×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

475 comments

first post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#9483141)

first first post eva?

hope so

fp (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#9483144)

fp

Free Software (5, Funny)

Moblaster (521614) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483146)

Microsoft believes in free software too. Ever use Internet Explorer and see how fast all the free software shows up on your computer?

Re:Free Software (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#9483185)

Why yes, just last night in fact. Had to run AdAware and AVG to get rid of the little bastard, and then I convinced my wife to try and stop using Internet Explorer (Again).

There Is Another Kind of Free! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#9483346)

Free from the dead hand of Microsoft!!!!

Linux IS Free (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#9483153)


if your time is worth nothing
now where is my compiler, i need to post another comment

Certainly is compared to MS-Windows (3, Insightful)

leonbrooks (8043) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483317)

Once you factor in the costs of viruses and worms (for a timely example, see the article from earlier today on being unable to pull down updates fast enough to avoid having your XP install infected before it can be updated), MS-Windows is danged expensive.

The only time I use a compiler on this machine is to build software for other people, and it's stuff like a tweaked KDM for an Internet cafe. Let's see you tweak MS Windows Login like that at any price, sucker.

Now... let's have some more facts from Microshills, shall we? Big heaps of steaming facts, coming right up! Mooooove over!

Interesting context... (4, Funny)

sczimme (603413) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483155)


making out that Linux isn't free

This is one of the few ways that Linux will ever be associated with "making out"...

Re:Interesting context... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#9483338)

This is one of the few ways that Linux will ever be associated with "making out".

yeah both are certainly not easy and with a bit of luck might take longer than anticipated

Spin Doctors (5, Interesting)

mfh (56) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483165)

From the article: He quoted heavily from a Meta analysis which shows that Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) for linux and windows is comparable.

Microsoft must be suffering if they are going at Open Source head on. I remember taking an advertising class once, and we studied the Coke/Pepsi Cola War. Essentially Coke was the biggest cola company on the block, until they acknowledged Pepsi as a competitor. By doing so, Coke gave Pepsi the kind of credit they needed to gain significant market share, and obtain lucrative endorsement celebrities, who may not have supported Pepsi if Coke had held the "one true cola" stance and simply ignored Pepsi.

The bottom line is that Microsoft is taking a page from Coke, and they are going to lose out bigtime in doing so, because their math is voodoo math, and they charge exorbitant license fees, so their cost of usage will always be much much higher than Open Source, no matter which spindoctor tries to make it look and taste differently than it is.

Re:Spin Doctors (3, Insightful)

SamiousHaze (212418) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483218)

The bottom line is that Microsoft is taking a page from Coke, and they are going to lose out bigtime in doing so, because their math is voodoo math, and they charge exorbitant license fees, so their cost of usage will always be much much higher than Open Source, no matter which spindoctor tries to make it look and taste differently than it is.

HA! Try telling my BOSS that. --- seriously though, Microsoft is very expensive upfront, but what they do have going for them, and this will keep them around, is there market share and how many "experts" they are able to pump out.

Re:Spin Doctors (5, Insightful)

chabotc (22496) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483400)

Honestly that is, and always has been one of the strong points of Microsoft. It's not without reason that the famous Balmer 'developers -developers - developers - developers - developers - developers - developers' chant happened.

Their toolkits are well documented and very easy to get started in. Also a lot of their development (& -tools) is focused not on making the right choice, but giving the most fancy features and ease of use to developers and users alike. Because of this there are many many Windows developers who with limited skill can already contribute to the windows software pool, and thus making more software available for Windows, and making getting Windows developers cheaper then getting Linux developers.

However there are also those who feel this is also the weakness of Microsoft. By making API's and tools that are not technicly the best solution it'll burst in due time (who doesn't know of the socket handle leak that MS can't fix because otherwise they'd break 1000's of apps). Also by making it easy to develop for and maintain Microsoft software, the engineers and administrators often have no clue of underlying issues thus leading to lots of bugs and exploitable situations..

There's something to be said for forcing people to understand a situation before allowing them to contribute :-)

A bit misleading (4, Informative)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483296)

Essentially Coke was the biggest cola company on the block, until they acknowledged Pepsi as a competitor.

You say this as if they aren't still the biggest on the block. Coke is still (as it has always been) well ahead of Pepsi in both global market share and global market value. Their stock price is higher, and they still ship many more units / yaar then Pepsi. Sure Pepsi may have more flashy ads in the US, but that doesn't mean squat to their international presence. Just do a Google on the cola wars.

This said, if Linux ever got to the point that it was as much of a competitor to MS as Pepsi is to Coke, I'd be damn happy.

Re:A bit misleading (4, Interesting)

mfh (56) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483337)

I think I was pointing out that Pepsi's market share prior to the Cola wars was much less than it is today. Coke made a mistake and they tried to correct it, but when you ask anyone who the major soft drink companies are, they'll always say Coke and Pepsi. Before the cola wars, Pepsi wasn't mentioned that much.

The more Microsoft acknowledges Open Source and tries to fight it, the bigger Open Source will become, because of the law of diffusion.

uughh (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#9483166)

bleh, it says it all about MS bloat that they use images for the text headings....

It's a super bad analogy (5, Insightful)

CaptainZapp (182233) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483167)

My absolute favourite part of the talk was when Barley started to extol the virtues of Windows because everything in it was made by one manufacturer. A fair point which would have been well taken had he not gone on to draw an idiotic analogy. He asked us to imagine an aeroplane where different components were made by different companies. Apparently he's never heard of Airbus.

Even worse, does Airbus (or Boeing for that matter) manufacture every single of a million parts in a plane themselves?

Hell no! Certainly not. There's an abundance of suppliers supplying parts for a plane, from the altimeter to the leather chairs in first class.

You don't even have to go so far as to look at the airplane industry. Car manufacturers make only a miniscule percentage of the components themsleves. The rest is manufactured and delivered by suppliers.

Otherwise the cost for a car would be comparatively so outrageously high like the cost for some uh! software...

Re:It's a super bad analogy (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#9483203)

Even worse, does Airbus...manufacture every single of a million parts in a plane themselves?

Um, no they don't. Airbus is a consortuim of Aero companies in Europe who build 'planes. That's why the analogy by the Microsoft guy is so bad.

Top tip: Reading is fun. You should try it sometime.

Re:It's a super bad analogy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#9483289)

Are you retarded? That's what he said!!

"does Airbus (or Boeing for that matter) manufacture every single of a million parts in a plane themselves?"
...
"Hell no! Certainly not."

Re:It's a super bad analogy (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#9483333)

Yeah, he reiterated the exact same damn point in the fucking article because he's a retard who couldn't read properly. Look, the original article says it, right it:

"My absolute favourite part of the talk was when Barley started to extol the virtues of Windows because everything in it was made by one manufacturer. A fair point which would have been well taken had he not gone on to draw an idiotic analogy. He asked us to imagine an aeroplane where different components were made by different companies. Apparently he's never heard of Airbus."

Gee, I wonder what that last sentence is doing there. Hey! Maybe the author is trying to draw our attention to the absurdity of the analogy, because asking an audience to "imagine an aeroplan where different components were made by different companies" is actually exactly what Airbus does, and does very well, so the analogy is stupid isn't it, because we can imagine a company that does just that and is very successful at it.

So once the original author writes a very obvious single line rebutal to the analogy, our friend the Slashdot poster blunders along with his "Hur hur hur, I didn't read the original article properly but look I'm so clever, because I'll just rebutt this analogy made by the Microsoft guy even though the original fucking author did it much better than I am about to, but I failed to read the article so I wouldn't know that, would I?"

