Microsoft's Magical 'Myth-Busting' Tour 649
Mz6 writes "Microsoft has launched its 'Get the Facts' road show -- the tech equivalent of a political battle bus -- to tour the country and convince the wavering that Redmond is as at least cheap and as secure as its open-source rival and to spread the word that Windows is better than Linux. Nick McGrath, Microsoft's head of platform strategy, described the campaign as 'a reality check we're bringing out', aiming to tackle the 'myths' surrounding Linux. Microsoft's road show will be in Edinburgh on June 17, Manchester on June 29 and Newport on July 7."
Ah, more FUD. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a load of FUD.
Microsoft want you to believe that while, Microsoft software may be more in the purchase price department compared to open source software, it's less in implementation costs or maintenance costs, and its TCO will be lower.
This is, of course, considering the plentiful viruses, worms and other security issues, not the case in reality. The winner in this case is Open Source software.
Open Source software, of the BSD kind and the GPL kind, has totally changed the way we think about and work with software. One day, we will be able to scientifically determine what software we need to suit our needs. We will know ahead of time exactly what limits and what capabilities each piece of software has. IT managers will be able to sort through real facts based on real research, rather than a bunch of shallow articles and biased reports. Software will survive on its merits alone.
The whole industry is going to benefit by this, in a large, large way. The question one day will no longer be "Microsoft or Linux?" but "Which Open Source software should we use, and why?"
Microsoft is severely threatened and it knows it. Pay no attention to it and it will eventually go away.
Don't discount this because they say 'Myth' (Score:5, Insightful)
Every day, Microsoft employees are physically in CIO and CEO boardrooms trying to convince executives that Microsoft is a better bet than Linux. Even with a large body of evidence to the contrary, this is something Linux is missing - the financial warchest to use the media and "war buses" to convince people to the contrary.
There's no such thing as reality - there's only what you believe. The best ideas in history of gone down because nobody believed in them. The worst ideas in history have flourished because somebody sold it stronger than anybody else.
So yeah, they may be spreading their own version of the truth, but, as is obvious, I think we should be very, very wary of that truth being accepted as reality.
Re:Let's work together people (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Truth be told (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't decide if this is a troll or if this is one of those "underground" marketing campaigns Microsoft like to pay for. Hmm, let me try:
I tries switching to Windows 2003, but switched back because the lack of standards compliance, security flaws, and high costs of training made it impossible to justify, even when MS offered to give it to me for free.
Yeah, definately underground marketing....
Irrelevantly about beer instead of freedom... (Score:4, Insightful)
Makes it easy to critique a straw opponent when you redefine the terms to mean what you want them to mean. Microsoft defines "free" as in "beer" and anyone who knows much of anything about Linux knows the "free" aspect of Linux that represents the most value, is the "freedom" aspect of the OS, not the purchase cost.
As long as Microsoft is comparing based on cost, they either just don't get it, or think they can bamboozle their audience.
On the other hand, anyone who is interested in a comparison based on the "free"dom-ness of the two OSes, will find the Microsoft presentation a complete non-sequitur.
Re:Compatability checklist. (Score:3, Insightful)
Those are what businesses use everyday, and have thousands/millions of documents in. If your desktop platform doesn't support them, you're business doesn't work these days.
Of course, that is for desktop platforms...
Linux is being sold now. (Score:5, Insightful)
Where's Apple? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Ah, more FUD. (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft is severely threatened and it knows it. Pay no attention to it and it will eventually go away.
That's just the kind of attitude that MS needs you to take. Your open source OS is nothing more than a "neat trick" at present. If the people making OSS would start making it with usability in mind, and keeping the end user far, far away from the "under the hood" part of the OS then you wouldn't scare so many people away.
