Microsoft Compares Windows And Linux 468
Halcyon-X writes "Microsoft is hosting a discussion on Windows and Linux between its two top Linux consultants. Martin Taylor and Bill Hilf talk about the various OSS licenses, focus on the open source development model, competing implementations of administration tools, TCO, and risk assessment. Also available in offline formats, doc (which looks fine in OpenOffice.org) and wma as well."
Same old, same old... (Score:5, Insightful)
And that's the point at which Martin Taylor (the MS talking head) confirmed that this discussion was yet another dull FUD exercise and I stopped reading. Seriously, this is getting very old now. They need some fresh new script-writers over at MS, otherwise they're in danger of losing even their most avid fans!
MS doing a linux convo? (Score:2, Insightful)
"Linux consultants"? (Score:3, Insightful)
And yes, I did RTFA, so I know that neither Taylor or Hilf, nor Microsoft use the term. They are, in fact, more accurate and honest about what the do. Taylor "[ensures] customers understand the benefits of the Microsoft platform" and Hilf "[leads the] Linux and Open Source Technology Analysis Center" at Microsoft.
Great marketing (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not really comparing Windows and Linux, it's issuing more FUD, and another attempt at pushing those NT users to 2003 rather than an alternative OS.
Alright... as you say (Score:5, Insightful)
We believe the way to integrate software, and the way to get software to work in a heterogeneous environment, is through promoting open standards
Does Microsoft Office ring any bell Mr. Bill Hilf?!
Put your actions where your mouth is and open up
Re:Since when does Linux compete? (Score:3, Insightful)
linux community!= linux companies, which ARE in direct competition with windows(anyone who would say that a companies producing an operating system, spreadsheet and writing applications weren't in competition with microsoft are idiots ).
Decouple the OS from the apps? (Score:5, Insightful)
-
So to give you an example, like I said I've run a lot of Linux shops in the past, I run a lot of commercial Linux here. If we have a particular problem in a certain piece of software, anything from let's say from a Kerberos library to Apache to Samba to any other application that might be on that distribution when we go through that chain of support with our commercial Linux distributor, there is a gap between what they're able to supply and what they have to go back to the open source community to get an answer for to get it resolved. In many cases the response is we need to stick with the version that's available at the time that we purchased that distribution, so for example if I'm running Apache 1.3 on my Red Hat Enterprise server, although I may want Apache 2.0 because it might have new features or it might have some new capabilities, I'm outside of my support model now with Red Hat. This is just an example.
Interesting he talks about this, but don't you usually have seperate support contracts for the OS and your core apps? I have a beast of a box that runs Windows 2000 Advanced Server but I'm free to run any RDBMS or web server I desire on it. I don't like IIS? Fine, I install WebLogic or WebSphere and I don't lose my support of the OS from Microsoft. I am currently running MSSQL Server 2000, but that could just as easily be Oracle 10g and I don't worry about support for either the app or the OS.In fact I don't want to worry about whether my OS vendor will support my web suite - it should be decoupled so I can run the apps I need to run my business whether it's IIS 6.0, Apache 2.0 or WebLogic 6.1.
Re:A real hoot! (Score:3, Insightful)
Fair and Balanced! (Score:1, Insightful)
I bet that will be about as fair and balanced as a typical Al-Jazeera broadcast.
They still don't get it. (Score:4, Insightful)
What seems to be missing here is "...and small, new companies that challenge the assumptions of these established players."
Re:Same old, same old... (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, Windows is only Open Source once you pony up some dough, or have significant buying power in order to make Microsoft feel it's worth it. Joe Schmoe developer isn't going to be seeing Windows' source any time soon. If you doubt that, go download the source for us so we can see how easy it is.
This says it all: (Score:4, Insightful)
We both work for Microsoft... (Score:5, Insightful)
Discussion = earnest conversation.