Now fuck off, both of you.

Re:It's a super bad analogy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#9483309)

?

I think the poster meant even the main manufacturers involved in Airbus also have their own suppliers

Re:It's a super bad analogy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#9483387)

Why are you guessing at what the poster might have meant? Thats not what he wrote is it? The analogy is just bad; we already know Airbus assemble 'planes from components made by different manufacturers. It's bloody obvious to even the simpltons that infest this place. What relevence does the fact that the individual Airbus consortium companies also source their components from other companies have to do with it? Nothing at all!

Re:It's a super bad analogy (4, Insightful)

pubjames (468013) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483223)

He asked us to imagine an aeroplane where different components were made by different companies.

That is a truely idiotic thing to say. There is hardly any manufactured product you can buy today that isn't made from components from supplied by other companies. Even the simplest products - like a pair of shoes for instance - will often be made up with leather from one company, rubber from another, laces from a third, metal components from a fourth, thread from another. And that's just a pair of shoes. I bet Boeing has thousands of suppliers.

Re:It's a super bad analogy (1)

swv3752 (187722) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483262)

Most aircraft engines are made by GE.

Many little companies specialize in making some sort of widget that gets supplied to some large firm.

Re:It's a super bad analogy (3, Informative)

I confirm I'm not a (720413) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483315)

Most aircraft engines are made by GE.

Not wishing to be pedantic, but Rolls Royce [rolls-royce.com] is a UK PLC (NB. this Rolls Royce makes aircraft engines, not shiny luxery cars)

One point I've not seen made re: Airbus is that it's a consortium of various national aerospace companies - truly the worst analogy Microsoft could have dredged up. The closest match to AIrbus in the IT world would be - well, Linux, maybe, but that makes Airbus sound far more cool than they really are ;)

Re:It's a super bad analogy (3, Informative)

marcushnk (90744) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483332)

Not only that but there are plenty of Windows OS bits that were not made by MS
The new firewall in XP is made by Ca from memory and Veritas made the crappy backup software in NT/2000....

Re:It's a super bad analogy (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#9483282)

It's an even worse analogy, because aircraft manufacturers CAN share components with each other because parts are all built to published and accurate specifications, so if the specs say it will work, IT WILL WORK!

Now compare Microsoft software: It is deliberately designed NOT to work with other software products, so it's a miracle that it actually does work in combination with anything else.

Heck, Microsoft product "A" has even been known to be incompatible with Microsoft product "B"! This even extends down to Microsoft "service packs"!!!

Re:It's a super bad analogy (2, Funny)

whereiswaldo (459052) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483302)

Evidently you guys need more brainwashing. Repeat after me.

Monopoly! Monopoly! Monopoly!

Monopoly! Monopoly! Monopoly!

(now speak softer and get that crazy look in your eye)

Monopoly! Monopoly! Monopoly!

Monopoly! Monopoly! Monopoly!

Now you got it!

It's a worse analogy than that... (5, Interesting)

ohad_l (683421) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483331)

Microsoft certainly does not make all of the components in a running Windows system. First of all, I'm pretty sure that most people running Windows are not running any Microsoft hardware except for perhaps a mouse, keyboard, and/or gaming peripheral. So your setup is not 100%-microsoft - it's not even close if you take hardware into account. It gets a lot closer when you look at macs, but nowadays even they use (modified) versions of commodity hardware, such as nVidia and ATI graphics cards. Also, last time I checked, commodity hardware was a good thing, seeing as it drives competition over price and quality. Now, as for your software department - just take a look at drivers. If you're using an nVidia or ATI card, you are probably using their drivers. Microsoft, as far as I know, did NOT write those, and yet they are an integral part of the system (so integral, as a matter of fact, that nVidia drivers have been known to bring X on Linux to a screeching halt). Also, if I am not mistaken, Windows uses BSD's TCP/IP stack. True, today the code is maintained by Microsoft coders, but I can't imagine them having needed to completely overhaul it - they are using a modified version of a product (piece of code) that was manufactured (written) by someone else. And last but not least, a major factor keeping people on Windows is software that is written for it, which they can't do without or find a replacement for which runs on their target OS. Guess what? Most of that software isn't written by Microsoft either. Many people swear by Adobe Photoshop, and don't switch to Linux because they find The Gimp inadequate. Others want to play their favorite computer games, which simply do not work [well] on Linux. And even if, say, their favorite computer game is Microsoft Flight Simulator or Microsoft's Age of Empires - yep, that's right. Microsoft didn't make those. They just bought them. A large, complex product is best manufactured by multiple specialty manufacturers which adhere to well-known standards. F/OSS supporters know this. Microsoft knows this as well.

Re:It's a super bad analogy (1)

pqdave (470411) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483363)

Even worse, does Microsoft manufacture every single of a million lines of an OS themselves? Hell no! Certainly not. There's an abundence of supplier supplying software for an OS, from the networking stack to the defragmenter in the control panel.

"Linux training costs were 15% higher on average" (5, Funny)

Mobius_6 (245127) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483172)

"Linux training costs were 15% higher on average"

Well that's because training to fix windows is "just hit reset"

Re:"Linux training costs were 15% higher on averag (1)

KingOfBLASH (620432) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483199)

"Linux training costs were 15% higher on average"


Well that's because training to fix windows is "just hit reset"
Funny, they just told me to call IT... Are you saying all computers don't come with somebody to fix them when they break? *ducks*

No Kidding (1)

millahtime (710421) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483213)

Sure, Linux training costs are 15% higher. When I get a windows upgrade at work there is no training. It's just figure it out. There are no training courses on windows at all here.

But, if you convert over to Linux you would have to give some basic training. Answer some employees questions. Seems a small price to pay

Your time costs money (2, Insightful)

oddmake (715380) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483270)

When I get a windows upgrade at work there is no training. It's just figure it out. There are no training courses on windows at all here.

SOMEONE must pay for your training .If you "figure it out" at you work time,your employer effectively pay for your training cost,as they have to pay your salary for your work(i.e. learning Windows skill)

Re:Your time costs money (1)

millahtime (710421) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483305)

2 problems with that. First, any time I use learning new features is not recorded as training time. There is no record that I used that time for training.

Second, is that I don't know anyone who needs Windows training. They have been using it so long and it's still the same basic concept that no new user needs training.

Re:Your time costs money (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#9483328)

Yeah! Pointing and clicking ain't free, especially when the "manual" doesn't tell you what to point at and when to click.

So, how long does it take an employee to point and click on everything in Microsoft Office, just to find out how things really work, instead of relying on what the inadequate manual and the online help condescend to tell you?

Re:"Linux training costs were 15% higher on averag (3, Interesting)

Fujisawa Sensei (207127) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483312)

From what I've seen companies spend about $0 on Windows training, so a 15% increase is still $0.

Unfair comparisons... of course they're going to w (5, Insightful)

LaserLyte (725803) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483175)

Haha... so Microsoft's strategy of pushing the idea that Linux has an equal or greater TCO than Windows basically ignores the fact that Linux is free and that any businesses wanting to use it will naturally go for the most expensive possible distribution (i.e RedHat uber deluxe professional platinum addition for business).

Perhaps if they faced the "facts", their study might be worth something.

And as for the comparison of Linux to a DOS prompt... Microsoft seems to think that adding a huge bloated GUI to a server OS is going to improve things. Well, I say that any half-decent system administrator should be able to do his job completely from a command-line interface and should not need a GUI.

