Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Latest Ballmergram Bashes Linux TCO

michael posted more than 9 years ago | from the starting-to-sweat dept.

Microsoft 680

Phoe6 writes "Microsoft chief executive Steve Ballmer has used the software giant's latest executive email to stoke up Microsoft's fight against the rise of Linux. The 2,600 word missive was titled 'Customer focus: comparing Windows with Linux and UNIX'. In it, Ballmer repeated the key themes of Microsoft's controversial Get The Facts campaign. Zdnet has its report here." Linuxworld also has a story.

cancel ×

680 comments

hi. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10653093)

hi.

Frist Pots (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10653097)

Sucka!

read the words (4, Insightful)

mrpuffypants (444598) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653100)

Yankee's study concluded that, in large enterprises, a significant Linux deployment or total switch from Windows to Linux would be three to four times more expensive - and take three times as long to deploy - as an upgrade from one version of Windows to a newer release. And nine out of 10 enterprise customers said that such a change wouldn't provide any tangible business gains.

Whoda thunk that it'd be more expensive to entirely change your infrastructure from Windows to Linux than it would be to simply upgrade to a new version of Windows????? Wow! We should install Windows everywhere!

Who here also thinks it'd be just as expensive to convert from Linux to Windows?

From Linux to Windows (5, Funny)

Enigma_Man (756516) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653141)

I don't. It'd be much more expensive IMO to convert from Linux to Windows. First off, you gotta buy it. Second off, you'd have to hire all new IT staff, because the previous guys would've committed hari-kari in the bathroom. Second, you'd have to figure out how to get all of your applications running again in an environment that is as stable as a drunkard on a fence.

-Jesse

Fourth... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10653324)

you gotta learn how to count

Re:From Linux to Windows (5, Funny)

pjt33 (739471) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653327)

Judging by the way you count, I think you're speaking from experience...

Re:From Linux to Windows (0, Redundant)

Enigma_Man (756516) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653394)

Fourth off, I hate you :)

It's the day after the Sox won the World Series, I'm allowed to be a belligerent and wrong.

-Jesse

Re:From Linux to Windows (2, Funny)

lpp (115405) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653344)

because the previous guys would've committed hari-kari in the bathroom


Ooooooohhh.

Is that what they're calling it now?

Re:read the words (5, Funny)

Sensible Clod (771142) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653153)

Who here also thinks it'd be just as expensive to convert from Linux to Windows?

(Entire planet moves a fraction of an inch further away from the sun as millions of /.ers' hands shoot up, then returns as they come back down.)

Re:read the words (4, Interesting)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653181)

I read that as something completely unintentional I'm sure:

upgrade from one version of Windows to a newer release and nine out of 10 enterprise customers said that such a change wouldn't provide any tangible business gains.

Balmey wouldn't have meant it that way, would he?

Owooooooo!!!! (2, Interesting)

Roadkills-R-Us (122219) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653194)

I think some of the MSies, such as Ballmer, can officially be declared rabid. or at least werewolves in Redmond. (Warren, we need ya!)

What??? The initial change from any OS to any other OS would cost money? Don't they cover this sort of thing in economics 101?

What do the words mean? (2, Insightful)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653200)

I don't think I understand your point. Its expensive to switch from linux to windows or visa versa. So the report says that if you are already a microsoft customer, don't bother spending the extra money it takes to switch. Do you think they are saying that makes Windows a better operating system than Linux? Or are they extending the point too far to imply that starting from scratch, Windows should always be installed? I don't get it.

Re:What do the words mean? (1)

RangerRick98 (817838) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653273)

Do you think they are saying that makes Windows a better operating system than Linux? Or are they extending the point too far to imply that starting from scratch, Windows should always be installed?


I don't spend much time reading these things from Microsoft, but the impression I've been getting is that while they don't come right out and say "Windows is better because of the extra cost to switch" that is in fact what they are implying.

Re:read the words (4, Interesting)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653218)

Who here also thinks it'd be just as expensive to convert from Linux to Windows?

Yeah, but that's beyond most companies concern since they don't upgrade that way, and therefore probably not seen as worth bringing up. Compare to analyzing a marriage between Elaine and LeChuck isn't even discussed, since that shouldn't be able to happen. :-)

...

