Latest Ballmergram Bashes Linux TCO 680
Phoe6 writes "Microsoft chief executive Steve Ballmer has used the software giant's latest executive email to stoke up Microsoft's fight against the rise of Linux. The 2,600 word missive was titled 'Customer focus: comparing Windows with Linux and UNIX'. In it, Ballmer repeated the key themes of Microsoft's controversial Get The Facts campaign. Zdnet has its report here." Linuxworld also has a story.
read the words (Score:5, Insightful)
Whoda thunk that it'd be more expensive to entirely change your infrastructure from Windows to Linux than it would be to simply upgrade to a new version of Windows????? Wow! We should install Windows everywhere!
Who here also thinks it'd be just as expensive to convert from Linux to Windows?
From Linux to Windows (Score:5, Funny)
-Jesse
Fourth... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:From Linux to Windows (Score:5, Funny)
Re:From Linux to Windows (Score:3, Informative)
Please feel free to continue cracking on virus vulnerabilities, patching issues, lack of flexibility and even cost. But my experience is that people who crack on the stability of Win2K servers and above either don't use them or horribly misuse them. Real Win2k admins simply don't have an issue with s
Re:From Linux to Windows (Score:5, Informative)
Re:From Linux to Windows (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:From Linux to Windows (Score:5, Interesting)
This is actually a good response. But I would caution that when a network admin says "unstable" a user thinks "flaky" rather than "there are periods of planned downtime." So do other network admins. If Windows servers have more planned downtime (likely) then that can be clarified and quantified just fine without putting it under the blanket of "unstable" where it will be assumed something else is meant.
Our Windows servers have about the same uptime as the Netware servers sitting right next to them (no, not Suse based), but actually have less unplanned downtime. I'm not trying to crack on Netware, or anyone else, but if the servers are up unless we take them down on purpose then that's certainly not something I'd call "unstable", especially if the users is going to hear "flaky".
TW
Re:From Linux to Windows (Score:4, Funny)
Yes. suddenly all the windshields of flying aircrafts turned blue
Re:From Linux to Windows (Score:3)
This is definately a bummer for the USPS, but is hardly representative of Windows servers. The vast majority of servers we have only come down for patching and upgrades and some of them work damn hard and are on the public internet(our mail servers, for example). Our corporate web servers are not as high voume as the USPS, but they basically never go down unless i
Re:read the words (Score:5, Funny)
(Entire planet moves a fraction of an inch further away from the sun as millions of
Re:read the words (Score:3, Funny)
If all the septics* raised there hands towards the sun wouldn't that push the earth away from it for a moment?
(septic tank = yank, a charming bit of rhyming slang)
Re:read the words (Score:4, Interesting)
upgrade from one version of Windows to a newer release and nine out of 10 enterprise customers said that such a change wouldn't provide any tangible business gains.
Balmey wouldn't have meant it that way, would he?
Owooooooo!!!! (Score:3, Interesting)
What??? The initial change from any OS to any other OS would cost money? Don't they cover this sort of thing in economics 101?
Re:Owooooooo!!!! (Score:3, Funny)
Naaaah. He's a turd sandwich.
What do the words mean? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What do the words mean? (Score:5, Insightful)
Under the security part, maybe they should have mentioned something about the extra cost the first time the next big Windows virus/trojan/worm hits the scene. Or the cost of simply keeping up with security and bug fixes.
Its not what they say, its what they don't say.
Linux is cheaper, but not for the obvious reason (Score:5, Interesting)
Soon when environment laws are toughened further (in the EU they're becoming so) it will cost a lot of money to dispose of computer hardware and so the TCO of Windows will have to include the cost of hardware upgrades and disposal of old hardware.
If you're doing this twice as often as Linux then you're paying twice as much simply based on the hardware, never mind the upgrade process (installation of new hardware and software) and training (due to software interface changes).
All this and I've not even mentioned licenses.
Re:read the words (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, but that's beyond most companies concern since they don't upgrade that way, and therefore probably not seen as worth bringing up. Compare to analyzing a marriage between Elaine and LeChuck isn't even discussed, since that shouldn't be able to happen.
Oh drat! You already posted and can't mod!
Re:read the words (Score:5, Insightful)
schweeeeet! (Score:3, Funny)
I'm a tad offtopic... (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, I'm using Firefox...which I would think Linuxworld...being to promote Linux and such...would be formated in a way that Firefox/Mozilla wouldn't have a tough time reading. Yet, when I open the page in Internet Explorer, everything is fine.
Why is this? What's really going on over at Linuxworld? Is everything over there put together on Linux/Apache and other open source apps?
Just find it interestin
Re:read the words (Score:4, Insightful)
And nine out of 10 enterprise customers said that such a change wouldn't provide any tangible business gains.
That's the most important point by far. Sure, a company could spend millions of extra dollars and tons of extra time converting to Linux, but for what gain? We've been hearing for years how Linux provides exactly the same or similar capabilities as Windows-based counterparts. So, where's the gain? If it's 3-4 times more expensive to do the conversion, then that also means we can upgrade to the newest version of Windows 3 or 4 times and STILL not spend as much as it would cost to covert to Linux. Even with a liberal 2-3 product upgrade cycle for Windows, that means it would still take 6-12 years for an ROI. Most businesses don't plan that far in advance for ROI.