MS knows what they are doing, and it's no accident that most people use windows, because they made an OS that most people will be able to understand. From install to use you never have to touch one command prompt, Windows recognizes most devices automatically, and Windows update is as easy to use as the rest of the OS. That's what Linux needs to focus on.
hold your horses.. (Score:1, Insightful)
1. Linux is unhackable: See recent OSS site hackings
2. Linux cant get viruses: It's only a matter of time.
3. Linux is always the best solution: Probably the worst of them all. While great as a server, on the desktop, linux is seriously lacking when compared to OSX or windows. This includes everything from software like quicken, photoshop, MS office etc. to hardware like digital cameras, scanners and most of all, PDA's (pocket pc). I suppose you can add in the inability to buy music online (with any service) as another problem. Suggesting linux all the time even when another OS is better suited for the task probably hurts linux the most
Re:Insane (Score:2, Insightful)
KFG
Hrumph (Score:3, Insightful)
In the desktop world, the major problem with Windows is the need to reinstall it every few months or your computer gets sluggish. In the server world, though I've had impressive up times (>6 months, for example) you really have to set it up right the first time, then never mess with it again except to install those MUST INSTALL NOW patches.
Microsoft has come a long way. It's pretty darned cool that you can set up a web server or mail server with Microsoft without really needing to get a lot of outside information. (At least up to the point of where you secure it....) Every year, they lock it down a little more. It really is a pity that I can't get Microsoft's interface with linux's functionality/reliability. Or... would a Mac server do that? Does Apple make that sort of machine/OS?
Well I'm just rambling now. Figured some of you might be interested to hear from a not-so-disatisfied MS customer.
Re:Hrumph (Score:1, Insightful)
Jihad (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, that's subtle, comparing Linux advocates to Al Qaeda and Iraqi rebels. This is after Jim Allchin calling Linux a "destroyer", Ballmer calling it a "cancer" and so forth.
I take it as a matter of faith that Microsoft desires to destroy Linux. Part one is public relations, part two is getting the government to go after it.
It didn't escape my attention that the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution's Ken Brown is saying he's looking into the employment agreements of Linux contributors to see if any of the employers might own the copyright to off-hours work of Linux contributors. I remember a prominent case a few years ago where some developer wrote something after work and his employer sued him later saying it belonged to them even if it wasn't work related. The battle stretches from the workplace, to the government, to big business as far as I can see - the employment agreements wage slaves have to sign due to poor collective bargaining power helps lead to the destruction of Linux (or perhaps just a monkey wrench like the one that stalled BSD for years and years in litigation). It is already having an effect - Linus is spending time worrying about legal nonsense instead of developing the kernel. It doesn't just go away when ignored, Microsoft and company seem to desire some sort of primitive accumulation of the digital commons. The solution is to look into the OSDL and their Linux legal defense fund and that sort of thing. The travesty of employment contracts which comes in to haunt Linux has to be fought in workplaces. These people are playing for keeps. And it has already had an effect if you think about it.
Re:Insane (Score:5, Insightful)
You can prove anything through selective analysis.
-Jem
actually, (Score:3, Insightful)
But fortunately for us, Microsoft *can* afford to do so! It's really amazing how they can spend all this money on marketing, advertising, touring the countryside, etc., and *still* be more affordable than Linux, which has none of these added expenses. How do they do it?
Well, if I were Microsoft, I'd commission a think-tank to study the issues. But since I'm not, I'll just naively assume that they must find a way to pass the costs along to consumers and OEMs.
Come to think of it, that might also explain why it's Bill Gates--and not Linus Torvalds--who is worth billions of dollars. Hmm...
Re:Don't discount this because they say 'Myth' (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead of posting on a linux forum about how great linux is go out and talk to people. Omg! going out of the house! Ok, well maybe you geeks with no social skills should stay in your mother's basements and wait for us to tall you. But the rest of you linux users should get out there and spread the word in a real way.
I work for a small company and the boss just hates paying for software. He doesn't really know so much technically about linux, but he knows that its free. Go find a small business that pays too much for MS licenses and make a "sales call" in your spare time. Heck, just converting random people to firefox is a step in the right direction.
Whatever your coding isn't that urgent that you can't wait to do it later
Re:Truth be told (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:it's simple... (Score:3, Insightful)
Hardware, OS, applications and lifetime support all need to get rolled into the cost. Since they have proof (in the form of studies they conducted) that Linux admins cost more than Windows admins (find, train, and employ) they can argue that the TCO of linux is higher.
