| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Is Microsoft Linux in the Wind? | |
|
||
| Time: 01:11 EST/06:11 GMT | News Source: NewsFactor | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
The Microsoft-Linux speculation has been fueled by Linux' increasing prominence on the enterprise server level, largely thanks to IBM, and Microsoft's historical willingness to react to competitive threats by creating its own versions of rival products. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 336 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:45:51 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 2332 (65.221.182.2) at 11/21/2003 2:57:36 AM |
|
No, and the primary reason why is that Windows is as good if not a superior product in every possible way.
It's as fast, if not faster. It's as stable, if not more stable. It's as secure, if not more secure. It's far easier to use. It has a much larger library of available applications. It is much easier to develop for and on. The TCO is arguably better, although this could go either way depending on the situation. What does Linux have going for it? Well... It's free. It's open source. (Which is good, if you're a geek/coder.) It has a sexy anti-MS / alternative lifestyle / be different at any cost kinda feel. Using it makes people feel like they're part of something larger than themselves. (Like a religion, or a fan of a sports team, or something like that.) At any rate, none of the things Linux has going for it would be preserved in an MS-Linux product, so there is no reason for Microsoft to develop one. |
| #2 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at 11/21/2003 9:07:17 AM |
|
Hex, I'm afraid you've missed something.
I'll admit that when RMD stated his opinion, he should have produced evidence to backup his claims. However, he has a proven reputation on this site for integrity in posting. I've yet to see him make a claim that he couldn't backup. I don't always agree with his interpretation of facts, but his facts are solid. You, however, have no reputation. You, like RMD in his post, made a claim. You provided no evidence. I'd assume that you felt threatened by his comments, and that was the cause for you personal attacks on him. (Notice this is an attack of your argument not you.) Now, to correct your claims... CPUs. Windows can hit 32 procs, so what's your point? Stability. Windows Datacenter Server guarantees a minimum of 99.9% uptime (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/datacenter/dcprogram.mspx). No other vendor that I'm aware of will stand behind its product in such a manner. Security. Hmm, so the existance of a virus is your idea of lack of security? Seems that the more logical assessment would be the number of vulnerabilities, not the number of times the vulnerability has been exploited. If I have a product with one hole, which is exploited 1 billion times, and you have a product with 1 million holes, which have been each exploited once, which of us has the more secure product. I'd say that I do. Fix one hole, and I'm Fort Knox. If you fixed one hole, you'd still have 999,999 to go. So far, your argument is pretty flimsy, but let's continue. Development. Huh? I think RMD's employer would be very surprised to discover that he's not a programmer. I suppose geek is up to interpretation. ;-) Judging from his GPA (Bachelor's - 3.97, Associates - 4.0), it would seem that he has either hoodwinked a goodly number of people over the years, or he has at least half a clue what he is talking about. As for your ease of development comments, I'd like to see any evidence you have that shows better developer productivity under Linux compared to Windows. I don't think you'll find any that is close to unbiased. TCO. In my situation, Windows is less expensive. There, I have evidence to support my argument, so you are incorrect that Windows is inarguably more expensive. Want to try again? As for your little jibe about "viruses/worms/spyware," I've never been breached. I took the oh so difficult route of turning AutoUpdate on, having my AV software autoupdate, and turned my firewall on. My LAN is safe and happy as you please. I didn't even need a shell script to turn everything on. Just a few mouse clicks. Switching to Linux. Hmm, Windows server and desktop market share are increasing. It would seem, then, that anyone switching to Linux is switching away from something other than Windows. Your final RMD jab. I'd say pot. kettle. black, but I respect RMD to much to bring him down to the level of your argument, though, in this specific instance, this was not his best work. The fact that I've seen evidence to support his claims already, though, makes up for that. Your argument, however, well.... |
| #3 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at 11/21/2003 9:11:48 AM |
| Syn, I see no evidence to support your claim that Windows server or desktop are on the wane. In fact, latest market share numbers show Windows increasing in both categories. It would seem, based on recent activies from Linux distros struggling to make a profit, that the free-for-all-hey-day-eat-drink-and-be-merry-for-all-this-stuff-is-free attitude of the FSF doesn't hold true in the real world. Looking out 10 years, I'd expect the open source, not the closed source, to have issues with money....just like they do now. |
| #4 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at 11/21/2003 9:12:24 AM |
|
-X- , mega LOLs!
