- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
No Linux adoption claims Microsoft
What the company's IT department found out much to its surprise was that many of their MCSE's (Microsoft-certified administrators) had been hacking Linux on the sly for several years already at home in the wee hours. This meant that administrative productivity on the new Linux infrastructure was immediate and the learning curve hardly apparent |
|
|
Comments (5)
I can't figure out what MS is trying to achieve by stating that Linux is only used as a negotiation ploy.
They are implicitly claiming that the looking at Linux is a good idea, since as a minimum you put yourselves in a better bargaining position by doing so.
What are they thinking? They're thinking, DO ANYTHING to stall Linux adoption until they can get (Lock 'em in! *crack* Hyaah!!) Longhorn out the door.
If I could negotiate Microsoft all the way down to $0 I would still choose Linux. Linux is the better choice because I have the source, it doesn't suffer from the Virus of the week, and it just plain works better. Vendors that offer "Windows Only" solutions are no longer getting our business.
What I find funny is taking their ridiculous arguments and applying them to real life:
1) If nobody is actually adopting linux, then why would "using it as a negotiation ploy" be so effective against microsoft? Clearly, ms would just laugh when someone brought the idea of Linux to the table if it wasn't important.
2) Why would microsoft be attacking the GPL if it wasn't a threat? Clearly, microsoft holds Linux as a viable thread. Their SEC filings even listed it as a major competitor. Were they lying to the SEC or are they lying now?
3) Regardless of whether Linux is more secure or it is just virus-free due to merely being less used than Windows... the fact remains it's still virus-free. Security is important, and practical decisions are made based on reality. Linux users simply don't get virii, windows users do. If Linux really is less secure, as ms claims, then even still until virus writers target Linux you're still safer off using it.
4) Cost of ownership is hard to measure, but microsoft leaves out most expenses related to microsoft products, such as cost of virus downtime, patches, bugs, hardware requirements, training costs, and product licensing fees. Even if Linux costs more to make the switch (it doesn't), the training is a 1-time cost, and if you already understand computers, the switch can be remarkably easy. The cost of hardware is less (or at least not worse) the cost of labor is less (you can get by with 1/5th or fewer Linux administrators, as windows needs more babysitting), and the licensing fees simply don't exist.
5) The only thing windows has going for it today is a huge games market, slightly more hardware support, and a lot of people with custom applications written to the Win32 API and difficult to port. Windows has nice asynchronous IO in the kernel compared to linux, but I'll give up AIO for everything else. :)
PS, the spell-checker in the message preview is cool, but I can't believe "GPL" is not in the spelling dictionary!
1) If nobody is actually adopting linux, then why would "using it as a negotiation ploy" be so effective against microsoft? Clearly, ms would just laugh when someone brought the idea of Linux to the table if it wasn't important.
2) Why would microsoft be attacking the GPL if it wasn't a threat? Clearly, microsoft holds Linux as a viable thread. Their SEC filings even listed it as a major competitor. Were they lying to the SEC or are they lying now?
3) Regardless of whether Linux is more secure or it is just virus-free due to merely being less used than Windows... the fact remains it's still virus-free. Security is important, and practical decisions are made based on reality. Linux users simply don't get virii, windows users do. If Linux really is less secure, as ms claims, then even still until virus writers target Linux you're still safer off using it.
4) Cost of ownership is hard to measure, but microsoft leaves out most expenses related to microsoft products, such as cost of virus downtime, patches, bugs, hardware requirements, training costs, and product licensing fees. Even if Linux costs more to make the switch (it doesn't), the training is a 1-time cost, and if you already understand computers, the switch can be remarkably easy. The cost of hardware is less (or at least not worse) the cost of labor is less (you can get by with 1/5th or fewer Linux administrators, as windows needs more babysitting), and the licensing fees simply don't exist.
5) The only thing windows has going for it today is a huge games market, slightly more hardware support, and a lot of people with custom applications written to the Win32 API and difficult to port. Windows has nice asynchronous IO in the kernel compared to linux, but I'll give up AIO for everything else. :)
PS, the spell-checker in the message preview is cool, but I can't believe "GPL" is not in the spelling dictionary!
They are thinking.... HHHEEELLLPPP!!!
Goodbye Microsoft. You will get as much help as you gave to us.
Goodbye Microsoft. You will get as much help as you gave to us.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post