matthew@byu.edu: [uug] Microsoft's "Competing with Linux"

[Michael Brailsford]

Here is a little something that I thought might be of interest.

----- Forwarded message from "Matt W." <matthew at byu.edu> -----

To: "BYU Unix Users Group" <uug-list at phantom.byu.edu>
From: "Matt W." <matthew at byu.edu>
Reply-To: BYU Unix Users Group <uug-list at uug.byu.edu>
List-Post: <mailto:uug-list at uug.byu.edu>
Subject: [uug] Microsoft's "Competing with Linux" 
Status: RO

A co-worker of mine came across a recent MS publication on CD "Microsoft for
Partners Sales Training - Competing with Linux".  I've been trying to read
through it today, there's a lot info here.  Basically, the purpose of the
publication is to teach MS Sales persons how to convince their accounts to
stay with MS, upgrade to newer MS versions, and to not try Linux
alternatives.  It's been interesting; it seems that their main argument is
that though Linux may be free, it's TCO (total cost of ownership) is higher
because you need higher level of tech people to support it.  For the general
interest of the group, I'll quote some portions that I found interesting
and/or misleading.

The word "perceived" was used a lot.  Such as, "Perceived Linux technical
strengths include stability, remote administration, and better security than
Windows."

"In contrast to Linux, Windows is being developed along a well-defined and
communicated roadmap coupled with an annual investment of billions of
dollars in research, development, and continuous innovation."

"IDC [International Data Corporation, researches technology and business
issues] found that Microsoft Windows 2000-based servers were less costly to
run and maintain over a five-year period than were Linux servers for four
important workloads: networking, file, print, and security."  They don't
state where they found someone who has been running Windows 2000 for 5
years.

"Even though software licensing costs are just a small percentage of the
total IT budget, software licensing is a concern for customers."  IDC
divides the IT budget as such: 62.2% -Staffing, 23.1% -Downtime,
5.3% -Training, 4.6% -Software, 4.4% -Hardware, and .4% -Outsourcing.  This
doesn't seem realistic to me, though I have no hard facts other than asking
"How much is /this/ upgrade going to cost the company", it seems that
software would account for more than 4.6% of an IT budget.

"When it comes to reliability, there is often a perception that Windows is
less reliable than Linux, based primarily, on customer experiences with
Windows NT4, especially early versions prior to SP4."  This may be more or
less true.

"Windows Server performs significantly better than Linux in key server
roles, especially on multi-processor hardware.  For example:  General use .
=2E . Database [performance and price performance] . . . File & Print [higher
throughput] . . . Web [IIS 6.0 outperforms Linux/Apache]."

"When it comes to security, Microsoft's strong presence in the marketplace
has increased its profile as a target for security hackers. . . .  Linux
lacks the same security assurance as Windows because it lacks a systematic
and centralized "watchdog" to issue security patches and updates. . . .
Linux developers have not, to date, applied the same level of rigor to their
security-related development."  I found theses statements fairly
inflamatory.

"Linux by itself is not an applications server.  It does not provide many of
the components that make Windows an application server.  Linux customers
must buy separate products for directory management, security, message
queuing, and transaction services."  Hmm, "buy"? wrong.

"Customers feel large amounts of fear, uncertainty, and doubt regarding
Microsoft security."  How very odd that they would use the phrase "fear,
uncertainty, and doubt"; anyone familiar with the "Halloween Papers" would
know why.

" . . . overall Windows has fewer security advisories than Linux and Unix
alternatives."  This may technically be true, but it doesn't make Windows
more secure.

Source and Linux: 2002 Poster Children for Security Problems (2002):
"Security advisories from CERT for the first 10 months of 2002 show that
open source and Linux software accounted for more than half of all
advisories."

"Linux has had more vulnerabilities during 2002 than all versions of
Microsoft OSs combined"  Linux? as in the kernel itself?  I doubt it.

Oh well, this is just some of the info for general group interest, comment
as you like.

Matt

____________________
BYU Unix Users Group 
http://uug.byu.edu/ 
___________________________________________________________________
List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list

----- End forwarded message -----

-- 
Michael
GnuPG Fingerprint:  4C56 7C23 8BD9 8B39 C4D4 B8F3 42FB 3634 31B5 E963