tom66 writes "Seems like a long time coming, as Microsoft today has axed it's Anti-Linux campaign 'Get the Facts', and Microsoft has replaced it with a new campaign, called 'compare'. This article touches up on why they may have done it, and the criticism surrounding Get the Facts."
I'm not going to bother with a line by line rebuttal, I'll note on the compare Windows to Linux [microsoft.com] page (which actually is about Red Hat, not linux), the last paragraph reads:
Open Standards != Open Source Open Source is a software development and distribution model, which does not equate to how easily the software interoperates with other software or how open or standardized the interfaces are.
If you look in the corresponding MS section however, it doesn't touch on Open Standards (and MS's disregard for them) at all.
Typical of the sickening dishonesty we get from this predatory company.
How can "free" be this expensive?
Red Hat's business is based on annual subscriptions for OS support--you pay a subscription for every server, every year. And, if you want 24/7 support, you'll pay more.
Did you know?
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 Advanced costs $2,499 per server per year without add-on features, like an application server and clustering.
It is a good deal compared to (the lack of) Microsoft support. People who want support comparable to what is offered by Microsoft can download CentOS [centos.org] (fully redhat compatible) or some other completely free distribution.
Red Hat includes the Yum update tool to help you download packages and software updates, but doesn't address IT professionals' broader needs--managing applications and workloads, like mail and collaboration, database and business applications.
Thats funny, because I have built rpms for my own applications. and I use custom yum repositories to keep track of, and distribute new versions of this software.
I hope they are not trying to compare this to the customization built into windows update.
"Windows Server also supports a standardized, patterned approach to building systems. ..for example, for most of our major applications, we can build and distribute across the entire company a standard disk image without having to set up systems individually."
--Adam Vazquez, Senior IT Manager, AMD
Partner yum with kickstart [redhat.com], and your application server can be built on your watch, without even laying fingers on a keyboard (simple %pre and %post targets allow a system administrator to script non packaged parts of the install). This offers a much less interactive solution than one would get with 3rd party windows products like norton ghost.
Without having pored over every detail, it seems pretty reasonable to me. I'm not surprised their comparison was limited primarily to Red Hat. It doesn't make sense to compare Windows to "linux", which is essentially the kernel. One has to compare it to one or more distributions. Red Hat is probably their biggest competition in the corporate space. It and SuSE.
Under the "reliability" tab, I read the case study for Continental AG. Here's a quote:
Continental first tested a Linux solution, but the company decided instead on a platform based on Microsoft® Windows Server(TM) 2003 Enterprise Edition and Windows® XP Professional because of the opportunity to lower costs and improve security. The new system architecture has considerably reduced IT costs at Continental AG.
The way it's worded implies that they replaced Linux with WS2K3 and XP, which saved all this money. But a more careful read shows that the original platform is unidentified (probably NT or such). Further, the discussion seemed to focus on the 24,000 desktops, not the servers, making this case largely irrelevant for comparing servers. An actual server comparison is never presented.
The bottom line is that this alleged proof of Windows superiority was done by comparing an anonymous and out-dated server platform against a more recent Windows server and then declaring Windows the winner over Linux with no justification given. WTF? Pure FUD indeed.
I was reading a while back that Microsoft does have internal communications problems between the operating system and applications divisions. I mean, sometimes the guys working on Office don't even have all the information on the secret APIs the OS folks come up with.
>...sometimes the guys working on Office don't even have all the information > on the secret APIs the OS folks come up with.
Having spent a little time (very little, fortunately) doing Windows app coding, I'd be incredibly surprised if they had all the information on the public APIs. Or the time to find anything.
I think much of the bloat in Office is because it's faster for the Office developers to re-invent the wheel than to search the Windows API's for things to reuse.
I think much of the bloat in Office is because it's faster for the Office developers to re-invent the wheel than to search the Windows API's for things to reuse.
