Microsoft Rolls Out New Anti-Linux Ad Campaign 999
Anonymous Coward writes "Microsoft has launched a new ad campaign that purports to give 'objective third-party information' comparing Windows to Linux." See the ad campaign website for more, uh, facts.
How is this objective? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How is this objective? (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO! SCO! SC... errr... TCO! TCO! TCO! (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, and these guys [ibm.com] don't know WTF they're talking about!
Re:SCO! SCO! SC... errr... TCO! TCO! TCO! (Score:5, Insightful)
A disinterested third party probably don't even exist, but don't pretending IBM is unbiased, and that their whitepapers, etc. aren't filled with marketing bias as well.
Re:SCO! SCO! SC... errr... TCO! TCO! TCO! (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps, but any respectable IT professional will recall Microsoft's "history" and lovely business practices, especially with their hate for Linux and keep that in consideration when reading this FUD (or should I more appropriately say: BS)
However, as akedia has previously mentioned... the problem lies in the advertising to upper management.
Re:SCO! SCO! SC... errr... TCO! TCO! TCO! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, because after all, IBM's "history" is flawless, right? I mean, no one has ever gone after IBM for being an abusive monopolistic player. </sarcasm>
Note: I'm not saying that this study funded by Microsoft and published by IDG is definately unbiased. I'm only saying that Microsoft isn't the first (and I doubt it will be the last) company to promote "research" such as this.
Why this marketing campaign wont work (Score:5, Insightful)
But a lot more believable.
First, IBM didn't lie in court and didn't fake evidence.
Then, IBM stands for reliability and predictability, which is exactly what the industry wants today, after years of constant worm-attacks. Microsoft on the other hand stands for unreliability, unsecurity and arrogance.
IBM's position is quite easy: Just ask the manager how much money they lost last year on Worms/viruses and sell them the Worm-resistant Linux. (Yes I say resistant, all morons please note that resistant does not equal proof)
Microsoft became big offering products that were cheap and "good enough".
Microsoft told the managers for YEARS how much money they can save in hardware costs by dumping Unix and going for Intel. Now all of the sudden Microsoft changes it's mind and proclaims that initial costs (like hardware and licensing costs) are irrelevant and starts to put forth dubious TCO-studies?
This campaign will backfire, it will just encourage managers to get more information about that Linux-thing that gives the previously thought invincible Microsoft so much grief.
Re:Why this marketing campaign wont work (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with this completely. Even bad press is good press right?
Now that Microsoft itself is acknowledging Linux as a viable alternative to Windows and Microsoft, even if they claim it's "more expensive" somehow, it does get more mindshare into the Linux front.
People will remember Linux the next time their server does something stupid because of a Microsoft bug. People will remember the name Linux when the next big worm spreads around.
The thing is, TCO isn't everything either. People and businesses don't always buy the cheapest, they also (*gasp*) buy what will work, what has staying power, and what they can control.
So, even if somehow Linux is more expensive with "TCO" which I personally disagree with, this is good for Linux in general.
The same rings true for SCO. "Linux couldn't have gotten this good without stealing our code" they say. Of course, once their suit is finished and we continue on our merry way, the fact will still remain "linux has gotten very good."
Re:Why this marketing campaign wont work (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure they have, as you already pointed out.
However, I don't remember IBM ever "altering the deal" like Microsoft did by including EULA-changes into service packs.
I don't remember IBM constantly proclaiming random "strategies" that usually turn out to be vapor shortly afterwards. Remember "Hailstorm"?
I also don't remember IBM randomly dropping features and support for features. Remember how they cut Netscape-plugin support with a service pack in IE? Remember that Alpha/WinNT users had only one week warning before the Alpha version of WinNT was discontinued? And the whole situation got a lot worse with product activation. Microsoft has the right to deny anybody activation codes because they didn't made any guarantees about them.
IBM has shown their "dark side", yes. But they have always been predictable and reliable to a certain extent. If you have a Microsoft product, it can be altered/discontinued/made illegal ANYTIME without warning
Re:Why this marketing campaign wont work (Score:4, Interesting)
So, in other words, they want it.
Just because a consumer isn't thrilled with every aspect of a product doesn't mean it's not the best product available for their needs. If someone wants compatibility with large proprietary vendors, then they want microsoft.
By the way, I think the real distinction between a "want" and a "need", economically speaking, is that you need something general, and you want something specific. For example: you need food; you want steak. You need an OS; you want Microsoft Windows 2000.
Back to my original point, things people say and things people do are different. Somebody might feel like they want security, but when it comes down to it nobody will pay for it. Do you think people would pay an extra $150 for the OS, and an extra $100 for the email client, for the sake of security? How much would you pay? How much would the average network admin pay? How much would the average home user pay?
