Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Software Linux IT

OSDL Skeptical Of Joint Study with Microsoft 162

Posted by Zonk from the may-you-live-in-interesting-times dept.
Jac writes "An interview with ZDNet reveals the low opinion Stuart Cohen, chief of Open Source Development Labs(OSDL), has of a recent Microsoft proposal to conduct a joint study on on deploying Microsoft Vs Linux. From the article: 'As far as working with Microsoft on a study, Microsoft could probably find one negative line on Linux in a 100-page research report that it would spend $10 million marketing while ignoring the other 99 pages...' An interesting follow-up to a recent Slashdot article.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

OSDL Skeptical Of Joint Study with Microsoft More

OSDL Skeptical Of Joint Study with Microsoft

Comments Filter:

  • OTOH (Score:3, Insightful)

    by tanveer1979 ( 530624 ) on Monday August 29, 2005 @05:21AM (#13425903) Homepage Journal
    Wont microsoft take this skeptism, and then spend 10 million in marketing to say that OSDL backed out of an open test because they know linux is inferior? FP btw
    • In BIG letters : Microsoft is better, bigger, stronger, more secure 100% of the time.

      In small letters : This survey was paid by Microsoft, Gates and Ballmer edited the results so it could fit in this report and your screen.

      Also in the news, Santa Claus is retiring.
    • They probably will. But OSDL won't have wasted its own ressources in creating ammunition for Microsoft FUD.

    • Re:OTOH (Score:5, Interesting)

      by jkrise ( 535370 ) on Monday August 29, 2005 @07:09AM (#13426267) Journal
      "Wont microsoft take this skeptism, and then spend 10 million in marketing to say that OSDL backed out of an open test because they know linux is inferior?"

      I think the world has built up a healthy skepticism about anything coming from Microsoft, so another $10m FUD marketing is gonna go down the drain. There's some key points with this "joint, independent" study:

      1. OSDL is just one of the agencies involved in the creation and upkeep of Open Source projects. MS is the only one developing Windows.

      2. FOSS projects get used and adopted by word of mouth, whereas MS depends on Gartner reports and 'funded, independent' research to propogate their products. How many Gartner reports and mainstream media reports could forecast the spectacular growth of Open Source?

      3. The OSDL could rather focus on their core area of writing and distributing quality software - money invested in 'research' activities such as this is pure waste.

      4. Microsoft's philosophy is 'one-size-fits-all' - totally contrary to the FOSS world. If there's an issue with IE it's impossible to (completely) remove it from the OS and be secure - it's possible to install a Linux server that does not include a browser. Hardly any purpose would be served comparing the two.

      If people are going to adopt and deploy FOSS, they don't need any of these 'sponsored' reports. Microsoft has no choice.

      • Marketing isn't seen as FUD anymore than others (Score:5, Insightful)

        by PhYrE2k2 ( 806396 ) on Monday August 29, 2005 @09:24AM (#13427142)
        I think the world has built up a healthy skepticism about anything coming from Microsoft, so another $10m FUD marketing is gonna go down the drain.


        Ummm- no. Go into most big corporations or small businesses (at least in North America) and find that most people 'know' Windows is the biggest, strongest, and best thing they need. They 'know' it works, 'know' it does what they want, 'know' it's compatible with their software, hardware, customers, and supply chain.

        Most people don't see Microsoft's marketing as FUD anymore than they see Coke and Pepsi's marketing as FUD.

        We are the Slashdot crew who whine about big corp squishing the little guy who just so happens to use Linux. Don't think for a second your views represent management and a large majority of IT people out there. I run into at least three a day who go on about how Windows and dot-NET are the only things they would ever dream of using.

        -M
        • Sadly, you're correct. At the community college where I teach, the whole IT department worships Microsfoft products. I teach mathematics, and Microsoft tools are so woefully inadequate for formatting mathematical documents that for years I wrote them out by hand. Finally, I learned LaTeX, and convinced them to let me install it on one machine in our tiny teachers lounge. Later, they removed it, claiming it had broken their e-mail client. What a bunch of geniuses. Now, the only use I have for their equipment
        • And those people are not valid targets for FOSS anyway. They essentially have unlimited budgets and a mandate that it has to work and must have a vendor who can provide support. A big company can lose millions of dollars a day if the software has an issue.