blue, pardon the Rush allusion. |
| #5 By 12071 (203.217.24.236) at 11/21/2003 9:36:37 AM |
| All this MS Linux stuff - give it up already, honestly - this has been rehashed since at least 1998! This rumor that Microsoft will create their own distribution blah blah blah keeps coming back at least once a year. Why in the world would that do that when they currently own 95% of the desktop and increasing your server market? There's just no reason for them to do this... there wasn't in 1998 and there isn't in 2003! Maybe if one day their market share falls then they might have other reasons to port certain applications to Linux but until then.... no MS Linux :) |
| #6 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at 11/21/2003 10:05:09 AM |
|
Syn, OK, it's your opinion. Mine differs. I'll agree to disagree.
gg, Security. Yes, you missed my point. My point was that Windows is not difficult to secure, and I used my anecdotal evidence albeit weak to support that. But that was just a corollary of my security statement. I don't see that the number of virii has anything to do with security. The relative "secure-ness" of a system shouldn't be the number of things designed to hurt it, but the ability of the thing to withstand whatever exists or might exist to hurt it. As such, virii (which often are a funciton of social engineering and not code), have little bearing on the argument. The important issue, IMO, is exploits. Paper bags, errr, grades. True, grades to not of themselves demonstrate competancy. They do, however, speak more of competancy than hex's conjecture. I even alluded to this when I said he (RMD) had either hoodwinked a goodly number of people or that he had half a clue. I never claimed he was brilliant (or that he was not brilliant). I suspect that RMD didn't do too much hoodwinking, and that his GPA is reflective of at least half a clue with respect to programming. -x-, I've got an ASP.NET invalid control state issue that I don't feel like dealing with at the moment. This is a pleasurable distraction. BTW, with my happy MSDN Universal, I already god MSLinux ;-) |
| #7 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 11/21/2003 11:12:40 AM |
|
This is a nonsensical article posted on NewsFactor, a site which has the journalistic integrity of the Faux News.
ain't gonna happen, no point wasting time talking about it. Microsoft adopting Linux would be like BMW introducing the Yugo to broaden their product line. |
| #8 By 6859 (206.156.242.36) at 11/21/2003 11:12:48 AM |
|
The only fair test comparison is to do a comparison on the EXACT same hardware, which to date apparently nobody has bothered to do except me.
Here's the system (identical for both OSes since I did one test, formatted and installed the other OS): PII 333 384MB RAM 440LX chipset Motherboard Linksys LNE NIC Matrox Millenium II 4MB vid card 8GB IBM Deskstar IDE HDD Teac 1.44MB FDD generic Toshiba IDE CDROM drive (I think it's a 2 speed....) Installed Windows 2003 Server Enterprise edition 120-day evaluation from CD. Wiped HDD and then installed Slackware 9.0. Windows wins on useability, configurability and default security settings (verified with an NMAP scan). More default ports open on Slackware 9. Speed: Once booted up, both performed pretty much the same. Other than that, no big issues at all. Since the score is in favor of Windows from my test, Windows wins. Optimizations done: none. I just installed the OSes and wen't with their drivers that were included on the install CD, except for security related patches (as this system was temporarily open to the Internet). Windows GUI is "pretty" and functional. Slackware 9.0 with KDE 3.X.X is ok, it functions--it's light-years better than GNOME, at least. Browsers: IE vs. Konqueror and Mozilla. Mozilla has some nice addidtions going for it, like pop-up blocking, etc.; but IE is still just as fast and MS is improving on that. So, I am going to call the browser battle a tie--Konqueror is a P.O.S and just plain ugly, so Mozilla wins over K, but it doesn't beat IE. Memory Utilization: Pretty much a tie here too. Windows take all RAM and does what it needs with it; Slackware does the same deal. Security permissions on files: Tie. Anything you can lock out with Linux you can do with WIndows, anything you lock out with Windows you can do with Linux. The key is knowing what you're doing. Program running as Admin/root: this is a pain in the you-know-what for both systems. WIth Windows only the Administrator can burn a CD--that's a mistake, a power-user or a backup operator should have those rights. For Slackware, root can't be an ftp user, nor can root launch certain programs. This is a mistake since root should be able to do whatever he/she wants--yet you are prevented. I give this a tie as well. Note: this was not tested on a domain where domain level privelages would come into play--at that level I can only say that Windows would have spanked Slackware all over the place. Various server roles: Windows wins. Sure SAMBA is sort of functional and at times shows immense promise, but it's still flaky and buggy and nasty. File server? Windows wins again. Print Server? Windows again wins. Gateway/router/firewall? Linux wins. Overall victor is Windows. So far, Windows is winning. And that's just the tip of the tests I could have done, but didn't. Linux has a LONG way to go, by the time it catches up to where Windows is now, Windows will be in a new location (moving target). For MS to embrace and make a Linux OS of their own would be a mistake and would dilute the need for their own brand. They've spent too much time and money developing Windows to what it is today for them to jump their own ship when it isn't even sinking. |
| #9 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 11/21/2003 11:19:42 AM |
|
BTW, to those still insisting that Linux has any strength in the security department...