Or maybe the standard API functions don't provide feedback on progress made. Suppose you want to implement a particular operation such as downloading a file using http. The standard API function call may just do the task and return, or timeout with an error. For a quality user interface you want a progress bar to indicate how far into the download t
Because, of course, a comparison between Windows and Linux written by you would be entirely unbiased and would take in the merits and demerits of each equally.
Company says things about competitor to sell product; news at 11.
You've made a parsing error that's not windows power shell, but Windows Powers Hell, its an advert showing how one of their big clients has seen huge rises in productivity since they shifted the demons from Gentoo to Windows ME
obviously for this particular client increased productivity == increased suffering, but i understand a lot of companies use the same metric...
"Compare Windows to Linux" Even in the earlier campaign they just refer to "Linux" in the print advertisements and they never specify which version of softwares on which version of distribution that they have compared (Once they had compared Redhat Linux 7.1 with Windows XP!). It is time that responsible people from Linux Mark Institute take a note of this and sue them for libel!
It seems to be a broad spectrum attack against many different Linux vendors, with most of the emphasis on attacking Red Hat Enterprise Linux. I did find some case studies highlighting people switching away from SuSE, something that I find interesting considering that Novell/SuSE is now a Microsoft partner.
it actually makes sense - SuSE and others are already occupied territory. So why bother emphasizing an attack on them? RedHat said they will not partner with M$, so of course the attack is focused on them...
As for them using SuSE switchers as example - the selection of examples is pretty limited. They had to take whatever they could get.
(Once they had compared Redhat Linux 7.1 with Windows XP!).
Depending on when this comparison was done, and with what service packs and stuff for XP, this may have been a fairly reasonable comparison. If they were comparing XP sans-service packs, RedHat 7.2 would have been the most apples-to-apples comparison. Both were released in October of 2001. It's even quite possible XP was out before 7.2, which would have made 7.1 an even more reasonable choice (though 7.2 would still have been better).
Of course, if this is XP+SP2 for instance, then that's totally off-base.
The guy at the Ford dealership told me that Fords are more reliable, safe, and powerful than Chevys. He showed me a bunch of charts he made, and that made me feel better. He also had a nice suit and really nice white teeth, and smiled alot. Nice guy. What reason did I have to check out the Chevy dealership?
I will tell you of an another great lie, a lie that has existed for decades and continues to be swallowed whole. It is not related but it shows how people lack common sense.
In holland you got a consumer watch agency (consumentenbond) that does (unbiased) comparetive reviews, payed by people who subscribe to them. Pretty good BUT and honest in general as far as I know BUT one of their reviews is one big lie.
It compares the prices in supermarkets and comes with a list of supermarkets by price. You can imagi
Please tell me you were being sarcastic there. I have read enough unsubatantiated "facts" and vague assertions about Windows on Slashdot alone to make your head spin. For instace, how about all the recent bullshit about DRM and HD playback on Vista, all perpeturaed by some paper written by a guy who states that he has never even used Vista and the readers should check the facts for him? I could go on but one n
Please tell me you were being sarcastic there. I have read enough unsubatantiated "facts" and vague assertions about Windows on Slashdot alone to make your head spin. For instace, how about all the recent bullshit about DRM and HD playback on Vista, all perpeturaed by some paper written by a guy who states that he has never even used Vista and the readers should check the facts for him? I could go on but one need only to read Slashdot on a semi-frequent basis to see all the BS written about Windows and Microsoft.
And unless slashdot releases a Linux distro, your point is irrelevant. If you went to a Windows board or read the Windows fanboy posts, then the same applies. the two factions cancel each other out. Both sides have unrealistic cheerleaders. the Linux fanboys that expect corporate customers to use WINE to run their Windows apps, and the Windows fanboys who challenge every possible criticism about vista with " have you tried Vista yet". One is as bad as the other.
"Customers want to consume this information in a variety of formats..."
ODF for me please!
Seriously this is just a new FUD campaign. Example:
How can "free" be this expensive? Red Hat's business is based on annual subscriptions for OS support--you pay a subscription for every server, every year. And, if you want 24/7 support, you'll pay more.