          The FOSS market is targeted at people who have limited budgets. They want it to work but can forgo vendor support since they are smaller and can't afford to spend 80% more to get 99.9% reliability instead of 99.7% reliability.

          Part of the reason FO
        • They 'know' it works, 'know' it does what they want, 'know' it's compatible with their software, hardware, customers, and supply chain.

          Well it helps that in this example it is actually true 99% of the time. It is when they claim that free is more expensive than $300 that people question the results.
    • Who cares? People don't switch to Linux based on MS recommendation.

      Every time MS launches a marketing campaign against Linux, it shoots itself in the corporate foot. Redmond is very low on corporate credibility in some circles, and every one of these nasty, transparent assaults of theirs just makes them look worse and Linux look more attractive.

      They're fighting themselves. They're shadowboxing and they don't even know it. And they can't understand why their knuckles bleed everytime they go for a knockou

    • It's obvious that it is a no win situation. Since Linux came this far on its own, why would it matter to participate or not? We just need to keep doing our own thing, and let Microsoft play catch up. They have been marketting lies agains Linux for some time, and obvoiusly it hasn't worked very well. Most likely because all the fine print says "research funded by microsoft". They just want some FUD they can rip out (like that 1 of 100 pages Cohen stated), with some OSS company name on the report instead

  • Use both (Score:3, Informative)

    by froggero1 ( 848930 ) on Monday August 29, 2005 @05:21AM (#13425906)
    I don't get it though. Why bother comparing the two? Use what works best for the job. I don't think that anyone should be using only one operating system all the time anyways.

    • Re:Use both (Score:4, Informative)

      by Knome_fan ( 898727 ) on Monday August 29, 2005 @05:32AM (#13425935)
      Ehm, the purpose of these studies is, or at least should be, to find out which one "works best for the job", so I fail to really see your point.

      • Re:Use both (Score:5, Insightful)

        by $RANDOMLUSER ( 804576 ) on Monday August 29, 2005 @05:37AM (#13425957)
        No, that's completely wrong. This is about which one is "best" in a two-line "executive summary" for the PHBs. It's about implanting the FUD that maybe Windows is better after all. Few PHBs have the spine to actually find out for themselves, or to stick to their guns if challenged.
        • Notice that I wrote the purpose of these studies should be, not is.

          I don't doubt for a minute that the studies MS likes to cite in its Get the FUD campaign do a lot of things, but certainly don't try to find out what really "works best for the job".
        • Without research, how can you declare it FUD like you did?
        • > Few PHBs have the spine to actually find out for themselves, or to stick to their guns if challenged.

          You're right on the first point, but wrong on the second.

    • Re:Use both (Score:3, Interesting)

      by weicco ( 645927 )
      Well, I don't know why compare just two operating system, why not bunch of them, but I can figure out the reason. There is so many rumours about Windows that are causing harm to Microsoft. I don't know how average slashdot troll ("OMGXIITLOL! My XP crashes ALL THE TIME") affects corporate managers though.

      But I'd like to see comparison between Windows, Linux, Open/Net/FreeBSD, Solaris and some other UNIXes if it would be rationally made and conducted. Of course there would be some issues like "why didn't the
    • You are correct, use what works best for the job, but how do you know which is best for the job if you never compare the competition head to head?

      I personally don't like the "use what works" reasoning because in most cases its used as a cop out or excuse to maintain the status quo.

      That said I don't pay much attention to most of the studies that are thrown back and forth because 1) there is a lot of misinformation (pretty much from one side, yeah you know which side), and 2) most of the studies fail to start

  • In related news... (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ...Theodore Adorno has second thoughts about a joint paper on race issues with Adolf Hitler. News at 11:00.