My estimation is that people would pay far less than it would cost Microsoft to actually design a secure platform.
By your definition, everyone wants everything. Heck, I "want" a mansion on the beach and a new 'vette. But I'm smart enough to not go around saying it until I have the money.
The original poster was talking about IBM and how people wanted security. He said that IBM could sell "worm resistant" linux. But I'm saying all the talk about security is just talk. The people who care about security now are the same people that cared about it before, and the worms changed nothing. The people who really care: banks, CIA, etc., never had their networks open to worms in the first place. Name me one CTO who announced that he would buy IBM and replace windows because of worm attacks. Nope, they complain and that's it. Whatever miniscule amount of money that people who care about security were willing to spend because of a few worms was spent on Microsofts month-o-security (or whatever they called it), which was also mostly talk.
Re:SCO! SCO! SC... errr... TCO! TCO! TCO! (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, IBM is hardly any more objective than Microsoft. They're rooting for an alternative to Microsoft, which makes them just as biased.
Erm, actually no. IBM is the most objective, and provably so. IBM makes money selling all sorts of software. They make a buttload selling Windows based servers and desktops. They also made teh MS monopoly possible.
IBM makes their own operating systems. AIX, OS/390, and they used to make OS/2. Every one of these systems is replacable by Linux. That makes Linux a competitor to IBM. IBM has spent billions and billions of dollars developing these systems. Thay have expertise and patents at every level of computing from the pc to the supercomputer. They have a lot to lose.
And yet, they chose to pump billions of R&D and marketing dollars into Linux. Why? Because IBM is fundamentally and engineering company, and engineers try to find the best tool for the job. Linux turned out to work best, so they are touting it for their customers.
Mainframe vs server, MS discovers cost diff! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:SCO! SCO! SC... errr... TCO! TCO! TCO! (Score:3, Funny)
Now you know what all the ohhing and ahhing was all about!
I wouldn't mind having that as a laptop!
Stupid Upper Management... (Score:5, Insightful)
What's the big deal? A company is making their own products look good. It's not the company's job to give an impartial, or even fair, review of it's own products - it's going to publicize and advertise what makes it look good, and ignore everything else.
Anyone buying a product, including a CTO, should understand this. Are there going to be some dumb CTOs who fall for the hype? Probably.
So what? If Linux *IS* really better, the people who are smart enough to realize it will save a buncha money, and their competitors who don't realize it will be spending a bunch of money, and businesses who run Linux will have a better chance at prevailing. That's what free enterprise is about.
If someone doesn't run Linux, that's no skin off anyone's back but their own. Let them pay for their poor choice and move on with your life.
Unless, of course, Windows DOES have a lower total cost of ownership, in which case if you're a Linux zealot, you might be pissy. But we all know that's not true, right?
Re:Stupid Upper Management... (Score:5, Interesting)
1) The more people start using Linux, the more chance that that's what I'm going to WORK with and on in the future. More fun work.
2) The bigger market share Linux gets, the more people will start taking Linux into consideration with products and services they supply. This means it gets easier for me as a Linux-using consumer to "be a part of the world". This is already getting easier and easier.
However, there are a few things I'm really afraid of, the most notable one is the various e-governement initiatives. I'm dead scared that these will be based on proprietary, Windows-only solutions, making it harder and harder to be a part of the society as a non-Windows-user.
This is the main reason that spreading the word of and furthering the acceptance of Linux is something that I engage in. Once we have true competition, and people have to start factoring in the non-Windows-users or lose significant business, I couldn't care less what people actually use. It's a free world.
Re:I have a dream... (Score:5, Informative)
They'd had consultants in who had said they needed a network and had drawn up a Win 2k server / Win2k desktop / MSOffice set up. The second office was an expansion for the biz so the MD didn't feel like blowing the amount of cash specified at that time. To cap it, he'd also been using Linux for the previous year on his desktop while the minions ran 98 after KAK.worm, SirCAM and a couple of others had bollocks'd up his PC (he got all the office e-mail) despite McAffee virus guard which was subcribed and kept up to date daily.
Anyhows, we ended up with Mandrake 8.2 on server and all the desktops except one which had a 5 year legacy of Quicken accounts. Their database was CSV'd and loaded into MySQL and OO.Org provided the front end. The whole lot took about 12 hours to set up and it's been running flawlessly for the last year with Mandrake Update Robot taking care of updates, Postfix handling the mail and NIS/NFS/Samba doing the file sharing. Their firewall runs IPCop and connects them via ADSL.
Initally, OO.org gave us a couple of glitches until V1.03 which was stable enough. OO 1.1 works fine and retraining was minimal which was surprising when 3/4 of the users are in their 50's and used Works and MSOffice in the past. Once broadband hits the MDs home village, we'll be running an OpenVPN tunnel to his house so he can work from home.
