A week ago the news got out that Microsoft had approached OSDL for a comperative study between Linux and Windows. OSDL confirmed this, however, they did not provide an answer to Microsoft’s request. On Friday, Joe Brockmeier had a chance to have a short talk with Cohen [CEO of OSDL], and got a definitive answer. Cohen said that “there is no way we would do a joint research project with Microsoft.”
This shows just how afraid they are that GNU/Linux will be shown to be worse than Windows in just one tiny thing.
OSDL have been reduced to nothing more than FUD-slingers in this little debacle.
FTA: “If OSDL were to participate in such a project, Cohen said that when the report came out, no matter what the broad outcome of the report was, anything negative about Linux would be exploited for marketing purposes by Microsoft.”
As if they would not use anything negative about Windows in their own marketing. Official or inofficial doesn’t matter.
That’s exactly what I was expecting people to say when I first read about this.
Microsoft has a lot more money than the OSDL and has for years been on a smear campaign against Linux, blowing the smallest of things way out of proportion in order to successfully scare all the Joe Sixpacks out there away from Linux, and in many cases get most of them to start gossipping about how awful they have convinced themselves the OS is.
If the OSDL had come to an agreement with Microsoft to have the joint comparisson then Microsoft would have done the same thing again, but would have been able to do so claiming that “even top Linux experts couldn’t get the operating system to be easyer/faster/more secure/etc… than Windows”.
Making this kind of deal with Microsoft when they obviously have no morals as a company and want to crush you as a competitor is not smart, especially since they have more than enough money and lawyers to protect themselves from any legal charges they may be faced with for lying.
What’s to stop OSDL from consulting experts from Linux companies, like RedHat? Companies such as these have the same incentive as MS to make sure that their product comes out tops.
As it is, it looks as if OSDL is afraid of what the outcome might be. What’s to stop MS from taking this as implying that Windows is superior to Linux in the TCO arena? “Linux experts fear fair comparison” or some such other spin isn’t too hard to imagine.
I really fail to see why OSDL will turn down such an opportunity. If they are worried that MS will smear Linux by throwing too much money at the problem, what’s to stop them from including that in the report? Or stopping the report altogether?
I have to agree with the original poster. This is OSDL’s loss.
What’s to stop OSDL from consulting experts from Linux companies, like RedHat? Companies such as these have the same incentive as MS to make sure that their product comes out tops.
Look at the track record of both OSDL and RedHat.
Compare that to Microsoft’s track record.
I have to agree with the original poster. This is OSDL’s loss.
It is a matter of trust.
Would you trust Microsoft?
Would you trust OSDL?
Would you trust RedHat?
For me, the answers are “you must be kidding”, “certianly”, and “till they prove otherwise”.
You trust OSDL? Have you forgotten that its founded by corporations? One of which, IBM, was the evil monopolist before MS came about?
The OSDL might have been founded by a few companies with a history of bad morals, but at least the OSDL itself isn’t a company with bad morals. You can’t assume that because IBM was a monopolist years ago the people responsible for that are in charge of the OSDL now, that’s would be a far-fetched assumption.
The OSDL has not yet destroyed their credibility with me, Microsoft on the other hand has.
You trust OSDL? Have you forgotten that its founded by corporations? One of which, IBM, was the evil monopolist before MS came about?
There are enough competitors in the list of OSDL members that there is little fear of one tainting good people that are there doing the work; the other members would scream bloody murder and drag the dead PR agent from IBM (or any other company that tried it) through the press gauntlet. Not a chance I can think anyone would want to do that.
“There are enough competitors in the list of OSDL members that there is little fear of one tainting good people that are there doing the work; the other members would scream bloody murder and drag the dead PR agent from IBM (or any other company that tried it) through the press gauntlet. Not a chance I can think anyone would want to do that. ”
Sure. Go on believing that. Sure all those corporations in OSDL are in it for the good of Linux.
Please!
Sure. Go on believing that. Sure all those corporations in OSDL are in it for the good of Linux.
That’s not what I said or even implied. Go back and read what I wrote if you want a serious response.
I’d trust them all to do what they believe is in their own best interest.
Bad move. It’s joint research project. Can’t they go to the next stage and decide how the research is going to be conducted and on what aspects. If they can’t agree to the terms they can always bail out and it WONT look bad. Bailing out now does not help OSDL at all.
FUD = a new dirty three letter word created by open source advocates and adopted by corporations
Why thank you for crediting us with that word, but I don’t think we deserve the credit.
Actually it’s YAA (Yet Another Acronym) that has just come from lazy typing and probably one originating use of it on Slashdot.
But, thanks for trying to discredit the guy without bothering to address what he said; simply because he used a popular acronym.
Thanks for trying but FUD has been around since before the term “open source” was coined. From Wikipedia: “FUD was first defined by Gene Amdahl after he left IBM to found his own company, Amdahl Corp.: “FUD is the fear, uncertainty, and doubt that IBM sales people instill in the minds of potential customers who might be considering Amdahl products.””. Unless you’re trying to say that Gene Amdahl was an open source advocate in 1970.
As if they would not use anything negative about Windows in their own marketing. Official or inofficial doesn’t matter.
