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!

Microsoft Claims Firms 'Hitting a Wall' With Linux

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the self-serving-studies-and-other-misnomers dept.

Microsoft 717

maxifez writes writes to tell us that Microsoft has released yet another independent study downplaying the viability of Linux at the enterprise level. The study claims that Windows is "more consistent, predictable, and easier to manage than Linux." From the article: "The study, commissioned by the software giant from Security Innovation, a provider of application security services, claimed that Linux administrators took 68 per cent longer to implement new business requirements than their Windows counterparts." Vnunet.com has also provided a PDF of the original report.

cancel ×

717 comments

Miller Light is claiming Bud Light tastes bad (4, Funny)

CrazyJim1 (809850) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046458)

How is this news?

Re:Miller Light is claiming Bud Light tastes bad (-1, Troll)

da_monumental_1 (39079) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046470)

Beat me to FP.

Re:Miller Light is claiming Bud Light tastes bad (-1, Troll)

SgtClueLs (54026) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046485)

Because in that case it's true! Or rather Miller Light tastes like something, bud light tastes like nothing!

Re:Miller Light is claiming Bud Light tastes bad (2, Funny)

StarvingSE (875139) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046505)

You say Miller Light tastes like something as if its a good thing...

Re:Miller Light is claiming Bud Light tastes bad (1)

RockModeNick (617483) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046653)

Steel Reserve! $9.88 after deposit for two 12 packs, at 8.1% alcohol, and it's a very dark lager with real flavor, not a malt liquor.

Re:Miller Light is claiming Bud Light tastes bad (0, Offtopic)

StarvingSE (875139) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046745)

Hell yeah, Steel Reserve is great. Lots of High Gravity goodness there.

Well (3, Insightful)

paranode (671698) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046540)

I wouldn't discredit it completely. I think the conclusion is possibly quite true. Microsoft is generally easier and quicker to deploy, but then... what has that gained them over the past 5-10 years? A reputation of horrible security and systems that seem like they were thrown together by monkeys (again, because it is in fact so easy).

Linux may have more implementation overhead but the results, I would argue, are generally superior.

Re:Well (2, Insightful)

SCHecklerX (229973) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046765)

easier and quicker to deploy? Compared to what? Any shop using, say, redhat enterprise, can deploy a box in a few minutes, including a full lockdown, using kickstart. What similar technology even exists in windowsland?

Re:Miller Light is claiming Bud Light tastes bad (1)

bhirsch (785803) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046595)

It's not. Like any of these studies on Linux/Windows, OO.o/MS Office, etc, this is just another marketing tool. Organizations should make informed decisions on what works best for them. I work for an office where none of the systems administrators are capable of using a shell and editing a config file. This pretty much makes Windows a shoe-in. On the other hand, I run our web applications under Zope, which (along with Python and other dependencies) does much better in Linux/FreeBSD.

Re:Miller Light is claiming Bud Light tastes bad (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14046623)

Because it's true.

Linux is shit. Put that into your heads hippies.

Is Linux reliable? NO

-bi-weekly kernel recompiles requiring reboots
-Frequent file system corruption (ext2-3)
-completly unstable NFS

Is Linux standard? NO

-2.4 doesn't even support proper multithreading

Is Linux stable? NO

-Half of the KDE applications don't even start. Thank god for gnome.

Is Linux useful? NO

-Just about every application downloaded off the web has to be recompiled because the OSS "community" does't give a shit about backwards compatibility (i am talking backwards with last week). Thanks to the ever changing C++ libraries, nothing ever works wight away.
-KDE distributions provide half a dozen applications for every task. But those that even start are completly useless.
-Games? bwahahaha. Native games that look they are Atari ports, are otherwise having to perform a balancing act to install various software and hardware libraries in order to get games running unstable at best.

Does Linux have a future? NO

-Various Microsoft products and opensolaris are going to wipe the floor with its corpse. Linux is a dead end. Do not invest in it.

YOU ARE FAILURES

Re:Miller Light is claiming Bud Light tastes bad (1, Informative)

teslafreak (684543) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046734)

Do you have any idea what you are talking about? NO

-I have never had any issues with corruption.
-The kernel doesn't need a bi-weekly recompile. It's up to you.
-I also have no issues with KDE, I like it more then Gnome.
-I don't have problems compiling software from online either.
-Games? It has plenty of fun games, but it's not a gaming system anyway, most people use it for serious work.
-No future? They've been saying that for years, yet somehow, I have no problems finding mirrors to get it.

Perhaps who ever setup linux for you just sucks.