You've already conceded the point that it would be more expensive to convert an infrastructure from Windows to Linux, so then explain the gain? An ROI in 12 years? Yeah, take that to your CFO and see how quickly he jumps on it.
Re:read the words (Score:3, Informative)
I see many of you nodding your heads that this is true, but is it really? How many of you run Linux on something that wouldn't run WinXP? Sure, MS claims that XP will run on anything marginally better than a Sinclair ZX81. Experience says otherwise.
BUT, you can run a decent Linux installation with less. So if I don't have to
Ballmer wants to hear from you (Score:5, Informative)
If the evidence at our www.microsoft.com/getthefacts Web site doesn't sufficiently convey the benefits and value of the Microsoft platform, we want to hear from you so we can work even harder to get that information to you.
I can't wait to read the the response to his invitation.
Re:Ballmer wants to hear from you (Score:4, Funny)
Since no one sane replies to a MAKE MONEY FAST email, which is what his message is, the only entertainment to be gained from the replies will be of the rather sick kind people get from watching cripples fall dosn stairs.
Mind you, I'm pretty sick myself when it comes to humour...
Best part of the article (Score:3, Interesting)
About three years ago, we made software security a top priority
please... but i think they are starting to see Linux as a viable threat, thus the verbal out crys lately trying to defend themselves
Re:Best part of the article (Score:5, Funny)
About three years ago, we made software security a top priority
s/three years ago/ten years too late/
I agree, funny stuff (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, that takes the cake. But it's worded pretty cleverly, dontcha agree? "About three years ago, we made software security a top priority." Notice they don't say they've actually done anything about it, they just say they've made it "a priority". Hell, anyone can do that.
Beautiful piece of marketing doublespeak.
Re:Microsoft Security Focus (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd love to see microsoft sort out their security. It'd help the internet as a whole (all that pesky malware affects more than just windows users) and would make me feel a bit safer when I'm forced to use their OS at college and at wo
Re:Best part of the article (Score:3, Insightful)
If you check netcraft, you'll see that currently Apache is more popular a webserver than IIS. So, shouldn't Apache have more vulnerabilites issues that IIS?
However, I do agree with you on the group issue. However, I wonder if this is something that might be addressed with SElinux.
Groklaw (Score:4, Informative)
So does the FDIC (Score:5, Informative)
Re:So does the FDIC (Score:4, Interesting)
Real-world risk management is absolutely key with any OS or software suite, and that essay from the FDIC is spot-on. I might disagree with a few points, but overall it's quite accurate.
I also enjoy their summary which starts:Yep, that's exaclty what Ballmer is trying to convince you isn't so... so who do we trust on risk assessment, federal bank insurers or Microsoft? Heh.
Re:So does the FDIC (Score:3, Insightful)
Ballmer's strategy has some much more ominous undertone
Say it enough Times, It becomes Reality? (Score:3, Insightful)
--
Brandon Petersen
Get Firefox! [spreadfirefox.com]
It works and they are... (Score:3, Insightful)
This really works... for a recent example look no further than WMD... everyone suspected that it was bogus, but found the media campaign somehow compelling. Sad to say, marketting is very powerful
They should put more focus on developing secure software, than simply paying lip service to secure software.
It would be very naive to believe that a company (whose loyality is to shareholders), will sit st
Re:Say it enough Times, It becomes Reality? (Score:3, Insightful)
They're smarter than that. They do believe that if they say it often enough, people will start to think it's true. And for marketing, that's what counts - not reality, but what people think. Customers, especially.
Re:Say it enough Times, It becomes Reality? (Score:5, Insightful)
That only works if you say the same thing over and over again.
They should put more focus on developing secure software, than simply paying lip service to secure software.
Well, its in the article, and I immediately stopped reading after the quote:
He claimed that Windows was a better choice than Linux in terms of security
Please bear with me, I have had all of the microsoft related stuff filtered off of my homepage for years, but that nolonger seems to work, so here I am being a troll (see I said it now you have to mod me up).
Windows simply is not designed for security and where I work when we have "major problems" its from the microsoft side of the house, not the UNIX side.
Windows will run anything with the proper couple of letters appended to the end of the filename. UNIX has to have the executable bit set to it, regardless of the name, and no mailer that I know of will dump an executable file so that some luser can just click on it and wreck the LAN and up to a good part of the internet as a whole.
Windows comes with bunches of stuff turned on by default, and an unpatched system directly exposed to the internet is likely to be compromised in I believe 20 minutes now.
Windows uses the nebulously defined "current working directory" as the first search path for executables and libraries. Everyone else in the world knows the problem with this.
Windows must be used from a GUI that is tied to the OS (including a browser) which has caused a couple of problems in the past.
Windows still does not get multiuser/administrator stuff right.
Windows service packs/patches frequently break stuff, and take a considerable amount of time to test within an organization before being deployed.
I mean, windows is OK for my dad to use AOL to do whatever he does online. It doesn't crash too often on him, and its ok to run at home or on someone's desk where nothing really important is done with the machine or the data on it. I wouldn't suggest Linux for this kind of work at all. Using Macs would simply put too many IT people out of business. But when it comes to important stuff, people tend to look for more robust solutions. I don't see any microsoft based machines on the top 500 list. I don't know of any instance where important database kind of stuff is run off of windows. I'm sure there are some, because Oracle and whatnot "works" on windows, but I don't think its any accident that windows is the minority when it comes to server room kind of stuff, nor do I think its any kind of accident that windows is vastly the majority when it comes to desktop stuff.