Look at the track record for both groups.
As noted earlier, it’s obvious that the OSDL fears the results of such a study. What have they got to hide if Linux’s TCO really is lower than that of Windows?
Given that OSnews is populated by Linux zealots sworn to believe propoganda and hide truth, I’m sure this will be voted down, but I’m willing to take the hit.
I gave you a +1, because I tend to agree with you. If Linux *for sure* has “lower TCO” and more of these buzzword-crap, than why not participate? At least if you participate in a study you can check whether or not your partner (MS in this case) is playing fair, and vice versa.
Too bad this thing has been knocked down, I for one would be really interested in the possible outcome.
You’re forgetting something, if MS doesn’t play fair what is the OSDL going to be able to do about it. Microsoft has a lot more money, has never worried about being immoral and illegal before, and none of their few court losses were actually significant enough to harm them in any lasting way.
What incentive does OSDL have to participate? Do you think that it is purely by chance that Microsoft wishes to engage in this dog and pony show? That they don’t have a clear reason to believe that they stand to gain from this endeavor, and just decided to roll the dice? That’s just not going to happen. There will be no outcome in the study where Microsoft says, “Welp, I guess we were wrong.”
Every time Microsoft funds or participates in a study about Linux–or honestly any competing product–it’s biased and concocted to make Microsoft’s technologies look superior. So why waste your time and energy working with Microsoft, when it’s an obvious propaganda ploy?
So far a lot of the posts here are “damned if you don’t” posts, where simply not cooperating with a company that regularly engages in funding propaganda is a sign of “hiding something.” What are they hiding? Not a lot as far as I can tell. Would anyone please care to point out what is ‘hidden’ by not working with Microsoft on such research?
You could do the study? Why not? Do you have something to Fear?
I think your logic just took a stop there. There’s something more to not doing this study, since Microsoft has a track record of not being to trust worthy. So I think OSDL has something more to worry about than their TCO; not so much coperative but competitive tactics from our freunds in Redmond.
A valid point, but to quote Mr. Disraeli “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
“I read a statistic once that said 65% of all people believe that all statistics are true. And well if that many people think they are it must be true!”
comic I read in a psychology book once many years ago.
Citing:
“If OSDL were to participate in such a project, Cohen said that when the report came out, no matter what the broad outcome of the report was, anything negative about Linux would be exploited for marketing purposes by Microsoft.”
That means whatever the outcome, if you are not planning invest millions into advertisement favorable parts of the report tomorrow, you loose even if you win in report.
Microsoft has more money to communicate around this report, so we would hear a lot more about linux’s drawbacks in the media.
Plus, how can one evaluate the long term benefits of freedom? TCO studies will never outline that point, and it’s an important one.
(sorry fo my bad english)
either
1) OSDL is extremely poor and underfunded and cannot afford to cooperate for whatever reason (unlikely)
2) They are afraid the results will hurt linux and other open source projects. (Possible)
3) They are stuck up snobs that hate microsoft and are unwilling to cooperate with anyone. In reality, microsoft is just like any other corporation. They want to make money and were one of the first ones to actually be successful with operating systems, and they were damn good at marketing and distributing it to OEMs. They got in a good position from the start, it’s not that bill gates was a genius or anything… his company just decided to do something alittle different from other people. which was logical so you gotta wonder how stupid all these other corporate people are.
Hmm.. which one is it? Any of those are not pretty!
Hmm.. which one is it? Any of those are not pretty!
None of the above! OK, where’s my prize for answering a trick question?
Well, that explains much. First of all:
“If OSDL were to participate in such a project, Cohen said that when the report came out, no matter what the broad outcome of the report was, anything negative about Linux would be exploited for marketing purposes by Microsoft.”
How can someone try to dismiss a proposal wich such arguments?? I guess that Microsoft could say that anything negative about Windows could be exploited as well… so this doesn’t hold.
I’m very upset that a supposedly independent institution like OSDL refused to do a balanced comparison. Of course, if Microsoft throw such proposal they were sure to prevail in the end. But that doesn’t come as surprise. I still would expect Windows to prevail against any Linux. I could have doubts about solutions like Solaris…
OSDL failing to perform a balanced comparison means maybe that Linux bubble is bigger than we thought. What exactly are they trying to hide?
If I were someone who invested big bucks into Linux, I would be upset to know that Linux sponsors refuse to compare their product.
After this, I’m not sure which marketing dept is more frightening…
I’m very upset that a supposedly independent institution like OSDL refused to do a balanced comparison.
You haven’t been paying attention to how Microsoft operates for the last 20+ years, have you?
You haven’t been paying attention to how Microsoft operates for the last 20+ years, have you?
Given that you are right (which I’m not so sure) so why would we need OSDL, then? To do the same MS did?
Arguments for refusing this are totally unconvincing and are mostly pretexts. Remember that such comparisons are hardly useful for people deeply rooted into a technology but most important to people who need to make choices now. If I was a Windows-guy for 10 years, I would hardly switch until costs are REALLY very different. If I have all my applications and archives running an Unix solutions, I would hardly switch (say) 20 years (think about Universities) to move to Windows.