Okay Microsoft, we've been telling you for years but you don't want to get it. Linux is "free as in speech" not "free as in beer." That means that the users get a whole lot of rights that you wouldn't give in your worse nightmare. The freedom to redistribute. The freedome to modify. etc, etc, etc.
Stop with the FUD websites until you know what you're talking about please. Oh, I forgot. You already know all of this but are just misleading your prospective users. Yeah, that's the kind of company with which I would want to do business. NOT!
by Anonymous Coward
on Thursday August 23 2007, @11:24PM (#20339971)
Microsoft's fud site claims that the most expensive Red Hat Enterprise Linux version costs $2,499 per server per year for 24/7 premium phone and web support, unlimited users, no license restrictions, unlimited software upgrades, etc.
So how about we compare that to Windows Server 2003? - $3,999/server for the enterprise version of Windows Server 2003 R2 - have to repurchase it every ~5 years when a new version is made available - maximum of 25 users/workstations ($40 per extra user per Windows version) ...and wait for it... - *NO SUPPORT WHATSOEVER!*
And we're not even getting into the real savings such as comparing MS SQL Server with an equivalent Red Hat offer, desktop Linux cost comparisons (including Office/Productivity applications), scaling costs up to 5000 users...etc
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (the product) is free. That is why CentOS exists. The only cost to using CentOS is having employees who can set it up and keep it running. But you have this exact same cost when using Windows Server as well! You pay Red Hat to provide support services to you - not for the actual product itself. If you go down the Microsoft path, you have to pay for the product AND the service (which Microsoft has conveniently ignored on their new fud website).
Their new website is self-damaging. If I was a potential Microsoft customer who was looking at the comparison between Linux and Windows, I'd instantly note Microsoft spreading fud and lies to make up for deficiencies in their offer. It is hardly reassuring that Microsoft is running scared at companies like Red Hat and feels the need to launch a big anti-Linux PR campaign based on lies and fud. The question I'd be asking myself is, "if Windows Server is so great, why can't Microsoft sell it to me based on features and facts?".
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (the product) is free. That is why CentOS exists. The only cost to using CentOS is having employees who can set it up and keep it running.
but afaict redhat tries to hide the fact this option exists. Afaict they make the projects rebuild from source and strip out all the identity of the OS. They also make them replace the update mechanism but that is a fairly minor point.
RedHat(TM) is a trademarked name. That is the reason that the CentOS folks must remove the RedHat trademark from the SRPMS before redistributing them. Everything that RedHat has released is GPL or LGPL-licensed - if they were concerned about hiding the source code, that would be a particularly bizarre choice! RedHat can not continue to use the RedHat trademark if they do not protect its use, such being the requirements of trademark law.
You are partly right. Linux is free. Support is not. Now if you read it again like this:
Red Hat's business is based on annual subscriptions for OS support--you pay a subscription for every server, every year. And, if you want 24/7 support, you'll pay more.
Although there is a "Compare Windows to Linux" tab on the new Compare site, nearly all the material there is targeted specifically at Red Hat -- one of the Linux distributors that is continuing to refuse to sign a patent-protection agreement with Microsoft.
Ah, so only the non-blessed distributions are inferior to Windows Server? As if Get The Facts wasn't bad enough; they've started to play real dirty. I don't see a page on redhat.com bashing Windows.
I'm very glad Red Hat is standing up to Microsoft and their shit. I hope people can see through this campaign the same as they did with Get The Facts.
I'd like to thank Mr. Microsoft for his contribution by sending bug-reports and wishlist items for linux in the form of a comparison back in 2007. Without your help we would not have surpassed the geek-approach of software.
"Red Hat includes the Yum update tool to help you download packages and software updates, but doesn't address IT professionals' broader needs--managing applications and workloads, like mail and collaboration, database and business applications."
Give me a break. Is the guy who wrote this nuts? What blatant lie. Enough with FUD, i am going to format my windows partition at work machine too.
1) Linux is free, why would it need anti-piracy measures?
