Microsoft claims firms 'hitting a wall' with Linux

[dmcfarland]

And you thought the "how things work" article about microsoft was a pile of bullshit. Anyone got hipboots?


 


 "Microsoft today released the findings of an independent report claiming that the Windows platform is "more consistent, predictable and easier to manage than Linux".

   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.

   "As they attempt to increase business capabilities over time, customers are telling us that they are hitting a wall with Linux, experiencing significant reliability issues resulting in higher total cost of ownership," said Martin Taylor, general manager of platform strategy at Microsoft.

   "This study shows that IT administrators are better able to maintain the system while delivering new capabilities predictably and consistently on the Windows platform.

   "We invite other vendors, including Novell, IBM and Red Hat, to repeat their own independent analysis based on Security Innovation's methodology."

   Security Innovation said that its study of the manageability differences between Windows and Linux attempted to simulate a "real-world" enterprise e-commerce environment over the course of a year.

   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.

   According to the study the Windows platform was "more reliable as enterprise needs change over time". The Novell SLES solution experienced 14 critical breakages, while the Windows Server system experienced none, the report claimed.

   Security Innovation also claimed that the Novell SLES infrastructure required 4.79 times the number of patches.

   "Our research indicates that the primary methods of computing reliability as indicators of real IT pain are overly simplistic," said Herbert H. Thompson, chief security strategist at Security Innovation.

   "For example, kernel uptime is commonly cited as a metric of overall platform reliability. However, the reliability of a single component, even one so central as the operating system kernel, is rarely the largest source of pain.

   "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."

   A PDF of the Security Innovation report is available here. "

[Lead Head]

Security Innovation also claimed that the Novell SLES infrastructure required 4.79 times the number of patches.

Thats because Novell found and fixed the problems, while MS has (possibly) found the problems, but are to lazy to make the patches!

[cymon]

As they attempt to increase business capabilities over time, customers are telling us that they are hitting a wall with Linux, experiencing significant reliability issues resulting in higher total cost of ownership," said Martin Taylor, general manager of platform strategy at Microsoft.

Wow, I never knew a kernel could be so hard to use.

Seriously though, it only takes four extra keystrokes to type GNU/Linux. Besides, people will think you're so much smarter.

[Lead Head]

"As they attempt to increase business capabilities over time, customers are telling us that they are hitting a wall with Linux, experiencing significant reliability issues resulting in higher total cost of ownership," said Martin Taylor, general manager of platform strategy at Microsoft.
 

Question, why would Microsoft customers, be using linux? Doesnt_make_sense_to_me

[H_TeXMeX_H]

Kill :fu: Bill :mad: ... Gates that is

[worker201]

We invite other vendors, including Novell, IBM and Red Hat, to repeat their own independent analysis based on Security Innovation's methodology.

No specifics about what that methodology might be - probably because it was designed specifically to show MS was better.  But let me take a guess.  They had 2 groups (and only 2 groups - what kind of study is that?) - one that had been using Windows-based products forever, and one that started using Novell SuSE like 18 months ago, since that's when Novell bought SuSE.  The survey says nothing about security, usefulness, support of worldwide standards, or any of the other things Microsoft knows nothing about.

Now what would Red Hat gain by having halfwits with Vo-tech degrees use their products?  Nothing.  Which is why you won't see a test like this coming from anyone but Microsoft.

[dmcfarland]

I resemble that remark. I am a votech halfwit. I unlike my bretheren did a lot of studying on my own and I happen to learn a lot of things on the job.

BTW I've seen a lot dumbasses who had CS degrees but couldnt format a fucking hard drive using DOS , modify a cofig sys file to put a last drive statement in there (they told the user to reformat and reinstall windows,)or for that matter install Windows 98. A 5 year old can install windows 98.

No specifics about what that methodology might be - probably because it was designed specifically to show MS was better. But let me take a guess. They had 2 groups (and only 2 groups - what kind of study is that?) - one that had been using Windows-based products forever, and one that started using Novell SuSE like 18 months ago, since that's when Novell bought SuSE. The survey says nothing about security, usefulness, support of worldwide standards, or any of the other things Microsoft knows nothing about.

Now what would Red Hat gain by having halfwits with Vo-tech degrees use their products? Nothing. Which is why you won't see a test like this coming from anyone but Microsoft.

[H_TeXMeX_H]

A 5 year old can install windows 98.

... A demented monkey can install Window$ 98

[dmcfarland]

True

... A demented monkey can install Window$ 98

[Lead Head]

True

but what happens when the installer gets a critical error, and it currupts the HD(has happend to me)

[dmcfarland]

Corrupts as in the hard disk being destroyed so it can be used or corrupt as in you have to fdisk, reformat and reinstall everything-has happened to me with windows more times than I care to rember.

Yet another reason why I switched to Linux.

but what happens when the installer gets a critical error, and it currupts the HD(has happend to me)

[Kintaro]

 Security Innovation also claimed that the Novell SLES infrastructure required 4.79 times the number of patches.

And 80% Less downtime from not having to reboot installing them.

[WMD]

... A demented monkey can install Window$ 98

Windows 98 is harder to install than 2000/XP.

[H_TeXMeX_H]

Windows 98 is harder to install than 2000/XP.

not really ... why would it be ?

[WMD]

Windows 98 setup boots to a command line, and says "run FDISK lol".  You have to start that yourself and partition, then close that and run the setup program.  Not to mention in 1998 a lot of computers still couldn't boot from CDs, so you had to make a boot disk along with that.