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


Isn't that nice... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1635609)

Great of Microsoft to let us know that NT is more reliable than Linux... I'd tell you that isn't the case for me, but that would just be an anecdotal story.

Thanks, Microsoft. (4)

emerson (419) | more than 14 years ago | (#1635610)

Now the Linux community has a nice, tidy 'to-do' list, thanks to Microsoft's time investment in finding all of the places where NT has on-paper advantages.

Give us another 6-12 months, and we'll render all of these points moot. Very friendly, almost selfless, of them to help focus the community's attention on areas that need development.



MicroFUD (2)

Amoeba Protozoa (15911) | more than 14 years ago | (#1635611)

This page is obviously a vehicle to deploy some FUD. It is becoming more and more obvious that if a big-name corperation with an internet presence says something, it can be accepted as the, "gospal truth," by the naive public. People who are smart enough (like most of the /. reader-base) will just point and laugh, but for the other people there is an old saying:

"You can't fool all the people, all the time; but you can some of the people, some of the time: and make a damned good living."

This is the exact sort of propaganda Microsoft needs to promote to keep there O/S "ahead" of the game. That is, until the public finds out exactly how full of it they are :)


FUD. (3)

jelwell (2152) | more than 14 years ago | (#1635612)

I think my favorite quote is this: "Free Operating System Does Not Mean Low Total Cost of Ownership"
Notice how they pointed out they were speaking about free as in beer; not free as in speech.

I think it's a shame that they continue to spread FUD despite their current fight with the Department of Justice.
Joseph Elwell.

Hey this is just what we need (1)

vipw (228) | more than 14 years ago | (#1635613)

A good centralized site for FUD. Its really great for a self-sacrificing company like microsoft to step up and put linux down for the masses. god forbid they can find balanced information. I think it is a shame that "independant" views are nearly impossible to find, most people are stuck hearing "linux rules dude" or some other "zealotry" as opposed to real advocacy or else they end up seeing a total FUDwash like this.

Thanks MS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1635614)

MS just reminded us Linuxers about the items our To-Do list. Let's keep improving Linux.

walking on broken glass (1)

RoLlEr_CoAsTeR (39353) | more than 14 years ago | (#1635904)

I don't like M$'s lies any more than the rest of you, but I think we need to keep in mind that if you don't counter the FUD with something (and something very public and noticeable), then the public isn't going to "find out exactly how full of it they are."

You have a point there, but, as you hinted at, and as we all know, writing a piece to post on the site of your distro to point out the advantages of Linux (over M$) is going to be a very sensitive subject, because you're not going to want to get into the same dung hole they're in and start your own FUD page. The last thing the public needs is two [or more] companies going at it tooth-and-nail, or even spouting back and forth about whose-product-is-better-and-why-and-you-should-buy -mine.

I think that it's not such a bad idea, to keep Linux in the light, but I think that if it is to be done, whoever does it should probably be a big, heterogenous group of Linux-dudes who spend as much time researching the specific differences as they do tweaking their wording.

My thought of the day.. =)

Testing and Certification? (2)

H-Monk (34820) | more than 14 years ago | (#1635905)

The comments about testing and certification caught my attention.

While hardly an expert about the benchmarks and certifications listed
(though I have dealt a bit wit tpmC before), I know
the steps needed to aquire these certified statments almost invariably cost what,
from an average citizen's perspective, is a large sum of money.

Demeaning not-for-profit groups for failure to spend time on a million dollars worth of certification strikes me as a very a low blow.

(btw, while the acl statement was inaccurate, many times I yearn for Linux to have more elegant access schemes)

Oh, how the mighty have fallen. (1)

paul.dunne (5922) | more than 14 years ago | (#1635906)

Well, I may be mistaken, but did MS ever write such stuff about CP/M, or OS/2, or whatever? This piece is beneath comment (so why am I commenting on it? I'll leave that question to the philosophers). But really, this is sad in a way. MS was a giant of its time; whatever your feelings about win9x or NT, there is something vaguely distasteful about being in on the death throes. Avert your gaze, people, as the "market leader", which once could stamp all over the smaller, whimpier dionsaurs is reduced to printing drivel like this on its own home page (does this mean it can no longer bribe^H^H^H^H^Hfund "independent" organisations to do the dirty work?) Maybe it's just me, but this has the stink of desperation about it. Move along now, folks, ain't nothing to see here.

Re:Isn't that nice... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1635907)

Wow! Me too.. I found that my linux box has never crashed. Wish I could say the same for NT.. But I guess thats because I'm not a certified MicroShaft engineer, and consequently every single person I have ever met who willing became a microcrap certified engineer is a complete idiot.. MicroShaft engineers I have noticed always blame everything on the network, not there precious and feeble NT.. Oh and one side note I noticed the microshaft article went on to use pc magazine..etc... for references in linuz vs nt performance.. Don't know about you but I don't not consider any of the source they used as credible in the setup,implimentation, and testing of linux.. I seriously doubt anybody on there testing staff is qualified to really set up a good linux box...

Some truth, but many 'misconceptions' (1)

journey- (37127) | more than 14 years ago | (#1635908)

Many of their references are to magazines, unfortunatly I could probably find another magazine, that posted a story with the exact oposite responce.
But howabout some of their real points?
They discuss the 2G memory limit, which is actually a limit in the x86 architecture, the 4G is achieved by an ugly hack intel made. You want 4G of memory? use alpha.
They mention that the swap file(partition) is limited to 128M. Now i might just be seeing me, but my swap partition is 200M, and its just one partition ...
They talk about 'free' operating system does not mean low TCO, when infact the free means the availability of source code to the user
Microsoft says, 'Administrators cannot delegate administrative privileges' ... Well funny me, but i beleive sudo allows you to delegate different administrative privlages to different accounts.
Directly after that, the page says, 'Configuring Linux security requires an administrator to be an expert in the intricacies of the operating system and how components interact.' Now i dont have a chance to work with NT boxen too often, but i have heard far too many stories about NT being the exact same way
Howabout 'Misconfigure any part of the operating system and the system could be vulnerable to attack.' If they mean that you can take advantage of the program, then at most that will get you regular user access, because most distributions dont run too many programs as suid root.
And the last thing i'll notice .. 'This [tracking bugs] is made complex due to the fact that there isn't a central location for security issues to be reported and fixed.' I would suggest looking at the homepage of whatever distribution you have. Most of them, RH and Debian i know for sure, have some sort of bug tracking system, and have security updates about any problems found. In the case of redhat they work on fixing those security holes i beleive.
There are some good points on that page of microsofts, but there are too many half truths, and misconceptions for me to take anything they have to say seriously.