It isn't that they do or don't need 'anti-piracy measures', after all plenty of non-free software have no 'anti-piracy systems' either. It is about the pain in the ass that 'anti-piracy measures' bring with them.
2) Microsoft does not monitor what you're listening to, unless you choose to allow them. Played DVDs lately?
Yes, VLC plays them just fine thank you. It's only in the USA where software patents mean anything (ok Japan has software patents too). The rest of the world has no legal issue with DVD playback using Free software. And do you know how terribly hard it is to get VLC in the USA? It's easier than getting official DVD software for MS Windows which costs extra. Just download it from the VLC webpage in France the same way you would download it for MS Windows.
3) The DRM is not intrusive, driver support is the widest available, Windows was built for backward compatibility and Microsoft Update / WUS is leading industry.
DRM, by its very nature is intrusive, it is a restriction after all, isn't it? But DRM's intrusion even goes above and beyond that, or perhaps you missed this recent example [slashdot.org]?
Driver support being the 'widest available' is arguable. Sure, everyone and his brother targets MS windows. But once the product is end-of-lifed, the drivers don't keep up with new versions of windows. They do with linux. So plenty of old hardware won't work on vista but will work with the latest linux kernels.
As for "Microsoft Update" leading the industry? WTF? Leading them to hell perhaps? MS Update reports back all kinds of information about each system that is unnecessary. The various updaters for Ubuntu, Suse and Redhat all do the same job without the same loss of privacy.
6) Prove they spy on China? And prove that Linux doesnt
Not just China, everyone. See NSAKEY. As for proving that linux doesn't, that's easy enough since anyone who cares has full access to the source code which they can then compile themselves in full confidence. The BEST MS will do is let you look at some, incomplete, source code, under very restrictive NDA licensing and they sure won't let you compile it and use the end result.
If you care to dive into the article, download and read the.doc format 'case studies', you will see there is nothing much to crow about.
If you are looking for hard empirical stats on a real comparison of Linux vs Windows, then these case studies are not for you. If you are looking for fuzzy feel-good buzzword-laden coffee table anecdotes, then its worth the download.
In the comparison cases presented, the reasoning is basically as follows :
"I went out with a Blonde once, and she was cool, except she had no job, and was stuck at home with 3 noisy kids - so we rarely got out together. Then I met this independent Brunette chick with a rich Dad and no ties, and we had a ball together. Therefore, based on my extensive experience with such a broad variety of women, I must conclude that in 100% of cases Brunettes make better girlfriends than Blondes'.
SwissAir's initial problem was that their existing Java/Oracle web site was less than optimal, and the code mixed presentation with business logic at all levels of the spaghetti triangle. So they went for a ground-up rebuild using their newly aquirred experience in how not to build a system. The operating systems hosting the bad-build / good-build of their web site are not even relevant to the study, but they happen to be Linux the first time around, and Windows the second time around.
Its a good article if you are interested in the subject of system development lifecycles.. but its hard to build a case for operating systems around it. You could just as easily say that the original Java/Oracle first cut (which ran on HP proliants) was replaced with a.NET rebuild (running on Dell), and therefore Dell is a better choice than HP.
The State of Illinois story is no better. Their initial problem is an aging hulk of a Groupwise messaging system running on Novell Netware. They chose to go to an unspecified line of Microsoft products, the prime deciding motivation being 'Because of Microsoft's position in the market'. The IT director even goes so far as to admit that 'We are not a science outfit - we just need something to get the job done', and they forgot to edit out the comment that 'For us, security was not a driving issue'. In other words, here is an organisation that is flat out doing whatever it does, and it just wants to outsource all of it's IT problems to a big outside company, and get on with the business of.. whatever it is that it does. Linux doesnt even come into the discussion - they never used it at all, so its hardly even a comparison. Very lame choice of stories to include in the 'Comparison' site I would have thought.
