Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Business

InformationWeek On Windows-Linux Interoperability 268

Posted by timothy from the gentle-art-of-misdirection dept.
prostoalex writes "InformationWeek magazine has a lengthy article about the issues that enterprises face when vying for Linux+Windows interoperability, as most of the corporate infrastructures are seldom monocultural. What's also interesting is the InformationWeek surveys of the IT professionals. The following questions are asked and the responses to them are nicely graphed: 1) Reasons for choosing Windows, 2) Reasons for choosing Linux, 3) Top Windows concerns, 4) Top Linux concerns, 5) Top interoperability issues."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

InformationWeek On Windows-Linux Interoperability More

InformationWeek On Windows-Linux Interoperability

Comments Filter:

  • Primary Issue (Score:3, Funny)

    by hcetSJ ( 672210 ) on Sunday October 19, 2003 @11:12AM (#7254216)
    I believe the primary issue in Linux+Windows interoperabiltiy is Windows operability, actually.
  • They would port Office, etc. to Linux.

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday October 19, 2003 @11:17AM (#7254240)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • No, it doesn't. You obviously never tried out OpenOffice. At my company, we completely switched from MS Office to OpenOffice, and we had no interoperability problems so far.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
        Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • I must be a bit out of date, then.

          You sure are.

          First of all, you must have overseen that a lot of companies block all .doc/.xls/.exe attachements because of viruses. Yes, they do and did so for several years by now.

          Then, you must have overlooked that there are lots of interoperability problems withing MS Word itself. How often have I heard "I can't read that, please resend it in Word97 format", I don't think that saying "I can't read that, please resend it in rtf-format" will cause any more problems.

      • I'm running 1.1 experimentallyat work alongside Word (no-one else uses it). When someone sends me a file, I check it out in 1.1.

        So far, having run for about a month, I've only had one little issue, and one in which IMO Open Office works better - if a Word document has text in style "Heading 4", which doesn't have numbering, it seemed to add 0.0.0.1 to the start of the line. But, the text was really a document title, so had been "styled" wrong in Word.

    • OpenOffice has been mentioned - and I like it. I've been working on a few documents at work recently while switching between OO1.1 and WordXP without any complaints. However, there are times where one still needs a full-on MS Office install.

      That's where CodeWeavers' CrossOver Office [codeweavers.com] comes in to play.

  • Security drubbing (Score:3, Interesting)

    by phillymjs ( 234426 ) <slashdot.stango@org> on Sunday October 19, 2003 @11:22AM (#7254271) Homepage Journal
    According to the graphs in this article, security is the #3 reason people use Linux, behind cost and reliability. For people purchasing Microsoft stuff, even "Other" scores higher than security, which came in dead last.

    I guess we should be glad that most people are apparently not falling for their "Trustworthy Computing" horseshit. The numbers in this poll show that this summer of worm after virus after worm after virus has really put Microsoft under a cloud. It will probably take them at least five years to even begin to win back security mindshare, and that's assuming there's not another SQL Slammer or Blaster waiting to happen in that time.

    ~Philly
  • "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer." This is an old saying everyone is familiar with. I would be more concerned if/when they openly embraced Linux as opposed to them openly denouncing it. I do not look forward to the day when someone says to me, "Have you the new Windows? It now runs Linux!" Just my .02

  • Price... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by pdaoust007 ( 258232 )
    The price of Microsoft's newest version of Windows, released last week, is aimed squarely at Linux. With Small Business Server 2003, Microsoft knocked 60% off the price of its previous Small Business Server, introducing a standard edition for only $599, right between Red Hat's $349 basic edition (software only) and $799 standard edition (software plus phone support).

    With RedHat wouldn't you just have to buy one copy of their standard edition software and be able to install it on multiple servers? Would t
    • If you have a good linux admin, you're probably running debian instead of red hat, and you won't pay anything for linux.