All this and we still hadn't billed him as much as the bill for the software he'd have bought to do the same things using Windows. Maintainence costs are kept low partly by remote admin saving us the cost of going to the office (unless the DSL goes tits up) and the auto update. Mandrake 9.2 is on the cards now that support for 8.2 is off so I suspect we may break the initial 2k quote soon but if it performs as well as 8.2 has with no viruses, no crashes and minimal intervention on our part I don't see that lasting long.
If there is a problem with this customer, it's mainly that we get called in so few times that apart from the initial setup, we didn't make much money from them.
Re:Stupid Upper Management... (Score:5, Insightful)
What value do you place on your vital company and customer data? How do you buy back the loss of trust after your systems have been compromised and your customers denied services while you repair damage?
I don't believe the TCO is more, but even if it was, it's not always the best solution to base the entire decision on price. If anyone's PHB has a nasty habit of swallowing everything Microsoft says, it might be a good idea to point out some of the recent security problems exploited in Windows products. Note, there is a difference between exploited problems, and vulnerabilities that are discovered and immediately broadcast so that corrective action can be taken before the exploit surfaces. It might actually be a better idea to have a fellow PHB from a big Linux service provider such as Redhat or IBM do the talking.
Re:Stupid Upper Management... (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, but it does impact other users. IF Windows is inferior (er
Let's say (God forbid) that you really loved Crystal Pepsi. You can buy it all you want and drink it and love it, but if nobody else buys it, the product will be discontinued and you'll end up losing a product you enjoyed because the market moved that way. Yeah, it's the way of the world, and that economics and free enterprise, but that doesn't mean we won't lose a potentially better product in the process.
Re:Stupid Upper Management... (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't really matter, actually.
A CTO willing to swallow everything as obviously biased as this is already running Windows.
Seriously: What does Microsoft have to win here? All they do is pour gas into the whole Windows vs. Linux debate which can't help them (because the question is always are the switching costs worth it. Once you made the jump Windows is out forever.).
Re:How is this objective? (Score:5, Interesting)
1) Smart companies with IT directors who can actually do the job of those under them to a good extent.
2) Smart companies who actually listen to their IT directors.
When companies hire managers who do nothing but manage yet don't understand (read: haven't done) the job of the folks they manage, you get problems. When company CEOs like to micromanage the company instead of leaving decisions to other, more qualified people specialized in their field, you get problems.
I think with the economy on the rise, with companies trusting IT more since the 90's and realizing IT's place in a corporation, and with companies with over-protective, over-bearing and witless gits in management learning that this is a bad thing, we might begin to see changes in the effect of this kind of FUD.
Of course I could be quite incorrect and nothing will change.
Re:How is this objective? (Score:5, Insightful)
To survive in the server market Microsoft will have to adapt or die. I dont think marketing could save them here. Even giving away their software won't save them.
Basically I'm saying that solid technology with extensive grassroots support can and will eventually beat out any marketing campaign. You just have to give it time.
Re:How is this objective? (Score:5, Informative)
In my position the total cost of downtime is orders of magnitude greater than the cost of operation. If the plants is down for one day, it represents enough money to buy a thousand servers running the most expensive software you could buy. (If the OS were Linux you could probably afford ten thousand servers).
Re:How is this objective? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How is this objective? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How is this objective? (Score:4, Informative)
The cost of the last few months of Microsoft patch updates was about 30 minutes per PC. The TCO impact of patching every machine is huge and I bet its not included in Microsoft's numbers.
In this case, thin clients rule!!! (even microsoft--actually citrix-- ones)
Fitting cartoon (Score:5, Funny)
Re:How is this objective? (Score:5, Funny)
Tell you what. The job is yours. If it doesn't work out we can just go our separate ways. What's the worst that could happen?
Not only that (Score:5, Funny)
No warranties? Where's Laura Didio when you need her?
Oh, and don't use so many caps Microsoft, it's lame.
Re:How is this objective? (Score:5, Funny)
"If these people told you 'Wolverines make good house pets' would you believe that too?"
That file has the most damning criticism of Linux (Score:5, Funny)
Check it out, it is surely going to be Microsoft's biggest gun.
They could have done worse... (Score:3, Funny)
WINTEL!?!?!?! (Score:3)
Objectivity my arse (Score:4, Interesting)
That is, of course, if the results go the way they wish. They didn't, and we argued and argued, and then were shown the NDA which clearly stated that if they aren't happy with it, we can go shove it up our arses. We were told we could "re-run" the tests, see if things changed, they suggested we made a mistake and so on. I just stood up and walked right out of the office while an exec was explaining this. I couldn't believe it. So, a warning:
YOU GET ZERO MONEY UNLESS YOU DO THE TEST IN THEIR FAVOUR.
