Report From "Get The Facts" 475
Richard W.M. Jones writes "Huw Lynes wrote an interesting
report from Microsoft's
"Get The Facts" show in London
(earlier
Slashdot story).
Along with the report he provides some
analysis of their apparent strategy, which
includes equating "Shared Source" with "Open Source"
and making out that Linux isn't free."
It's a super bad analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
Even worse, does Airbus (or Boeing for that matter) manufacture every single of a million parts in a plane themselves?
Hell no! Certainly not. There's an abundance of suppliers supplying parts for a plane, from the altimeter to the leather chairs in first class.
You don't even have to go so far as to look at the airplane industry. Car manufacturers make only a miniscule percentage of the components themsleves. The rest is manufactured and delivered by suppliers.
Otherwise the cost for a car would be comparatively so outrageously high like the cost for some uh! software...
Unfair comparisons... of course they're going to w (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps if they faced the "facts", their study might be worth something.
And as for the comparison of Linux to a DOS prompt... Microsoft seems to think that adding a huge bloated GUI to a server OS is going to improve things. Well, I say that any half-decent system administrator should be able to do his job completely from a command-line interface and should not need a GUI.
MS is kinda scared... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Free Software (Score:2, Insightful)
Getting the word on the streets (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah... Ok (Score:5, Insightful)
1.Claim that linux isn't free.
2.Pretend that Shared source is the same as Open Source
3.Make a big deal about the migration costs of moving to Linux
4.Use the forrester report to claim that Linux is insecure
5.Belittle the quality of the toolset available on Linux
Point 1 and 2 I won't dignify with a reply.
On Point 3 - Yes, there are migration costs... but that is a dumb argument. There is ALWAYS a migration cost when upgrading (horse and buggy to car - airtravel - spacetravel etc)
4. Yes, linux can be insecure ---- so can windows and anything else (except OpenBSD!!
5. On this point, I dont' care who says what - Microsoft has better (and I mean this in all respects) tools available for Rapid development.
Gandi Quote is germane (Score:5, Insightful)
Then they laugh at you,
Then they fight you,
Then you win.
I'd say that we were at Stage 3 now, we were at Stage 2 last year and the year before.
Things are looking up!
Re:Spin Doctors (Score:3, Insightful)
HA! Try telling my BOSS that. --- seriously though, Microsoft is very expensive upfront, but what they do have going for them, and this will keep them around, is there market share and how many "experts" they are able to pump out.
Re:It's a super bad analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
That is a truely idiotic thing to say. There is hardly any manufactured product you can buy today that isn't made from components from supplied by other companies. Even the simplest products - like a pair of shoes for instance - will often be made up with leather from one company, rubber from another, laces from a third, metal components from a fourth, thread from another. And that's just a pair of shoes. I bet Boeing has thousands of suppliers.
Edinburgh event (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's some advice for people who'll be at their next two events (Manchester this week I think, and Wales the week after (Newport, IIRC)):
- Plan in your coffee break questions to ask them (be careful about providing them with the question on paper as they reworded mine - try and ask it in person at the end).
- Ask more about IBM involvement in Linux, they tried to claim that IBM were trying to lock people in to Linux, try and provide counter examples as to how it'd be easier to escape an IBM stranglehold than an MS one.
- They cite interoperability as one of Microsoft's main aims, people mentioned the office file formats and recent patents, but they hedged around the question, someone needs to seriously challenge them on this at the event.
- Talk to the other delegates in clear concise language why you think Linux should be considered as a serious option. Don't sound like a zealot and accept there's many times when Windows would be more suitable than Linux.
- Point out to people that open source doesn't always mean Linux, in fact doesn't always mean changing an OS at all. There's some quality open source software for Windows - promote Firefox and OpenOffice as examples
Re:Unfair comparisons... of course they're going t (Score:5, Insightful)
Many companies like the one I work for require you to be able to get a service contract for any software. So, to use Linux they have to be able to get a service contract. That's why they go for those expensive ones. They have the service.
