Posted on 11/23/2005 4:35:13 AM PST by StoneGiant
Opinion: New Linux study suggests fundamental Microsoft credibility problems
Nov. 17, 2005
Another day, another lame attempt by Microsoft to show that Windows is better than Linux.
This time around, Microsoft commissioned a study to show that Windows does a better job of serving e-commerce applications than Linux.
Of course, in the study, they didn't use the same e-commerce or back-engine DBMSs.
OK, right there, without saying another word, anyone who really knows anything about benchmarking knows that the study is fundamentally flawed. You're not comparing apples to apples; you're comparing apples and oranges.
It would be a different story, if you were trying to compare the transaction speed and reliability of e-commerce packages, but that's not the case here. Microsoft was trying to prove that Windows was better than Linux.
To do this "study," Microsoft hired Security Innovations Inc.. Paul Thurrott, a Windows journalist, describes the company as "highly regarded."
I prefer to use Security Innovations's own description of its relationship with Microsoft: "Security Innovation is a certified Microsoft partner for security services. We have both the Microsoft SWI and ACE certifications as an authorized professional services provider for Microsoft technologies."
What kind of idiots does Microsoft think we are, anyway?
In the, cough, study, which compared Windows Server System and Novell Inc.'s SUSE Linux Enterprise Server (SLES), they simulated both the aforementioned e-commerce applications and an upgrade from Windows 2000 to Server 2003, and SLES 8 to SLES 9, and a year's worth of running, from July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005.
What did Micros... oh I mean Security Innovations, find out?
Well, first, that by Microsoft's own admission the sample size of administrators was too small to provide conclusive statistical comparisons!
Is this amazing, or what? In the executive summary, Microsoft admits that they don't have real data!
So what conclusions did they reach?
They found that with Linux you could solve problems in a variety of ways, instead of one true, Microsoft way. OK, that's true enough. But, this, this is a problem?
Sorry, Microsoft, I don't buy that paying your prices for your integrated innovation solutions is any kind of real business win.
Go call me a capitalist, but I prefer open-source's competitive product approach to Microsoft's "our way or the highway" communism.
The study also found that Windows was dramatically more reliable.
Really?!
That's not the Windows I know. Server 2003 is a lot better than W2K, but in my experience, and with the companies I know, SLES still stays up longer than Server 2003.
You know, I also recall a few potential Windows security show-stoppers over that year. There was the SMB (Server Message Block) over TCP/IP exploit, and a whole slew of holes in TCP/IP -- and those are only a few of the ones that Microsoft has fixed.
Despite that, the study also found that the patch rate on Linux wasn't quite five times higher than Windows. The testers found that SuSE had 187 while Windows only had 39.
Hey, they finally got one right!
Yes, Novell, like any serious Linux vendor, fixes all its problems as fast as possible. Microsoft doesn't. Even when a problem is a potential system killer, sometimes the boys from Redmond drag their feet.
Oh, and funny this, but the SuSE patches tend to work, unlike some Microsoft patches like two recent critical Internet Explorer patches, or the infamous Windows 2000 patch that blew up ASP (Active Server Pages) pages that were running ISS (Internet Information Services).
Microsoft also claimed that Linux patches took twice as long to apply and broke applications.
What nonsense!
In my office lab, I run a W2K server, two Server 2003 servers, and a pair of SLES servers. As it happens I also, during this last year, updated a W2K server to Server 2003 and one of the SLES servers from 8 to 9.
On those systems, I've also installed a variety of server applications including SQL Server and MySQL.
You know what? First, the Linux patches always, always installed faster. And the only breakage I ever saw from either the Windows or the Linux systems was when I was working on W2K.
Do you know why I support Linux over Windows? Because I don't just write about operating systems. I actually use them, and Linux works better than Windows does.
Lest you think I'm only saying that because I know Linux better than Server 2003, think again.
I literally wrote several hundred pages on Server 2003 in an online reference guide to the operating system. You can see the most recent edition of that over at InformIT.
No, I know Linux. I know W2K and Server 2003. And the people who wrote this "independent" study of both certainly didn't know Linux well -- and I have my doubts about the Windows side, too.
--Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols
Depends on the distro, unlike the olden days of grabbing the source of the new kernel and compiling it now it comes as a binary update. so, for example, yum update *kernel* will update the kernel. Every now and again there is a bug that needs to be fixed, I find about two to a year affect me in such a way that I install it.
Why wouldn't I turn my computer off at the end of the day if I'm not a file server that needs to run 24/7?
No reason, the servers I was talking about are 24/7 servers, I leave my desktop on because its easier on the HD to do so.
Does Linux run the latest version of Doom?
I dont know, Im not really a gamer but this might help you.
I hate to ask these things in a Linux thread, but I still can't find any reason that the vast, vast majority of computer users need Linux or a computer that runs for years without shutting off.