    • Re:Price... (Score:4, Informative)

      by Karl Cocknozzle ( 514413 ) <kcocknozzleNO@SPAMhotmail.com> on Sunday October 19, 2003 @11:54AM (#7254442) Homepage
      With Small Business Server 2003, Microsoft knocked 60% off the price of its previous Small Business Server, introducing a standard edition for only $599, right between Red Hat's $349 basic edition (software only) and $799 standard edition (software plus phone support).

      I also wish IT Week would have pointed out that $599 for SBS 2003 doesn't include support of any kind. One incident requiring MS phone support and you've immediately eclipsed the price of RH Enterprise w/support. Not to mention that one of SBS 2003's biggest value points is Exchange server, which (in any reasonably large enterprise) necesitates a second layer "Mail router" to dump all the worms, virii, and spam before they hit the Exchange box and bring it to its knees... Think PostFix + Spam Assassin + a good set of attachment blocking rules.

      Maybe I'm wrong (I'm sure someone will point me out if I am,) but I was under the impression that with SBS you had to run it all on one server. Is this still/Was this ever the case? Do extra servers under SBS cost extra money? (I've never worked anywhere that could consider SBS, since the limit is 50 users, so I'm admitedly ignorant of some facets of an SBS environment.)
      • I also wish IT Week would have pointed out that $599 for SBS 2003 doesn't include support of any kind... Maybe I'm wrong (I'm sure someone will point me out if I am,) but I was under the impression that with SBS you had to run it all on one server. Is this still/Was this ever the case?

        Two points. A) The organization that is running MS Small Business Server has 5-50 employees needing a workstation/email account, so they probably do not have on staff a full time IT person. If they do, they have one most

        • Companies depending on SBS most likely use a MS Certified Partner to manage their IT problems. I doubt they are making calls to Microsoft directly to solve problems. Moreover, SBS is designed for a very generic solution, it's unlikely there are going to be advanced issues you need support from Microsoft on.

          But certainly, those MS Certified Partners don't work for free... And if you're comparing the price of SBS without copmputing the cost of maintaining it (whether its FTE, or an MS Partner doing the m

  • Will Longhorn have a Linux sub-system that will allow it to run all XP apps as well as all Linux apps with a built-in X server? That will make it just like the Mac? Hmmm... Anybody else think Longhorn delay is just a bit too much? Wouldn't that violate the GPL?

    +2
    • Will Longhorn have a Linux sub-system that will allow it to run all XP apps as well as all Linux apps with a built-in X server?

      It certainly might. They already make a product called Microsoft SFU/Interix, which is a UNIX subsystem for Windows.

      It wouldn't be that hard for them to make Interix binary-compatible with Linux. (Although I think a built-in X server is unlikely .. It would probably be positioned to migrate server deamons to Windows.)
    • It only violates the GPL if they use GPL'd code. IF (big if) they find a way to create their own X server and Linux API emulator without using any sort of GPL'd code, then it's not a violation.

      But if Sony vs. Connectix has taught us anything, they'll end up in court anyway for reverse-engineering, even though that's entirely legal.
    • Why would they do that.

      Remember Microsoft has a duty to their investors to squash Linux and their #1 playing card is interoperability, and apps. #2 is integration costs. Many phb's perfer a solid consilidated platform to lower costs. Of course this never happens but MS loves to tout this.

      VB for example was designed to be proprietary as possible and MS prefered its cutomers to use that rather then VisualC. Well these VB apps can never be ported to Linux? Never.

      Apple on the otherhand, needs more apps and i

  • Interoperability v compatability (Score:5, Insightful)

    by puregen1us ( 648116 ) <alex@alex[ ]serman.com ['was' in gap]> on Sunday October 19, 2003 @11:26AM (#7254298)
    Interoperabilty needs help from both sides. Both involved parties must decide on a standard then write software to adhere to it.
    eg. all mp3 players play the same mp3s. One mp3 can play on all players because of the standard.