Result of this is huge. Take myself for example: until yesterday if anyone asked me I would have said: “For sure, Linux has lower TCOs” (in a balanced comparison). Right now, I’m not so sure…
As I wrote (and I saw others wrote that too) this was a bold marketing move because OSDL left a loaded weapon in MS hands. They will be able to state “Linux better?? We asked them to compare and they refused… why was that in your opinion??”. Which always make a bell ring inside your head.
Bad move. At worse, they could have learned where to improve (if needed). This outcome suggests that OSDL knows that Linux have important weakness points but it’s not willing to admit. This is scaring if someone was thinking to put real money into such solutions.
Maybe some kid switching his distro every week couldn’t care less, but most businesses do.
It’s not OSDL’s problem. Microsoft can conduct whatever ‘research’ it wants and publish whatever results it wants. They can be refuted or verified on their own merits by anyone willing to reproduce the testing. OSDL has no responsibility to anyone to engage in this.
What this entire charade demonstrates is Microsoft knew that it could win in either situation. OSDL accepts, and design tradeoffs can be exploited for use in propaganda with OSDL’s participating being used as support for veracity. OSDL declines and people like you act like OSDL is “hiding” something. It’s all just a marketing gimmick. OSDL not participating doesn’t keep Microsoft from showing “weaknesses.” It stops Microsoft from using the OSDL as a marketing chip.
I understand this point but in my opinion it doesn’t make any difference from end result point of view. We know that Microsoft could show some kind of superiority here (which comes as a surprise, I think. I wasn’t so sure though it doesn’t matter for me). From result point of view we knew that Microsoft did it because it was reasonably sure to prevail.
However, as OSDL you have two ways to manage this, (given that in the end Microsoft will pump the drum saying that both ways it prevailed):
1) show “openess” and act as an independent research body. Test and (eventually) fail. And work to improve.
2) act as usual old-style company (the same you were bashing because of blablabla): refuse, tell excuses. In a word, base on marketing, which is ironically the way MS was accused to behave: all marketing, no facts.
All in all, OSDL (and money pumpers behind those guys) are stating since at least 2 years that Linux is far superior, we can do this, we can do that, we’re faster, we’re cheaper, we’re this or that.
Now Microsoft said: “Ok, cheaper? Show me… Ok, faster? Show me…” and they rejected this proposal.
I can’t really see how OSDL thinks that rejecting will help “stopping Microsoft from using the OSDL as a marketing chip”. From now on, when someone at IBM, Novell or OSDL themselves will say “We’re faster… we’re cheaper…” MS executives will just raise their eyebrows and state “We wanted to test, they refused…”. I hardly believe there’s anything worst than this, on marketing field, expecially when talking to non-technical people…
My hint: it would have been better to say “Yeah, we were wrong… we’re 10% more expensive… we’re 8% slower…” and improve. Yeah, that wouldn’t have helped the cheaper&faster campaign but at least it’s a real data people could decide to invest on anyway. This way, if I were an EX, I would say: “if they we’re *only* 5% more expensive, they would have done this…”.
My .02… I’m not an EX 😉
Instead of repeatedly making assertions about the result “they’re worse but they should learn how to improve,” maybe you should focus back to reality where this is indeterminate. The game isn’t about whether Microsoft’s technology is superior or inferior, but rather that there will doubtlessly be some configurations that will favor Microsoft, and Microsoft knows this. It wouldn’t matter if it were 99.9% or 0.1% of configurations because Microsoft will market the result as “In a study conducted by OSDL and Microsoft, Linux has been shown to be inferior.” OSDL has nothing to gain by participating in a study with Microsoft. Microsoft is a known, irrefutable propagandist. No one should conduct such “research” with Microsoft, unless they want to regret it later.
OSDL loses the least by not providing its name to Microsoft’s affirmative propaganda. Microsoft can claim a victory in being able to make news about OSDL refusing their invitation, but that’s far less damaging. It doesn’t stop Microsoft from constructing whatever “research” it had in mind before it even made this offer.
In some parallel universe where OSDL or any other party cannot improve Linux or any other product that competes with Microsoft’s products without walking into their competitor’s traps it would be disappointing. That however isn’t the case. Improvement is good. Lending your support to your competitor’s propaganda machine is bad.
I would also like to say that it’s really a mistake to rely on vendor-sponsored testing of their own products in general. Lending credence to a Microsoft study about Microsoft products is seriously mentally deficient. The organizations that spend enormous sums of money on Microsoft and Linux installations would be best served by forming an independent consortium for determining where their money is best spent, not relying on Microsoft or OSDL to tell them.
I don’t agree with your points about MS exploiting that comparison. You seem to believe (like others) that OSDL has a few old grannies behind their back instead of a few corps which can exploit that comparison as well (and get money from that). If MS can exploit that, others can do. This doesn’t seem a valid reason to reject confrontation.