Well, I say that any half-decent system administrator should be able to do his job completely from a command-line interface and should not need a GUI.
You're figureing on half decent sys admins. Many of the ones I know can't do anyting outside the GUI. And they don't even have half of an understanding of what is really going on. Some have never even herd of
Well, it isn't (Score:2, Insightful)
Your time costs money (Score:2, Insightful)
SOMEONE must pay for your training
Re:Linux isn't free (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Linux isn't free (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's a super bad analogy (Score:4, Insightful)
Now compare Microsoft software: It is deliberately designed NOT to work with other software products, so it's a miracle that it actually does work in combination with anything else.
Heck, Microsoft product "A" has even been known to be incompatible with Microsoft product "B"! This even extends down to Microsoft "service packs"!!!
"Linux isnt free?" (Score:5, Insightful)
I downloaded it, burned it, and installed. I had minimal help and everything went very smoothly.
Er, right.
"linux ISNT free?" "really? heres 10 free copies of mandrake right now." "youll have to pay to support it." "ah, then dont you mean linux SUPPORT isnt free? Is windows support free?" *insert adhominem attack they are trained to do here*
I imagine the best thing you can do at these is hand out free linux install cds, and allow people to make the choice for themselves.
Again, mandrake 10 was SUPRISINGLY easy to get working.
Re:Yeah... Ok (Score:1, Insightful)
Oh you might laugh, but you can't deny that a hell of lot of enterpise RAD is done with VB. Yeah, I agree that Delphi/Kylix would be a better choice, but they didn't choose Delphi now did they?
Re:Enterprise Level (Score:4, Insightful)
In my opinion you are nothing more than a astroturf for MS.
Certainly is compared to MS-Windows (Score:4, Insightful)
The only time I use a compiler on this machine is to build software for other people, and it's stuff like a tweaked KDM for an Internet cafe. Let's see you tweak MS Windows Login like that at any price, sucker.
Now... let's have some more facts from Microshills, shall we? Big heaps of steaming facts, coming right up! Mooooove over!
Re:Unfair comparisons... of course they're going t (Score:2, Insightful)
Funny? Pull that moderator's head out of his... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Spin Doctors (Score:5, Insightful)
Their toolkits are well documented and very easy to get started in. Also a lot of their development (& -tools) is focused not on making the right choice, but giving the most fancy features and ease of use to developers and users alike. Because of this there are many many Windows developers who with limited skill can already contribute to the windows software pool, and thus making more software available for Windows, and making getting Windows developers cheaper then getting Linux developers.
However there are also those who feel this is also the weakness of Microsoft. By making API's and tools that are not technicly the best solution it'll burst in due time (who doesn't know of the socket handle leak that MS can't fix because otherwise they'd break 1000's of apps). Also by making it easy to develop for and maintain Microsoft software, the engineers and administrators often have no clue of underlying issues thus leading to lots of bugs and exploitable situations..
There's something to be said for forcing people to understand a situation before allowing them to contribute
Re:Yeah... Ok (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Enterprise Level (Score:5, Insightful)
Their software, out of the box, runs Sobig, Bagel and Blaster as well as it does IE or Office.
A large part of the cost of administering desktops in a business environment is repairing the damage done by users who have been given excessive system privileges because their applications require them to have them. Linux/Unix apps, as a general rule, don't do that. As a result, it is possible to lock a n*x box down to the point that a user can still do his/her job but he/she cannot wreak havoc on the machine or the network. When the user can only install "goodies in his or her $HOME where they also store their precious data, and pr0n^W other irreplaceable information, they are MUCH more careful about what they click "OK" on. This reduces TCO dramatically.
Just my USD0.02
Re:Enterprise Level (Score:2, Insightful)
I have to agree with you. Linux advocates don't understand TCO. The cost of initial hardware and software is a minor component of TCO. Major components are the retention of suitably trained staff, cost of enterprise systems or development, and optimising productivity of the system as a whole.