This argument moves the fight from one they cannot argue (we are cheaper) to another arena, where they can hold thier ground (linux admins are highly paid and rare.)
This discussion ignored how many linux admins are required per captita vs how many windows admins would be required, and ignores the additional application cost - most office suites, graphics packages and utilities would also be gratis under Linux.
Re:Source code is their only IP? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Favorite part from website (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hmm ... (Score:5, Insightful)
More harm than good? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:windows cheap ? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's pretty cheap, man. I'd still go with Panther for $129, but it's a good price considering everything you get.
Any advertisement is good advertisement (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ah, more FUD. (Score:5, Insightful)
IMHO, there are two quesitons that we need to ask ourselves continually, about any new software (open source or not):
What does it do well?
What does it do poorly?
Answering those questions (honestly) about Windows should server to shed light on why Microsoft has the largest desktop market share - Windows is easier for non-techie people to use effectively. Microsoft OSes, no matter which side of the debate you take, do have their merits. I know there's no way my parents, for example, would be able to navigate a Linux desktop, as a lot of the cool functionality that I take for granted in Linux would not only be lost on them, but would probably also serve to confuse them.
All I'm trying to say is that while Linux is a great new trend that the desktop world is gravitating towards, us Linux fans need to not only keep in mind what companies like Microsoft have done wrong, but also what things they have done right.
Re:Hmm ... (Score:4, Insightful)
apples to apples, thats all i want. they just need to clarify this.
Re:Elmer FUD... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And bumblebees can't fly... (Score:2, Insightful)
It is true that if a bumblebee used fixed wings, and if we ignored turbulence effects (safe if the object we consider is more than 1m or so long) a bumblebee wouldn't fly. That is hardly shocking news.
The example is usually used to demostrate that you cannot extrapolate indefinitely and expect results to hold true. One of my favorites: It would be impossible, studying fauna in a glass of water, to realize the existence of whales.
Re:Elmer FUD... (Score:3, Insightful)
Contrast that to Microsoft's EULA for their Mobile Internet Toolkit code which prohibits you from combining their code with ANY open source code, regardless of license. Forget the distribution clause, Microsoft's code can't even be combined with open source code in house.
As is oft said about the GPL, if you dont like the license, write your own damn code. MS is well within its rights to specify what you can and cannot do with its code, just the same as Gnu can with the GPL and code under it.
But when it comes to Linux and free software, Microsoft wants you to think that if you even look at GPL'd code then your whole company could be "infected." And forget about downloading open source programs -- once their in, you might as well file chapter 11.
This also happens the other way round, many many times you hear people say "Dont look at proprietory code, you can be considered tainted if you do" when talking about opensource, the recent leak of the MS windows code brought many such cries on slashdot. Its basic Cover Your Arse.
Im no MS fanboi, but also Im no Linux fanboi, Im starting to hate the "Us and them" attitude spread by the Opensource factions, I can understand it when MS does it as they have shareholders to keep happy, and OSS is another competitor.
Your Opportunity (Score:3, Insightful)
Well. Here you have it. A perfect opportunity.
Disclaimer: I don't like Linux much. The only reason I pay attention is the thorn in Microsoft's side that Linux represents. No matter how you slice it, it's darn difficult to compete with free.
The problem: Linux has usability holes you could drive an aircraft carrier through. Luckily, Windows is bad enough that even that doesn't matter as much as it should.
My advice? Go to the road show. Learn what it is that they think they're better at. Learn which of those things are the most important to their customers. And then, get to work: Do it better, preferably by the next day or so.
I see an opportunity. I hope you take it, because if you do, the day you can convince me (and lots of others like me) to become interested in Linux will draw measurably nearer.
Back to your regularly scheduled discussion of whatever it is that this post is about...
The reports are available in PDF!!?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oblig (Score:1, Insightful)
Actually, the Consumer Reports magazine doing a report on operating systems would be pretty cool.
Go, but dont act like fools (Score:5, Insightful)
Dont act like a bunch of idiots that came to heckle.
