| 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 |
 |
A new Microsoft-commissioned anti-Linux study debuts | |
|
||
| Time: 14:02 EST/19:02 GMT | News Source: ZDNet | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Microsoft seemingly has backed off from trumpeting its “Get the Facts” studies, as of late. But that doesn’t mean the company has ceased commissioning research outfits to perform its anti-Linux dirty work. On September 25, Mercer Management Consulting released a new Microsoft-backed study. The study is entitled “Driving Lower TCO and Rapid ROI through UNIX Migrations.” The synopsis: “Microsoft Windows the preferred choice for UNIX migration when IT organizations migrate servers as part of a focused effort to improve business processes, deploy critical applications or restructure their IT architecture.” | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 164 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:13:23 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 9/25/2006 2:21:55 PM |
|
"TCO and ROI numbers, like any data, can be tailored to prove a desired conclusion. I know I’d trust my IT administrator’s recommendations on technology more than those of an upper-level manager armed with a TCO study.
That said, just because a report is commissioned by Microsoft doesn’t mean it’s automatically bogus. But it definitely makes me more leery. Any other skeptics out there?" Well, duh. Those last two paragraphs say it all about this 'study'. And who is Mercer? Did IDC, Forrester and the Yankee Group all turn down the MS moola for fear of their reputations being further tattered? I wonder if they figured in all those nasty retraining costs in moving from Unix to Windows? MS' TCO studies always make Linux more expensive due to astronomical retraining costs. It goes both ways, does it not? |
| #2 By 32132 (142.32.208.238) at 9/25/2006 2:58:15 PM |
|
"the vast majority of companies who performed even moderately rigorous TCO (total cost of ownership) analysis made it clear that the risk-adjusted returns for migrations suggested Windows was often essentially a wash with Linux – and sometimes even advantaged – on total costs. As one executive told us, “we were, frankly, surprised that Linux and Windows provided about the same TCO, so we could make a strategic decision based on application availability and access to resources in the market.”"
Sure ... Linux seems to be cheap like Paris Hilton, and in reality it iturns out to be high maintenance too. "Of the 30 companies we talked to, many ended up moving to a Windows environment after doing rigorous analyses for risk-adjusted TCO, often to debunk conventional wisdom. Many companies not only did a TCO analysis and a performance analysis ahead of time but actually went back retrospectively and checked to see whether those numbers proved themselves. We did have a couple of companies that said they achieved all of the performance levels that they had anticipated, and they had either met or exceeded their cost numbers. Again, this has been borne out by companies in large-scale implementations today. Our study participants also pointed out that the Windows platform is a lower-risk solution than Linux around a few dimensions. First, it offers access to skill sets and capabilities, both partner and internally hired. Second, it offers “future-proofing” around applications in particular, meaning it prevents companies from getting locked into a limited set of applications as their business changes. Lastly, the Windows platform offers robust tool availability for things like systems management and so forth." I think the Munich disaster is making companies look really hard at many of the Linux myths. Great study. Of course coffee girl would argue that Linux is cheapr to run on his PIII-500. But seriously, what would he know about running enterprise class applications on real servers. |
| #3 By 32132 (142.32.208.238) at 9/25/2006 3:02:12 PM |
|
"When IT executives conducted significant and robust TCO and ROI analysis, they were more likely to turn toward Windows, and, in instances where more junior resources were making tactical decisions without rigorous analysis, they often turned to Linux."