Propaganda = The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
( ref. www.dictionary.com )
Re:Since when does Linux compete? (Score:3, Insightful)
Linux was started becuase _we_ the community wanted it. Then it was realized that Linux could replace windows. Sirens sounded at Microsoft. We became their cometition.. but that's not something Microsoft is used to.. a non-profit community was now competition. Sure, they can slam some linux companies into the ground and feel satisfied they took care of the competition. But there are a dozen companies that will take their work and sprout up in their place. Then there are groups like Debian, who no PR department in their right mind would attack.
Re:Since when does Linux compete? (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't complain, write a lucid response. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Decouple the OS from the apps? (Score:5, Insightful)
Suppose I am running Windows 2000 and it comes with IIS 5.0. I'm tired of all the security problems and it lacks a couple of new features that IIS 6.0 has and I really want. So I install IIS 6.0, from a Windows 2003 CD, onto my Windows 2000 system. Surprise, surprise, it doesn't work. There are all sorts of library issues and other problems.
So, I call Microsoft for support. Their support tells me that IIS 6.0 on Windows 2000 isn't supported. They say that I need to stay with IIS 5.0 or, better yet, upgrade everything to Windows 2003 which comes with IIS 6.0
How is this example any different than the one that they gave?
What an utter crock o' SHITE! (Score:3, Insightful)
Back in another age, I worked in tech support for several well-known companies. On page 'one' of every tech support manual every written, it says
Oh, and the point of TS is not to solve problems. It is an arm of marketing, to help PHBs think they're getting value for the money and pacify users. Over 95% of the calls are invariably showing users how to do something. About 4% are because the user doesn't know what he's doing at all and screwed himself, and 1% is due to low-grade bugs that will never be fixed because they don't happen to enough people.
Relevant quote from 2000 years ago (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Same old, same old... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Fair and Balanced! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fair and Balanced! (Score:2, Insightful)
Point me in the direction of one Al-Jazeera article that talks about the good things that US troops are doing in Iraq and I'll retract my statement.
In related news... (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, guys, that's about how credible stuff like this is. (My sincerest apologies to everyone who lost relatives, friends, loved ones etc. in the holocaust, BTW)
Re:Don't complain, write a lucid response. (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't quote Linus because I worship him; rather, I quote him here because this point he makes is accurate about what Linux is about. Certain people want to see this as a competition. Fine, that's on them. They can write a response if they want to. But a lot of folks are not trying to win a marketing battle with Microsoft, myself included.
I don't care what Microsoft has to say about Linux. I know where they are coming from.
I don't use Linux to stick it to Microsoft. I made a choice based on what I see as practical driving factors that make Linux better. Among those factors are price, functionality, reliability, and control.
So long as Linux keeps getting better than itself, I'm a happy camper.
Re:Decouple the OS from the apps? (Score:1, Insightful)
Um, yah, that's what GOOGLE is for. Need help compiling Apache 2.0 for Redhat Enterprise (uh, not that it doesn't COME with it), try searching for the error you got in GOOGLE. And you know what! I won't even charge for that bit of consulting work.
Re:Same old, same old... (Score:4, Insightful)
Firstly, samba IS the same as Server 2003 as a workgroup server. That is it's point. Secondly, how can Server 2003 be a turn-key server? All servers, no matter how small, need configuring, integrating with existing systems (such as existing networking), account management and backup configuration. By the time you have done that, there is going to be little to choose between Server 2003 and Samba.
As for collaboration, Office 2003 may well be good for this, but in my experience such features are rarely used. I have performed many migrations from MS Office to Open Office + Evolution, and after getting used to the change in UI, most users have not noticed any difference in functionality. Microsoft frequently adds 'perceived' value, but not actual value in terms of everyday use. If you really do need some collaboration Evolution works well with MS Exchange.
