Latest Ballmergram Bashes Linux TCO 680
Phoe6 writes "Microsoft chief executive Steve Ballmer has used the software giant's latest executive email to stoke up Microsoft's fight against the rise of Linux. The 2,600 word missive was titled 'Customer focus: comparing Windows with Linux and UNIX'. In it, Ballmer repeated the key themes of Microsoft's controversial Get The Facts campaign. Zdnet has its report here." Linuxworld also has a story.
Best part of the article (Score:3, Interesting)
About three years ago, we made software security a top priority
please... but i think they are starting to see Linux as a viable threat, thus the verbal out crys lately trying to defend themselves
Im certainly no Linux Expert... (Score:2, Interesting)
the number of security vulnerabilities is lower on Windows
WTF??!?!?! how can infinity be lower than anything? Seriously though, lower vulnerabilities? Where the hell did that come from. From what I understand, linux is more secure, unless you purposely open it up or ignore the installs which tell you not to run as /root
You know.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Like an over-enthusiastic cheerleader for the Chicago Browns, I fully expect him to wake up one day and realize that he is cheering on a group whose ambition far exceeds their ability to remember the lessons of the past, and expect their past glory to carry them on.
Windows TCO (Score:5, Interesting)
Since Tuesday, my DFS has been totally screwed up and not replicating. With Linux, you'd just look at a samba config file or something, but NOOO, not with AD and MS domains. I totally removed all of my replica sets and spent HOURS on google trying everything under the sun.
We ended up having to call Microsoft and paying $245 for the privilege. Well, in case you're wondering, yes they fixed DFS, but now my SysVol is marked as tombstoned. So yeah, my profiles are replicating, but now my SysVol is about to delete itself. Microsoft is trying to figure out WTF it is trying to delete SysVol and every time you set the flag to 0 it goes right back to one, regardless of whether or not you stop or start the File Replication Service(FRS). We had to totally blow everything away in LDAP with ADSI edit and in the registry under HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Drivers\NtFRS and DFS.
Anyway, I hate windows on a server, but you just don't have the same abilities on a Linux domain as you do on a windows domain with windows desktops. We used to have a samba domain, and we're transitioning to AD. I hope Ballmer gets to read this, preferably before my SysVol deactivates and deletes itself.
This message and SysVol will self-destruct in five seconds.
The lower TC (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:read the words (Score:4, Interesting)
upgrade from one version of Windows to a newer release and nine out of 10 enterprise customers said that such a change wouldn't provide any tangible business gains.
Balmey wouldn't have meant it that way, would he?
Those clever journalists... (Score:5, Interesting)
Well they have to be...the simple viruses that invade windows machines wouldn't stand a chance against linux.
Also, they totally ignore to state the fact that the frequency of Linux viruses on Linux is pretty much null.
Owooooooo!!!! (Score:3, Interesting)
What??? The initial change from any OS to any other OS would cost money? Don't they cover this sort of thing in economics 101?
Re:The good news is... (Score:5, Interesting)
Good to see that Micros~1 is running out of ideas to fight Linux, and must resort to recycling their same old collection of lies, damn lies, and statistics.
BTW, why is it none of these "TCO" studies consider the effects or cleanup costs of Windows trojans, worms, viruses, or spyware? I wouldn't trust any study which doesn't include those figures into the equation for a "total" cost of ownership.
Re:read the words (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, but that's beyond most companies concern since they don't upgrade that way, and therefore probably not seen as worth bringing up. Compare to analyzing a marriage between Elaine and LeChuck isn't even discussed, since that shouldn't be able to happen.
Oh drat! You already posted and can't mod!
Read between the lines. (Score:4, Interesting)
It's more expensive short-term to switch operating systems than to not switch? Shocker.
And nine out of 10 enterprise customers said that such a change wouldn't provide any tangible business gains.
And one of them said it would.
Did any of them say Windows was actually better? I doubt it - if any of them had, they would have mentioned it.
Training for IT employees was significantly higher for Linux than for Windows - on average, 15% more expensive. The reasons: training materials were less readily available, and customers spent more on training to compensate for the lack of internal knowledge about Linux.
There are more Windows admins out there. This surprises who?
So you've got #1, which basically says "If you're already running Windows, stick with it!" You've got #2, which says "If you're already running Windows, stick with it!" And you've got #3, which says "Right now, there's more people running Windows!"
Am I the only one who hears an undertone of "Please, please, for the love of God, keep using Windows"?
Microsoft's marketing, right now, is focused entirely on "Don't switch to Linux". Perhaps this is because many companies still use Windows. Or perhaps it's because they can't come up with plausible reasons to switch *from* Linux. But don't worry - we'll be seeing their first attempts in a year or two, I'll wager.