Let's Wax on this shopping list... (1)

PackedBowl (62051) | more than 14 years ago | (#1635909)

Like it's been said so far -- a very nice shopping list for our community. Of course it is a marvelous of corporate whoring for the archtitectonically deprived: ie I love the repetitive phrase "from the ground up"... make me think of the article on bloatware we noticed yesterday over at www.shift.com. Only new and bright and right from the shiny-shoed guys will work, of course... everything else is cobwebby. "Only this publicly ridiculed and blatantly sophmoric security model _built_from_the_ground_up will outdo a tried and tested 30 year old, honed, battle-fortress security model."

Oh yeah... but back at my first thought:

1. SMP

2. paging file 1. Where are we at on SMP in people's opinions? And where is a good place to go to get into the thick of this discussion/development?

--> 2. Isn't the 128 M paging limit a feature, not a limit, in Linux? If you need to page that much, you need more RAM anyway.... so I gues that makes me wonder about the RAM limitations...

Things wrong with this article: (1)

Yebyen (59663) | more than 14 years ago | (#1635910)

OK Here's my little list of things wrong with this article at first glance:

1: Windows NT 4.0 Outperforms Linux On Common Customer Workloads
Yes, we've all seen those mindcraft tests... we all know :-)

2: Linux Needs Real World Proof Points Rather than Anecdotal Stories
OK probably every person who knows a linux user has heard the "System that ran for a year without being rebooted" story, but that's NOT the only evidence of linux's superior reliability. Linux has NEVER frozen on me, except for once or twice when I was messing with the runlevels in my early days... however any windows user knows exactly how often it freezes, and any NT administrator will testify the same for NT.

3: Free Operating System Does Not Mean Low Total Cost of Ownership
What is total cost of ownership? In my entire linux-using career, I have paid a total of $40 towards linux software. I bought RedHat 5.2 back before my cable modem days. Since I started using windows, i've spent at least $1000 on software. Open Source has NO total cost of ownership. It's that simple. All you pay for is the phone bill downloading it.

4: Linux Security Model Is Weak
Two words: Back Orifice

5: Linux Makes No Sense at the Desktop
I have used linux at the desktop happily for about a year now. It's been a fun experience learning it. Now that I know the basics, I can use it daily. There is no lack of good software for linux, only a lack of PAY software.

6: Linux does not provide support for the broad range of hardware in use today.
I have had very few hardware problems that weren't fixable by a download. There would have been no download if the hardware companies had included linux drivers, but that's the breaks.

Well thanks for actually reading my rant, flame away for my inaccuracy, and I hope you enjoyed it. Please moderate me up!

Patrick Barrett

Article has some valid points I think (1)

avail (84055) | more than 14 years ago | (#1635914)

First of all, I have no love for Windows, MS, but I do think that There are a couple valid points in this article, if you look between the piles of FUD. [1] HA clustering needs to be brought to Linux. Maybe the release of SunOS code will give this a little boost. [2] There should be a centralized repository for security updates and such. I don't think this is nessessarily hard to do either... just take a little work. Maybe the guys from l0pht would like this honour :) [3] Security is much harder to achieve under Unix systems than under NT I think. i won't argue as to which is more secure once properly set up, but Unix is a little more work to get there. I do love how MS does not point out the existence of WINE, allowing many windows apps to run under Linux. The supposition of Linux not being a desktop OS is entirely wrong. otherwise I am an idiot for using my gnome/wm desktop so efficiently. :) The anecdotal stories bit confuses me though. Is there some official or recognized manner of validating stability? I would tend to think that simply naming companies which use your solution does not really say ANYTHING non-anecdotal about their product, only that people use it. I do happen to know that the CSE uses a custom cluster solution for NT with like 10+ redundant boxen in order to achieve the same level of reliability as found in 1 Sun E10000 box. Perhaps something should be done to address the measure of system stability? Like a real world stress test in which a system is pushed as hard as it can be, for as long as it can, without failure caused by software (like simulate a 90% load on a webserver, or terminal server)

wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1636118)

can't wait to see the responses on this one. i don't know, they almost swayed me a little about the 30 year old OS remark, how accurate is that?

Preaching to the converted? (1)

pen (7191) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636122)

Just like Linux advocacy on Slashdot, NT advocacy on a Microsoft page largely seems to be preaching to the converted.

The only reason non-MS users would ever visit that page if Slashdot posted a link to the story, which, of course, it did. (I'm not saying it shouldn't have.)

The page's purpose is to just serve as an argument for the NT lovers to those in charge of spending money on hardware and software.


Was the Linux Box that Microsoft Tested Optimized? (2)

psnwtech9 (98952) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636133)

It most likely was not optimized, while the NT box most likely was. A study on Something like this needs to be in the educational sector - not the commercial sector - in order to be taken seriously.

Microsoft's support?? (3)

tecnodude (31328) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636137)

My favorite quote:

"The very definition of Linux as an Open Software effort means that commercial companies like Red Hat will make money by charging for services. Therefore, commercial support services for Linux will be fee-based and will likely be priced at a premium. These costs have to be factored into the total cost model."

And microsoft's policy of charging for support is any different? Well ok it is, you pay for the product and then the support :-)

Microsoft Myths (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1636138)

What a complete joke. They must have upped their two-drink minimum in marketing to 6 or 7. I had to laugh at this.. snipped from their page. "Linux fundamentally relies on 30-year-old operating system technology and architecture." Actually if you count electricity, it's more like 200 years. Enough. This is a linux-bash-fest. How about our own set of myths? M$-Myth #1: It works. M$-Myth #2: We care about you. M$ Myth #3: NTx.x is bug-free. and finally, the biggest myth of all: M$-Myth #4: We're not in it for the money. At the very least, this should gie the DPJ something to point to when Microsoft complains that Linux is "a threat" and a "real competitor" to their desktop.