The State of Illinois case study is bullshit. I worked as a contractor for the Department of Human Services in Springfield for a year just a few years back. My wife's stepdad worked for Department of Public Aid as a contractor for years. He's now DPA staff because the AFSCME union strongarmed the state into getting rid of knowledgeable contractors and giving the work to state employees. They couldn't do it with state employees, so he became one to continue doing his old job for additional pay plus benefits.
Yes...because as we all know, Wikipedia is a source of information that is totally neutral, unbiased, and objective, and is not subject to any form of inappropriate manipulation or interference whatsoever.
Why would anyone go to Microsoft for opinions on things like Windows Server 2003? Why? They can't possibly list any scenario with major disadvantages, because they sell the OS. Sure, it's not easy to find decent third party sources (you can obviously not ask on Linux-oriented sites either), but I'm pretty sure that the effort would be worth it.
It's written its Anti-Linux campaign (not "it's").
By not proofreading even the abstracts of your stories, you are adversely affecting the spelling abilities of your readers, leading to more badly written submissions...
Um... sorry, you're wrong.
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_a [purdue.edu] post.html
To save anyone having to follow the link, I will reveal the principle and relevant use of the word:
1) to form possessives of nouns
Microsoft is the noun, the campaign belongs to it, hence "it's Anti-Linux Campaign" is the correct spelling.
No offense, but that's bullshit. "it" is not a noun, therefore the quoted use of the apostrophe is not valid. "it's" is short for "it is", "its" is the correct possessive form.
Out with the old FUD. (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not going to bother with a line by line rebuttal, I'll note on the compare Windows to Linux [microsoft.com] page (which actually is about Red Hat, not linux), the last paragraph reads:If you look in the corresponding MS section however, it doesn't touch on Open Standards (and MS's disregard for them) at all.
Typical of the sickening dishonesty we get from this predatory company.
Re:Out with the old FUD. (Score:5, Informative)
Did you know? Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 Advanced costs $2,499 per server per year without add-on features, like an application server and clustering.
It is a good deal compared to (the lack of) Microsoft support. People who want support comparable to what is offered by Microsoft can download CentOS [centos.org] (fully redhat compatible) or some other completely free distribution.
Thats funny, because I have built rpms for my own applications. and I use custom yum repositories to keep track of, and distribute new versions of this software.
I hope they are not trying to compare this to the customization built into windows update.
Parent
Re:Out with the old FUD. (Score:4, Informative)
Partner yum with kickstart [redhat.com], and your application server can be built on your watch, without even laying fingers on a keyboard (simple %pre and %post targets allow a system administrator to script non packaged parts of the install). This offers a much less interactive solution than one would get with 3rd party windows products like norton ghost.
Parent
Re:Out with the old FUD. (Score:5, Funny)
Wow, I never thought of it that way. Your convincing argument totally changes my mind about everything. I'm never using Linux again!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Without having pored over every detail, it seems pretty reasonable to me. I'm not surprised their comparison was limited primarily to Red Hat. It doesn't make sense to compare Windows to "linux", which is essentially the kernel. One has to compare it to one or more distributions. Red Hat is probably their biggest competition in the corporate space. It and SuSE.
Re:Out with the old FUD. (Score:5, Informative)
The way it's worded implies that they replaced Linux with WS2K3 and XP, which saved all this money. But a more careful read shows that the original platform is unidentified (probably NT or such). Further, the discussion seemed to focus on the 24,000 desktops, not the servers, making this case largely irrelevant for comparing servers. An actual server comparison is never presented.
The bottom line is that this alleged proof of Windows superiority was done by comparing an anonymous and out-dated server platform against a more recent Windows server and then declaring Windows the winner over Linux with no justification given. WTF? Pure FUD indeed.
Parent
Re:Out with the old FUD. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> on the secret APIs the OS folks come up with.
Having spent a little time (very little, fortunately) doing Windows app coding, I'd be incredibly surprised if they had all the information on the public APIs. Or the time to find anything.