Oh drat! You already posted and can't mod!

Re:read the words (2, Funny)

pete-classic (75983) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653341)

Aww, comeon. LeChuck's just misunderstood. You try walking around with your beard on fire and see if you don't get a little grumpy.

-Peter

Re:read the words (5, Insightful)

SenatorOrrinHatch (741838) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653294)

Am I the only one who sees a strong parallel between a billionaire CEO like Ballmer telling his employess he "wanted truly independent, factual information" and say the President telling his intelligence analysts that he wants to know about, say WMDs in Iraq or ties to terrorists? I'm only 26, but I'm pretty certain that if a "senior Microsoft team led by General Manager Martin Taylor" had come back to Ballmer and said, "Sorry boss, but we just can't beat free when it comes to TCO between two functionally identical products" then our man Mr. Taylor would be out of a very very well paying job, and the assignment would be given to the next peon in line and the procedure iterated until the boss has the "facts" that he wants to hear. Then again, I believe this is the kind of thing they teach in MBA programs, so I suppose any executive worth their $200,000/annum would get the message the first time.

Re:read the words (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10653333)

So what do you want to be when you grow up?

I'm a tad offtopic... (2, Interesting)

sgant (178166) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653306)

...but when I went to read the article at Linuxworld , the formating of the web page was all over the map.

Now, I'm using Firefox...which I would think Linuxworld...being to promote Linux and such...would be formated in a way that Firefox/Mozilla wouldn't have a tough time reading. Yet, when I open the page in Internet Explorer, everything is fine.

Why is this? What's really going on over at Linuxworld? Is everything over there put together on Linux/Apache and other open source apps?

Just find it interesting...

Re:read the words (2, Insightful)

sonicattack (554038) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653335)

This is similar to a circular argument I've heard used before:

The Windows platform is a superior solution, because it integrates better (with a previously existing Windows-installation, that is.)

Better to not start down that road, and only in very, very special circumstances install Microsoft software at all.

We're talking about a company that from the beginning lied and deceived to get where they wanted. Explicitly coding software to break when used together with a competitor's software, to gain an advantage?

A Leopard Never Changes Its Spots. At least not this leopard. And by going for open standards and software designed to accomplish a job, not to lock in the customer, we may kill this leopard one day. :)

Re:read the words -- what he's leaving out. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10653343)

I wonder what is more expensive... moving from windows to linux and then upgrading that linux infrastructure as better kernels/distributions get built. OR moving from windows to a new version of windows to another new version of windows?

I can guess...

Yankee, Gartner, and Forrester Groups (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10653363)

The 'Independent Analysts' for Truth

Re:read the words (1)

Tanktalus (794810) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653393)

So does that mean moving from mainframe to windows would be expensive, too, like one of his other points?

Oops, I suppose that announces that I actually RTFA'd. That'll get me either a "flamebait" or an "overrated" for sure...

Ballmer wants to hear from you (4, Informative)

scupper (687418) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653102)

Excerpt from last paragraph of Ballmer memo:

If the evidence at our www.microsoft.com/getthefacts Web site doesn't sufficiently convey the benefits and value of the Microsoft platform, we want to hear from you so we can work even harder to get that information to you.

I can't wait to read the the response to his invitation.

Re:Ballmer wants to hear from you (1)

itsnotthenetwork (634970) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653302)

So, he is saying that if you didn't "get" it, he wants to try to sell you harder...

Re:Ballmer wants to hear from you (1)

scupper (687418) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653381)

He's probably wanted to say:

"So I can get it through your thick skull."

or

"So I can drown you in self-serving case studies of companies we gave licensing deals."

The good news is... (1)

Sensible Clod (771142) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653103)

he hasn't figured out that people are starting to see through that 'get the facts' crap.

The bad news is, some people still do believe it...

*sigh*

Re:The good news is... (4, Interesting)

FuzzyBad-Mofo (184327) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653198)

Good to see that Micros~1 is running out of ideas to fight Linux, and must resort to recycling their same old collection of lies, damn lies, and statistics.