    In order to sell an mp3 player it either has to have better features that the standard implements or have more human=friendly features eg. its smaller, better looking etc.

    Here microsoft coes out with a system. Then the OSS teams try to reverse engineer it and create a compatable system. Then microsoft changes it.

    Therein lies the problem. Microsoft is not trying to interoperate. OSS is trying to be compatible. They are always following, and not creating. Mainly because they don't have a market base to force products onto to get a lead.

    OSS needs a killer-app style product/system/something to get the lead, so that microsoft will have to try to be compatible.

    True interoperability cannot happen without support from bothsides. OSS just needs to make microsoft want to help. Easier said than done.
    • Exactly. Microsoft has no motivation to provide interoperability or compatibility--quite the contrary. They benefit by having the other guy perpetually playing catchup, so that the customer thinks "You know, I could avoid all this hassle by using Windows exclusively."

      The goal for OSS is to make the customer think "You know, I could avoid all this hassle by using open source exclusively."
      • No.

        The goal for OSS (as I see it at work and at home) is to function well. The goal for Microsoft is to make money, and so far they have used "integration" (what they label "innovation"), exclusivity and counter-interoperability to achieve that goal.

        Each system has its place. I've set up a Win2k workstation for my wife, a Linux workstation for myself, and a Linux server for her database back-end. I will not "move up" to XP due to my concern for interoperability with my Linux systems, Microsoft's increasi

    • OSS needs a killer-app style product/system/something to get the lead, so that microsoft will have to try to be compatible.

      We already have one. It's called Apache.

  • Valid criticisms (Score:5, Interesting)

    by smittyoneeach ( 243267 ) on Sunday October 19, 2003 @11:26AM (#7254299) Homepage Journal
    Linux has its own problems, including lack of a complete application lineup and concerns over accountability.
    There are plenty of office suites, and you can argue over whether they are sufficiently robust.
    The second point, accountability, is where managers, in my experience get concerned. While it was great that the company didn't get mugged on licenses, the learning curve for the admins is relatively steep compared to Monopolized Systems that are managed at the crayon level.
    Businesses want to know that, in the event of the bus flattening the admin, they can get a replacement, and not here some line like "uhh, I'm a vi user, and my predecessor, apparently an Emacs LISP fetishist, (ran (the (whole (network (with {these (crazy (macros))))))))".
    IANAT. In fact, I've reached a state of total agnosticism about platforms, languages, and licenses as a result of /.
    Ulitately, I hope the market does, too, in favor of what really matters: standards.

    • Accountability worries (Score:3, Interesting)

      by dspeyer ( 531333 )
      If you look carefully at the linux and windows "worries" graphs and noted that they're on different scales. If you check the numbers, about 36% of admins worry about Linux accountability and about 33% worry about Windows accountability.

      They're quite right to worry, and it's very nice to see that message getting through. I wonder if there's any platform in which the vendor makes a binding promise that the product will work?

    • Something interesting about "Accountability."

      Take a look at the graphs on page 3 and 4, listing the concerns for Windows and Linux, respectively.

      The scale for the two graphs is different.

      Even though accountability is the #2 issue for Linux, it comes in at between 35%-40% of respondents. For Windows, even though it is fourth on the list, it comes in at right between 30%-40%.

      In other words, it's no more significant an issue for one than for the other.
    • Businesses want to know that, in the event of the bus flattening the admin, they can get a replacement,

      Your admin was run over by a bus? That's rare for two reasons. First, I've never heard of a M$ shop with a ratio of boxes to admins much better than 20:1. Second, 95% of all admin deaths reported in the last two years have been due to email worm induced exhaustion. Deaths from busses must be someware down around 0.0001% You must have a five 9 shop! Nice work.