Microsoft administrators are often cheaper and come with less brainpower than their *nix counterparts. This makes it cheaper to retain MS trained staff. It is also (generally, thus far) cheaper to outsource Microsoft-based network management.
Enterprise development is also, thus far, cheaper on Microsoft platforms. These platforms have all the tools to develop large systems quickly and effectively. Few organisations are writing their enterprise systems in C anymore! In this respect Java is providing a lifeline to Linux. An equally important consideration is the available of enterprise platforms off the shelf, most of which support *nix (but not Linux) or Windows platforms.
Optimising productivity is again often misunderstood. OS performance is an insignificant factor. Application performs is more significant, but still minor. Since (arguably) the best enterprise "tool" on Linux is Java, and Java is still relatively slow on the desktop, Linux loses on this aspect. Network performance quite important, and Linux is only slightly ahead of Windows (on a WINS network) if you don't have services for automatic network discovery and integration installed.
The real biggies in productivity are avoiding downtime, having the right applications for the job (i.e. productivity applications), and having the right skills to use the application. While workstation failures are irritating (and, frankly, Linux has at most a 10% lead in stability in that environment), network outages (not an OS consideration) and server failures are where the problems lie.
Take a look at the unplanned downtimes of a well-maintained Windows server on good hardware is the correct environment (clean room, UPS, cooling, etc). Three nines is not difficult to achieve. There is only one provider of hardware that guarantees five nines uptime using a non-proprietory OS ... take a guess: its a Windows OS.
Finally, in terms of productivity applications and available skills and/or training, Linux can't touch Windows. They are literally hundreds or applications for every purpose out there that are smooth and polished and do what a business wants. More importantly, you'll easily find staff that are experienced with that package, and that's a huge cost saving.
So yes, Linux is free and cheap and all that, and has tons of applications, and can do amazing stuff. But it doesn't do it out of the box, few people know the desktop environment or the applications, and it takes a less common skillset to configure, administer, maintain and develop in a Linux environment. All of which push up the long term TCO, and allow you to make a very valid cost comparison with Windows.
Re:Yeah... Ok (Score:3, Insightful)
Do we want rapid development? The shorter development stage the greater the chance of overlooked bugs. RAD-tools makes programming, which used to be quite a craftmanship - which required a great deal of intelligence and wisdom, to pointless point and clicking.
Re:Linux IS NOT FREE (Score:4, Insightful)
The doesn't stop Linux being free and legal to those that are comfortable downloading Linux and supporting it themselves possibly using Google and newsgroups for help.
With Windows you have to pay for a licence just to install the software, you could download it for free but that's illegal, you can't even pay to download it as far as I can see. Then if you need support you have to pay extra for that.
Name the number of personal users and small businesses who have made use of MS support? There'll be some, but not many.
For personal users people usually rely on their friends for support and so they're bogged down fixing the viruses and spyware problems on a regular basis if they're not that savvy.
"MS is scared" posts (Score:5, Insightful)
But despite their apparent terror, they've still managed to maintain their market dominance. I don't really think Microsoft is as scared as some Slashdotters would make themselves believe they are. Show me where Linux has taken a significant bite out of Microsoft; then you might have a case.
Re:"Linux training costs were 15% higher on averag (Score:5, Insightful)
If I took a Unix course back in 1989 (before Linux even had emerged) most of what I learnded then would still be somewhat useful in Linux of today. How much would 15 years old windows knowledge help me in manageing windows XP of today. Not much I think. Most likely I would have to have more frequent retraining if I run windows.
Re:Gandi Quote is germane (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Well, it isn't (Score:1, Insightful)
Well, they were undercut by their own little tin God, Bill Gates.
He once made a comment, "Windows NT is going to be so easy to use, all point and click, that it will be possible to hire sysadmins off the street!".
PHB's all behaved accordingly.
Then came the incessant viruses, trojans and service packs. Those "off-the-street guys are still trying to catch up, at EVERYBODY'S expense!!!