BTW, why is it none of these "TCO" studies consider the effects or cleanup costs of Windows trojans, worms, viruses, or spyware? I wouldn't trust any study which doesn't include those figures into the equation for a "total" cost of ownership.

Re:The good news is... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10653369)

Just the cleanup costs? How about the cost of damage that those can do ?

So... (1, Offtopic)

Short Circuit (52384) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653107)

They've stopped calling them "Halloween" documents? But October 31st is so close!

Best part of the article (3, Interesting)

hsmith (818216) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653110)

Security
About three years ago, we made software security a top priority


please... but i think they are starting to see Linux as a viable threat, thus the verbal out crys lately trying to defend themselves

Re:Best part of the article (5, Funny)

julesh (229690) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653175)

Security
About three years ago, we made software security a top priority


s/three years ago/ten years too late/

Re:Best part of the article (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10653354)

So, when is the Linux kernel going to natively support a *real* system for access control? You know, one that doesn't limit a user to 16 groups? Or one that allows nested group membership?

Windows may have more virii, but that is because it is more popular. And it is more popular because it has more capabilities, even in security.

You can mod this comment down, but until the Linux community realizes that things like the horrible ACL system in the kernel needs an overhaul, the market will still choose Windows.

Microsoft Security Focus (2, Interesting)

Dink Paisy (823325) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653383)

Microsft did make security a top priority. It's going to take years for Microsft to solve their security problems, but my hunch is that they can do it. They've done a decent job with stability of the operating system, and I think they can do just as well with security. If you compare the early results of their security effort (Windows 2003, IIS 6) with products that didn't get the security effort (Windows XP, IIS 5, IE 6), you will notice a very significant improvement. Microsoft is making a big effort on security and it is getting results. It's not there yet, but chances are it will get there.

Overall, I wasn't tremendously impressed with the email. I didn't see anything that was literally wrong, but parts of it were stupid or misleading or based on third party studies that weren't necessarily accurate. There were also some things that were completely true. If you can refute every single point in that email then you are making stuff up, and you should re-evaluate your arguments to determine which ones are true and which ones are nonsense.

Groklaw (3, Informative)

julesh (229690) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653113)

Also worth reading the groklaw article on this, which is available here [groklaw.net] .

The Old Windbag (-1, Troll)

viper592 (734036) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653115)

He is at it again.

Im certainly no Linux Expert... (2, Interesting)

Prince Vegeta SSJ4 (718736) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653118)

but...

the number of security vulnerabilities is lower on Windows

WTF??!?!?! how can infinity be lower than anything? Seriously though, lower vulnerabilities? Where the hell did that come from. From what I understand, linux is more secure, unless you purposely open it up or ignore the installs which tell you not to run as /root

Re:Im certainly no Linux Expert... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10653169)

Linux has a lot more software packages, and that means a lot more room for exploits. They're basically comparing a Windows box with every last service installed and running to a Linux box with every single piece of open source software installed and running, and in that case, Linux would win in the number of security vulnerabilities simply by volume.

Re:security vulnerabilities is lower on Windows (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10653208)

Is it just me, or has Microsoft changed their patch system so much that it's almost impossible to determine exactly what's being patched, and what systems are effected?

They released 10 "patches" in October that encompass 20+ vulnerabilties including "re-issued" patches of existing "fixes". Sounds like gibberish to me so that the press can't report the real #s and when they were actually fixed, and what's really still broken.

This somebody really needs to pull out an all out report on that details all this junk and shows that they are lying, because it sure smells like rotten fish to more than a few folks.

Oh that one is easy, (1, Troll)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653267)

they ain't vulnerabilities, they are features. Remember if something goes wrong with windows it is the fault of the drivers, the hardware or the user. NEVER EVER Microsoft.

I am reminded when they tried to compare Apache holes with IIS. They only listed the ones on the default IIS but ALL the ones that could affect Apache with all the extras added.

Look I will tell you a little secreat. You know how to tell when a Microsoft employee is lying? His mouth is open.

Disappointed (1)

pjt33 (739471) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653365)

I saw "Oh that one is easy" and expected an explanation of Aleph-1 > Aleph-0.

