 blocks ya have to go to get to the super market especially when ya can't ever use that much power anyway, not without getting a huge fine at least not to mention insurance on that sports car is outrageous In conclusion: Microsoft is good for Microsoft. Microsoft is not good for the world. Note: I'm not saying MS sucks. It is the best damn gaming environment there is (maybe someday Linux will be there but for now it's not). They make one of the best flight sims that I know of. The also have (had) a damn good office package. I just wish it didn't cost so damn much, I'm a college student and I can't afford that kind of price - even with the discount!
Talking about installs, I had to install NT4 onto a 6GB drive at work. Couldn't do it, it insisted on a 4GB partition (didn't say straight off; partitioned fine, create the fs - "sorry, can't do that", go back, reduce the partition, repeat until fustrated). I wouldn't mind if the end result had a UNIX like fs structure where you could mount under dirs. If anyone knows how to install onto a drive without having C, D, etc drives all over the place I'd really love to know. And don't say you can do it with 'cygwin', it's the only thing that keeps me partially sane :)
Why don't you let the CUSTOMERS decide for THEMSELVES if they are getting fleeced?
Obviously, they don't believe so. No customer is sticking with Microsoft out of love for the company.
I suppose you Slashdotters know whats good for all of us.
What is with this slashdot OBSESSION with Microsoft?
You mean it's sad because you now have to look for a new line of work because you can't sell the bullshit you write? Are we supposed to take what Windows Users like yourself who can't format a floppy disk under DOS say seriously when it comes to Linux or anything else for that matter? Don't make us laugh at you....
Good job of not looking like a rabid zealot, C.Lee
This is an important point about Microsoft. Linux DOES clean-up ANY resources (as does UN*X) when a process leaves. This is sadly lacking in Windows. IPC (InterProcess Communication) is also very lacking. I have developed shared memory based programs on both platforms and NT is is still in the days of mapping files into memory, something that was discarded in UN*X about 15 years ago! When using Mutex's in a DLL on WIndows, if one process abends while holding it, you are screwed! You have to kill all of applications that have the DLL opened and then and only then can you free this (because the DLL becomes unloaded!). So in summary, from a developer's standpoint. There is much work to be still done on NT in order to bring it to the standard that has existed in the UN*X world for a long time now. Until that happens, Microsoft is is just spitting in the wind when they make comments that their system is superior.
The Gartner Group signed a multi-million dollar
a year deal with a state university to
provide CBT IT courses and various other IT
training related material. From word of
mouth - many of the IT people on campus thought
what Gartner Group provided was absolute crap. Their view of Linux doesn't surprise me at all,
Gartner Group knows nothing about computer
and internet technology. They are totally incapable of keeping up with advancements
in such technology.
MS is fighting to win, that is, be the only player. The linux community did NOT start this fight, MS did. The way it is going now, simply using linux is enough to paint one as a "zealot".
I just thought I'd say this. Lots of gamers will simply say that OpenGL is better than D3D, simply because Carmack said so a few years ago. If any of these same people read Carmack's Q&A session, they will say that Windows is better than Linux simply because JC said so. This simple link can kill Linux! http://slashdot.org/interviews/99/10/15/1012230.sh tml
When I started this thread this morning I expected that the references to "Linix" and "environments" would tip savvy /.'s that I was jesting.
The great thing about Linux is that it removes the emphasis from the OS and puts it where it belongs: the applications.
No entity or individual (regardless of their size or position) can continue to get away with the kind of egregious immorality that MS has exhibited. The universe won't tolerate it. Microsoft deserves what's coming to them: by their actions they asked to be taken out.
Now I'm off to create an account here. Been lurking too long...
Various people FLAMED me when, oh about 4 months ago, I *dared* be skeptical about a glowing Linux review by Gartner that was posted to slashdot. I *TOLD* you people that Gartner is extremely flip-floppish in their reports, and that anything they said that was good would be followed by something bad. But did-ga listen to me? Oh noo...
You know, I didn't see much "debunking" in the article, just a bunch of typical Linux Zealot whining and self-promotion. "OH! Microsoft is so bad! They're always promoting themselves and asking other companies to help! Jerks! I'm gonna cry now."
Yet, you must ask yourself, if it is wrong for MS to promote itself, then why is it right for Rick Moen (an obvious Linux Fan) to promote Linux. That's the same thing. Hell, this whole supposedly "journalistic" and "objective" web site is nothing more than Linux Community self promotion.
Come on people, if you don't like someone else doing it, then you shouldn't either. I've seen many articles where Linux Zealots promote Linux, and try to make it seem objective or "independent". I have yet to see any objective criteria or test to prove Linux's uptime record, or stability, or speed or anything. These are just myths. Show me the PROOF. And make it independent.
Oh, but that never happens. Linux is just as bad as MS: No proof, no backing, and no objectivity. That's why Linux Zealots are hypocrites. You can't tell someone else not to do something, and turn around and do it yourself.
So, what I'd like to see, just for a change of pace, is someone who hates Linux debunking one of these anti-Linux articles. That would convince me that the anti-Linux article in question were crap. Otherwise, you can take your "debunking" and put it in the same place you quickly put your head after the Ziff-Davis labs benchmarks showed Linux sucked in comparison to WinNT. I didn't see much "debunking" after that, but before that people were pretty obnoxious. Even threatening.
I used to love the Linux community and project. Back when it was just a bunch of like minded people trying to make something cool. Now it's just a bunch of zealots trying to dominate the world and following some stupid dictator. I'd rather work with FreeBSD.
MS will fall over whether the gravy train passengers want it to or not... it's called "repositioning yourself to better reflect market trends". Sure, MS has a lot of money - what monopoly doesn't? That hasn't prevented them from failing or being taken down, though...
The higher up's decided not to go with Gartner due to the fact that they just seemed to want to do a cursory walk through and drop off a stack of boiler plate reports [and collect a sizeable chunk o cash].
I wonder how others who have a large Linux presence have faired going through one of these reviews. What resourced did they use to justify Linux. Not like you need to. I'm just going to let them uptime on all the servers. Most of them are in the 90+ day range.
A.C. [for good reason]
Win32[64emu]? Mircosoft has yet to put out a 64 bit operating system, Win2k only emulates 64bit, they keep saying that we dont NEED 64 bit yet.
It actually tends to make the people doing the debunking look rabid and zealous. You can't even write a bad review of a linux distro because you will have tons of zealots picking it apart. It's really pretty damn sad.
You didn't read it did you?
It is not an article but a news group posting and it doesn't make any attempt to "debunk" specific claims from a Journalist or from MS.
What does do is point out some readily observable facts which reasonably call into question the independance of Gartner's report from Microsoft.
BTW, I have agree with you concerning the majority of rebuttals out there. They serve about the same function as foam on a dog's jaw.
It makes you wonder with these high-level screw-ups, what they are actually getting away with.
They must be able to get away with most of thier exploits. Nobody is so stupid as to think that lying and getting cought so often is a good idea unless they do get substantial benifits when they aren't cought. (I mean it; not sarcastic.)
If the Net falls into Microsoft's hands, we have worse things to worry about. Even worse than if Linux or the Open Source movement as a whole went to hell in a handbasket.
"MS did not pay Gartner to trash Linux, they paid Gartner for the ability to post the Gartner report on Linux on their site." 2 + 2 != 4?????????????????????? Do you think that Garter doesn't actually *hope* to sell their studies?? Do you think they would have paid for it if it favoured linux?? Are you telling me that Garter doesn't have a bias to favour microsoft in order to sell the report??? Get real. Garter group is out to make money. The will write in reports what makes them money.
Linux users always seem to whinge about a lack of money for things like marketing, certification (UNIX98, security, etc.), verifiable performance data (SPEC, TPC, etc.) and market research favourable to Linux.
The free *BSD projects are volunteer efforts, and can reasonably use such an argument. Most of the Linux distributions, however, are not (even if they use code provided by volunteers in their products).
In the wake of Red Hat's IPO (compare its market capitalisation to SCO's), how much longer can this excuse be made without sounding like a hollow defence of a system which simply can't match its competitors?
I think the truth is you lot are paranoid. Independent market-research groups don't let people publish their results without paying for them, which is all that's happened in this case. Somebody at Microsoft liked the report, and bought the right to republish it.
If market-research groups are generating reports which show Linux to be something other than a poor man's UNIX for the PC, why aren't Red Hat, SuSE, Caldera, et al. buying the rights to publish them? I have access to vast amounts of market research (I'm not allowed to republish it, of course), and I haven't seen any reports of that nature, so I'd venture to guess they simply don't exist.
You know, we're accusing Microsoft of FUD but then we're using pretty questionable tactics in fighting back.