http://cert.uni-stuttgart.de/files/fw/debian-security-20031121.txt The Debian project servers were compromised and someone had unrestricted access to modify source code without audit trails. |
| #10 By 2332 (65.221.182.2) at 11/21/2003 1:05:26 PM |
|
Wow... should have cheked this post earlier. Sorry to have you fight my battles for me, BobSmith. (Although you did an admirable job. :-)
Ok... *cracks knuckles*... Not faster (It only appears so because of it's higher hardware specs, remember Linux can scale to 16+ processors if you really want to play that game) Actually, it is faster... in both a server environment and a desktop environment. Shall we look at the numbers? TPC-W http://www.tpc.org/tpcw/results/tpcw_perf_results.asp TCP-H (Non-Clustered) http://www.tpc.org/tpch/results/tpch_perf_results.asp?resulttype=noncluster TCP-C (Non-Clustered) http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_perf_results.asp?resulttype=noncluster Notice that Linux is no where to be found, but Windows pretty much dominates? In fact, the only place Linux shows up anywhere on the top 10 lists is when you compared a clustered linux solution with non-clustered solutions: http://www.tpc.org/tpch/results/tpch_perf_results.asp Even then, the clustered solution has far better hardware specs than its competitors, and it still only barely eeks out a better price/performance ratio. Here is an interesting comparison between FreeBSD (an OS I'm quite fond of), Windows 2000, and Linux: http://www.samag.com/documents/s=1147/sam0108q/0108q.htm Here are some studies from the much maligned VeriTest, but please find something wrong with the studies before you discount them to bias: http://www.veritest.com/clients/reports/microsoft/ms_competitive_webbench_performance.pdf http://www.veritest.com/clients/reports/microsoft/mssmbiz.pdf http://www.veritest.com/clients/reports/microsoft/ms_performance_updated.pdf And of course, there are the obligatory but dubious ASP.NET benchmarks sponsered by Microsoft: http://www.gotdotnet.com/team/compare/nileperf.aspx http://www.gotdotnet.com/team/compare/middleware.aspx Continued in next post... |
| #11 By 2332 (65.221.182.2) at 11/21/2003 1:05:57 PM |
|
Continued from previous post...
Now on to desktop performance. I think we can all agree that Tom's Hardware is a fair and impartial site. For a while, Tom usually included Windows and Linux benchmarks in his review, but eventually stopped for some unknown reason. (Probably lack of interest.) Here are some articles that show relative performance in one of the most performance-demanding PC tasks, games: http://www17.tomshardware.com/graphic/20000811/index.html http://www17.tomshardware.com/graphic/20001002/index.html I'm sure there are some more recent benchmarks if you surf around Tom's site for a while. Not as stable (How many "Install has finished, please reboot computer"'s you get? How often does Outlook/Exporer crash?) Well, actually, that has nothing to do with stability. Stability and uptime are two different issues. I agree, Windows forces you to reboot far too often. I hate it. As far as applications crashing, that, too, is a different issue. Applications crash on Linux just as often as on Windows. I used Linux for years (along with Windows, not instead of), and many, many times I had to open up another console so I could kill XFree86 because the Windows Manager I locked up. Application crashes have nothing to do with the OS. Not more secure (Need I mention "Slammer", "MSBlast" or the other 60,000 (actual amount, go check it out) windows virii that Norton 2003 detects? You have a popular OS, lots of people are going to target you. Think of it this way... which OS has more commerical applications available? That's a great predictor of which OS will be targeted the most. Linux users account for 2% (and growing) of comuter users, Mac's count for 5% therefore we would expect 1,200 Linux and 3,000 Mac virii. Which there arn't! Try less than 60 for both other OS's! Spyware and adware for other OS's is virtually unheard of) Why would you think it would scale linearly like that? That's non-sequiture. Not as easy to develop on (try coding anything in Visual C++! Due to your "geek/coder" comment I assume you're neither, then maybe you should shut up about something you know nothing about :) I don't know anything about you, but you obviously know nothing about me. I'm a software engineer by profession. I've been coding for many, many years. I also know 6 different programming languages. So, last I checked, I am a geek/coder. And, as a matter of fact, I have written many applications with MSVC++. Easy? No. But VB is. But .NET is. The vast majority of Windows development moved first to VB, and now is moving over to .NET. If you can honestly say that coding Tk/C on Linux is as easy as WinForms and C#, the you're a better programmer than I. (Or a liar.) Continued in next post... This post was edited by RMD on Friday, November 21, 2003 at 13:21. |
| #12 By 2332 (65.221.182.2) at 11/21/2003 1:06:23 PM |
|
Continued from previous post...