Moreover, let me ask you a thing: if MS sponsors a study (funding it), results are tweaked because MS sponsored it so they’re not valid. If MS asks their competitors to perform a comparison (and split costs), this is not valid either because MS will exploit results… is there a way MS can do something to prove their products are better? Or should they just surrender? 😉
If you ask, yeah, I’d be curious to see results. I wouldn’t expect Windows systems to prove superior at all costs and surely any outcome wouldn’t change my choice for my home/work systems (at least not in a near future). But I’m open to confrontation and comparisons and I still believe this is the driving force to innovate.
The organizations that spend enormous sums of money on Microsoft and Linux installations would be best served by forming an independent consortium for determining where their money is best spent, not relying on Microsoft or OSDL to tell them.
Agree on MS but isn’t (or better, *wasn’t*) OSDL supposed to be an independent consortium? They didn’t ask IBM to do a comparison, they asked a supposedly independent consortium as OSDL should have been. I agree it is not anymore, that’s obvious, but if I were a Linux user, I would tend to trust OSDL. Seeing that they just obey to their sponsors as any little dependent company would do is a bit disappointing to me, even as Windows users.
I don’t consider OSDL to be an independent consortium of IT buyers. They have as obvious an agenda in promoting Linux as IBM, even if that isn’t in my favor. Microsoft has an obvious agenda in promoting its products. I wouldn’t trust my money to determinations from either.
As I said before, OSDL has nothing to gain from cooperating with Microsoft and only more to lose. There will invariably be configurations that favor Microsoft, and those will be the center of Microsoft’s advertising. They can promote these findings in either case, only if OSDL participates they can then claim that their marketing literature is backed by work done by OSDL, rather than Gartner. This is obviously not in OSDL’s interest. It has little to do with OSDL being “grannies.” I wouldn’t suggest that any Microsoft competitor fly into one of their traps. I don’t even say this as being “anti-Microsoft,” since I use their products every day; I say it simply because doing so is stupid. In this case, it’s not OSDL’s responsibility to accept this cooperation. Anyone can engage in a verifiable study with Microsoft about Linux. OSDL can just happily focus on doing whatever OSDL wants. They aren’t hiding anything. It isn’t an admission of failure, fear, or anything of the like. It’s common sense.
Do you even have a clue what you’re talking about?
Seriously, I can’t make sense of the majority of what you are saying, and I’m not going to sniff glue just to figure it out. This part was almost coherent, though it falls apart towards the end;
As I wrote (and I saw others wrote that too) this was a bold marketing move because OSDL left a loaded weapon in MS hands. They will be able to state “Linux better?? We asked them to compare and they refused… why was that in your opinion??”. Which always make a bell ring inside your head.
Here’s a clue: Microsoft had a _PRIVATE_MEETING_ — _OFF THE RECORD_ — with the folks at OSDL.
The next thing OSDL finds out is that _MICROSOFT DISCUSSED COMMENTS FROM THE MEETING WITH THE PRESS_.
Now, ask yourself…what plans do you think Microsoft had from the very start?
Well, it seems your comment is moderated down a bit. I disagree with your position on the issue, but I don’t see anything against the rules in your post. Looks like the moderating system needs a bit more tweaking (I know that it is new, and is still being worked on – I just wanted to point out your post as an example of moderating gone awry). But that is just my opinion on the matter.
Anyhow, on-topic:
The issue with the study results being promoted by Microsoft under a pro-MS spin is that Microsoft has a humongous advertising and marketing budget. Probably “staggeringly” would be a good adverb to throw in there, too.
OSDL does not. The spinning in the media (electronic, paper and other) would be dominated by one side. Sure, OSDL could hold up the counter-points, but they would almost certainly be drowned out, like a small “Garage Sale” sign taped to the base of a billboard.
I think the OSDL just saw this as a risk not worth taking. In the end, every organization must look at their own situation and make their own decision, regardless of what some study states.
Well, it seems your comment is moderated down a bit. […]
Thank you for noticing 😉 I noticed that too but this is how it works and of course if you don’t agree with most users, that means getting low in popularity 😉 No problem here, though.
Sure, OSDL could hold up the counter-points, but they would almost certainly be drowned out, like a small “Garage Sale” sign taped to the base of a billboard.
I think the OSDL just saw this as a risk not worth taking. In the end, every organization must look at their own situation and make their own decision, regardless of what some study states.
I cannot agree about this, sorry. OSDL and OSS community around Linux is no more a bunch of guys working in their basements and it’s been that way since long time. There are IBM, Red Hat, Sun, Novell and so on behind those guys. And there’s money behind them (beside the hype, of course). They could play all fanfares they wish.
To be honest, there’s something I didn’t write but which I’m thinking. I didn’t write it in early posts not to look too harsh but you can read that between the lines of my posts.
I don’t think OSDL has any independence anymore. They probably got “advised” by their generous multi-millionaire sponsors not to open a direct confrontation and so they did.
Forgive me, please, if I cannot believe that OSDL and Linux top-guys are poor guys trying to make their living. There’s money behind them… a lot of that.
I think it would have been better to accept the challenge. Even if they could end up being behind Windows in final ranking, they could have showed that they hold ground and understand where to improve (if needed). I’m sorry but I think the only reason why OSDL should not have accepted the challenge was because they knew they’re not so good as expected and that could have hurted sales of big guys in the shadows who maybe spend their time trying to state Linux is better. I can’t see any other reason (and sure that’s not about money or finding some room to promote results) 😉
Thank you for being so kind.