His points are good ones re:Gartner Group's slant -- Gartner Group is a company that will write positive things about you as long as you are paying them money. As soon as you stop paying them, they stop saying anything about you. Don't trust most of what you read from Gartner.
In this argument, however, it is irrelevant. This is called 'ad hominem' attack: if you can't dispute the message, cast stones at the messenger.
This makes Linux look weak: instead of demonstrating non-fragmentation and useful desktop utilities, we are saying, in essence, "Oh yeah? Well you're ugly and your mom dresses you funny. So there."
Folks, there are paid shills in the world who will say anything for a quick buck. That is something we just have to get used to. Pointing out that they are paid shills is fine, but you must also refute the message, or the implication is that the message was correct.
FWIW, I think the message actually DOES have some validity to it. It's hard to get programs meant for one distribution to run on another. I'm still not really sure how libraries work, and I've been noodling around with Linux for years.
Even Nick Petreley has trouble getting rpms to work on Caldera Linux, which supports them... and he's one of Linux's biggest advocates.
I think, in this specific case, these paid shills are actually attacking real weaknesses. It would be better to fix them than to get into mudslinging, IMO. A professional company will win a mud war over a ragtag batch of freedom fighters every time -- they are automatically more respectable.
Then we have the employment of key Linux developers. Is this so different to MS hiring people? No, its not, yet the Linux/OSS following hate MS to much that they forget that the 'cool' employment of say, Michael Johnston by Red Hat in the very early days, it just as bad as MS hiring someone today.
The difference between prejudiced bigotry and rational analysis comes in part by the way that we apply the same standards to ourselves and the competition. But MS hatred is seen as 'cool' and anyone even suggesting anything different is a traitor to the cause. Result? Linux and OSS fall into the same trap as those they claim to hate.
The early days of Linux saw competition and vicious infighting far worse than anything done by Microsoft. Years later, some of the players left the field, others are millionaires; all would be hugely embarassed if proof of past events were to be made public.
Linux has some very dirty laundry hiding in the closet, on disks and in dusty shelves. When the individuals and Orgs are worth enough $$$ the embarrising facts will emerge. God help us if this info was ever 'sold'.
Everyone has their price, and there are some very pissed off people in the Linux world.
Not that you will get a chance to read this, /. 'unbiased' Moderation will kill it. Kinda proves the point really.
Well, when you can't prove them wrong, you demean them. You cast doubts, and when people can no longer tell what's hard truth and what is flat out lies, you win. They become unsure, and the preacher casting wins. This is what Rick did. He did not go step by step debunking the report, showing how it was wrong and why the community should see it as nothing. Perhaps he didn't care enough to do this, or perhaps they were right. I haven't read it, and will only make my decision when some one who has can clearly say its false.
...
Thus, Rick merely didn't want his miniuns to become skeptical, or start to wonder if the feared and evil Microsoft may not be so evil.. may just be another company that hasn't been the nicest, and is legally and accurately trying to debunk the material that the Linux community claims, which ranges from truths to lies. By saying an independant and respected group was cowerced into finding fault with Linux by the enemy only strengthens the reolution, the struggle.
But wait.. maybe he didn't care. Maybe none of the people listening where wavering, or cared at all what anyone said.. they'd use what they wanted. Linux is legal, so unless laws stop them, they'll do it. Maybe he just casted shadows to stir up thught, to have conversation, to keep interest alive on advocating. Really, why Rick said anything doesn't matter. Its not that his words should be ignored, but that people must remember to use hard evidence to combat supposed evidence. He doesn't prove anything, he just demeans the report to make it lose strength. Really, when combatting these reports, instead of demeaning them, or calling for some responce (but without proof... just a protest or such), the community should create a report debunking claims, or talking about fixing the faults. Linux isn't perfect.. Windows isn't either.. nor was OS/2, nor MacOS, nor CP/M, nor
I don't see Linux as increasing my freedom and such if I'm to be forced, both by trying to manipulate my judgement with lies and truths, and by an active desire to destroy compitition (for example, a LJ author called MacOS less an "enemy" than Windows).
Instead of replying to these things, people should just save them on their hard drives, let MS tell everyone how great Windows is...etc.
:)(or doesn't get the joke...)
After Linux slowly creeps up to and past the level of Windows and all these "doom predictions" are disproved, we can just show them how stupid they were. He who laughs last laughs best
What is the worst that can happen? Do you think Intel will read this and suddenly pull Linux support? What about Corel and SGI? I don't think so.
You don't want lots of people coming to Linux and saying "Hey, this isn't as great as you said it was." You want people saying "Damn, I should have got into this years ago." Who gets the blame? All those people who told them Linux wasn't gonna last.
At this stage, Linux isn't ready to compete with Windows in all ways. It is pretty close, but not close enough that some people won't be disappointed when they switch.
So just smile your head and nod, let them think whatever they want to.
Those saved pages will be fun to laugh at, just like those quotes of "The Internet won't appeal to the home user..." and "The world will only need 5 computers..."
That's a load of tosh. Microsoft Windows dominates the operating systems market on a global level, and, in terms of turnover, most of Microsoft's business is outside the USA.
This is certainly good for the American economy, but the flow of capital from the rest of the industrialised countries (the overwhelming majority of Microsoft software used in developing countries is pirated) into the American economy isn't necessarily a good thing for these economies. On the other hand, standardisation on a single platform (Microsoft or otherwise) tends to increase efficiency, so Microsoft's provision of a standard platform may offset the outflow of capital (I don't know if there have been any studies concerning this).
Hmmmmmmmmm, maybe Linus isn't god. Another Linux myth exploded!
>I'd like to point out that this was Slashdot's fault. The Gartner >group is very serious and reliable. If the links to the article were > published, instead of links to a third party commenting on the >article, it would have avoided all this confusion.
Hmmm....Prepping the Microsoft PR department's excuse (It's *NOT OUR FAULT*) why yet another astroturfing plot blew up in Mircosoft face again,eh?
Outrage is an appropriate response to Gartner allowing vendors to editorialize beneath the GartnerGroup banner. The MS webletter appears to be part of a product Gartner calls GartnerConnects which is an effort by Gartner to allow venders to present their editorials within the Gartner web site, clearly suggesting to the inattentive that the point of view is that of an independent research organization.
The reports Rick mentions http://www.gartner.com/webletter/microsoft/article 1/article1.html http://www.gartner.com/webletter/microsoft/article 2/article2.html http://www.gartner.com/webletter/microsoft/article 3/article3.html http://www.gartner.com/webletter/microsoft/article 5/article5.html http://www.gartner.com/webletter/microsoft/article 6/article6.html is available (on the 16th) from http://www.microsoft.com/ntserver/nts/news/msnw/Li nuxMyths.asp And I must say this is great PR for Linux! Microsofts FUD grinders does a great job promoting Linux and RedHat as well. Listen to this for example (article6): From 2002, Windows 2000 will have the critical mass, improved functionality and scalable 64-bit OS for IA-64 necessary to reduce the market aura surrounding Linux (0.7 probability). Linux will also continue to lag behind leading Unix variants in scalability (0.9 probability). Enterprises can still consider Red Hat a safe bet as a top-tier Linux distributor for the next three years but should avoid making substantial investments in Linux for complex, critical applications before 2001. 0.7 and 0.9 propability predictions about events in the _computing_ industry three years ahead!? Is 640K enough for such calculations Bill? Overall these "Reports" is just too biased and speculative to even comment. Cheers /Patrix, Sweden
Now Microsoft is desperately trying to pull its foot out of its mouth and say the Linux is a nothing OS that can't possibly be considered competition and can't possibly measure up to the quality of Win32 and "soon to come" Win64. But tell me, who's gonna be dumb enough to listen to the very same guys that stated Linux was serious competition (in reality costing Microsoft Billions in past and potential revenue). So they need some spin-doctoring NOW. What better than to start calling your favors and to turn to companies you do major business with or are a major shareholder in? But this is stupid too and drips of lack of fore-thought. Microsoft is paying people to write good things about them and bad things about Linux (reminds me of the "satisfied customers" Microsoft paid to write the DOJ). DUH!!! The media loves stuff like this and it WILL get out. That and Microsoft trying to get a reduction in the Anti-trust funding and all the other stuff it's doing that is so clear in it's desparation to save face and restore its "Good Name" in the eyes of the public and shareholders. It's really pathetic.
It's easy to slam Microsoft because they provide us with so much good material. They can only use ancient history to slam us. Linux IS multi-processor capable, IS secure, IS everything Microsoft claimed it wasn't. Based on 30 year old technology is actually a compliment - it's technology that's been used, abused, tested and improved upon and proven as reliable and, well, perfect for the job. Kinda reminds me of a centuries old Constitution. Or the internal-combustion engine. Or AC electicity. New doesn't necessarily mean better - it just as easily mean unproven, unexperienced, untested.