Re:Unfair comparisons... of course they're going t (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#9483217)

Don't you know the secretary is supposed to be the administrator of a Windows server? If you are hiring additional staff to maintain Windows servers, you are doing something wrong.

Funny? Pull that moderator's head out of his... (2, Insightful)

leonbrooks (8043) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483374)

Well, anyway... in at least 30% of businesses I visit, a secretary or near equivalent is Level 1 Tech Support. Some of the "dumb blonde" mobile accident catalysts I've seen know an awesome amount about resuscitating MS-Windows.

Re:Unfair comparisons... of course they're going t (3, Interesting)

ninewands (105734) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483257)

And as for the comparison of Linux to a DOS prompt... Microsoft seems to think that adding a huge bloated GUI to a server OS is going to improve things.

Moreover, it exposes the degree to which Microsoft is engaging in "Not Invented Here" self-delusion for them to try and compare a DOS prompt (command.com and its standard utilities) to a real shell (bash, tcsh or zsh) and the standard set of utilities (the GNU file utils, find utils and text utils) that ship with most linux distributions.

Personally, I'd reverse the comparison and say the DOS prompt is "almost as good as a Unix shell."

Re:Unfair comparisons... of course they're going t (4, Insightful)

millahtime (710421) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483266)

any businesses wanting to use it will naturally go for the most expensive possible distribution (i.e RedHat uber deluxe professional platinum addition for business).

Many companies like the one I work for require you to be able to get a service contract for any software. So, to use Linux they have to be able to get a service contract. That's why they go for those expensive ones. They have the service.

Well, I say that any half-decent system administrator should be able to do his job completely from a command-line interface and should not need a GUI.

You're figureing on half decent sys admins. Many of the ones I know can't do anyting outside the GUI. And they don't even have half of an understanding of what is really going on. Some have never even herd of /. Sadly many who are called sys admins don't really know a whole lot.

Re:Unfair comparisons... of course they're going t (1)

BarryNorton (778694) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483393)

Many companies like the one I work for require you to be able to get a service contract for any software. So, to use Linux they have to be able to get a service contract. That's why they go for those expensive ones

Exactly!... same in Munich - not everyone in the council has l33t sk1llz

wow (1)

ptrangerv8 (644515) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483177)

slashdott'ed already...

damn low capacity servers...

Anyone got a copy of it?

Re:wow (5, Informative)

cuzality (696718) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483206)

Microsoft Starts its "Get The Facts" Campaign
So I sat with about 150 other "technical decision makers" in a very plush hotel in Holborn while representatives from Microsoft tried their best to convince me that I should not be considering moving to Linux. To run the discussion Microsoft had employed a fake-tan horror who had clearly escaped from daytime TV. He was by turns chummy and condescending. However being a reasonable man I will not hold Microsoft responsible for his failings.

First up was Phillip Dawson who leads Linux research for analysts Meta Group. He quoted heavily from a Meta analysis which shows that Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) for linux and windows is comparable. This study has been widely reported in IT press but I can't for the life of me find a link to the original. He made some interesting points about where the datacentre is going to be in a few years. His basic thrust was that everyone is moving from proprietary Unix with its expensive platforms to Windows or Linux on x86 platforms and that it this hardware move, rather than linux versus windows, that will drive all the cost savings. Dawson believes that in a few years the only place we will see proprietary Unix is in very large enterprise databases.

After a promising start, Dawson then got into the territory of why Windows makes more sense for enterprises than Linux. He introduced what was to become a running theme for seminar, Linux is not free. It turns out that the TCO statements made earlier were based on the licensing costs of SuSE professional and Red Hat Enterprise versus Windows. They had refused to consider that people might run a business on something that they could download free from the Internet. Later in the Q and A session Dawson got quite aggravated when people pointed out to him that many Linux-based businesses run quite happily on free linux (this was shouted by the scruffy-looking Debian hackers in the back). I can only assume that businesses that are brave enough to save thousands of pounds per unit by moving away from expensive hardware platforms are meant not to care that they can save another couple of hundred pounds on Microsoft licence fees. Later in the presentation he said "Don't compare to the free downloads. They are not free". Precisely what he meant by this escapes me.

One area the Meta study didn't look at was Linux on the desktop. Phil claimed that linux was not ready for the desktop because it lacked administrative tools. He was carrying on in a similar vein when he said "Management tools on Linux are nearly as good as a DOS prompt".

Nick Barley, business and Marketing Director for Microsoft UK took to the stage to baffle us with market-speak. There was lots of talk about strategy and leveraging which I didn't follow. He talked a bit about Microsoft's shared-source program and tried his hardest to make it sound like open-source, mainly by refusing to say Open-source and talking about shared-source instead. Continuing in Phillip Dawson's footsteps he repeated the mantra "Linux is not free" several times. Although he was at his best when talking about business models amongst Linux distributors claiming that "Linux is moving to the same model that Microsoft has been using".

My absolute favourite part of the talk was when Barley started to extol the virtues of Windows because everything in it was made by one manufacturer. A fair point which would have been well taken had he not gone on to draw an idiotic analogy. He asked us to imagine an aeroplane where different components were made by different companies. Apparently he's never heard of Airbus.

Next up was Nick McGrath head of platform strategy for Microsoft UK. The main bulk of his talk was taken up by a demonstration of a document sharing system based on Microsoft Sharepoint. Very boring for those of us running heterogeneous systems that Sharepoint will not run on. McGrath was much more technically clued up than Barley, and seemed to be aware that the audience was not entirely on his side. He made mention of the Forrester report that claimed more vulnerabilities in Linux than Windows. I saw this thoroughly debunked by RedHat's Marc Cox when he was speaking as part of RedHat's World Tour so I will not go into further detail.

After a break for coffee Microsoft rolled out some satisfied customers for us starting with Basil Shall of Grosvenor Group. For those of you not familiar with Grosvenor they are a financial group who use their massive London property holdings to make more money in the markets. The most interesting thing that Basil said was that he had had to write a letter to the head of Microsoft UK before he got decent service. Things got progressively less interesting as the morning wore on. Paul Hartigan of PharmiWeb told us how great .Net is. Anthony Leaper of Seibel told us how great siebel is and how it runs just fine on windows. Colin Bradford of Computacenter didn't really tell us anything about Microsoft but did do an effective job of plugging Computacenter's new testing facility where you can get suppliers to show you real working systems of their latest and greatest technologies.

The final part of the show was a Q and A session with the two Nicks, Philip Dawson and Colin Bradford chaired by the aforemention daytime TV horror-show. Eddie Bleasdale of Netproject asked the most insightful question. He talked about a customer of his who had lost data because it was in old Microsoft file formats that couldn't be read by current Microsoft products. This was slickly dealt with by McGrath who suggested that he should get the Microsoft people to talk to him after the show. Barley added that all the current Microsoft Office file formats including their XML schema are published openly. I'm not entirely convinced of that but I don't know enough about XML to make any definitive statements.

The overall tone of this event makes it fairly clear as to Microsoft's anti-Linux strategy.

  • Claim that linux isn't free.
  • Pretend that Shared source is the same as Open Source
  • Make a big deal about the migration costs of moving to Linux
  • Use the forrester report to claim that Linux is insecure
  • Belittle the quality of the toolset available on Linux

Re:wow (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#9483222)

Here's the complete story:

So I sat with about 150 other "technical decision makers" in a very plush hotel in Holborn while representatives from Microsoft tried their best to convince me that I should not be considering moving to Linux. To run the discussion Microsoft had employed a fake-tan horror who had clearly escaped from daytime TV. He was by turns chummy and condescending. However being a reasonable man I will not hold Microsoft responsible for his failings.