Re:Im certainly no Linux Expert... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10653279)

It's easy. Just take one Linux kernel issue, and chalk it up as one vulnerability each for RedHat, Debian, Mandrake, Knoppix, Gentoo, EvilEntity, Mikes Uberleet Distro of Doom, etc. etc. etc., then add all those vulnerabilities together. Then throw in vulnerabilities for every bit of optional software that Windows users would have to obtain separately from third parties (again, count an instance of software on each distro as a separate vulnerability). Finally, multiply by 100 because we know that for every bug we see, there are a hundred that we don't.

There are lies, there are damned lies, and there are security analyses.

Re:Im certainly no Linux Expert... (4, Insightful)

mopslik (688435) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653289)

Seriously though, lower vulnerabilities? Where the hell did that come from.

I've seen a number of studies that run something like this:

Windows

  • Contents of Windows CD: Windows OS
  • Number of vulnerabilities: N
  • Total: N

Linux

  • Contents of $DISTRO CD: $DISTRO and a million apps
  • Vulnerabilities: X in $DISTRO, Y in App1, Z in App2...
  • Total: M > N

Not sure if this is the case here, but I suspect so.

Shouting louder... (1)

scsirob (246572) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653119)

... does not make it right.

Re:Shouting louder... (1)

rampant mac (561036) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653331)

"Shouting louder ... does not make it right."

Apparently, Steve seems to think so. I can't wait for the next Windows Conference:

Total Cost of Ownership, Total Cost of Ownership, Total Cost of Ownership, Total Cost of Ownership!

I'm sure its got a beat only Steve can dance to.

You know.... (1, Interesting)

JoeLinux (20366) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653133)

Ballmer always reminds me of the kind of guy that would bash his head against the boulder repeatedly thinking: "One of these days, it'll give!!!"

Like an over-enthusiastic cheerleader for the Chicago Browns, I fully expect him to wake up one day and realize that he is cheering on a group whose ambition far exceeds their ability to remember the lessons of the past, and expect their past glory to carry them on.

Re:You know.... (1)

lowe0 (136140) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653193)

The Browns play for Cleveland. Chicago's team is the Bears.

Re:You know.... (2, Informative)

XBruticusX (735258) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653216)

Chicago Browns? That IS bad. I think you mean Chicago Bears or Cleveland Browns, both of which fans' are fueled by the lukewarm fires of past glories hesitant to return.

Re:You know.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10653231)

Like an over-enthusiastic cheerleader for the Chicago Browns

Da Bears?

Bulls, Blackhawks, Cubs, Sox?

Cleveland Browns?

Re:You know.... (1)

gregarican (694358) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653245)

If I was a cheerleader for the Chicago Browns I would wake up one day and realize some things as well...wait, who the hell are the Chicago Browns??

Re:You know.... (1)

JoeLinux (20366) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653253)

oops...I meant Cleveland Browns... Shows you how much of a sports fan I am...At least I know that the Dodgers have what it takes to get the Stanley Cup this year, right?

Get the Facts Ballmer: (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10653139)

We're tired of hearing your useless FUD.

1. Price of Windows $299
2. Price of Linux $0 to whatever distributor you wish to pay
3. Having the Freedom to use the software you want to how you want to and being a part of a world wide Free(dom) software community: Priceless!

w0uhf

Re:Get the Facts Ballmer: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10653192)

Thanks for the funny mod, but I'm actually serious.

w0uhf

Re:Get the Facts Ballmer: (1)

lowe0 (136140) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653244)

Apparently you don't know what the T stands for in TCO.

License cost is just a part of it.

Re:Get the Facts Ballmer: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10653364)

Total Cost of Ownership:

Microsoft: You wan't support give me your credit card number.

Free Software Community: You can either pay a company for support or there is also the Community which you are a part of that has many people willing to help. I find this a much better deal. Have you ever call MS for support? I have.
I admit that sometimes it's frustrating when your having trouble with a piece of software, but the willingness of the community (on line forums, email, local user groups, etc) is fantastic.
You have a choice; you can pay a company like Red Hat, Suse, Canonical, Mandrake or any of the other fine comanies for support or you can go ask the community.
I work in computer support for Windows, Macs and use those and GNU/Linux myself. I understand TCO. It's still much easier to get help for free software from the community that it is to get useful help from some propietary software company you are paying support for.

w0uhf

Re:Get the Facts slashies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10653396)

Have a look at the Red Hat site:
http://www.redhat.com/software/rhel/purchas e/index .html

You mean people have to pay for Linux?