Why can't MS figure out what they are good at and do that, instead of talking a bunch of shit and doing things half way? They are already the largest software company in the world, why don't they use these resources to be the best?
Re:Say it enough Times, It becomes Reality? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't work in a commercial environment, and don't plan to in some time unless its my company. I cannot fathom going back and having to write code based on budgets and release schedules. That whats so cool about startups and OSS. Money is not the goal, its a byproduct.
Hmm, isn't their a saying in a book somewher about the love of money and evil and stu
Windows TCO (Score:5, Interesting)
Since Tuesday, my DFS has been totally screwed up and not replicating. With Linux, you'd just look at a samba config file or something, but NOOO, not with AD and MS domains. I totally removed all of my replica sets and spent HOURS on google trying everything under the sun.
We ended up having to call Microsoft and paying $245 for the privilege. Well, in case you're wondering, yes they fixed DFS, but now my SysVol is marked as tombstoned. So yeah, my profiles are replicating, but now my SysVol is about to delete itself. Microsoft is trying to figure out WTF it is trying to delete SysVol and every time you set the flag to 0 it goes right back to one, regardless of whether or not you stop or start the File Replication Service(FRS). We had to totally blow everything away in LDAP with ADSI edit and in the registry under HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Drivers\NtFRS and DFS.
Anyway, I hate windows on a server, but you just don't have the same abilities on a Linux domain as you do on a windows domain with windows desktops. We used to have a samba domain, and we're transitioning to AD. I hope Ballmer gets to read this, preferably before my SysVol deactivates and deletes itself.
This message and SysVol will self-destruct in five seconds.
Re:Windows TCO (Score:5, Interesting)
I used to think it was Ok to run Windows on desktops. That was last year. This year, all the problems I've seen people have with their computers were problems they wouldn't have had, had they been running Debian.
Viruses, unexplicable slowness of the system, instability, unability to replace MSIE with a proper browser, missing or disfunctional drivers for video cards and printers, weird icons or images on the desktop that wouldn't go away, register corruption, the list goes on.
I really can't understand how people can work with such a system. OTOH, they can't understand how I can work with ratpoison, screen, mutt and vi, either.
Re:Windows TCO (Score:3, Interesting)
Ballmer mentions licensing indemnification because (as he mentions elsewhere) Microsoft recently removed the liabiliy cap on their products. I'll leave it to you to decide how relevant this feature is for other platforms.
He also makes it sound as
Re:Windows TCO (Score:3, Informative)
Have you considered that "DFS" might be a solution looking for a problem?
For example, from the DFS FAQ (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/techi n fo/overview/dfsfaq.mspx):
For example, if you have marketing files on multiple servers in a domain, you can use DFS to make it appear as though all of the marketing files are on a single server.
So why would you have marketing files on m
Nothing new here (Score:5, Insightful)
The lower TC (Score:4, Interesting)
2600 words? (Score:5, Funny)
^_^
Re:2600 words? (Score:4, Funny)
Developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers?
Something along those lines [ntk.net], anyhow.
Those clever journalists... (Score:5, Interesting)
Well they have to be...the simple viruses that invade windows machines wouldn't stand a chance against linux.
Also, they totally ignore to state the fact that the frequency of Linux viruses on Linux is pretty much null.
Re:Those clever journalists... (Score:3, Funny)
Executive Summary (Score:3, Funny)
Read between the lines. (Score:4, Interesting)
It's more expensive short-term to switch operating systems than to not switch? Shocker.
And nine out of 10 enterprise customers said that such a change wouldn't provide any tangible business gains.
And one of them said it would.
Did any of them say Windows was actually better? I doubt it - if any of them had, they would have mentioned it.
Training for IT employees was significantly higher for Linux than for Windows - on average, 15% more expensive. The reasons: training materials were less readily available, and customers spent more on training to compensate for the lack of internal knowledge about Linux.
There are more Windows admins out there. This surprises who?
So you've got #1, which basically says "If you're already running Windows, stick with it!" You've got #2, which says "If you're already running Windows, stick with it!" And you've got #3, which says "Right now, there's more people running Windows!"
Am I the only one who hears an undertone of "Please, please, for the love of God, keep using Windows"?
Microsoft's marketing, right now, is focused entirely on "Don't switch to Linux". Perhaps this is because many companies still use Windows. Or perhaps it's because they can't come up with plausible reasons to switch *from* Linux. But don't worry - we'll be seeing their first attempts in a year or two, I'll wager.
Re:Read between the lines. (Score:5, Funny)
Security vulnerabilities and TCO (Score:4, Insightful)
I wonder if their TCO figures include rebooting all your servers weekly to install new patches...
Oh, and let me guess... the Linux vulnerability count includes all issues found in an entire distribution, while the Windows count includes only the base OS. I'll bet we'd get a much more accurate picture if they included IIS, SQL Server, Outlook, etc.
MS is sweating (Score:5, Informative)
Seriously, this is just the marketroids doing their thing. When the accountants start warning [eweek.com] about threats from Linux, we know there's a real threat. Linux is getting mention in the latest annual filing [shareholder.com], too.