What kind of objectivity can you expect?
Here's a little NDA violation:
We found out FreeBSD scales 3 times better than windows 2000 advanced server.
Fuck you Micro$oft.
Re:Objectivity my arse (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Objectivity my arse (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Objectivity my arse (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Objectivity my arse (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Objectivity my arse (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Objectivity my arse (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Objectivity my arse (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Objectivity my arse (Score:5, Funny)
We found out FreeBSD scales 3 times better than windows 2000 advanced server.
Sorry, but I'd love to see them sue you.
Headline: Microsoft sues their former researchers for disclosing that free software operating system is "3 times better" than Windows.
Re:Objectivity my arse (Score:5, Funny)
Don't you mean '...for dislosing that dead software operating system is "3 times better"...'
;-)
Re:Objectivity my arse (Score:5, Interesting)
It would really suck to have your Ph.D. discredited because you did something like this, NDA or no NDA, contract or no contract.
Always remember, when doing research: Lab notes are admissible in court. I'd say, signing a contract that binds you to an agreement that you will falsify results, is already a sufficient ethical violation to sully your career. Before you've even done the deed.
Re:Objectivity my arse (Score:3, Interesting)
However, while I certainly believe the quoted test results I think we need a little more evidence. Like maybe the name of your company?
Or how about posting the test results somewhere (anonymously of course)?
Or even just some details on the testing methodology...
Thanks!
Over 5 years ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Where was Linux in 1998? Not even close to where it is today. If you compared Linux and Windows over the next 5 years, the TCO would favor Linux over Windows hands down.
Re:Over 5 years ? (Score:3, Interesting)
I also like the study that compares the cost of using Linux mainframes to WinTel boxes. I think even a pointy haired boss would realize the apples to oranges comparison going on...
Re:Over 5 years ? (Score:5, Interesting)
What I *really* want to know, is where IDC keeps the time machine, because, if I count right, Windows 2000 was released less than 5 years ago making this study temporally improbable.
Re:Over 5 years ? (Score:3, Interesting)
Most small businesses have an external consulting firm setup their Windows servers and install them. Then the internal sysadmin just has to sit there and watch funny graphs and what not - but not really to think.
There are also Windows SysAdmins who know what they are doing. However, IMHO, only about 25% of all Windows SysAdmins really have a handle on what is going on...
For companies that use Linux, usually the internal sysadmins are more savvy and
It is nice to know MS cares (Score:5, Funny)
If one fact CAN be found here... (Score:5, Insightful)
There was a time not too long ago when Microsoft barely recognized the existence of Linux.
Now they are actively trying to steer customers away from Linux.
To me, that speaks volumes!
Re:If one fact CAN be found here... (Score:5, Interesting)
Absolutely. I deal with marketing people a lot and they generally say that baseing a campaign on trashing your competitors products is a big no-no. It can backfire badly. The fact that they are doing this demonstrates that they feel they don't have any other effective marketing weapons against Linux - i.e. promoting their products on their own merits isn't working so well these days.
Re:If one fact CAN be found here... (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft knows that above anything else, Linux wins in the price of obtaining it (~free).
They know that it's only a matter of time before Linux server management becomes easy enough for uncertified sysadmins to manage them at the same cost as managing a Windows server environment. (some might argue that time is right now).
Even more, Microsoft knows that, somewhere between now and Longhorn's release, someone out there probably will come out with a Linux client desktop
This indicates they are scared... (Score:5, Insightful)
The MS Information Minister continues his work... (Score:5, Funny)
Facts Businesses Care About (Score:3, Interesting)
Fact #2: Linux doesn't lock you into license agreements.
Fact #3: Linux is Free!
Fact #4: Multiple venders means if one company charges too much for support, go shopping.
Fact #5: Linux is Free!
And, from what I've seen in various offices, that's pretty much the argument. And guess what? Most often, I've heard "Well, let's just put a Linux box in there, and maybe replace it later when we have to."
"Replace is later" often becomes "never" after a few months anyway.
Re:Facts Businesses Care About (Score:3, Interesting)
"Replace is later" often becomes "never" after a few months anyway.
We have some linux boxes as samba servers that have 900+ day uptimes. Pretty good for computers that cost about $800 when new, sit in poorly ventilated custodial closets, and have brooms and mopbuckets sitting on them. By contrast,
I'm just shocked... (Score:5, Interesting)
that the documents are in .PDF instead of .doc. Of all the document formats to put it in, they put it in one that they don't support in their OS or office suite.
Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics (Score:5, Interesting)
"Microsoft delivers 25% lower development and support costs!"
"Window is 11-22% more cost effective!"
Did you know that 90% of all statistics are made up?
And how do you measure risk? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sure there's a formula, but I'm sure M$ isn't factoring RISK into their calculations.