First up was Phillip Dawson who leads Linux research for analysts Meta Group. He quoted heavily from a Meta analysis which shows that Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) for linux and windows is comparable. This study has been widely reported in IT press but I can't for the life of me find a link to the original. He made some interesting points about where the datacentre is going to be in a few years. His basic thrust was that everyone is moving from proprietary Unix with its expensive platforms to Windows or Linux on x86 platforms and that it this hardware move, rather than linux versus windows, that will drive all the cost savings. Dawson believes that in a few years the only place we will see proprietary Unix is in very large enterprise databases.

After a promising start, Dawson then got into the territory of why Windows makes more sense for enterprises than Linux. He introduced what was to become a running theme for seminar, Linux is not free. It turns out that the TCO statements made earlier were based on the licensing costs of SuSE professional and Red Hat Enterprise versus Windows. They had refused to consider that people might run a business on something that they could download free from the Internet. Later in the Q and A session Dawson got quite aggravated when people pointed out to him that many Linux-based businesses run quite happily on free linux (this was shouted by the scruffy-looking Debian hackers in the back). I can only assume that businesses that are brave enough to save thousands of pounds per unit by moving away from expensive hardware platforms are meant not to care that they can save another couple of hundred pounds on Microsoft licence fees. Later in the presentation he said "Don't compare to the free downloads. They are not free". Precisely what he meant by this escapes me.

One area the Meta study didn't look at was Linux on the desktop. Phil claimed that linux was not ready for the desktop because it lacked administrative tools. He was carrying on in a similar vein when he said "Management tools on Linux are nearly as good as a DOS prompt".

Nick Barley, business and Marketing Director for Microsoft UK took to the stage to baffle us with market-speak. There was lots of talk about strategy and leveraging which I didn't follow. He talked a bit about Microsoft's shared-source program and tried his hardest to make it sound like open-source, mainly by refusing to say Open-source and talking about shared-source instead. Continuing in Phillip Dawson's footsteps he repeated the mantra "Linux is not free" several times. Although he was at his best when talking about business models amongst Linux distributors claiming that "Linux is moving to the same model that Microsoft has been using".

My absolute favourite part of the talk was when Barley started to extol the virtues of Windows because everything in it was made by one manufacturer. A fair point which would have been well taken had he not gone on to draw an idiotic analogy. He asked us to imagine an aeroplane where different components were made by different companies. Apparently he's never heard of Airbus.

Next up was Nick McGrath head of platform strategy for Microsoft UK. The main bulk of his talk was taken up by a demonstration of a document sharing system based on Microsoft Sharepoint. Very boring for those of us running heterogeneous systems that Sharepoint will not run on. McGrath was much more technically clued up than Barley, and seemed to be aware that the audience was not entirely on his side. He made mention of the Forrester report that claimed more vulnerabilities in Linux than Windows. I saw this thoroughly debunked by RedHat's Marc Cox when he was speaking as part of RedHat's World Tour so I will not go into further detail.

After a break for coffee Microsoft rolled out some satisfied customers for us starting with Basil Shall of Grosvenor Group. For those of you not familiar with Grosvenor they are a financial group who use their massive London property holdings to make more money in the markets. The most interesting thing that Basil said was that he had had to write a letter to the head of Microsoft UK before he got decent service. Things got progressively less interesting as the morning wore on. Paul Hartigan of PharmiWeb told us how great .Net is. Anthony Leaper of Seibel told us how great siebel is and how it runs just fine on windows. Colin Bradford of Computacenter didn't really tell us anything about Microsoft but did do an effective job of plugging Computacenter's new testing facility where you can get suppliers to show you real working systems of their latest and greatest technologies.

The final part of the show was a Q and A session with the two Nicks, Philip Dawson and Colin Bradford chaired by the aforemention daytime TV horror-show. Eddie Bleasdale of Netproject asked the most insightful question. He talked about a customer of his who had lost data because it was in old Microsoft file formats that couldn't be read by current Microsoft products. This was slickly dealt with by McGrath who suggested that he should get the Microsoft people to talk to him after the show. Barley added that all the current Microsoft Office file formats including their XML schema are published openly. I'm not entirely convinced of that but I don't know enough about XML to make any definitive statements.

The overall tone of this event makes it fairly clear as to Microsoft's anti-Linux strategy.

1. Claim that linux isn't free.
2. Pretend that Shared source is the same as Open Source
3. Make a big deal about the migration costs of moving to Linux
4. Use the forrester report to claim that Linux is insecure
5. Belittle the quality of the toolset available on Linux

Article text (-1, Redundant)

Joey Patterson (547891) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483240)

Microsoft Starts its "Get The Facts" Campaign

So I sat with about 150 other "technical decision makers" in a very plush hotel in Holborn while representatives from Microsoft tried their best to convince me that I should not be considering moving to Linux. To run the discussion Microsoft had employed a fake-tan horror who had clearly escaped from daytime TV. He was by turns chummy and condescending. However being a reasonable man I will not hold Microsoft responsible for his failings.

First up was Phillip Dawson who leads Linux research for analysts Meta Group. He quoted heavily from a Meta analysis which shows that Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) for linux and windows is comparable. This study has been widely reported in IT press but I can't for the life of me find a link to the original. He made some interesting points about where the datacentre is going to be in a few years. His basic thrust was that everyone is moving from proprietary Unix with its expensive platforms to Windows or Linux on x86 platforms and that it this hardware move, rather than linux versus windows, that will drive all the cost savings. Dawson believes that in a few years the only place we will see proprietary Unix is in very large enterprise databases.

After a promising start, Dawson then got into the territory of why Windows makes more sense for enterprises than Linux. He introduced what was to become a running theme for seminar, Linux is not free. It turns out that the TCO statements made earlier were based on the licensing costs of SuSE professional and Red Hat Enterprise versus Windows. They had refused to consider that people might run a business on something that they could download free from the Internet. Later in the Q and A session Dawson got quite aggravated when people pointed out to him that many Linux-based businesses run quite happily on free linux (this was shouted by the scruffy-looking Debian hackers in the back). I can only assume that businesses that are brave enough to save thousands of pounds per unit by moving away from expensive hardware platforms are meant not to care that they can save another couple of hundred pounds on Microsoft licence fees. Later in the presentation he said "Don't compare to the free downloads. They are not free". Precisely what he meant by this escapes me.

One area the Meta study didn't look at was Linux on the desktop. Phil claimed that linux was not ready for the desktop because it lacked administrative tools. He was carrying on in a similar vein when he said "Management tools on Linux are nearly as good as a DOS prompt".

Nick Barley, business and Marketing Director for Microsoft UK took to the stage to baffle us with market-speak. There was lots of talk about strategy and leveraging which I didn't follow. He talked a bit about Microsoft's shared-source program and tried his hardest to make it sound like open-source, mainly by refusing to say Open-source and talking about shared-source instead. Continuing in Phillip Dawson's footsteps he repeated the mantra "Linux is not free" several times. Although he was at his best when talking about business models amongst Linux distributors claiming that "Linux is moving to the same model that Microsoft has been using".

My absolute favourite part of the talk was when Barley started to extol the virtues of Windows because everything in it was made by one manufacturer. A fair point which would have been well taken had he not gone on to draw an idiotic analogy. He asked us to imagine an aeroplane where different components were made by different companies. Apparently he's never heard of Airbus.