      On a serious note, any scripting that ha

  • Management tools? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jdhutchins ( 559010 ) on Sunday October 19, 2003 @11:27AM (#7254304)
    They list 'Management tools could be better' as a problem with linux. What, do the admins not like vi? (or emacs)

    Here's my response to some of the linux 'problems':

    Lack of an integrated software environment- What is that supposed to mean? Does it mean that I can choose what stuff I want to use? With MS, there's one choice. With linux, there's multiple choices for software to use. I don't quite get what they're saying with this one. If someone knows, then I'd like to understand better.

    Lack of a clear roadmap- Well, the idea with linux is to make it more stable, faster, and more secure (not necessarily in that order). What more of a 'product map' do you want? MS isn't going to come up with the next killer app of the internet. All of the other big applications have come out of open-source groups.

    Accountability if problems arise- This means that the top IT person wants some one else to take the blame if something bad happens. Everyone knows MS stuff doesn't work perfectly, so if it screws up, it's not the admin's fault. With linux, if it screws up, most people (correctly) blame the admin.

    I bet a lot of problems come up becaue when a company switches from windows to linux, the admins expect it to work the same, which couldn't be farther from the truth. Linux uses different programs, and often times, the best way to configure it is vi and a man page or two. With windows, it's all point-and-click.

    Just my 0.02
    • I can't speak for the other people's comments, of course, but I believe the concern of a "lack of an integrated software environment" in Linux refers to the many variations of ways to accomplish a task.

      An ideal operating system, from a training standpoint, is one where each task can be performed easily using a single, logical step. Honestly, I doubt such an OS really exists - but Windows (largely because of the lack of choices it offers) comes much closer to making training easier than Linux does.

      Most co

      • Re:Management tools? (Score:2, Informative)

        by GigsVT ( 208848 )
        Cut-copy-paste works now.

        The misunderstanding came from the fact that there are actually two distinct ways to move text around. One is by hitting Ctrl-C/X/V or using the menus, that puts it on the clipboard, and you can paste it with similar options.

        The other way is more like drag and drop, when you highlight something and middleclick or click both buttons on a 2-button mouse. That way isn't really copying and pasting. This has been around since the beginning of X afaik.

        You can copy something, then hi
        • 'Getting better' might be a good statement, but 'it works' is just wrong.

          Part of the problem is getting people to agree that ctrl c/v should be supported, so many programs don't get tested for that. GAIM, up until about 8 months ago, had ctrl+c bring up a color wheel!

          I can still reliably *NOT* have copy/paste work in KDE 3.1.3. Copying something WILL put it in Klipper, and it's got a checkbox next to it, but won't be 'active' until I select it from the Klipper area anyway.

          Little crap like that just isn
          • You can't lose your clipboard by highlighting text. The primary selection (that mouse-2 uses) and clipboard are different buffers in X. That's the theory anyway, though some apps no doubt get it wrong and use the wrong buffer.
      • Can you cut/copy from a command line and paste back into a GUI app?
        >>>>>>>>
        Yes? At least in an xterm. Probably not between the console and X, but in Windows, there is no console so its not the same comparison.

        How about between two different X apps? Probably, but people keep finding little quirks in it.
        >>>>>>>>>
        I have yet to see this be a problem in practice. The real problem is that the clipboard's rules are different from in Windows. The X clipboard is mo
    • Lack of an integrated software environment- What is that supposed to mean? Does it mean that I can choose what stuff I want to use?

      My dictionary defines the word "integrated" as "formed or blended into a whole"...the word "choose" does not appear anywhere.

      With MS, there's one choice. With linux, there's multiple choices for software to use.

      Actually, I have found multiple choices of software to use on MS as well.

      I don't quite get what they're saying with this one. If someone knows, then I'd like to u
      • But everyone is telling me that Linux is just like Windows, but it's totally free and never gets any viruses. Shouldn't I dump all my Windows stuff?

        Equivalence has been apparent for about five years, superiority of free software for two years or so.

        Perhaps some more details on exactly how it will become "more stable, faster, and more secure", and perhaps a rough idea about when it will be available.