Oh I see it's not the same.

Well where I work we have a lot of Unix/Linux techies and they pay top dollar for this. Windows still cheaper however it's sold.

Re:Get the Facts Ballmer: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10653405)

I believe the price of Linux is now $699, but only if you act fast.

- Darl

Say it enough Times, It becomes Reality? (3, Insightful)

brandonp (126) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653140)

It seems like they think that if they say Windows is more secure enough times it will become a reality. They should put more focus on developing secure software, than simply paying lip service to secure software.

--
Brandon Petersen
Get Firefox! [spreadfirefox.com]

Re:Say it enough Times, It becomes Reality? (1)

julesh (229690) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653399)

But their software _must_ be secure. I mean, it says right there that three years ago they decided to make it a top priority. How could they have failed to sort it all out in three years?

Customer Focus? (-1, Flamebait)

cuteseal (794590) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653143)

Customer Focus? I didn't know those two words existed in their vocabulary?!?!

Windows TCO (5, Interesting)

alatesystems (51331) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653151)

I am so sick of "get the facts" and "Windows TCO is lower". I am a big fan of windows on the desktop, but it sucks as a server. I contend that anyone who says "Windows is easier to admin than Linux" has never had a Windows problem.

Since Tuesday, my DFS has been totally screwed up and not replicating. With Linux, you'd just look at a samba config file or something, but NOOO, not with AD and MS domains. I totally removed all of my replica sets and spent HOURS on google trying everything under the sun.

We ended up having to call Microsoft and paying $245 for the privilege. Well, in case you're wondering, yes they fixed DFS, but now my SysVol is marked as tombstoned. So yeah, my profiles are replicating, but now my SysVol is about to delete itself. Microsoft is trying to figure out WTF it is trying to delete SysVol and every time you set the flag to 0 it goes right back to one, regardless of whether or not you stop or start the File Replication Service(FRS). We had to totally blow everything away in LDAP with ADSI edit and in the registry under HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Drivers\NtFRS and DFS.

Anyway, I hate windows on a server, but you just don't have the same abilities on a Linux domain as you do on a windows domain with windows desktops. We used to have a samba domain, and we're transitioning to AD. I hope Ballmer gets to read this, preferably before my SysVol deactivates and deletes itself.

This message and SysVol will self-destruct in five seconds.

Re:Windows TCO (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10653236)

my SysVol is marked as tombstoned

If your lucky maybe some of that BSD code in windows will save you, since BSD is always dying but never really dies.

Re:Windows TCO (1)

GoofyBoy (44399) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653310)

>I am so sick of "get the facts" and "Windows TCO is lower".

Yeah, I'm getting tired of seeing the same MS ads on slashdot too.

Re:Windows TCO (1)

RollingThunder (88952) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653378)

That was my number one reason for deciding to adblock ads on Slashdot.

Re:Windows TCO (4, Interesting)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653402)

``I am a big fan of windows on the desktop''

I used to think it was Ok to run Windows on desktops. That was last year. This year, all the problems I've seen people have with their computers were problems they wouldn't have had, had they been running Debian.

Viruses, unexplicable slowness of the system, instability, unability to replace MSIE with a proper browser, missing or disfunctional drivers for video cards and printers, weird icons or images on the desktop that wouldn't go away, register corruption, the list goes on.

I really can't understand how people can work with such a system. OTOH, they can't understand how I can work with ratpoison, screen, mutt and vi, either.

Nothing new here (5, Insightful)

menkhaura (103150) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653162)

What would we expect of Ballmer? "Okay, okay, I give in, Linux is actually better, cheaper, more stable, faster" and so on? Of course not. He is lying, true, but that is his job (used car salesmen, bow before Ballmer, for he is your god).