I think much of the bloat in Office is because it's faster for the Office developers to re-invent the wheel than to search the Windows API's for things to reuse.
c.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Or maybe the standard API functions don't provide feedback on progress made. Suppose you want to implement a particular operation such as downloading a file using http. The standard API function call may just do the task and return, or timeout with an error. For a quality user interface you want a progress bar to indicate how far into the download t
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, I think TENTH SHOW JAM might be on to something there.
These things DO pop up very early in most threads critical of Microsoft.
Re:What a stinking pile that site is. (Score:5, Insightful)
Company says things about competitor to sell product; news at 11.
Parent
Re:it's not advertisement o_O (Score:5, Funny)
You've made a parsing error that's not windows power shell, but Windows Powers Hell, its an advert showing how one of their big clients has seen huge rises in productivity since they shifted the demons from Gentoo to Windows ME
obviously for this particular client increased productivity == increased suffering, but i understand a lot of companies use the same metric...
Parent
Funny, the ad right below the story... (Score:3, Funny)
from microsoft: (Score:5, Funny)
The facts? (Score:4, Insightful)
-jcr
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The original version: (Score:5, Funny)
Elmer Fud (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Elmer Fud (Score:5, Funny)
Hmmm. It could still work.
Parent
What Linux!? (Score:5, Interesting)
Even in the earlier campaign they just refer to "Linux" in the print advertisements and they never specify which version of softwares on which version of distribution that they have compared (Once they had compared Redhat Linux 7.1 with Windows XP!).
It is time that responsible people from Linux Mark Institute take a note of this and sue them for libel!
Re:What Linux!? (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems to be a broad spectrum attack against many different Linux vendors, with most of the emphasis on attacking Red Hat Enterprise Linux. I did find some case studies highlighting people switching away from SuSE, something that I find interesting considering that Novell/SuSE is now a Microsoft partner.
Parent
Re:What Linux!? (Score:5, Insightful)
As for them using SuSE switchers as example - the selection of examples is pretty limited. They had to take whatever they could get.
Peter.
Parent
Re:What Linux!? (Score:5, Informative)
Depending on when this comparison was done, and with what service packs and stuff for XP, this may have been a fairly reasonable comparison. If they were comparing XP sans-service packs, RedHat 7.2 would have been the most apples-to-apples comparison. Both were released in October of 2001. It's even quite possible XP was out before 7.2, which would have made 7.1 an even more reasonable choice (though 7.2 would still have been better).
Of course, if this is XP+SP2 for instance, then that's totally off-base.
Parent
If Microsoft says so, it must be true. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sadly, common sense and IT don't mix. (Score:3, Interesting)
I will tell you of an another great lie, a lie that has existed for decades and continues to be swallowed whole. It is not related but it shows how people lack common sense.
In holland you got a consumer watch agency (consumentenbond) that does (unbiased) comparetive reviews, payed by people who subscribe to them. Pretty good BUT and honest in general as far as I know BUT one of their reviews is one big lie.
It compares the prices in supermarkets and comes with a list of supermarkets by price. You can imagi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Please tell me you were being sarcastic there. I have read enough unsubatantiated "facts" and vague assertions about Windows on Slashdot alone to make your head spin. For instace, how about all the recent bullshit about DRM and HD playback on Vista, all perpeturaed by some paper written by a guy who states that he has never even used Vista and the readers should check the facts for him? I could go on but one n
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Please tell me you were being sarcastic there. I have read enough unsubatantiated "facts" and vague assertions about Windows on Slashdot alone to make your head spin. For instace, how about all the recent bullshit about DRM and HD playback on Vista, all perpeturaed by some paper written by a guy who states that he has never even used Vista and the readers should check the facts for him? I could go on but one need only to read Slashdot on a semi-frequent basis to see all the BS written about Windows and Microsoft.
And unless slashdot releases a Linux distro, your point is irrelevant. If you went to a Windows board or read the Windows fanboy posts, then the same applies. the two factions cancel each other out. Both sides have unrealistic cheerleaders. the Linux fanboys that expect corporate customers to use WINE to run their Windows apps, and the Windows fanboys who challenge every possible criticism about vista with " have you tried Vista yet". One is as bad as the other.
