In the thousands of meetings that Microsoft employees have with customers around the world every day, many of the same questions consistently surface: Does an open source platform really provide a long-term cost advantage compared with Windows?
Ballmer: Comparing Windows with Linux and UNIX
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
This is not news. I want to be kept up on bleeding edge technology: OS’s, programming languages, security, web serving, databases, etc. We don’t want to see commercials mascerading as news articles whether it be from MS, a Linux vendor, Sun, Apple or anyone for that matter.
no comments.
Seriously, does anybody think this is nothing more than just a truly “tired corporative ad”?
lol
Next Week on OSNews:
Stallman: Comparing GNU/Linux with Windows.
Does a closed source platform really provides a lognterm cost advantage compared to GNU/Linux?
heheh
again: What Ballmer say about ms programs? they are the best. What Novell tell you? they are the best. What *bsd folks write? they are the best.
Just a joke: What about hurd? they will be the best.
This is not news…they (The Billy and Stevey Show) are trying very hard to smooth over the coming Linux wave in anyway mind boggling way possible….spin it baby….spin it!
😉
And you think yourself as having posted a piece of news worth reading on this (or any) site read by people who know something about OS’s ? Or you just consider turning over into some yellow press crap ?
Wow…and this is news how? Or is it suppoed to be a “Get The FUD” plug?
“Does an closed source platform really provide a long-term cost advantage compared with Linux?”
Why is this article on this site?
How about articles on OS news…
Why lower your site by putting monopoly propaganda on it? I wonder…
> Stallman: Comparing GNU/Linux with Windows.
More like, Stallman: Comparing GNU/Linux with GNU/HURD – Over a decade in the making.
-uberpenguin
Which is cheaper, community software that you own and can upgrade or remove dodgy parts if you please OR closed binary software with restrictive licensing?
1. TCO for linux is extremely low. Linux boxes stay up for years without needing a reboot. Therefore maintenance and attention is low.
2. Linux hardly ever get viruses. Maintenance low.
3. Source code is freely available to check for bugs or make improvements.
4. No licenses are required making it short-term cheap!
5. On linux if set up well you can control your users properly limiting what they can and cannot do limiting time spent on maintenance. Maintenance is low.
6. Linux is secure, as security is built in deep into linux and you can’t choose to ignore it like in Windows.
Thats why the big companies who know the real costs, like the fortune 500 companies and banks are switching over to Linux.
Furthermore, the code is trustworthy as its visible and free to modify.
Seriously, does anybody think this is nothing more than just a truly “tired corporative ad”?
Yeah i want to know this too. All i had to do is read the first paragraph to determine that it wasn’t worth reading anymore. Its not dissimilar to the SUN “Articles” telling everyone how great JDS etc..
Microsoft needs to lighten up. Their problem is they cannot tolerate competition. Windows Server 2003 is a great product, they should be proud of that. I wouldn’t be suprised if the TCO was lower.
*BUT*
M$ only ever wants to compare to Red Hat and Mandrake, and their “enterprise” releases cost money, so M$ is able to dispell the “linux is free” idea.
But M$ never wants to compare with Slackware or Debian. For small businesses, one skilled IT guy could administer a server running one of those OSes, and in that arena, linux crushes windows server.
Why not listen to the president of Toyota make comments on Beachcraft instead?
I don’t see you guys saying this when Linus comes out with a letter or interview telling Linux is the best…
Yo, Ballmer! Do the Monkeydance again! It’s sooo cool!
… – and each of those five found Linux more expensive (5% to 20%) than their current Microsoft environments.”
LÖL
oh bill and steve, tickle my ears and tell me what I want to hear! you would never take my money and steer me wrong! they say Linux is more secure, cheaper, and can do most every thing I need! SAY IT AIN’T SO!!!!
David said:
1. TCO for linux is extremely low. Linux boxes stay up for years without needing a reboot. Therefore maintenance and attention is low.
-Windows 2000/2003 need very low maintenance too, and it’s very stable. I have customers with Linux servers hacked, why? Did not have the updates installed. So both need maintenance.
2. Linux hardly ever get viruses. Maintenance low.
-Agree. You forgot the spyware. We hope SP2 solve some of this.
3. Source code is freely available to check for bugs or make improvements.
-That theory in nice in paper, but in real life it’s no that easy. How do you know the change you make to your system or kernel, is not going to break when Red Hat/Novell publish an update or a new version of the software? So do you need to have a tracking of changes, do tests of the changes, etc, by your self. That’s no too cheap on big companies with a lot of servers an applications.
4. No licenses are required making it short-term cheap!
-You need licences for Red Hat AS/ES and is per server/per processor. BTW, when you agree to AS/Es licencing, Red Hat can visit your company to check your servers are legal. You can read the licence agreement on red hat site.
5. On linux if set up well you can control your users properly limiting what they can and cannot do limiting time spent on maintenance. Maintenance is low.
-On Windows 2003 this is called Group Policy
6. Linux is secure, as security is built in deep into linux and you can’t choose to ignore it like in Windows.
-Windows 2003 is closed by default, and the security is stronger compared with Windows NT/2000 (check how many vulnerabilites has IIS6). So now you cannot ignore security, because Windows will do nothing by default.
Thats why the big companies who know the real costs, like the fortune 500 companies and banks are switching over to Linux.
-That’s true, but there are many companies migrating from UNIX/Linux to Windows too.
Furthermore, the code is trustworthy as its visible and free to modify.
-Agree. Altough some companies have access to the MS source code, it’s no so easy for Windows.
I’m no saying that Linux is a bad OS or Windows is the best one, but Windows 2003 is not the bad product many people think it is, and Linux isn’t the greatest thing many people think it is. IMHO…
Come on, every chance I get up to speed with the jibbajabba coming out of monkeyboy’s mouth, I will take it. His opinions are always a good read if you want a a little laugh.
I have to agree, though, it’s not really news, but if it’s fun, who cares.
By the way, am I the only one who thinks Ballmer looks like Fester from the Adam’s family?
http://www.microsoft.com/msft/images/Staff/ballmer.JPG
http://zentelligence.blogspot.com/fester%20addams.jpg
They fear. They’re uncertain. And you know what fear and uncertainty leads to. ;-P
Windows compared to Linux and Unix. Sorry, but hahaha. They can keep dreaming. AMIGA OS was closer to Unix and Linux than Windows ever was.
