 |
 |
| ActiveWin | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise | VBA in Excel | Users Online: 0 |
|
|
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Active Network |
|
ActiveMac |
|
ActiveWin |
|
ActiveXbox |
|
DirectX |
|
Downloads |
|
FAQs |
|
Interviews |
|
MS Games & Hardware |
|
Reviews |
|
Rocky Bytes |
|
Support Center |
|
TopTechTips |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows Server 2003 |
|
Windows Vista |
|
Windows XP |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
Apple/Mac |
|
Xbox/Xbox 360 |
|
News Search |
|
XML/RSS Newsfeeds |
|
Pocket PC Site |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows Vista |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows Server 2003 |
|
Windows XP |
|
Windows 7 |
|
Windows 8 |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox 360 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Xbox/Games |
|
Fable 2 |
|
|
|
Applications |
|
Windows Server 2008 R2 |
|
Windows 7 |
|
Adobe CS5 Master Collection |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Microsoft Express Mouse |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Interviews |
|
Mike Swanson |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Advertise |
|
Affiliates |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
 |
Microsoft campaign targets Linux reliability | |
|
||
| Time: 09:26 EST/14:26 GMT | News Source: TechWorld | Posted By: Alex Harris | ||
|
Microsoft is expanding its anti-Linux "Get the Facts" campaign by targeting the issue of reliability, a company executive said at the on Tuesday, the day the Open Source Business Conference kicked off in San Francisco. Get the Facts is a marketing effort by Microsoft that compares Windows favourably with Linux and other open source software products. Microsoft launched the campaign in mid-2003 and has gradually expanded its scope to include issues including total cost of ownership, security, indemnification and, the latest addition, reliability. "Reliability has been challenging for us. It is an area that has been very noisy," admitted Martin Taylor, general manager of platform strategy at Microsoft. "Customers say that reliability is very important to them and that they are hearing that Linux and Unix are more reliable than Windows." In the absence of a clear definition of reliability or benchmarks, Microsoft commissioned a study that pitted Windows Server 2003 against Red Hat’s Enterprise Linux 3.0 AS. As part of the study, 18 Linux and 18 Windows system administrators were hired to run the simulated IT environments of a mid-sized company over a four day period. |
||
|
Read Only Comments Return to News |
Displaying Comments 1 through 3 of 3 |
This is an archived static copy of ActiveWin.com. |
| #1 By 15406 (216.191.227.90) at Wednesday, April 06, 2005 11:05:01 AM |
| It's generally true that studies that don't back the position of the funder never see the light of day. And that's not just MS, that's pretty much everyone. However, history has told us that any MS-backed study that does get hyped will be quickly debunked once the study and data are fully presented. And it's always presented in the best possible light eg. "Yankee Group study says Windows & Linux TCO are equal". Well, no, the study says that a bunch of Windows users perceive it's the same. While the actual TCO may be the same, or vary based on configuration or role (my opinion), I would hardly consider a poll to be the equivalent of actual research & testing. So for now MS will grab all the headlines with their pre-announcement of what they're babbling about next. The actual study & data will creep out in a month or two, but by then all the PHBs will have moved on thinking that MS is indeed more reliable because, well, MS says so. |
| #2 By 15406 (216.191.227.90) at Wednesday, April 06, 2005 01:05:53 PM |
| It will be interesting when the data is actually released, assuming there is any. Didn't MS try this ruse out a few years ago? I remember them looking kind of stupid when it was disclosed that their latest Window vs Linux test used Windows servers tuned to the nth degree by top-level MS techs, while the Linux servers were default installs. Little tricks like that are MS' hallmark, which is why every one of their "studies" must be scrutinized closely. |
| #3 By 7760 (12.155.143.50) at Thursday, April 07, 2005 12:01:45 AM |
|
That "fully transparent" pro-Linux TCO comparison doesn't take central computer management into account. As an IT administrator in a Linux enterprise, would I be able to, in just a few minutes for each:
1) schedule automatic deployment of a new software package to 1000 clients? 2) make a software setting change to 1000 clients? 3) centrally approve patches and schedule automatic deployment? 4) configure a domain-wide security policy, then go to the president and tell him that all 1000 clients will have it within 90 minutes (earning me huge praise from the big guy)? 5) and on and on. I always laugh at Linux vs Microsoft and Apple vs Microsoft arguments where the professional sector is concerned. Until Linux and Apple catch up to Microsoft as far as central management abilities go, a vast majority of companies (at least the smart ones) will stay far, far away. Central management is a huge factor in TCO and noticeably absent from the comparison... but, then, they're pro-Linux, so, obviously. Quux, I haven't lost a post in years since I started to copy my posts to the clipboard prior submitting. Ctrl-A and Ctrl-C... it's habitual now. |