However, Red Hat, Canonical and others hav
New Focus (Score:5, Funny)
Oh boy, it never ends... (Score:5, Informative)
ODF for me please!
Seriously this is just a new FUD campaign. Example:
How can "free" be this expensive?
Red Hat's business is based on annual subscriptions for OS support--you pay a subscription for every server, every year. And, if you want 24/7 support, you'll pay more.
Okay Microsoft, we've been telling you for years but you don't want to get it. Linux is "free as in speech" not "free as in beer." That means that the users get a whole lot of rights that you wouldn't give in your worse nightmare. The freedom to redistribute. The freedome to modify. etc, etc, etc.
Stop with the FUD websites until you know what you're talking about please. Oh, I forgot. You already know all of this but are just misleading your prospective users. Yeah, that's the kind of company with which I would want to do business. NOT!
Comparison of costs is extremely incorrect (Score:5, Informative)
So how about we compare that to Windows Server 2003?
- $3,999/server for the enterprise version of Windows Server 2003 R2
- have to repurchase it every ~5 years when a new version is made available
- maximum of 25 users/workstations ($40 per extra user per Windows version)
- *NO SUPPORT WHATSOEVER!*
And we're not even getting into the real savings such as comparing MS SQL Server with an equivalent Red Hat offer, desktop Linux cost comparisons (including Office/Productivity applications), scaling costs up to 5000 users...etc
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (the product) is free. That is why CentOS exists. The only cost to using CentOS is having employees who can set it up and keep it running. But you have this exact same cost when using Windows Server as well! You pay Red Hat to provide support services to you - not for the actual product itself. If you go down the Microsoft path, you have to pay for the product AND the service (which Microsoft has conveniently ignored on their new fud website).
Their new website is self-damaging. If I was a potential Microsoft customer who was looking at the comparison between Linux and Windows, I'd instantly note Microsoft spreading fud and lies to make up for deficiencies in their offer. It is hardly reassuring that Microsoft is running scared at companies like Red Hat and feels the need to launch a big anti-Linux PR campaign based on lies and fud. The question I'd be asking myself is, "if Windows Server is so great, why can't Microsoft sell it to me based on features and facts?".
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Order from Microsoft
Full Version
Windows Svr Ent 2003 R2 w/SP2 Win32 English CD 25 Clt
$3919.00
Item: P72-02365
I saw there were some other cheaper licenses around, but they didn't include 25 client licenses...
Redhat is not guilty (Score:3, Insightful)
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (the product) is free. That is why CentOS exists. The only cost to using CentOS is having employees who can set it up and keep it running.
but afaict redhat tries to hide the fact this option exists. Afaict they make the projects rebuild from source and strip out all the identity of the OS. They also make them replace the update mechanism but that is a fairly minor point.
RedHat(TM) is a trademarked name. That is the reason that the CentOS folks must remove the RedHat trademark from the SRPMS before redistributing them. Everything that RedHat has released is GPL or LGPL-licensed - if they were concerned about hiding the source code, that would be a particularly bizarre choice! RedHat can not continue to use the RedHat trademark if they do not protect its use, such being the requirements of trademark law.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Re:Oh boy, it never ends... (Score:4, Insightful)
You are partly right. Linux is free. Support is not. Now if you read it again like this:
Red Hat's business is based on annual subscriptions for OS support--you pay a subscription for every server, every year. And, if you want 24/7 support, you'll pay more.
Parent
"Compare" singles out Red Hat (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm very glad Red Hat is standing up to Microsoft and their shit. I hope people can see through this campaign the same as they did with Get The Facts.
I'd like to thank you (Score:3, Insightful)
Windows Powershell (Score:4, Funny)
ps xu | grep konqueror | grep -v grep | awk '{ print $2 }' | xargs kill -9
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
ctrl-alt-esc, click
I really like that skull and cross-bones icon.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Optimized for former Windows users:
huh...gimme a break (Score:3, Interesting)
A little down the road you ll find
"Red Hat includes the Yum update tool to help you download packages and software updates, but doesn't address IT professionals' broader needs--managing applications and workloads, like mail and collaboration, database and business applications."