Balmer Shows that Open Source Works in the West (Score:5, Interesting)
The single biggest reason for the proliferation of open source software like Linux and Apache is that they are free to own. Most Westerners are relatively honest and do not pirate commercial software; the piracy rate is only about 15%. The sheer high cost of commercial software thus creates a market for free software like Linux and Apache.
Now, consider China (which includes Taiwan province and Hong Kong). The Chinese steal what they do not want to buy; the piracy rate is about 95%. In China, there is no market for open source software like Linux, for all software is free. Windows XP is "free".
TCO is not even an issue in China because Microsoft will not support pirated software. Chinese pirates get support for, say, Windows XP from other pirates; the behavior is similar to Westerners getting support from other open source supporters for Linux.
Consider the source (Score:5, Funny)
Spin city or Spin out of control? (Score:3, Interesting)
I feel that they both get the job done in different ways, and sometimes one is better than the other. We (the team who manage the servers at my place of employment) have been slowly introducing more and more Linux boxes, just because we can do more with the functions we are introducing them for. [Well, that and the fact that the security team is very Windows centric and can't crack these, much to their frustration and chagrin.
However, Ballmers contentions that Windows is just better are beginning to sound more like the ravings of a man demanding that the wind stop blowing.
As for the facts on the website? My college stats teacher proved that you could make the numbers say anything if you try hard enough.
Gandhi was right (Score:5, Insightful)
Then they laugh at you,
Then they fight you,
Then you win."
I'd say we're well into Stage 3.
Re:Gandhi was right (Score:5, Interesting)
Because each time it comes up it looks more and more like reality. I remember a long time ago when that was being quoted on Slashdot and things were firmly in the "ignore you" stage. People criticized the quote because (quite reasonably) just because someone was ignoring you was hardly a sign you were going to win.
Over time though the "ignore" slowly faded, and Microsoft was mostly mocking Linux as a laughable option written by pimply teenagers in their basements, so again out comes the quote, this time with a little more weight because things had actually made the predicted progression.
A year or two ago Microsoft kicked into gear with a serious range of attacks on Linux, and now they really are fighting it very bitterly even though they still dominate in market share. More and more people are seeing Linux as a viable option. More and more stories about Linux that get posted to Slashdot are, instead of appearing in Wired, eWeek, are from Time magazine or the Wall Street Journal. As the poster points out, presuming things follow this prediction (and they have remarkably well so far) we're well into stage 3, and winning isn't far off.
Of course it depends on what you mean by "win". Realistically, myself, I see winning as Linux gaining sufficient market share and respect to always be considered as a viable option by anyone looking at buying a computer. That's not 90% market share, and that's not crushing Microsoft, that's just crushing Microsoft's monopoly grip.
Jedidiah.
Real world example (Score:5, Interesting)
How do you respond to that, Ballmer?
wtf? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but nothing I've ever seen on Netcraft or anywhere supports your statement, in fact it directly contradicts it.
And, I would like an example of "integrate better with their internal MS databases and webservers"
Do you actually use any M$ based/proprietary connections/communications/protocols over the open Internet? Are you high? I'm sure *some* idiot companies are doing netbios rpc to *some* idiot web hoster, or MSSQL over the Internet, I mean I guess you're actually r
Business plan (Score:5, Funny)
FUD Response (Score:4, Insightful)
of note:
They only speak of conversion costs, never upkeep. Conversion is always expensive. Have them look at conversion plus 5 years.
Look at the cost of downtime. They do not mention what the cost is to the core business.
Cost of hardware.
The hardware needs for windows platforms is much more robust compared to platforms for Linux. That's another trick they do... they say, you need P4s and we need P4s... not really. My new server (i.e. jenny's old laptop) is running off of 128 mb of ram and 600 MHz. It is considered overpowered for command line only freebsd.
Their notes:
Few companies know what they're really spending. Only five of the 14 kept detailed metrics - and each of those five found Linux more expensive (5% to 20%) than their current Microsoft environments. => Which 5 companies? Cost is one thing, but what are the potential returns? I wont be running any ecommerce website on IIS. Those credit cards will be jacked so quick.
Preparation and planning activities took 5% to 25% longer for Linux than Windows. What are we planning? => As a counter example... lets talk about active directory migration.
Training for IT employees was significantly higher for Linux than for Windows - on average, 15% more expensive. The reasons: training materials were less readily available, and customers spent more on training to compensate for the lack of internal knowledge about Linux. => Unknown to me, but I bet this is true due to simple supply and demand. However, if Linux had the marketplace and Microsoft was smaller it would probably reverse
All 14 companies said it was difficult finding qualified Linux personnel in the marketplace to support their Linux projects. When they did find third-party help, they had less leverage negotiating hourly rates than with Windows consulting resources. => What is qualified? I every MCSE is not qualified.
In Other News (Score:3, Funny)
Ballmer doesn't get it. (Score:5, Insightful)
But that aside the reason why I as an IT guy am not impressed by Windows is that it is difficult to administer remotely (when Microsoft shows me a version of Windows that I can admin over a 9600 BPS serial link with a CLI I'll be interested) and the fact that I don't want to be Microsoft's bitch. If I don't like IBM's Linux solution I can buy from HP or SGI. If I don't like Microsoft Windows I'm stuck with it.