The lower TC (3, Interesting)

mpost4 (115369) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653163)

will be the one that the most people that have to interact with it know it. If on the server, and all the admins know unix that would be linux or unix. If on the server and all the admins know only windows then it would be windows. On the desktop windows will win most (read 95%) of the time. Unless you have a very very techly set of employees then it just might be linux.

2600 words? (5, Funny)

klocwerk (48514) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653165)

how ironic.
^_^

Microsoft finally offered TCO proof (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10653177)

On it's face, all the yankee/MS studies prove that "Vendor Lock In" is more expensive than open source options.

Phoe6 is twisting ZDNet's words (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10653179)

I think its interesting that Phoe6 basically cut and pasted the first two paragraphs of the ZDnet article, but chose to add the word controveral before "Microsoft's Get The Facts campaign". Nice subtle bias insertion, there. You should work for 60 minutes and cover George Bush.
So, Phoe6, care to tell us what is controversal about Microsoft putting its best foot forward?

"Microsoft chief executive Steve Ballmer has used the software giant's latest executive email to stoke up Microsoft's fight against the rise of Linux. The 2,600 word missive was titled 'Customer focus: comparing Windows with Linux and UNIX'. In it, Ballmer repeated the key themes of Microsoft's controversial Get The Facts campaign.

Re:Phoe6 is twisting ZDNet's words (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10653271)

at least he spelled it correctly :-)

Those clever journalists... (5, Interesting)

nijk (781345) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653184)

And as Yankee Group noted in its Linux, UNIX and Windows TCO Comparison study, "Linux-specific worms and viruses are every bit as pernicious as their UNIX and Windows counterparts - and in many cases they are much more stealthy."
Well they have to be...the simple viruses that invade windows machines wouldn't stand a chance against linux.

Also, they totally ignore to state the fact that the frequency of Linux viruses on Linux is pretty much null.

maybe the TCO is lower (0, Troll)

havaloc (50551) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653188)

As a systems admin, I don't want to fuss around with kernels, deciding between a distribution, and all that jazz. With an educational discount, Windows 2003 server costs my department $142 (sure, it's more in a commercial environment), I can install it, set it up, run updates on it once in a while, run the baseline security analyzer on it, and forget about it. Give me a linux that does all this in an easy to use manner, and I'll switch. Sure, I could use apt and the others, but it just takes too much time, and you have to worry about various dependencies and what not. I'd like nothing better than to run a Unix variant, but until you bring me a monolithic distribution that just works, I'll have to stay Microsoft for now.

Re:maybe the TCO is lower (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10653304)

I'm a systems admin too ;-). I run dozens of linux servers. Linux costs my department $0.00 (sure, it MIGHT be more in a commercial environment ;-)). I can install it, set it up, run updates on it once in a while (OR COMPLETELY AUTOMATICALLY), and forget about it. You should switch, you're an idiot not too. Every linux system I've got going here has been flawlessly operating with zero downtime for 3 YEARS...can't say that about the room full of Windows boxes that die on a fairly regular basis next door to me...I like to go over and eat my lunch while watching them struggle with their windoze boxes...:-)

Use Gentoo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10653311)

I switched from Fedora Core 1 to Gentoo and never looked back.

Just the other day I installed Abiword, it was a nighmare, I had to type literally two words at the console prompt:

emerge abiword

All the dependencies were calculated for me, I didn't have to do anything. It just works.

Re:maybe the TCO is lower (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10653401)

Just look at the "security" of the Linux kernel. Users are limited to 16 groups?? Only one group can have permissions applied to a file? And no group nesting allowed?

Yeah, there's a security system I'd be proud of.

You can mod this comment down, but you can't propose a security system like THAT to a company interested in protecting their assets. WAKE UP SLASHDOT.

Executive Summary (2, Funny)

Catiline (186878) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653199)

Developers, devel... erk, Security, Security, Security!

May be (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10653212)

Yankee's study concluded that, in large enterprises, a significant Linux deployment or total switch from Windows to Linux would be three to four times more expensive - and take three times as long to deploy - as an upgrade from one version of Windows to a newer release. And nine out of 10 enterprise customers said that such a change wouldn't provide any tangible business gains.