Linux is not free in a corporate environment (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, you can get Linux for free off any website. However, a company is probabl going to want support for the OS. That costs money. In addition, a company is going to need people to administer the servers. Again, this costs money, both in saleries and training costs.
The only time is Linux is free is when you use it on a home machine and it is your hobby.
The total cost of being pathetic. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm one of the lucky ones who successfully made the transition away from Windows to Linux. What was my TCO? I'd say I've spent around $300. That includes the cost of books (most of which were of less help than I hoped), and a copy of Lycoris and its Productivity Pak. (It's a nice distro, but it feels constraining.) Ultimately I became a Mandrake user, and it is installed on all three of my PC's.
Had I stuck with using MS Windows, I would still have spent about $300, and two of my PC's would not be "Kosher" according to MS's EULA. Of course if I were to get "picky" I could toss on the cost of all the additional software (Norton's, Office, etc...) and watch the TCO plow through the roof, but then, I don't want to stoop that low.
I just wish MS, and even some Linux zealots out there would get it through their heads: There are places to use MS Windows, places to use Linux, and even places where either will do nicely. (OK, I'll even include Mac's as having a place as well...)
But to make broad claims that draw illogical conclusions based on a pile of inequitable features-- Well, it's just not very professional, and I'm once again disappointed in Microsoft.
Linux the OS vs Linux the process (Score:2, Insightful)
However, given that you've got to spend money (and/or time) one way or the other, do the benefits of a Linux based (open) process outweigh those of a Microsoft based (closed) one? Everyone has their own answer to this. For me, it's worth the up-front investment of my time to put my data into a format that is not exclusively controlled by an outside interest. YMMV.
Re:It's True About Desktop Management Tools (Score:4, Insightful)
There is a relatively obscure distribution in Brazil that, in my opinion, has solved them in a very clever way- Conectiva. They build small RPMs, one for each application, departing from the standard of KDE and Gnome. They also build "meta-RPMs" with 0 bytes, that have dependencies for other RPMs that contains files. This way, for example, you type "rpm -i task-kernel" and install all the RPMs necessary for kernel building.
Conectiva has also adapted apt-get to work with RPMs, making the update and upgrade of the operating system a very simple task.Type apt-get install or click on the graphical front end and way you go.
I don't think that Conectiva is a solution, as they have many problems of their own -their installed base is not big and it takes time to bug reports arrive, compared to Red Hat and Debian. But I would like to see their approach (small RPMS, meta-RPMS, apt-get) copied by other rpm-based distributions.
Re:Spin Doctors (Score:5, Insightful)
You might as well have said "there are many many Windows hax0rs who with limited skill can already contribute to the windows worm pool"
Re:Spin Doctors (Score:3, Insightful)
"The final part of the show was a Q and A session with the two Nicks, Philip Dawson and Colin Bradford chaired by the aforemention daytime TV horror-show. Eddie Bleasdale of Netproject asked the most insightful question. He talked about a customer of his who had lost data because it was in old Microsoft file formats that couldn't be read by current Microsoft products. This was slickly dealt with by McGrath who suggested that he should get the Microsoft people to talk to him after the show. Barley added that all the current Microsoft Office file formats including their XML schema are published openly. I'm not entirely convinced of that but I don't know enough about XML to make any definitive statements."
Personally, I think that they will consider making a "monolithic" program akin to a Longhorn + office, and state that it wouldn't work otherwise.
Re:It's True About Desktop Management Tools (Score:5, Insightful)
Just to expand upon some of your examples a little:
Software package distribution to end-users (a la SMS or Group Policy)
Desktop lockdown policies, e.g. very restricted access for, say, a call centre, "normal" access for the general users, maybe a more elevated level of access for the odd rogue punk
Desktop roaming and profiles, i.e. a user should be able to log on to any desktop and receive all of his/her applications and data
Expanding the above point - if a PC fails, it should be trivial to either re-image or swap out the hardware and have the user back up and running almost immediately. I.e. no local data / no local installs
Strong method of validating integrity of the desktop, particularly in regulated industries (banking, pharmaceuticals etc) - i.e. how can you "prove" that the machine has not been tampered with, and so is operating correctly. Sounds daft? Try working in a regulated industry...