I think its six in one half dozen in the other I dont think most people need Linux any more than they need windows. for 90% of the folks out there either would meet all their needs...
BTW on the kernal update most Linux distros have a graphical indicator when there is an update than needs to be installed you just click it, give the root password and the install starts..
Wow I have *NEVER* had that work and the few times I tried it I felt like the monkey in 2000 a space Odyssey... banking something with a bone rather in a rather clumsy fashion.. Glad to hear somebody can do it.
"BTW on the kernal update most Linux distros have a graphical indicator when there is an update than needs to be installed you just click it, give the root password and the install starts.."
Bingo. My Fedora box has been telling me to update for 6 months, but since I have no idea what Yum is and I don't feel like reading a couple of books to figure it out, I won't update.
You have hit upon the exact reason Linux isn't ready for prime time. It is a good alternate operating system for computer nerds with time on their hands. For the rest of the world (about 99.99% of computer users), it is an absurd idea that they would find it useful.
If it doesn't run Word, they won't use it. If it doesn't patch itself automatically, they don't have the skills to maintain it.
Servers? Sure. Desktop? Not going to happen.
I do love the Mahjong.
Let me get this straight: Your in a graphical shell you see a red exclimation point, you click it and what happens?
" Let me get this straight: Your in a graphical shell you see a red exclimation point, you click it and what happens?"
It takes me to some web site with a list of stuff that I may or may not want to update. I have no clue what they are or how to install them.
When I click the install everything option, it doesn't seem to install anything and the red exclamation point doesn't go away.
Clearly, there is some technical stuff I need to know, but the documentation is so vast and technical that I refuse to take the 6 months off from work to read it all. Consequently, my Linux box remains un-updated.
Now, you are telling me I have to run something called Yum. Maybe you can't see how totally absurd this is from a Windows user's point of view, but it gives me a good laugh every Tuesday when my Windows update runs without incident.
The other amusing part of this story is that I'm the guy in my office that people come to with technical questions. There has never been a Windows problem that I couldn't solve.
I tried using our university computer help people (about 300 individuals in a giant department) to get my WinXP shared printers to work with Linux. I spent many hours reading manuals on Samba and other utilities. Neither they nor I could make it happen. I tried several versions of Linux. I even bought the expensive Redhat box set and tried their help lines.
I gave up and bought a new laser printer for my Linux box. I also gave up on the idea that Linux is going to replace Windows on the desktop for the foreseeable future.
No Im telling you thats what is going on in the background, you should not have to run it. Can you snap a screen shot and put it somewhere I can look at it? I would be happy to help you with this if you cant find documentation..
Typical, you make these broad assertions of fact but never have any proof. Red Hat has literally hundreds of kernel devs and you have no proof of how many total contributions they have made. They came up with RPM, which is the standard package manager, to start.
I simply don't believe you. "Most Linux distros" would mean well over 150 versions have this feature which I don't believe is the case. More likely is you making things up again that fit into your Linux propagana agenda.
LOL redhat has under 1000 world wide employees can you please provide me with proof that more than 20% of their employees are involved in kernel development? I speak as someone who has a business relationship with the company (I buy their stuff) and as someone who uses it personally so pretty please tell me where you get this knowledge of the number of Redhat employees doing kernel hacking... Where is your source for the number of redhat employees working on Kernel modifications?
My statement was by mass of Linux distros given that the top ten distros all have it, its safe to say most linux users have the option...
Thanks for the offer, but I've given up on updating Linux. I only use the box for Mahjong now. I've got plenty of Windows boxes that work fine (and a Mac) to handle my work needs.
I took the Linux box off the internet so security matters are moot. I put the printer on my Mac. Linux is simply a novelty machine running in the corner now. It will stay that way until Linux is ready for the desktop. Since I don't run the servers at the U, I won't be needing it soon.
I have a Northstar Advantage, running CP/M and an Apple IIe running in the same corner. My old Kaypro sits there too, but I seldom turn it or the Osborne on.
Well, it didn't work on both of them. ;-) Looking back at my previous post, I think I might have made that impression. One of the boxes that failed was replaced with a spare. I can tell you though that we were really happy that the other one wasn't gummed up too bad because we only had 2 hot spares available.
Well the offer is there if you ever want to learn more about it... Have a good one.
Your pronoun is wrong
s/pronoun/article
As testament to Red Hat's active participation in the upstream Linux kernel community, through the course of 2.6 development more patches were accepted from Red Hat kernel developers than from any other company. During the past year, more than 4,100 patches from Red Hat employees were integrated into the upstream 2.6 kernel.
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8074
Too late to clarify, you obviously need to be more careful about misrepresenting the truth since you constantly get caught trying to do it.
Im sorry where is the part about 'hundreds of developers'
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.