Once again, rather than improving it's product (Win98 Second Release is worse even than the original Win98!) and showing the public that it's sincerely interested in providing better quality and quick fixes, Microsoft is instead following it's old habits of deceit and FUD.
I have to agree with one thing - Bill is certainly correct that Microsoft won't be around forever. Given it's actions, it may do more damage to itself than any competition... We'll see.
Then we have the employment of key Linux developers. Is this so different to MS hiring people? No, its not, yet the Linux/OSS following hate MS to much that they forget that the 'cool' employment of say, Michael Johnston by Red Hat in the very early days, it just as bad as MS hiring someone today.
The difference between prejudiced bigotry and rational analysis comes in part by the way that we apply the same standards to ourselves and the competition. But MS hatred is seen as 'cool' and anyone even suggesting anything different is a traitor to the cause. Result? Linux and OSS fall into the same trap as those they claim to hate.
The early days of Linux saw competition and vicious infighting far worse than anything done by Microsoft. Years later, some of the players left the field, others are millionaires; all would be hugely embarassed if proof of past events were to be made public.
Linux has some very dirty laundry hiding in the closet, on disks and in dusty shelves. When the individuals and Orgs are worth enough $$$ the embarrising facts will emerge. God help us if this info was ever 'sold'.
Everyone has their price, and there are some very pissed off people in the Linux world.
Not that you will get a chance to read this, /. 'unbiased' Moderation will kill it. Kinda proves the point really.
Microsoft *paid* for the content of the report.
Do you think they would have paid for it if it favoured linux?? Do you think that Garter doesn't hope to sell their studies?? Are you telling me that Garter doesn't have a bias to favour microsoft in order to sell the report???
Are you saying Garter had some factual basis for their report, and the MS just happened to buy it.
Are you saying 2 + 2 != 4???????????????????
What's with all you Linix dweebs always slamming Microsoft? Just look it in terms of the global employment scenario. It used to be "what's good for GM is good for the US." Now, thanks to the Internet, we can revise this to "what's good for Microsoft is good for the world."
Did you ever really look at the Windows animated flag icon? It doesn't wave, it bounces (just like their operating environments...)
(btw, I'll start by adding that I used to know a guy with webbed toes and an extra vertebrae)
Every person has 2 complete sets of genes. The average person has several fatal and several abnormal recessive alleles; these are blocked or hindred by the opposing dominant genes. When 2 people have a child, if they had the exact same genetics, each of the dangerous recessive alleles has a 1/4 chance of being doubled over so it doesn't have a dominant gene to block its affect. When 2 random people have a child, while each has several dangerous alleles, they have different dangerous alleles, and so none get doubled over. But, the closer together the 2 people are related, the more likely they are to have some of the same fatal/abnormal recessive genes, and pass them on to the child. After several generations of close inbreeding, this can get severe, as more and more genes get doubled over.
This little tidbit brought to you by:
- Rei
It's certainly reasonable to expect Senator Gorton to fight for the people who employ the electors in his constituency. The end result is more jobs, lower unemployment, greater contentment and his probable re-election.
Of course it does. Managing resources is one of the fundamental points of an Operating System. If you can't do that right you might as well go home and give up.
Taco bell is the only one left (and they will probably sell out to reach their long time goal:
"In the future all restaurants are taco bell")
Heh. Probably. Congratulations, in my experience NT leaks too much memory to make that possible. However, you are of course missing the latest and greatest service packs which ensure this behavior, if you miss having it. :)
Installing Windows NT on older hardware:
Rule #1, avoid the ActiveDesktop crap...
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Okay, remembering the interview with Bill Gates where [He] adds: "Someone who owns a newspaper can pick up the phone to the editor and say 'run headlines I like'.
~ ^~
"What we do is create tools like a word processor that lets people express their ideas and we're not at all involved in how they choose to use it."
He sounded pretty benign and there were many slashdot posts arguing that he does have an influence. Certain posts already in this thread lead me to beleive that Microsoft may not have actually had a influence on the Gartner report.
But this article does remind me of the many publishing oportunities they do own, and some are more cloaked in influence than others.
Besides, like many posts have mentioned, the Micosoft Spin machine won't work against Linux. Like Linus said himself (quoting from memory on his address at Usenix) "I see the [group of Linux researchers hired by Microsoft] as a Linux User Group in disguise. Sure, they don't report bugs in a very good way... but they spend much of their time and resources finding them." (If someone has the exact quote I welcome them posting it.)
In essence they are devoting Microsoft time and energy to finding the shortcomings of Linux so we can work on them. How could that be wrong? Every time they complain we just make it better. We wind up winning every time, not losing. As a famous publicist said "No publicity is bad publicity..." or something like that.
They can complain about where we aren't but they can't keep us from getting there. I for one thank Microsoft for there (misguided) support, and I note that Mr Bill really isn't as benign to media as he wants to appear.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~
As another poster mentioned, IBM conceded early.
:)
There is a reason, and that, being a business, IBM have to make money. IF OS/2 is not economically viable to keep supporting (and in the face of the MS-FUD out there, it quite possibly wasnt, definately seeing as software is not IBM's core business), then why shouldn't they drop it?
Linux on the other hand does not have to be "economically viable" to keep competing.
Microsoft FUDs the hell out of the linux community. What if they succeed? Ill tell you what :
Redhat can die. SuSE can die. Slackware can die. The kernel will still be tweaked, all the GNU stuff will still be worked on, and most likely, Debian will still be around
They can FUD all they want, most of the people pushing things forward will continue to do so regardless, whether it is Linux/Hurd/*BSD or whatever.
The net result on development will be effectively 0.
If linux was to miraculously fall over and die tomorrow (which it wont), FreeBSD (or another free NIX) could simply take its place anwyay .
smash
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Another "Mindcraft fiasco"? Microsoft is said to be excellent at marketing, but with the increasing popularity of the Internet as an information source, I think it's tactics are finally being exposed for what they are. Disinformation. Maybe since the Cold War with the Russia is over and the CIA has downsized, Microsoft has hired some of their ex-agents into their "marketing" department. Microsoft is trying to play these games that may have worked against Apple and IBM in the past, but just don't cut it in the Internet age.
----------------
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." - Albert Einstein
Co-founder and designer at Music Nearby: http://musicnearby.com
-- Gartner Group wrote it all, despite what the small-type notice (quoted earlier) says in direct contradiction.
-- We're to understand that a set of URLs on www.gartner.com are "the Microsoft site".
-- Microsoft "sponsors" this "site", and paid unspecified fees to Gartner Group related to the content, but in no way did Microsoft fund the study.
The first point is incorrect, and the second is irrelevant. The third is a legitimate concern, striking right at the dark heart of PHB consent for brand-name spindoctoring.
J.
trust your local newspaper reporter, unless he's John Markoff
damned vulpine http://sb.drtwister.com/
Silly customer, Taco Bell is owned by Pepsi.
As are Pizza Hut, KFC, and Frito Lay. Not sure who owns Pepsi.
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
"Microsoft is the epitome of innovation and product quality."
Sanity.html - Error 404 not found
It's really sad that Gartner has so much influence over the IT industry. All they publish is substance-less fluff pieces. And they can get away with it. People are going to remember the headline, not the fact that M$ shilled them for this report. That is unless CNN reports on it... I never have and never will pay any attention to what Gartner Group has to say. They are comfortable where they are and can survive charging outrageous rates and publish absolutely nothing worth reading. But this latest development swinks them to a new low.
Microsoft's flight sim was acquired from SubLogic, wasn't it?
Also, on the "bigger is better" theme: Yes, Microsoft and every other US retailer seems to benefit from that psychology. Pontiac sold me a nice, supercharged Grand Prix with nifty blinkenlights to tell me how much boost I'm getting. So what? I don't see how that's relevant to Linux vs. Microsoft here. There are Linux distributions that are every bit as bloated as Microsoft's Windows (for instance, RedHat, which I run at home).
(That reminds me, I really must give Debian a whirl. That is, as long as I remember my waders before I start traipsing through the thick field GPL religious dogma that surrounds it. I respect the GPL and I'm even distributing my own code under it, but I think it's possible to take an ideology too far. I view Free Software as a means to encourage Good Engineering, not as Theology and Religion.)
--Joe--
Program Intellivision!
Because Shelled was too lazy.
People who can't take the time to create links should automatically get moderated down.
Free Mac Mini. Yes, I'm
Pardon my ignorance but how does an operating environment bounce?