Re:They still don't get it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Can somebody hit Bill with a clue-by-four and ask him about
1. Samba, and why the Samba project had to reverse-engineer everything?
2. Microsoft Office, and the hoops OpenOffice.org had to jump through to reverse-engineer their document storage format?
3. NTFS, and why Linux still can't support NTFS write natively (without using a MS DLL)?
4. All the hidden system calls that Microsoft uses internally, and which came up in the anti-trust case?
I can't understand how people like this guy Bill can look themselves in the mirror every morning. Lying pathetically to make a living is no living.
Re:Same old, same old... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Martin for example quite rightly points out that IBM, Oracle etc. are not throwing their lot in selflessly and wholeheartedly with Linux, they're augmenting a customer solution with open source products where their own proprietary software is lacking (they need an OS stack on which to run websphere, for example)."
I would somewhat agree but the main point is that companies are now putting large resources behind open source/Linux. Compare this to three years ago. So yes IBM will probably not open source Websphere and Oracle will not opensource their DB, but the fact remains that both companies are now working to improve the kernel and other features of the OS. Also companies like Oracle will now FULLY support a system like RedHat ES running their DB. They will provide you the RPM's and everything. So if you are like say 99% of the mid size companies that run a pure DB server (nothing else special loaded on the server) this is a good thing.
You quote:
"Another point which isn't often raised and which Microsoft is hammering on is yes, their solutions are at times more expensive, but do they provide more value to the customer, and this is the point which is most often dismissed as FUD, although it's valid."
I call you out on this. We need to define value for the money. This is the ambiguous TCO that is talked about. I will gladly put Linux and open source products against most of Microsofts. But before we debate on that issue we need to define TCO. Also, I would like to add that I have been part of one of the worlds largest I.T./Microsoft only shops. I have also been in a pure Linux environment as well. I will say that both technologies have "issues", but if you want to talk about "value" and TCO I would love to debate you on it.
You quote:
"Objectively speaking (objectivity being in short supply in this environment) some Microsoft products do provide better value in terms of functionality. From my point of view, Server 2003 is an excellent turn-key workgroup server, Office 2003 is an excellent collaboration suite (spare me the Linux banter about samba and OpenOffice.org, it's not the same). Whereas for enterprise level services such as public web services, e-mail, border security, I'd place more value in UNIX-based systems."
I would agree that some of Microsofts products do provide some value. Would you agree that they also provide vendor lock in? That is something that needs to be looked at in TCO. You bash Samba and OpenOffice but I wonder how much you have used them. Microsoft talks a lot about listening to their customers and building software that adds value to them, but I argue that they provide software that tries to lock your company in to their technology, then they try to slowly up the amount you have to pay to Microsoft over time. They are little different than a drug dealer. Their core responsibility is to make as much money as possible all why claiming to add value.
The last core issue that Microsoft and most companies fail to see is that opensource is more about freedom and communication that anything else. Because of opensource software you currently have a 64bit operating system for AMD64, and companies like TIVO are free to "add value" to their customers without having to talk to potential competitors. Now cell phones are starting to standardize on opensource software. Why? Because there is significant value in it. What about the next great gadget out there? What OS do you think they will choose to run on it? Windows? What if Microsoft may become a competitor of theirs?
Another large issue that Microosft seems to fail to mention in the entire article is the enormous growth of Linux and opensource in such a small amount of time. To be honest though, by them "talking" about it, they must realize that they do not add as much value as people think and that far more developers are working on it than they mentioned...
We do agree that Microsoft does "add value", just that value comes at a c
Better interoperability is one goal, yes. (Score:3, Insightful)
A very revealing quote (Score:4, Insightful)
At Microsoft, the real work doesn't include testing.
Re:Decouple the OS from the apps? (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, if you look at this from a support point of view, it is understandable that any vendor would want to support a limited software stack, otherwise its difficult (read risky) to give any service level assurances, since the customer might be running some totally weird stack that you'd have a tough time supporting (difficultly getting staff with the right skill-set etc).
