Posted on 08/25/2004 8:33:39 AM PDT by N3WBI3
THE UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has upheld a series of public complaints over an advert in a magazine comparing the cost of Linux versus Microsoft Windows.
An advert it ran compared the two operating systems to each other, but Windows was running on a measly dual 900MHz Xeon configuration, while Linux was running on a z900 IBM mainframe.
The advert appeared in an IT magazine and was headed: "Weighing the cost of Linux vs Windows? Let's review the facts".
The ad contained a graph comparing the cost in US dollars between a Linux images running on two z900 mainframe CPUs and a Windows Server 2003 image running two 900MHz Intel Xeons chips.
The ad claimed: "Linux was found to be over 10 times more expensive than Windows? Servers". It said that "in a recent study audited by leading independent research analyst Meta Group, measured costs of Linux running on IBM's z900 mainframe for Windows-comparable functions of file serving and Web serving. The results showed that IBM z900 mainframe running Linux is much less capable and vastly more expensive than Windows Server 2003 as a platform for server consolidation.*"
The ASA said the asterisk linked to a footnote that said: "Results may vary outside the United States". The people who complained challenged whether such a comparison was misleading, because the operating systems were run on different hardware.
In its adjudication, the ASA upheld the complaints. While the ASA said the advertisers wanted to compare how competing file set ups were audited by Meta, it took expert advice. The IBM z900 running Linux was 10 times more expensive than running the Windows OS. It would have been possible to compare the two OSes on similar hardware.
And the ASA ruled readers would infer the ad compared Linux and Windows OSes only.
The ASA said: "Because the comparison included the hardware, as well as the operating system and therefore did not show that running a Linux operating system was ten times more expensive than running a Windows operating system, the Authority concluded that the advertisement was misleading." µ
We could use that judge to look over Kerry's advertising.
heh. I saw this and almost posted it myself.
I would agree that it was an unfair comparison if the ad didn't address performance. It said that the Linux system was "much less capable", presumably meaning fewer transactions, even when running on superior hardware. That certainly seems to be a relevant claim. If they had not mentioned performance, opening the possibility that the Linux server, at 10X the cost, handled 10X or even 20X the transactions, the cost comparison would have been meaningless or even misleading. That having been said, I can't imagnine how they actually got those results. Their definition of "much less capable" would be interesting to hear.
The most likely explanation is cherry-picking (i.e. they run all sorts of different tests until they find the ones at which their product shows the greatest advantage over the competition).
This is the same technique used to get "4 out of 5 doctors recommend" (yes, they did get that result, and have it documented in their files... next to the circular file containing the results of their less-useful polls).
Also by running a Windows server which was well-tuned by Microsoft engineers, while the competing system was mis-tuned or not tuned at all.
They probably define 90% of capability as running various Windows-based services.
I'm waiting for the Freepers who will denounce this as socialist propaganda, and say that anyone who runs Linux servers is not only stupid, but a cowardly, disloyal, closet homosexual (the open homosexuals having already committed to Macs).
You guys just love these foreign websites that spew hate at America, doncha.
Here's you a good link from the foreign press, United Nations group releases Linux guide...
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39164367,00.htm
Makes you tingle all over huh.
At least, not yet.
way to ignore the content of the post... why even bother posting..
Question for the Microsoft Gurus. Serious question.
I just gave support for a Windows 2000 Professional pc that had a software package crash on it - afterwhich it failed to reboot.
Here is the MICROSOFT error message from the OS:
"OS/2 !! sys 01475" "OS/2 !! sys 02027"
Now, I knew this was in NT; but, seriously, can microsoft do a better job at hiding the code they steal? Does MS realize that this falls under DMCA? (NOTE TO PAID HACKS - MIGHT GET YOUR LAWYERS BUSY) ROFL. That is all.
Sure it did. More completely unsubstantiated allegations from you, without ever a shred of proof.
Did you say something, Mon-spinneor? LOL
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.