Give me a break. Is the guy who wrote this nuts?
What blatant lie.
Enough with FUD, i am going to format my windows partition at work machine too.
No techie will believe this! (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's Compare! (Score:4, Insightful)
Linux: Not
Windows: Media Player monitors what you are watching/listening to and logs it with Microsoft.
Linux: None
Windows: Intrusive DRM, Scarce Driver Support, Many incompatabilities, Huge Security Holes
Linux: None
Windows: Parent company breaks anti-trust laws, slap on wrist by Justice Department, continues to flaunt law without penalty
Linux: None
Windows: Threatens small competitors with a flood of patent lawsuits
Linux: None
Windows: Includes code to spy on China
Linux: None
Hey, Microsoft is right! Linux can't do anything!
Re:Let's Compare! (Score:5, Insightful)
It is about the pain in the ass that 'anti-piracy measures' bring with them.
Played DVDs lately?
Driver support being the 'widest available' is arguable. Sure, everyone and his brother targets MS windows. But once the product is end-of-lifed, the drivers don't keep up with new versions of windows. They do with linux. So plenty of old hardware won't work on vista but will work with the latest linux kernels.
As for "Microsoft Update" leading the industry? WTF? Leading them to hell perhaps? MS Update reports back all kinds of information about each system that is unnecessary. The various updaters for Ubuntu, Suse and Redhat all do the same job without the same loss of privacy.
Parent
No big deal (Score:5, Informative)
If you are looking for hard empirical stats on a real comparison of Linux vs Windows, then these case studies are not for you. If you are looking for fuzzy feel-good buzzword-laden coffee table anecdotes, then its worth the download.
In the comparison cases presented, the reasoning is basically as follows :
"I went out with a Blonde once, and she was cool, except she had no job, and was stuck at home with 3 noisy kids - so we rarely got out together. Then I met this independent Brunette chick with a rich Dad and no ties, and we had a ball together. Therefore, based on my extensive experience with such a broad variety of women, I must conclude that in 100% of cases Brunettes make better girlfriends than Blondes'.
SwissAir's initial problem was that their existing Java/Oracle web site was less than optimal, and the code mixed presentation with business logic at all levels of the spaghetti triangle. So they went for a ground-up rebuild using their newly aquirred experience in how not to build a system. The operating systems hosting the bad-build / good-build of their web site are not even relevant to the study, but they happen to be Linux the first time around, and Windows the second time around.
Its a good article if you are interested in the subject of system development lifecycles
The State of Illinois story is no better. Their initial problem is an aging hulk of a Groupwise messaging system running on Novell Netware. They chose to go to an unspecified line of Microsoft products, the prime deciding motivation being 'Because of Microsoft's position in the market'. The IT director even goes so far as to admit that 'We are not a science outfit - we just need something to get the job done', and they forgot to edit out the comment that 'For us, security was not a driving issue'. In other words, here is an organisation that is flat out doing whatever it does, and it just wants to outsource all of it's IT problems to a big outside company, and get on with the business of
State of Illnois study bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
The REAL facts (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The REAL facts (Score:4, Funny)
Yes...because as we all know, Wikipedia is a source of information that is totally neutral, unbiased, and objective, and is not subject to any form of inappropriate manipulation or interference whatsoever.
Their policy says so.
Parent
What I don't understand is... (Score:3, Insightful)
yes, this is a spelling flame (Score:5, Informative)
Re:yes, this is a spelling flame (Score:4, Insightful)
No offense, but that's bullshit. "it" is not a noun, therefore the quoted use of the apostrophe is not valid. "it's" is short for "it is", "its" is the correct possessive form.
http://www.cgl.uwaterloo.ca/~csk/its.html [uwaterloo.ca]
Parent