We all have a chance to make OSS look good and make a useful statment.. on Microsoft's dime!
Counter-productive measures (Score:2, Insightful)
Where are they?--so we can be sure not to go there (Score:3, Insightful)
One funny section from 'The Soul of a New Machine' (Tracey Kidder, 1982 Pulitzer Prize for non-fiction) details how IBM instructed their sales staff to warn customers about Data General.
According to staff at Data General this was the best advertising they had ever had (and they had some good advertising). As they told the story, quite a lot of IBM's customers straightaway came over to chat, saying, "IBM warned us about you guys; you must be doing something we ought to know about."
As Kidder put it, it was like: "Where is this 'Data General'? -- so we can be sure not to go there. What's their phone number? -- so we can be sure not to call it!"
Re:How about pages served (Score:2, Insightful)
Perhaps one of the biggest single companies using web servers is google. Guess what they use.
Re:My favorite MS Lie (Score:2, Insightful)
Saying "[Windows is a] pain in the ass to install" is absurd. While GREAT strides have been made with the installer, it's just not any more or less easy to install Suse or Redhat than it is to install XP. Similarly, installing your nVidia driver isn't exactly mom-friendly under Linux yet. It can't be much more complicated than finding the missing chipset drivers for your Mr. Nobody brand motherboard -- and I assure you, if you're looking for it under XP, you're probbaly looking for it under Linux too.
You people complain about FUD all the time, and you throw out things like "inexplicably decide[s] not to work." ...WHAT? Windows doesn't inexplicably do anything. I don't spend all day doing anything except WORKING on my XP.SP2 machine, and it *works*. It doesn't crash "willy nilly." Windows isn't the giant collection of BSODs people want to pretend that it is.
Is Microsoft perfect? No. Good lord no. Does IE still have scripting exploits that even McAfee and Norton only *sometimes* block? Yes, absolutely. But Linux is not "The Answer" (capital T, capital A). It is _an_answer_ to some problems.
THAT got moderated interesting?Re:And bumblebees can't fly... (Score:2, Insightful)
Practical reality says that your conclusion is idiotic. The only thing that comparison shows is that there's an unproportional number of hacked IIS servers compared to the market share. There are so many variables involved in figuring out which is more secure, it's not even agreed upon. I'll display some common arguments.
Apache boxes are more secure than IIS boxes because of the hacked/market share ratio.
So all the servers have the same level of administrative effort and security precautions taken? Both platforms are targeted by script kiddies equally? I honestly doubt it. In fact, most of the defaced sites are a result of a script kiddies scanning boxes for recently released IIS vulnerabilities. I look in my firewall syslogs and see LOTS of scanning for Windows specific ports and zero for *nix. My IIS logs are full of attempts to exploit known IIS vulnerabilities. From my logs, I conclude that Windows is simply targeted 100x more than Apache.
Apache is more secure than IIS because of the number of patches released.
How many people are combing for vulnerabilities in Apache? How many for IIS? How talented are they and how much time are they putting into it? I don't know and I don't think you do either. But based on the number of zero-day exploits released for each product, I'd say they're both equally safe so long as it's kept patched up and the rest of the network is secure. In my eyes, a zero-day exploit really only becomes a concern if you are specifically targeted due to a gigantic hack factor rating. If there were super hackers targeting me, I'd prefer they don't have the source code. Now if IIS had something like 10x more patches released on a regular basis than Apache, I would swing the other way. Good thing that situation isn't real. So here we are in the real world. I would pick IIS and set up the site in such a way that the IIS box itself doesn't have access to the valuable data. It's just a front end and doesn't have unrestricted, rampant access to the data. Now the hacker needs a zero-day exploit for IIS and a zero-day exploit for the communications channel that is used to retrieve data because of the firewall between one DMZed IIS box and the backend server in the other DMZ. Good luck.
Apache is more secure because everone can see and review the code.
Yup, but not everyone is. See my explaination above.
There is only one conclusion that can be made without knowing all the variables. A properly patched and locked down install of Apache has zero unpatched known vulnerabilities. The same can be said for IIS. Bickering over which is more secure is pointless because the biggest dangers are poor administration, network security, security policies, and training.
