All the latest UK technology news, reviews and analysis
|
|
|
16 Nov 2005
Microsoft today released the findings of an independent report claiming that the Windows platform is "more consistent, predictable and easier to manage than Linux".
The study, commissioned by the software giant from Security Innovation, a provider of application security services, claimed that Linux administrators took 68 per cent longer to implement new business requirements than their Windows counterparts.
"As they attempt to increase business capabilities over time, customers are telling us that they are hitting a wall with Linux, experiencing significant reliability issues resulting in higher total cost of ownership," said Martin Taylor, general manager of platform strategy at Microsoft.
"This study shows that IT administrators are better able to maintain the system while delivering new capabilities predictably and consistently on the Windows platform.
"We invite other vendors, including Novell, IBM and Red Hat, to repeat their own independent analysis based on Security Innovation's methodology."
Security Innovation said that its study of the manageability differences between Windows and Linux attempted to simulate a "real-world" enterprise e-commerce environment over the course of a year.
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.
According to the study the Windows platform was "more reliable as enterprise needs change over time". The Novell SLES solution experienced 14 critical breakages, while the Windows Server system experienced none, the report claimed.
Security Innovation also claimed that the Novell SLES infrastructure required 4.79 times the number of patches.
"Our research indicates that the primary methods of computing reliability as indicators of real IT pain are overly simplistic," said Herbert H. Thompson, chief security strategist at Security Innovation.
"For example, kernel uptime is commonly cited as a metric of overall platform reliability. However, the reliability of a single component, even one so central as the operating system kernel, is rarely the largest source of pain.
"Security Innovation designed this study to be repeatable, and we believe that the results are consistent with what customers are experiencing in the real world."
A PDF of the Security Innovation report is available here.
Latest stories from Operating Systems
Related articles
Related jobs
Poll
What is the most important IT priority for your company this year?
Connect with V3.co.uk
This paper focuses on a series of best practices and techniques for development teams looking to improve their software development processes
Why good data management at all levels is essential in the modern business (video, 6mins)
Business Analyst urgently required with a background...
We have an opportunity for an experienced Business Architect...
Leading Institutional Investment Manager require an individual...
Leading Institutional Fund Manager require a Senior IT...
Keep up to date with the latest products, services and technologies from the world's leading IT companies. IThound.com brings you over 2,000 white papers, case studies and analyst reports.
Do you agree?
Don't have time to read report
Busy dealing with WMF. Got a patch for me Mr. Softie? Thanks!
Posted by: JerryTheNameless 04 Jan 2006
Different Report
I skimmed through the report linked in the article. The DB Role report. That's not the report that the article is talking about. Several of the quotes in the article are not in that paper.
Posted by: Jarrett 22 Nov 2005
Just another ad!
Why microsoft insists in showing these reports? It's just a marketing campaign from people afraid of Linux!!!
Posted by: Bruno Martins 21 Nov 2005
marketing company
we dont need to expect more..... from a profit making company. They will do anything for the money.
Posted by: donn 17 Nov 2005
Ad-ding my bit
My organisation is in the middle of deciding to go either MS or Novell. While reading your report I was intrigued to see a number of Microsoft ads on this website. None from Novell or any other vendor. 'Independent study?!' I don't think so.
Posted by: PaulC 17 Nov 2005
Only if you don't care to understand what is going on.
What tools does Windows 2000 provide me to analyse what is going on with the System. Ctrl-Alt-Delete / Task Manager actually hides the problem. Before the Processes tab can be brought up and the cryptic list can be sorted by CPU, the system seems to reduce the priority of any offending processes. It's one thing to look good, but information is what is needed. Where are the equivalents for ps and top (and we all know I am holding back).
Posted by: Joe Farlou. 17 Nov 2005
Would never upgrade a Microsoft OS
Having built and maintained MS systems for many years, I would never, never ever recommend upgrading any MS operating system to a newer version. As an admin who has dealt with such transitions since about Windows 3.1 days I usually suggest rebuilding the entire OS from scratch if only one 'primary purpose' piece of software changes.
Posted by: Russ Anderson 17 Nov 2005
Fact!