Microsoft's history of price increases is also an issue. When Windows NT 3.51 came out I could purchase it for $95 dollars a license at Academic discount, NT 4.0 cost 135 dollars, Windows 2000 and XP are $165. Microsoft will counter that Windows XP is more functional than NT was and that that justifies the extra price, but my hardware is more functional than it was 8 years ago when NT 3.51 came out and it's cheaper, why hasn't Microsoft's operating system followed the same evolution? (that's a rhetorical question, but in case you're confused it's because they have a monopoly) In addition I take all of Microsoft's claims of increased functionality driving software price with a grain of salt as a lot of what those new releases deliver is bug fixes over the prior version.
Even if Microsoft can deliver solutions for the same price as Linux a lot of companies are going to look at Microsoft's recent history and say "Do we really want to be their bitches?" and when the answer is "no", go with that Linux solution.
The trouble is that people belive this cr*p (Score:3, Funny)
Presumably they replaced old servers with new ones, so, say, 4 old i386s with 2 new Athlons ? Hardly surprising it is ?
Any one got any old pics of Ballmer, I'd like to see how much his nose has grown by this last year.
It's actually interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
"All of the major Linux vendors...have begun charging hefty premiums for must-have items such as technical service and support, product warranties and licensing indemnification."
What this means I think is that Microsoft can't compete with the *operating system itself* on technical merit, and they know this. However, what it sounds like they're realising that they *can* do is exploit corporate ambivalence about Linux based on the major distributor companies' pricing structures.
I understand that in order to make money with Linux, it's always been about the services. What I've also heard talked about several times recently though is how greedy people think Red Hat in particular are becoming. If this is true, RH and the other companies IMHO need to be careful.
Microsoft as I said know they cannot compete with Linux based purely on technical merit. But if Red Hat and the other companies introduce overinflated pricing structures with regards to the services, this will largely erradicate the "free as in beer" element of Linux, at least as far as the corporate mind is concerned. If it gets to the point where Microsoft can compete based on *initial price*, (and no, I'm not talking about ongoing license fees here...I'm talking about the price of the *initial* contract/box/whatever) then they could even afford to cease caring about people knowing that Linux is a technically stronger solution than Windows. All they need to do is sell someone on the idea that an *entry* price is cheaper than the initial price one of the Linux companies is charging. Based on what I've heard about Microsoft's contracts, I'm guessing they could very easily do this.
1) Offer a corporation an initial deal comparable to the Linux vendors in terms of unit volume/amount of support, but at a marginally lower price, and of course with Windows rather than Linux.
2) Fill said corp's heads with usual BS about "independent" (wink, wink) surveys/studies and so on to grease the deal.
3) Include a fixed term no-vendor-transfer clause in the contract...basically specifying that they can't migrate for a certain time period. 5 years, 10 if they can get away with it.
4) Once the time period for the Linux "clone contract" runs out, then we're in purely Microsoft time, and can then commence MS fun and profit. Jack up the price for additional support, service packs, bug fixes or whatever, and justify this on the basis that these weren't mentioned in the original contract, or that these are "optional extras." (Even if they are actually mandatory to keep the corp's machines functioning) Use extra context-specific BS as necessary.
Any client company unfortunate enough to fall into this trap would basically be screwed for the duration of the contract.
TCO (Score:4, Informative)
However, I also appreciate the fact that said company is never going to have to pay for a software and/or operating system upgrade ever again. This is called smart spending. You shell out money in the short term to save significant amounts of money in the long term.
Speaking from experience here, my company has switched every machine in our office to Linux, both servers and clients, and we've saved a bundle in the long run by doing so.
So the smart people will learn Linux now. (Score:5, Interesting)
"# Training for IT employees was significantly higher for Linux than for Windows - on average, 15% more expensive. The reasons: training materials were less readily available, and customers spent more on training to compensate for the lack of internal knowledge about Linux."
So everyone and their dog "thinks" they know Windows well enough to run a windows server... Except that it all the security issues that seem to be caused by poorly administrated Windows boxs seems to say otherwise. Linux experts are pretty rare.
"# All 14 companies said it was difficult finding qualified Linux personnel in the marketplace to support their Linux projects. When they did find third-party help, they had less leverage negotiating hourly rates than with Windows"
So if you know Linux you are more in demand than if you know Windows, and you will make more money doing it.
Ballmer doth protest too much (Score:4, Insightful)
It's the same with with US presidential debates, where the incumbent usually tries to negotiate his or her way out of as many debates as possible. Why? Because the mere fact that a challenger shares a stage with a sitting president tends to help the challenger.
The lesson those of us who use Linux in our daily work, and who see the value in things like open source and open standards, is just to hang loose.
Ballmer is offering free publicity.
why donate your time and money to Microsoft? (Score:4, Interesting)
So, the question is: why should anybody give Microsoft many hours of free consulting just so that Microsoft can turn around and use that to further monopolize the market? Why should anybody donate time and effort to Microsoft just to have the company turn around and charge them for everybody's voluntary contributions to their software?
Microsoft's dirty little secret is that most of the value of their software isn't created by them, it's created by their customers. They are just capturing that value and making a bundle on it. And they are charging their customers for the same effort over and over again, just because they can.
Even if Linux were no better than Windows, with Linux, people can be sure that they are not getting charged for their own and other people's free contributions to the effort.
Free Windows? (Score:4, Insightful)
So Microsoft provides these extras for free?