–EyeAm
Faith. Certainty. LIFE!
Perhaps, I can configure Linux to run slower and be more expensive than windogs. I don’t know, maybe …
What do you think, could you?
“we have really pissant products that cost a fortune to use and maintain”…”our products are about as secure as a seive”…”we’ve got enough $$ to buy Ashcroft and the DOJ to leave our monopoly alone”…?
So he says just what you’d expect from someone who bread is buttered by MS: “we have great products that beat the stuffing out of all that free stuff”…”our pricing isn’t all that different from free when you look at the big picture”…”our products are only a virus magnet because they’re everywhere”…
Nothing to see here, move along now.
He’s awfully busy, I don’t know how he can possibly know first hand the stance of his company on these technical (read: easily lied about to protect slave x’s job).
Seriously, the man is the company spokesperson; how often is he even on campus?
DV said:
1. -Windows 2000/2003 need very low maintenance too, and it’s very stable. I have customers with Linux servers hacked, why? Did not have the updates installed. So both need maintenance.
-Actually if you have IP tables (Or IP chains) tight and cut off useless services you can have an old server running say Red Hat 7.1 and never get hacked (I know this because my mail servers are both running 7.1 and have been for 4 years with 150 users and have never been hacked) You might be able to do that with 2003 because of the built in firewall but with out spending money on 3rd party software you can’t do that with 2000.
2. -You need licences for Red Hat AS/ES and is per server/per processor. BTW, when you agree to AS/Es licencing, Red Hat can visit your company to check your servers are legal. You can read the licence agreement on red hat site.
-Actually you can get Red Hat AS/ES in the form of White Box Linux (And several other versions) with support at less then half the price of Red Hat. White Box Linux is created from the source code of RH AS/ES and will run all the same apps etc. Plus it’s free (Unless you want to pay for support)
3. -On Windows 2003 this is called Group Policy
-Actually the problem you have in Windows is that there is no real ballance between security and useability. I can give you 3 good examples. 1. If you are using Windows XP SP2 and you want to use Outlook Web Access from Exchange 2003 guess what? You have to turn down your security settings because they use Active X and other controls that don’t work in the new default security settings you get in IE from XP SP2. 2. If you are not a local admin on a Windows XP machine managed by a group policy, you can’t do a simple thing like Dfrag your drive. LOL! 3. Writing GPO’s for applications in Windows is one of the most labor intensive thing EVER! It’s a mess!
4. -Windows 2003 is closed by default, and the security is stronger compared with Windows NT/2000 (check how many vulnerabilites has IIS6). So now you cannot ignore security, because Windows will do nothing by default.
-Actually Windows 2003 had 18 patch updates on the last patch roll out alone. Not saying that there are no security problems with Linux, but because there are so many different versions it’s very unlikely a worm or virus can be written to take down EVERY version of Linux out there. Unlike with Windows.
Microsoft is JUST getting security down and most of that is because of OS’s like Linux that make people say “Why does Windows have soooo many problems and those other guys don’t!”
Around me, almost all my relatives with a computer at home have tried out Linux because of the buzz and the rebel attitude. After few days or few weeks, they all went back to Windows, without making waves.
When someone stays with Linux, s(he) gets a review in the specialized press, in the style “Alone with Linux, and still alive”.
And the scenario is the same in companies and administrations: all IT managers know that Linux exists, and most have already tried it. Few have chosen to go further, and the vast majority have chosen to change nothing, except for very specialized tasks. So my conclusion is that the potential for the Linux growth is not so huge because all good candidats for switching have already switched.
Linux is better and better, but so is Windows, so the gap is constant. The situation today is mainly the same than it was in 2000, and will probably be the same in 2008, thanks to longhorn.
Munich switch to Linux? After one year, the only visible result is that they switched from IE to Firefox. Great! I suppose next year they will switch from Outlook express to Thunderbird
I don’t see you guys saying this when Linus comes out with a letter or interview telling Linux is the best…
Puhleeze… Linus is probably the most pragmatic leader in the Open Source camp and never, EVER, would spit some inflamatory declarations just for the sake of it.
Besides, everybody (who reads OSNews regularly, of course) ALREADY knows that, while Linux is playing catch-up with Windows in some areas, it is much better in others (Servers and security just for starters).
See I feel the problem is not that people can’t use linux (My whole family, 10 people plus several friends and other people I know are using LindowsLinspire) I see the problem being that people are stuck doing things with Linux that they would never or have never done with Windows (Like installing it from scratch) But if the computer is pre configured and given to the person, most people can use versions of Linux like Xandros and LindowsLinspire just as easy as people use a MAC or even Windows if given one!
You say Linux is getting much better and so is Windows. But the one constant is that Windows is going up in cost while Linux (And even the Mac OS if you have a Mac) is not. Where XP Pro is 199 and 299 (And home is 99 and 199 give or take a few dollars for OEM versions resold etc) Lindows is selling for 45 and I can legally put that on any PC in my house. (Not tied to one install because of a stupid 50 digit license key!) We can imagine that Longhorn will be at least $50 more per copy per version.
But outside the US Linux is growning fast. I would say %60 of the new versions and roll outs are being done over seas. Here in the US most people don’t like change. We like to learn something once and never have to learn it again (Which is why no states give driver refresher courses for older drivers. We like to take our drivers license test at 15 years old and keep our license till we are dead. LOL!)
I really think I’ve heard enough of that line from Microsoft. No doubt they can dig up examples where Windows is cheaper – wonderful. But there are disadvantages: Constant patching is an issue. Bugger what they say about security vulnerabilities, something like 10% of Red Hat’s issues are critical whereas Microsoft is at about 40% – and I’ve heard people say they’d label another 10% critical as well.
All of these patches have to be applied, which inevitably results in servers being rebooted. Frequently one may fall over or break something else – what fun.
So, DV said:
“Windows 2000/2003 need very low maintenance too, and it’s very stable.”
No. Sorry. Low maintenance as compared to what? Look at Netcraft’s graph of uptime for microsoft.com if you don’t believe me – they’re at about 10 days at the moment, which is all they made it to before the last reboot too.
And Windows 2003 isn’t particularly closed by default. It’s better, but still doesn’t reach Linux.
