Here is a little something that I thought might be of interest. ----- Forwarded message from "Matt W." ----- To: "BYU Unix Users Group" From: "Matt W." Reply-To: BYU Unix Users Group List-Post: 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