-Lucas
Re:My favorite MS Lie (Score:2, Insightful)
So let's assume this is the case. What you're saying is that you simply didn't know what you were doing. Or do you think this doesn't happen with Linux? Perhaps you have the time to look through the Anaconda source code; most normal people don't.
I'm kinda lazy and cheap, but not stupid.
Either the latter is actually true, or you're just full of shit.
Do I pick Windows (Pain in the ass to install Hell to operate and protect, and expensive to buy and get support for, which needs to be periodically reinstalled when it stops working for no apparent reason)
1) Compared to what again?
2) Compared to what again? Gee, those 3 1/2 hours I just spent updating a fresh install of RH9 with "errata" must have been a dream. But maybe I'll never need to patch it again. Could it be?
3) $49 for Windows XP Pro (bundled with a machine) always seemed to me like a good deal.
4) Support? have you ever used Google to look for information on Windows Have you? You seriously dont' swallow this myth that only open source has a great community out there, do you?
5) Another zealot meme - I've never had to reinstall Windows. Ever. Not single solitary time. If you take care of the box, it will run fine for years. If you expect it to take care if itself, you're fucked. Then again that's also the case for ANY operating system. Windows doesn't just corrupt itself because it has nothing better to do, much as you'd like to believe that's the case.
Or do I pick Linux (easy to install, free to get, and millions of developers that give you the info you need to keep things going for free on a stable platform that can be trusted not to inexplicably decide not to work)?
1) Compared to what again?
2) Free is right - money wise, at least. Then again $49 bucks is a good bargain, if you ask me. Certainly you are free to use whatever dammned OS you want; just don't come in here and tell me "how it is", mmkay?
3)"Millions of developers"? I want some of whatever you're smoking, bud. And see (4) above in any case.
4) So Linux does not "inexplicably" decide not to work? Heh. How long have you been using it? Ever see GRUB freeze at the "Loading stage 1" or whatever? Ever enter runlevel 5 and have the box freeze solid when initializing PCMCIA? Ever had X fail to load with some obscure message?
Let me tell you - apparently these things have never happened to anyone on Slashdot. Yet everyone has these amazing horror stories about Windows that Stephen King would be hard pressed to invent.
Uncanny.
Re:Oblig (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hmm ... (Score:1, Insightful)
Windows VERY rarely has kernel exploits. This is because the NT kernel is rather small compared to the Linux kernel.
Windows uses a component model, which is why Windows users never have to recompile the kernel. Is this better? Yes and no.
It is better because of the afformention lack of having to recompile, as well as having fewer flaws; Linux has a kernel level exploit every few months at least. This is mainly because there is so much less of a kernel in Windows than Linux; less is more in this case.
It is worse because kernel-level systems run faster, but since NT runs separate processes in separate memory spaces, it allows Windows better recovery in some cases (you can either stop and restart the service or application. If it doesnt have a memory leak it should close the VM space and return the system resources, even if you have to forcably close it).
At any rate, Windows went a different way than *nix and netware because they had different priorities. Did they make the right decision? Look at the market shares- Linux and Apple are trying to become more "Windows-like" with every upgrade, and there is even talk of Linux using a windows-esque DLL model. Next thing you know, they will be talking about getting away from config files and using a system database (kinda like the Windows registry).
Re:How about pages served (Score:1, Insightful)
>When a college student wants to set up a web server on his home cumputer that has one page which says "Hi! This is my webpage!", he almost always uses apache. No one is paying for IIS to do this.
I would say the majority of college students or other newbies that want to host a personal website on their PC are using IIS or PWS. If you are using Windows (as around 90% of people do) you already have IIS or PWS. You don't pay extra for these. On the other hand, configuring something like Apache is totally foreign to most Windows users.
As far as Netcraft not looking at intranets... Again this is based only on my own experience, but they are generally using the same server software the organization uses for its public websites. So I would suggest the percentages would not be greatly affected by considering intranets.
Re:Hmm ... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's hard to say for sure, but I suspect Linux might have an edge on MS for security.