As MSCA and been a M$ and Linux Sys-Admin, my view is that linux you can take a longer time on deploying certains applications especially when it's new in your hand, rather than on windows which you can blindingly install it. But the fact and most catching part is that once set-up and running you would not bother much with your linux box than that of Windows, so reliability and consistency linux is a way to go, for ease of use, easy to deploy and unpredictability you can have windows too.:-)
Posted by: Jtux 17 Nov 2005
VNU Used to be Independant
When I was working at VNU, we never would have published advertising like this. Anyone who actually uses both operating systems on a regular basis will obviously know how much work each platform requires. The only way that you can get around "hitting a wall" with Windows is to install Open Source software which was originally designed for Linux. While one would expect this to have a negative impact on rollout of Linux, it actually works the other way. Because the software was designed for Linux, it works better there. I have many many machines for which I have developed simple PHP based configuration interfaces and for which my Grandfather is able to fully control and maintain.
Posted by: Matt Riddell 17 Nov 2005
Truth happens
I have been onhand at a fortune 100 company for the last 6 weeks. I am a consultant in the the role of Linux sys admin. In the short time that I've been there I have since the number of RedHat boxes rise and the others remain the same or fall. Mr Gates would like you all to believe that Winblows is the end all and only OS in the world. They commission companies to discredit Linux with one hand while showing up at LinuxWorld and pretending to be friends on the other. Remember this..., snakes have no hands.
Posted by: total_loss 17 Nov 2005
Yet Another Anti-linux "Study" Paid for by M$
Again and again we keep seeing so called "independent studies" that show Windows in a more favourable light than Linux. While I admit that Windows 2003 Server is a very easy to implement and manage system, I will also say that it is the 1st Windows Server Edition to actually come close to the Being a real server. W2k was all marketing shine & promise and big pain in the technical prosterior. while all the other vendors had products that actually worked. I manage systems at a univeristy and the licensieng costs outway the the labour costs hands down. This Study has not taken into account Novell's new Open Enterprise Server which is a port of Novell Directory Services to SUSE Linux. Windows is essentially a limied platform and while it may be simpler it is much much less flexible. apllication services are limited to largely commercial offerings, custom developement is limited to systems developed largely with Visual Studio or Borland. These are all limitations that do not exists on any linux flavour with access to the power of open source. I have one basic rule with MS technology "dont believe till ya see it working in the real world and not in the marketing hype nor the paid for propaganda of the biggest company in thw world who wants your money for the next upgrade(bug fix).
Posted by: Steven Holloway 17 Nov 2005
Ironic findings
My agency moved from a Linux server to a Windows server two years ago. The Linux server had been running for four years without problems. We had contracted with an IT person eight hours a month to maintain it. Over that time we had grown by a third in size with few problems. When we switch, we were without email for months, the system was down often due to viruses and it started to block users out as we continued to grow because our license did not allow for growth. In order to handle the Windows server, we had to hire a full-time IT person. So when they say Windows is consistent, I agree: consistently troublesome. When they say stable, well, only if you live on quicksand and cheaper, hmmmm...for Microsoft perhaps.
Posted by: Chris 17 Nov 2005
Lost time
Yeah, Linux folks are 68% slower. But guess what, once done - it's you set and you forget. While the Microsoft admins have 6800% time lost in maintaining their installations free of virus, spyware and other vermin. Some of the largest IT companies in the world run Linux for their operations and it works 680% more reliably than any win32 box ever will.
Posted by: BD 17 Nov 2005
How much did Mr Gates pay ?
Don't know how much he paid but certainly all of the cost. As Microsoft competitors don't seem to be willing to fund sudies or to co-fund independent studies, I don't really see what other alternatives Mr Gates has to provide the pulic with facts...
Posted by: Unsung 17 Nov 2005
Lies! Lies! Lies! Follow the money!