…and then made a deal that Microsoft has to put up 5 million for each side to advertise. Each side also gets to approve the other’s advertisements.
Then, either way, neither party would be left out in the cold when one side loses and linux wins.
OSDL should have at least discussed the possibility of a joint study, by flat-out refusing, it reflects badly on them.
Any joint effort between OSDL and Microsoft would have been in the full glare of the web/online media – the process would have to be fairly transparent – OSDL would have a say in the methodology and everyone would be scrutinizing the methods and results of the study very closely.
If, during the study, OSDL suspected unfair tactics, they would be free to voice those concerns and lay their claims out for everyone to see.
OSDL should have at least discussed the possibility of a joint study, by flat-out refusing, it reflects badly on them.
They did. Why do you think it took them so long to respond?
When I first read the story about MS approaching OSDL I knew it was a no win situation for OSDL. They were stuck right between a rock and a hard place and had no good options regardless of what they decided.
This was the brightest MS marketing move in years, and it didn’t cost them a nickel. What it will eventually cost OSDL is yet to be determined. Needless to say OSDL handed MS a lot of free ammunition for a future battle.
I have an overwelming feeling OSDL should have done the opposite, but they certainly know more about the situation than I do.
Not at all. It is more embarassing for MS that they’ve been ignored. Ignored with more or less speeling answer in “No, we will not participate. Sponsored study is never independant”
This was the brightest MS marketing move in years, and it didn’t cost them a nickel. What it will eventually cost OSDL is yet to be determined. Needless to say OSDL handed MS a lot of free ammunition for a future battle.
Nothing. OSDL hasn’t got anything against study, as long as it is not sponsored.
Ammunition like that almost always backfires. It will just start lot of non-sponsored studies, just like when MS started “Get the facts” campaign. It backfired then, and it will backfire now.
I have an overwelming feeling OSDL should have done the opposite, but they certainly know more about the situation than I do.
No. What they did is the right decision. They couldn’t benefit out of this. MS would benefit out of every positive sentence. You just don’t need to market negative things.
I don’t think any of us here believe that Microsoft is cheaper than Linux across the board. Nor is Linux cheaper than Windows across the board.
The results of any testing would show mixed results, and the only correct thing for any company evaluating a platform is to look at their individual situation and requirements, themselves.
Now, with a result with mixed results, what do you think that Microsoft would plaster all over their advertising and marketing campaign? “You may or may not have a lower TCO with Windows”??? No. They would heavily promote all the parts that showed a Windows advantage. That is smart business. And, with a HUGE budget to back it up, imagine how much this would get promoted. Certainly the OSDL could not out-spend Microsoft to get the other side of the story out.
The “joint study” would be a marketing coup for Microsoft, and not provide much benefit to OSDL. I can see why OSDL declined.
It is intersting to read in the ZDNet link above, how it seems that Microsoft geared up to using this as a public opinion piece right away:
“ It’s also worth noting that Cohen’s conversation with Taylor was supposed to be off the record, and that he was surprised to see it turn up in the press a short while later.“
It is intersting to read in the ZDNet link above, how it seems that Microsoft geared up to using this as a public opinion piece right away:
” It’s also worth noting that Cohen’s conversation with Taylor was supposed to be off the record, and that he was surprised to see it turn up in the press a short while later.”
That doesn’t surprise me. Microsoft has done the same many many times in the past 20 or more years.
Any possibility to enlight us that don’t remember those times with link or maybe even two.
Any possibility to enlight us that don’t remember those times with link or maybe even two.
Sure, though there are so many that I’m not going to even attempt to list them all. Instead, use Google and search using this;
microsoft ~lying court case
To narrow things down from the 1/2 million references, plug in years such as 1985, 1986, 1994, … years I’m picking at random and each having eyebrow raising results returned on the first search page.
(Note in Microsoft’s behalf: The word ~lying is handled as ‘lies’ by Google. Sometimes that means ‘to fib’, other times it means ‘lies with the defendant’ (not a fib)).
The OSDL should never accept a deal from Microsoft. Time and time again, Microsoft has found ways to destroy its competition in less than ethical ways. The best way to deal with Microsoft is to not partner with them at all.
Open Source has already won. Why else would Microsoft want to get cozy with OSDL?
OpenSource has won? Hell, get your head out of your ass sometimes… Whay world are you living in?
What has Open Source “won?” Please provide me a reason to think that the seemingly-irrational last sentence isn’t flamebait.
The problem with this sort of “research” is that you can’t actually come up with results that are in any way accurate. It all depends on what you’re measuring and that creates a whole host of problems. As a terrible example, compare running ASP.NET scripts on Windows and Linux. Well, Linux can’t run them. So you have to get Linux running, buy a Windows license and get VMWare or something running (which also costs money) and there you have ASP.NET on Linux for a ton more money, less reliability and lower speed.