  • Double-Edged Sword (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MaskedKumquat ( 522312 ) on Monday August 29, 2005 @05:29AM (#13425930)
    While I am biased to believe that Microsoft cannot be trusted to take an truly independent report at face value, the OSDL will be hard pressed to pass on this opportunity. If you doubt this, imagine the spin Microsoft marketing could put on the alternate headline: "OSDL declines Microsoft offer for independent analysis". Looking at this angle, I actually have to tip my hat to Microsoft; the OSDL will have to handle this situation perfectly to avoid exposing an exploitable weakness. Above all, I think this move shows that Microsoft has escalated their offensive, bringing the battle for business customers onto free and open source software's home turf.

    • MS only pays 50% (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jurt1235 ( 834677 ) on Monday August 29, 2005 @05:48AM (#13425995) Homepage
      I think it is pretty easy to pass by this study. OSDL has to pay the other half of a study they are not really interested in. So this study can turn out bad or good for any party involved, but it also eats into the budget.
      • I think it is pretty easy to pass by this study. OSDL has to pay the other half of a study they are not really interested in. So this study can turn out bad or good for any party involved, but it also eats into the budget.

        Indeed. And you don't even mention that we don't even know half of how much. Microsoft have a lot more money to waste on this study than OSDL do.

    • ...the OSDL will have to handle this situation perfectly to avoid exposing an exploitable weakness.

      Or it might be over very quickly. Given MS's performance record at PR meetings, it might be just minutes before the MS test platform bluescreens or is trojaned or infested with spyware or malware.

      End of review, everybody packs their bags and goes home.

    • Re:Double-Edged Sword (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Microsoft are not offering an independent analysis, they are trying to get a bipartisan analysis. There is a huge difference. An independent analysis would start off by finding out which benchmarks are useful in the real world. A bipartisan analysis would start off with both sides pushing for benchmarks that they know (or strongly suspect) would favour their side.

    • Re:Double-Edged Sword (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cow-orker ( 311831 ) on Monday August 29, 2005 @06:33AM (#13426128)
      You know what comes out of this study. In some constructed situation (desktop system, heavily firewalled, used to write letters to people who refuse to use anything other than MS Word) windows will be "better" in some sense. MSFT will heavily market this "fact from an independent study", omitting all the necessary conditions and not mentioning the cases where Linux is superior.

      The sensible thing for OSDL is to tell them off: "We don't have time for silly games, we're busy providing value to out customers."
    • or perhaps "Non Profit organisation declines to spend money on Microsoft's offer of an independent study". Why would OSDL spend money on comparing Linux and Windows when they don't even own Linux?

    • Re:Double-Edged Sword (Score:3, Informative)

      by jkrise ( 535370 )
      There's little use 'marketing' Open Source and Free Software adopting the same methods and paradigm as Microsoft software. Microsoft has been on the offensive for the past decade and more wrt competition - Lotus 123 gave up after a few years as did Word Perfect and later Netscape.

      F/OSS is a different kettle of fish. Being aggressive, sponsored research etc. hasn't cut much ice. Customers are interested in 'Getting their Act' more than 'Getting the twisted Facts'. The ones that base their decisions on Gartne
    • Maybe the OSDL should say, "sure, we'll participate in a TCO study that excludes the costs of interoperating with existing Windows apps and infrastructure". In other words, a study based strictly on the inherent quality of the two systems.

      And if you want to do a study that doesn't exclude that stuff, give us the info we need to implement interoperability, and we'll participate in that too.

  • According to plan (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Mjlner ( 609829 )
    Right now, Steve Ballmer is probably putting his fingertips together, smiling demonically and hissing "Excellent...". Of course Microsoft knew the OSDL is going to be skeptical (for the obvious reasons) and just wanted the opportunity to start FUDding with
    "Oh look! The OSDL is unwilling to objectively compare Linux to Windows, because they know that Windows is the obvious choice for any enterprise!"

    Hardly surprising.