You know the OSS fudsters are losing it when they attack a study that recommends robust TCO and ROI analysis before making a decision. |
| #4 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 9/25/2006 3:24:24 PM |
|
#2: Wow, one anonymous executive said that? Sign me up! And just curious, but how many is 'many ' in the whopping 30 companies they talked to? btw when you keep quoting from the purchased 'study', it means nothing. "MS-bought study says MS awesome in every way! Film at 11"
#3: There go those phantom IT executives again. See the point I made above about quoting from the article being debated. And what Munich disaster are you referring to? The one where they say everything is oging great, you know, the one where I totally shut you down here: http://www.activewin.com/awin/comments.asp?HeadlineIndex=36561&Group=1 That one? I didn't read the study but I'm curious if they included the costs of cleaning up malware/virus attacks that Windows seems to suffer from on a all-too-regular basis. It's been well documented that MS always skips over that phase of the TCO/ROI analysis for some unknown reason that I couldn't possibly imagine. |
| #5 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 9/25/2006 3:42:00 PM |
|
I didn't read the study but I'm curious if they included the costs of cleaning up malware/virus attacks that Windows seems to suffer from on a all-too-regular basis. It's been well documented that MS always skips over that phase of the TCO/ROI analysis for some unknown reason that I couldn't possibly imagine.
Perhaps it's because a well-run Windows shop doesn't have those issues. purchased 'study,' it means nothing QED. Don't even need to look at the evidence. The only study I'll trust is one that commissions itself. |
| #6 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 9/25/2006 4:04:18 PM |
| #5: With zero-day exploits that own your box on a fully patched system, I doubt that's the case. As for the study itself, I might be inclined to give any other company the benefit of the doubt. However, MS has had all of its other bought studies debunked as FUD so I doubt this one is any different. |
| #7 By 32132 (142.32.208.238) at 9/25/2006 6:31:50 PM |
|
#4 The evidence made it clear that Munich is going to cost 12 million more for a Linux solution than a Windows solution.
And Munich is 3 years behind. And still hasn't migrated more than 100 desktops. #5 "The only study I'll trust is one that commissions itself." That deserves its own T-shirt. #6 "With zero-day exploits that own your box on a fully patched system, I doubt that's the case." If you are using IE on a server to view Russian porn instead of running Microsoft Update, you deserve problems. This post was edited by NotParker on Monday, September 25, 2006 at 18:33. |
| #8 By 7754 (65.27.90.2) at 9/25/2006 7:06:44 PM |
| #6: Nope, that's the case. Make the change to non-admin users, and those problems are gone. |
| #9 By 15406 (24.43.125.29) at 9/25/2006 8:46:27 PM |
|
#7: Munich is being thorough albeit slow, and the plan was to do all the servers first. Workstations were to be done later. As for them willing to spend $12 million more to get away from Microsoft, that does certainly speak volumes, doesn't it?
You should read the news sometime. Some major sites have been hacked and are infecting IE visitors with that new hole. #8: While this is true, for a lot of companies it's either impractical or inconvenient enough that they don't. It's easy to lock down standard users without impacting them at all, try that with engineering staff or senior management. |
| #10 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 9/25/2006 10:38:43 PM |
|
"that does certainly speak volumes, doesn't it"
It does. Fanaticism tends to make people impractical. Paying 50% more for less productivity and higher maintenance costs is a waste of taxpayers money. And the original plan actually calls for them to run Windows on VMware for 4-5 years, so the "migration" to Linux is a total sham. |
| #11 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 9/25/2006 11:18:29 PM |
|
Latch, the guys here referring to, "a well run windows environment" are not concerned with
zero day exploits in the same context as you present them... instead, they have fully expected them, and run both edge and host protections that sandbox everything - they immunize systems and run true prevent-like technologies that isolate and inspect traffic - they run back to back firewalls and they begin dumping mal-ware well beyond the perimeter of their networks. Those firewalls run packages that start scrubbing long before memory based host scanners look yet again... and well before any client, which is also protected applies its own sandbox scanners. They also actively admin their networks and work to provide education to users of all types. Those users and their systems are managed by leaders - young and not so young. Users run