… or to quote Jon Stewart, welcome to “deception lane”.
Seriously, I’ve lost all my trust in these corporations, and I wish my daily dose of osnews wouldn’t link to these ‘articles’.
Tyron said:
-Actually if you have IP tables (Or IP chains) tight and cut off useless services you can have an old server running say Red Hat 7.1 and never get hacked (I know this because my mail servers are both running 7.1 and have been for 4 years with 150 users and have never been hacked) You might be able to do that with 2003 because of the built in firewall but with out spending money on 3rd party software you can’t do that with 2000.
-Your are right about this. That means the Microsoft is getting better.
-Actually you can get Red Hat AS/ES in the form of White Box Linux (And several other versions) with support at less then half the price of Red Hat. White Box Linux is created from the source code of RH AS/ES and will run all the same apps etc. Plus it’s free (Unless you want to pay for support)
-I don’t think any Medium/Large business will run it’s business with White Box Linux.
-Actually the problem you have in Windows is that there is no real ballance between security and useability. I can give you 3 good examples. 1. If you are using Windows XP SP2 and you want to use Outlook Web Access from Exchange 2003 guess what? You have to turn down your security settings because they use Active X and other controls that don’t work in the new default security settings you get in IE from XP SP2. 2. If you are not a local admin on a Windows XP machine managed by a group policy, you can’t do a simple thing like Dfrag your drive. LOL! 3. Writing GPO’s for applications in Windows is one of the most labor intensive thing EVER! It’s a mess!
-You can use OWA on Basic client, and don’t need Active X. I haven’t try to run defrag without administrative rights, but I don’t think it will harm my PC. And I don’t need to create GPO’s for apps, so I can’t answer that. But for limit users, like the first post explained, GPO is very nice and useful.
4. -Windows 2003 is closed by default, and the security is stronger compared with Windows NT/2000 (check how many vulnerabilites has IIS6). So now you cannot ignore security, because Windows will do nothing by default.
-Actually Windows 2003 had 18 patch updates on the last patch roll out alone. Not saying that there are no security problems with Linux, but because there are so many different versions it’s very unlikely a worm or virus can be written to take down EVERY version of Linux out there. Unlike with Windows.
-You are right about this, Windows need updates and Linux too. Windows 2003 has less security problems than Windows 2000/NT. So MS still working on security. But there is an excess of confidence of the Linux community about Linux and security. They try to make that with Linux there is no need for updates and patches, something completly false. And there is a big MS advantage, regarding the manage of patches and updates (SUS & SMS 2003)over any Linux vendor. So when I need to update my 100’s of Linux servers, I will as smooth as Windows? If I need to remove the update, it will be as easy as Windows. I know that you need SMS for that, but the applicatation to do this exists for MS and are very mature, something I haven’t found for my Linux servers. There is a need for Linux vendor to step forward on this. Again, there always be a need to update Windows and Linux.
My two cents…
So, DV said:
“Windows 2000/2003 need very low maintenance too, and it’s very stable.”
No. Sorry. Low maintenance as compared to what? Look at Netcraft’s graph of uptime for microsoft.com if you don’t believe me – they’re at about 10 days at the moment, which is all they made it to before the last reboot too.
And Windows 2003 isn’t particularly closed by default. It’s better, but still doesn’t reach Linux.
-Archangel, did you know that Netcraft reports that Microsoft runs on Linux? It’s because they use some servers from Akamai, on Linux and Windows. How do you know if the report was created using the servers from MS or Akamai?
And whats worse for MS is the evidence that globally there seems to be no shortage of them. The allure of OSS/FS is that the stuff works, and can be implemented today, not when MS decides to “invent” it. And yes, MS, with the help of IBM/SCO, can run an IP protection racket with the best of them. The money people will have you paying one way or the other.
boohoo mummy. that nasty ballmer’s teasing my operating system again.
I had hoped that people would realize the significance of this posting.
Large and small business IT Managers and Business Decision Makers (the guys with the budget) rely on outlets like this to determine how and wheret they are going to spend their next year’s IT revenue.
I expected more people to make comments like “Why don’t we have similar analyses and metrics comming from Red Hat’s CEO, or IBM’s”.
Its true that this is not an article to do with the technical details of operating systems, but it it very much to do with the business of operating systems.
DV said:
1. -Your are right about this. That means the Microsoft is getting better.
– MS has 50 billion dollars in the bank. They should of had this licked before Linux was even created, yet it took Linux to push MS to do better, not the other way around.
2. -I don’t think any Medium/Large business will run it’s business with White Box Linux.
Actually the reason I know about it is because the government agency I work for has deployed about 100 servers running White Box Linux, and plan to deploy more. (The agency USAID has about 10,000 plus users)
3. -You can use OWA on Basic client, and don’t need Active X. I haven’t try to run defrag without administrative rights, but I don’t think it will harm my PC. And I don’t need to create GPO’s for apps, so I can’t answer that. But for limit users, like the first post explained, GPO is very nice and useful.
– So I spend a few thousand dollars on exchange and want to deploy OWA yet I have to bump it down to the basic version because it’s a Microsoft application that now doesn’t meet Microsofts own security model?? On top of that they haven’t fixed it yet. And yes GPO’s work to do basic lock down but only if you have a active directory domain set up etc. What if you have a small office and don’t want to go through the pain of setting all that up? Then what? Local group policies? They don’t work, users can get around them.
Oh and you can’t run defrag as a basic user, and I don’t think you can even run it as a power user. (Which is my point, why can’t a regular user run it if it won’t harm your machine in the first place???)
4 – -You are right about this, Windows need updates and Linux too. Windows 2003 has less security problems than Windows 2000/NT. So MS still working on security. But there is an excess of confidence of the Linux community about Linux and security. They try to make that with Linux there is no need for updates and patches, something completly false. And there is a big MS advantage, regarding the manage of patches and updates (SUS & SMS 2003)over any Linux vendor. So when I need to update my 100’s of Linux servers, I will as smooth as Windows? If I need to remove the update, it will be as easy as Windows. I know that you need SMS for that, but the applicatation to do this exists for MS and are very mature, something I haven’t found for my Linux servers. There is a need for Linux vendor to step forward on this. Again, there always be a need to update Windows and Linux.