  • "Microsoft could probably..." (Score:5, Insightful)

    by l3v1 ( 787564 ) on Monday August 29, 2005 @05:34AM (#13425942)
    Microsoft could probably find one negative line on Linux in a 100-page research report that it would spend $10 million marketing while ignoring the other 99 pages

    Correct. You know, if it talks like a duck and it walks like a duck then go on. Why would any new campaign they do be any different than they did up to now ? Nuff said.
     
    • But they have every right to do so in a free world no? What keeps forces behind Linux from boasting with the other assumed 99 % of the pages? Please explain this lack of spirit.

    • Re:"Microsoft could probably..." (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Lodragandraoidh ( 639696 ) on Monday August 29, 2005 @09:59AM (#13427459) Journal
      OSDL should be wary. The question needs to be asked, why is Microsoft approaching OSDL to partner on this now - when they were bashing Linux and FOSS in general as "communistic"?

      Given Microsoft's track record the phrase "embrace, extend, destroy" comes to mind.
      • It wasn't Microsoft claiming that FOSS was "communistic".

        It was Steve Ballmer saying that FOSS is an intellectual property cancer attaching itself to everything.

        It was Jim Alchin (#4 man at Microsoft at the time) saying that FOSS is un-American and that legislators need to be educated about the danger. (Let me get out my checkbook Mr. congressman... how much education do you need today?)

        Various people have said that FOSS supporters are communists.

        See? It wasn't Microsoft after all. Microsoft

    • Get The RIGHT Facts (Score:5, Informative)

      by jkrise ( 535370 ) on Monday August 29, 2005 @10:03AM (#13427494) Journal
      I think the OSDL should politely decline the invite to spend... er waste good money on stupid research and launch a counter capmaign "Get the Right Facts" or some such.

      Facts:
      1. Microsoft is a convicted monopolist - Fact.
      2. Microsoft has written software and spent billions - specifically to crush competition and reduce the user experience - FACT.
      3. Microsoft fudged a demo during trial - under OATH - Fact.
      etc.... instead of simply declining and being labelled a coward.
  • For years, OS-wars have been in the domain of /.'ers and such OS enthusiasts (I'd like to say tongue-in-cheek, enthusiasts for better, stable, readily-available software), while the corporate line taken by (not just MS), was Linux (and thereby all open source products) were not the same in performance, cost of adoption/transition or support

    However, now that the momentum is decidedly shifting (however slow), or it seems the market is moving towards a combination of the two (MS on the desktops mostly, but
    • // the momentum is decidedly shifting [...] it seems the market is moving towards a combination of the two

      Er... actually it has been *Unix* on servers for two decades, and now instead of switching to GNU/Linux when need arises (where they should feel at home) a lot of them are switching to Windows[*]. We should ask us why. PR & Marketing is a truly important thing for "Fortune 500 & Co." pinheads.

      So, in a different sense you're right: on the server market, we're moving towards a combination of the t
  • Microsoft would like you to believe that it wants to share it's market with Linux in a fair and friendly way, and that they want what is best for the customer in every situation. The commercial interests of Microsoft are only an unintended coincidence and for that matter come a distant second. Excuse me while I go and barf...

  • What purpose does a joint study serve? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DrXym ( 126579 ) on Monday August 29, 2005 @05:41AM (#13425970)
    What's in it for Linux? It's only going to say what everyone knows already - Linux is cheaper, TCO is lower but there are weaknesses in some domains such as desktops. It probably sounds fair and reasonable that Microsoft wants a chance a neutral report (instead of their usual tainted, biased, paid for reports), but you just know they're going to capitalize on the air of respectability of a joint study to report the same distortions and negative PR as they always do. So why bother?

    • Re:What purpose does a joint study serve? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by MichaelSmith ( 789609 ) on Monday August 29, 2005 @07:37AM (#13426403) Homepage Journal
      It probably sounds fair and reasonable that Microsoft wants a chance a neutral report (instead of their usual tainted, biased, paid for reports), but you just know they're going to capitalize on the air of respectability of a joint study to report the same distortions and negative PR as they always do.