Local economy (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, many businesses will feel good about 33% lower labor costs. That's over a 5 year cycle tho. So, you've generally got higher first year costs with most of that money leaving the local economy (unless you live in Redmond). Then, year after year, you can pay people in your area (employees) less money. Paying somewhat more to employees over 5 years ensures they've got money to spend - primarily locally (usually within the state at least) as well as pay more taxes (not just income taxes, but taxes on the local services).
Effectively, MS is arguing to simply extract money from local economies and pay people less. Short term, that may be fine. Long term, it only hurts. Schools/governments/etc should be *vary* cautious about this, if not downright hostile.
We shoud start a a new Open Source company called (Score:3, Funny)
The Nemesis of MicroSoft.
Re:We shoud start a a new Open Source company call (Score:3, Funny)
Just in your case....
The sound of a dying dinosaur (Score:5, Interesting)
The only people who will believe this are the Microsofties and their sales team.
I used to work for a large corporation that was failing. It was being taken apart and broken up by the banks and its creditors. Every week we had the same press releases.
"Business is better than ever" or Profits are Up over last year".
We had those till the last guy in the press release department was finally canned.
It does not make them sound better, only scared.
Total nonsense, but you probably knew that already (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's my favorite...one of the papers is called:
"Lower Windows Staffing Costs Provide a TCO Advantage over Linux"
I'd read it, but it'd probably give me a headache. I mean, how in the world could they possibly tell me that having to have MSCE guys in the building 24-7 just to keep the net up and worm free is less expensive than Linux?
I don't think staffing costs are the best argument to demonstrate windows superior TCO. Kinda like using Little Big Horn to demonstrate Custer's tactical ability.
Weaselmancer
Re:Total nonsense, but you probably knew that alre (Score:3, Interesting)
UNIX jobs went for much more 50-60k easily for small installations, and although you had to be careful not to get a piker, they were far more intelligent -- could do scripting, perhaps some basic perl scripts, and o
Gotta love the stretched out Microsoft logo... (Score:4, Funny)
Interesting... (Score:3, Informative)
Taking one look at that site, M$ sure took notice of that report.
-t
Re:Interesting... (Score:3, Informative)
It's Halloween 7 [opensource.org]
-t
Windows vs Linux facts (Score:4, Informative)
their worldwide data center. We kept logs of server
outages. Windows-based servers had at least 10
times more failures than any non-Windows servers.
I didn't see that fact listed on the Microsoft site.
You Can Stop Reading At... (Score:5, Insightful)
From the "Get the Facts" site:
A study of total costs of ownership over five years for working corporate infrastructure shows that lower staffing expenses are a large part of an 11-22% cost advantage for Windows. For file-server workloads in particular:
Staffing expenses were 33.5% better. Training costs were 32.3% better.
Heh.. translation... Micromonkies are a dime a dozen because they don't actually have to know anything to get their "certification". I'd love to see somebody try to price out a clueful Microtech once. I'm sure the prices aren't too much cheaper than a *nix admin. One time, I actually had to sit and explain how a web server works to one of our "affordable" Microsoft certified admins here. That was probably the most pathetic point in both of our careers...
Another tasty quote from "Get the Facts":
Microsoft-sponsored benchmarks prove...
I don't understand this at all. How can people take this crap seriously? That's like having McDonald's sponsor a study on the overall health value of its food. Are there actually people so monumentally STUPID in this world that they would believe a study sponsored by an organization with a vested interest in a certain outcome? We must find these people and run them down like animals before they breed!
What amazes me most, I believe, is that there really are people that horrendously dumb and, yet, we've managed to evolve to this point.... now these people are managers and they tie our evolution in red tape, so the human race is pretty much fucked from this point on....
Um Excuse Me.... (Score:5, Funny)
AHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!!
BLAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAH!!!!
BEAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Forgot One: (Score:4, Funny)
Jean Bozman, Al Gillen, Charles Kolodgy, Dan Kusnetzky, Randy Perry, and David Shiang IDC
A study of total smells of delevopers over five years for working corporate infrastructure shows that lower staffing smells are a large part of an 811-922% cost advantage for Windows. For teams of 4-8 developers in particular:
Well, Don Quixote said it... (Score:4, Insightful)
sign we're going in the right direction."
Obligatory Gandhi quote, updated: (Score:3, Funny)
2. They laugh at you.
3. They fight you.
4. You win.
5. Profit!
Great choice of words... (Score:5, Funny)
If you don't know what I'm talking about, consider this. If it's 20 degrees outside, and it's twice as cold at your friend's house, how cold is it there?
To quote another /.'er... (Score:5, Insightful)
Tests are very circumstance specific. (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft outlines three reasons for Windows being cheaper than Linux.