Read It, Heard it, Bought the T shirt (5)

Nik Picker (40521) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636155)

Welll Ive read all this before, hell I have seen it all before. ok lets review some details

1. Anecdotal stories:
Well Reliance Mutual look to be moving to Linux. And then there is the My own Company (Who promote NT) whose website runs FREEBSD, then How about the fact that Rodenstock Germany (Big Optical Company) work with Linux as a development platform. The US army think NT is poor performer. No major, and for this I mean AOL, UUNET, DEMON ISP will use NT as its backbone in service provision.

2. Linux Community:
The report uses it to sound denegrating but lkets see. For each app, utility and service there is a clear line of responsibility, opportunity and information. Heck we even know who co-ordinates on the Kernel updates, patches and we can redress the distributors and autors or modules for any extra help if we see fit.

3. Promises of SMP ....
Well excuse me for not running a superserver but most mid level and small businesses, lets face it they are the ones paying for MS licenses, will not need or require that level of service. Those looking for hight end server perfromance are most likley running 64Bit systems (can anyone say Alpha? Unix?)

4. Late release of FUD
most likely.

As a lecturer in Visual Basic and a seasoned tech support professional in NT and windows I will say this. Out of 20 Students on my part time course in VB over half are llooking to install Linux. Of the 14 People who consult me about installing and upgrading their machines, or getting into the "industry" all will want to install Linux by christmas.

This is the Barn, the horse is gone! do you wish to close the doors?

Marketing Wisdom (5)

Amoeba Protozoa (15911) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636159)

There is a little something I learned about marketing in school:

If the market leader acknowledges a competetor in an add or public forum, he may cease to be the market leader in the market's eyes.


hahaha (1)

sageFool (36961) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636162)

>Linux fundamentally relies on 30-year-old >operating system technology and architecture.

Hope no-one mentions that the 30-year old technology is still better than windows...because then people might buy products based on their worth, not their marketing. sigh.


Re:FUD. (1)

Rombuu (22914) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636165)

I think my favorite quote is this: "Free Operating System Does Not Mean Low Total Cost of Ownership"
Notice how they pointed out they were speaking about free as in beer; not free as in speech.

Reguardless, it is still true, and 99% of the users out there don't give a damn about getting the source code.

All FUD? (4)

Jack William Bell (84469) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636171)

Perhaps not, but this only serves to polarize people further. The Microsoft faithful will wave this around as proof of their beliefs and the Linux zealots will point to it as more proof that Microsoft is a nothing more than a hive of marketing droids who can lie better than they can write code...

And those, like me, on the sidelines will be pushed more to one side or the other. Even if we might otherwise lean towards the NT camp, I think many will be so embarrassed and saddened by this kind of brookmanship that we may now move the other way. FUD or not, this was a mistake on Microsoft's part. I will not be surprised if the web page dissapears sometime real soon.


How do we know? (2)

Spencer (52048) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636174)

Myth: Geeks like Linux better.

Microsoft engineers have been using Linux for months on their own home computers and when questioned by Microsoft Marketing Goons, they all claim they like NT better.

Is it worth talking about this? (1)

Elias Ross (1260) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636177)

I bet 500 comments are going to show up about now.

It isn't worth discussion. It's clearly just marketing bullshit, FUD, etc. You might as well give up trying to argue about it. (Too bad RedHat and others don't respond when MS dishes it out. You'd think they'd have the money or the balls, alas.)

All the indignation on ./ isn't going to matter one bit, so I'd suggest using the energy for something useful.

WhatEVER (1)

eigenstr (94682) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636179)

Even if though some of the points M$ makes are true, and even IF Windows NT really is more stable than Linux...I have to reboot a dual PII-Xeon with a gig of RAM every couple days because Microsoft's tangle of data access crap leaks memory like a sieve, and their workaround involves installing not-yet-released service packs while standing on one leg and chanting "Bill Gates is the antichrist".

Re:Preaching to the converted? (1)

pen (7191) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636181)

All systems are vulnerable to security issues, however it's important to note that Linux uses the same security model as the original UNIX implementations- a model that was not designed from the ground up to be secure.

Wasn't UNIX originally designed to be a multi-user operating system, and therefore secure? Isn't a large portion of NT based on Windows 9x, which I don't have to comment on? Isn't NT still not a true multi-user OS?


What is the proper community response to these? (5)

scottm (288) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636183)

I'm sure this post is preceded by the usual trolls and flamers, so let's just ignore them.

I just finished reading the article and considered writing a point-by-point analysis. As Rob pointed out there are some good points and some bad points made. It shouldn't take much time to evaluate each claim and write a reasonable response. So should we?

The fact is we are starting to see more and more of these (hey, it's almost Halloween again, isn't it? (: ). Another fact is that some of these claims clearly are FUD. "Security on linux is an all-or-nothing proposition" (paraphrased from the document). Huh? Claims like this are flatly wrong, either intentionally or accidentally (should we expect everyone to know about sudo and groups?).

I believe that what linux truly needs is some sort of a PR "department". No not a fuddish (cool word) marketing department or bloodthirsty advocates for a particular distribution. Just a comprehensive document developed by a variety of people that addresses some of these common concerns and myths. Does such a document exist? Where?


Ooh Boy... (1)

Zoltar (24850) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636195)

Things are heating up in Redmond. This actually seems like they are taking Linux seriously. I guess they are changing their minds :)

Ah well...they still have a killer marketing department.

Everyone who believes Microsoft please use NT... (2)

k9-quaint (94011) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636199)

so you can be identified for easy disposal.

-quaint, member emeritus of the committee for natural selection. P.S. on a more serious note, thanx for the worklist Bill. :)

Support for 16 TB filesystems? (1)

Bryan_K (32492) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636203)

"The largest file size Linux supports is 2 GB versus 16 terabytes (TB) for Windows NT 4.0" Does NTFS even support partitions this large, or is this just the theoretical limit of the operating system? I know NT has large file system support, but didn't think it could scale this large.

Re:Preaching to the converted? (1)

pen (7191) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636206)

Ahh! I replied to my own post instead of the main article... sorry. That was meant to be on the main thread. If only there was a way to delete my on posts within 5 minutes... heh.


FUD? (1)

Baddog (864) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636211)

After a quick review of the article, it would appear that Microsoft is bringing back every FUD tactic:

1. UNIX is old. Linux is UNIX-like. Linux is outdated.

2. UNIX is hard. Linux is UNIX-like. Linux is hard.

3. Linux is unproven.

4. Linux support is either via Internet or pay-per-incident from Red Hat, etc. (Just like MS...)

There are a few good points made, such as scalability issues. But I don't think its very difficult to debunk the myths, and once you do, the article is VERY short indeed.