      Studies involving commercial products always follow the money. There is more money behind MS windows, so any study which starts out with no assumptions will quickly steer in a direction which favours the side with more money.

      I used to be involved in bicycle advocacy, and debates over bicycle facilities would always go the same way. Car advocates would be well paid consultants with plenty of time to waste. Bike advocates would be unpaid people with no spare time. The final decision would be taken by the people who were able to turn up.

      Outfits like OSDL do have resources, but in situations where they can turn up three or four paid advocates/engineers/lawyers, MS will supply thirty or forty.

    • If OSDL backs out, Microsoft says "See, they are afraid to compare their stuff to ours."

      On the other hand, I think we all know that Microsoft doesn't boast without substance. They wouldn't be making this challenge if they didn't think they were going to come out on top.

      I don't understand what you mean about reporting the same distortions and negative PR they always do. Isn't this what people do? Don't Linux zealots continually claim that Windows is insecure and poorly written?

  • Take a Page from Pepsi's Playbook (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Quirk ( 36086 ) on Monday August 29, 2005 @05:44AM (#13425982) Homepage Journal
    Hearsay has it that Pepsi as a young upstart challenging Coke had only the slightest toehold in the market until Coke decided on a campaign to compare Coke to Pepsi headon. The outcome of Coke's campaign was to give Pepsi the national exposure it needed to break into the market big time.

    In Linux's position, having MS wanting to go head to head might be a win win situation. I know if the product were mine I'd want to mix it up with the big boys.

    • And then include that Coca Cola almost made a lethal mistake with their "New Coke", and you have a winning formula.

      Anyway, I think linux clearly plays with the big boys already, so that is not needed anymore.
      • "Anyway, I think linux clearly plays with the big boys already, so that is not needed anymore."

        Generally I agree of course, but in terms of desktop usage Linux might benefit from going head to head with Windows. The worst that might come of it would be that Linux advertised as the second best desktop OS, but being second best and free might be a leg up on being less well known in the desktop market.

        I would try to set the comparison to key on desktop usage. I don't think total cost of ownership is applica

        • TCO does in my opinion count very much for desktop use (50 to 100 desktops for every server). I did think of the desktop in my comment, but I think they will only compare the wrong things anyway (Eyecandy, vague group interaction features which nobody knows how to utilize etc).

          Anyway: Desktop != linux. Linux is the kernel, OSDL linux comparisson should then focus on the kernel if they even want to mention linux in a desktop comparisson again. Else they will just have to compare KDE/GNOME/other with OpenOf
      • lethal mistake

        hrmmmm

        New OS with no big new features other than DRM..(no CLI.. no FS)

        new coke.......

        this could be intresting...
      • Microsoft comes out with their "New Coke" every two years or so.

        -
    • With bevarages the actual test is relatively simple: its simply a matter of taste.

      Comparing software will take a few more minutes. Agreeing even over what should be tested is an open ended question. Having an independent study is one thing, but interpreting it and emphasizing what is "relavant" is another.

      So sure, this is an oportunity for OSDL to get some exposure, but Microsoft has a headstart with billions of marketing dollars to spend on spinning the story the way they like it.

      --
      The path of least resist
      • Taste is secondary. Marketing is primary. Original coke changed hands twice or thrice before it started gaining acceptance with HUGE marketing effort. I know quite a few "cola derivatives" that taste better, and cost way less, but they don't have the marketing power behind them. Same with software. What about MSIE vs Netscape? Which was better? But IE was bundled with the expensive but essential (don't buy the shit that IE is free. It's just included in price of Windows), so people stopped using (free) Nets
      • With bevarages the actual test is relatively simple: its simply a matter of taste.

        Bullshit. Companies like coke thrive off of marketting not taste. Someone above mentioned "New Coke", and don't think that New Coke came about without heavy taste testing, and blindfolded people would have picked New Coke as the better tasting product, however it didn't have the prestige that the old formula had, people had the image of the old formula's taste as being excellent, and New Coke upset that.

