Microsoft slammed for 'confusing' open source study
/v3-uk/news/1985789/microsoft-slammed-confusing-source-study
21 Nov 2005, Iain Thomson , V3
Novell has hit back at a recent study sponsored by Microsoft which claimed that open source code is more difficult to manage than Windows, insisting that it "aims to confuse" the market.
The study, carried out by Microsoft certified partner Security Innovation, claimed that Linux administrators took over two thirds longer to address new business requirements than their Windows counterparts.
The study compared two teams of experienced IT administrators running Windows Server 2000 and Novell SuSE Enterprise Linux 8, then monitored their progress as they upgraded to Windows Server 2003 and Novell SuSE Enterprise Linux 9 respectively.
But Novell, which distributes SuSE, has pointed out numerous flaws in the methodology of the survey in a blog posting by one of its managers, Kevan Barney.
In particular Barney pointed out that few of the interoperability problems alleged in the report actually exist, and poured scorn on claims that such issues are not a problem for Microsoft.
"Security Innovation talks about Microsoft's 'integrated innovation' philosophy," he wrote.
"That philosophy is widely regarded as the primary reason Windows is an inherently insecure operating system allowing intruders to attack Windows through applications such as Internet Explorer, IIS, etc.
"This integration with strong dependencies makes it possible for an intruder/worm to bring down an entire system."
Barney added that there is little point comparing the patches released for the two packages tested, since the SuSE release is not just an operating system, but contains a huge number of applications which have their own patches.
© Incisive Media Investments Limited 2010, Published by Incisive Financial Publishing Limited, Haymarket House, 28-29 Haymarket, London SW1Y 4RX, are companies registered in England and Wales with company registration numbers 04252091 & 04252093
Do you agree?
Microsoft's Desperation is Showing...
Recently at a conference of financial services executives in Dallas, Texas most of the CIO's and CTO's I spoke with mentioned that they were implementing Open Source (primarily Linux or FreeBSD on the OS side) and Apache/Websphere on the server side.
Microsoft's viability on the desktop was discussed interestingly enough.
Most professionals there also subscribe to the philosophy that we have to be safe in our server implementations, thus you don't deploy a single-user consumer type OS like Microsoft servers in an enterprise, multi-user environment.
in the opinions of most at the forum, Microsoft costs too much for what you get and it's not ready for the enterprise.
No amount of paid-for studies will make up for poor technology.
Cheers,
Nick
Posted by Nicholas Donovan, 22 Nov 2005
Apples and oranges again
Like usuall Microsoft and people in general are trying to compare Linux to Windows as if they have anything in common.
Sure They are both operating systems and both are capable of similiar tasks. But they are not the same thing. Instead of comparing why don't we just let consumers make up their own minds to what they like.
Next lets compare cost and use of Microsoft Office to that of OpenOffice. I'd be more interested in Microsofts study of that.
Posted by jei-crash, 21 Nov 2005
Microsoft is a joke
"Novell has hit back at a recent study sponsored by Microsoft which claimed that open source code is more difficult to manage than Windows, insisting that it "aims to confuse" the market."
If Open Source is more difficult to manage than Windows, then why is Microsoft using Red Hat to protect the microsoft.com site from DDOS attacks?
"The study, carried out by Microsoft certified partner Security Innovation, claimed that Linux administrators took over two thirds longer to address new business requirements than their Windows counterparts. "
If these supposed Linux administrators took longer to address new biz requirements, then they aren't familiar with the software, aren't using it properly and should go back to using Windows to handle new business requirements.
"That philosophy is widely regarded as the primary reason Windows is an inherently insecure operating system allowing intruders to attack Windows through applications such as Internet Explorer, IIS, etc."
AMEN! Let's do a bit of comparing:
Microsoft Windows XP Pro (300$ CAD): More security upgrades than you shake a stick at.
Mandrake Linux PowerPack (30$ CAD): Safe, secure, stable and easy to use. And I've used it once.
Microsoft needs to start understanding that they need to pare down their OS code, fix the numerous (and I mean numerous) issues, and build an OS that won't crash all the time, can't be hacked, etc.
Then I MIGHT be interested in using it.
Posted by Justin Kozuch, 22 Nov 2005
Novelle shouldn't trump Window's trunp card on desktop
linux is so raw for more like a server. Firefox and Thunderbird are tremendous running on Windows.
Yes, Microsft might be overly intigrated, and I wish they would put it under one of their stronger Open Source licences to allow more outside maintanance, but I strongly dissagree with Novelle that everything should be too 'messy' for the desktop by having apps completely patch their own environment for the desktop. It works best in some instances like education where there is not allot of independance
Where are the much lauded standards if not utilized consistanly? For the desktop centralitly and consistancy are needed which Linux sorely lacks. A UNIX-like system is naturally geared toward a server system admin where there is too much automation and code changes for most desktop users.
For instance, updates are usually to focussed on the Linux cryptic file structure (good for admins only) and not on independent wizards like for Windows.
Posted by Richtor, 21 Nov 2005