Even not so dramatic examples will make differences. Hypothetically, let’s say that Apache is more optimized for Linux. Let’s also say that PHP is optimized for Apache. Microsoft’s server (IIS I think it’s called) outpreforms Apache on Windows because Apache isn’t optimized for Win, but PHP works like crap with IIS. Should they compare PHP and Apache on Linux with IIS and something else (ASP) on Windows? Then what would you test? ASP might do operation A really fast, while PHP does operation B really fast. Now, with two options, it’s easy to test, but with the tons of different things you can do with a web script, you can’t test them all.
The problem is that you can’t tell which is better overall unless it is obviously clear (in which case this research is useless) and you can’t test specific cases without spending TONS of money – basically building stuff for a bunch of different companies for production use in both languages – and even then you have a problem generalizing from specific cases.
Personally, I would go with an OSS solution, but part of that is because I’m comfortable with the tools. I’m sure I could learn how to admin a Windows server, but I already know most of the things I need to know to admin a Linux server. This is going to be way more important to a company than any technical overview. MS likes stating one case where a company came back to Windows after going Linux. If you read the whole thing, it’s because their staff had been admining Win for many years and didn’t know Linux and they didn’t want to rehire their entire IT staff. The knowledge that you have of each system will probably be a greater determinant than any technical TCO crap that someone tries to sell you on.
Your first point is very useless, it would give OSDL a reason to refuse something like that and would make things as bad as this decision is. Your second point is also pretty useless since it would be about TCO which hasn’t got so much to do with technical stuff. In anyway this would also give OSDL good reason to refuse. In third part you again talk little off the target, this didn’t have nothing to do with programming language but TCO of whole system.
Problem with tech people is that they don’t understand business and money side people. TCO isn’t crap since they need some way to measure how much different systems cost. TCO can be measured without migration costs since they are harder to calculate. Again OSDL could refuse making test if they feel some part would be unfair, but so could Microsoft.
I think after years of talking about Linux TCO costs it would be wise to show those too, but OSDL just disappoints me.
I think after years of talking about Linux TCO costs it would be wise to show those too, but OSDL just disappoints me.
ma_d provided a very good answer in the thread “Not OSDL’s business” (above). I suggest you go read it.
“Problem with tech people is that they don’t understand business and money side”
This is why companies stash their admins and programmers in a secluded cave away from everything related to money, other than the vending machines.
And business types don’t understand tech types. You see, tech types are all about doing things correctly, reguardless of cost.
Retraining costs, IMO, are generally bunk. Yes, they’re expensive; definitely. But, what you should decide is: When will we have to retrain again with both directions?
Microsoft has not, especially recently, been very nice about keeping administration and sometimes even end-user stuff the same through each release. No one can keep full compatibility, but IMO Windows changes at a much more rapid pace than Linux/Unix (not actually the kernel, few admins care about interfacing directly with that) on the outside (interfaces).
And of course, no TCO ever seems to consider the ultimate cool factor of OSS: It’s Free. When the company supporting it goes out of business (all companies end) then they can actually start their own support group if they find switching to be a hassle they don’t want!
Not to mention that if lots of companies are using a piece of OSS, when the company supporting it goes out it’s much more likely to see new companies begin supporting it than it is to see a new company support Office if MS dies. Why? Because it’s actually possible to build updates for the OSS!
I don’t think MS is going bankrupt any time soon, but it’s quite possible that in the next five years things could change drastically and Balmer could make a large number of giant blunders. And in 20 years, yea I don’t think they’ll be shipping Office and Windows anymore… I know that sounds like a big prediction, but I just think that both markets are getting to where there are too many reliable and stable alternatives for Microsoft to sell at those competitive prices.
I don’t think many of us require a study to know the “deficiencies” of Linux. We know them first-hand. Linux is far from perfect….and so is MS Windows. Companies can make their own decisions, sans the clut and distortions of PR propagada.
Time and money would be better spent on collaborating with Microsoft to establish interoperability standards. By helping organizations to manage heterogenous environments, we help to increase security on a global level.
I don’t want every computer running Windows, and I also don’t want every computer running Linux. Diversifying the ecology of operating systems is both necessary and important to security. Most FOSS people understand this and would agree. And while I don’t intend to villify Microsoft, it’s a given fact that their allegiance is oriented to corporate/fiscal needs, which unfortunately runs counter to peoples’ freedom and security.
If Microsoft worked with OSDL on interoperability standards… then, perhaps a higher level of trust between the two camps would be established…. which could then lead to such “objective”/”cooperative” Windows/Linux comparison.
Also, if interoperability were established, then we would see *REAL* competition. Only the BEST software packages would survive… be it Linux/FOSS, Microsoft, or something else.
I don’t think many of us require a study to know the “deficiencies” of Linux. We know them…
Time and money would be better spent on collaborating with Microsoft to establish interoperability…
I don’t want every computer running Windows, and I also don’t want every computer running Linux. Diversifying the ecology…
If Microsoft worked with OSDL on interoperability standards… then, perhaps a higher level of trust…
Also, if interoperability were established, then we would see *REAL* competition. Only the BEST…
Hey! What are you doing here? Especially if you’re talking about Linux & Windows. You are making far too much sense. Stop that at once! 😉
I think that the last thing we need is yet another “study,” yet another flurry of content-free “white papers.” I’m sure I’m not the first to say so, nor am I likely to be the last.
