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."
Hasn't this been tried before (Score:2, Interesting)
Since when does Linux compete? (Score:5, Interesting)
Just the latest MSFT attack (Score:5, Interesting)
Some of those efforts are legitimately aimed at making sure a proprietary code base isn't inappropriately using open source code. But it doesn't take much tweaking to try and make OSS look like some kind of virus. An image based on ignorance, but when has MSFT ever hesitated to promote an uneducated view when it suits them?
They're really turning into a sad, pathetic company. It's bad enough they produce bloated, insecure, DRM crippled, overpriced software, but to magnify it by being such low class PR whore is just embarrassing.
MSFT is living proof that no good deed goes unpunished.
Re:Same old, same old... (Score:2, Interesting)
He gives his email address, martinta@microsoft.com - email him and let him know why you use linux. Get chipping!
Re:Microsoft (Score:4, Interesting)
What is that quote from Mahatma Gandhi that I keep reading on
Its at 'Then they fight you' stage.
What did you expect? (Score:4, Interesting)
Get Gates and Torvolds at the same table. Then I would be listening. Short of that it's just one-sided banter [same goes if it was say Linus and another developer at a table]
Tom
Re:Misunderstanding (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah. Reminds me of a description on their website of Object-Oriented features in VB.Net as 'innovative'. Considering those features were in Simula 40 years earlier, I found this amusing.
Re:Same old, same old... (Score:5, Interesting)
"yet another dull FUD exercise"
I'm finding it amusing how easily everyone is dismissing this rather than paying attention to it and gleaning important points.
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).
These kinds of points are strong, not because they're obvious, but because they indicate that in a lot of respects, adopting an open source operating system does not mean embracing free and open software. There is always cost and propriety.
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.
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.
The foregoing is not FUD. It's "the right tool for the right job". Microsoft doesn't strongly compete in top-level enterprise services like border security, and it doesn't do a great deal of business replacing UNIX systems or placing itself in environments where UNIX would ordinarily be. Why? Because it doesn't provide as much value. But at the workgroup level, they're a competitor and everyone just has to deal with that.
Article summary (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Same old, same old... (Score:5, Interesting)
Office 2003 is an excellent collaboration suite.
Server 2003 is an excellent turn-key workgroup server.
Then you comment on having the right tool for the job. I truely do not think you believe that though.
How can you state the specific products above are the right tools for the job but never actually state or define what job they are being used for? In your nameless scenario where you suggest Office and 2003 server is the best and most logical solution, could you explain why Samba and Open Office would not be an option?
I have installed and serviced quite a few small businesses and I have used a variety of solutions including MS servers, Samba, Novell, MS Office, Word Perfect, and Open Office, various data backup methods, and various remote administration tools. What was used was not determined until we discussed what they need, want, and what they currently have. I do not use a hunch that assumes one choice is always better then the others. I'll admit though that given the choice (the company does not know what they need or does not care), I will suggest the Samba/OO route. The only time that becomes an issue is if they later decide they want MS Word installed. Not for functionality, not for stability, not for ease of use, but only when compatibility with others becomes a limiting factor.
Re:Article summary (Score:3, Interesting)
And that shall be carved on their gravestone (and Seattle Computer Products also should be notified, just so they know).
What I would like to see happen is to virtually equal out the financial situation of MS to the level of FOSS developers, and see how they could perform that way. For the ignorant masses out there, it would be a huge lesson to see how MS could perform without the trackloads of cash they posess, unable to spend on brainwashing marketing, FUD campaigns, and senseless discussions like this one.
Re:Decouple the OS from the apps? (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, that's partly true and partly untrue. Most support contracts for enterprise applications are very specific about exactly what OS versions you're allowed to run. SAP and Oracle both come to mind: "with version X.Y.Z. of our product, the supported configurations include A.B.C. or A.B.C.D . or D.E.F. but not C.D.E." I've seen the same thing with smaller contact management applications.
OS vendors often say things like "well, application X.Y.Y.Z. only runs on OS A.B.C.D. so if you want it to work, you need to apply patch D. Oh, patch D breaks application Y? Sorry.".
OS and application contracts are decoupled in the general case, but are almost always related in specific cases.
Re:Same old, same old... (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Hmm. Largely I'm concerned about needed functionality weighed against licensing costs (ongoing) as well as cost of maintenance; I recently dealt with a company which wanted to deploy groupware for all of its employees so that they could (in teams) perform scheduling and project management. Several options existed, the most likely candidate being Novell Groupwise in combination with Evolution on the clientside (they were OS agnostic, which was quite nice to deal with). The requirement nothing but Exchange satisfied though was that everyone in the organization has a Palm Pilot and needed to sync all that information with them regularly both locally and remotely.
Another unexpected attribute is that the Exchange server has functionalities which have improved their workflow in unexpected ways, which is another credit to the value it provides, although this is subjective and the same effect may well have been experienced with Groupwise server.
The total cost of this remains to be seen, as it has just been deployed in the last month - setting the system up securely took a great deal of time and effort, which is a strike against it, and over the course of time having to upgrade the Windows servers to maintain support will enter into the picture too.
In this particular case though, the company needed something only the Exchange solution could provide (there was also Lotus Notes, but we didn't spend a great deal of time looking into that option), which (from where I'm sitting anyway) indicates that the value provided by it was better even though the costs may be higher than the alternatives.
I would agree that some of Microsofts products do provide some value. Would you agree that they also provide vendor lock in?
Absolutely. In the short term this can be a good thing, because a person relying on Microsoft solutions will continue to use a familiar platform. In the mid term costs begin to go up and the weight of the solution begins to be felt. But in the long term, once sufficient demand has been built up, the market always responds with viable alternatives that will either drive costs back down or provide a cheaper alternative (this is indeed the impact Linux is having on Microsoft right now, due to increasing customer dissatisfaction).