Translation (5, Funny)

suso (153703) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046462)

Here is a translation from babblefish for those that don't read bullshit.

More consistent: It crashes the same way every time I press the start button.
Predictable: It will crash at least once a week
Easy to manage: There aren't any extra settings in the windows to set that confuse people.

With Linux, they couldn't figure out what they needed to press to make it crash and couldn't determine out when it would crash.

Re:Translation (1)

paranode (671698) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046597)

With Linux, they couldn't figure out what they needed to press to make it crash and couldn't determine out when it would crash.

Just add the kernel driver for some cool new feature that's less than six months old and you'll probably get there real quick.

Of course I say this with great love for Linux. ;)

No, THIS is the babelfish translation: (5, Funny)

Ozymand E. Us (931598) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046650)

More consistent: it does, start button I press, same way crash.
Predictable: A week crash will once it at least.
Easy to manage: Extra Windows settings to confuse people it will, arent there?

Let me tell you our "independant study" (5, Interesting)

porkThreeWays (895269) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046768)

4 red hat 7.3 DNS servers. Have never required a reboot since installation.
1 red hat 6 machine that lasted 6 years without an OS related reboot (the hardware started to give and the box had to be decommissioned)
1 database/web server running SLES 8 has gone over a year and a half without a reboot.
1 webserver running debian stable no reboot since installation
1 proxy server running SLES 9 w/ squid that was set up in under a 1/2 hour under emergency conditions (old proxy hardware died unexpectedly) running 20 days under extremely heavy load until new server came in.
1 database server running SLES 8. A year since last reboot.
And those are all the ancient boxes. We've got many more linux boxen that are too new to have aquired a long uptime.
From the article:
experiencing significant reliability issues resulting in higher total cost of ownership
*shrug* I've had none of these issues they speak of. All of our installs are quick, stable and long lasting. In fact, I've never had a production upgrade break anything, and never had an install take longer than a couple of hours in even the most complex of setups.

This whole "get the facts" campaign is just silly. I don't know why they keep on with it. I've been working with Linux for years and never run into any of the problems they have "documented".

Hey Balmer, want an anecdotal story of Windows breaking? Our mapping department had a Windows 2000 installation with their mapping software. One day it just breaks. 5 people standing around the box scratching our heads. No one had any clue why. Random reboots, blue screens, the whole works. We reinstall many times. Nothing. Do all the upgrades, patches and fixes. Nothing. Sounds like hardware, right? Nope. Upgraded to 2003 and worked fine since.
The fact that the box could have run 2 years without major issue then break out of nowhere with 5 very smart people trying to solve the issue and can't makes me wonder.

Get the real facts.

walls can be broken (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14046464)

Just throw chairs to break them.

forgot the scare quotes (4, Insightful)

ChipMonk (711367) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046466)

Yet another "independent" study.

Re:forgot the scare quotes (4, Interesting)

bhirsch (785803) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046524)

And I suppose the pro-Linux studies are more valid?

Re:forgot the scare quotes (3, Insightful)

frodo from middle ea (602941) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046614)

Well they don't claim to be independent...that's a start.

Re:forgot the scare quotes (5, Insightful)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046693)

I think the flood of microsoft biased studies in the last year go a long way toward bolstering linux's claims. If they weren't to some extent true, microsoft wouldn't be trying so hard to discredit them.

I don't know why they bother honestly. My bosses bosses boss recently informed me that we use Microsoft almost exclusively. I just nodded and smiled, because it was easier to do that than explain that even our DESKTOPS are mostly Mac, and our infrastructure is 90% unix (Solaris, linux, bsd). The only people who really read those studies don't know what the hell they're talking about anyway.

I don't give a damn what microsoft's studies say. I've been using unix, linux, and windows for years, and unix and linux have ALWAYS been more reliable. I've got a 250,000 dollar machine hooked up to a brand new Dell box running 2003 that goes down as often as a nickel whore, and I am SICK of hearing from Microsoft that this is just my imagination!

Re:forgot the scare quotes (5, Interesting)

superpulpsicle (533373) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046713)

"As they attempt to increase business capabilities over time, customers are telling us that they are hitting a wall with Linux" said Martin Taylor, general manager of platform strategy at Microsoft.

I am sorry but this is the most sorry ass downhill marketing I have ever seen. It is like Pepsi hiring a guy to wear a Coca-Cola Tshirt and purposely choking. This guy changed title 3 times in a year. Just a couple months ago he was Microsoft's very own Linux strategist.