The problem with Windows, is that you _can't_ run any setup you like even if you wanted to. And you have no choice as to _who_ provides your support -- e.g. if Red Hat didn't want to support me, I could in theory find another company who would, whist I continue to run a Red Hat OS. With Windows this is a non-starter since no other company has access to the source and therefore *cannot* provide complete support. Which conveniently ties up with Microsoft's business model so shipping new Windows licences!
Coming soon... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Same old, same old... (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed so. I've recently completed an intensive 7 month research project in which I compared the performance of Windows 2000 and 2003 with Linux/Samba running on the same hardware. It was very interesting to see how empirical reality stacked up against commonly accepted wisdom on the comparisons between Linux and other solutions.
Commonly accepted wisdom reads very much like your post did - nebulous, dismissive, voice-of-reason style speak that derives an almost guaranteed collective harrumph from Slashdot moderators and the IT community at large. Office 2003 is a collaboration suite? WTF? It's not even intended to be used as a "collaboration suite". It's a desktop application suite, and a rather bad one at that (with the possible exception of Excel). Microsoft's collaboration suite is Exchange. The competing products are Notes and Groupwise. To make a claim regarding 2003 as a collaboration piece, much less a good one, is to ignore the well-known problems of version incompatibility between Office releases, document rot, and the ability to recover hidden information within documents, all of which directly controvene collaboration.
I performed thousands of tests and generated more raw test data than would fit on a DVD because my company needed to know the facts about server performance. I didn't trust what was being said on blogs and fora about the various products. I installed and tested numerous operating system/application configurations. My testing revealed that not only is Samba better, more stable, and faster than Windows file services on the exact same hardware, but Windows can't even remotely compete. Performance analysis baselines and processor utilization levels during testing weren't even comparable. There was no "voice of reason" about it - no comfortable anti-groupthink rhetorical position into which one could arrogantly recline and dispense half-truths and irrelevant tripe. There was only fact - hard cold reality. Sort of like how every major Internet virus disaster, spyware infestation, and countless other sorts of electronic calamity occurs as a direct result of using Microsoft software. You can't spin that. You can't moderate that. It simply, relentlessly, is.
Further standing in plain sight is the source code for Samba. Because we had access to the innards of the file server system, we could further optimize the already exemplary out of the box performance of the system and fine-tune it for our specific needs. We now have a file server system that could never be matched in performance or cost by a monolithic, proprietary solution that attempts to be all things to all people from its ignominious perch within a cardboard box.
So yeah, objectivity certainly seems to me to be in short supply. Luckily for me and my company, however, choice is not.
my personal favorite (Score:2, Insightful)
"In many cases the response is we need to stick with the version that's available at the time that we purchased that distribution, so for example if I'm running Apache 1.3 on my Red Hat Enterprise server, although I may want Apache 2.0 because it might have new features or it might have some new capabilities, I'm outside of my support model now with Red Hat."
Is this a bad thing? Does Microsoft do something different? Can I get IIS6 supported on Windows 2000? Can I get Apache2 supported on Windows 2000?
"... if you take a look at Intertrust, the company that filed suit against Microsoft for patent infringement, Microsoft wrote a check for $440 million and our customers did not have to do anything in their implementation of Microsoft technology nor feel the pain, let's just say, of that situation."
If I used Microsoft software (That's a pretty big IF), would anything be different for me if Microsoft DIDN'T pay off Intertrust? Does Microsoft really think that if I don't violate a patent, I can be sued because they did?
"Obviously, Microsoft is incredibly focused on security."
Right [securityfocus.com]... Obviously [securityfocus.com]...
Re:Same old, same old... (Score:3, Insightful)
When I was involved in purchasing servers, I went for NT because at the time it seemed to fit well into small groups of PCs, as you could use an NT server to provide file/print sharing and as a general purpose workstation at the same time. The idea of a dedicated server PC was an unnecessary expense in many situations. A decade later, hardware is a lot smaller and less expensive, and dedicated servers (even in small installations) make more financial sense. In this situation, having a full Windows system with GUI seems overkill.