        To support you

    • I don't get what all the fuss is about. Linux and other free systems are already prety well entrenched in the server market. I work in the areospace industry, and although Microsoft products are widely used, I've seen Linux and Open/FreeBSD servers being used a lot in LANspace.

      The entire engineering department where I work basically scoffs at Microsoft NT4/2000/2003 servers and there's a general consensus that they stink, and although we do have to use Windows 2000 Server regularly, Linux is certainly ther

    • Flawed analogy in this case (Score:4, Interesting)

      by mj_1903 ( 570130 ) * on Monday August 29, 2005 @07:55AM (#13426483)
      Pepsi vs. Coke is a comparison over a marketable item that doesn't take much effort to change in your daily routine.

      Linux vs. Windows on the other hand is "geek" stuff that would take phenomenal effort from standard users and businesses to switch to either platform.

      Linux (and OSDL) are better suited to word of mouth and niche sectors of the market. Pepsi is better suited to TV ads and advertising slogans. OSDL should stay out of this comparison.
    • Huh? Coke never challenged Pepsi "head on" until Pepsi made Coke executives nervous with the Pepsi Challenge. Coke came out with the infamous New Coke, and Pepsi gloated. But, by that time, Pepsi was already well-established.

      Yes, this is offtopic, but really, mods, save "Insightful" for when you can actually validate the insight.
    • A fast moving consumer good only needs exposure and artificial value perception marketing. Completely unlike operating systems.

      In the pepsi-coke case, the mere fact that the heaviest brand name in the world acknowledged pepsi as a comparable (a marketing blunder on their part) was enough to create consumer perception of equivalence/alternative, i.e. to position pepsi as a possible coke subsitute in consumer's minds. From there onwards, all that pepsi's marketing had to do would be to touch specific style/pa

  • Go away. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Stumbles ( 602007 )
    Given Microsoft's past behavior and after being convicted as a monopoly that has abused the market. I cannot believe they have anything but unscrupulous intentions to manipulate what ever the results would have been.

    OSDL is absolutely right in that their business is not running some heads up knock down, who's better activity. That's better left to the Microsoft rags that gobble up anything they say an put it in print.

  • is totally ignore MS and leave them out in the cold.

  • Would you believe... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Circlotron ( 764156 ) on Monday August 29, 2005 @06:02AM (#13426036)
    ...the results of a study on the supposed negative effects of cigarette smoking that was funded by a tobacco company? Or the myth of global warming as espoused by an oil company? Or the necessity of being ready for war as delineated by a weapons manufacturer? Or the lack of corruption in politics as found by it's own members? Or the utter impossibility of paedophilia within a church because of the pronouncement of some most holy reverend blah blah... If there is money and power involved there is sure to be lies as well. That's why it is such a good thing that GNU/Linux is *FREE*
    • If there is money and power involved there is sure to be lies as well. That's why it is such a good thing that GNU/Linux is *FREE*

      You are such a Slashbot... Linux is free as in SPEECH, not BEER. Do you think IBM, RH or other Linux powerhouses never spew crap about free software? They make money out of free software, therefore they'll say any old thing that can pass OSS enthusiasts' (fortunately low) bullshit radar to promote it. Stop dreaming...
    • I was really thinking of all the little guys that write code in their basements with no expectation of financial reward, only recognition by their peers. They don't need to tell fibs to get a larger audience for their work so that more money comes in. That is not their aim. Pardon my lack of eloquence.
    • I'm sorry, but regardless of the circumstances I have no choice but to join OSDL in being skeptical of any study that involves joints.
  • Not from the company that called Google a one hit wonder?! How can you NOT trust them?!

  • The real scare in this - and Microsoft's plight (Score:4, Informative)

    by tod_miller ( 792541 ) on Monday August 29, 2005 @06:08AM (#13426048) Journal
    Microsoft are pushing Software patents into Europe, the legal homeplace of Linux (I assume Linus keeps his legal entity there?).