I find nearly every study, every white paper, every marketing report to be a waste of time and effort. They are almost always too general where they should be specific and excessively specific when general would serve. Whether I accept or reject the premises and the conclusions of any such document, they usually convey nothing other than what the author wants you to hear and are nearly always a waste of time, even with the best will in the world. Throughout my career in what we now call “eye-tee,” I have believed, and still believe, that actions speak louder than words and that results are superior to arguments.
I am unmoved by the rhetorical gymnastics by which one OS (or programming language, or microprocessor, or system, or etc…) is “proven” to be “superior” or “inferior” to another. Neither am I impressed by the plethora of bogus arithmetical scoring systems, the meaningless statistical surveys comparing the equivalent of apples and wing-nuts, and the resulting columns of precisely quantified non-information. My eyes positively glaze-over when presented with all the colorful graphs of nothing in particular. As an engineer, all of I’ve ever wanted is to “get that baby out on the track and see what she’ll do.”
For heaven’s sake, stop trying to prove the unprovable and let’s get something done. If you want to tell me something, tell me about what works and what doesn’t. Tell me how you accomplished something useful. Tell me something interesting.
Windows is definitely cheaper than Linux in terms of TCO. The OSDL folks know this, that’s why they declined Microsoft’s request.
This shows more about the inadequacies of the open-source movement, than any Windows TCO figure.
Microsoft has moved to psychological warfare and the score is:
MS 1 OSS 0
Microsoft has moved to psychological warfare and the score is:
They are known the world over as masters of Fear, Uncertianty, and Doubt. This is standard operating procedure and has been for decades.
So:
If OSDL doesn’t want to pay for a head-head comparison:
OSS advocates know Windows has lower TCO
Huh?
Please, enlighten me with the remainder of your theory…
Let’s see, let me try what you did:
If, I challenge you and you decline:
You are unable to defeat me (in whatever I challenged you to)
Does it sound like children on the playground? That’s cause it is
.
> If, I challenge you and you decline:
> You are unable to defeat me (in whatever I challenged you to)
>Does it sound like children on the playground?
Just the opposite! Children tend to rise to all and any challenges, no matter how much they don’t really want to (because of peer pressure) and no matter how stupid the challenge might be (because they are themselves, well, stupid).
To evaluate and decline when the risk seems too great or rewards too small seems precisely like the mature response to me.
Remember folks, just say NO!
The more people who ignore the beast’s invitations, the better of we are.
Why dine at the table of the enemy?
Treat the beast like the joke it is.
“Remember folks, just say NO!
The more people who ignore the beast’s invitations, the better of we are.
Why dine at the table of the enemy?
Treat the beast like the joke it is.”
How true
Frankly, if the OSDL had agreed to do this I’d be upset. And it has nothing to do with strategy, and everything to do with scope. The OSDL, emphasis on the D, does not exist to aide or make marketing campaigns; they exist to get real work done by making better software.
If you think this is a good idea. Open a paypal account. Register as a non-profit, trademark “OSML” and go ahead and sign up to do this with Microsoft.
The OSDL can’t blow money on marketing because the people who help fund it would simply stop once they realize that their money is being completely wasted on things they weren’t told it’d be spent on!
Ban those words.
The OSDL made a very good choice.It’s MS who badly needs funded studies to cover up their malignent practices.OSS is what it says open.Everybody with knowledge can have a close look and form his/her own opinion.We don’t have to waste precious recourses on a stupid funded study.As far TCO is concerned it’s pretty easy to calculate minus MS licenses and app environmental entrapment.I congrattulate the OSDL with their wise decision.Let’s continue the development.
Any company who produces anything that competes with any Microsoft product would be committing suicide if they “worked” with MS on an analytical paper. This is such an obvious conclusion – given MS’s history – that to claim OSDL has lost something by not cooperating with MS is just plain foolish.
We all know how the road to hell is paved.
It’s full os BullCrap. Ban Wikipedia.
I do think that Microsoft’s sales force will have more ammunition in the TCO battle, but OTOH OSDL did the right thing in my opinion. I cannot think of any other instance in which two competitors in *any* industry have agreed to jointly fund comparison testing of their products/services. It’s just too risky. Or does anybody know of an example of such study?
When the fox got to the other edge he ate the gingerbreadman, breaking his word with this warning ¨You knew what I was when you got on¨. If OSDL had accepted MS offer OSDL would have ended up like the gingerbread man.
MS is a bad company and it shows.
If they had agreed to a study, Microsoft would have used it to blow up any Linux flaws with the biggest mangifier they could find. Now that they don’t agree, Microsoft will say “What are they afraid of?” and make a big marketing ploy out of it.
Wake up people! Ketchup companies have been putting their brand in the refrigerator and their competitor’s brand in the oven for years to illustrate how “thick and rich” their own product is.
I would like to see a day when all this is behind us, and we start acting like adults on this planet. Especially the rich kids.
Calculating the TCO of OSes as disparate as Windows and GNU/Linux is nearly impossible.