And the TCO is unarguably much more for windows (Both inital OS/applications purchase and operations cost not to mention down time due to viruses/worms/spyware plus the extra cost accociated with hardware upgrades, patches, licences, OS reinstalls due to users breaking their systems) TCO really depends on the situation. Some favor Windows, some favor Linux. What is for sure, however, is that the initial purchase price is completely meaningless. If the TCO was more than Windows why would so many people be switching to Linux? ("Hey guys! I've this great idea! Let's all use Linux! We'll lose loads of money!", I dont think so) Actually, not that many people are switching to Linux. Despite all the media hype, Windows is gaining just as fast as Linux. Linux isn't taking market share away from Windows, it's taking it away from Sun, from HP, and from IBM. (Which is one reason why all three of those companies have started to adopt Linux themselves.) RMD, you make a post like this and make youself look stupid Funny, I was just about to say the same thing about you. |
| #13 By 2332 (65.221.182.2) at 11/21/2003 1:19:53 PM |
|
Oh, one more thing.
I architected an ASP.NET solution that currently handles between 500 to 1000 concurrent users, and gets more than 25,000,000 requests a day. None of the content can be cached due to the nature of the application. We average 25 Mb/s of traffic. It currently runs on two Dell PowerEdge 2650's. Each with dual Xeon 2.8Ghz CPUs, and 1.5GB of ram. (Windows 2003 Server w/network load balancing.) These servers will run you about $4500 from Dell. The CPUs on each server hover around 25% right now. Ram is hovering around 650 MB usage. We have not had a single second of downtime in 6 months of operation. (Thanks to NLB.) In fact, we rarely even check on the servers. They just work. If this isn't an example of an enterprise application with excellent performance and stability, I don't know what is. This ~$10,000 setup handles more load than the vast majority of sites on the Internet.. |
| #14 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at 11/21/2003 5:04:07 PM |
| You noticed that when RMD and I posted, there was corroborating evidence? If you had some, Rambo, you might be worth reading. |
| #15 By 135 (208.186.90.91) at 11/21/2003 5:46:30 PM |
|
-X- Given the history of open source advocates tending to cherry pick the information they provide to the public, one can't even assume these are the only times this has happened.
BTW... Unix has been on the desktop just about as long as Microsoft. X Windows was created around the same time as Windows 3.0. The most popular early windows manager, Motif licensed the look & feel from Microsoft. In fact the first market in which Sun really did well was desktop workstations in Universities and engineering departments. |
| #16 By 6859 (206.156.242.36) at 11/21/2003 6:01:10 PM |
|
---Not sure what you mean, I justed ftp as root. Haven't seen anything root can't run either. What are they?
Squid can't run as root. By default (on slackware at least) non-root users don't have sound (according to the FAQ--don't know if that's true, my testbox has no soundcard). There are other things as well, I just can't remember them at the moment. It's annoying enough that sometimes you have to "su" to run something, but more annoying when you are su and have to exit that shell to run something else. That's stupid. Another pet peeve I have with Linux is the documentation being almost always out of date. I know programmers aren't good technical writers, but all they need is ONE friend to help them who can write and isn't a programmer. Is it that hard? the LDP is useless. Usenet is pretty much useless as the only response you get is "man <whatever you asked about>" even IF you told them to begin with that you already read the man page and you've read all there is on LDP about it. Then they get snippy if you call them on their own stupidity. gotta love that. |
| #17 By 12071 (203.217.23.108) at 11/22/2003 1:21:46 AM |
|
#29 "X Windows was created around the same time as Windows 3.0"
You mean Windows 1.0/2.0. The X Window System was first created in MIT in 1984 (Windows 1.0 came out the year after) and version 11 (X11) was released in the same year as Windows 2.0 (1987). "Motif licensed the look & feel from Microsoft." When did this happen? #31 Squid can't run as root because it doesn't NEED to run as root and the developers were security conscious enough to mandate that the user runs squid as any user BUT root. (http://www.squid-cache.org/Doc/FAQ/FAQ-7.html#ss7.10). This might be annoying but it is also very sensible. This post was edited by chris_kabuki on Saturday, November 22, 2003 at 02:16. |
| #18 By 2332 (65.221.182.2) at 11/22/2003 1:49:31 AM |
|
Ya, I actually kinda like the idea of some programs not being able to run as root.