    The most telling point in Microsofts tactics [microsoft.com]

    So blatant: look at this quite from that page, in H1 FFS:

    Indemnification Becomes Open Source's Nightmare and Microsoft's Blessing

    There is a linked PDF, also google brings up

    Which is telling as well [site]

    Who funded SCO?

    Microsoft

    Who is pushing Patents in the eu?

    Microsoft

    Who is trying to get a litigation storm to damage and or destroy linux?

    Microsoft

    Who should probably get some more exposure about their bad activities?

    Microsoft

    But they don't, this kinda of cross-reporting (cause and effect) isn't done in mainstream media.

    Everyone will say Linux is getting sued, noone seems to say Microsoft is behind this financially, and patents politically.
  • The list of companies associated with OSDL looks like the Microsoft enemies list.

    IBM, Novell, HP, Intel etc.

  • Missing the point? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by synotia ( 711925 ) on Monday August 29, 2005 @07:04AM (#13426245)
    One of the major selling points of GNU/Linux and the rest of Open Source Software is that it's FREE as in speech, not beer.

    Harping on about TCO, in _money_ terms is not addressing some of the concerns that some big business' have about using Microsoft's (and other closed source) software. It's about vendor freedom, freedom to choose and change the software. Freedom to customize software on an organization's own terms.

    As the City of Munich's decision demonstrated when they chose a more expensive Linux package over Microsoft's, it aint necessarily about cash!

    OSDL analysis or not, favouring Linux or not, we might just find that TCO isn't all that relevant anyway.

  • You couldn't possibly agree to this. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I can see the M$ propaganda now: "Even Linux experts agree that ...some small negative thing blown totally out of proportion...."

    The only way committed and respected Linux people should agree to cooperate on a report would be if Microsoft would agree to 'equal air time' for Linux people to reply to their allegations in subsequent exploitation of that report.

    That's not going to happen - so just say 'No'.
  • Summary: Windows and Linux both scale technologically, but only Linux scales financially. In the hands of the right people, Linux and open source software is a competitive advantage that cannot be matched by proprietary software.

    In a world where software is migrating to the server, it does not matter what operating system you use, which web server you deploy, or what language you choose for your software. What matters is that it works and works well.

    The executive summary mentioned that Linux and Open

  • Sun Tzu (Score:2, Informative)

    by ThoreauHD ( 213527 )
    Never take what the enemy offers you.

    Words to live by.
  • that would throw this off, is the fact that when you do a Linux install, many distros include hordes of additional software. So, when I install Windows with all of my software, including office suite, development IDE's, web server and databases, it takes an entire weekend of constant rebooting and watching my pc like a hawk. With Linux, I just have to be there for the initial selections then, once the install starts, I just walk away until it's done (a few hours later, instead of the next day).

    Plus, each
  • IT'S A TRAP!

    but seriously this doesn't look good. why would someone talk to a competitor (or a virus that's plaquing the earth, whatever is your fancy) and say that they just want to have a friendly happy analysis?

    Anybody remember the saying "keep your friends close, but your enemies closer?"
    • IBM, Red Hat, Novell are all competitors, yet they manage to work together very well. In most circumstances, competitors are friendly with each other, they can be adversaries while remaining curteous and friendly.

      In this case though, Microsoft has shown itself time and time again that it can not be trusted. They see their competition not as adversaries, but as enemies.

  • The correct answer: (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Per Abrahamsen ( 1397 ) on Monday August 29, 2005 @09:38AM (#13427265) Homepage
    OSDL is a development laboratory, has no products to sell, and thus no interest in participating in such marketing stunts. Microsoft should ask Red Hat instead.

  • It's a diversionary tactic (Score:3, Interesting)

    by QuietLagoon ( 813062 ) on Monday August 29, 2005 @09:59AM (#13427465)
    If the ODSL were to agree to this study, they would be sucked into a maelstrom created by Microsoft to divert the ODSL's attention away from more important matters.

    How long would Microsoft drag out the negotiations regarding precisely what should be tested and the methodologies that would be used?

    How long would Microsoft drag out the guidelines for interpreting the results of the testing that is performed?