– No one says that Linux doesn’t have to be patched, every piece of software out there has problems at one time or another but not like Windows. On top of that there are several patch update tools that can do the same as SMS. You have Red Carpet which was made by Ximian, you have Red Hat networks (Which can be set to update patches from a local server you control) You will have Zen Works from Novell which on Windows KILLS SMS and you also have Shavlik HFNetChkPro (Which was a mature Windows product that has been ported to Linux)and then there is Xandros Desktop Management Server (You can read about a company that has used XDMS to deploy 100’s of machines below) http://www.desktoplinux.com/articles/AT9862464242.html
All I am saying is that for example on my Xandros machine at work I have only installed security patches twice since last year when the current version came out. I check their patch update site (Which is like Windows update) once a month and nothing. Yet once a month I am spending hours testing patches from MS. I am always a month or 2 behind. (Which means my Windows machines are always unprotected)
Also the other stupid thing is that both SMS and SUS require that the PC be on but (A big but) not logged into the network! (Because SMS and SUS can’t connect with elevated privlages while someone is logged in to install patches and software (Can you say DUMB design!) So if someone goes out of town and leaves his/her machine locked they will not get the patches! A Worm or Virus can take over their machine while they miss the patches but SMS can’t. LOL! People say “Well just use SMS to reboot the machine and log the user out!” And what if that user has something SUPER important running and you cut off the machine and delete it??? They will have their patches but you may not have a job. Yet I can do this in Linux with WAY less testing time, plus 99% of the time you can install patches and never have to bat an eye!
“Also the other stupid thing is that both SMS and SUS require that the PC be on but (A big but) not logged into the network! (Because SMS and SUS can’t connect with elevated privlages while someone is logged in to install patches and software (Can you say DUMB design!)”
No. But I can say DUMB user. Both “facts” are simply untrue.
SMS (by default) runs the patch program as the SMS client service account (ie an admin account). SUS is part of the Automatic Updates service and runs with elevated privileges. Both can run whether or not a user is logged on.
SUS, especially under XPSP2, provides a better way to restart the machine gracefully.
Pronounced “eggs or Brad”.
MonkeyDancing==BSOD
Tyrone said:
MS has 50 billion dollars in the bank. They should of had this licked before Linux was even created, yet it took Linux to push MS to do better, not the other way around.
-You are right about that. But doesn’t mean MS is not taking security seriuosly anymore. And, yes, the start to get better when Linux started to grow, but the same happened to Novell when Windows was growing up, and now they are try to get it right. Is that a bad thing?
Actually the reason I know about it is because the government agency I work for has deployed about 100 servers running White Box Linux, and plan to deploy more. (The agency USAID has about 10,000 plus users)
-That is a very nice project you have in your hands. Hope it runs well. But I don’t think many other goverment departments or Fortune 500 will think the same as you. They prefer a company backing up what they have invested in time and money. That’s the reason Red Hat and Novell exists.
So I spend a few thousand dollars on exchange and want to deploy OWA yet I have to bump it down to the basic version because it’s a Microsoft application that now doesn’t meet Microsofts own security model?? On top of that they haven’t fixed it yet. And yes GPO’s work to do basic lock down but only if you have a active directory domain set up etc. What if you have a small office and don’t want to go through the pain of setting all that up? Then what? Local group policies? They don’t work, users can get around them.
Oh and you can’t run defrag as a basic user, and I don’t think you can even run it as a power user. (Which is my point, why can’t a regular user run it if it won’t harm your machine in the first place???)
-First of all, when you choose the basic version, is more an interface change than lose of functionality. You can try it, by having access to OWA with Mozilla. And I can add the /exchange address in the trusted sites, so it can install the Active X component. (By the way, I’m not sure if OWA on Exchange 2003 needs Active X anymore). Regarding GPO and active directory, I don’t know how painful is to manage a small LAN with AD. I have customers with SBS2003, that by default it configure AD, that only have 4 PC’s. And there is no complexity on that. They can add users, shares, printers, etc without any problems. What is the difference between having AD and not? May be your experience have been other. And, does it makes an user more productive by using Defrag? Let’s put the defrag aside, because it will not make my users more productive.
– No one says that Linux doesn’t have to be patched, every piece of software out there has problems at one time or another but not like Windows. On top of that there are several patch update tools that can do the same as SMS. You have Red Carpet which was made by Ximian, you have Red Hat networks (Which can be set to update patches from a local server you control) You will have Zen Works from Novell which on Windows KILLS SMS and you also have Shavlik HFNetChkPro (Which was a mature Windows product that has been ported to Linux)and then there is Xandros Desktop Management Server (You can read about a company that has used XDMS to deploy 100’s of machines below) http://www.desktoplinux.com/articles/AT9862464242.html
-You are right about this. But, does Zen Works support Mandrake or Xandros server versions of Linux? White Box Linux? dont think so. So it looks that Linux is not the same platform between companies after all. And Zen Works manage way better Windows XP desktops than Linux desktops. Shavlik have the first version of their product for Linux version 2 vs. verion 4 for Windows(BTW Linux version is only for Red Hat). So I think the Windows version is more mature. So it looks that when I want a management application for Windows (Microsoft, Shavlik, NetIQ and many others), I know it will work for Windows (95 to Server 2003). Not the same with Linux. Like I said the first time, hope some one step up in the right direction. I will read the link you gave about XMDS, but you should read this too, http://www.microsoft.com/smserver/evaluation/casestudies/casestudy….
All I am saying is that for example on my Xandros machine at work I have only installed security patches twice since last year when the current version came out. I check their patch update site (Which is like Windows update) once a month and nothing. Yet once a month I am spending hours testing patches from MS. I am always a month or 2 behind. (Which means my Windows machines are always unprotected)
-It’s nice the you have a nicely working Xandros system. But I have customers that their Linux server were hacked because thinking the same way you are thinking, that Linux no need to be patched so frequently. And I don’t think that your project you will leave your servers unpatched.
Also the other stupid thing is that both SMS and SUS require that the PC be on but (A big but) not logged into the network! (Because SMS and SUS can’t connect with elevated privlages while someone is logged in to install patches and software (Can you say DUMB design!) So if someone goes out of town and leaves his/her machine locked they will not get the patches! A Worm or Virus can take over their machine while they miss the patches but SMS can’t. LOL! People say “Well just use SMS to reboot the machine and log the user out!” And what if that user has something SUPER important running and you cut off the machine and delete it??? They will have their patches but you may not have a job. Yet I can do this in Linux with WAY less testing time, plus 99% of the time you can install patches and never have to bat an eye!