Foo! (4)

Signal 11 (7608) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636213)

I believe I speak for everybody here when I say that in the next 10 minutes the ultimate Mindcraft Redux will take place as tens of thousands of geeks simultaniously smash those NT servers and start requesting dynamic content by way of the /. effect.

Ah, the sweet irony.


Traditional Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1636216)

Microsoft already has other sections on their website saying "NT is better than everything else". This is just another. Don't take it personally - Microsoft is a bully like any other. The attention actually _encourages_ Microsoft to make more evil statements, just like any bully. Ignore it. Linux long and prosper

Microsoft Clarifies Linux Myths???? (1)

Kazir (48851) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636218)

Shouldn't the title be Micro$oft Obsfucates Linux Truths?

Microsoft should get their "facts" straight (2)

Aighearach (97333) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636221)

Even though they used a font that in pretty much unreadable with the default redhat/netscape configuration, I still managed to find the line that says: "The Linux SWAP file is limited to 128 MB RAM" Perhaps true, I wouldn't know, but htey don't mention that that is irrelevant, because linux usually uses a swap partition instead. Personally, I've got over 300 megs of swap space.

Fonts? Ick (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1636223)

Who picked the fonts there. They're tiny and blocky when viewed on my Linux browser. I'm sure they look great under IE5 on a winblows machine though. Ah well. Can't have my workstation be unstable just to view pretty fonts now can I? I'll get an SGI if I need that.

halloween (1)

HiH (61053) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636243)

It's really interresting to compare this "official position" with the halloween documents of last year. Officially they claim that NT beats Linux hands down but unofficially it's the opposite.

/* FUD */
this_doc = !(halloween);

2 gig file limits suck (3)

heroine (1220) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636249)

I'd be ecstatic if Linux could just do 4 gigs natively. 2 gigs only store 5 minutes of YUV 4:2:0 video. For 29.97fps you can only fit 2 minutes in a file and it takes just as long to delete. Why wasn't ext2 designed with 64 bits? You need to perform file deletions as batch jobs they take so long.

at least two things are wrong (5)

weaselp (32626) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636252)

I will only comment on two items that are simply wrong (at least _I_ think they are. Please correct me if I should have mistaken something):

The Linux SWAP file is limited to 128 MB RAM. In addition, Linux does not support many of the modern operating system features that Windows NT 4.0 has pioneered such as asynchronous I/O...

The 128 MB limit is long gone away, and IIRC ext2 is asynchronous by default.

Linux security is all-or-nothing. Administrators cannot delegate administrative privileges: a user who needs any administrative capability must be made a full administrator, which compromises best security practices. In contrast, Windows NT allows an administrator to delegate privileges at an exceptionally fine-grained level.

Someone please tell them about sudo!

They do however have a valid point on Journaling FS and fine grained kernel locks which are both in development. I won't even start talking about performance/stability and user friendlyness :)

Linux vs. NT (2)

Darksun (97127) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636256)

Being a tech in the industry, I have a few NT boxes around town, I also have 1 linux based server in town, of the 10 or 12 nt servers we have running, I get on average, 6 calls a week, most of the time the server needs to be rebooted...the one linux box has never had a call, never needed to be rebooted (been in place about 6 months) just sits there and does what it's supposed to do...granted it was not as "simple" as NT to set up, but that's what makes Linux so much fun.

Re:FUD. (1)

Muggins the Mad (27719) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636258)

"There is no reason to believe that Linux is significantly different than other versions of UNIX when it comes to TCO. "

Ah well, at least they're now saying Linux is a real UNIX :)

The thing that scares me most about all this MS FUD is that a large number of people will be believing it.

M$ != ProChoice? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1636261)

Kinda reminds me of that good old american world war I/II propaganda. The ones featureing the german soldiers killing babies, and the front cover news paper article about how to tell japanese "eyes" from other asian "eyes". If its not american its wrong. Folks, M$ does not want us computer users to have a choice. If its got a piece of silicon in it and its hooked up the internet, M$ wants some cash. Just another reason why I have not paid for a M$ product ever. Oh, and Thanks for those hefty college scholarships billy

Market speak (1)

chrystoph (89878) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636262)

There is a LOT in there. They also use pseudo logic extensively. Kind of looks like the few facts there are provided by techs, then the whole thing was written by Marketing. Still, some small part of it is true. There aren't nearly as many certs in the Linux community.

If Linux is such a piece of crap . . . (1)

MikeA (23144) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636264)

then why are they wasting their time puting up web sites and paying for bechmarks? Maybe it isn't as bad as they say. Maybe it is quite good. Maybe they realize that now.

Linux is not perfect (1)

davidsheckler (45018) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636271)

Neither is WindowsNT. My perception is that problems with linux are fixed much more quickly. Both do have security holes as do all operating systems. There will come a time when there will be very little technical difference between WindowsNT and linux. I think Microsoft will find ways to adapt and have a faster roll out of patches and upgrades. They may even go GPL. Then it won't matter which OS you have. For now I like to have the source if I need it.

The Linux SWAP file is limited to 128 MB RAM? (1)

treilly (70916) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636290)

"The Linux SWAP file is limited to 128 MB RAM"

Admittedly, I could be wrong, but does this sounds AWFULLY funny to anyone else?

random thoughts aplenty (1)

David E. Smith (4570) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636295)

Just a few random thoughts as I read through this latest piece of MS dumpage (roughly in order from the start of the document down)...

Without doing a lot more looking into these numbers and their sources, the first major section of the document is darn near useless. We all know of Microsoft's history for buying the numbers they want...

Just because NT has a number of mission-critical installations out there, doesn't mean that Linux can't also have that. More MS dodging.

"Administrators cannot delegate administrative privileges." Wrong, pure and simple. It's called sudo.

Linux security in general: Yeah, you have to keep on your toes. But it's a lot better than trusting Microsoft to do all the watching for you. While sites are being cracked, and the Linux fix is already being deployed, Microsoft is still writing the "it's not an issue" press release.

In short: ugh.