as standard users and GPO is used throughout. All policies are centrally managed and these admins stay ahead of the game and continuously research their craft and the environment - that is why they are here - to stay current and maintain their relevance. In other words, mal-ware is, and has been for years, a managed issue that in any context, is really no big deal - they are ahead of it and they treat whipping its ass as a matter of continuous course. Microsoft is aware of this and is aware that good system and network admins run, or at least set up nearly all networks. As I have said before, the admins posting here do not need Microsoft, or any operating system manufacturer to manage or secure their systems. To Microsoft's great credit, they have made it very easy to build and sustain secure systems and networks. The have also supported a very active, aggressive and highly effective base of partners working the security side of the equation. ***I worry far more about my routers and edge firewall appliances than I do Microsoft servers and clients and I am certain the MS centric admins here feel the same way. We come here to stay current and to share experiences and on occasion, defend common sense. Why do you come - seriously? Why - as a point of curiosity, why? To tell us all how jacked up were are? Dude, we're just trying to make a living by adding some incremental benefit to the lives of people and the businesses they work in. I mean, there are plenty of *nix locals for you to share ideas on. More than anything, your remarks remind me of why I use MS software and why it is so valuable to smile and remain courteous - even when one does not feel quite up to it. "Always with the negative vibes... [for Kelley's Heroes fans out there..]?" |
| #12 By 8273 (24.17.214.18) at 9/26/2006 1:43:01 AM |
| Latch, let me ask you something - have you ever written any code for, provided support for, re-sell, or provide resources for (such as server hosting or maintence, etc.) open source? Or are you just a user? Just interested in your involvement with the OSS community. |
| #13 By 2960 (68.101.39.180) at 9/26/2006 8:35:43 AM |
|
"I didn't read the study but I'm curious if they included the costs of cleaning up malware/virus attacks that Windows seems to suffer from on a all-too-regular basis. It's been well documented that MS always skips over that phase of the TCO/ROI analysis for some unknown reason that I couldn't possibly imagine.
Perhaps it's because a well-run Windows shop doesn't have those issues. " Horsepuckies. |
| #14 By 47914 (24.225.231.107) at 9/26/2006 9:38:52 AM |
|
#1 "I know I’d trust my IT administrator’s recommendations on technology more than those of an upper-level manager armed with a TCO study."
Really? If the upper level mgr is Financial, he/she should be trusted more, since most non-financial types (including IT mgrs) don't really understand total overhead costs fully in my experience. |
| #15 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 9/26/2006 10:20:49 AM |
|
Horsepuckies.
Well... for our company, I can tell you that we've spent zero minutes cleaning up machines from a malware infection since we implemented that change. Unless you count the time it takes to renew our anti-virus subscription.... Like lketchum said, there is more to a well-run shop than that--we do some work with GPOs and whatnot. But I guarantee you that the biggest bang-for-the-buck security improvement you can make for your workstations is to make the change to standard user accounts. |
| #16 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 9/26/2006 10:23:31 AM |
|
#10: So Munich are fanatics are they? Anyone who doesn't sell their soul to Microsoft is a fanatic? You sure do have a charming way with words. You can make fun of it all you want, but it's going forward and it will be an example to others that it can be done. MS tried hard to not have a precedent set for leaving MS and all their nonsense behind, but they lost.
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39283603,00.htm #11: Just like most of us here are in the top 99th percentile of computer users compared to the global whole, I suspect that well-admined companies are in the bottom 1 percent. Otherwise we wouldn't be seeing stuff like last summer's worm attack that hit major TV networks, capitol hill, DHS, etc. Do these places not have well-run Windows environments? I guess not. #12: I'm just a user. While I have developed professionally under WIndows, I've never done anything under OSS. At home I run Windows and Linux. I'm not sure how that's relevant, but there you go. |
| #17 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 9/26/2006 10:49:06 AM |
|
While this is true, for a lot of companies it's either impractical or inconvenient enough that they don't. It's easy to lock down standard users without impacting them at all, try that with engineering staff or senior management.