Nice to know (5, Interesting)

nizo (81281) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046467)

Microsoft products are easier to manage than Linux? On the Linux side, I simply rsync software to all our of workstations. I can even upgrade software people are using right at that moment (like rsyncing the newest thunderbird to /usr/local/thunderbird-1.0.7 while they use the thunderbird in /usr/local/thunderbird-1.0.6, and then moving the /usr/local/bin/thunderbird symbolic link to point to the new version). On the windows side, I wander around bugging people to take an early lunch or whatever while I install/upgrade software on their machine.

Also I am pleased to notice that the "independant company" that spewed out this "commissioned report" (see the microsoft page) lists Microsoft on their partners page, and from what I can tell no one who has even heard of Linux (with the exception of HP). Since it looks like their business depends on selling enhanced security products, I can see why they wouldn't be too keen on having people show an interest in Linux.


Security Innovation designed this study to be repeatable, and we believe that the results are consistent with what customers are experiencing in the real world.


And if I wander over and look at my main Linux file server, I see an uptime of 125 days (it had over a year uptime before I physically had to move the server to a different location). During that time the server's files were available 24/7 with absolutely zero problems. Needless to say we have had way fewer problems with the new Linux server; the old Microsoft server crashed or had to be rebooted on a regular basis; the people before me actually had a planned "weekly reboot every Friday evening". When it came time to replace the Microsoft server, Microsoft didn't fare so well, especially when it came time to pay big piles of $$$ to upgrade it: basically we could have bought two linux file servers for the cost of the Microsoft software upgrade costs alone. Hows that for a real-world example?

Re:Nice to know (1, Troll)

P3NIS_CLEAVER (860022) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046542)

There are plenty of ways to push software remotely to windows machines. Maybe you should learn to administer them.

Re:Nice to know (4, Funny)

FidelCatsro (861135) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046576)

The millions of Zombie PCs can attest to that

Re:Nice to know (-1, Flamebait)

Red Avenger (197064) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046582)

Sounds to me like you are an average Linux admin and a absolutely terrible Windows admin. Learn the platform before you bash it. If I was your boss you would have been fired long ago for being lazy and incompetent. Peace, RA

Re:Nice to know (3, Interesting)

nizo (81281) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046682)

I have yet to find a way to upgrade Microsoft Windows packages that people are using at that moment without interrupting their work. By all means if you are aware of one let me know (preferably one that doesn't require any type of Microsoft server and doesn't cost thousands of dollars).

Re:Nice to know (1)

jonnythan (79727) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046640)

So you're possibly a halfway decent Linux admin, and a really really crappy Windows admin.

I'm not saying that Windows is better by any stretch of the imagination.. but the stuff you list (weekly reboots, walking from machine to machine to install software, frequent crashes, etc etc) simply does not exist in a Windows network that is managed halfway decently.

Actually, it does. (5, Informative)

khasim (1285) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046712)

Weekly reboots.

Get a copy of Win2K3 on your box. Create a directory that's 3 directories below the root.

Put 200,000 files in that directory (size of each file does not matter).

Now, watch the application that reads and writes files to that directory get slower and slower over time. Until you need to reboot the box.

For an instant problem, open that directory in Explorer. All of your processor speed will be eaten by the "system" process. Even after you close Explorer. Rebooting is the only thing that will clear the problem.

Re:Nice to know (5, Insightful)

swillden (191260) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046722)

On the Linux side, I simply rsync software to all our of workstations. I can even upgrade software people are using right at that moment (like rsyncing the newest thunderbird to /usr/local/thunderbird-1.0.7 while they use the thunderbird in /usr/local/thunderbird-1.0.6, and then moving the /usr/local/bin/thunderbird symbolic link to point to the new version). On the windows side, I wander around bugging people to take an early lunch or whatever while I install/upgrade software on their machine.

There are plenty of ways in which Unix-style systems are easier to administer than Windows boxes, but this is not one of them. Windows actually has quite decent remote administration tools these days, including a fairly nice infrastructure for performing remote installations. Assuming you add some third party components (or are installing to a server with Terminal Services), ad-hoc remote access is also quite good.

I'm a big fan of Linux (I have seven computers at home; six run Linux, one runs OS X, no Windows, not even a dual-boot), and I'd probably drive a bus before I'd work as a full-time Windows sysadmin, but even I can't let this sort of FUD pass.

I suggest that you learn Windows first, then rant about it. You'll still have plenty to rant about, but you won't look like an idiot doing it.