Free Mac Mini. Yes, I'm
Chasuk writes:
And further down:
So what, dear Chasuk, does "sponsorship" mean in your dictionary?!?
One would imagine that it involves something like money changing hands (or bank accounts) -- a.k.a. "a fee", right?
But the amount this sponsorship costs wasn't mentioned -- i.e, the fee was not specified -- was it?
So yes, the evidence was presented; in a direct quote from (the "Microsoft WebLetter" subsite of) the Gartner Web site.
And, no, one is NOT to believe that in "no way" did Microsoft fund the study.
"The postings of Anonymous Cowards deserve no reply." - Chasuk
Which, IMnshO, further proves Chasuk to be something of a moron.
Christian R. Conrad
MY opinions, not my employer's - Hedengren, Finland.
Christian R. Conrad
mail me at iki.fi ; same user ID as here
I'm running NT4 SP4 at work, and I never switch off the machine. Depending on what I currently work on, I can go for weeks without rebooting. In such cases I typically only have to reboot for moronic software installs that demand so.
On the other hand, I'm doing a lot of sockets programming lately. Boy, have I discovered NT4 weaknesses. There's nothing like debugging TCP/IP stuff to bring NT4 down. If you don't release sockets properly, pretty soon you'll get the "Insufficient buffer space..." error and no TCP/IP app will work anymore. Hello reboot...
To be fair, I don't know how other OSs handle this scenario. Does Linux keep track of sockets opened by an application and clean them up if it croacks? I don't know.
Incidentally, when I have to debug code that requires frequent reboots, I very much prefer WinLite (95/98) over NT. While they crash even easier, they also boot much quicker. I can do about 5 Edit/Run/Crash/Reboot cycles on 95/98 for every two such cycles on NT.
>> Does Linux keep track of sockets opened by an
>> application and clean them up if it croacks?
> Of course it does. Managing resources is one of
> the fundamental points of an Operating System.
> If you can't do that right you might as well go
> home and give up.
Of course it's a theoretical duty of an OS to keep track of such stuff. I guess my question should have been "does Linux do so successfully", at least more successfully than NT? Because if you ask MS, I'm sure they'll tell you that NT does so as well. Just not very well, I guess...
What you fail to see is that the people who might believe this kind of crap is not reading Slashdot. The target audience seldom finds out about how gross the misrepresentation is, and we already know... The fact that we can read the article does not mean it's intended for us.
But in answer to your question, no. I have to reboot my NT box at work about once a week because it runs out of memory (256MB physical, about the same swap). Closing all apps doesn't help. The memory just disappears. I suspect windbg is to blame.
/peter
I'm surprised that people aren't sprinting to get out from underneath before the M$ ponzi scheme crumbles to the ground.
-- ultra1
Well, I live in Wisconsin. One of my Senators isn't for sale, and the other had enough money to buy himself out of the market. ;-)
Damn, I thought Taco Bell was owned by
Stanford.
Linux and OSS didn't get this far by listening to the pundits or "authority" opinions. Lets just do what we do best: code; and let the "powers that be" do what they do best: create lots of hot air.
I just thought I'd say this. Lots of gamers will simply say that OpenGL is better than D3D, simply because Carmack said so a few years ago. If any of these same people read Carmack's Q&A session, they will say that Windows is better than Linux simply because JC said so.
:)
Carmack never said Windows was better than Linux, he said he prefered Windows NT as a development platform.
And AFAIK, he still hates D3D.
I believe the numbers were halved because they added up the costs for two years and then wanted to present a yearly TCO number.
Also, the other amusing thing I noticed in that study was some of the numbers up top related to the loads placed on the machines involved. It would appear that the NT machines cost 37% less to own and operate but it also appeared they did 50% less.
> Taco bell is the only one left
I heard that they and their sister companies didn't come out too well on the Star Wars marketing deal (presumably due to the public's "Jar Jar fatigue").
If they're strapped for cash, we may end up seeing Bill Bill's homely mug on cola cups and pizza boxes for all eternity.
--
It's October 6th. Where's W2K? Over the horizon again, eh?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
business desktop and turned that into "A damning report from Gartner has all but put the kiss of death on Linux."
Yes. Kiss of death?
- What utter crap.
I don't think there much more to be said.Juln
I do.
Oh, ok, there are a number of other owners too.
I would bet that, while MSFT does not directly own Pepsi, many major MSFT shareholders probably own stakes in PepsiCo (PEP).
;-)
Will in Seattle
I'd like to point out that this was Slashdot's fault. The Gartner group is very serious and reliable. If the links to the article were published, instead of links to a third party commenting on the article, it would have avoided all this confusion.
(8-DCS)
This is yet another example of how MS has become too big and does need some form of government control put on them. They have so much money they can buy any new technology, give away things to kill competitors that need to make money off of them, pay for good press about them, pay for bad press about their competitors, etc. As for Gartner...it is scary to think that so many people respect a company that has proven itself to be up for sale. What we really need is a company like Consumer Reports who doesn't except any money from any companies. They are not perfect but they are much better then the average product reviewer. We need someone that can be held up to a higher standard than that of today's press. It is so important to have the people who report news to the public (from your local news to a computer software review) only care about giving the masses the truth. A free and honest press is integral to a free society. It's sad that all to often reporting is about money and not about truth.
Does anyone out there have any ideas to solve this problem? If not for all reporting, at least for reporting on computing? This is an area where having an honest press is especially important because the average people in the public do not have extensive knowledge of the subject matter. They can not distinguish the diffences between the truth, the myth, and the out right lie.
-- soldack
Are they? Doesn't quite work that way; if it did, then there would be no drug problem in the USA--all those "Just Say No" ads would've gotten the crack smokers to give up around 1989.
Admittedly, that's an extreme case, but everyone forgets that it takes time to make a real change in the world. Back in the '60s and '70s, American car companies made enormous bloated monstrosities that kept falling apart. Then Honda came along, and though their ad budget was smaller, people began to notice something about their cars: they worked, and they were cheap. Took people a few years, but they didn't believe the FUD GM/Ford/Chrysler were spreading after their friends bought a Honda and such.
Reality triumphs over FUD, even though it takes a while. Patience doesn't seem to be highly valued in the computing world ("I want my servers set up in 15 minutes! We have a business to run!") but Linux enthusiasts may have to show some...
Give a monkey a brain and he'll swear he's the center of the universe.
The purpose of buying something from Gartner, is to back you up when you decide to follow the crowd.
When I was at KPMG, every time one of my colleagues wanted to do something truly stupid, (like use NT in a situation where it would be exposed to the net), they'd quote some Gartner report that claimed that NT is secure. (C2 level certification! No Shit!)
Gartner's credibility is nil.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I wasn't saying Linux has the same maintenance cost as Solaris. For those of you who want the quick rant, all I was saying was, "Look, using Microsoft's own study, Linux has lower TCO than NT, **EVEN IF** we assume Linux has the same maintenance costs as Solaris!!"
The assumption was necessary for the exercise, since I don't have any data to contradict Microsoft's paid "researchers". It was also partly intended to show how the numbers can be turned around to mean different things. For instance, why do you suppose they compared the price of 38 Solaris servers with the price of 30 NT servers?
My "claim" was that none of these studies are anywhere near objective. That's the only point I needed to make.
______________________________________________
Auditing and dentistry are excellent career choices for people who don't
Auditing and dentistry are excellent career choices for people who don't like other people but aren't coordinated enough
On a related note, let's not forget people: What Microsoft says or does has nothing to do with Linux. Since our goals (software that doesn't suck vs making money and achieving world domination) are different, we are left in an interesting position:
This latest morsel of FUD demonstrates that Microsoft still doesn't realize that Linux and the Open Source movement have already succeeded at their stated goals. And in terms of competition, they don't realize that we've changed the rules of engagement.
This is going to sound like a joke, but if you think about it (hint, hint, Mr Gates), it rings true:
The worst thing Microsoft could do to us is start contributing to the open source movement.
Heh. Microsoft is grasping at straws, and the microserfs can't seem to be able to see through it. Any one here gotten windows to stay up more then a week more then once at the desktop? I used to get memory errors after 24 to 48 hours with 128M.
I measure my desktop uptime in months now though.
OFTC: By the community, for the community
Yes, sorry, that's what I meant. Not bad memory, but out-of-memory errors.
OFTC: By the community, for the community
Ooops. AMD did it first.
Ooops, they never did become Slot-1 compatible. Are they using a cartridge now? Yes. Are they Intel technology compatible? Not a chance
Nobody's intelligent or objective these days
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
"Gartner's Barrow, said the Webletter report had reproduced Gartner's original research in its entirety and had not been funded by Microsoft."