Re:Same old, same old... (Score:3, Insightful)
However, there is no big overriding reason why they couldnt open source specific components.
For example, the Internet Explorer HTML rendering engine.
Or the code for the Microsoft Visual Studio C/C++ Runtime Library
Or the code to Solitare.
Or whatever.
In fact, I have said it before and I will say it again, open sourcing the IE rendering engine & core makes sense. By open-sourcing it, MS doesnt need to spend as much time fixing all the ever-present security holes that are turning up in said product. Also, it would enable the community to add the features Internet Explorer is missing (such as proper alpha transparency and blending for PNG files and better complience with the HTML standards) that Microsoft doesnt care about.
And it would allow features to be added to make IE more secure out of the box (although the work MS did in XPSP2 makes some of these points less valid now)
If microsoft implemented a policy of taking back the best of what the community created and using it in the "official" versions of whatever component it is, everybody wins.
Microsoft gets a better program without spending a huge amount of effort.
The IE-using community gets a better program with the stuff implemented that microsoft wont implement because it doesnt make business sense to do so.
And the internet as a whole would be better off because there would be potentially less crap (viruses etc) floating around and the crap that is there wouldnt spread as easily)
They don't "get it", or maybe they do... (Score:4, Insightful)
So, Bill and I are here today to discuss the similarities and differences between Windows and Linux and open-source alternatives. Microsoft believes that customer needs drive the competitive debate. We know the only way we win with customers is by having a much better solution to offer our customers in making sure that we're addressing their pains over and above Linux and open-source alternatives.
Linux doesn't exist to satisfy the business requirements of PHBs or bean counters. Linux exists to serve the needs of users who want to get more out of their computers. In some cases this CAN benefit the above mentioned PHBs and bean counters, but it's not the driving raison d'être of Linux. The needs of the people come first, and business second.
For example, one thing that normally comes up is that Microsoft is anti-open source, and they've used some of our activities as Microsoft versus open source.
This is something we can agree on. Microsoft isn't necessarily anti-open source. The misconception comes from the confusion over the differences between GNU GPL (aka free software: free as in speech) software and open source. Many people think that the primary goal of free software is to provide the course code. Of course this is not completely true, but merely a subset of what free software is. The 'free' in free software means that a user is free to do whatever they want with the software as long as they don't impact other people's freedoms (keeping modified GPL code to yourself if you are making profit impacts other people's freedoms). Microsoft is not anti-open source, they are anti-GPL. There is a difference as much as they want to muddy the waters.
We believe the way to integrate software, and the way to get software to work in a heterogeneous environment, is through promoting open standards that can allow companies like Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, Sun, as well as other types of software and other types of technologies to work together and still co-exist in a competitive environment.
That's why it's possible for me to use a Mac to administer a Windows Active Directory domain? Right? (cue: sound of wind) ;P
It brings up another interesting misperception that we see a lot when we do this comparative analysis between Unix and Linux, and often we hear customers and folks in the marketplace talk about -- that Linux is Unix.
Ask a "suit" a technical question and get a stupid answer. ;P Seriously, Bill and Martin you must be talking to the wrong people. Most technology managers worth their salt know the distinction between Linux and Unix, Free and Open Source, and the various Linux distributions. If you're getting people who think that Linux is Unix, then those companies must be putting you in touch with the golf set and not the real IT folks. There are certainly major differences between distributions, but there is one thing that all of them are capable of that you are overlooking. You can grab the source for many useful programs and compile it for whatever distro you're on. I've been doing this for years now. I want a media player that didn't come with Redhat, Mandrake or Fedora? I just download the source for mplayer or xine and I've got what I need.
And you have to take a look, Martin, at the ecosystems around those technologies...