These are:
1.Lower staffing expenses
2.More efficiency per dollar with WinTel than with a Linux Mainframe.
3.Reduced development costs on Windows.
Number one may or may not be true depending on your circumstances. However, it has little to do with the technical performance of Linux and more to do with people's familiarity with Windows over Linux. However, as I'm still downloading the PDFs I can't comment on their sources for this. I will say that if true on the whole, then it is certainly a situation that will change rapidly even over 2004. I will also say that it is very specific to the company involved. There are plenty of companies out there that are more familiar with *NIX than with Windows and for these people the situation would be reversed.
2. I can't comment on this one too easily either until the report is downloaded, but this seems a flawed reason. The summary on the Microsoft report states
--- $40.25 per megabit of throughput per second.
---$1.79 per peak request per second.
I don't know if these are averages of different systems or what, but to give a figure like this, with no comparison figure for the Linux system (or specs on the Linux system, was it Apache, how was it configured etc) is of dubious value. I would have thought that the areas limited by cost on your server were in the bandwidth / network infrastructure against which server speed was unlikely to hold you back. Please also note that these are using Microsoft benchmarks.
3.This is an equally dubious claim. I have developed on both Windows and UNIX platforms and I can testify to the ease of use of Visual Studio, but not
To summarize, there is a lot of 'it depends,' involved in these tests.
Mainframe Linux Study (Score:5, Informative)
1) IBM Z900 (AIX,fully loaded), $470,$899
2) IBM Z900 (AIX,half the memory), $244,416
3) IBM Z900 (Linux pricing), $393,163
4) Windows Server 2003 (2 x 900 MHz Xeon), $25,440
And then proceded to examine a cost per request table. Which showed the Windows 2003 Server clearly winning. Of course the Win2k machine will win a benchmark where the other machines are clearly designed for a different purpose.
They Forgot Downtime (Score:5, Insightful)
So why would anyone still run mainframes?
Oh, that's right - downtime on a WinTel server is still 100 times more expensive than Linux Mainframes.
Where I sit, the average cost of staff is around $45/hour. With 100 people in our organization dependent on mainframe access, when our mainframe goes down, it costs us $4500 per hour.
If we were using WinTel servers for our datacenter, even a single hour of downtime would double the TCO. Even 5 minutes of lost productivity would cost us $375 - and double the cost of Windows. The weekend the Blaster worm hit, for instance, cost a certain well-known local insurance company $50,000. And that was just over the weekend. Total cleanup is expected to cost more than a million dollars!
We can't afford viruses. We can't afford mandatory updates. We can't accept arbitrary updates which change the EULA. Even a single hour of downtime per year is one too many.
Microsoft just doesn't get it. Hardware and Software licensing costs, and even staffing, are far from Total Cost of Ownership. System downtime is the single largest factor in the "real" TCO - something that Microsoft conveniently forgets.
The guy in charge is the new "anti-Linux" guy. (Score:3, Funny)
Why is this new "anti-Linux" guy Taylor trying all the same "anti-Linux" PR campaign tactics that didn't work before? I'd even swear that some of these were the same white papers MS released last year.
New campaign,
Old campaign,
Still sounds the same,
BURMA SHAVE.
Remember Coke vs. Pepsi? (Score:5, Interesting)
Back during the "Take the Pepsi challenge" commercials, Pepsi's entire ad campaign was focused on how much better they are then Coke. A sure sign that Coke was beating them in the marketplace.
So is this the equivelant of Microsoft doing a Pepsi?
First they laugh at you (Score:3, Interesting)
"First they laugh at you, then ten they ignore you, then they fight you and then you win"
First they laugh at you --- Linux 0.** huh? that's funny.
then they ignore you -- Linux 1.** Who cares it is only for geeks, and it is only replacing othe unix
then they fight you -- Linux 2.** We can prove that windoze is better
they you win -- Linux 3.**???
THESE are the facts, Yes Ma'am (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the path of the Facts Against Linux document is very interesting.
Doing a pseudo-Google like analysis you see that the main site is of course the Microsoft.com Then is a major folder MS Corp. Then, BAM - the facts.
No sub directories under MS Corp like misc, or not-really-important, or small-fry, or oh-by-the-way, and neither is this one of their numbered documents. The first document on FACTS under MS Corp is comparison with Linux.
It may be reading tea leaves but as someone who likes to design directory structures with some logic - What does it mean to me ? It means M$ is paying big time attention to Linux. And I am sure if someone in the near future did a search in Google on "Facts about Microsoft Corporation" - this will be the first document that will show up in exclusion to almost everything else about M$. Linux is now officially in the Crosshairs of the biggest guns at MSCorp. Amen.