68% of what? (4, Insightful)

aborchers (471342) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046469)

"Linux administrators took 68 per cent longer to implement new business requirements than their Windows counterparts"

What the study failed to mention is that 86 per cent of the time to implement was spent convincing the executives and attorneys that using Linux was worth pursuing.

 

Re:68% of what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14046493)

And that the linux systems stayed up 200% longer, crashed 90% less, and was a generally ten thousand percent better solution.

"Hi! we're microsoft. we can offer you a turd on a brick that takes 30 seconds to set up!"

"but how do we email with it?"

"don't worry! it'll only take 30 seconds to set up!"

Re:68% of what? (2, Interesting)

djbrums (633961) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046585)

um, "68% of implementation time" has nothing to do with subsequent uptime. I would agree that implementing a new service on windows is considerably easier if for no other reason than there probably is a single product you can just install. On linux a single service may require cobbling together many different components. Go try and install something as simple as a calendar system in linux....you have to install ldap for authentication, a webserver for web access, the calendar software itself, the postgres database for data, etc. On windows you often just find a single app which does it all. For small to medium sized businesses, cobbling together doesn't make sense.

Re:68% of what? (1)

geomon (78680) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046727)

For small to medium sized businesses, cobbling together doesn't make sense.

Thanks for speaking for all small and medium sized businesses.

As for my small business (industrial hygiene laboratory), the 'cobbling together' process is more than compensated for in reduced cost to deploy. I'm sure more than a few small and medium sized businesses share that experience.

All I need is a vanilla PC and an internet connection.

Re:68% of what? (3, Insightful)

Nato_Uno (34428) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046721)

"Linux administrators took 68 per cent longer to implement new business requirements than their Windows counterparts"

That's what you get for actually thinking through what a sane implementation should involve rather than clicking "Install -> OK -> OK -> OK -> OK -> Reboot Now"...

speed (4, Interesting)

Janek Kozicki (722688) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046472)

The study claimed that Linux administrators took 68 per cent longer to implement new business requirements than their Windows counterparts.

yeah, maybe true. But how about maintaining them later, for years, with zero downtime?

Re:speed (1)

garylian (870843) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046584)

I agree. Or that there is more ongoing maintenance with Windows, due to the dangerously flawed security setups.

Most IT guys would rather it take longer to set up, but run smoothly with low maintenance, than to have an easy setup and lots of maintenance.

Re:speed (5, Funny)

sedyn (880034) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046643)

"Most IT guys would rather it take longer to set up, but run smoothly with low maintenance, than to have an easy setup and lots of maintenance."

Nah, most IT people would rather have jobs. Windows will keep the administrators going for years to come. Thanks windows, keep up the bad work!

BILL GATES LICK MY NUTSACK! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14046477)

FUCK WINDOWS

Please try to keep posts on topic.
Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads.
Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)
If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account

All true (4, Funny)

hurfy (735314) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046479)

Predictable and consistant are not always good ;)

I can predict Windows will consistantly crash more. Not sure how that is a selling point tho ;)

It is fairly easy to manage, just press reboot every now and then. Ok, they probably have that point.

Re:All true (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14046695)

I have always thought of windows as an OS that likes to be shutdown. How many problems have the solution "reboot" in the MS world?

One out of three (2, Funny)

ch-chuck (9622) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046487)

Easier to manage I would admit (Once you learn which window does what) but certainly not reliability and dependability, unless you're comparing with a newly released experimental distro.

commissioned by the software giant? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14046488)

If you take a bunch of bad examples and lump them together, anyone on the MS dime could come up with bad results against any free OS... 68% longer but hey, at least they didn't have to reboot after every update and buy per-seat licenses.

Warning: possible incongruity detected! (5, Insightful)

Trelane (16124) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046494)

"We invite other vendors, including Novell, IBM and Red Hat, to repeat their own independent analysis based on Security Innovation's methodology."
Umm, is not "their own independent analysis" rather oxymoronic?

Re:Warning: possible incongruity detected! (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046690)

"'We invite other vendors, including Novell, IBM and Red Hat, to repeat their own independent analysis based on Security Innovation's methodology.'
Umm, is not 'their own independent analysis' rather oxymoronic?"


Well, it's redundant, but it doesn't even apply here... if they use Security Innovation's methodology, it's no longer an independent analysis.

Independent? (1)

Ossifer (703813) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046496)

Souldn't "independent" be set in quotes in the abstract? Or is that just assumed by all nowadays?