Hardware inventory / monitoring toolkits (in an ideal world, you'd have a single machine image for the whole company to make support of your desktop image easier, but life frequently isn't that simple)
Software inventory / monitoring toolkits (not all software will be freely licensed, you may be distributing some proprietary software that runs on your free systems
Remote control software to enable support staff to assist users remotely
Your examples of automatically distributing patches (and forcing, and preventing logon from un-patched machines) for both OS and applications is exactly right, along with having the control to test and select what patches are distributed to end users. No doubt many of my examples above are already addressed, and this is after all what you'd be paying a Linux expert to help you with (read: commercial support organisation and consultancy - IBM would likely be a good fit, along with many others). Remember, a corporation could well take the view that if it's worth doing, it's worth doing right - i.e. choose Linux for the right reasons, but don't automatically assume that they will want to do it for zero cost - both in the initial purchase price as well as the ongoing maintenance.
Aegilops
Re:Spin Doctors (Score:5, Insightful)
Which toolkits are you referring to? VB? VC++?
The toolkit itself may be well documented (in the "this is how you place a button widget" or "this is how you write a click event handler" sort of way), but the actual Windows APIs for doing anything are fucking terrible.
Different portions of it (interfaces to different
For example, running any Delphi-written application on XP (with SP1, this problem does not occur pre-SP1) with a P4 processor with HyperThreading enabled causes the app to crash on startup.. (placing it in Win98/ME "compatibility" mode makes the mysterious crash go away, but it took a lot of snopping to find that workaround)
I'm getting REALLY fed up with windows programming. I don't use Microsoft's toolkits because VB is too simple and VC++ is too complex, but I'm still forced to use their shitty APIs. In fact, I'm so sick of it, that I'm currently learning python, and plan to move most of my development to an OS-neutral platform.. let someone else fight with the Win32 API for days on end.
Re:"MS is scared" posts (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft's "dominance" in the server market is NOTHING like what it is in the desktop market. Linux marketshare in the server market gives them more than adequate reason to fear the future of their desktop marketshare.
For the area of discussion of this particular roadshow: Microsoft simply is not "dominant".
Re:Spin Doctors (Score:3, Insightful)
But that would have been kind of a dumb argument, seeing as how it isn't the simplicity of an API that leads to worms, but rather the size of the install base. If Fort Knox didn't have as much gold in it, it wouldn't need as many guards. Writing self modifying, self replicating code under 10k isn't exactly child's play.
Point by point rebuttal (Score:3, Insightful)
Linux has been more widely ported than an other OS in history. It is certainly more portable than Windows. When the next, cheaper hardware platform comes around, I expect that by the time it is a commodity, Linux will already be running on it. Furthermore, the cost-effectiveness of particular hardware depends on what you are running on it. Windows doesn't scale up on high-end server hardware. Linux does. With Linux, you have a choice.
Furthermore, the switch from proprietary Unix to Linux is a porting effort that is not particularly difficult. It is certainly easier than making the transition from Unix to Windows. And once you port to Windows, Microsoft has made it very easy to suffer vendor lock-in.
Linux is not free.
This has been a standard Microsoft argument for several years. If they failed to articulate that downloading Debian is not free because of the time and effort involved, then it is their fault for not making that argument clear in their presentation. It is worth noting that there are several costs associated with Windows that have no counterpart with a free Debian download. No licensing costs. The Debian project has never sent the BSA to do an expensive audit of any of its customers. If you reconfigure your hardware with Debian, there are no hassles with reactivating the license. No effort is required to keep employees from taking a copy home. Linux doesn't have a history of viruses and worms. If Microsoft changes the licensing terms of Windows or MS Office, you're stuck. Debian can't change the terms of the GPL. You are always free to use the old terms with the old version and the recent X Windows saga is proof that open source software resists licensing changes very effectively.