He who pays the Piper gets to call the tune. Pure F.U.D. at work...why does M$ even bother with the charade? MOST businesses are quite in touch with what's happening in the world,if not; they'd have lost the game already. Why pay much,much more for an inferior O.S.? You dominate the desktop,Bill-and that base is slowly eroding - just like the Business model has demonstrated. Go to China and take your LongHorn with you. 'bye
Posted by: Michael 17 Nov 2005
VNU Puplish Microsoft Propaganda
Why do you publish this report from "Idependant" Entity as if it is the truth and unbiased ? This article makes VNU look like idiots. Stop the propaganda, now !
Posted by: Ford Prefect 17 Nov 2005
Typical FUD
Why are they comparing the latest M$ server to an OLD version of Red Hat? They mesure the security based on how long a bug is *publicaly* known, and as we all know, M$ gets really bitchy when they are not noified first so thay have plenty of time to patch it in secret. They apply patches to SQL Server, but do not upgrade MySQL since that would invaldate the basic Red Hat support, but what support criteria are they using for the M$ server? I am sure you can get MySQL 4 from Red Hat covered by support, what a load of crap this report is. Lets try comparing M$ Server 2003 to SUSE 10 or Red Hat 4. You know, a FAIR comparisson.
Posted by: uteck 17 Nov 2005
Independent?
The first paragraph of this tells the most truth of the story. If the product of this investigation was "an independent report" how can it be down to Microsoft to release it? What is the definition of "independent" here? Additionally, the Linux server would require more patches because the underlying code is constantly being refined and tuned to improve its performance and reliability. Microsoft rarely release a bugfix proactively. Any developer knows that no software is ever 100% correct. So I think I'll take this "independent report" with a very large pinch of salt.
Posted by: Nigel Small 17 Nov 2005
Good Methadology Bad Cases to study.
I agree with the ideas of the methadology used in the study! I am an avid linux/Open Source user. The Cases used and scrutinised by the methadology in the study were hand picked to make redmond look good. I can think of many situations where having a linux box doing a task is way prefereable and on the other hand a dozen or so tasks where a windows box would be easier or simpler. How about some real examples guys? 100 machines per admin (+-1000 machines total)? Emails? Virus Protection? Gateways? Firewalls? Caching Proxy Setups? Bandwidth Monitoring? Remote System Administration? Desktop Support for 1000 machines? Give us something enterprise level to look at something that may actually give us some case studies that make us say "Wow these guys really had some real situations to deal with" How about going onsite with "real" corporates!
Posted by: andrew gargan 17 Nov 2005
Please...
Since when repeating MS propaganda is news...
Posted by: Chris 17 Nov 2005
predictable of course it is!
I predict it will roll over and die with the Blue Screen of Death! I wonder where this world is where Windows runs and is secure and Linux breaks? I know I don't live it this world. As a SysAdmin I know I am working on the Windows boxes day after day and the Linux machines just keep on running. Funny how things are differant in their world from mine. Wonder how that happens.
Posted by: b0 17 Nov 2005
ok, let's read between the lines
you notice that reliability is not among the cited strong points. consistent, yes. the way any hegemony is consistent. you could also say, static, boring, commonplace, ordinary, stale, whatever white bread term you want. i think of windows as unchanging in any meaningful way. the interface changes from one release to the next, but most are not innovative, helpful or anything but marketing driven fluff. real usability has been at a standstill for some time in the windows world. predictable, yes, in other words windows good and bad aspects are well known. doesn't really mean much, does it? easier to manage. yes if you're windows centric. i've been a linux-unix guy since 1999, mostly through the command line and i find windows server 2003 difficult to manage, much the same way a windows admin might find linux at first. so what. i get used to it after a bit of learning. big deal. that's just part of being in this profession. my real world experience is that windows is fine on the desktop if you don't expect much. a business critical function, on the server or workstation should be on some kind of unix variant. end of story. having said that, most small businesses do not have the need, desire nor capacity to know the diffference between server os's and are better off for their extremely modest needs at this time using windows. so before you flame me, stop and think, how long will it be untilo it's obvious to all that windows is hopelessly obsolete for any important use? i don't see that taking too much longer. the big hurdle today for opensource is providing a deep and stable integrated software stack on which developers can build. http://lampgroup.org let's ignore the distracting noise from redmond and focus our collective energies towards this end.