That's because (1)

Prince Vegeta SSJ4 (718736) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046497)

98% of the 68% was used to removed infected windows servers before installing Linux.

shitty comparison (1)

diegocgteleline.es (653730) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046509)

So, they claim that they won't use red hat enterprise linux 4 because they want to analyze 12 months of data (RHEL 4 was released on february IIRC) adn they use red hat 3

I just stopped reading there. Just because red hat enterprise 4 has been there for 12 months doesn't means you've to make a unfair comparison

Re:shitty comparison (1)

diegocgteleline.es (653730) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046547)

has -> hasn't!

Do The Math... (1)

RapidEye (322253) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046512)

Linux administrators took 68 per cent longer to implement new business requirements than their Windows counterparts."

OK - so it takes %68 longer, but you only have to do it %10 as often...
You're still ahead =-)

Pot and Kettle... but... (1)

rAiNsT0rm (877553) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046516)

I honestly hit a wall around 2003 with Linux. I had been using Linux since '95 back in the old days, and to me Linux is just one wall after another unfortunately.

I would love to say this is all MS FUD, but it just isn't. Linux still has a place in a few server areas but not much more. When I check out a new distro in '05 TEN years later some of the same major issues still exist... even MS isn't this bad. It seems like the point was made with Linux btu that it just will never be viable outside of the back office.

I know many will be mad, but it's just my humble opinion.

Re:Pot and Kettle... but... (2, Insightful)

TetryonX (830121) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046670)

Expressing the problems to the public will actually get them fixed. Why do you think bugs get fixed in Windows? Trust me- it's not Microsoft's good will. It's the customers bitching at them to fix the problems. Likewise happens with open source, except if you have the expertise to do it, fix it yourself and commit the patch. If the maintainers like it, everyone else who has hit your problems will feel the joy of someone fixing a common annoyance. If you can't fix it yourself, submit the idea to the forums or mailing list that is associated with the problem. Someone might fix it for you.

However, if you are just going to sit there and bitch to yourself about the problem but do nothing about it, that includes not even informing people that there is in fact a problem, you have no right to complain. You didn't try.

Proprietary (but for Linux):
I bitched for months to ATI repeatedly to get them to get suspend/resume to at least work a little and to make the video card stop sapping the power of my laptop like a vampire.
ATI 8.10.16: Initial suspend and resume support and power management. Huzzah!

Re:Pot and Kettle... but... (1)

Fallen Kell (165468) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046694)

So what problems do you still have? Seriously... You might just be using the wrong distro(s) for what you are trying to do. That is one of the few issues I can think that linux has, too many different versions causing research overload...

It's all about the criteria. (5, Informative)

khasim (1285) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046517)

The key, as always with these "studies", is to find the portion where it deviates from Reality. That is, where it uses some strange definition or where the sysadmins choose some bizarre action.

In this "study", that step into UnReality begins where all systems are required to stay on the same time-line for upgrades.

This means that what would otherwise be a normal upgrade from SLES 8 to SLES 9 instead becomes a strange mix of back-porting patches from SLES 9 to SLES 8. In other examples, the sysadmins are downloading code from the glibc and mysql sites and applying it to those server WITHOUT TESTING. So, over time, the SLES systems become unstable.

Meanwhile, no non-Microsoft supplied code is applied to the Windows boxes.

Of course, the one who commissions the "study" gets to choose the criteria ...

Re:It's all about the criteria. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14046709)

>Of course, the one who commissions the >"study" gets to choose the criteria ...

Exactly.

independent study downplaying the viability of Linux at the enterprise level. The study claims that Windows is "more consistent, predictable, and easier to manage than Linux." From the article: "The study, commissioned by the software giant

The highlighted terms are major contradictions that invalidate the independence claim.

Re:It's all about the criteria. (1)

argent (18001) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046750)

Where did you find that information? The PDF at the website seems to be a completely different study.

Re:It's all about the criteria. (1)

Jason Earl (1894) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046755)

And here's where this particular study strays from reality. It lumps remotely exploitable attacks and local attacks that give root access into the same "high severity" rating. Here's the quote from the paper.

A vulnerability is "high severity" if:

it allows a remote attacker to violate the security protection of a system (i.e. gain some sort of user or root account), it allows a local attack that gains complete control of a system, it is important enough to have an associated CERT/CC advisory.

Lumping remote exploits and local exploits into the same pot is just ridiculous. It doesn't matter how many local exploits I might have if the attacker can't log into the box. I am not saying that local root exploits aren't problematic, but they are nowhere near as problematic as remote exploits.

In other news.... (5, Funny)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046520)

... an independent study commisioned by the Vatican demostrates that God exist.