Balmer Shows that Open Source Works in the West (Score:5, Interesting)
The single biggest reason for the proliferation of open source software like Linux and Apache is that they are free to own. Most Westerners are relatively honest and do not pirate commercial software; the piracy rate is only about 15%. The sheer high cost of commercial software thus creates a market for free software like Linux and Apache.
Now, consider China (which includes Taiwan province and Hong Kong). The Chinese steal what they do not want to buy; the piracy rate is about 95%. In China, there is no market for open source software like Linux, for all software is free. Windows XP is "free".
TCO is not even an issue in China because Microsoft will not support pirated software. Chinese pirates get support for, say, Windows XP from other pirates; the behavior is similar to Westerners getting support from other open source supporters for Linux.
Translations don't match? (Score:1, Interesting)
I'm a tad offtopic... (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, I'm using Firefox...which I would think Linuxworld...being to promote Linux and such...would be formated in a way that Firefox/Mozilla wouldn't have a tough time reading. Yet, when I open the page in Internet Explorer, everything is fine.
Why is this? What's really going on over at Linuxworld? Is everything over there put together on Linux/Apache and other open source apps?
Just find it interesting...
Market Researchers are Spineless... (Score:2, Interesting)
Microsoft Security Focus (Score:2, Interesting)
Overall, I wasn't tremendously impressed with the email. I didn't see anything that was literally wrong, but parts of it were stupid or misleading or based on third party studies that weren't necessarily accurate. There were also some things that were completely true. If you can refute every single point in that email then you are making stuff up, and you should re-evaluate your arguments to determine which ones are true and which ones are nonsense.
Re:Windows TCO (Score:5, Interesting)
I used to think it was Ok to run Windows on desktops. That was last year. This year, all the problems I've seen people have with their computers were problems they wouldn't have had, had they been running Debian.
Viruses, unexplicable slowness of the system, instability, unability to replace MSIE with a proper browser, missing or disfunctional drivers for video cards and printers, weird icons or images on the desktop that wouldn't go away, register corruption, the list goes on.
I really can't understand how people can work with such a system. OTOH, they can't understand how I can work with ratpoison, screen, mutt and vi, either.
Spin city or Spin out of control? (Score:3, Interesting)
I feel that they both get the job done in different ways, and sometimes one is better than the other. We (the team who manage the servers at my place of employment) have been slowly introducing more and more Linux boxes, just because we can do more with the functions we are introducing them for. [Well, that and the fact that the security team is very Windows centric and can't crack these, much to their frustration and chagrin.
However, Ballmers contentions that Windows is just better are beginning to sound more like the ravings of a man demanding that the wind stop blowing.
As for the facts on the website? My college stats teacher proved that you could make the numbers say anything if you try hard enough.
Re:maybe the TCO is lower (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, if you use the unstable distribution, occasionally a package gets uploaded that is a little
But using stable, or even testing, you almost never get this kind of problem. Certainly nothing like the problems with winxpSP2, and of course, the viruses/spyware fun on windows requires far more frequent updating than anything in linuxland.
Anyway, if all your experience has been with redhat, especially if you weren't using yum or apt-get in it, things can be greatly improved.
Real world example (Score:5, Interesting)
How do you respond to that, Ballmer?
Re:Windows TCO (Score:3, Interesting)
Ballmer mentions licensing indemnification because (as he mentions elsewhere) Microsoft recently removed the liabiliy cap on their products. I'll leave it to you to decide how relevant this feature is for other platforms.
He also makes it sound as thought charging for technical support (et al) is a new development they've only just discovered since their last impartial analysis.
But in case you haven't seen done this before, let's look at a couple of product pricing and technical support models:
Red Hat Enterprise Linux Support Options and Pricing [redhat.com]
This chart shows subscription rates for various Red Hat server products.
Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Assisted Support Options [microsoft.com]
These pages describe prices of phone, e-mail, and direct support only. The prices do not include the actual cost of products from the Windows Server 2003 family.
Windows Server 2003 Pricing [microsoft.com]
Prices in USD for Windows Server 2003 products and CALs.
Re:So does the FDIC (Score:4, Interesting)
Real-world risk management is absolutely key with any OS or software suite, and that essay from the FDIC is spot-on. I might disagree with a few points, but overall it's quite accurate.
I also enjoy their summary which starts:Yep, that's exaclty what Ballmer is trying to convince you isn't so... so who do we trust on risk assessment, federal bank insurers or Microsoft? Heh.
Re:Microsoft Security Focus (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd love to see microsoft sort out their security. It'd help the internet as a whole (all that pesky malware affects more than just windows users) and would make me feel a bit safer when I'm forced to use their OS at college and at work.