Microsoft Is Scared (1)

MooseMunch (53493) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636298)

If you're mircrosoft, the only reason to write this kind if article is if you're scared. Wile they they make some valid points, they make some false ones and even more weak ones.
Having doing some OS study, the fact that Linux is based on Unix technology (yes it's 30 years old) is not a bad thing. In fact for an applicatoin developer it's a rather good thing. The windows API may offer you the ability to password protect your cmos battery but have you ever looked at the Win32 secutiry api...if you have you'd probably realize it's not worth it.
And of course the benchmarks come up again. And of course one lab says this, another lab says the contrary. Benchmarks don't typically mean anything.
And about the desktop thing. If i remember correctly, microsoft had to post an update to windows 98 because it went into erratic behavior if left running for more than 30 days. That just goes to show that not even microsoft can keep their desktop OS up and running. My linux machine has been up for over 59 days as i write...and i have all the applicatoins i need and they didn't cost me a penny.

Woo-hoo, Windows NT has great security! (not) (1)

Sesse (5616) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636299)

They claim Windows NT has had C2 security since 3.51. In that case, somebody should fix the C2 standard. Easy example: take the MTF (Microsoft Tape Format) specs -- I believe it's somewhere on Seagate's web site. Throughout the document, there are multiple provisions for "C2-level security". And their password protection? Oh, that's a byte to or from. That's right: FLIP ONE BYTE, and ALL security on the tape goes away... Great! Go NT security!

/* Steinar */

Myth: MS webmasters know how to do HTML Lists. (1)

tesla (2784) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636301)

Subject says it all.
(look at the section before the "More secure" myth, or line 215 in the HTML Code, where there is a missing )

(PS. This is a joke.)

You missed a few (1)

tecnodude (31328) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636305)

M$-Myth #5. This latest patch will fix all the bugs. M$-Myth #6 We test our products. M$-Myth #7 We use industry standards. And you forgot their great marketing slogan to retailers about windows 95 "Faster and easier, new possibilites, fun!" (I must have heard that a few dozen times at an MS brainwashi^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H meeting"

dont believe the hype (1)

discore (80674) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636307)

interesting seeing microsoft talking about linux. bill gates vs. linus torvlads next weeks deathmatch? we'll see.

one thing i didn't like is how a lot of their stats were based on PC mag test results. i think we proved that ZD didn't do a very fair job on thier security tests. i have a feeling other mags (hell ZD makes most of the mags that are mentioned in the artcle) did the same errors.

maybe some sort of collective windows vs linux test needs to be done? i dont think we can rely on magazine writers who haven't used linux more than 2 months. we need some hardcore linux geeks testing this stuff. and i bet linux would come out on top if the testing was done right.


haloween documents? (3)

barooo (72078) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636308)

The haloween documents (granted, just a study, not company policy) implied that FUD tactics wouldn't work against free software.

Halloween I, quote #4 [opensource.org].

I guess that's not the official line?

Microsoft is fighting (1)

RichMan (8097) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636310)

Microsoft is fighting,
doesn't that mean Linux winning is the next stage.

Re:MicroFUD (5)

Coretti (17558) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636312)

This is the exact sort of propaganda Microsoft needs to promote to keep there O/S "ahead" of the game. That is, until the public finds out exactly how full of it they are :)

I'm curious - why aren't any of the big-name Linux companies (Red Hat, I'm looking in your direction) spreading their own version of FUD back at Microsoft?

Think of it like this: Some small company is looking to network their machines. They've heard of NT, they've heard of Red Hat, but they don't really know the difference other than who's made which. Now, anyone can just go to M$'s site and find that document and say "Gee, Linux has got some problems...hmm, I wonder what they'll say is wrong with NT." Now, I just went to Red Hat's site, and I didn't find a damn thing about why Linux is better than NT. So why, faced with 5 "facts" as to what's wrong with Linux, vs. apparently nothing wrong with NT, would some new purchaser go with Linux?

I don't like M$'s lies any more than the rest of you, but I think we need to keep in mind that if you don't counter the FUD with something (and something very public and noticeable), then the public isn't going to "find out exactly how full of it they are."

There are a lot of holes here. (1)

wbb4 (60942) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636330)

This sounds like something that the Microsoft Merketing department wrote without looking deeply into the facts.

This kind of thing just irks me... Linux does have its problems, yes, but what I really don't like about Microsoft, is that where the Linux community is trying to fix those problems, Microsoft treats any bug or security hole as "bad PR" rather than assuring customers that it will be fixed.

I will be alright in a little while, but geeze these kinds of things irritate me.

Should we give them numbers to prove reliability?

Hmm, that's interesting. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1636333)

Why is it that every Linux machine I've ever worked with has performed much better than Win NT doing the exact same things? Myths are one thing, reality is another. NO Win NT machine I have experienced outperforms a Linux box on the same platform that I've seen.

Wrong URL.. (1)

pen (7191) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636336)

Here's the real URL:

http://www.microsoft.com/ntserver/nts/news/fud/L inuxMyths.asp


30 years old = mature (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1636339)

I actually appreciate the 30 year old comment... Who would you rather trust your work to? An experienced, seasoned professional... or a newbie who thinks he knows everything? (Like some Paper MCSE...)

Dispelling Myth's? (1)

Nothinman (22765) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636340)

If all that was so true I don't think they would be putting so much time/money into proving it's not. All this does is validate that they are scared and gives a nice to-do list that is categorized and everything.

I'd like to see NT perform better on the P75 firewall/file/http/ftp server I have in my room.

"One World, One Web, One Program" - Micros~1 Promotional Ad

My favorite... (1)

um... Lucas (13147) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636344)

Linux does not provide support for the broad range of hardware in use today; Windows NT 4.0 currently supports over 39,000 systems and devices on the Hardware Compatibility List. Linux does not support important ease-of-use technologies such as Plug and Play, USB, and Power Management

Aren't those features slated for Win2000, but non-existant in 4.0 to the point where hardware vendors have to write their own power management software for portables?

I guess it really is beginning to show that Linux is a contender when Microsoft has to issue an attack such as that... I hope people that read that take the moment to read between the lines. In case you didn't, what it says is: Oh shit! We're scared!

Linux does need some work, so does NT (1)

toofast (20646) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636346)

Linux is not a perfect OS. It does need a lot of work, in many areas. But so does NT.

IT just has to deploy each OS where it performs better for their business. I manage NT, Linux and FreeBSD servers. I cannot say that the NT servers are a burden. No crashes, no fusses. And they're fast. But they're not on the Internet. LAN only. And that's where NT shines: File and Print sharing.