Ok, so he's saying that everything in the report was written by Gartner. But:
"Gartner sold that research to Microsoft which it used for a "Webletter", which is sponsored by Microsoft but hosted on the Gartner site."
So in other words, Microsoft paid for the 'research', and the webletter's place on the internet. And:
"Editorial supplied by Microsoft is independent of GartnerGroup analysis and in no way should this information be construed as a GartnerGroup endorsement of Microsoft's products and services."
Which basically says the Gartner Group takes no responsibility for what is said in this "webletter".
I'll also point you toward several posts so far that have stated that the actual report had much less of a Microsoft slant on it.
Then, Microsoft referenced this Gartner report on the Linux Myths page, when apparently the only review of the report available to most readers of the page is through Microsoft's "webletter" (which, as has already been pointed out, is Microsoft's opinions and not the opinions of Gartner...and is therefore suspect).
Finally, there is the problem of the article's sudden disappearance.
No, this is not damning evidence. However, it is quite enough to be suspect. The original report, written by Gartner, may have plenty of good points to it... but I have not been allowed to read this report. And anything that Microsoft publishes against Linux should rightly be seen as suspect... just as anything by a Linux company against Microsoft whould be taken with a grain of salt. Frankly, I'd much rather the Gartner Group publish it's OWN opinions, instead of allowing Microsoft to publish them under Gartner's site.
And one last thing: "reproduced Gartner's original research in its entirety", unfortunately, does not state that the original report's bias and conclusions were maintained.. or that the report was exactly reproduced. At the very least, the situation allowed Microsoft to add their own spin to the webletter.. and we have no way of know what they did or did not add.
Ummm, you forgot something: all of these consultants and media run on money -- lots of it -- M$ has it -- most of it -- and they will feel much pain if M$ takes it away. Just what are they supposed to do, when their whole business model relies on this sort of payoff? I'm reminded of a quotation from 101 Dalmatians: "The humans have tried everything: it's up to us dogs now." Well, it's up to us geeks now. There will be nothing but more Mindcraft and Gartner from the mainstream.
--
I am quite civilized, and I should be brought a beer immediately. -- Bruce Sterling
I used to have my NT desktop at work up for over a week without crashing. I believed that it was the Seti@Home client that prevented the machine from crashing by reducing System Idle Processes to 0%, 'cause we all know that the SIP is the biggest cause of crashes :)
Anyway, now I have to reboot after 2 days because they changed my machine from static IP to DHCP and when I lose the license I can't just logoff/on again because the n/work client crashes and I have to reboot.
Consultancy: If you're not part of the solution, there's money to be made in prolonging the problem
I found it kind of interesting with all of their NT research and such they use Solaris for their own web server.
zforce:/etc$ queso www.gartner.com
204.133.127.76:80 * Solaris 2.x
Hmm...
Am I the only one to have followed the link at the bottom of that report to a response by a "Linux zealot" ?
The guy actually knew the reporter (who re-hashed the Gartner Report stuff) and reports on her attitude "its just an operating system" with what he regards as the true distinguishing feature, about why Linux would still be preferred even if a good percentage of the Microsoft "myths" piece were true (which I don't believe).
Essentially, Free software (as in Open of course) and ability to extend and have open standards and interoperability. Worth more than some small temporary (and perhaps imagined) difference in performance.
Peter
Bitter and proud of it.
I am skeptical of Gartner, especially how precise they claim to be in guestimating costs of big-corpoation software adoptions. For example I don't think windows 2k would cost as much to bring in as they say.
So I'm skeptical of their put-down of Linux, too.
But I didn't see ANY debunking here - merely inuendo that Microsoft wrote or suborned the report. Maybe they did, who cares.
The point should be, note the facts and conclusions that are wrong, and tell us the correct ones, and show us some evidence. That is debunking.
This idea rather misses the point the original poster was making
which is that the Gartner report is in fact not an outright
attack on Linux and the criticisims it makes are justifiable.
There seems to be a sort of seige mentality going on here. Every
criticisim is attacked regardless of merits.
What suprises me is that Microsoft have not been more active....
Watch the machine shift into top gear when Corel gets released
They must be %#!&* themselves.....
Full plate and packing steel! -Minsc
Is it just me, or does microsquish seem to be exhibiting mafia like tactics in their marketing schemes? BTW, has this guy even USED linux, or installed a major distro? My experiance with NT is that to get it installed with all the service packs, and a few applications such as Dev studio 6, and IE 4.x or better takes around 3+ hours at a minimum. My experience with red hat 6.0 was a 20~30 minute install, another 15 minutes and i was on the net. MS is way off on that one.
del c:\micros~1\*.*
Gartner does well enough without MS. They don't need them to stay in business.
Sun would happily pay for it.
Redhat could EASILY pay for it.
You're misinformed.
Gartner didn't originally release the report, it's for subscribers and paid customers. But because of this "controversy", they've put it up for the public to read.
MS didn't write the report, they wrote a press release summarizing it on the site. In order to read the ACTUAL Gartner report, which is NOT paid for by MS, you have to have a paid subscription with them. It isn't publicly available.
Maybe 1% of slashdot readers have actually seen the actual Gartner report.
No, silly, I meant a record for NT!
When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood.
-Tom Jones
It's funny you should ask. Though I use only linux at home, the machine I'm typing this on - here at work - is WinNT and has been up since I installed it in June. I'm amazed. Is this a record? Divine intervention?
When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood.
-Tom Jones
The "webletter" on the Gartner site is a paid Microsoft publication of the original Gartner report, it is NOT the actual Gartner report.
Are you comparing the one on Gartner's site with the one Microsoft bought?
If so, they're the same report.
It applauds what Linux is doing in other areas.
Where? You're obviously privy to another report.
Sheesh. Stop the zealotry and start to look at things with a *calm* and objective eye.
Oh I agree entirely that the Linux zealots can get a little out of hand. What I'm questioning is why there's a Microsoft published "Webletter" that just regurgitates the origional report?
It doesn't strike you as odd that they'll spend money to do this, when Gartner already has a
copy up themselves? Especially since there's not much indication that it's a Microsoft report, other than a little legalese at the bottom.
If Microsoft is spending money to rehash their public reports, wouldn't that be considered an income source for Gartner, and be in their best interest to publish material which Microsoft will likely pay for?
As an aside, how do you find the consultants for Gartner who come to your site? I worked for an IT corporation, who had a "Strategic Alliance" with them. What I remember most is when one of their "visionaries" who was supposed to be giving a presentation on the "Future of Internet Technologies" stood in front of the audience like a buffoon because he couldn't figure out how to plug his laptop into the projector.
An intern from the helpdesk fixed it for him.
Gartner didn't originally release the report, it's for subscribers and paid customers. But because of this "controversy", they've put it up for the public to read.
Where? What Gartner has up on their site is the same exact thing that Microsoft posted.
If they published the "real report" for everyone, please link to it, as I'm sure a lot of us would like to see it.
If you think that Microsoft is playing rough right now, think again.
They haven't even started.
Remember all the anti-OS/2 hype and smearing from 1991 through to 1998? It'll happen all over again but this time it is for Linux. Remember - the public are a malleable bunch. Say something loud and frequently enough, they will believe - no matter what physical evidence jumps up and bites them on the nose.
No sig. Move along - nothing to see here.
Man, I didn't realize that Windows 2K was in such bad shape. When Microsoft has to fabricate documents to prove NT is better, you know they are in trouble. There must be some numbers on Linux growth that have scared some MS executives.
Not only is this document probably written by Microsoft, I'd even venture a guess that this company has financial ties to Microsoft. This is something we Slashdotters should find out.
Gartner et al anyway just feed them the stuff they'd like to hear so they can do their next quarter forecast without using brains or common sense. (when they plan to be on zero stock on 12/31 while their customers have zillions on not-yet-spent budget dollars available at exactly that time is a logical result)
Hmmm - I wonder if not only Gartner was bribed by M$ but also the IT decision-makers...? Imagine the headline: "Haywire Inc. CIO sacked $1M for switching from Novell to MS". That war may be dirtier than we'd imagined...
Use The Source, Luke!
He's a senator of course he is!
Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
How's that for logic?
Gartner's credibility will suffer quite a great deal because of this. But, I know that Ellen was completely ignorant of the Microsoft webletter, and I don't buy the insinuation that Ellen was Microsoft's lacky on this one. I know Ellen, and she's a good journalist. No, I didn't like this story, but it's one bad story out of a few thousand.
Now, if you want to make conjectures about whether Gartner wrote this report so that Microsoft would purchase the rights to reprint it, go ahead. It's just conjecture. But the deal is, an independent reseach company cannot afford to have conjecture of this sort floating around.
