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
FYI your link is from last summer. We're now past Thanksgiving, and the preferred platform is now Solaris.
Face it, a lot of people don't like Linux. It's causing partnerships once before unthinkable, like microsoft/sun, microsoft/palm, and apple/intel. And yes, since you seem far far behind on current events, those partnerships have recently happened.
"Face it, a lot of people don't like Linux."
If Linux is so unpopular, how could it have the clout to cause all the partnerships you're citing?
"FYI your link is from last summer. We're now past Thanksgiving, and the preferred platform is now Solaris. "
Explain what "preferred" means to Oracle customers. Is it better supported? No. Is it cheaper? No. Come with more features? No. It's a marketing gimmick between Sun and Oracle, and that's it. Meanwhile, Oracle hasn't lessened it's commitment to ANY platform. While you're at it, answer this... Why is a UNIX... not Windows... Oracle's preferred platform? cough cough. Hint - "preferred platform" is meaningless.
"It's causing partnerships once before unthinkable, like microsoft/sun, microsoft/palm, and apple/intel. And yes, since you seem far far behind on current events, those partnerships have recently happened."
Again - If Linux is so unpopular, how could it have the clout to cause all the partnerships you're citing?
Sun/Microsoft - not because of Linux, but because their customers want them to be interoperable.
Microsoft/Palm - there are 2 Palm companies since Palm split its hardware and software business. One new palm phone will come with the Windows OS, while the software side was bought by Access Technologies who is an experienced Linux developer. The 2 palms are also still working together.
Apple/Intel - No idea how you're relating this to Linux. Apple is moving to lower cost hardware. They've made platform switches before. Dunno how you're relating this one to Linux.
I pay attention to the news, bucko, just not when some 2-bit leftist web organ owned by gun grabbing UN loving lieberal Bill Gates is sold to the gun grabbing UN loving lieberal Washington Compost. Birds of a feather.
You're not even a conservative. You don't post on any threads other than Microsoft/Linux/OSS threads. None. Nada. I just looked at nearly 2 months of your recent posting history. Every thread was open source software or linux or microsoft. Period. Golden Eagle? More like One Trick Pony.
preferred platform is now Solaris.. You keep leaving out the 64 bit part..
Between that and the 'hundreds of kernel developers' you really are working overtime to twist the truth on this thread..
You guys sure have a hard time differentiating between winning and losing. I guess that's why you want fakeware as the industry standard.
If Linux is so unpopular
Who said it was unpopular? Leftists love it, starting with the DNC and Howard Dean, who referred to his campaign as "open source politics". Power to the people, you know.
Sun/Microsoft - not because of Linux
ROFL, must have been the planets aligning instead.
One new Palm phone will come with the Windows OS
Amazing, isn't it. Just as a foreign company bought Palm O/S and announced combining it with Linux, Palm H/W said they were going to use Windows CE.
Apple/Intel - No idea how you're relating this to Linux.
Not surprised. But it's nothing more than what Scott McNealy called "the world against IBM".
"Yes, according to here and elsewhere Red Hat has a few hundred paid developers working on Linux that they subsequently give away to China for free."
They give developers away to China for free?
It doesen't bother me that much that China has stolen Red Hat. The same developers give away a free copy of the same thing to anyone for free, you just don't get human support with it.
Unix has been an open source OS since its inception. There are dozens of free variants out there like UBUNTU, Fedora, BSD, I think Sun even has an opensource Unix variant available now.
Typical Chineese piracy here though. I think its funny they like to think of themselves as an enlightened and central culture. But just like the Ruskies, they steel designs from America because they are nowhere near industrious and innovative as the US. What really bothers me is them stealing our most advanced warhead designs and our top-of-the-line communications surveillence platforms. They are industrious and innovative thiefs I guess.
Linux works extremely well as a mid range web server. I have more professional experience working on Sun/Solaris, but these were in super-power high octane corporate business apps. When you are paying for the hardware and software out of a tight budget, I wouldn't smirk at Linux. It has come a very long way.
HP-UX, Solaris and IBM's various flavors will continue to market towards those kind of titanic applications. But there is a juicy mid-range market that linux works very well for and has adapted its design to attract universities, local government and startups.
If you have time, take a gander at this site....
http://distrowatch.com/
Thanks for weighing in again. My opinion is it's more than typical Chinese piracy, since that requires an illegal/immoral action that will always have adverse reactions. This is also a gigantic technology transfer.
The correct US response to Chinese piracy and tech transfer is to more strictly enforce the laws. Not give them advanced technology completely free and clear, instead, that is obviously only a worsening of the problem, not an improvement of it. If you care about that sort of thing, which I obviously feel you do.
You should be giving links out to Sun instead of Distrowatch. Have you heard all the big announcements lately? I don't know if the Oracle or Ebay announcement was the biggest. Unfortunately Sun is having to give all their software away now, Apple is right behind them, already offering OSX for free lately too. These clones of clones (GNU Linux/other GPL software) will keep eating way at our companies, forcing them out of R&D and into service or content distro, always trying to steal the US technological lead. And what's to stop them, when you give them everything for free already.
Holding one in the palm of your hand and spinning it sharply while quickly lowering it into the palm of your other hand would free up the spindle bearings too. (Or completely screw it up beyond salvage if you did it too hard)
They certainly build them better today.
I probably have the only functioning one left. :)
The ST-4096 also had severe problems with their stepper motor actuators. Some would just go crazy and rattle the heads all over the place - Effectively killing the drive. I had three of them do it to me back in the day.
Their 42MB ST-251-1 autopark drives were pretty darned reliable - Albeit slow.
And....fat, dumb and happy companies forced to compete for the market against a competitive newcomer is bad how, exactly?
PS: Apple/Intel was about IBM's production capabilities (or lack thereof) and their difficulties making a fast and energy-efficient processor for laptops. Linux didn't have d*ck to do with it.
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.