I use Linux and FreeBSD for the Web servers. That's where they rock. I wouldn't use NT as a Web server. I am a Linux advocate, but reality does have to kick in: Linux is not perfect. Neither is NT. You have to take the best of each OS (even NetWare heheh) and apply it where it fits. It's always worked for me!

WooHoo! (1)

Disco Stu (13103) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636348)

This page is good news. It means that Microsoft can no longer ignore the threat that Linux poses NT. The Halloween Documents (wow! It's been almost a year!) were one thing...this is Microsoft taking public action to put down the threat Linux poses.

However, it is frustrating to read half truths and a few outright lies. The public's image of Microsoft is changing, however. Bill Gates is no longer revered as the man who realised The Great American Dream (tm). Microsoft is no longer viewed as The Company That Made Computers Usable for People Like Me(tm). Case in point: my grandmother is asking me about the benefits of running Linux on her computer! People (not that many real read this info) aren't going to trust this info just because it's coming from Microsoft.

We have them quaking in their boots, guys (and girls!).

Re:Microsoft's support?? (3)

daviddennis (10926) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636351)

If my memory serves, Red Hat's support is way cheaper then Microsoft's for NT. Wasn't Microsoft charging something like $ 195 per incident?

I'd say that has to be factored into the calculations all right.



30 Year Old OS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1636352)

Linux is obviously an outdated OS since it is built on the 30-year old Unix architecture. To take this reasoning further, we should use internal combustion engines rather than rockets for spaceflight since rocket technology dates to pre-historic times and rockets are therefore hoplessly outdated when compared to automobiles. Oh, wait, isn't NT built on VMS architecture concepts? Isn't VMS older than Unix?

My favorite... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1636378)

... is the one that goes like this:

Reality: Linux Security Model Is Weak

All systems are vulnerable to security issues, however it's important to note that Linux uses the same security model as the original UNIX implementations - a model that was not designed from the ground up to be secure. .... ?

Micro$oft's new strategy - to make us laugh to death? Well, I almost did.

"Weak" security model? (2)

Signal 11 (7608) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636382)

Whoah. Back up there Microsoft. Linux users can have their patches in mere minutes after an exploit becomes public.. infact often the two are released together! Can you claim that your 'hot fixes' can be deployed in less than.. oh, a week?

Even then, due to the inherent instability in the operating system you market you often have to recall the fix because it breaks compatibility with some crucial service!

What's worse, virtually any user of an NT system (even WITH all the hotfixes) can 'root' the box in less time than it takes for me to compile "hello, world"! Atleast under linux I have a very well laid-out method of protecting users' programs from interfering with each other.

And I can download a state of the art firewall for free and have it up and running in minutes on any current linux distribution. That literally costs thousands to impliment on NT.

Linux is insecure? Better go recheck your data...


Wow. (1)

TheKodiak (79167) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636385)

"There is no reason to believe that Linux is significantly different than other versions of UNIX when it comes to TCO."

Oh. See, I thought that initial purchase price had an affect on TCO. Silly of me.

"The very definition of Linux as an Open Software effort means that commercial companies like Red Hat will make money by charging for services. Therefore, commercial support services for Linux will be fee-based and will likely be priced at a premium. These costs have to be factored into the total cost model."

Uh. Isn't this a scathing indictment of MS's practice of pay-for-play support when they do not use an open source model? For that matter, wouldn't I be more likely to trust a product from someone who doesn't have an economic incentive to release a product which requires support? The buggier Windows is, the more support calls companies pay for. The buggier Red Hat is, the more likely it is to be outsold by competing products.

Myth: This page does not have broken HTML.

"Configuring Linux security requires an administrator to be an expert in the intricacies of the operating system and how components interact."

This is a plus, in my book.

Re:Thanks, Microsoft. No kidding (1)

gothic (64149) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636389)

I don't think MS gets it. Anytime Linux is prooven to not live up to something, people fix it. It's like getting a cut on your arm.. =] It's almost a lose-lose situation for MS to post this stuff.
Now that Linux is getting bigger, you have those *ahem* reporters that start labeling these articles as FUD. So, less and less people like MS. Big woop acutally, since there are still more that like them..
And since the developers are so quick and sharp, Linux's shortcomings can be turned around in no time. I, for one, was glad the Mindcraft tests happened. Look what it did for the kernel and Samba. I wouldn't mind if MS funded a few more stress-tests to find where Linux can improve.

Re:Preaching to the converted? (1)

Rombuu (22914) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636392)

Isn't a large portion of NT based on Windows 9x, which I don't have to comment on?

No, you are incorrect.

Re:Microsoft's support?? (1)

griffjon (14945) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636395)

This continually bugs me--the support issue. When I was installing Linux for the first time, I had problems; I was unfamiliar with some of the terms and proceedures. I was hesitant to disk-druid my disk. Normal things. I used another system, got on-line, and found not only detailed how-to's (which MS has similar versions of for NT/9x issues), but also many, many, many people from local LUGs and IRC nets who were realtime and willing to help. Free. Instantaneous. Knowledgable. Able to help my specific situation, and answer my specific questions.

Do you know what this level of support costs normally?

Random musings (1)

mistered (28404) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636396)

"It's interesting to note that there is not a single TPC result on any database running on Linux, and therefore Linux has yet to demonstrate their capabilities as a database server."

Ok, that's just dumb. A TPC result would not be a bad thing, but the lack of same does not mean that Linux hasn't been demonstrated as a database server. And it's interesting that Microsoft is learning that Linux is a community and not a company but still missed it here: "their" in reference to Linux (not the Linux community.)

Regarding 99.9% uptime guarantees - of course people will sell you a 99.9% guarantee on NT. You pay lots of money, and when it doesn't meet the guarantee, you get some money back. I wonder what the terms of those guarantees are? Sure an NT box by itself is pretty stable, but what about when you want it to do actual, useful stuff?

About commercial support being fee-based. What the hell does Microsoft think? Commercial support will of course be fee based. The difference is that fee-based commercial support is not the *only* method of support, as it is with MS. Who wants to put a $195 charge on their credit card just to *talk* to MS support personnel?

Sure there are some good points in the "article," and a lot more bad points. Most of the bad ones are so obviously stupid that it's not worthwile even commenting on them.