So . . . (Score:5, Funny)
The right curves have to be matched ... (Score:5, Interesting)
5 years ago, it was early 1999. Linux existed, and more than existed -- it was already nicely stable and robust, had inspired some print journals and ongoing festivals (ok, we call them "conventions" and "expos" but c'mon
Now, not that the curves are easy to define, but if you could match up (in your own domain, naturally) the Windows curve of improvement vs. the Linux curve, what would you find? Has Windows gotten better as quickly (for your uses) as Linux has? Do you believe that in another (1,3,5) years that Windows will either remain or have become "better" than Linux for your application?
And Yes, I mean "GNU/Linux" and more to the point GNU/Linux/X/Apache/Perl/Python/KDE/GNOME/OpenOffi
This ignores Mac OS X or other Unix varieties of course, and does not get into the fact that "Windows" describes a gurgling sea of related, slightly different operating systems
timothy
The sting is not where you think it is (Score:3, Insightful)
So decision makers will look elsewhere.
What you forget is that the ``leading IT publications'' get a large part of their revenue from advertising. Very often when you see some full page adverts you will see ``editorial'' on a closely related topic in the same issue - surprisingly the views of the advertiser just happen to be supported.
It is this more subtle ``information provision'' that will have the bigger impact. The up front adverts are a distraction.
I just emailed my customer contacts (Score:5, Insightful)
----email below-------
You've been wondering when Linux will become mainstream enough for you to use it extensively in your organizations: I think you'll be interested in this recent response by Microsoft. When you have to buy research that says you have a better product, and the research companies need to skew the comparisons so heavily that it's obvious an apples-to-apples comparison would reflect unfavorably on the product you're pushing, the market has already made its choice; and then it's only a matter of time.
http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/facts/default.a
My restatements of the "facts:"
1. FROM IDC: it's cheaper to hire someone straight out of college who earned an MCSE in an online training course than it is to hire someone with 5 years of real-world Unix/Linux sysadmin experience. Especially if all you consider is the direct compensation those people recieve, and you don't include the costs associated with systems downtime, security breaches, and the ratio of sysadmins to machines, which is typically lower than 1:20 in windows environments and 1:50 or higher in unix/linux environments.
2. FROM META: it's cheaper to buy 5 or 6 $5000-per-box commodity 4U windows servers than it is to buy a $470,000 proprietary RISC 42U mainframe, even if the software that runs on the mainframe costs you nothing extra. Especially when you don't consider the costs associated with downtime, redundancy, security, or the cost of buying new software for your six commodity boxes every 3 years. And never mind comparing the performance of free software on those same six commodity boxes- that's beside the point.
3. FROM GIGA: you can save development money by forcing all of your customers to upgrade so that their systems are compatible with yours. And if your customers don't want to upgrade, they don't really need to buy your stuff anyway.
all of these so-called "market research analyst" jokers should be ashamed to have their names associated with such obvious distortions of reality. I hope we never have to resort to this kind of chicanery to prove our value to our customers.
Wintel vs. Mainframe (Score:5, Interesting)
Why, they've ripped off a /. Troll (Score:5, Funny)
Is it just me, or does the whole ad sound like the marketing department reworked a "Netcraft confirms it: BSD is dying" troll?
Trademarks (Score:5, Insightful)
Silver lining (Score:4, Interesting)
What's significant and encouraging is that Microsoft has moved from worrying about servers to worrying about *everything*.
From a related article [eweek.com]: In his platform-strategist role, Taylor succeeds Peter Houston, senior director of Microsoft's Windows Server Strategies, as chief Linux watcher. "Pete was more focused on server, but I'm more cross-group focused, and focused on the whole Microsoft software stack," Taylor said.
I other words, they are realizing they are in more trouble than they thought.
Hate to be the voice of the apathetic... (Score:5, Interesting)
We all realize that the success of Linux has not been because Linux has a large marketing arm that allows Linux Open Source Developers to produce a weak product and make up for it with pretty little catch-phrases like "Do more with Less!" (Windows Server 2003...I kinda though it was less too).
Allow me to admit something (Without being lit on fire). I was a huge Microsoft Advocate up until about 2 years ago. I argued with all of you "*nix People" until my keyboard wore out. I laughed at all of you who said it was better, faster, more reliable, and scoffed at the notion of Microsoft being an indestructable Monopoly. But yet, today, I sit in front of my Gentoo Linux based OS, running KDE, viewing Slashdot on Konquerer (something just couldn't get me away from browsers integrated into operating systems). Why? Because it works better, I can run my one copy on all of my computers without paying for it, and I genuinly like the Linux Experience over that of the Windows Experience (Hey, I can run an FTP server, mail server, file server, and still browse the internet without paying for a server based license).
Linux *never* provided me any kind of candy coated marketing slogans or white papers. Microsoft did. And they're only doing this because they realize that Marketing is the one place where they can over-power Linux. Too bad marketing doesn't run my computer.