I've read the warranty from Microsoft's products. They don't warrant shit. Nor do I expect to see a pro bono Microsoft lawyer pop out of thin air if someone makes a copyright claim regarding their products.
And customer support?
Give me a break.
Yankee's study concluded that, in large enterprises, a significant Linux deployment or total switch from Windows to Linux would be three to four times more expensive - and take three times as long to deploy - as an upgrade from one version of Windows to a newer release.
You could have fooled our IT department. Because of the shifting sands beneath the code in various Microsoft Office versions, we (a national laboratory) have had to recode all of our Word macros and all of our Access apps everytime there is a "new" release of Office.
And nine out of 10 enterprise customers said that such a change wouldn't provide any tangible business gains.
Not because of superior technology, but because of integration hooks and low-ball initial pricing. When you swallow the Microsoft hook, you take the line and sinker with it. Regurgitating all of that 'infrastructure' will inevitably take more money to change. That would be true shifting from a pure *NIX environment to a Windows-centric environment.
Shifting from specifics to global ranges indicates they have no idea what the cost structures are. They are cherry picking their report figures and glossing over their own problems.
Hardly surprising for a marketing letter.
But keep in mind everyone: Windows is Free!.
Microsoft: Security is our middle name! (Score:5, Interesting)
But not for the last twenty one years, apparently:
About three years ago, we made software security a top priority,..
So they think that the open source approach to development has some validity, but that their approach - THAT THEY ADMIT THEY HAVEN'T BEEN USING FOR 20+ YEARS - is better.
Hmmmm....
They found that Microsoft addressed all of the 128 publicly disclosed security flaws in Windows over the 12-month period studied, and that its security updates predated major outbreaks by an average of 305 days.
There are only 360 days in the study period. That means their average is nearly the timeframe covered by the study.
I get suspicious when I see this kind of conclusion. Have they only been in business a year?
After careful analysis, farmaCity concluded that Windows would reduce network administration by 30 percent compared with Linux, and would also simplify identity and desktop management..
And this is proof of security... how?
What was the analytical methodology? Why is network administration such a large burden? I don't even see the update activities on my Linux machine, but I have been warned by our IT group not to deploy XP SP2 due to breakage problems.
Hmmmm....
FUD, Indemnification and Insurance (Score:4, Insightful)
In fact, the most likely "patent" scenario is the one we have today: i.e., patent "hold-ups" in which 2-bit "inventors" demand "royalties" from software users, based on patents they probably never should never have been granted. These patent owners want to bleed a lot of companies for relatively small bucks each. They do not in fact want to actually shut anyone down; they just want to collect a small "tax" from a big population. These are nuisances to big companies (the usual targets of such claims), and certainly potential expense items, but NOT the sort of thing that should make a strategic difference in one's technology direction.
All that being said, offering uncapped indemnification to customers against potential software patent claims is a valid selling point. Of course, Microsoft software is no less vulnerable to these claims than anyone else's, and the email was a little unclear whether the "uncapped" amount was for the costs of legal defense (attorneys' fees) or that plus the actual liability to the patent owner.
Microsoft's offer of indemnification is credible if for no other reason than Microsoft's huge financial liquidity. In the open source world, there are also a few companies, such as IBM, that have good financial credit and can credibly make a comparable offer. But there are quite a few providers who are not in a position to do this.
Perhaps the answer for the others would be to offer reasonably priced group insurance from a financially sound insurer . . . IF the market considers that a response like that is even necessary.
My response to Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:My response to Microsoft (Score:3, Insightful)
Love this line in your worm missive :-
Like Disney, Microsoft is happy to borrow from the public domain without giving anything back.
Looks like another benefit of the GPL. MS won't get its hands on it.
Ballmer Finally Admits that Linux is the Best (Score:3, Interesting)
Features and benefits are valued more than anything else by the customer. It is the reason to even consider a purchase. This being the issue, it simply means that Ballmer realized that Linux has better and more value to the customer than Microsoft Winblows. Hence, the last justification is the TCO stand. And like political races, truth is meaningless, it's only what the voter will believe.
Analogy mode on:
If you need to move a refrigerator, then you need a good size pickup truck. A used car salesman will try to sell you a hatchback Honda and give you advice on how to turn the 'frig on it's side and shove it into the hatchback. The Honda may get great mileage and be cheaper, but it doesn't do the job. What good is it?
Analogy mode off:
In this case the TCO figures are an out and out lie.
The "independent" sources of TCO and general IT practices analysis live by the motto: "Never piss off the 800lb gorilla in your house" (Microsoft).
Linux and all Open Source groups have no fear of the 800lb gorilla.
Between the lines.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't read what Ballmer wrote since (IMHO) the focus is NOT on lower TCO...instead read in to what Ballmer meant. This is a public salvo thrown out that clearly signals their intention: they're coming after Linux and open source hard.
Read in to what Ballmer meant when he said, "Given the growing concern among customers about intellectual property indemnification, what's the best way to minimize risk?" Read this [infoworld.com] and then think about it.
The T in TCO is Supposed to Mean "Total" (Score:3, Insightful)
This gap could potentially change if MS suddenly moved to a subscription model--presumably they'd see that by keeping subscription costs low "enough" people would stay locked in. But it is also easier to justify the insignificant monthly or anual costs of a subscription than large expenditutres every few years for upgrades.