It could be true If you take into account the custom applications that may be running on windows now. If you have to migrate from Windows to Linux you also need to develop those custom applications to run on Linux. May be they are taking that into considerations. But if it is just office applications(Like MS Word) that should not so much costly as there are Free alternatives available and are as (In some cases More) efficient as MS Office.

Re:May be (1)

rkhalloran (136467) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653342)

Con: The secretaries/accountants/etc. that would have to convert all the Word & Excel macros they've accumulated over the years would be a problem.

Pro: The push to server-based apps and browser-based presentation is making the OS that browser runs from almost irrelevant. Factor in cost-of-security and cost-of-Windows-upgrades and the penguin starts looking a lot more appealing.

Read between the lines. (3, Interesting)

ZorbaTHut (126196) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653224)

Yankee's study concluded that, in large enterprises, a significant Linux deployment or total switch from Windows to Linux would be three to four times more expensive - and take three times as long to deploy - as an upgrade from one version of Windows to a newer release.

It's more expensive short-term to switch operating systems than to not switch? Shocker.

And nine out of 10 enterprise customers said that such a change wouldn't provide any tangible business gains.

And one of them said it would.

Did any of them say Windows was actually better? I doubt it - if any of them had, they would have mentioned it.

Training for IT employees was significantly higher for Linux than for Windows - on average, 15% more expensive. The reasons: training materials were less readily available, and customers spent more on training to compensate for the lack of internal knowledge about Linux.

There are more Windows admins out there. This surprises who?

So you've got #1, which basically says "If you're already running Windows, stick with it!" You've got #2, which says "If you're already running Windows, stick with it!" And you've got #3, which says "Right now, there's more people running Windows!"

Am I the only one who hears an undertone of "Please, please, for the love of God, keep using Windows"?

Microsoft's marketing, right now, is focused entirely on "Don't switch to Linux". Perhaps this is because many companies still use Windows. Or perhaps it's because they can't come up with plausible reasons to switch *from* Linux. But don't worry - we'll be seeing their first attempts in a year or two, I'll wager.

Re:Read between the lines. (4, Funny)

ZorbaTHut (126196) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653277)

As a completely unrelated aside, my mp3 player chose this moment to start playing "Everything You Know Is Wrong" by Chumbawamba, which has, as part of the bridge, the title and some guy saying "Misinformation!" in the background. I find this highly appropriate.

Security vulnerabilities and TCO (4, Insightful)

yeremein (678037) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653227)


And it's pretty clear that the facts show that Windows provides a lower total cost of ownership than Linux; the number of security vulnerabilities is lower on Windows, and Windows responsiveness on security is better than Linux

I wonder if their TCO figures include rebooting all your servers weekly to install new patches...

Oh, and let me guess... the Linux vulnerability count includes all issues found in an entire distribution, while the Windows count includes only the base OS. I'll bet we'd get a much more accurate picture if they included IIS, SQL Server, Outlook, etc.

MS is sweating (4, Informative)

nels_tomlinson (106413) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653229)

Monkeyboy is sweating. Unfortunately, that's nothing new. [ntk.net]

Seriously, this is just the marketroids doing their thing. When the accountants start warning [eweek.com] about threats from Linux, we know there's a real threat. Linux is getting mention in the latest annual filing [shareholder.com] , too.

Re:MS is sweating (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10653317)

Yup. The make more billions every year. Their profits are RISING. He's probably worrying about what island he will buy this year.

I wish I had things like that to worry about.

Spam? (1)

SuperChuck69 (702300) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653237)

So now Microsoft has resorted to spam?

Sad. Just sad.

Balmer Shows that Open Source Works in the West (5, Interesting)

d102804 (826077) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653238)

In an indirect way, Steve Balmer shows that open source works in the West. He, like the rest of us, knows that the issue is cost. So, he immediately attempts to criticize the total cost of ownership (TCO) of Linux.

The single biggest reason for the proliferation of open source software like Linux and Apache is that they are free to own. Most Westerners are relatively honest and do not pirate commercial software; the piracy rate is only about 15%. The sheer high cost of commercial software thus creates a market for free software like Linux and Apache.