Gartner, it sucks to be you.
Cheers,
Travis
Erm, TCO/year? Annual costs wouldn't include the initial costs, only the ongoing costs (which your estimate shows are higher for Linux). Your number for applications also look a bit dodgy.
Even if your numbers were correct, all you'd have proved is that Linux doesn't begin to cost more per user than NT until the second year, where as UNIX costs more from the start. You're still suggesting Linux costs more in the long run.
In any case, the comparison is pointless. You can't just assume Linux would have the same TCO as Solaris, so Microsoft's claim is as useless as yours.
So the bottom line is that Microsoft wrote that report itself? _Very_ cute. Even cuter that Microsoft in addition to writing the report funded that bit of Gartner to host it. yaaaaah! fnord!
OS/2 was controlled by IBM, who manifestly did not have the stomach for the fight at the time.
We manifestly do.
Also, we know we're going to win.
--
Xenu loves you!
I personally (still) don't think rebutting Gartner/whoever's "report" is a particularly good use of valuable time, but -- for those who care about such things -- Paul Ferris has bothered, and did an excellent job: http://linuxtoday.com/stories/10912.html
Maybe so. but it's a twisted double standard that has people comparing w2k to linux 1.2. You should judge software on the basis of it's latest release.. not previous mistakes. And you shouldn't compare Real Software with Vaporware (ie: comparing linux 2.2 to w2k). If you'd like to see an example of this, flip over to ZDNet and look up whatever Berst Alert is up on the page right now.
It is a logical error at best, and FUD at worst to misrepresent things like that. The current crop of gnu software is solid and dependable. Some of it is also cryptic - but that's a gripe you can take up with the UN*X Philosophy in general, not just rms and his merry men.
--
Looks like others can't figure out myths either. I keep my desktop machines up all the time. Crashes happen, but 24 to 48 hours??? Ya gots to be a moron if ya can't figure out how to get that kinda up time. My personal machine gets about 4 or 5 weeks before rebooting, and thats because I reconfigure stuff for one of my personal webservers...yeah yeah, I can reconfig my linux server with out powering down as well.
Servers on the other hand are usually up for a few months at a time. I was sad when my MO Jukebox / SQL Server machine died in april...its been up since replacing the HD April 19th. The problem is that most M$ servers are run by secretaries and others that think having a MCSE means they know shit. Remember ya'll, once ya make linux easy enough for the general public to handle, these are going to be the same people that admin these boxes as well and yer gonna find ya have a whole slew of problems ya never knew existed...
clif
...to learn that Microsoft just might be generating "independent" support by throwing money around? It's already been proven that they hired people to write "independent" letters to the editors of various newspapers right? We know their history.
They have no credibility as a company in my (and many other's) eyes. If you are an IT manager and you are taking these "independent" test results and opinions without a healthy portion of MSSalt.exe, then you need to seriously pull your head out of the sand.
Microsoft is afraid for it's life. Of course it's going to panic. However it's interesting to note that instead of being driven to improve their products and compete with Linux's strengths, they feel their only recourse is to attack and mislead.
This is the sign of a company that can no longer "innovate" or improve their products to compete. They will be gone in a matter of years, since there is bound to be a better product someday (perhaps Linux, or something else down the line), that no amount of attacking, misleading, or "indepentent columns" can silence.
No company stays on top forever, and Microsoft has shown that it is past it's innovating stage, and well into it's "trying to hold it's lead with only slander" stage. It's only a matter of time.
Finkployd
Microsoft has enough money that it's difficult to trust anything that anyone says in their favor without confirming it yourself. If Mindcraft says that Microsoft is superior, you are forced to wonder whether Mindcraft is for sale. If Gartner says that Microsoft is superior, you have to wonder whether Gartner is for sale. When Sen. Gorton tries to cut the DoJ anti-trust budget, you have to wonder whether Sen. Gorton is for sale.
Today on the Windows 2000 Professional front/contents page there's this link and byline:
Oops. Gartner's Migration Model Flawed
Market Bulletin: We think our friends at the Gartner Group used a flawed model for a recent prediction about migration costs to Windows 2000. Here's why.
This is the same bogus big-developer-to-big-IT-clearinghouse dialectic; I've also noticed this last year.
4 months a record? Are you kidding?
I think it was Alan Cox who had posted something showing the uptime of one of his machines at 180 days. The problem was the uptime counter had already wrapped. That happens every 497 days. So this machine had been up about 22 months.
I just recently sent him mail about the linux portaloo being stuck and not presenting any new articles. He replied "that's what happens when the clock rolls over after 497 days". So this means the man has had at least two different machines stay up for over 497 days. That's over 16 months!
I myself had a machine at my office stay up for over 325 days. It came down (hard) when the water from hurricane Floyd started rolling into the computer room. This machine is our news server. Came right back up after an fsck.
> an effort by Gartner to allow venders to present their editorials within the Gartner web site, clearly suggesting to the inattentive that the point of view is that of an independent research organization.
Hey, Gartner guys -- anyone reading this? I want a Linux webletter area where I can publish my own spin on your reports, and leave readers with the impression that it's your spin.
How much is this going to cost me?
Please reply promptly.
--
It's October 6th. Where's W2K? Over the horizon again, eh?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
The author mentions "expired" webletters that reappeared later. Has he published his before/after analysis yet?
--
It's October 6th. Where's W2K? Over the horizon again, eh?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> Microsoft is not a competitive threat to Linux
Not a competitive threat in the sense you offer, but still a threat. If Linux were not devouring the server market right now, WNT probably would be. And with enough of the the server market cornered, MS could E&E the standard network protocols to the point that you couldn't put Linux on the net without violating some patent. Then Linux would probably starve -- not just the newly IPO'd Linux companies, but also the grassroots movement that started it. It would be extremely tough to keep it alive by means of a worldwide network of BBS's and swapped floppies.
So in a very important sense, MS is a direct threat to Linux. Linux can survive and thrive on it's own terms without the Linux companies, but it might not survive at all if the net falls into hostile hands.
--
It's October 6th. Where's W2K? Over the horizon again, eh?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Stop the zealotry and start to look at things with a *calm* and objective eye.
Let me understand this now. Gartner writes a report critical of Linux, Microsoft pays bux (how many unknown) and distributes the report.
Now, suppose Gartner writes a report critical of Win2k (bloated unstable pig-dog of unknown compatability quality and buginess but fact it is largest number of code lines ever attempted in an OS doesn't bode wll unlikely to be installed by anyone sane until at least SP2 is out project being led by PHB who says his number one job is to ship the product). Is anyone in the free software community likely to have the bux to pay for this? No, if they have money they are spending it on stuff like making the code better.
If you are Gartner you don't have to be all that smart to realize where you are most likely to get a renumeration for your efforts. Heck, we don't even know if there was collusion before the article was written, i.e. some MS flack calls up Gartner - hey Joe - do you have anything critical of Linux we could buy? Joe, realizing this is an opportunity to make his sales target says, sure, I think we have something - might take a day or three to find it in our files. We'll send it over, and put it on your tab.
I reboot once every 4 weeks or so. Usually the reason is to prevent it gets unstable, not because it actually becomes unstable. I have not seen any blue screen yet, but then I don't do any serious c/c++ developing on the machine (only java). I don't think it has crashed a single time since I have the machine on my desk (about a year now).
I always read about people having to reboot NT every hour or so and blue screens stopping by every few seconds. If the above article was fud then what are these stories? Sure NT is not perfect, I wouldn't want to run it as a server environment for instance, but for the average desk user its not that bad.
Jilles
My point is this: debunking a claim, amongst a group of people who already know how crappy the claim is, is sort of pointless. It just shows how easy we are to piss off. What you're really doing is arguing with someone who isn't there anymore. Write a letter, make a phone call, but these "debunks" are preaching to the choir.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Well, I agree with the MS bashing. I view it as hypocritical. When I got a bit out of my mind, and asked why on SVLUG, along the attacks and such, I did get one (well, also Rick's first was good.. 2nd a bit brutal :^). I can't find the message, of course... :-) To sum it up in a far worse way than it was said, MS's web server never stops cranking out the FUD. The web page doesn't get tired, it just keeps going on and on. Because Microsoft is such a big entity, the Linux community (as of yet) can't just have a page do the same fashoin to counter MS's. So.. screaming and shouting and the rest of it are needed to counter. Until Microsoft stops, the Linux community can't... (of course, one can always say the Linux community started it.. but in return, MS started it by making poor software and doing various unethical business practices)
Now it's just a bunch of zealots trying to dominate the world and following some stupid dictator. I'd rather work with FreeBSD.
heh. well, I started thinking the same thing a while back. Which is basicly why I lost it a bit... BSD in general, seems calmer and more orionted towards coding and progress, while Linux/GPL seems bent on good code, but more importantly to get a real fat ego boost. The latter can over shadow the former.. I emphasized the seem because it may be judging the Linux community harshly. The BSD community doesn't generally scream and shout, while at least some of the Linux community does. That may be the wrong impression... Rick's good responce on that part...