Re:The lower TC (Score:2, Interesting)
anyone here MUST be aboe to do windows workstation and linux config and admin. and no you dont get 2X the pay of regular IT... you are in IT you are expected to know your farking job and not just passed some lame MCSE tests.
TCO of linux = 0 no extra anything on my people for "education" and "retraining" but it did take $14,000.00 to retrain the users when we went from Windows 2000 to XP.
Re:maybe the TCO is lower (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, you must be some kind of a system admin. One thing certain: you'll never be root.
Thing is, what you say is only true for one type of admin: who raises a hand when asked who wants to do it. No history, no experience.
Ok, didn't want to do this, but I can't hold it
The new one is going on Debian/Woody of course
I would openly directly naturally and severly fight any argument war on all fronts of server capabilities against anyone who would replace it with any Windows server version.
So the smart people will learn Linux now. (Score:5, Interesting)
"# Training for IT employees was significantly higher for Linux than for Windows - on average, 15% more expensive. The reasons: training materials were less readily available, and customers spent more on training to compensate for the lack of internal knowledge about Linux."
So everyone and their dog "thinks" they know Windows well enough to run a windows server... Except that it all the security issues that seem to be caused by poorly administrated Windows boxs seems to say otherwise. Linux experts are pretty rare.
"# All 14 companies said it was difficult finding qualified Linux personnel in the marketplace to support their Linux projects. When they did find third-party help, they had less leverage negotiating hourly rates than with Windows"
So if you know Linux you are more in demand than if you know Windows, and you will make more money doing it.
Re:Nothing new here (Score:2, Interesting)
Simple honest marketing. "We have this, this, this, and this and we think all of that would be a great fit for your company."
Instead you get, "We have everything you need. You wouldn't really want to trust them with your business would you? This is what we know about them and it isn't good so you should just stay with us. Here. Here's something shiny..."
Unfortunately Microsoft isn't in the business of making software. They're in the business of making money. Software just happens to be the medium they use to further that end which is why their "Marketing Campaign" seems more like a mud-slinging political engine.
Linux is cheaper, but not for the obvious reason (Score:5, Interesting)
Soon when environment laws are toughened further (in the EU they're becoming so) it will cost a lot of money to dispose of computer hardware and so the TCO of Windows will have to include the cost of hardware upgrades and disposal of old hardware.
If you're doing this twice as often as Linux then you're paying twice as much simply based on the hardware, never mind the upgrade process (installation of new hardware and software) and training (due to software interface changes).
All this and I've not even mentioned licenses.
why donate your time and money to Microsoft? (Score:4, Interesting)
So, the question is: why should anybody give Microsoft many hours of free consulting just so that Microsoft can turn around and use that to further monopolize the market? Why should anybody donate time and effort to Microsoft just to have the company turn around and charge them for everybody's voluntary contributions to their software?
Microsoft's dirty little secret is that most of the value of their software isn't created by them, it's created by their customers. They are just capturing that value and making a bundle on it. And they are charging their customers for the same effort over and over again, just because they can.
Even if Linux were no better than Windows, with Linux, people can be sure that they are not getting charged for their own and other people's free contributions to the effort.
Who do I trust? (Score:2, Interesting)
Microsoft: Security is our middle name! (Score:5, Interesting)
But not for the last twenty one years, apparently:
About three years ago, we made software security a top priority,..
So they think that the open source approach to development has some validity, but that their approach - THAT THEY ADMIT THEY HAVEN'T BEEN USING FOR 20+ YEARS - is better.
Hmmmm....
They found that Microsoft addressed all of the 128 publicly disclosed security flaws in Windows over the 12-month period studied, and that its security updates predated major outbreaks by an average of 305 days.
There are only 360 days in the study period. That means their average is nearly the timeframe covered by the study.
I get suspicious when I see this kind of conclusion. Have they only been in business a year?
After careful analysis, farmaCity concluded that Windows would reduce network administration by 30 percent compared with Linux, and would also simplify identity and desktop management..
And this is proof of security... how?
What was the analytical methodology? Why is network administration such a large burden? I don't even see the update activities on my Linux machine, but I have been warned by our IT group not to deploy XP SP2 due to breakage problems.
Hmmmm....
Ballmer Finally Admits that Linux is the Best (Score:3, Interesting)
Features and benefits are valued more than anything else by the customer. It is the reason to even consider a purchase. This being the issue, it simply means that Ballmer realized that Linux has better and more value to the customer than Microsoft Winblows. Hence, the last justification is the TCO stand. And like political races, truth is meaningless, it's only what the voter will believe.