So basically, no vendor lockin is perfect, there's always a way to loosen it up or break out of it before it becomes intolerable.
Question for you: If given the chance, do you think Novell or IBM, or one of these companies providing proprietary solutions on top of an open source stack, won't take the opportunity to attempt to lock their customers in?
I feel somewhat qualified to say that Microsoft doesn't care about their customers unless it effects their bottem line.
I agree. Unfortunately the only way Microsoft has seen the need to improve its products and lower its prices is due to rapidly increasing competition, which is always the greatest equalizer but it doesn't say much about the company's commitment to its customers otherwise.
M$, put your interoperability where your mouth is! (Score:3, Interesting)
Do you seriously expect us to believe you? If so, then I will anxiously be awaiting:
When the decision is made to place enterprise data in M$ products, it is hard to avoid the Jim Jones analogy of "drinking the M$ cool-aid" - there is no backing out once it's done.
The M$ attitude on competing platforms has always been slash and burn. The above is slash and burn with lipstick.
p.s. Start using strlcpy and friends, and do so publicly and thank the developers. What is it, 10,000+ unsafe string calls in the base Win32?
Re:Same old, same old... (Score:4, Interesting)
There's a difference between actually setting something up and dumping the image on the hard drive. One of the things I hate about Windows admins is that a lot of them don't learn anything about the fundamentals of what they're using; they just learn which buttons to click that will end up yielding the "Congratulations! You've just installed [mission crittical app]" page in the install wizard.
There's something to be said for systems that are designed to be minimal, small, and efficient, are easily scripted, and actually require you to know what you're doing.
This definately doesn't apply to end user desktops--since, for example, making device installation removal automatic helps everybody. The power users just need to be able to tweak it, but everyone more or less wants the same functionality. Windows servers, however, tend to breed really clueless admins.
That being said, I've met some really good ones in my day as well. And, sadly enough, the number of Linux admins who are getting to be able to get a basic vanilla install of a lot of complicated services up and running without learning how both the software and Linux work is increasing.
two top Linux consultants... (Score:1, Interesting)
I've been working with linux and unix systems for ~10 years and their names don't ring a bell at all
First time I've heard from either of them
Re:Same old, same old... (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, they had that before supporting open source, they called it AIX.
Of course IBM and other COPORATIONS are not aiding open source for their health. Corporations exist and drive toward a single aim, making money. IBM has spent sums of billions promoting open source software and releasing open source software because they feel there is more money to be made with an open platform than a proprietary one, even their own.
IBM has financed and developed dozens of open source projects to add value to linux, both IBM and the open source community have reaped the benefits. THAT is why IBM is considered to be supporting open source, because they are churning out code and are opening interfaces, not because someone is stupid enough to believe ANY corporation is altruistic.
"(objectivity being in short supply in this environment)"
Objectivity defined as sharing YOUR viewpoint, which is in the minority among those educated on the subject. Right?
"spare me the Linux banter about samba and OpenOffice.org, it's not the same"
Unfortunately that perspective seems to be shared by that minority who feels Microsoft products have signficant value. As near as I can tell, your group seems to oddly equate value to sameness. Personally I don't see "it's not the same" as negative.
"But at the workgroup level, they're a competitor and everyone just has to deal with that."
At the workgroup level they have a monopoly which they vigorously protect. It is PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for a competitor to create a collaborative suite that integrates as smoothly with the system as office, not because MS programmers are genuis, but because they don't share the basic interfaces needed to create one. Needless to say, this means they can monopolize almost any application in the desktop market this way and it's anti-competative.
In short, Microsoft doesn't compete in the workgroup or the desktop markets, it's practices insure market competition CANNOT exist. This is where linux comes in, because it evolves and exists without dependence on the market.
In terms of merit, the only edge MS has is ease of use. Most of this is false merit, it's simply software designed for the technically ignorant and embraced by the same. But in a few areas their software is easier to use without a significant cost in actual function.
These areas are being polished up by the open source world now and this is a large part of the focus today. It's a fairly safe bet that these areas simply won't exist much longer.
"enterprise level services such as public web services, e-mail, border security"
Since when are web servers, email servers, and firewalls enterprise level services? These are commonly run by home users! Almost every "workgroup level" network connects to the internet and runs these "enterprise level" services.
P.S. Samba surely takes significantly more work to setup. After setup it's just as easy to administrate and performances signficantly better in almost every respect. The same can roughly be said about all things linux/open source versus windows.
Comment removed (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Same old, same old... (Score:3, Interesting)
Last I checked it was Microsoft that was sued for infringing, not me, not you, Microsoft. We can't infringe if we didn't know the code was in there. They sure as hell better pay when they get sued and lose. No individual user is going to be sued for Microsoft's patent infringement. This is called covering your own ass and pretending that it is for the benefit of your customers. The theory of deepest pockets also comes into play.
Their TCO studies (commissioned by Microsoft) put the price of a *nix environment higher than a MS Windows environment, by counting the cost of moving from MS Windows, without considering the cleanup and patching costs of running MS Windows... or more precisely the lost productivity from the network/workstations/servers being down. They also don't consider in the Windows TCO the cost of moving from a *nix environment.
They call it a "bad thing" when customers buy RHEL, Suse Pro and customers are locked into older versions of software comparing Apache 1.3 to 2.0 on RH without pointing to the fact that bugfixes are backported and support for updates is listed at at least 5 years [redhat.com] and without pointing out that with them you will either be buying a new OS or paying for the privilege of buying a new OS without one actually coming out within the subscription period (Software Assurance).
All in all no better than an infomercial.