Next up was Nick McGrath head of platform strategy for Microsoft UK. The main bulk of his talk was taken up by a demonstration of a document sharing system based on Microsoft Sharepoint. Very boring for those of us running heterogeneous systems that Sharepoint will not run on. McGrath was much more technically clued up than Barley, and seemed to be aware that the audience was not entirely on his side. He made mention of the Forrester report that claimed more vulnerabilities in Linux than Windows. I saw this thoroughly debunked by RedHat's Marc Cox when he was speaking as part of RedHat's World Tour so I will not go into further detail.

After a break for coffee Microsoft rolled out some satisfied customers for us starting with Basil Shall of Grosvenor Group. For those of you not familiar with Grosvenor they are a financial group who use their massive London property holdings to make more money in the markets. The most interesting thing that Basil said was that he had had to write a letter to the head of Microsoft UK before he got decent service. Things got progressively less interesting as the morning wore on. Paul Hartigan of PharmiWeb told us how great .Net is. Anthony Leaper of Seibel told us how great siebel is and how it runs just fine on windows. Colin Bradford of Computacenter didn't really tell us anything about Microsoft but did do an effective job of plugging Computacenter's new testing facility where you can get suppliers to show you real working systems of their latest and greatest technologies.

The final part of the show was a Q and A session with the two Nicks, Philip Dawson and Colin Bradford chaired by the aforemention daytime TV horror-show. Eddie Bleasdale of Netproject asked the most insightful question. He talked about a customer of his who had lost data because it was in old Microsoft file formats that couldn't be read by current Microsoft products. This was slickly dealt with by McGrath who suggested that he should get the Microsoft people to talk to him after the show. Barley added that all the current Microsoft Office file formats including their XML schema are published openly. I'm not entirely convinced of that but I don't know enough about XML to make any definitive statements.

The overall tone of this event makes it fairly clear as to Microsoft's anti-Linux strategy.
Claim that linux isn't free.

Pretend that Shared source is the same as Open Source

Make a big deal about the migration costs of moving to Linux

Use the forrester report to claim that Linux is insecure

Belittle the quality of the toolset available on Linux

MS is kinda scared... (3, Insightful)

kennycoder (788223) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483179)

It seem MS is pretty scared with all this linux popularity to start making campaigns that make you think windows is *TEH* best and has less vunerabilities. I dunno, i'm using linux for years and after each instalation i didn't get any msg saying that my system is going to reboot automatically after 60 seconds..

Linux isn't free (-1, Flamebait)

91degrees (207121) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483180)

It is perhaps free as in beer, but free as in speech?

If it was, then I'd be able to take parts of it, mix it with my own proprietry code, and sell it without having to oblige recipients to distribute the source if they want to distribute the compiled code.

Re:Linux isn't free (-1, Flamebait)

jalet (36114) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483215)

What you ask is possible, it's usually referred to as "theft", and some people like me prefer to call it "unauthorized copying".

Re:Linux isn't free (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483231)

Yes. Very clever. You've made a pedantic observation which completely ignores the actual point.

Perhaps I should have put the word "legally" in there. I simply assumed that people here were intelligent enough not to need every litle trivial technicality spelled out.

Re:Linux isn't free (1)

jalet (36114) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483313)

This is not being pedantic. Maybe you'll call any idiotic song by Britney Spears "Free Speech". Just try to mix it with your own music/lyrics and try to redistribute it, just to see what happens next...

Re:Linux isn't free (0, Troll)

91degrees (207121) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483344)

Britney Spears songs aren't free either.

Neither is Microsoft Windows.

Neither is Linux.

But Microsoft do not claim Windows is free, and Britney doesn't claim her songs are free.

Re:Linux isn't free (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#9483273)

Linux is Free and Open Source. Freedom with restrictions is a fact of life. You have Free speech but you can't yell fire in the theater. You are Free to Vote for who you want to but you can't vote over and over. You can do whatever you want with the Linux kernel. But if you redistribute it you have to make your changes public thus keeping the code Free,Open and accessible. Your analogy of Free as in beer is wrong. Internet Explorer is Free as in beer. Linux isn't.

Simple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#9483275)

Free as in "The damn code is Free and remains that way" not Free as in "Whiny little bitch freeloaders like you arn't free to do as you please". Freedom of the code is nothing to do with your freedom. Get the fuck over it and write your own damn code; stop trying to rip off mine all the damn time you telentless code monkey.

Re:Simple (-1, Troll)

91degrees (207121) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483314)

Free as in "The damn code is Free and remains that way" not Free as in "Whiny little bitch freeloaders like you arn't free to do as you please".

Exactly. Whiney little bitch freeloaders like me can do what we plase with BSD licenced code and public domain stuff. That's because it's free.

If you want to release under the GPL, that's your choice. Just don't start making out it's "Free as in speech. You can do what you want with it".

Re:Linux isn't free (3, Insightful)

sbennett (448295) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483276)

If that's what you care about, use BSD.

Re:Linux isn't free (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483298)

I don't care about whether I can do this or not.

Just pointing out that unless I'm permitted to do so, it isn't "free", and GPL enthusiasts should stop parroting the EFF party line.

Part of the page commented out (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#9483182)

View source on the page. They've part commented out. Wonder why they did that.

It's Simple (1)

millahtime (710421) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483184)

It's pretty easy to come up with something like this. Here is how it goes. Someone comes up with a conclusion they want then they write something to get there. It's like with stats or polls. You know the outcome you want to so manipulate the "data" to show that. Then you promote the hell out of it and people believe you.

They do it because it works.

Enterprise Level (-1, Flamebait)

artlu (265391) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483187)

Realistically, at the enterprise level, Linux isnt free. The maintenance/administrative of Linux just becomes costly in my experience. Im sure I am in the minority when saying this, but it has just been my experience that even though I have to continuously do Microsoft refreshes, their software works better ouf of box.
OSX is the best option ;)

Aj

GroupShares Inc. [groupshares.com] - A Free and Interactive Stock Trading Community

Re:Enterprise Level (3, Insightful)

codepunk (167897) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483308)

You are in the minority because you offer not a shread of proof for your statement. The reality is that I can admin 3x as many linux boxes as you can your windows machine. Not that I would have to because linux unlike windows is way more efficient in the data center. I do not have a single linux machine at work that does not run to nearly full capacity. I can do this because I can run more than just a email server, or database server on a single machine. How often do you see exchange running on the same machine as a sql server?

In my opinion you are nothing more than a astroturf for MS.

Re:Enterprise Level (2, Informative)

chabotc (22496) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483325)

How comments like this get modded up as being "interesting" is one of those unsolvable mysteries of life for me.

You don't mention if you mean using linux in the desktop or server space, neither what kind of applications or services your refering to when you say "in my experiance". Basicly you give no foundation at all for this comment to be taken seriously at all; Nevermind give the impression that you have any notion of what "Enterprise level" is.

And just saying that Linux isn't 'free' is stating the obvious.. Even breating air takes time and thus costs money .. Not to mention the TCO of breathing air if there's a risk of breathing poluted or contaminated air.

The question is not 'is linux's TCO free', it's 'how does linux's TCO compare to a similair microsoft based solution'.

if only i had mod point's today you would've gotton a -1 flamebait or overrated from me..