-Check the Matt answer, under your post regarding SMS.
You have answered a lot of my question regarding management on Linux, and I hope to have answered some of your points. Thanks…
Stallman: Comparing GNU/Linux with Windows.
Does a closed source platform really provides a lognterm cost advantage compared to GNU/Linux?
if i got a $250,000 grant, i’d give software away for free too.
one area that linux has the advantage is virtualization / UML. renting a UML server is dirt cheap, and i don’t see a windows equivalent for the same price. Slackware, etc, also take up less RAM than Server 2003, which means more virtual machines can be sold.
I recently saw a short video clip of Balmer pitching DOS. Car salesmen throughout the world were mesmerized. Honestly, we should be swayed by this man?? Really. What is it about americans that cause them to think we should listen to people who have a vested interest. That is just nutty, especially since independent studies refute virtually everything in this so called “article.” Just for the record, I don’t think I am THAT stupid. But, what do I know. I am certainly not a billionaire.
if your on Balmer’s shoes? ha!?!?
Stallman: Comparing GNU/Linux with Windows.
Does a closed source platform really provides a lognterm cost advantage compared to GNU/Linux?
One minor correction: If Stallman posts that, he’s a zealot. If Ballmer posts this, he’s a businessmen.
*ROLLEYES*
Its both BS, and for one time i agree even with Smartpatrol (!) about Sun.
I don’t see you guys saying this when Linus comes out with a letter or interview telling Linux is the best…
I never read Torvalds saying such. I never read Torvalds said Linux is good or the best for everything. I did read some snarling side comments to MS, but those are afaict just jokes. Torvalds ain’t busy as much as either Stallman or Ballmer is on issues like this (plain advocating). Instead he’s programming and (these days more often than not) managing/leading. Not marketing/advocating.
If Stallman would have posted this i’d expect ‘zealot comments’ from some visitors here, too. Though slightly different than done right now.
1 -But doesn’t mean MS is not taking security seriuosly anymore. And, yes, the start to get better when Linux started to grow, but the same happened to Novell when Windows was growing up, and now they are try to get it right. Is that a bad thing?
Novell has never had a product problem, just a marketing problem. Novell has never had serious security problems like Microsoft. Microsoft has been called to the mat about security since DOS. Microsoft killed Novell by telling people “Hey Windows server feels and looks just like the Windows desktop. Plus you can save money cause you don’t need to pay a specialist to run it.” Didn’t mean the product was better.
2 -That is a very nice project you have in your hands. Hope it runs well. But I don’t think many other goverment departments or Fortune 500 will think the same as you. They prefer a company backing up what they have invested in time and money. That’s the reason Red Hat and Novell exists.
And how did Red Hat and Novell get big? Red Hat started out from the bottom. It’s not like they were a billion dollar company over night. 5 Years ago Red Hat was no bigger then a company like White Box is today. But with good marketing and good development they have grown.
3 -First of all, when you choose the basic version, is more an interface change than lose of functionality. You can try it, by having access to OWA with Mozilla. And I can add the /exchange address in the trusted sites, so it can install the Active X component. (By the way, I’m not sure if OWA on Exchange 2003 needs Active X anymore). Regarding GPO and active directory, I don’t know how painful is to manage a small LAN with AD. I have customers with SBS2003, that by default it configure AD, that only have 4 PC’s. And there is no complexity on that. They can add users, shares, printers, etc without any problems. What is the difference between having AD and not? May be your experience have been other. And, does it makes an user more productive by using Defrag? Let’s put the defrag aside, because it will not make my users more productive.
Actually in the basic version you loose things like the ability to create folders (Cause you can’t see the folder list) You can’t open emails in a new window, Spell check doesn’t work. You don’t get reminder popups and you don’t get new mail reminders. (Those are just the things I notice)
And no most users don’t need Dfrag often, but what if a person moves a lot of files often. Well in Linux I don’t have to worry. But in Windows I know I am going to get that call that their PC runs sloooooooooooow. And I am going to have to go to that user, stop them from working, log in as an admin and defag the thing. (Lost time and productivity because you KNOW it’s going to take an hour to do) Oh and SBS2003 is nice but what about the price?? Little pricy to get that and Windows on the desktop just for easy to use active directory and GPO’s! Yes for a big company no problem, for a small one though BIG problem. I can do the same things useing SUSE pro for less then half the cost. I can set up domains and use Open Ldap for directory services and if I want I can use Open Ldap to manage Windows, Linux and Mac machines.
4- -You are right about this. But, does Zen Works support Mandrake or Xandros server versions of Linux? White Box Linux? dont think so. So it looks that Linux is not the same platform between companies after all.
Most people don’t mix verions of Linux. (But remember White box is made from the Source files of Red Hat. The ONLY difference is they take out the red hat logos. So if a product works for Red Hat AS/ES 99% chance it will work on White box the same as if something works on Windows NT 99% chance it will work in 2000)If they go with Red Hat most of the time they go all redhat. Still I could go Redhat on the server and manage it with Red Hat networks and then go With Xandros on the desktop and manage that using Xandros tools. Being that the Xandros machines will almost NEVER need the same patches as the Red Hat machines that makes sence. Also the new version of Zen Works should work on all the major vesions of Linux (Suse, Mandrake and Red Hat) Most of the smaller companies don’t have tight development schedules as those. Oh and I would think that Microsoft which has been in business almost 15 years longer then Linux has exsisted should have more customers and large case studies. My point is that because we are even talking about Linux which started out as a hobby in a dorm room proves that Microsoft has some problems.
5 –It’s nice the you have a nicely working Xandros system. But I have customers that their Linux server were hacked because thinking the same way you are thinking, that Linux no need to be patched so frequently. And I don’t think that your project you will leave your servers unpatched.