I guess that's their call... but going through this process before, I'd bet that it's more about unwillingness to make the change than anything. These are best practices, not just niceties. Someone needs to step up to the plate and say, hey, we're doing this, and we're going to make it work. And honestly, if they have a problem with malware, which is more inconvenient, not to mention costly? Show the cost benefits to senior management, and you'll see how fast they're on board. There are a few different ways to do it, and it really isn't all that hard. When you build your workstation image, you deal with your applications one at a time. I have not encountered a situation yet where an application couldn't be made to work in a standard user account scenario. But even if that change is not feasible in the short-term, go after the biggest risks and tackle those. Like Parkkker pointed out, you can set up Internet Explorer to run with low privileges even if the logged-in user has admin rights--something that even the engineering and dev folks can appreciate. For the dev folks that need a workstation with full access for testing purposes or whatever, VMware or Virtual PC/Server are a real time-saver even apart from the malware standpoint. Or, perhaps give them a separate local admin account they can access using RunAs. And simple things like limiting write access to the Run registry keys--a very easy task that you can script--can have a huge impact. There are a multitude of ways to mitigate the risks just on the workstation side even if you can't make the switch to standard user accounts. If you switched to Linux/UNIX, you'd be in the same boat... I mean, you're not going to let those users run as root, are you? |
| #18 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 9/26/2006 11:04:35 AM |
| One of the ideas we implimented at my workplace is that everytime someone logs into our domain, the logon script checks the McAfee virus signature. If it is more than 3 versions out of date, we run the superdat. If that doesn't succeed, we pop up a message for the user to contact the helpdesk and then shutdown the PC. |
| #19 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 9/26/2006 11:10:54 AM |
|
#17: Inertia is a powerful thing. The user access model Vista is using has been used by Unix for 30+ years so it's a cultural difference. *nix user are used to not running as root. Whether MS made a poor decision making the default user an administrator is debatable as they helped make computing easier than it was back then. However, the effect of this decision has been ingrained in every Windows user, and to some extent developers too. Without even knowing it, every Windows user is used to running as admin. Some software, especially games, don't deal with user permissions and non-admin users too well. While I whole-heartedly support user access control, there will be a long transition period where people will grumble while getting used to it. Maybe another decade will go by before all the dust settles.
|
| #20 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 9/26/2006 6:46:46 PM |
|
#18, Excellent example - and there are a great many more - "Connectoids" for example, which can hold specific user traffic outside the network UNTIL a user is compliant [ISA 2004, 2006 and veyr easy to implement]. Content repositories and update policies that poll systems and silently push down updates and policy is the answer. It is not new - it is not expensive and it works. Most vendors, using the API's supplied to them by Microsoft, have succeeded in building highly effective and easy to use solutions that are entirely transparent to users.
#19, there is a huge opportunity you are missing... "Sell hardware as a service" it is so much like and related to migration services - it means the admin sets up the system end to end. In such cases, the end user will hardly ever see a UAC event. Further, UAC in Vista is very clever - it learns and it becomes less pervasive after just a shorty while. As to examples of some companies and orgranization doing it all wrong and being "hit" as you say... well, each of them features one very difficult thing "Principal Leaders" who insist on running machines as an admin, because they want that full control - however, they do not want to take the time to really how to do that safely, or execute "Run as...." elevations. These leaders set a bad example, and they are all over business and government where they make the decision to hazard themselves and their enterprises. They are also [sadly] middle aged males who for whatever reason, also surf adult content sites all too regularly. They are not the norm, but because they have such strong influence in their organizations, they expose themselves and their businesses. My gripes with Vista do persist however... it is just too pretty for anyone who wants a very minimalized environment and I sure didn't need Microsoft to secure it [the OS]. While I appreciate that, I do reason it diminishes all of us - sort of the way kids playgrounds are all padded and stupid proof. I sense were are removing any sense of individual responsibility. A quote that is emerging as my favorite: "Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny. Free men pull in all kinds of directions – while simultaneously working to help all, and hurt none…” If that were your arguement for OSS, Latch, I could find some basis to agree with you - but it isn't - you seem to simply wish to toss stones at us all. I mean so far, your case is based upon a company [Microsoft] being imperfect.... Well.. duh! What, or who is? At least they work to make things better and they focus on that and not OSS, or anyone else. OSS needs to focus on building its own platform - rather than as you do, point fingers at Microsoft and its partners. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 164 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:13:23 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