Analogy mode on:
If you need to move a refrigerator, then you need a good size pickup truck. A used car salesman will try to sell you a hatchback Honda and give you advice on how to turn the 'frig on it's side and shove it into the hatchback. The Honda may get great mileage and be cheaper, but it doesn't do the job. What good is it?
Analogy mode off:
In this case the TCO figures are an out and out lie.
The "independent" sources of TCO and general IT practices analysis live by the motto: "Never piss off the 800lb gorilla in your house" (Microsoft).
Linux and all Open Source groups have no fear of the 800lb gorilla.
Re:From Linux to Windows (Score:5, Interesting)
This is actually a good response. But I would caution that when a network admin says "unstable" a user thinks "flaky" rather than "there are periods of planned downtime." So do other network admins. If Windows servers have more planned downtime (likely) then that can be clarified and quantified just fine without putting it under the blanket of "unstable" where it will be assumed something else is meant.
Our Windows servers have about the same uptime as the Netware servers sitting right next to them (no, not Suse based), but actually have less unplanned downtime. I'm not trying to crack on Netware, or anyone else, but if the servers are up unless we take them down on purpose then that's certainly not something I'd call "unstable", especially if the users is going to hear "flaky".
TW
Re:Im certainly no Linux Expert... (Score:2, Interesting)
Not to mention that these studies usually do not weigh the severity of the vulnerability. I.E. Windows tends to have more Administrator-level vulns than Linux has root-level vulns, but they conveniently ignore that fact since it doesn't lead to the results they desire..
Re:[OT]Re:From Linux to Windows (Score:1, Interesting)
How many of you got BallmerGram'd ? (Score:2, Interesting)
I was supprised to find that it wasn't spoofed. (headers, ip address, etc.)
And then maddend by that fact that I've been spammed yet again, but this time by M$.
How many of you got BallmerGram'd
Where is the opt-out?
Big companies want to hire Slashdotters! (Score:2, Interesting)
- Preparation and planning activities took 5% to 25% longer for Linux than Windows.
- Training for IT employees was significantly higher for Linux than for Windows - on average, 15% more expensive. The reasons: training materials were less readily available, and customers spent more on training to compensate for the lack of internal knowledge about Linux.
- All 14 companies said it was difficult finding qualified Linux personnel in the marketplace to support their Linux projects. When they did find third-party help, they had less leverage negotiating hourly rates than with Windows consulting resources.
Revised version with comments:
- Linux administrators take longer than Windows administrators to plan their infrastructure.
This is bad? Linux administrators have more choices, so they think more about what they are doing. Windows administrators know that anything wrong can be blamed on MS's software.
- Retraining Windows admins on Linux is expensive.
Windows admins are trained how to reboot. Their prior skill is useless in the new environment
- Linux admins are expensive and difficult to find.
Good news for the many unemployed Slashdotters. Very large companies are looking for you, and think you are worth much money. The bad news is they have never heard of Slashdot. Should Slashdot start a job listing or resume website to help these clueless big companies?
I am not an Microsoft advocate or sympathizer... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm a full time Linux user, but as a workstation doesn't require these types of tools I've never actually come across them before.
To be honest, in my Windows server classes I've been pretty impressed with some of their enterprise solutions. Considering, for the forseeable future, we'll be developing networking around mainly Windows clients whats Linux got to compete or outdo Windows on the controller end?
I'd guess Suse is going to have the best chance, if Novell really tosses everything they had going in Netware into making Suse Enterprise a competative product. I'd be curious to hear what Linux admins are doing in the real world.
Does Linux have a serious enterprise grade alternative?
Re:Gandhi was right (Score:5, Interesting)
Because each time it comes up it looks more and more like reality. I remember a long time ago when that was being quoted on Slashdot and things were firmly in the "ignore you" stage. People criticized the quote because (quite reasonably) just because someone was ignoring you was hardly a sign you were going to win.
Over time though the "ignore" slowly faded, and Microsoft was mostly mocking Linux as a laughable option written by pimply teenagers in their basements, so again out comes the quote, this time with a little more weight because things had actually made the predicted progression.
A year or two ago Microsoft kicked into gear with a serious range of attacks on Linux, and now they really are fighting it very bitterly even though they still dominate in market share. More and more people are seeing Linux as a viable option. More and more stories about Linux that get posted to Slashdot are, instead of appearing in Wired, eWeek, are from Time magazine or the Wall Street Journal. As the poster points out, presuming things follow this prediction (and they have remarkably well so far) we're well into stage 3, and winning isn't far off.
Of course it depends on what you mean by "win". Realistically, myself, I see winning as Linux gaining sufficient market share and respect to always be considered as a viable option by anyone looking at buying a computer. That's not 90% market share, and that's not crushing Microsoft, that's just crushing Microsoft's monopoly grip.
Jedidiah.