Ummmm, you can’t just willy nilly install Windows patches. If you have custom apps you have to do testing meaning that you need a group of people just working on that every day all day long. So there are going to be periods of time when your Windows machines are not secure. And yes I know people who have been hacked. If your machine is not secure (Meaning the person leaves machines logged in as Root, not having a tight firewall etc) you can and will get hacked (Even in Windows, or Mac OS) But when is the last time you heard of a Linux Virus outbreak??? I hear about them in Windows all the time. The biggest thing you hear in Linux is direct hacking attacks. Well shoot that is a problem even if you have all patches installed yet don’t have the machine secure! (And like I said in my last post I check for patches to my Xandros machine once a month. There are just no patches out there to intall because there have been only 3 security alerts since it came out last Nov and these were all small, small meaning that you didn’t have to break your neck making sure you had the patches installed ASAP!) But remember I said I had 2 Red Hat 7.1 one servers running my mail for 150 users. I don’t worry about them being hacked. I have had them up over 3 years. With 150 users hitting them I have only rebooted one of them this year (And that was to install a tape back up drive) Most of the people I know running from 2000 to 2003 are not doing it because of better features, they are doing it because of security and lack of support. (Red Hat 7.1 is 4 or 5 years old yet you still have small groups of people still putting out patches etc because they like 7.1 yet with Windows if Microsoft doesn’t do it then all you can do is suffer or upgrade, no source code out there to work with.)
6- -Check the Matt answer, under your post regarding SMS.
Notice he said this works under XP SP2. And if you have not moved to SP2 (All of our users have not because it breaks some of the apps we use) Then I guess you are Shi_ out of luck???? We just sent out a global email a couple of days ago asking all Windows XP and Windows 2000 users to log off at night so they can get patch updates. (Also this is needed to get updates from the Mcafee virus scan epolicy server)
I am not saying that what you said does not have some truth to it. But for a company that has sooooooo much talent and money it’s funny that we even have to compare their products to low end products like Xandros or Debian or Fedora Core. It’s not often that I compare companies like BMW to say Kia motors. If I buy a BMW I exspect to get a much better car! If I buy Windows I would exspect to get a much better OS then say Debian or Fedora. (Just picked free versions) But that is not the case. What I get with Windows is a more mature product but not really a better product. (It’s mature by nature because Windows is older)
M$ only ever wants to compare to Red Hat and Mandrake, and their “enterprise” releases cost money, so M$ is able to dispell the “linux is free” idea.
But M$ never wants to compare with Slackware or Debian. For small businesses, one skilled IT guy could administer a server running one of those OSes, and in that arena, linux crushes windows server.
The up front cost of software (to buy) is insignificant over the life of the investment. That’s why that “one IT guy” running some version of Linux he downloaded off the net isn’t much cheaper, if they are cheaper at all. The people who have actually had to do the sums and pay know this, that’s why they keep buying Windows (and why those – undoubtedly cherry picked – TCO studies are able to return the results they do).
If you are not a local admin on a Windows XP machine managed by a group policy, you can’t do a simple thing like Dfrag your drive. LOL!
Disk defragmenting requires low-level access to the filesystem – you’d bloody well hope a regular user wasn’t allowed to do it !
Unbelievable (well, not really). People bash Microsoft because they’re supposedly “insecure”, then bash them because they *are* secure.
Ummmm, you can’t just willy nilly install Windows patches. If you have custom apps you have to do testing meaning that you need a group of people just working on that every day all day long.
This applies equally to _all_ OSes.
Notice he said this works under XP SP2.
It works _better_ under SP2.
And if you have not moved to SP2 (All of our users have not because it breaks some of the apps we use) Then I guess you are Shi_ out of luck????
No. Both Windows 2000 and XP <SP2 can have patches pushed out and installed to them with regular users logged in using SUS (and presumably SMS, although I haven’t used that).
We just sent out a global email a couple of days ago asking all Windows XP and Windows 2000 users to log off at night so they can get patch updates. (Also this is needed to get updates from the Mcafee virus scan epolicy server)
The former was unnecessary, or you aren’t using the right tools. The latter is the fault of your AV software (eg: Symantec AV installs updated virus defs in the background with a regular user logged in fine).
Well this is another presentation of Vaporware 🙂
The corporates need to make money to keep up with their own infrastructure. So if their size and perceived requirements that is the problem..
Previously why corporates would not buy into LINUX, well there was no corporate to support it (read it as:- there is no one I can sue). Now that we have a few corporate who support it, for their own personal gain (keep getting free programmers time), they also have to charge to cover their other overhead. Wasn’t that what happened when these OEM went ahead with Indemnity provisions (from NOVEL).
I think Mr Balmers problem is that M$ is having to cut down on the amount they charge customer, and not that the other product of better quality..
Would this then be called as their Corporate (confused) message?
to “penguins” who do oh-so-confidently comment on TCO/cost issue,
i wonder whether any of you has a real-life budget responsibility in a corporation or runs his/her own profitable linux business ?
or are you like ballmer’s discussing programming which he has no experience in ?
1 – Disk defragmenting requires low-level access to the filesystem – you’d bloody well hope a regular user wasn’t allowed to do it !
So please tell me why any home user can run Defrag in any version of Windows? Why is there no warning message that this could be a problem and that you should know what you are doing before you run it? Also please tell me what harm could come from running defrag as a regular user??? Please tell me the security in that? LOL!
2 – Ummmm, you can’t just willy nilly install Windows patches. If you have custom apps you have to do testing meaning that you need a group of people just working on that every day all day long.
This applies equally to _all_ OSes.
Yes, but with the ammount of patches coming out for Windows it’s almost impossible to keep on top of. Most of these problems are LONG time problems that go back as far as NT 4 and should have BEEN taken care of. Also most of them are problems with things like IE, active X, macros etc. Things that MS has never gotten right and are patched again and again and again!
3- From another post (The up front cost of software (to buy) is insignificant over the life of the investment. That’s why that “one IT guy” running some version of Linux he downloaded off the net isn’t much cheaper, if they are cheaper at all. The people who have actually had to do the sums and pay know this, that’s why they keep buying Windows (and why those – undoubtedly cherry picked – TCO studies are able to return the results they do).
Actually the reason most people by Microsoft is because they go with who is safe. Working in the US governement the standard belief is like with IBM “Anyone who buys IBM never gets fired” Same with Microsoft. It’s what people know and people are comfortable with it. Doesn’t mean it’s better or lower in cost. The funny thing is if your MS product doesn’t work you can’t go back and get anything from MS just be cause they are bigger then say Red Hat.