Marketroid speak. The whole concept of the "ecosystem" is kind of lame. It's more like a universe. Some things work together and perform a beautiful dance (like solar systems) and other collide and cause major damage (like asteroids and planets or moons). But even that analogy is flawed because the world of computer software is it's own entity with it's own properties. Trying to make analogies to dumb it down for marketing purposes is pointless. Just as we had to get used to cars because they really weren't "horseless carriages", we have to get used to the sof
Re:Same old, same old... (Score:3, Insightful)
knowing their position on gpl, i imagine that the only reason they licensed anything under it, is that it was already a gpl product they tinkled with. So they were forced to do it.
and "MS has proven very willing to deal with opensource, and indeed the GPL," ???
As they were very willing to deal with internet and indeed netscape, with operating systems and indeed IBM, with wordprocessors and indeed wordperfect etc...
Funny, in all those cases, i don't recall them having an open discussion on "why isn't our message coming through". Apparently something is going wrong now.
Misconceptions: How is Microsoft different? (Score:2, Insightful)
1. Martin claims that Microsoft is not anti-open source and has even contributed to the open source community. He then suggests that other companies such as IBM, Oracle, and CA claim to embrace open source but actually do not. His reason is that these companies see benefit of embracing open source when they really do not have strong platforms in the open source product space. So where does Microsoft fit in? They aren't anti-open source but they don't embrace it either... they do contribute to the open source community but is Martin claiming that Microsoft does have a strong platform somewhere in the open source product space?
2. When discussing support Martin makes a "clarification" that when you get support for a commercial distribution such as Red Hat there is a point where the support staff has to contact a project's community in order to provide support. So the support staff isn't all-knowing. I understand that but I don't understand why this was a misconception. Is the misconception that people think they are getting support directly from the developers or that the support staff at Red Hat knows everything about all software they provide in their distribution? Again, how does Microsoft fit in? When I call MS support I'm talking to a support person, who doesn't know every little detail about the software so there is also a limitation with their support. Yes this may be a clarification but I don't see how this clarification is useful at all when comparing Windows and Linux. From what I gathered Martin is suggesting that support from Red Hat has similar limitations to that of Microsoft.
3. Another one from the support discussion. Martin mentions that, if I have Apache 1.3, although I want to upgrade to Apache 2.0 I can't get support for it because it's outside my support model... So how is Microsoft different? If I own Windows 3.1 can I call up Microsoft and get support on Windows XP, which I do not own?
I would really like to see the Microsoft experts and employees make clarifications about Windows and Linux experts (not Microsoft affiliated) make clarifications about Linux. This article seemed to me to be a couple of Microsoft employees making points about Linux but not providing many matching points of how Microsoft compares with no Linux experts involved at all in this "open" discussion to clarify in areas where Bill and Martin might be out of the know with respect to Linux.
Re:Same old, same old... (Score:1, Insightful)
A point regarding a big choice (Score:3, Insightful)
think, Bill, that's exactly the decision criteria that customers need to understand. And I'm hearing more and more customers begin to hit that fork in the road saying, "Wow, I want something that's fully supported; however, I also want this broad flexibility of being able to do different things with my distribution." They're beginning to realize now that you can't have both of those worlds together, necessarily. You do have to either move more towards the side of fully flexible, open-source projects, which means you don't have that quote unquote award-winning vendor-level support, or you have more of a packaged software, commercialized software scenario which is a bit more like in the lines of how Microsoft distributes software that can be fully supported in a broad-based way.
I think Martin is absolutely correct here. As people move to "enterprise" distributions designed to provide binary compatability long term they will lose many of the major advantages of Linux. They will be back in the rigid world where they don't have control.
I see this all the time. For example to get a custom MySQL implemented on RedHat enterprise 3 we needed a custom Apache. The custom apache created problems with binaries like Oracle (yes we needed both, why is off topic). There was talk of a custom kernel, and while I though the custom kernel made a great deal of sense it totally killed the point of going with an enterprise distribution once you change the kernel no one is going to give you any meaningful support......