"Management tools on Linux are nearly as good as a DOS prompt"
First, every major distro, including the free ones come with some GUI management tools. Second, there is always Webmin [webmin.com]. Third, the Linux shells are scriptable in ways that the DOS prompt was never able to match. Finally, remote administration of a Linux box can be done very easily. You don't need a GUI. Headless Linux boxes have been around from the start. GUI administration is not cost-effective when you are trying to administer as many boxes as possible.
"Linux is moving to the same model that Microsoft has been using"
The GPL won't permit Linux distros to own the code. No matter how many people Microsoft shares their code with, to them sharing means that you can look at it. You can't touch it, play with it, change it, or share it with others. Additionally, Linux and open source have resisted restrictive license changes a couple of times recently. As I said earlier, X Windows is an excellent example of this. If Microsoft wants to make this claim, they have to explain what they mean because several obvious interpretations are clearly not true.
My absolute favourite part of the talk was when Barley started to extol the virtues of Windows because everything in it was made by one manufacturer.
Microsoft will stick to this claim as long as it is absolutely convenient. They are quick to blame others when there are buggy third-party device drivers. And as soon as there is an anti-trust suit, they are even quicker to claim they are open to competition.
He made mention of the Forrester report that claimed more vulnerabilities in Linux than Windows.
Name one exploit that had a widespread effect on Linux boxes. Now, name three that hit Windows in the past month. You can't install and patch a Windows XP system without either a firewall or cleaning up the malware that infects it between the time you connect to the net
Re:It's a super bad analogy (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, and if you write your software using VC++ and the MFC libraries, your code will work too. The specs for getting something to work with windows are mostly included in the Windows.H header.
And Windows programs can share components with each other, as long as the specs and APIs are published. Now, the specs for all aircraft isnt standard: for example, the specs on a Stealth Bomber arent out there for people to build things on. The same works for software - you dont allow your competition to know what your algorithms do, or how they work, because then you have no advantage over them.
If this is all they have MS is in trouble (Score:4, Insightful)
Hmm right. so linux ain't free. Well apart from the fact that it is, what about it? Linux ain't free vs Windows ain't free. At worst this makes it equal to windows.
Right, just get the company lawyer to study the differences. If they can't find any you need a lawyer who can read.
A really dangerous one. You see there is only migration cost from windows -> linux same as there is for companies going from unix -> windows. From unix -> linux, NO MIGRATION WORTH SPEAKING OFF. Certainly no massive retraining. You might be suprised but starting to use linux might mean you can use all those 40+ employees that learned computers on unix systems. MS is saying that people are moving from unix to windows and linux so it is saying that in those cases linux is the better option because of the lesser migration costs?
Oh please. The only comment possible is hysterical laughter. Must have been the comic relieve bit.
The only point that can make sense if your ms. After all MS believes in its own way of doing things and since Linux way != windows way of course they are going to think linux does it wrong. Some people prefer the unix way, some prefer the windows way. These two are never going to meet in the middle except to have a fight.
So a bunch of idiotic claims and 1 that is about taste. Not exactly going to convince me. In fact all this kinda roadshow might do is give linux free advertising. Consider this. How many people will have seen the name linux first in a MS ad? People who never knew there was another OS?
Re:Linux is not free in a corporate environment (Score:4, Insightful)
They actually have taken a page from Unix' book and added a lot of command-line tools that can do just about anything you'd need to. You can tie it all together with VBScript run with Windows Scripting Host.
Except, of course, that you are still stuck with a system which is outside of your control. If I tell my Linux/UNIX machine to reboot, and come back in 5 minutes, it will be done (usually), or mighty damned closed to it. I don't even have to watch it. Once I hit enter on the shutdown command (or init), it will all happen as if by magic.