Posted by: kelley graham 17 Nov 2005
Reliable ?
MS stabbed millions of Software Developers by breaking VB6 for nasty VB.Net; So I switched to the reliable PHP
Posted by: Logically Genius 17 Nov 2005
and how many ppl have u paid for this propaganda mr gates?
easier to manage ok but u have to manage it every time it crashed while our novell solution will take some time configured but would then be able to serve for yrs to come!
Posted by: goarilla 16 Nov 2005
not comparable
Win 2000 to 2003 is that really as much of a jump as suse 8 to suse 9? I think not. I would never suggest anyone do a upgrade rather than a fresh install whether linux or windows. Yet another flawed piece of MS FUD.
Posted by: sailor 16 Nov 2005
Pretty Funny
As an MCSE, I can tell you that Microsoft doesn't recommend upgrading from 2k to 2k3, rather wiping and reloading that OS, apps, etc.. so using that methodology for a usability study is rather ironic. As an NT/2k/2k3 admin I've never upgraded a windows server system in place. Always reloaded the OS, apps, and restored the data. I'm seriously considering Linux for our companies Messaging/Web/File/Print needs as I need a reliable cost-effective solution. MS would tell me It'll cost more since I'll have to learn how to use Linux. Guess they forgot that us geeks like to learn new things...
Posted by: Jeff 16 Nov 2005
Predictable??
Where the hell do they get "predictable". That is the LAST word I would use to describe anything MS. I can see easier to manage, maybe even more consistent, but "predictable"?? All of my Windows boxen seem to have a different personality type and slip into "it must be time to reboot" land. Linux does what it's told, no more, no less.
Posted by: Procyon 16 Nov 2005
Gee
Gee, isn't it amazing that this firm is a Microsoft partner?
Posted by: Jimmy 16 Nov 2005
independent report ?
I'm ready to write an «independent report» telling that Suse, Ubuntu, RedHat, Debian are better than Microsoft. How much money can they send me ? OK no money, so I will continue to write that Microsoft is better. Everybody will know that it's a joke, but I will get money ;)
Posted by: Stemp 16 Nov 2005
windows is insecure!
and how much spyware is out there for windows?? > 20000 how many virii?? > 50000 how many for linux?? < 10
Posted by: bob 16 Nov 2005
Independent Microsoft Partners
Yeah, this is an independent study all right - by an *independent* Microsoft vendor. Maybe I look stupid. Still, you could give me a little credit!
Posted by: Don Parris 16 Nov 2005
Ask these users
How about asking Google Amazon and Ebay about how well Linux scales?
Posted by: Tim 16 Nov 2005
Windows - predicable and reliable
Trying to write installation instructions for a software system, and finding differences between supposedly identical Windows installs that break things. Trying to get multiple components running as non-administrator to talk to eachother, to talk the same language. Fighting the command line interaction of the latest Windows stuff without the decent shell on Linux, and without consistency in command line design (now is that /foo or -foo?). The painfully over-complex security model of Windows that's probably the reason few people seem able to secure it, and so many people run everything as Administrator. Running chroot on Linux as a low privelage ID seems so easy. Microsoft software upgrades are not afraid of making "breaking changes" either. People with a large base of Dot-Net 1 code may find Dot-Net 2 interesting. My experiences with Linux were far better - with systems once set up being easy to maintain and keep going. I don't know where Microsoft keep digging these reports up from! A note on the patch count. Microsoft combine many patches into one big download. Did this count as one patch - where if you have your Linux box do an autoupgrade once a week it may download 4 or 5 patches depending on what's installed. Although one user interaction to install them all, did the survey count them as seperate patches?
Posted by: Richard 16 Nov 2005
More patches
So Novell SLES took 4.79 times as much care improving their software than Microsoft? I'm surprised the number isn't higher...
Posted by: Tony Howarth 16 Nov 2005
Article and report do not match
The FUD article claims the tests were using Suse Linux, but after reading the actual report, it is clear they tested Redhat Linux, and noted more than once the imporved security of the Redhat product.
Posted by: Frank Beans 16 Nov 2005