Re:Enterprise Level (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#9483343)

Yeah but our windows server fell over after a power failure last week, this morning for no apparent reason the network stopped functioning. No settings were changed, Windows just decided we didn't want a network. So now I'm sat here with a box that has ran for 1 year (automatically rebooting once every couple of weeks), no settings changed, no reasons given, why are the system log files not all in one place? TOTAL FAILURE.

This has never happened once on our *nix machines yet it has happened on every single Windows box that has ever been palmed of on me.

Getting the word on the streets (2, Insightful)

eltoyoboyo (750015) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483188)

MS has $40,000,000,000 USD in cash still before all the lawsuit dust has settled. Certainly they are not going to spend it all buying schools new computers. The noise is only going to grow louder about TCO from them. The open source distro community has to pull together and face them head-on. Eroding into the AIX, HP-UX, and Solaris market share is going to help MS because these companies all have big marketing dollars too.

Yeah... Ok (5, Insightful)

SamiousHaze (212418) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483190)

The overall tone of this event makes it fairly clear as to Microsoft's anti-Linux strategy.

1.Claim that linux isn't free.
2.Pretend that Shared source is the same as Open Source
3.Make a big deal about the migration costs of moving to Linux
4.Use the forrester report to claim that Linux is insecure
5.Belittle the quality of the toolset available on Linux

Point 1 and 2 I won't dignify with a reply.
On Point 3 - Yes, there are migration costs... but that is a dumb argument. There is ALWAYS a migration cost when upgrading (horse and buggy to car - airtravel - spacetravel etc)

4. Yes, linux can be insecure ---- so can windows and anything else (except OpenBSD!! :P)

5. On this point, I dont' care who says what - Microsoft has better (and I mean this in all respects) tools available for Rapid development.

Re:Yeah... Ok (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#9483233)

5. On this point, I dont' care who says what - Microsoft has better (and I mean this in all respects) tools available for Rapid development.

I've heard that argument before, but have not heard a good argument to back it up. What RAD tools are lacking from Linux that Windows has?

Re:Yeah... Ok (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#9483297)

Visual Basic.

Oh you might laugh, but you can't deny that a hell of lot of enterpise RAD is done with VB. Yeah, I agree that Delphi/Kylix would be a better choice, but they didn't choose Delphi now did they?

Re:Yeah... Ok (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#9483249)


5. On this point, I dont' care who says what - Microsoft has better (and I mean this in all respects) tools available for Rapid development.

Well I'm not so sure about this. Most of my development is done in Java these days and IDEA is hundreds and hundreds of times better than any MS tool I've ever used (including VS.NET) - worth the money for the code review/profiling and refactoring tools alone I reckon. OK it is available on Windows, but it also available on Linux (and anything else that runs Java for that matter).

Re:Yeah... Ok (4, Informative)

Croaker (10633) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483354)

On Point 3 - Yes, there are migration costs... There is ALWAYS a migration cost when upgrading

And they always conveniently forget to mention the cost of upgrading your Microsoft products. My current employer lost a boatload of money when they tried to move from NT to Win2k on the server, because a last-minute backwards incompatibility threw a spanner into the works. The project had to be called off, effectiely wasting several months of effort by about half the engineering group. You do the math on how much that cost the company, nevermind the actual license cost.

They also don't mention that in many cases, a great deal of the cost is inspired by Microsoft's lock-in. Your data in their products isn't open... you have to pry it out. If your data was in open formats (i.e. actual, for-real XML) then you'd be able to migrate a lot easier. So, it's a cost really imposed by Microsoft, rather than a cost imposed by any alternative solution. The erverse probably isn't true... once in an open format, there's usually not an 'exit cost' associated with moving to another solution.

MS could at least be honest... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#9483197)

...and admit that most of the "risk" in using open source is artificial, and is deliberately created by Microsoft.

Gandi Quote is germane (5, Insightful)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483200)

First they ignore you,
Then they laugh at you,
Then they fight you,
Then you win.

I'd say that we were at Stage 3 now, we were at Stage 2 last year and the year before.

Things are looking up!

Monday morning vitamins (3, Informative)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483211)

Monday morning, and we've already gotten our FDA recommended doses of vitamins F, U, and D for the whole week? OK. Let's find out where this road show is going next and show up with some boxes of LiveCD Linux distributions. I recommend the Gentoo 2004.1 CD's, which perform quite well across a broad variety of hardware. Then ask tough questions about why every Windows machine in the world shares drive C: at all times as \\IP-address\C$ by default and always, always, always re-enables it at reboot even if you explicitly turn it off, making the machine wildly vulnerable to file thefts and password based attacks to take complete control of it?

Re:Monday morning vitamins (1)

Mobius_6 (245127) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483241)

it won't share it as c$ if you manually share it as something else...for example 'c'

Re:Monday morning vitamins (2, Informative)

I confirm I'm not a (720413) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483251)

why every Windows machine in the world shares drive C: at all times as \\IP-address\C$ by default and always, always, always re-enables it at reboot even if you explicitly turn it off

Pet hate o'mine. MS have this tool, MS Baseline Security Advisor, which is actually quite good for hardening Windows - one of the recommendations it makes (every time I run it...) is to disable the default C: share. If only...

Re:Monday morning vitamins (3, Informative)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483411)

create a startup batch script, put 'net share c$ /d' in it.

If you're running and NT-based system (I don't know about the dos-based ones) then you can edit the registry to turn off the auto-creation of the admin shares:

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Serv ic es\LanmanServer\Parameters

Set keys AutoShareServer and AutoShareWks to 0

There - not much different from editing a linux config file :)

Like DG (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#9483216)

How they can call this "Get the facts" is beyond me. It reminds me a lot of IBM vs. Data General. When DG first got going IBM started calling allot of its key customer's saying "you don't want to deal with this nasty upstart company data general." Said customers promptly phoned data general (a company that, at that point, they'd probably not even heard of, and got their sales people in. I would have thought MS would know better though. They've pulled basically the same stunt with .NET by getting the J2EE community to talk about how terrible it is thus assuring all enterprise decision makers look at .NET seriously...

Business Desktops (1)

sucker_muts (776572) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483220)

I think there should be a system where all business PC's get linux instead of windows, and all home PC's continue to use windows. Surely all the business software would then be available for linux.

That way the businesses have all the good things of linux but the Joe sixpacks in the world could still use the stuff they know best. Most important, virus/worm writers still focus on windows for there unbreakable security and the fact that most average users don't care about security anyway. Virusses can spread better through home PC's than (secured) corporate networks anyway.

That way, everybody's happy! (I know I sure am...)