The Community needs a study of annually amortized UPGRADE costs for different platforms. Then businesses could make a more informed decision--Is the switch worth it if it pays for itself in 3 years?
TCO lower for whom? (Score:3, Insightful)
Software consumers don't like to keep buying new versions of software, and if they're home users they don't necessarily care about MS support, or lack thereof, for an obsolete OS. They're going to keep playing those games on Windows 98 as long as they work. Commercial users pretty much need to use supported software - if they can't go to someone when they have a problem it's useless to them. That's the primary allure of MS over open software. Though with Big Blue and others getting into the service end of open software there is a whole lot less reason for saying open software is not supported, particularly if you've got a service contract with a large outfit.
My company writes a lot of custom software for internal use, only. Expensive software. We need a supported OS. A lot of stuff we have that worked in NT doesn't work in XP, so it's been a major headache making the switch (we're still not half way there). As one of the better MS customers we are actually one of the reasons MS provided support for NT long after it was supposed to expire.
I don't know when the guys running this outfit are going to see, if they ever do, that sticking with MS means we are going to have to go through this over and over and over again. That's because every MS OS is obsolete and without MS support, right out of the box. It just hasn't happened for the newer ones, yet. That's something that's not given a lot of weight in these TCO analyses, and nobody tells you up front.
I am not an Microsoft advocate or sympathizer... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm a full time Linux user, but as a workstation doesn't require these types of tools I've never actually come across them before.
To be honest, in my Windows server classes I've been pretty impressed with some of their enterprise solutions. Considering, for the forseeable future, we'll be developing networking around mainly Windows clients whats Linux got to compete or outdo Windows on the controller end?
I'd guess Suse is going to have the best chance, if Novell really tosses everything they had going in Netware into making Suse Enterprise a competative product. I'd be curious to hear what Linux admins are doing in the real world.
Does Linux have a serious enterprise grade alternative?
Note this little oblique SCO reference (Score:3, Informative)
But as the Yankee Group commented in an independent, non-sponsored global study of 1,000 IT administrators and executives, Linux, UNIX and Windows TCO Comparison, things aren't always as they seem: "All of the major Linux vendors and distributors (including Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Novell [SUSE and Ximian] and Red Hat) have begun charging hefty premiums for must-have items such as technical service and support, product warranties and licensing indemnification."
Obviously they are talking about SCO's false claims there. Fucking opportunistic bastards! Regardless of whether or not the conspiracy theory is true, that MS prompted SCO's frivolous lawsuit to discredit Linux, the fact of the matter is that they are trying to make use of it in their PR. Whether it was planned from the start or not, either way that is now part of their strategy now, the deceptive bastards.
Call this a troll if you will, but I don't apologise for being honest.
Only Mr. T could pity the fools that buy into this (Score:3, Funny)
Ballmer - And as Yankee Group noted in its Linux, UNIX and Windows TCO Comparison study, "Linux-specific worms and viruses are every bit as pernicious as their UNIX and Windows counterparts - and in many cases they are much more stealthy."
Spin, Spin, Spin! Just more proof that you can take anything out of context... or just outright lie.
Almost all of the annoying spyware/adware software out there will only infect a Microsoft platform. You've immediately just reduced your maintenance headaches in typical organizations by over 50%.
Let's look at some information actually based on analysis of CERT data...
Windows v Linux security: the real factsp ort_windows_vs_linux/ [theregister.co.uk]
http://www.theregister.co.uk/security/security_re
If you prefer, http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/22/security_r eport_windows_vs_linux.pdf [theregister.co.uk]
Re:The good news is... (Score:5, Interesting)
Good to see that Micros~1 is running out of ideas to fight Linux, and must resort to recycling their same old collection of lies, damn lies, and statistics.
BTW, why is it none of these "TCO" studies consider the effects or cleanup costs of Windows trojans, worms, viruses, or spyware? I wouldn't trust any study which doesn't include those figures into the equation for a "total" cost of ownership.
Re:The good news is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope. If you read the letter you might notice they came up with an even better one.
Ballmer - And as Yankee Group noted in its Linux, UNIX and Windows TCO Comparison study, "Linux-specific worms and viruses are every bit as pernicious as their UNIX and Windows counterparts - and in many cases they are much more stealthy."
So you see, Linux has all the same problems as Windows. They're just hidden better! Fear the unknown!
Re:Im certainly no Linux Expert... (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously though, lower vulnerabilities? Where the hell did that come from.
I've seen a number of studies that run something like this:
Windows
Linux
Not sure if this is the case here, but I suspect so.
Re:Im certainly no Linux Expert... (Score:5, Insightful)
This gives Microsoft a huge margin in which to twist their statistics.
Re:maybe the TCO is lower (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, if you use the unstable distribution, occasionally a package gets uploaded that is a little
But using stable, or even testing, you almost never get this kind of problem. Certainly nothing like the problems with winxpSP2, and of course, the viruses/spyware fun on windows requires far more frequent updating than anything in linuxland.
Anyway, if all your experience has been with redhat, especially if you weren't using yum or apt-get in it, things can be greatly improved.
Windoze in .edu? Bullshit on lower TCO! (Score:4, Informative)
At $142, that's $142 more you have to spend compared to FOSS solutions. What you've described, proved either that your educational institution is filthy rich and caters only for the rich and snobs, or you're just plain lazy.
