| 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 |
 |
Microsoft-Sponsored Study Gives Nod to Windows in Reliability | |
|
||
| Time: 10:41 EST/15:41 GMT | News Source: eWeek | Posted By: John Quigley | ||
|
Microsoft Corp. will release Wednesday the findings of another survey it has sponsored, this time comparing two platforms—its Windows Server System and Novell Inc.'s SUSE Linux Enterprise Server—under evolving business requirements over an extended period of time. The study found that there are fundamental differences in the Linux and Windows models, and while there are advantages to Linux componentization, there are also downsides in terms of complexity, time to manage and cost, according to Ryan Gavin, Microsoft's director of platform strategy | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 146 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:32:36 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 11/16/2005 2:16:59 PM |
|
http://www.securityinnovation.com/partners/alliancetech.shtml
Yawn, yet another paid-for study from one of MS' partners. So what else is new? Why can't MS ever buy a study from someone who isn't in their pocket? |
| #2 By 3653 (63.162.177.143) at 11/16/2005 3:38:12 PM |
| if no one is willing to pay for the study, then msft steps up to the plate. aplaud them. |
| #3 By 39852 (67.68.246.161) at 11/16/2005 4:37:02 PM |
|
You may ask "Why hasn't anyone stepped up to the plate and commissioned any study using MS's methodology?" It's simple really, because the methodology favors MS. For example, in this study, the Linux distributions were not upgraded via package management, but developer patches downloaded from 3rd party sites and manually backported into the previous software. Meanwhile, MS's software was upgraded by using MS supplied files, which they don't even recommend doing (they recommend to backup first, format, reinstall from scratch).
So in short, of course only MS would step up to the plate. Nobody else would shoot themselves in the foot by paying for MS's advertisement which is clearly only useful when they need to pull a figure out of somewhere without having to back it up but by mentioning the conclusion and not the methodology. MS wants to put forward conclusions they like with methodology they do not wish to discuss (or even plan properly). The methodology in this case is put up for anyone to look at, but MS is not focusing on it. After all it sounds better for MS to say "Windows is more reliable" than it is to say "Using vendor-provided software to update Windows software is easier than manually back-porting developer patches into older versions of Linux software" especially when such a statement would seem plausible other way around: "Using vendor-provided software to update Linux software is easier than manually back-porting developer patches into older versions of Windows software" and would be meaningless, because now you are not comparing which OS has the advantage but which method has the advantage (although it would not be possible to back-port the developer patches yourself in Windows, since you couldn't get them). This post was edited by Mister on Wednesday, November 16, 2005 at 17:36. |
| #4 By 3653 (68.52.61.116) at 11/16/2005 7:12:47 PM |
|
rather than take the easy out and pick apart the study...
why don't you do something useful and post some of the new and exciting studies that SHOW THE OPPOSITE. Feels like once a month we get an MSFT-sponsored study. But I either frequent the wrong sites, or there is very little in the way of non-MSFT-sponsored studies in these areas. Why aren't those delivered on a monthly basis too? msft is offering, but perhaps others are a bit scared of the potential results? http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,1995,1887887,00.asp?kc=MWRSS02129TX1K0000535 offered to the Open Source Development Labs, and now Novell and Red Hat. This post was edited by mooresa56 on Wednesday, November 16, 2005 at 20:38. |
| #5 By 39852 (207.164.28.14) at 11/17/2005 8:12:49 AM |
|
Why don't I? Because whether or not I post another study that can be debated to death, it won't change the points I have made. However it will allow you to avoid talking about the points I've made regarding the topic of the article.
Clearly there has been no unbiased study yet, so why allow MS to claim their study is unbiased? Posting yet another study will simply raise the question of the validity of that study. Instead we should be talking about the facts that make up the studies and not the conclusions themselves. Anyone can draw an uninformed conclusion. It's time to get informed, and the information here shows that software updates are different than backporting developer patches, not that Windows is more reliable than Linux. The fact that Windows and Linux were used in this study were incidental... You might as well have said backporting patches on OS/2 is longer than installing software updates on QNX and it would still give us the same information that MS's study has. This post was edited by Mister on Thursday, November 17, 2005 at 08:20. |
| #6 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 11/17/2005 2:13:51 PM |
|
http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS6557933549.html
|
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 146 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:32:36 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