Now, consider China (which includes Taiwan province and Hong Kong). The Chinese steal what they do not want to buy; the piracy rate is about 95%. In China, there is no market for open source software like Linux, for all software is free. Windows XP is "free".

TCO is not even an issue in China because Microsoft will not support pirated software. Chinese pirates get support for, say, Windows XP from other pirates; the behavior is similar to Westerners getting support from other open source supporters for Linux.

Translations don't match? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10653240)

I looked at the Korean translation, and there are bits of English text (like "back office") in the Korean text but those words appear nowhere in the original English text. WTF?

Yeah, right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10653255)

If the evidence at our www.microsoft.com/getthefacts Web site doesn't sufficiently convey the benefits and value of the Microsoft platform, we want to hear from you so we can work even harder to get that information to you.

"Information"? I'm pretty certain we used to call this "propaganda".

2600? (1, Funny)

hipbase (610975) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653256)

Ironic?

I THINK NOT!

Actually the Nick Petreley Report... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10653265)

...discussed at LinuxWorld [linuxworld.com] yesterday is a far better read than Ballmer's screed.

That costly UNIX.... (1, Flamebait)

gtrubetskoy (734033) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653275)


One of the hot topics among enterprise IT and business decision makers today is the costs and benefits of migrating enterprise resource planning systems (ERP) from costly, proprietary UNIX environments to Windows or other platforms.

My Linux and Freebsd machines are particularly costly, I should consider migrating probably... On a second thought, I don't have any ERP (in fact I don't even know what it is).

This is a good thing.. (1)

IamGarageGuy 2 (687655) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653296)

When the opposition starts to use fud and only fud to defend itself it can only mean that it is scared. This is a sign that Linux is gaining momentum and MS will go to any lengths to stop it. The tides are turning. Stay the course and in the end the better OS will win. These are classic tactics used throughout the business world on a daily basis, do not think that this is a personal attack. But also remember that when the enemy is on the ropes, you should do everything in your power to deliver the final blow.

Re:This is a good thing.. (1)

rm007 (616365) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653340)

I don't know if "scared" is the word - it might be more accurate to say that MS recognizes Linux as a serious and viable competitor. That itself is pretty strong valildation. I don't imagine that MS will actually be "scared" until Wall Street analysts start to make reference to Linux as a major contributor to declining MS earnings.

Re:This is a good thing.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10653351)

Jesus. Get out more. Get a clue.

You gotta admit, though MSFT stinks . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10653349)

.:

You gotta admit, though MSFT stinks, Linux as an OS sux! The problem with Windows is that it's Microsoft's (replace with any illegal monopoly). The OS as a platform for apps, nevertheless, in my opinion, is far better than Linux will ever be.

:.

What's with that Linuxworld article? (0, Offtopic)

FuzzyBad-Mofo (184327) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653357)

It's hard
to read an
article when
it's formatted
for a 100
pixel width.

Market Researchers are Spineless... (2, Interesting)

ctrlaltdestroy (750308) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653379)

...This memo was passed around at my firm to the people who handle the MS accounts and all of the sudden their eyeballs took on the shape of dollar signs. Nobody wondered about the debate over the veracitiy of the "Get the FUD" campaign when I brought it up. All they thought about was a way to get a piece of the market research action with MS funding, of course.

Huh??? (1)

Chucky B. Bear (785810) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653406)

"But the core reason for selecting Microsoft was the increase in network security, complemented by the ability to reduce patch-deployment time by 50 percent while cutting unsolicited e-mail by half."

'k I've gotta ask... how? How does running windows stop people from sending me spam? No really, if microsoft can magically stop the spammer sending me all the shyte I've been getting then I'm all for it. Microsoft Mind Control 2005 here we come. ;-)

Stage he's in (1)

Rutje (606635) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653414)

1. First they ignore you, then
2. they laugh at you, then
3. they fight you, then
4. you win.
I guess this is a sign Ballmer and MS are approaching step 3! The sooner the better.

Consider the source (5, Funny)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 9 years ago | (#10653415)

Getting Linux TCO news from Ballmer is about as reliable as getting news about Iraq from Dick Cheney.
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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...