        The future is indeterminant and you should use what's available now, but the trends are all in favor of fr

      • Perhaps some more details on exactly how it will become "more stable, faster, and more secure", and perhaps a rough idea about when it will be available. Some predictability of the timetable would be nice too, even +/-2 years (not "it will be ready when it's ready...now stop asking")

        Microsoft doesn't know this either. The difference is, that doesn't stop them from telling you that they do. Their timeline is considerably *less* predicable than that of Linux, when it comes down to reality.
        • Mod the parent up, if memory serves, Microsoft have had up to three years of being late for some OS, with major feature post-poned.
          So with Linux you get no roadmap, with Microsoft you get very unreliable roadmap, I'm not sure Microsoft has a very big advantage here..
    • Biggest Linux problem... it's based off Unix. Biggest Unix problem... the assumption that you already know exactly what you're doing. Would it kill Linux to assume I'm retarded after an install? I know that "click Start to begin" is a little too obvious, but I have no idea where anything is on a Linux system and I'll never learn unless I (a) play with it for a few weeks, or (b) read a huge thick book.

    • Lack of an integrated software environment- What is that supposed to mean? Does it mean that I can choose what stuff I want to use? With MS, there's one choice. With linux, there's multiple choices for software to use. I don't quite get what they're saying with this one. If someone knows, then I'd like to understand better.

      I think what these admins are talking about is that in Windows, configuration is fairly centralized. Most configuration is done using one tool (Microsoft Management Console). This

  • Farmers Insurance agents were given a free Dell with windows 2000 and Office XP. Many of my agents want to be able to use exchange with outlook and linux has yet to give me a workable clone of exchange that works with outlook.

    Yes, Ive tried suse slox and ive tried the outlook connector -- but when an address book sorts by company and creates a bunch of blank entries for an entry with no company -- it does not work.

    If someones could get on the ball in that arena, I would think a few more people would be switching over.
    • Here Here an exchange clone is realy whats missing to fully replace the backend office server. We have databases fileservers etc but you need that intergrated email, address book and scedualing yes there are various packages out there that does bits and peices. Oh yea it needs to work with outlook.

    • You need to run Ximian Evolution [ximian.com], and purchase the Ximian Connector [ximian.com] for Microsoft Exchange. With Ximian Connector installed, Ximian Evolution functions as an Exchange 2000 client, enabling users to become full participants in company-wide group scheduling and other collaborative tasks, including accessing public folders and Global Address Lists, personal email, calendar, and task lists, and group scheduling information. It's great!! We experimented with it where I work while evaluating different calendarin

    • Many of my agents want to be able to use exchange with outlook

      No they don't. They want some of the features those two programs have to offer. What exactly are the features that you don't know how to replace with free software? Viruses and worms are about all I can think of. Give a list and I'm sure someone here will fix you up.

      If someones could get on the ball in that arena, I would think a few more people would be switching over.

      Get hopping man, after the last two years of Blasters, Slammers, Red

  • Graph scale different - not obvious, but important (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mattdm ( 1931 ) on Sunday October 19, 2003 @11:29AM (#7254315) Homepage
    I brought the various graphs up in different windows for side-by-side comparison, and at first missed something interesting -- the scale on the graphs is different. For example, the "Linux Concerns" graph goes from 0-40%, while the "Windows Worries" one goes all the way up to 80%.

    A quick visual comparison makes it seem that people are as worried about "Lack of a complete and fully integrated software environment" and "Accountability if problems arise" on Linux as they are about the top MS Windows issues, "Software quality or vulnerabilities" and "Cost of ownership is too high". Not so -- in fact, the top concerns with Linux are down near the middle of the MS Windows scale.
  • Last week, we had trouble restoring an Exchange box from a backup. The difficulty was due to Exchange being integrated with Active Directory. What caused Exchange to go down? We ran forestprep and domainprep on Active Directory.

    The integration of the two products makes it difficult and more costly to administer.
    • What caused Exchange to go down? We ran forestprep and domainprep on Active Directory.