A TCO study could possibly be done within the scope of a specific business situation over a specific time-slice, but the result is useless to 99.9% of the people that will see it because it is too specific. In a different situation the results might have been the opposite.
And frankly, anyone making decisions based on such studies is an idiot. They are same people who listen to Gartner for advice on technology. The picture provided by such sources is about as clear and accurate as an attempt to draw a picture of downtown Tokyo based solely on the fact that I have seen other towns and I have a Japanese friend. The bottom line is that if you don’t already *know* which has a lower TCO for *your* company, then you need to either find out yourself or hire someone who can. Reading trade magazines is not even on the list. I read them to hear about what exists, not to learn what is good. If you can’t evaluate that for yourself and you are in a position of haiving to do so, you are not qualified for your job.
And in 20 years…
I don’t think they’ll be shipping Office and Windows anymore…
Yo.. You know thats the MS master plan don’t ya
keep everything as it is… keep doing the same thing…
pulling in the same cash from the same codebase…
thats whats so stale about MS
I can’t believe that Thom Holwerda has such a naive perspective on this subject.
Here it is…
MS only wants this study to happen so they can manipulate the findings and discredit the OSDL! Read the Halloween docs.
They are crooks and liars that will use ANY dirty tactic to benefit themselves. It’s a game. A big game worth BILLIONS!
Next I’m expecting the many ignorant posters here to call the OSDL “chicken” because of their answer. Come on people! Wake up!
You don’t play games like this with your enemy. Cheers to the OSDL.
Besides, anyone, and I mean anyone worth their salt that understands technology, security and Microsoft’s role in this arena does not support Microsoft’s claims.
And there it is… Microsoft has “claims” UNIX has “facts”.
Maybe Thom Holwerda should “Get the facts”.
I think some people are exaggerating the ‘fear of discovery’ aspect. OSDL essentially admits that they are afraid of how Microsoft would use the information, but I do not think such a fear is without cause. Whether it is bad or not (all OSes have bad aspects) the good aspects will most certainly not be prevalent in anything Microsoft says.
The ‘why should we do market research for Microsoft’ reasoning is perfectly sensible. Microsoft is perfectly capable of doing this research on their own without an ‘official stamp of approval’ from a Linux researcher.
If some of you decide to ignore that and choose to accept Microsoft marketing’s conclusion that they are somehow cheaper than free, how can logic convince you otherwise?
I think it probably would have come down to Linux performing better and being more intrinsically secure (though with lots of exploits they’d find), Windows being easier to set up, integrate into a Windows network, and maintain, but nothing larger than a few percentage points.
Then begins the hand-waving that each product could be better if it were tweaked better, arguments about which tweaks are really inconsequential, then what performance is really necessary…
Microsoft claims they’ve won and goes on a media blitz that mostly ignores where they’re weak, OSDL claims they’ve won, Linux geeks proclaim the death of Windows again, and very little changes.
What if MS would hide a trojan horse in their offering?
We all know that this is their strategy.
This time, aside from marketing purposes, they could really work with open source guys and study from the inside the way they organise, for exemple. Being a giant company has also drawbacks – in time they get to be like concrete – almost no flexibility, rough corners and all. Flexibility is an important asset for open source, and MS would really like to have a living demo for their pleasure; they will probably “innovate” something after studying their oponents.
Also, tis is a chance to study the inner sights of Linux with some pros who will explain things to MS.
OSDL has nothing to gain here, but MS has everything …
My 2 cents …
Neither of the OSes has an evident overall TCO advantage. In any case the results of the study would be mixed, but Microsoft with its huge marketing budget can make the results LOOK whatever they want. Sure OSDL has company backing, too, but I don’t think they approve marketing spending of that size, so it would be a gigantic PR win for Microsoft. Refusal to cooperate from OSDL is a PR win for MS, too, but way smaller, so they went with lesser evil.
Agreed.
MS’s past history of being deceptive/devious/untrustworthy makes it a company you do not wish to be doing any “joint studies” with. Moral and ethics went right out the window, when the supposedly “off the record” discussion, became public news.
This is another sad and pathetic ploy from a company who’s golden years are starting to fade, as people start to become aware that there are other choices other than Windows.
MS is desperate for more marketing ammunition to use in their “Get the facts” campaign.
Watch for more interesting things Microsoft will try in the future!
“MS is desperate for more marketing ammunition to use in their “Get the facts” campaign.”
I’ve described MS as a lot of things over the years.
“DESPERATE” has never been one of them.
Far too many people make this sound like MS is going under, but that couldn’t possibly be further from the truth.
Sure their revenues are down. They are competing with nobody other than themselves.
The fact that MS aproached OSDL should have been kept secret, but was leaked by Microsoft.
Now Microsoft obviously milks the situation for whatever marketing spin they can get out of it.
In future NOBODY from the OSS community will even meet with a Microsoft employee anymore, for it is very likly that MS will painfully twist every hand which is extended to it.
You don’t feed a wolf that once tried to bite your arm off!
Open Source has already won. Why else would Microsoft want to get cozy with OSDL?
I’ll answer your question. Microsoft also wants that free labor that corporations have been getting from open source (free labor) programmers and turning it into high revenue, easy as that.