But just remember... Rick's reply was not meant as an article, or some Slashdot post, or anything else. I was quite surprised ot see it on Slashdot... It was just a reply off the thread in SVLUG... nothing more. It wasn't an article, it wasn't meant to be anything I think that Rick expected so much responce from.
"Open Source?" - Press any key to continue
Come now, you're all getting out of whack for nothing. Rick Moen's argument is that the little text at the bottom of the report states that Microsoft published the material. That doesn't mean that Microsoft wrote it (or paid for it) - in fact, it specifically says the content is provided by and copyright Gartner Group.
I know we all love big conspiracies by evil companies, but not EVERYTHING is a conspiracy. Is it not possible that some (possibly clueless, but let's not get into that) person at Gartner wrote up the thing completely independently, and Microsoft said "hey that's good, we'll publish it in our section of the web site?" Rather than bashing the article based on its delivery, how about CONTENT.
The Linux advocates (for lack of a better name) are quick to scrutinize anything coming out of Redmond in great detail. How come they don't apply the same attention and scrutiny to anything pro-Linux or anit-M$? Everyone knows there's FUD on both sides.
I'm certainly no fan of M$, but there's no need to invent evil deeds for them! They do more than enough factually.
Sponge
I quote from the small-type at the bottom of the Microsoft Web Letter in question:
'Microsoft Web Letter is published by Microsoft.'
This is really quite easy to understand. For example, The Times is published by News International. News International also publish The Sunday Times, News of the World, and The Sun. That's not too heady a concept, is it? The content of most newspapers, newsletters and journals are partially or entirely created by outside contributors. There are many outside contributors to The Times (and indeed to
Why, then, the apparent puzzlement? I quote:
'So, we're to believe that:
-- Gartner Group wrote it all, despite what the small-type notice
(quoted earlier) says in direct contradiction.'
When one has learned to read, there is no contradiction.
Another source of confusion seems to concern the idea of sponsorship. I quote from Gartner Group's rebuttal:
'According to Gartner's Australian vice-president
of marketing, John Barrow, Gartner sold that
research to Microsoft which it used for a
"Webletter", which is sponsored by Microsoft but
hosted on the Gartner site.'
This tells us that Microsoft Web Letter is sponsored by Microsoft (not an amazing revelation, considering that it is a Microsoft publication), and that the issue reporting the research results favorable to Microsoft was hosted on the Gartner site (again, not amazing considering that Gartner conducted the research, and also obvious from the URL).
Why the puzzlement? My final quote:
'So, we're to believe that:
-- Microsoft "sponsors" this "site", and paid unspecified fees to
Gartner Group related to the content, but in no way did Microsoft
fund the study.'
Fees are not mentioned anywhere, so if one chooses to believe that "unspecified fees" were involved, the evidence should first be presented. Failing that (the presentation of evidence), yes, one is to believe that in "no way" did Microsoft fund the study.
Neopets - the best free game on the Int
Seriously, this whole thing with any company able to get away with thinking they're the center of the universe gets to me. It happens in this small town I live in with the radio stations and theatre companies, it happens nation-wide with corporations like Microsoft constantly giving themselves pats on the back. :)
Someone once said 'It is better go on foot than ride in a carriage under false pretenses'. Microsoft is riding in a carriage not their own, and any company doing this will ultimately loose the respect they may have held and whither away to oblivion.
Microsoft says that they're better, but where did these Linux users come from? I would be willing to guess that at least 33% of the people who use Linux come from a Microsoft OS background. Why? Because they were sick of not knowing what was going on in their system, sick of the OS behaving like a bad employee on the verge of being fired, and sick of being told by Microsoft that they were using the best software anyone in the world had to offer, when deep down they knew something had to be better.
And so, having finished that rant, I'll go eat some soggy cheerios, so I can be annoyed enough to post on something else I hate
Target Practice
There's a 68.71% chance you're right.
From the most recent osOpinion
A aronFransen1.html
http://www.osopinion.com/Opinions/AaronFransen/
As long as I've been in the "PC" business there has been a sort of ideological/$$$$ warfare between those on top (as they see it) and those up and coming. Disinformation is a very powerful weapon in those wars and in lieu of conventional weapons it is a marketing departments 'nuke'. If a commercial software vendor's product can not stand on its own merits/features against a similar free product what does that say for the vendors' work?
Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
One is moved to ask, in a spirit of genuine concern: Doesn't incest on this scale tend to lead to problems like webbed fingers in future generations?
Ah, webbed fingers aren't necessarily caused by incest AFAIK. Lots of people have webbed fingers and toes, and they don't all have circus jobs either. So regardless if the point of the artical was factually correct or not, it isn't right to stereotype people who are different from you. As Linux users (a minority, but growing fast) we should be fully aware of such issues.
Lets celebrate diversity for the more aquaticly gifted amoung us!
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
[Cross-posting from the SVLUG mailing list]
Quoting Aaron Lehmann (aaronl@vitelus.com):
> Nice commentary, Rick. Turns out you made Slashdot with this.
I noticed. Wow. (I did not post it there, only here on the SVLUG list.)
It was never intended as a serious-minded analysis: I didn't think the "report" merited one. To the contrary, I was just having fun with some of the delicious absurdities to be found in it, in Gartner Group's hilariously cozy relationship with Microsoft (and perhaps anyone else whose cash is green enough), and in Gartner Australia's "explanation".
I'm sure the latter was truthful, if you squint at it the right way: I'm certain that Microsoft Corporation's ongoing series of cheques for sundry services and accomodations did not specify (outright) that they were to fund a report that just by amazing coicidence parrots Microsoft's exact party line about Linux, in fine detail.
So, I'm sure the apparent incestuousness of all this is mere coincidence, and nothing the least bit improper or damaging to Gartner Group's reputation for independence.
[cough]
Anyhow, the point wasn't to "debunk" Gartner's Linux piece du jour, but rather to mock it. It's not important, just amusing. I'm far more concerned about poor Hemos and his ruined house, poor guy.
Reading your post, it seems to me that you misunderstand the reference you quoted. Freeware/shareware has nothing to do with the previous mistakes of GNU/OpenSource/"Free Software"(as defined by RMS)
Perhaps you're not familiar with it, but in the DOS/Windoze world, there is tons of software available gratis(free), frequently with a rarely obeyed stipulation that if you like it and use it you should pay for it, which is almost always closed source. I do believe that this is what the previous poster was referring to. Freeware and shareware tend to combine all the disadvantages of proprietary/closed source software with all the disadvantages of GNU/OpenSource software. You don't get the source, so you can't fix it yourself, but there is no support, and since the people who write it barely make any money off it anyway, they don't spend much time fixing it. Some of it still manages to be pretty good, but a lot of it is crap. (hence the "spotty quality" comment)
P.S. Personally, I think we should avoid the confusing terms "open source" (which only implies that the source is open, not that you can get the source for free even necessarily) and "free software"(which sounds more like gratis than libre in english). My current favorite term is "free source", which can be interpreted correctly with both interpretations of "free", but doen't *necessarily* imply that as a product it's free. (Hell, they can sell bottled water;) I do have to wonder though if a term like "liberated software" or something like that would be good, avoiding the gratis interpretation. However, I'm rambling, so I'll shut up now
--LeBleu
If you're reading this you're part of the mass hallucination that is Kevin the Blue.
> also heard it can't work with burned CPUs and crashed harddisks. And it won't display things on monitors with broken glass!
Since society seems to accept vapourware as standard practice in the industry, I suggest that we start promising these things for the 3.0 kernel.
Indeed, we should promise to eliminate the need for memory and disks altogether, by putting everything on a RAM disk in virtual memory, and then moving the swap file to the RAM disk. (Too late for a patent: I think they already do this to make infinite memory available in the OS's Moebiux and Klinix.)
--
It's October 6th. Where's W2K? Over the horizon again, eh?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
This is the same group of 'consultants' that has done a number of reports on user productivity and cost of ownership funded by Apple in order to show Windows to be inferior.
These outfits have zero credibility. They are not independent, they always write what the client wants to hear in hopes of getting more work of the same nature in the future,
AP - 10/16/1999 Microsoft Purchases ALL Public Broadcasting Stations.