      At the risk of quibbling with you here, I've run forestprep and domainprep in existing Exchange/AD environments many times and it never caused my "Exchange to go down". Survey says something else was involved.

      Actually, having Exchange integrated with the AD can be a real godsend in recovery. In the Exchange 5.5 days, if you lost your Exchange server to a failure, you lost both your data store *AND* your directory. Now,
  • With many companies and government agencies trialling or converting to Linux if Microsoft sabotage Samba etc.. then many such organisations are likely to cut out Windows from their networks than cut out Linux.

    Anyway, isn't it part of the DOJ settlement that they provide information on their protocols?
  • I've recently been attempting to get a 'Linux Desktop' working for some of our phd students. A requirement is that they are able to mount their windows home directories. Problem is, that our windows homedirs are of the //server/firstinitial/username syntax. Which of course smbmount can't cope with.

    Both sides need to work together more...
    • Problem is, that our windows homedirs are of the //server/firstinitial/username syntax. Which of course smbmount can't cope with.

      Sure it can, what are you talking about? If you want to mount these from the commandline however you have to escape the slashes and it turns out being: ////server//firstinitial//username

      -- iCEBaLM
    • When I connect to my Windows shares with samba on Mac OS X, I use smb://server/sharename. For you it would be smb://server/firstinitial/username. I don't know if you can connect the same way with Linux, but that's what I've found works in OS X.
  • It's an interesting article that prompted some thinking on my part. Before Microsoft was so prevalent in the server world they touted interoperability with other systems through products such as SNA Server. ODBC was about interoperability as well. Somewhere along the line they gained enough market share to have no need to operate with other technology so they put fewer resources into working well with others. Instead they decided to spend more to make their products the prominent technology for *EVERY*
  • Here [netcraft.com] is the evidence:

    Pos. Requests Site name Average Max Latest OS Server Netblock Owner
    1 13458 www.microsoft.com 51 202 43 Linux Microsoft-IIS/6.0 Level 3 Communications, Inc.
    2 4098 www.netcraft.com 24 319 7 FreeBSD Apache/1.3.26 (Unix) mod_perl/1.27 Netcraft
    3 2839 www.google.com 73 172 11 Linux GWS/2.1 Google Inc.
    4 2623 www.daiko-lab.co.jp 1613 1660 1661 FreeBSD Apache/1.2.4 Daiko Corporation
    5 2356 www.yahoo.com 44 229 79 FreeBSD unknown HotJobs.com, Ltd.
    6 2287 microsoft
  • [Microsoft's] Taylor gets frustrated when he hears, as the InformationWeek Research data shows, that customers think Linux is cheap and Windows expensive. "I want to jump out the window," he says.

    To which I reply, Go ahead.

  • Wine (Score:4, Insightful)

    by IamTheRealMike ( 537420 ) on Sunday October 19, 2003 @12:17PM (#7254572)
    It's pretty frustrating to read at the end:

    On the other end of the spectrum are the many commercial and internally developed applications that have been written for Windows but not ported to Linux. With those, Handy says, "there isn't interoperability" at all.

    As somebody who is available for hire to make apps (any apps) work on Linux via Wine, I must point out that this is just blatently not true. I (and many others) have been hired before by companies wishing to move their infrastructure to Linux. For custom software, the job is often reasonably straightforward as the source is available, but even for 3rd party apps the company uses it is still possible.

    So, to say there is no interoperability is not true. Typically, if you do the math, you may find it is cheaper to hire a Wine developer for a time to make your apps work on Linux than continue to license Windows for all the machines needed.

  • 1) Reasons for choosing Windows, 2) Reasons for choosing Linux, 3) Top Windows concerns, 4) Top Linux concerns, 5) Top interoperability issues."