Re:Preaching to the converted? (1)

Eponymous, Showered (73818) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636399)

No, NT was built from scratch. Has common roots with OS/2, IIRC. They split the codebase into OS/2 and NT when they couldn't get along with IBM any more. This is could all be completely false, however.

MS just don't understand (1)

lactose99 (71132) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636401)

FUD FUD FUD... its like propaganda with M$. This is the one from that page I like the most:

"Linux only provides access controls for files and directories. In contrast, every object in Windows NT, from files to operating system data structures, has an access control list and its use can be regulated as appropriate. "

DUH!! If they had actually done some research into this they would have seen that EVERYTHING IN LINUX IS REPRESENTED AS A FILE. Devices, interrupts, and data structures. Not only does this give a working security model, but it allows for more consistant administration of the machine. Besides, the Windows NT "security model" is ambiguous at best. Look at networked file sharing for example-- you set permissions on a file, then share it, then set MORE permissions on the same damn file. You don't need that to have protected file sharing across a network.

The day I choose Win over Linux is the day I lose my free will.

Oh well ya know (1)

fart_face (49245) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636402)

Hey. Not like I need to point this out to many people, but there is some stuff in there that is plain wrong. I can speak from experience that Linux ( or BSD ) do provide a lower TCO for development organizations and ISV's. There's no disputing the fact that hiring one competent admin for a Linux or BSD solution is still far cheaper than what it will cost keep all the licenses kosher for WinNT WS with MS Office and an Exchange Server group for an office of say, 200 people. You may have to spend some contracting money up front to get it implemented correctly, but after that it's all maintenance ( paying the admin's juicy salary ).

Sorry Micros~1, but your TCO argument's bogon emissions are dangerously high, like - it's glowing blue.

Re:Thanks, but no thanks (1)

JPelorat (5320) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636425)

It's not exactly tidy - it's not all true:

_A_ Linux swap file may have a limit of 128MB, but you can have _more than one_ swap file, which is probably on a completely different paradigm than that of the Microsoft developers.

And what the heck are groups for, if Linux security is all-or-nothing? Hehehe..

And I'm sure there's more, but I'm not qualified to debunk this crap properly. I'll be waiting for the line-by-line ripping.. =)

Well, I would be interested but... (1)

dclydew (14163) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636428)

I can't seem to read it. Since Microsoft considers itself important enough not to use standard web style fonts. Instead choosing some weird non-standard fonts that only look good through the eyes of MS software... I can't read it.

Who do they think that they'll convince? Where I work, we have what seems to be three groups, the undecided, the decidedly anti-anything-but-MS group and the group that's actually tried Linux.

This may look great to anti-anything-but-Microsoft people, but to any reasoning person this looks like standard Anti-Anything-but-microsoft fare.

I can barely make out the statement "Windows NT 4.0 Outperforms Linux On Common Customer Workloads". I am intrigued until I see that it links us to the old PC Week tests... hrmmm, I work for a huge corporation and even we aren't running quad-xenon boxes with multiple nic's, for web servers (or anything else). And while we're at it why didn't they also include links to c't magazines similar tests?

Again... (I'm looking at this article by pasting the text into gnotepad...sad really) Linux Needs Real World Proof Points Rather than Anecdotal Stories.

This is true, but it has more than stories. I have personally seen good reliability with Linux. I have never personally seen it on NT... for you that's a story. For me it's proof.

Next we have some FUD about TCO... they don't actually show any numbers... just point in the general direction of classic UNIX and say, it's probably like that!!!

Then some more blah about security. But, yet as the very recent PC Week "hacker" (ugh, get the word right please, its cracker)tests prove... security is in the hands of the person who built the server.

Finally some fud about the desktop... even though it was supposedly some looming giant during the anti-trust trial, ready to kill MS on the desktop.

What a happy day. MS has lost its grip on reality, here's just more proof

Could someone please inform the APMD maintainers.. (1)

K. (10774) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636430)

..that they don't exist?

Linux does not support important ease-of-use technologies such as Plug and Play, USB, and Power Management


They do make some good points.... sorta (3)

Bob-K (29692) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636434)

Really, folks, they DO make some good points. Stories of better security and reliability are pretty much anectdotal. It's one of those things that's taken as truth among the faithful, but if there's a good way to measure these things, I've yet to see it.

To be sure, for MS to claim better reliability on NT would be equally disingenuous and unproven. But more to the point: repeating the claims that "Linux is more secure" or "Linux is more reliable" without proof will eventually cease to be effective. MS has already managed to portray NT as being as fast or faster than Linux; claims that Linux is faster don't impress people anymore.

Rather than beating the "more reliable; more secure" drum, advocates should emphasize Linux's proven and unambiguous advantages. For example, you can install Linux without a GUI if you want to. There's no way to FUD that. Another example: the Unix file system tree is far more flexible than drive letter mappings. (No matter how much money Microsoft has, they can't add letters to the alphabet.) Text-based log files score another big win for Linux in my book, and troubleshooting is generally easier in Linux.

Concentrate on quantifiable differences; speed, reliability, and security are the kinds of things that a good PR machine can easily turn to their advantage.

Security issues? (1)

CMU_Nort (73700) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636435)

Okay, while it would be reliable to attack the whole document as FUD, I just want to touch on some of the security issues that they bring up.

Linux only provides access controls for files and directories. In contrast, every object in Windows NT, from files to operating system data structures, has an access control list and its use can be regulated as appropriate.

Can somebody please tell me why any user process would need to manipulate OS data structures? It seems to me that this is an inherently bad thing to do.

Linux system administrators must spend huge amounts of time understanding the latest Linux bugs and determining what to do about them. This is made complex due to the fact that there isn't a central location for security issues to be reported and fixed. In contrast Microsoft provides a single security repository for notification and fixes of security related issues.

Whoever wrote this is obviously living in a cave. Linux administrators probably spend less tim trying to understand the "latest linux bugs" then NT administrators spend on NT bugs. At least if there is a linux bug, you can either go in and fix it yourself, or after a quick post to the relevant mailing list, get the patch in a day or so. As opposed to NT, where you have to whip out the tea leaves just to divine where the bug is coming from, and then hopefully figure out a work around, since God knows Microsoft will not get around to fixing it unless you're lucky enough it's in the next service pack 8 months down the road.