68 per cent longer (1)

l3v1 (787564) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046522)

68 per cent longer

First, quality, dependability, ease of long time administration, etc. are far more important than time to make new services available.

Second, another MS-purchased independent study showing linux being inferior.

Honestly, we all have better things to do.

It seems to me that (4, Funny)

dheltzel (558802) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046523)

Hitting a wall isn't the worst outcome. If you have Windows, you might just crash right on through and go "Splat" on the pavement below.

"In a world without fences and walls, who needs Windows and Gates?"

The full quote... (2, Funny)

mikes.song (830361) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046525)

Windows is "more consistent (to the expectations of someone who used Windows all their life), predictable (by people who spent the '90's studying for their MSDN cert), and easier to manage than Linux (by people who like masochism)."

Predictable (1)

Back Slider 1969 (909883) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046526)

If by that they mean you can tell when a BSD is a comin, then, yes, they are correct.

In other news... (0, Offtopic)

headkase (533448) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046529)

In other news, Windows was cracked 68% faster than Linux and didn't warn that it was happening at 40%....
:)

Predictable, consistent (2, Insightful)

SLi (132609) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046537)

Interesting. Unpredictability and inconsistency were the reasons why I originally (way back) moved to Linux. I found that with Windows I always had to think about what the developers might have thought when making Windows and how it might try to outguess me this time. It seemed as if Windows applied some heuristic to guess what it was I wanted to do and did that instead of what I told it to do, often without asking me first.

No suprises! (5, Funny)

MoogMan (442253) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046541)

$someone_influenced_by_microsoft claimed that Linux administrators took 68 per cent longer to implement new business requirements than their Windows counterparts.

Well, I'm not suprised - They're probably busy reading slashdot half of the time.

I wonder if there's a study floating around..... (1)

8127972 (73495) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046545)

.....That tells us how many people have hit the wall with Windows?

Re:I wonder if there's a study floating around.... (1)

puppetman (131489) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046649)

You tend not to hit the wall with Windows - as you approach it, it tends to topple over and crush you.

Where the wall is with Windows is kind of irrelevant - you should be more concerned with how far away the wall is, and how tall it is.

Honest? (2, Insightful)

serveron (931173) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046546)

M$ paid the Yankee Group http://www.yankeegroup.com/ [yankeegroup.com] to do research on the subject. From the Yankee site: "At the crossroads of opportunity and technology, Yankee Group Consulting provides customized solutions to help companies achieve success. ... that result in growth, leadership and profit. " Would they be honest about it, if Linux was as fast or faster? No, they say what their client wants to hear, resulting in publicity on /.

Skills, Education, Experience? (1)

Anthony (4077) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046549)

I looked at the report and I must have missed the list of the respective administrators skills and experience. Anyone got any pointers?

Windows admins took 68% longer to patch stuff (1)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046550)

So we are even!

Linux technical drawback (0)

suitepotato (863945) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046552)

Biggest one: lack of coherent standards and framework. It must be remembered that it was designed to ape Unix and all the garbage packed in pretty packages that went with it. That means the core of the behaviors, the text interface, the X system on top, the more advanced graphical things on top of X, the helter skelter nature of applications and resource allocations... If I run eMule, Yum, and Nautilus under Gnome at the same time, it immediately causes one or more of them to slow down, eat resources, and grind the drive in swap file overdrive for a good fifteen to twenty minutes. The hype is that Linux doesn't have these drawbacks of clashing code and resources. It does.

At least Windows is consistantly going to do this without any illusions. I'd like a similar consistancy applied to Linux so no one expects anything approaching the pseudo-perfection that is claimed of it constantly.

Re:Linux technical drawback (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14046680)

If I run eMule, Yum, and Nautilus under Gnome at the same time, it immediately causes one or more of them to slow down, eat resources, and grind the drive in swap file overdrive for a good fifteen to twenty minutes.

Hmm. I just ran all three and my swap partition hasn't done anything (downloading/updating at the same time). I think your trolling again.

The hype is that Linux doesn't have these drawbacks of clashing code and resources. It does.

Yes, and those of us who run Linux everyday are still waiting for you to prove it.

Re:Linux technical drawback (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14046681)

Linux is the operating system, not the window manager and not the applications.