Not so with Windows. On my workstation here at work, I hit reboot, and watch until it gets to the BIOS power-up screen. Then I can walk away. Same is true for every other windows machine. It will decide that the command prompt I've got running is displaying the decryption sequence for al-Qaeda's latest mastermind plan, and therefore it simply cannot reboot right now, no matter that I told it to. Not until I take the initiative and close it can it do the reboot. And that's just one example.
It will reboot when it decides it is time to reboot, and I can't stop it, but when I want it to reboot, well, that's the one time it won't do it. And let's not even get into tasks that won't die when I click End Task Now.
You can tell me all you want about how scriptable Windows is, but here's one that should help demonstrate how scriptable it isn't: How do I script the addition of a new vpn connection under Windows 2000, and make the same script work in Windows XP? Good luck with the answer, I'm still working on it after about two weeks. Of course, under any variety of UNIX, I'd have finished it in all of an hour or so (with a lunch break and a coffee break in the middle, and a bathroom trip too)./P.
Re:Spin Doctors (Score:4, Insightful)
Just because A happens and B also happens, doesn't mean A is the cause of B. If you're still not convinced, I've some elephant repellent you might be intrested to buy
Re:sympathy for the devil (Score:3, Insightful)
It is not a level playing field.
With Open Source, you let them as committed the horrors figure out how to handle the horrors.
With Open Source, they are less likely to have committed the horrors in the first place, and even if they did, they are much more likely to have taken precautions so as to make a timely remedy much easier.
With Open Source, it is much easier to solve problems where the problems reside rather than having to concoct screweys to work around the problems because you are denied access to where the problems really are.
With Open Source it is much harder to shift the blame for problems off onto someone else.
Re:Well, it isn't (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Spin Doctors (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, that's kind of an unfair example as well. Comparing IIS to Apache is not apples to apples; it's more like comparing apples to a fruit stand. IIS is WAY more than a webserver that connects to processing modules; it is an ambitious product that also does what PHP, Sendmail, Courier IMAP, Pure FTP, BIND and inetd do, to name a few. Hence the name "Internet Information Service(s)." Very few of the exploits for IIS are due to vulnerabilities in the WWW service, which is the fair analog to Apache. Most of them instead exploit OTHER functionality of IIS, such as scripting, ISAPI integration, and the lax default security model which runs the whole pack of services as LocalSystem (something like local root) and basically allows full access to everything. Any IIS book will tell you not to leave it like that...to create a restricted user and have him execute the various services.
Anyhow, IIS used to outnumber Apache installs, until all these exploits started popping up and people started wondering why the HELL they were operating a fruit stand when all they really needed was a nice juicy peach.
And as for this nugget of joy: Open source software is difficult to interoperate with and not get noticed. Nobody ever thought to conceal anything from anybody, so everything is nice and transparent, and there are few places to hide.
Do you seriously think that somebody looks at every single line of code in every OSS package? The high profile projects have eyes on them, it's true, but the average project is never analyzed except by other developers. Furthermore, a virus author isn't going to stick some trojan into your favorite product...he's going to EXPLOIT a hole already IN your favorite product, and that's no different from the way Windows works.
Re:Linux is not free in a corporate environment (Score:2, Insightful)
Funny how MS advocates always debunk myths that no one even claimed to be true in the first. Sure, actually using Linux costs money, as does using Windows. Did any serious Linux advocate ever claim the opposite? I can't remember, but I can remember a lot of claims from Microsoft supporters that all the "Linux guys" would constantly point out that Linux was absolutely free in every regard.
Another interesting thing to note is that many business people (including but by far not limited to Microsoft) understand "free software" only as free-as-in-beer, unable to imagine what free-as-in-speech may actually mean in the context of software. This leads to funny statements like "The GPL is not a viable business model.".
PS: You're a liar! J. Edgar Hoover did not marry Jeanne d'Arc!
Re:Spin Doctors (Score:4, Insightful)
-