If you read the EULA it says: ” LIMITED WARRANTY FOR SOFTWARE ACQUIRED IN THE US AND CANADA. Microsoft warrants that the Software will perform substantially in accordance with the accompanying materials for a period of ninety (90) days from the date of receipt. If an implied warranty or condition is created by your state /jurisdiction and federal or state/provincial law prohibits disclaimer of it, you also have an implied warranty or condition, BUT ONLY AS TO DEFECTS DISCOVERED DURING THE PERIOD OF THIS LIMITED WARRANTY (NINETY DAYS). AS TO ANY DEFECTS DISCOVERED AFTER THE NINETY-DAY PERIOD, THERE IS NO WARRANTY OR CONDITION OF ANY KIND.”
It also says “LIMITATION ON REMEDIES; NO CONSEQUENTIAL OR OTHER DAMAGES. Your exclusive remedy for any breach of this Limited Warranty is as set forth below. Except for any refund elected by Microsoft, YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO ANY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, if the Software does not meet Microsoft’s Limited Warranty, and, to the maximum extent allowed by applicable law, even if any remedy fails of its essential purpose. ” To me you will get no more support or help from Microsoft if Windows doesnt work right or gets a worm (If you don’t pay for it) Then you can get from Debian or Fedora.
4 – It works _better_ under SP2.
And if you have not moved to SP2 (All of our users have not because it breaks some of the apps we use) Then I guess you are Shi_ out of luck????
No. Both Windows 2000 and XP <SP2 can have patches pushed out and installed to them with regular users logged in using SUS (and presumably SMS, although I haven’t used that).
We just sent out a global email a couple of days ago asking all Windows XP and Windows 2000 users to log off at night so they can get patch updates. (Also this is needed to get updates from the Mcafee virus scan epolicy server)
The former was unnecessary, or you aren’t using the right tools. The latter is the fault of your AV software (eg: Symantec AV installs updated virus defs in the background with a regular user logged in fine).
Actually the SMS and SUS servers can push out patches to users that are logged in AS LONG as it’s not something Microsoft tells you should be pushed out when users are logged off. I just talked to the Microsoft consultant today and was told that as good practice users should always be logged out because some patches and service packs may need to reboot the machine etc. So it’s not that I am using the tool wrong or using the wrong tool, it is what MS says are best practices. (Also SUS and SMS can not over step GPO’s if a user is using a lock down GPO SUS and SMS can not over ride it to install patches)
If I buy Windows I would exspect to get a much better OS then say Debian or Fedora. (Just picked free versions)
Why? Because you have only spend a lot of money or because
you realy know the OS you bought?
What I get with Windows is a more mature product but not really a better product.
If you say that MS has largest support package of commonly accepted tools/ways/products to deal with the daily business in its various forms up to mainframes with sna-server i would say yes.
What’s better?It depends all on a lot of factors.
[i](It’s mature by nature because Windows is older)
If they don’t do anything but creating hypes and make necessities that aren’t instead of contributing to real
improvements of the OS design.And this has allready been said before.It’s all because of the Ballmers and other lunatics and marketing trolls at the top.They severly lack
vision .Only thing they can say with their Won MBA’s is:
developers,developers…
Well the developers of microsoft are top notch.Realy nothing
wrong with them.It’s MS lacks real management and policy
that makes this big matured carcinoma what it is today.
Respect also for B.Gates, although i love OSS and stepped over to Linux.You can’t say he didn’t have vision when started windows.But the good old eighties are long gone.
After w95 realy nothing innovative happened.
So far this rant.
After w95 nothing realy innovative happened (on the MS desktop market)
And here I was starting to think that finally I could get news from a site that wouldn’t recycle old pieces of news. That comparison has been online for more than a month. By now, every god damn person on this site knows about it. Get a damn clue. Get some real news up there. Not this bulls*** about what Ballmer or Gates or Who ever said!
Windows ? What’s that ? Bluescreen OS ?
Let me see what the weather like …
damm it’s raining …
How is $0 more expensive than $1000? I wonder what math Ballmer is using, because it’s not the same as mine.
to “penguins” who do oh-so-confidently comment on TCO/cost issue,
i wonder whether any of you has a real-life budget responsibility in a corporation or runs his/her own profitable linux business ?
or are you like ballmer’s discussing programming which he has no experience in ?
argumentum ad hominem. oldest trick in the book and one of the worst logical fallacies. testimonials play a role, yes, but your comment is just as worthless as the ones you are replying to. you would have to prove that you are in a position to critique their opinions. otherwise your comment is worthless (by your own logic).
your comment is just as worthless as the ones you are replying to
i am not commenting, i am asking.
it was not very humble, but that’s intentional, ’cause i have a gut feeling that there is no TCO-experienced penguin around here.
ubi nil valens, ibi nil velis
I preferred your article on the “Last Starfighter”. The story was more credible than this movie “Windows vs Linux” directed by Ballmer.
What?
Oh you haven’t completely transitionned to being MovieNews?
My mistake.
LOL
Oh well was nice reading OSNews in the past. Well until you became pro-MS of course.
PS: Sorry Eu***ia, you can’t ban me for expressing my thoughts anymore. I have dynamic IP now 😉
So please tell me why any home user can run Defrag in any version of Windows?
Because Windows sets them up by default as *Administrators*. Ie: *not* “regular users”.
Why is there no warning message that this could be a problem and that you should know what you are doing before you run it?
The security risk isn’t the defragging in and of itself, it’s the things you need to be able to do to defrag a disk.
Also please tell me what harm could come from running defrag as a regular user??? Please tell me the security in that? LOL!
Defragging a disk requires the ability to shuffle around files at the filesystem block level. If you can’t understand the (negative) security implications of that, you’re not in any position to be commenting on security.
Yes, but with the ammount of patches coming out for Windows it’s almost impossible to keep on top of. Most of these problems are LONG time problems that go back as far as NT 4 and should have BEEN taken care of. Also most of them are problems with things like IE, active X, macros etc. Things that MS has never gotten right and are patched again and again and again!
Bollocks. It’s no different to the typical Linux distro.
I have no idea on why you’ve gone off on some rant about EULAs and “someone to blame”, but it is clear you completely missed the point.
Actually the SMS and SUS servers can push out patches to users that are logged in AS LONG as it’s not something Microsoft tells you should be pushed out when users are logged off.