Personally, I run as a very unprivledged user on my XP machine. I have a command window (color red, to remind me) that I can use to execute admin commands... but everything else runs as a user that doesn't have much access. It takes a little while to get everything setup, but once you get it going it makes you feel very safe. |
| #19 By 12071 (203.217.64.250) at 11/23/2003 1:39:30 AM |
|
#39 Wow, where to begin! For a start you can hardly compare gcc to Visual Studio, the former is a compiler whilst the latter is an IDE. Secondly gcc is a C compiler, you'd want to use g++ if you want to compile C++ code. Thirdly, for those developers that don't want a full IDE editors like vim and xemacs (or vi and emacs on the console alone) provide much more than just a text editor and you don't have to exit them to recompile or debug or even run your applications! Fourthly, have you even noticed that IDE's such as KDevelop (www.kdevelop.org - which is free) or Borland's C++BuilderX (www.borland.com/cbuilderx/) are available for Linux?
Having said all that I personally prefer the latest Visual Studio IDE's to Borland's offerings but a) that is just my own personal opinion and b) it doesn't change the fact that you need to realise that there are GUI apps available for Linux! |
| #20 By 8589 (66.169.174.102) at 11/23/2003 1:40:38 AM |
| This comment has been removed due to a violation of the Active Network Terms of Use. |
| #21 By 3 (62.253.128.7) at 11/23/2003 5:27:52 AM |
| #41 - did you not notice the various mentions of Microsoft in the article? Tends to indicate it is. |
| #22 By 2459 (24.175.137.164) at 11/23/2003 3:17:12 PM |
|
As you may know, Windows is, in fact, not a real-time operating system. If you do not know what I am talking about, get back to you school notes. I will never ever run an industrial factory on Windows or even Linux. As I said, QNX is my choice, my personal choice.
http://www.microsoft.com/Windows/Embedded/techinsights/realtime.asp |
| #23 By 2459 (24.175.137.164) at 11/23/2003 4:34:17 PM |
|
You're welcome.
I was going to mention just CE, but found that XP/XP Embedded could be extended to offer real-time capability. I'm not endorsing its use, just offering the info about it's RTOS capability. |
| #24 By 2332 (65.221.182.2) at 11/24/2003 10:07:22 AM |
|
That's a lot of text for posts that really don't say anything.
The fact of the matter is that you've failed to provide support for your claims. I said that Microsoft would not create "MS Linux" because Windows was as good or better than Linux in pretty much every possibly way. I then provided support for my comments. You countered my claim by saying that I was incorrect. You stated that Linux was more secure, faster, more stable, easier to develop on, and cheaper. The only support you've provided are links to The Register (a news source that calls Microsoft "The Vole" and uses "M$" pretty consistantly), and to an article about Microsoft being hacked, as if a single example of either OS being hacked proves anything. As far as your questions about Datacenter, they certainly show your ignorance on these matters. Microsoft can claim 5 9's of uptime for Datacenter, but not for any of their other OS's, because Datacenter is only available on custom setups. You can't buy Datacenter at Best Buy. It comes pre-installed, and pre-configured for your specific needs. All patching of the OS is handled by the OEM. It's truely like a mainframe. Because of this carefully controlled environment, the vast majority of the reasons for Windows crashed (bad drivers, bad hardware, etc.) are eliminated. I suspect that certain other mainframe setups could probably claim 5 9's, but regardless, they don't. You insist that one reason Microsoft would create a Linux clone is because Linux is more stable, as if Microsoft doesn't know how to create a stable OS. Clearly, this is wrong.. Oh, and... Out of 1000 seconds of operation it will be down for 1 second? That’s a crash every 16 minutes! 99.999% uptime equates to less than 5 minutes of down time per year. If you can figure out how to have a crash happen every 16 minutes and have it only take 1 second for it to crash and reboot, then perhaps you should let Microsoft in on your secret. |
| #25 By 2332 (65.221.182.2) at 11/24/2003 10:10:33 AM |
|
#51 - The only saving RAD tool that MS has in its arsenal is Visual Basic. Even thought the language itself blows old goats, the Visual Basic whole enchilada as a RAD tool is truly superb.
Wow. Have you been out of touch with Windows programming for 5 years or so? That's the only way I can think of that you could believe that VB is the "only saving RAD tool" from Microsoft. The .NET Framework and VS.NET are by far the best development platform I've ever worked with, and I haven't coded VB for a couple of years. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 336 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:45:51 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