Honestly, from my perspective the learning curve was difficult (still is, actually), and it is harder to find lower-wage technical staff that can troubleshoot Linux...but that's only because Microsoft has the operating system that is on most peoples' computers. It's not always going to be like that, and it appears to be trending in a direction away from MS. What in the heck are they going to do when they can no longer depend on support staff being unfamiliar with Linux?
When people realize that their next Windows is going to give more control to the Software Vendors and Content Providers than it gives to the user as it "Checks in" to ever-more-common Activation Code systems on the Internet to make sure you're not stealing crap that isn't worth what they want to charge you for it in the first place...how is Microsoft going to market their way out of it? It's doubtful that they will be able to depend on their "Hey, what other choice do you have?" attitude anymore.
But from my perspective: I don't treat my OS with any more reverence than I treat my toaster. I don't care who runs it, I don't care who doesn't. There's plenty of software for it, plenty of reasons I wouldn't run anything else, and I think others would agree regardless of what a Microsoft Sponsord report from IDC says. Linux is like a virus. We got the "brass" to allow us to install one of them into our shop about 2 years ago. Everyone was so happy with its performance that now we have several and are planning to move ever more important enterprise based functions in that direction.
TCO crap. (Score:4, Insightful)
This TCO crap is really really starting to get annoying. Who cares about TCO when your locked into proprietary software that is probably not standards based that crashes all the time. What about cascading network security meltdowns. Did they factor in the costs of the network being taken over by Virii and Trojans once or twice a year because Martha open up a bad email attachment?
What these studies always mention is that its going to cost you quite a bit more to find Linux people than Windows people. What they fail to mention is that a good Linux person will normally have the knowledge and skill set that makes most MCSEs look like pre-schoolers. Don't you want the best people possible? Isn't investing in a competent employee worth the extra 10k to 20k per year? It is, here is why.
A typical Linux guy is going to be versed in network security, advanced firewall techniques, databases, multiple programming languages, a solid grasp of computer science concepts, how to leverage the outdated hardware and old systems, how to basically do more with less, NOT just what he learned in MCSE class. They usually have experience with a very wide range of enterprise level software as well, simply because its always been free for them. They are very good at thinking on their toes and have a knack for gluing different systems and interfaces together using simple scripts and programs they write.
So, the point being, one good Linux guy can start working at a small business and completely change they way they do business by using open source software, possibly saving the company huge amounts of money in the long run, not just on the current project but everywhere in the company.
My take on their three points (Score:4, Insightful)
Lower maintenance costs?
I really doubt it. To fully automate system operations you need considerable freedom to customize it, otherwise you waste all of your time on repetitive tasks. By definition Linux systems are more customizable than Windows and therefore better automated. Linux wants to be understood and modified, Windows doesn't, except within well defined boundaries.
Also, Microsoft has many non-technical interests in their products, which often results in technical tradeoffs being made which all increase maintenance hassles. They're no different from other proprietary software companies in this respect.
Cheaper than a mainframe running Linux instances?
No doubt it is. The question is, who the hell does this? Very few people, this is a comparisen to an IBM offering, not Linux on x86 servers.
25% faster development time?
It always bothers me when people try to deterministically measure software development. I'd completely disregard this point as irrelevant.
Re:Hey Michael (Score:4, Funny)
as a poster, this is your job.
Re:Hey Michael (Score:5, Informative)
Alright, then, here's a few:
Don't get me wrong. I use MS products every day and I actually think they are a great company despite their severe attitude problems and tendency to play hardball viciously.
But this material is far from the last word on the subject.
Now, show me someone who has documented lower TCO at the same uptime level and load and maybe you've got something.
Re:low windows staffing costs (Score:3, Funny)
Re:gotta love quotes like this one! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a pretty fun quote, and implies quite a lot. Note that the "multiple WinTel Web servers" weren't compared to multiple Linux/Intel Web servers, which implies that no matter how the results were fiddled, and no matter what the distribution of Linux used, the benchmarks showed Linux outperformed Windows on Intel hardware.
So instead they compare the Windows setup to a "Linux mainframe acting as a Web server consolidator", because they can't get the results they want, any other way. Why else would they compare apples to oranges, unless there was no way to make the benchmarks favour Microsoft?
Re:Linux gaining momentum (Score:5, Interesting)
I think in their arrogance they are discounting the effectivness of Linux on a desktop (debate what you will, but depending on your tasks, its either there or darn close) and they'll realize it about the time their Longhorn sales are down 10-20%, and then they'll respond, which like in the server space, will be too little, too late.
They are too busy ignoring and hecking the amusing Penguin to notice it stealing their wallets.
Funny (Score:5, Funny)
Mozilla [mozilla.org]