Configuring Linux security requires an administrator to be an expert in the intricacies of the operating system and how components interact. Misconfigure any part of the operating system and the system could be vulnerable to attack. Windows NT security is easy to set up and administer with tools such as the Security Configuration Editor.

Wrong. Incorrect. It doesn't require an "expert" at anything, let alone the OS. What it does require is either a working knowledge (or the ability to read a HOWTO) of various programs that are *NOT* part of the operating system. If sendmail is vulnerable, don't install it. Whereas the very fact that you have NT installed probably opens you up to hundreds (thousands?) of security holes.

All in all, this article made amusing reading for the fact that some people will actually buy in and believe this tripe. There are some valid points raised in the article, and those points should probably be addressed, but it's hard to abstract from all of the FUD.

Honest Bill's Used Cars! (1)

kijiki (16916) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636437)

This ones a real beauty, previously owned by an little old lady who only drove it to church on sundays!

Ignore the sawdust overflowing from the transmission! What smoke?

Re:Microsoft should get their "facts" straight (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1636439)

A Linux swap partition IS limited to 128MB. However, you can have multiple swap partitions, so it's not a big deal.

Argh... I'll post as rebuttal as soon.. (1)

jeremy f (48588) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636440)

As I can find a Verdana font for X. For now, I've got Netscape overriding document fonts, using my speficied, but I actually like looking at some of the pretty fonts web pages has to offer. Yes, Verdana is quite a nice font when you're using Windows, and quite ugly in linux. I'm sure that's why the page is set up as such =)

Re:Microsoft's support?? (1)

tecnodude (31328) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636441)

Last time I heard it was over $100.00, I don't know how much or for what but I had a client with a problem who called microsoft and she told me later that they wanted to charge "Over 100.00"



Oscarfish (85437) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636442)

Cough, cough...

  • Linux is more reliable than Windows NT

static kernel...weekly, or daily, reboots!

  • Linux is more secure than Windows NT

A jillion IIS hacks...FrontPage frontrage) extensions...ASPs...need I say more?

  • Linux can replace Windows on the desktop

As if NT does PnP or USB?

Re:What is the proper community response to these? (1)

whoosp (95622) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636465)

After sifting through the "This is microsloth FUD!!!" posts, yours is the first response that makes sense. When microsoft says NT is more stable/secure than linux, linux advocates call it FUD. When linux advocates say linux is more stable/secure than NT, it's taken as gospel. Well, prove it. Respond to the FUD in a level-headed, professional manner.

Fear of Anecdotal Evidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1636468)

I sense a deep fear of Anecdotal Evidence at Microsoft. Every day, more and more stories are being spread of Linux success stories and NT nightmares. And worst of all, these aren't coming from Linux zealots; they're coming from their (former) customers.

Keep the success stories coming. They're more meaningful than phony benchmarks. They know it and they're running scared.

Someone is scared (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1636471)

I have 4 NT boxes and 4 Linux boxes running apps that are critical, each in their own right. Linux beats NT hands down. I won't go any further into how Linux is far better server than NT because we all know the truth.

Anyway, I just think that these articles by die hard NT people are just trying to convince themselves that NT is still the only answer. With all the training and MCSE courses one has to take to be a certified NT Admin, NT admins have to justify to their bosses that it was worth the money. NT admins are scared that they may be phased out in a couple of years due to Linux. I am not saying all NT admins but as soon as the more popular apps move towards the Linux platform, so will the jobs. I would be scared to if I only knew NT and I was pig headed about not learning a new OS because I didn't want to. Its too hard to learn a new OS because I am too lazy and I want to get the kickbacks from Microsoft. My life is really easy now and I don't understand why the world doesn't eat, sleep, drink, and sh#t Microsoft.

I hope you caught my sarcasim. I was laying it on pretty thick.

Go directly to jail...do not pass go (1)

mrchrist (25055) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636473)

I was amused by this tacit admission of monopoly:

"The complexity of the Linux operating system and cumbersome nature of the existing GUI's would make retraining end-users a huge undertaking and would add significant cost."

By existing GUI's I guess they mean the market leaders BeOS and MacOS...because they can't be suggesting people shouldn't switch because they are already entrenched in the marketplace, can they?

Re:If I could (this is intentional!) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1636476)

the font they use is designed by microsoft for to appear very clearly on a web page...

since you can't read it, i suppose you use a mac like me, or Linux/X

embrace and extend (again) what else did y'all expect?

... and then they fight you, and then you win (1)

PhilLong (42015) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636477)

I love it. I can't think of a better way for MS
to give linux credibility.

Dang! (1)

Disco Stu (13103) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636479)

Linux fundamentally relies on 30-year-old operating system technology and architecture.

Darnit! I just realized that my car is based on 70 year old technology! I wish that some company as innovative as Microsoft would build one from scratch, rather than improving current models, like those old fashioned UNIX people do! =)

Re:Preaching to the converted? (1)

trichard (28185) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636480)

I wouln't be so sure about people not finding their way to this site...

What's to keep Microsoft from paying off the search engines to list this page when people do an inquisitive search for "linux" or "linux vs NT"?

All part of a well-orchestrated propaganda campaign.

A few responses (1)

maan (21073) | more than 14 years ago | (#1636481)

After a very quick read of their page, here is my response to some of their points:

- Windows NT is more secure than linux
The two levels of security for storage on NT make it so complex and so prone to mistakes in the settings. There's always a problem somewhere. On unix, file sytem securities are really easy. And usually, if a company needs something more flexible, they'll move up to some distributed file storage such as afs, coda etc. Those have their own securities which are more flexible but that still work.

-windows nt tco is lower
They say that the tco is much lower than a unix system. That alone I don't believe, because management of unix machines is really much easier thanks to existing technologies. Also, they refer to unix, so I'm guessing Irix, Solaris, AIX, etc. Those have typically been much more expensive and support comes from a single company which makes it no so great and maybe expensive. Linux, however is free (i mean in terms of money), and support can come from different companies and from linux users in general, so it's cheap (0 if you want) and it's much more effective.

That's what I think about some things...(ie. my 0.005 cents)


Re:wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1636482)

Attly if find the 30 year old OS attcly more poitely against MicroSoft. It meas Holder on Multitasking, longfile names etc Has been Around how many years before MircoSoft Declared look at the New Featres we have. Anonymous Coward, Who will be roguebfl when he hets home and can read his email
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