Which updates are these ?
I just talked to the Microsoft consultant today and was told that as good practice users should always be logged out because some patches and service packs may need to reboot the machine etc.
Well, it’s always best practice to have no-one using the machine when it’s being patched, but it’s far from required, no matter how you may have interpreted whatever the drone told you.
Automatic Updates (ie: SUS) can be configured to not reboot the machine if a user is logged in. Instead, it raises a dialog explaining updates have been installed and that a reboot is required.
So it’s not that I am using the tool wrong or using the wrong tool, it is what MS says are best practices. (Also SUS and SMS can not over step GPO’s if a user is using a lock down GPO SUS and SMS can not over ride it to install patches)
Both SMS and SUS operate *completely independently* of the logged in users. GPOs affecting that user are irrelevant. You are wrong.
1.) Because Windows sets them up by default as *Administrators*. Ie: *not* “regular users”.
No duh, it just again shows Microsoft’s lack of so called security skills! If it’s such a BIG security problem then why would you allow any user on any version of Windows the ability to do that? (If you are supposed to be improving security) I didn’t see that as one of the hundred things addressed by XP SP2?
Also I have never ever heard of anyone EVER crashing a machine, hacking a machine, taking over a machine or losing data due to Defraging. LOL! Please show me an example of this HUGE security problem.
2.) Bollocks. It’s no different to the typical Linux distro.
Please name ONE application in Linux that has gotten flagged for the same security issues again, and again and again like things such as IIS has in Windows! Oh and like Active X! There are so many bugs, worms and viruses geared to Active X I can’t even keep count. I would bet there are more security warnings for Active X alone then all apps in Linux put together!
3) I have no idea on why you’ve gone off on some rant about EULAs and “someone to blame”, but it is clear you completely missed the point.
Duh, if you read you would understand that I was talking about the impression people have that Microsoft will be there for you if their software doesn’t work or doesn’t work up to your exspectations! (Yea if you pay for gold support then Microsoft will be right there to walk you though) It’s not like when you buy a car and if it doesn’t work you can take it back because most states have Lemon laws. No with Software you are stuck with it. And that is no different between companies. But people that bu MS products have the impression that because MS is big that some how you have protection or someone to fall back on and that is just not true!
4) AS LONG as it’s not something Microsoft tells you should be pushed out when users are logged off.
Which updates are these ?
SP 4 for 2000, SP2 for XP and the GDI detection tool for 2000 and XP. (And asso patches related to that big ole hole that goes back to Office 97)
5) Well, it’s always best practice to have no-one using the machine when it’s being patched, but it’s far from required, no matter how you may have interpreted whatever the drone told you.
I didn’t interprete anything, I copied and pasted his text “as good practice users should always be logged out because some patches and service packs may need to reboot the machine etc.”
Anyway, the point is we shouldn’t even be comparing Linux and Windows anyway. Isn’t MS worth about 50 Billion right now. Hummmmm, and all the Linux companies put together arew worth about 5 Billion. Yet Microsoft still has to worry about Linux, people still are able to argue about quality, and security. Windows is not a clear cut winner at anything against Linux.
If I look at 2 companies like BMW and Kia Motors, I can say clearly that BMW makes MUCH better cars. But when I look at Microsoft and say Xandros, I can say MS has a more mature product, but I can’t say it’s better. (Mature as in more refined, has better drivers, works on more hardware.) But then I can go back and say the fundementals like the crappy NTFS file system which still needs to be defraged and chkdisked often (If you do things like burn DVD’s like I do) You still NEED, REQUIRE, MUST HAVE Virus Scan software!
Just a part of life in Windows land!
No duh, it just again shows Microsoft’s lack of so called security skills! If it’s such a BIG security problem then why would you allow any user on any version of Windows the ability to do that? (If you are supposed to be improving security) I didn’t see that as one of the hundred things addressed by XP SP2?
Also I have never ever heard of anyone EVER crashing a machine, hacking a machine, taking over a machine or losing data due to Defraging. LOL! Please show me an example of this HUGE security problem.
The problem is that defragging a disk requires the ability to shuffle around data at a very low level on the filesystem. Again, the problem isn’t the *defragging*, it’s the other things the user has to be able to do for defragging to work. If you can’t understand why allowing *regular users* to modify the filesystem at the block/cluster level, then you’re not in any position to be commenting on security.
OTOH, given your complete inability to grasp the nuances of the example – despite several explanations – I can only assume you’re just stupid.
Please name ONE application in Linux that has gotten flagged for the same security issues again, and again and again like things such as IIS has in Windows!
Sendmail. BIND.
Duh, if you read you would understand that I was talking about the impression people have that Microsoft will be there for you if their software doesn’t work or doesn’t work up to your exspectations!
I know what you were talking about, I’m just not sure how it relates to the discussion (then again, you probably don’t either, you just wanted to vent your spleen).
SP 4 for 2000, SP2 for XP and the GDI detection tool for 2000 and XP.
XP SP2 installs fine via SUS. I’d assume Win2k SP4 does as well although I haven’t tried it. And the GDI detection tool requires user input when it runs, so I’m not sure why you’d insist on having the user logged out when it’s run.
So out of the hundreds of updates, you can list 3 that apparently “require” (even though they don’t) the user to be logged out (and what kind of fool wants to roll out *service packs* while machines are in use anyway ?), but this is supposed to be a showstopper problem ?
I didn’t interprete anything, I copied and pasted his text “as good practice users should always be logged out because some patches and service packs may need to reboot the machine etc.”
It *is* good practice. It is *not* required.
But when I look at Microsoft and say Xandros, I can say MS has a more mature product, but I can’t say it’s better. (Mature as in more refined, has better drivers, works on more hardware.)
Sounds like better to me.
But then I can go back and say the fundementals like the crappy NTFS file system which still needs to be defraged and chkdisked often (If you do things like burn DVD’s like I do) You still NEED, REQUIRE, MUST HAVE Virus Scan software!
NTFS is fine, and somehow I’ve managed to get by without having a virus scanner and just doing the occasional scan from the free on-line providers. Not to mention, if you think you *won’t* need software like virus scanners and malware detectors/removers if/when Linux becomes more popular, you’re either naive or stupid.
Just a part of life in Windows land!