Microsoft has reported today that they have just closed a deal to purchase every Public Broadcasting Station in the free world for an undisclosed amount of money. Bill Gates speaking via video conference had this to say: "We are very exicted to announce this bold move into world of non-profit organizations. I have always been more interested in helping people than making money and I feel this will finally prove this to everyone. Americans have always said that they want more access to quality shows on TV and now we can offer help to them by providing the shows that they want to see!"
PBS will now be known as MSPBS and will be run by the former CEOs of Mindcraft and the Gartner Group. Some of the new shows to debut this winter will be:
Cooking with Bill: Watch Bill Gates make food with recipies stored on Win98.
Wild Kingdom : See young people survive in the jungle with nothing but their Windows CE devices.
Financial News Nightly: See how all of the terrrific innovations by Microsoft causes their stock to raise on a daily basis.
In an unrelated announcement Microsoft has changed the name of their new OS from Win2000 to Bob2000. Bill Gates was quoted as saying: "We really feel the name change will help our customers be more productive."
I agree with witz. If you take a careful look at the actual Gartner Group report here, you'll see that this report isn't really "anti-Linux propaganda." They simply believe that Linux won't replace Windows as the most-used desktop OS in the land (at least by 2004 the way that Linux is currently going).
IMHO, and this is not intended as a flame, this whole tempest-in-a-teapot was blown up by ComputerWorld journalist Ellen Cresswell. She says that Gartner "painted an unflattering picture of Linux" in their report when the actual report isn't really that critical on Linux, It simply raises issues that have been discussed on Slashdot as real live problems with Linux. But Cresswell blew up this report as Gartner's "slam" on Linux when the report wasn't any such thing. Let's not let Cresswell benefit from a useless and pointless flamewar between Gartner and the Linux community.
And even though Gartner obviously has substantial reservations about the success of Linux in the mainstream (if you thought the desktop OS report was bad, check this Gartner server-oriented Linux report out), we shouldn't flame them. Instead we should prove them wrong, right?
So let's prove them wrong!
Rob Thornton
Deep in the ocean are treasures beyond compare; but if you seek safety, it is on the shore.
People just haven't realized yet that none of these "objective" tech review groups have any reason to be truly objective. They claim objectivity, but there is no one holding them to it. The average PHB doesn't investigate the findings, and the money goes to whoever can consistently provide the best combination of perceived integrity and customer butt-kissing.
. ..........Linux
For example, in Microsoft's Linux Myths page, one of the key points is lower TCO. The study they quote to back this up was paid for by Microsoft and Compaq, and is seriously funny if you actually add up the numbers. The study is actually a comparison of NT TCO with Solaris/SPARC TCO, so since they use this "study" in an argument against Linux, I thought it would be appropriate to look at the numbers as they would appear in a Linux environment.
First of all, on every line, they compare the TCO of 30 NT servers to 38 Unix servers. Why? They don't say. In the absence of convincing evidence that 30 NT servers will do the job of 38 Unix servers, let's make this a server-to-server comparison and use numbers for 30 Unix servers instead. Let's assume the hardware costs are the same between NT and Linux, since they will both run on Intel hardware. That saves us big bucks over the Sparc hardware quoted in the study.
Now, for additional software, they include databases, development tools, apps, and utilities. Top quality Linux apps, dev tools, and utilities are free, but I could see paying money for Oracle or something on big boxes (no disrespect to MySql intended), so we'll include their figures for database expenditures, minus 21% to account for 30 servers instead of 38.
The initial purchase price and application prices I list below are double what are shown on the "TCO Summary" table on their web page. For some reason their summary figures are exactly half of the totals in their detail reports, and I couldn't determine why, so I went with the detail report. All the other summary figures on their page match their detail reports exactly.
All the support etc... stuff will probably be about the same between Solaris and Linux, so I just took those numbers right off their page.
............................................NT.
Hardware+OS.....$684,980......$530,400
Applications...........$49,510.........$32,307
Support, etc..........$867,740...$1,035,496
TCO/Year.........$1,602,230...$1,598,203
So, even in their own study, Microsoft couldn't beat Linux in TCO. What Microsoft paid for was for BRG research to arrange the data in a way that complimented NT, even if they had to "fudge" the data. Imagine what the numbers would look like in a study the FSF paid for!
______________________________________________
Auditing and dentistry are excellent career choices for people who don't
Auditing and dentistry are excellent career choices for people who don't like other people but aren't coordinated enough
Mindcraft, Gartner and any other company that bases its business on its rep with the business community need to learn right now that you can't fool 100,000 pairs of eyeballs, no matter how hard you try to distract them, nor can you outshout 100,000 angry mouths yelling against you. They simply can't afford to pull this "We do a report for you that says exactly what you want it to say and you pays us" crap (which is exactly what they both did, its just that Mindcraft got paid before and Gartner got paid after).
The 100,000 brains out there are ripping this report to shreads, and 100,000 coworkers are talking about how the Gartner Group sold out to Microsoft. Gartner is, in a word, fucked; any second-year advertising major can tell you that word-of-mouth is the most incredibly powerful force for or against a company that exists.
Gartner made the mistake of letting MS use them to use a tactic that's out of date in the information age. The only question is how many more generals out there have yet to realize that their tactics are out of date, and how many more companies will have their reputation destroyed before this is over.
----
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
I admit I didn't bother to plow through all the links to the original /. post, but since this has turned into "All The President's Men", let's take a closer look at the conspiracy theory:
So, we're to believe that:
-- Gartner Group wrote it all, despite what the small-type notice (quoted earlier) says in direct contradiction.
Maybe I'm confused, but isn't all of this (the URL and the notice) pertaining to the "Webletter", not the original report?
-- We're to understand that a set of URLs on www.gartner.com are "the Microsoft site".
It's ComputerWorld that used those words, not Gartner. Not that they're necessarily wrong.
-- Microsoft "sponsors" this "site", and paid unspecified fees to Gartner Group related to the content, but in no way did Microsoft fund the study.
Again, I don't think this "site" or "content" is the "study".
In any case, I think people are missing the biggest offender here -- ComputerWorld, which took a report criticizing Linux as a business desktop and turned that into "A damning report from Gartner has all but put the kiss of death on Linux."
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Hasn't anybody told Microsoft yet that Linux itself is a myth? It really doesn't exist.. we're just trying to get your goat. I mean... system uptime measured in years? High performance out of desktop computers? You'd have to be pretty gullible to believe all that. And to top it off, an operating system that doubles in functionality while increasing it's speed by a similar amount at every major release? Absolutely unbelieveable! Programmers who devote their free time to giving away their code? I can barely contain myself.. I really must go...
--
giving a rule of thumb purchase price + (1) * (2) / (3) lifetime cost. Perhaps other
All brand and no beef makes for very skimpy meal.
LL
How so much misinformation can lead to so much knee-jerk reactivity.
Gartner writes reports for companies on a subscription basis. IE PAID. The company I work for, for example, pays Gartner for consulting and reports. The "webletter" on the Gartner site is a paid Microsoft publication of the original Gartner report, it is NOT the actual Gartner report. MS did not pay Gartner to trash Linux, they paid Gartner for the ability to post the Gartner report on Linux on their site.
If you people would actually READ the report, instead of that idiotic summation by IDG and the Microsoft produced webletter, you'd realize that it isn't that big of a rip on Linux. It simply criticizes the *current* state of Linux as a viable desktop solution. It applauds what Linux is doing in other areas.
Sheesh. Stop the zealotry and start to look at things with a *calm* and objective eye.
Sidestepping the matter of ComputerWorld putting its own spin on the report, what is the credibility of Gartner, Giga, etc. in the IT industry? The second question is who is their target audience?
These analysis groups have a deservedly bad reputation among IS/IT staff for the same reason that the national news reports lack accuracy when one is personally familiar with the event: the author is too far from the subject matter to do it justice and the readership doesn't demand more. Ask anyone who does the "heavy lifting" in an IT shop about one of these reports. If they are more than vaguely knowledgeable about the subject they can pick the report apart. Now try the same thing with upper management. Funny how the response is different.
These groups make their living producing, despite their claims, shallow analysis for a readership that needs information quickly so that they can become "instant experts" before the next meeting. Depth is not necessary, technical accuracy obfuscates, just get the gist and make it readable. The topic of the week is always on the horizon and this must be put into the readership's hands fast. Odds are good that the information will be lost or forgotten (for a chuckle, go back and read last year's reports and predictions).
I know I've said it before, but these companies have a track record for post-prediction and a habit of ignoring their misses that makes psychics look good. Worse, I personally know a few people who work for these companies and I can only say that I was glad to see such people leave.