The article (-1, Redundant)

evenparity (569837) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483229)

Microsoft Starts its "Get The Facts" Campaign So I sat with about 150 other "technical decision makers" in a very plush hotel in Holborn while representatives from Microsoft tried their best to convince me that I should not be considering moving to Linux. To run the discussion Microsoft had employed a fake-tan horror who had clearly escaped from daytime TV. He was by turns chummy and condescending. However being a reasonable man I will not hold Microsoft responsible for his failings. First up was Phillip Dawson who leads Linux research for analysts Meta Group. He quoted heavily from a Meta analysis which shows that Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) for linux and windows is comparable. This study has been widely reported in IT press but I can't for the life of me find a link to the original. He made some interesting points about where the datacentre is going to be in a few years. His basic thrust was that everyone is moving from proprietary Unix with its expensive platforms to Windows or Linux on x86 platforms and that it this hardware move, rather than linux versus windows, that will drive all the cost savings. Dawson believes that in a few years the only place we will see proprietary Unix is in very large enterprise databases. After a promising start, Dawson then got into the territory of why Windows makes more sense for enterprises than Linux. He introduced what was to become a running theme for seminar, Linux is not free. It turns out that the TCO statements made earlier were based on the licensing costs of SuSE professional and Red Hat Enterprise versus Windows. They had refused to consider that people might run a business on something that they could download free from the Internet. Later in the Q and A session Dawson got quite aggravated when people pointed out to him that many Linux-based businesses run quite happily on free linux (this was shouted by the scruffy-looking Debian hackers in the back). I can only assume that businesses that are brave enough to save thousands of pounds per unit by moving away from expensive hardware platforms are meant not to care that they can save another couple of hundred pounds on Microsoft licence fees. Later in the presentation he said "Don't compare to the free downloads. They are not free". Precisely what he meant by this escapes me. One area the Meta study didn't look at was Linux on the desktop. Phil claimed that linux was not ready for the desktop because it lacked administrative tools. He was carrying on in a similar vein when he said "Management tools on Linux are nearly as good as a DOS prompt". Nick Barley, business and Marketing Director for Microsoft UK took to the stage to baffle us with market-speak. There was lots of talk about strategy and leveraging which I didn't follow. He talked a bit about Microsoft's shared-source program and tried his hardest to make it sound like open-source, mainly by refusing to say Open-source and talking about shared-source instead. Continuing in Phillip Dawson's footsteps he repeated the mantra "Linux is not free" several times. Although he was at his best when talking about business models amongst Linux distributors claiming that "Linux is moving to the same model that Microsoft has been using". My absolute favourite part of the talk was when Barley started to extol the virtues of Windows because everything in it was made by one manufacturer. A fair point which would have been well taken had he not gone on to draw an idiotic analogy. He asked us to imagine an aeroplane where different components were made by different companies. Apparently he's never heard of Airbus. Next up was Nick McGrath head of platform strategy for Microsoft UK. The main bulk of his talk was taken up by a demonstration of a document sharing system based on Microsoft Sharepoint. Very boring for those of us running heterogeneous systems that Sharepoint will not run on. McGrath was much more technically clued up than Barley, and seemed to be aware that the audience was not entirely on his side. He made mention of the Forrester report that claimed more vulnerabilities in Linux than Windows. I saw this thoroughly debunked by RedHat's Marc Cox when he was speaking as part of RedHat's World Tour so I will not go into further detail. After a break for coffee Microsoft rolled out some satisfied customers for us starting with Basil Shall of Grosvenor Group. For those of you not familiar with Grosvenor they are a financial group who use their massive London property holdings to make more money in the markets. The most interesting thing that Basil said was that he had had to write a letter to the head of Microsoft UK before he got decent service. Things got progressively less interesting as the morning wore on. Paul Hartigan of PharmiWeb told us how great .Net is. Anthony Leaper of Seibel told us how great siebel is and how it runs just fine on windows. Colin Bradford of Computacenter didn't really tell us anything about Microsoft but did do an effective job of plugging Computacenter's new testing facility where you can get suppliers to show you real working systems of their latest and greatest technologies. The final part of the show was a Q and A session with the two Nicks, Philip Dawson and Colin Bradford chaired by the aforemention daytime TV horror-show. Eddie Bleasdale of Netproject asked the most insightful question. He talked about a customer of his who had lost data because it was in old Microsoft file formats that couldn't be read by current Microsoft products. This was slickly dealt with by McGrath who suggested that he should get the Microsoft people to talk to him after the show. Barley added that all the current Microsoft Office file formats including their XML schema are published openly. I'm not entirely convinced of that but I don't know enough about XML to make any definitive statements. The overall tone of this event makes it fairly clear as to Microsoft's anti-Linux strategy. 1. Claim that linux isn't free. 2. Pretend that Shared source is the same as Open Source 3. Make a big deal about the migration costs of moving to Linux 4. Use the forrester report to claim that Linux is insecure 5. Belittle the quality of the toolset available on Linux

Not free? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#9483235)

Cost of setup of Windows:
Windows itself for each computer
Microsoft software for windows, eg Office
Big server with enterprise software

Cost of setup of Linux:
Linux for each workstation
Open-source software, eg. OpenOffice
Big server with free software

I dunno about you guys but the second option looks a little cheaper to me. As for that report about linux being having more vulnerabilities - if the backbone linux servers of the world had as many issues as the Microsoft-based ones the internet would break down completely.

I appreciate both linux & windows for what each is. I know it is Linus Torvalds' plan to get Linux onto the desktops. This is not necessarily bad news for Microsoft - they might just have to do what everyone else does and sell their software for competitive prices. You can't beat free, but they do have a market for people who are used to windows. It's worth paying for stuff you already know how to use - it's more productive - unless it's several hundred dollars per machine more than what it would be for linux.

--Methynutnut

The MS strategy (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#9483243)

1.Claim that linux isn't free.
2.Pretend that Shared source is the same as Open Source
3.Make a big deal about the migration costs of moving to Linux
4.Use the forrester report to claim that Linux is insecure
5.Belittle the quality of the toolset available on Linux


Missing point:
6.PATENT EVERYTHING

Apples to Oranges TCO calculation (5, Informative)

CodeMaster (28069) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483244)

Has anyone else noticed that in the metagroup TCO analysis, they compare a windows server running on a two processor intel machine, and a linux server running on (one or two - can't remember) MAINFRAME processors.

I mean - cm'on, perhaps they should have pitted a walmart PC with windows installed vs Linux running on a Cray server... The TCO takes into account the entire purchase of hardware, and in the Mainframe case - you probably looking at 16 processor machine to begin with, which kind'a spikes the price up...

But - the graph looks very convincing - and isn't it what it's all about?

Just a little food for thought...

They are targeting UK 'near' conversions too... (4, Interesting)

Alkarismi (48631) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483248)

In the glossy brochure they give out at the event they have a file of 'case studies'. Several are from organisations (such as Newham Borough Council) who were about to transition to Open Source but were then bought off^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H convinced that, in fact, sticking with Windows would cost them less(!).

The truth is they are terrified. They've got wind of what's on its way over here in the UK.

Relax, don't panic. Wait and see what us Brits have got coming for MS over the next few months :)

Re:They are targeting UK 'near' conversions too... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#9483326)

spill please. i feel so out of touch with back home. :-(.

Edinburgh event (5, Insightful)

linuxci (3530) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483253)

I was at the Edinburgh event last week which was the 2nd event in their roadshow.

Here's some advice for people who'll be at their next two events (Manchester this week I think, and Wales the week after (Newport, IIRC)):

- Plan in your coffee break questions to ask them (be careful about providing them with the question on paper as they reworded mine - try and ask it in person at the end).

- Ask more about IBM involvement in Linux, they tried to claim that IBM were trying to lock people in to Linux, try and provide counter examples as to how it'd be easier to escape an IBM stranglehold than an MS one.

- They cite interoperability as one of Microsoft's main aims, people mentioned the office file formats and recent patents, but they hedged around the question, someone needs to seriously challenge them on this at the event.

- Talk to the other delegates in clear concise language why you think Linux should be considered as a serious option. Don't sound like a zealot and accept there's many times when Windows would be more suitable than Linux.

- Point out to people that open source doesn't always mean Linux, in fact doesn't always mean changing an OS at all. There's some quality open source software for Windows - promote Firefox and OpenOffice as examples

Cheapskate PHBs (-1, Flamebait)

Neo-Rio-101 (700494) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483259)

Linux is more expensive than Windows and worth every penny.