Most educational institutions, whether state-run or even privately operated (esp. private with visions of education rather than for profit), are almost always tight budget! This is especially true in third world countries! That is why various bodies such as SchoolForge [schoolforge.net] (and their Case Studies [seul.org]), K12OS [k12os.org], Moodle [moodle.org], OpenSourceSchools [opensourceschools.org], KDE Edutainment Project [kde.org] and a lot more others are being founded and.. surprise! Thrives!
Personally, I love the K12LTSP [k12ltsp.org] Project. A branch out of the K12OS Project, which when deployed properly throughout the campus, can provide access to all students to high-grade apps in a very stable environment. Access from any terminal in any labs, authenticating via NIS, LDAP or whatever you prefer and access your mail accounts, website or whatever. With backend support tools available such as MySQL or PgSQL and PHP/Perl (okay, maybe that's a bit far out, but I've met 12 year olds who can code!)
Software cost? $0
Re:maybe the TCO is lower (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, you must be some kind of a system admin. One thing certain: you'll never be root.
Thing is, what you say is only true for one type of admin: who raises a hand when asked who wants to do it. No history, no experience.
Ok, didn't want to do this, but I can't hold it
The new one is going on Debian/Woody of course
I would openly directly naturally and severly fight any argument war on all fronts of server capabilities against anyone who would replace it with any Windows server version.
Re:maybe the TCO is lower (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's my question... if you're a systems administrator that believes that Windows 2003 is so easy to use, and takes little time, then why not use that extra time to learn the other side of things? You might actually like it if you read enough. Imagine the advantages of having both Windows and Linux on your resume. Or are Windows problems a little too much that you don't have time to learn? Imagine how much money your boss could save if you spent that extra time learning. Then he could get you to download Linux distros, and use those, without having to pay for additional licenses. Imagine the possibilities of opening your mind to new knowledge.
As a systems administrator and business owner, all I can say to you is... sheesh.
Re:maybe the TCO is lower (Score:5, Insightful)
"don't want to fuss around with kernels, deciding between a distribution, and all that jazz. "
Futzing with kernels? Who does that anymore? How many times do you decide between distributions? I'll give you a hint, once.
"Sure, I could use apt and the others, but it just takes too much time, and you have to worry about various dependencies and what not."
Who the hell modded you up after saying something this collosally ignorant. Apt takes too much time? You have to worry about dependencies with apt? What the fuck? The parent does not know what they are talking about or is lying mod them down people.
"I'd like nothing better than to run a Unix variant, but until you bring me a monolithic distribution that just works,"
What you mean like debian or suse or something?
"I'll have to stay Microsoft for now."
Yes you do that. Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about.
Re:maybe the TCO is lower (Score:3, Informative)
<rant>
I'm sorry, but comments like these only make you appear incredibly ignorant; when did you use Linux last? In 1994?
Linux Myth #1: Kernels must always, ALWAYS be compiled by hand. It is utterly impossible for distributions to provide a packaged kernel.
Linux Reality #1: Welcome to the world of package management! With just every distribution, kernel upgrades are trivial, and are identical to upgrading every other piece of software on your computer
Re:maybe the TCO is lower (Score:5, Insightful)
So basically you're lazy and incompetant, unwilling to investigate solutions and make a decision.
I can download Fedora Core for free. Or Debian, Mandrake, Gentoo, ... the list goes on.
Oh, but wait, you can't make a decision.
More laziness and incompetance. You don't pay attention to advisories? Make sure your setup is tuned for your installation?
So you just want a system that lets you be a lazy, incompetant administrator, because you don't want to have to do anything other than click a button now and again?
Linux actually is easy to administer. A bit of setup and one or two people can maintain a thousand or more Linux boxes. Without that much headache. Sure, they'll have to know Linux, how to use the tools, and maybe even be good. But paying 2 people $80k a year is cheaper than paying 20 people $30k a year.
Ignorance. Anyone who is familiar with these tools knows that dependency maintenance is part of what they do.
Please do. We don't need lazy, incompetant idiots running our critical boxes.
Re:maybe the TCO is lower (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, there's a security system I'd be proud of.
You can mod this comment down, but you can't propose a security system like THAT to a company interested in protecting their assets. WAKE UP SLASHDOT.
IHBT. Still:
First off, lots of large companies protect their assets using the standard UNIX security scheme, so that part of your argument is
Re:maybe the TCO is lower (Score:3, Insightful)
simple == good security
So I like the classic Unix security scheme on Linux.
Windows has no equivalent. It's tricky, you can't see what's happening at a glance.
Re:maybe the TCO is lower (Score:5, Informative)
32, I believe. Still, it isn't perfect, and we should perhaps look at ways to improve it.
Only one group can have permissions applied to a file?
Not true. All major Linux filesystems support POSIX ACLs now, enabling you to apply whatever permissions you like.
And no group nesting allowed?
What are the security benefits of allowing this? Personally, I am not aware of any, as I believe whether it is allowed or not the systems are actually equivalent -- it is merely an implementation detail that should be ironed out by any reasonably well written management system.
You can mod this comment down, but you can't propose a security system like THAT to a company interested in protecting their assets. WAKE UP SLASHDOT.
Even without ACLs, it is more than adequate for 99% of companies. Hell, most of them wouldn't want to spend the admin time required to manage anything more complex.
Re:Get the Facts Ballmer: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Get the Facts Ballmer: (Score:3, Informative)