My servers . . . (5, Interesting)

milkmood (782250) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046560)

According to Netcraft:

My Websites Hosted on Linux:
Last Reboot: 468 days
Last Reboot: 331 days
Last Reboot: 664 days

Other of My Websites Hosted on Windows:
Last Reboot: 3 days
Last Reboot: 9 days
Last Reboot: 11 days

Customers wanting to switch from Windows to Linux: 3

99.999% Uptime and 50% happy customers: Priceless

CP

Re:My servers . . . (1)

Mathiasdm (803983) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046776)

Isn't that a bit stupid?

I could be wrong of course, but shouldn't you at least go offline every once in a while to install kernel upgrades?
Once every one hundred days or something, not too much ;-)

I'm Shocked ! (1)

external400kdiskette (930221) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046561)

But seriously I don't see the big deal, bit of a non-story. Obviously Linux and Microsoft advertisers are both going to say with their "reports" how superior their system is as that's their job. Maybe they have other personal thoughts, who knows ... but propaganda is meant to be propaganda , it's good for business.

More consistent, predictable... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14046565)

I predict that our MS server will consistently be down between 4 and 5:30pm... without a doubt.

Hm, can't see it... (1)

tcopeland (32225) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046566)

...I've downloaded and searched the report and can't find anything about "implementing new business requirements". The study seems to be mostly about totting up the Mitre CVE DB vulnerability reports for each platform.

98% of MSFT Funded Studies Favor MSFT! (5, Funny)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046569)

This headline just in from the really, really obvious department.

How pathetic is it when the only people who say nice things about you are the people you PAY to say nice things about you? That's like paying people to be your friend.

MSFT has the best friends money can buy.

oh yes... (5, Funny)

Tom (822) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046571)

Linux administrators took 68 per cent longer to implement new business requirements than their Windows counterparts.

They forgot to mention that 67.3% of the windos counterparts did not solve the problem at all because they did not know of a vendor who had the software available, and those were not included in the statistics. Also, 23.1% of the windos projects were ten times over budget. 17.5% of the windos projects were fast, but in violation of on average 7 EULAs and 3 other license agreements. 55% of the Linux projects were slowed down by the requirement that no Free or Open Source software could be used, while 15.8% were limited by the requirement that no non-microsoft software could be employed, and Wine was specifically disallowed. Also, 97.5% of statistics are made up on the spot, including 87.3% of those who are conducted by so-called "independent institutes" for lots of money. Finally, 99.87% of studies paid for by someone surprisingly reveal exactly what the customer asked for.

At my old university... (1)

Entropius (188861) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046575)

... the University of Alabama in Huntsville, the network service was absolutely horrendous. Nothing worked right, packet loss across campus was obscene, registering for classes using their system didn't work, the webpage was often down, systems were clunky, etc.

The only things that weren't always broken on campus were the DNS server, the student webpages, and email.

All of these were hosted on one of the few UNIX machines they used, email.uah.edu. I used my shell account without issues for six years while I was there; the network often died around it (because the networking people were largely incompetent clods), but the UNIX administrators in charge of keeping email.uah.edu working always managed to keep it going.

Re:At my old university... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14046766)

I completely fail to see why your lousy network admins are the fault of an operating system. Packet loss is generally due to routing issues, and I fail to see how custom developed systems like course sign-ups failing is the fault of an operating system either.

Start placing the blame where it belongs instead of just following everyone else's *nix fanboy responses.

Word test (1)

MECC (8478) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046603)

Is it just me, or are the terms "microsoft" and "independant" intrinsicaly contradictory?

"microsoft" is to "independant" as "earthquake" is to "construction" or "tsunami" is to "dry"...

Re:Word test (1)

puppetman (131489) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046615)

Unless you consider crashes, lockups, high CPU and memory usage. Then it's predictable and consistent.

I can plug a USB hard drive into my XP box and predict with great success that it's going to freeze. The behaviour is very consistent.

s/independent/"independent"/ (1)

overshoot (39700) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046611)

HTH. HAND.

ARGH! (3, Funny)

ploafmaster general (920649) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046622)

Miscellaneous anti-Windows/Linux argument!!!!

hobbyists, or professionals? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14046639)

heh.
must be n00bs running the linux boxen in that study.
I can download, compile, and install apache/php and everything associated with the web server in less time than it takes to verify the license for an xp box and download sp2, given a dual xeon.

I don't even need to hunt through all my crap to find a valid license that will work; )

My home workstation doesn't even have sp2 yet because it's work issued and the volume license got out to the world, now it no longer validates. I bought a licensed copy of windows for my own use, and can't even figure out where to put the valid license in on their site so I can get SP2.

I am not sure how that constitutes "easier to use". To patch the box, I need to uninstall what work put on it (violating the rules) and reinstall windows. Alternatively I could wait a few more weeks while my desktop support team figures out what to do.

what a joke...