    Where's "Bill says I should. I MUST OBEY!!!"
  • We did a study into the state of calendaring on
    Linux (specifically for cross-compatibility in
    mixed Linux/Windows environments). It shows
    that calendaring is the achilles heel for Linux
    currently, presents some analysis of several
    commercial and open source packages that sort of
    do it, and outlines what is really needed.

    http://www.osdl.org/projects/cmptblclndrng/resu l ts /calendaring.pdf

    Additional info available at the website:

    http://www.osdl.org/projects/cmptblclndrng/resul ts /summary.html
    • Thanks for the links.

      Actually, I've started designing a one-stop school solution that will eventually provide calendaring (I'm trying to work with a school on which I do web devleopment, which is looking to roll out a web-based interface to various things; NuSchool is a direct offshoot of these planning sessions).

      I am trying to make it modular (i.e. calendaring system, mailing list system, etc.) and so the individual sub-projects should be removable and/or integrable to other projects. It will likely wor

      • Actually, I've started designing a one-stop school solution that will eventually provide calendaring.

        Note that there's a number of projects with
        similar aims to be a complete Exchange
        replacement, including calendaring, addressbook,
        yada yada. This 'shotgun' approach makes sense
        for many, who are trying to address near-range
        needs of customers on a limited budget. What
        we're hoping to see is a 'sniper rifle' solution
        that specifically focuses on providing a very
        good calendaring solution - in fact, Kees and

      • The really important feature is that your server must play with MS Outlook clients as well as with the OSS ones (Ximian, KOffice, ...).

        The point is that groupware is mainly useful for (large) businesses. You will not get everyone to migrate to a Linux/OSS desktop together (some will never move), so your server must be able to work with the legacy MS Outlook.

        You can either pretend to be an exchange server, or write your own MAPI module to plug into outlook - this seems to be the way that others are doing

  • Almost nine of 10 execs say Microsoft hasn't done enough to promote Windows-Linux compatibility...
    Wow.

    Maybe that is a statistically insignificant figure, but I am surprised that anybody expects MS to be compatible with anything (other than MS software, of course).

    These managers are either stupid or way ahead of their time. I am hoping for the latter.

  • The most interesting statistic coming out of this survey from the POV of an OSS advocate is certainly the "Confidence in open-source development model" option that was a tad below 40%, while "Confidence in Microsoft's business model" was a tiny little natch below 20%. Interesting conclusion could be drawn from that figure about the relative perception of the OSS vs CSS development model.

    Also, one of the ad displayed while I was browsing the article was quite ironic IMHO. It was a Microsoft ad claiming th

  • Watch the Graphs (Score:3, Interesting)

    by LuYu ( 519260 ) on Sunday October 19, 2003 @02:53PM (#7255534) Homepage Journal

    Wow, the graphs from the article are kind of scary. The Windows Worries graph's first item is 80% of "business-technology professionals" are concerned with software quality issues or vulnerabilites in Windows. However, on the Linux Concerns graph, the first item is only 40% of "business-technology professionals" are concerned that Linux lacks "a complete and fully integrated software environment".

    While anybody would agree that 40% is less than 80%, the two charts are the same width, and a casual glance would certainly give the impression that people are more concerned with Linux problems than with Windows problems. This is disturbing since there are no Linux concerns that exceed 50% with the interviewed "business-technology professionals" while there are three concerns that exceed 50% of the same group with Windows.

    It appears that "business-technology professionals" are more concerned with Windows than Linux, but the graphs are set up to give the opposite impression. Is this another case of spin-doctoring? Or is Linux just a casualty of aestheticism?

  • The MS man: Taylor, predictably, wasn't impressed. "The Linux stack is more of a cobbled-together set of things," he concludes. "They do their integration through people."

    Damn right! Linux gives jobs back to people, where it's supposed to be. Linux doesn't outsoursce your job to someone in India who answers your problems only if he can find the answer on a list.

Slashdot Top Deals

Business is a good game -- lots of competition and minimum of rules. You keep score with money. -- Nolan Bushnell, founder of Atari

Close