If you can't afford Linux, then you deserve your crappy cheap-ass Windows server.

I ahven't had such a good lauch in ages (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#9483265)

I haven't had such a good laugh in ages. I love MS BS. I'm reminded of a factious piece of software in Douglas Adams' Dirk Gently which allowed you to enter the conclusion you wanted and the starting point. It would then construct a logical set of arguments to justify going from one to the other and was used to justify the original Starwars project....

Well, it isn't (2, Insightful)

sinergy (88242) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483267)

Not in an enterprise network environment. MCSE admins are a dime a dozen, you can practically pay them minimum wages and have them run servers. Linux admins demand a very high price - at least 2-3 times that of the average NT admin. Why? Running a Linux server requires more than point/clicking your way around. A linux admin is required to have at least basic programming skills.

Re:Well, it isn't (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#9483320)

That's probably true - but I don't know if you would trust any of those "paper" MCSE who passed with exam cram books ..

I've had an instance where a guy (who worked for Compaq doing NT administration for a local school a few years back) was pretty dodgy ..

To summarize... (4, Interesting)

jadenyk (764614) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483268)

The overall tone of this event makes it fairly clear as to Microsoft's anti-Linux strategy.
  1. Claim that linux isn't free.
  2. Pretend that Shared source is the same as Open Source
  3. Make a big deal about the migration costs of moving to Linux
  4. Use the forrester report to claim that Linux is insecure
  5. Belittle the quality of the toolset available on Linux

I don't understand a few things about this. Why do people believe this type of thing when Microsoft brings absolutely *NO* proof of any of these claims? Can any of this be considered slander? They're trying to throw mud on Linux's image with no real proof.

And why did this guy sit through this entire "seminar" in the first place?

Re:To summarize... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#9483370)

And why did this guy sit through this entire "seminar" in the first place?

Free buffet?

regardless the cost of the OS (1)

BigBir3d (454486) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483291)

anything after is not free. i value my time, and so does my employer. i wish i could have put mandrake or suse on the companies new boxes that every employee got... but winxp pro and ms office it was.

"Linux isnt free?" (5, Insightful)

bludstone (103539) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483294)

Really, Well, I just installed mandrake 10 this weekend to replace w2k on an old pc. My first linux. And it was, free.

I downloaded it, burned it, and installed. I had minimal help and everything went very smoothly.

Er, right.

"linux ISNT free?" "really? heres 10 free copies of mandrake right now." "youll have to pay to support it." "ah, then dont you mean linux SUPPORT isnt free? Is windows support free?" *insert adhominem attack they are trained to do here*

I imagine the best thing you can do at these is hand out free linux install cds, and allow people to make the choice for themselves.

Again, mandrake 10 was SUPRISINGLY easy to get working.

damn... (2, Funny)

Chuck Bucket (142633) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483352)

making out that Linux isn't free

I dread getting that bill from Stallman then, I've been running Linux for five years now! I knew it was too good to be true.

CB

Funny moment (3, Interesting)

linuxci (3530) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483378)

I can't confirm this for certain (as it didn't happen to me).

One of my colleagues who also went to the Edinburgh event was talking to one of the speakers there (one of the Nick's from Microsoft I believe) and I Microsoft guy admitted his niece had thousands of viruses on her machine last time he checked it!

I wish I could confirm it, but I don't see he has any reason to lie

Linux IS NOT FREE (-1, Flamebait)

qwerty75 (775323) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483386)

No matter how much Linux people like to think that Linux is free, it is not. If it were completely free then Mandrake, Red Hat, and the others could not exist. If it were Free there would be no way for them to make money therby allow a product to continue. There are support costs to be paid and if you do not download the software then the retail box costs money. If you do not pay for support contracts then you are limited to the knowledge base or group forums. While this is great for alot of people, sometimes you have to call the vendor. I certainly agree that there will always be migration costs, but I would expect the migration cost to Linux will be higher. Migrating users from what they know and use at home and at work to something completely different is not cheap. I developed for a while in PHP and MySQL. Prior to that I was developing in ASP and SQL 2000. I was able to make the transition without much difficulty but found that my development times and the quality of product was not as good. Mainly because tools and features that I found very usefull in the MS products was not there. If I wanted those tools, I had to find another company that charged for them. In my opinion the time that could be saved by using the proper tools to begin with is well worth the initial investment. If you were a carpenter and there were several companies that delivered FREE Hammers but they had some catches. 1. They were of good quality but did not have the ability to remove nails. You had to buy an add on to do that. 2. They could work with any board, but you had to buy special nails. Those nails were not compatible with Hammers you had to buy and were not always compatible with other Free company hammers. 3. Almost anybody can use the Pay Hammer, but most workers do not know how to properly use the Free Hammer and special Nails. So, if you were a contractor would you rather have the Free Hammer or Buy a Hammer?

It's True About Desktop Management Tools (5, Informative)

DaGoodBoy (8080) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483392)

I jumped in to the "Desktop Linux Consortium" back in the Feb 2003 to offer some thoughts about direction for the forming DLC and the linux desktop in general. If you have any interest in what I said back then:

http://www.desktoplinuxconsortium.org/pipermail/dl c-discuss/2003-February/000002.html [desktoplin...ortium.org]

I think that the crucial missing application and management pieces are staring us all right in the face. It is not enough to have an easy install. It's not enough to have a slick desktop and functional apps. Those are important, certainly, but if we are really doing well at them, why hasn't the momentum shifted?

I've worked IT for fifteen years and the number of systems I've imaged with their OS and software loads dwarfs by 100 to 1 the number of times I've used any OS installer, even if you count the last five years of Install Parties at the Melbourne Florida LUG! The things most developers and non-corporate users think are important don't apply to corporate IT like people outside of IT would think.

The typical larger IT department has to deal with things like corporate software policies, locking user account profiles, automated application and operating system patches/updates and remote helpdesk. How can I enforce the corporate software policy against instant messengers when every distro except debian bundles all the stock KDE applications (including instant messenger apps) in a few giant RPMs? KDE 3.2 will be doing more profile locking features, but what about applications that don't use the KDE libs? What about Gnome?

I know people point to things like Red Carpet and the Red Hat Network for updates (still not 100% in my opinion), but I think corporations will need to be able to build or rebuild apps with different attributes or patches for distribution to corporate clients. SUSE is using 'autobuild' internally and Red Hat wants you to buy a Red Hat Network Proxy, but again, no-one other than Debian provides access to the build architecture to be able to modify certain stock bundled apps like removing parts from larger RPM's like KDE.

Remote helpdesk and other IT-friendly features are available in most distributions at this point, but they aren't really bundled and configured for that role in the context of the distribution. This needs work and attention. VNC is great, but a distro focusing on corporate desktops needs to have that puppy configured for easy remote desktop support by default.

I've spoken at LinuxWorld and other conferences, but every time I try to submit a topic that addresses some of these kinds of issues, I hear crickets and we get 10 more 'How to install Samba' sessions. We need a focus on what all the "Ticket System Cowboys" know about desktop deployments before some of the spectacular Linux desktop announcements turn into craptastic failures.

Just my $0.02.
DaGoodBoy

In other news (5, Funny)

Advocadus Diaboli (323784) | more than 8 years ago | (#9483406)

  • Boeing is telling you why Airbus Industries is bad
  • Coca Cola is telling you why Pepsi is worse than Coke
  • George W. Bush is telling you the facts about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq

Why shall I believe any of them?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...