I am considering taking it back to work and handing it to them because it's a security risk to my home network. It's already unplugged and sitting in the corner.

l8,
AC

Who cares? (1)

Skiron (735617) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046642)

MS don't seem to understand people/companies use Linux as their choice.

I dunno about everybody here, but I am getting fed up of all this 'my dad is bigger than your dad' business. Linux users DON'T care.

MS are getting mighty scared to keep financing rubbish like this.

Standard Propaganda Practice (1)

Lead Butthead (321013) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046644)

"Pay (or manufacture) big names to repeat the same lies often enough, people will believe it."

I don't get it (4, Informative)

krgallagher (743575) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046647)

The article says:

"The study compared two teams of experienced IT administrators running Windows Server 2000 and Novell SUSE Enterprise Linux 8, then monitored their progress as they upgraded to Windows Server 2003 and Novell SUSE Enterprise Linux 9."

But the PDF says:

"Specifically, for the database server role, we considered three configurations; Microsoft SQL Server 2000 on Windows Server 2003, Oracle 10g on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 and MySQL on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3. In order to produce a meaningful comparison of platforms, the systems studied were manually installed and their configurations were verified."

Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 is the only Linux distribution listed in the PDF. Also the fact that "the systems studied were manually installed" is probably why the upgrade was problematic. If you want your upgrade to be easy, install from the distribution, not manually. I also wonder why they did not test MySQL and Oracle 10g on windows. There are windows versions of these software packages. When you are comparing systems running different software, you are not just doing an OS comparison. You are also comparing the software packages. They might just as well have compared Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 running Oracle 10g to Windows Server 2003 running Microsoft Access 2003.

Maybe its time for a change... (5, Funny)

dbolger (161340) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046668)

I've been using Fedora for a long time now, but this report has given me some doubts. In the interests of fairness, I should probably give this "Windows" a go. Sourceforge doesn't seem to have anything - does anybody know where I can download it for comparison? ;P

Re:Maybe its time for a change... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14046772)

http://thepiratebay.org/ [thepiratebay.org]
Uh, so you mean I can't download it legally?
So, where do I order the free CDs [ubuntu.com] ?
well, they aren't free? So what kind of user support comes bundled with the purchase?

Microsoft is running scared (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14046669)

Microsoft's trend of trying to discredit Linux can only say one thing: they're scared.

yes, more consistent and predictable... (2, Funny)

gyratedotorg (545872) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046683)

our exchange server "consistently and predictably" crashes every weekend.

"Linux administrators took 68 per cent longer" (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14046698)

Tell that to Google, MS.

wrong site (1)

towsonu2003 (928663) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046711)

nice publicity in wrong website (/.)... go figure.

M$ = BS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14046736)

M$ = BS Until everyone realizes this, we all will be slaves to the "500 ton gorilla" called Microsoft.

And? (1)

MSFanBoi2 (930319) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046744)

We still have the Linux people at our office saying that Microsoft can't do enterprise environments either...

Wow, what a pointless stat. (2, Insightful)

Proteus (1926) | more than 8 years ago | (#14046769)

Linux administrators took 68 per cent longer to implement new business requirements than their Windows counterparts.

And how long maintaining them afterward? How many flaws or deviations did their implementations have? How maintainable were the implementations?

I'm not saying that Windows automatically leads to that type of thing, but saying "hey, the implementation was done faster" is the most meaningless of statistics. I've had experiences where I took longer to implement a solution on the same platform as a competitor, but my solution was more complete, more fault-tolerant, and future changes took about a third as long. Which was the better solution? I suppose that depends on whether fast or good is more important.

This whole thing is a quantitative analysis without any consideration of qualitative differences, making it pointless as a basis for reasonable discussion.

This is why Microsoft gets accused of FUD: instead of comprehensively making their point about where Windows is a better choice than Linux, they produce pointless "flashy" studies like this that provide no real argument.

caution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14046770)

Even if it took 68% longer, that could simply indicate that linux admins are more careful and cautious about what they are implementing.

just brought this back from linuxworld expo german (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14046779)

microsoft booth at linuxworld expo germany -
in addition to giving away demo dvds for unix services for windows (stuff that belonged into the os, but wasnt there), they showed a study of how the county landkreis bergstrasse was switched off linux and windows to windows only, citing interoperability problems as the main cause. sure as hell you would not have a problem running windows services on other OS if microsoft gave out enough information to be usefull ?
how sick are they ?
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...