    What more productive things could the ODSL people be doing instead of being sucked into this quagmire?

  • Why the hell doesn't Microsoft just tell the truth? If they had a get the facts program saying that most of the programs available for Windows don't have a Linux equivilent, especially those that are a little obscure, and that the vast majority of games don't work on Linux, it'd be reason for home users and corperate users to not use Linux. There's got to be some people out there not taking this into account, and all the stuff they're saying now most people don't believe or trust. And if they were honest th
    • Actually, most games work great on Linux out of box. It's just that you have to install Cedega. Still, they all run like a charm.

      And there are barely any Microsoft programs that don't have an open source equivalent: Exchange? Open Exchange. SQL Server? My SQL and PostgreSQL. And in aklot of cases (most often the norm), they outperform.

      The only thing Microsoft has going for them is marketing and an addicted user base. Open source though is starting a methodone clinic near you to kick that Microsoft habit.
    • I agree. Games are a serious hole for linux. I keep windows for games. I can get a cheap $400 computer AND winXP gaming machine (toss in a $200 video card and you have 60% of the performance of a top end machine for 25% of the price.)

      Game software and some custom software are developed only for windows. These are valid points.

      A counter to that is, if you can find a java version (or other language that runs on any OS/hardware)- it's better because it works on windows AND any other OS. And it works
    • I think microsoft doesn't want people to think about a windows PC as a gaming machine...that's what the Xbox is for.

      The get-the-facts stuff is oriented to corporate use because then msft can get follow-on money for all their office, exchange, and corporate apps and servers.

      It's a lies anyway...it just something that an IT dept manager can print out and give to his PHB and say, look, here's some research about why shouldn't change anything. Now the IT dept manager can keep writing checks to microsoft and no
  • While I'm pretty sure that Microsoft can and will use an OSDL refusal to partake in this study as fodder for yet another attack on Linux along the lines of "Linux refuses to partake in neutral and unbiased comparison of the two operating systems which shows their fear of real competition bla bla bla", OSDL would be literally insane to take MS up on the offer and they seem to relaise this, thank God.

    MS, IMO, wants this study for a certain reason: They are having terrible trouble finding a source target, a ta
  • How on earth can it be possible to compare open source with closed source. Closed source is a kind of mental slavery. Owning ideas is not far off from owning people.

    Operating systems are mathematical - not art.

    Chemistry used to be called alchemy. Alchemy was a process where researchers kept everything a secret, because they wanted to be able to turn base metal into gold, so only they would benefit. Bgates has applied this process to computer science, in doing so has made himself the richest man on the pla

  • ... then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. Looks like MS is fighting now, but they're only able to fight on the PR front. With Vista appearing to be a minor upgrade of XP, it seems they're not able to fight on the innovation front, where a host of competitors - Linux, OSS, OSX, Google, etc - are attacking. What's that I see written on the wall?
  • "Customers have asked me for an analysis on Linux," Taylor said in the statement.

    Those customers are obviously PHB's simply needing justification for going w/ Microsoft. They've already made up their minds, and may have already made the purchase and now have to justify it to a boss who got wind of "free" OSS. It's like, "hey GM, can you get me a comparison of your cars vs Ford's so I can make a more informed buying decision?" Translation: "Please tell me what I should want to hear, and then tell me wh
  • A penguin shouldn't have been the Linux mascot. That should have been a road-runner. With Bill Gates as Wile E. Coyote, hatching one bone-head scheme after another tryng to catch it...
  • This [groklaw.net] article at Groklaw raises an interesting point (ok, it's a really long article, and the part I'm talking about is around paragraph 4), which I will expand on somewhat, about the competition between Windows and Linux. And that is, that Linux is competition for Windows, but Windows is not competition for Linux.

    Microsoft wants Windows running on every computer in the world, because they make more money that way. If a computer is running Linux that could be running Windows, then Linux is eating their l

Slashdot Top Deals

In the long run, every program becomes rococco, and then rubble. -- Alan Perlis

Close