| 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 |
 |
OSDL Answers Microsoft Claims | |
|
||
| Time: 14:14 EST/19:14 GMT | News Source: eWeek | Posted By: John Quigley | ||
|
Open source development labs is striking back at Microsoft and its Get the Facts research strategy with a 17-page report titled "Get the Truth on Linux Management" that challenges Microsoft's claims that Linux has a higher total cost of ownership and higher system management costs than Windows. Andi Mann, an analyst at Enterprise Management Associates, in Boulder, Colo., who conducted the research and wrote the report, told eWEEK in an interview that the study's overall conclusion is that Linux may, in many cases, be substantially less expensive to own than Windows. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 333 Last | Next |
The time now is
10:25:45 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 2/13/2006 2:32:45 PM |
|
I find this highly dubious since Microsoft didn't sponsor this study, and MS' studies are where you Get The Facts.
However, I can hardly wait for Parkkkker to twist his body like a contortionist to justify how MS is always the better choice before he degenerates into an anti-Firefox rant. |
| #2 By 32132 (142.32.208.238) at 2/13/2006 2:42:20 PM |
|
#1 If the report is made public, I'll rip it to shreds. I won't fall back on the OSS excuse that OSDL is a shill for Linux and couldn't tell the truth anytime, anywhere. That last bit may be true, but I won't use it.
"Three-quarters of Linux administrators surveyed said they can provision a system in less than an hour using sophisticated tools, while one-third can provision a system in less than 30 minutes." I can get Windows 2003 SP1 up and running in 30 minutes too. But since I don't deploy more than 5-10 servers a year, such time savings have little bearing on the overall cost of managing our infrasturcture. If thats actually the "key finding" I won't worry about the report swaying anybody but the OSS sheep. |
| #3 By 32132 (142.32.208.238) at 2/13/2006 2:44:28 PM |
|
"EMA's primary research involved a random sampling of several thousand IT organizations by telephone, as well as more than 100 selected Web respondents."
Latch was number 4,8,19 and 63 on that list of 100 "web respondents", so I'll take what they said with a big grain of salt. "Supplementing this research were in-depth interviews with 13 selected CIOs and IT managers" 13? Oh my! Thats a lot. Ha ha ha ha ha ha. |
| #4 By 32132 (142.32.208.238) at 2/13/2006 2:54:49 PM |
|
Found a copy:
http://www.levanta.com/linuxstudy/EMA_Levanta-Linux_RR.pdf "This study did not set out to compare the TCO of Linux directly against the TCO of Windows" Ooops. And when they do compare costs , THEY LIE: Page 11: Operating System Microsoft Windows Server 2003 R2, Enterprise Edition (Includes 25 CALs) $3,999 Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS 4.0 $1499 Its 1499 A YEAR for Red Hat you LYING WEASELS!!!! Web Server Microsoft ISA Server 2004 Enterprise Edition ($5999 per processor) $23,996 Apache/JBoss $0 ISA Server 2004 IS A FIREWALL you dumbasses!!! IIS 6 on Windows 2003 Webserver Edition is $399 to Enterprise Customers. What a bunch of dishonest weasels!!!! This post was edited by NotParker on Monday, February 13, 2006 at 14:57. |
| #5 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 2/13/2006 3:24:26 PM |
|
#4: hahahahahahahaha keep on spinning, Parrkkkker. Soon you'll be going fast enough to generate your own gravity, and then your dandruff can orbit you like small moons.
|
| #6 By 37 (68.190.87.184) at 2/13/2006 3:37:12 PM |
| Parker made some valid points latch. How about you attempt to dispute them instead of avoid them. |
| #7 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 2/13/2006 3:45:48 PM |
|
#6: Why should I? Parkkker never does when I put the hard questions to him. He just ignores them and then starts frothing about some nonsense that had already been debunked in previous threads.
|
| #8 By 32132 (142.32.208.238) at 2/13/2006 3:49:01 PM |
|
#7 Poor Latch. All his hopes and dreams invested in a bogus report from OSDL. Dashed to pieces.
|
| #9 By 16797 (69.156.55.87) at 2/13/2006 4:30:35 PM |
|
#7 ..because it's not about Parker?
How can anyone compare MS ISA Server to Apache/JBoss? That IS funny. Good job Parker. Again. This post was edited by gonzo on Monday, February 13, 2006 at 16:43. |
| #10 By 44670 (203.59.87.107) at 2/13/2006 9:17:02 PM |
|
If OSDL think Linux is so good, they should use it more themselves
http://interviews.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=177207&cid=14705517 Priceless ;) edit: >#4 >Found a copy >http://www.levanta.com/linuxstudy/EMA_Levanta-Linux_RR.pdf Even that was produced using Adobe InDesign CS2 which only runs on Windows or OS/X :) This post was edited by manesman on Monday, February 13, 2006 at 21:24. |
| #11 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 2/14/2006 8:32:11 AM |
|
#8: How exactly is the report bogus, Parkkker? Just because you say so? While I'm not familiar with RHAS pricing, I very much doubt it's $1500 per year. Or were you talking about the extended support? #8,9: perhaps for their test solution they wanted a firewall and caching server on the same box. Most Linux distros come with that already, but for Windows you have to buy expensive add-ons. #10: Open Source does not equal Linux. At least they're smart enough not to run Windows. Whoops, here's the next MS own-your-box exploit of the week: http://bink.nu/Article6177.bink But don't worry. It's only been known about for 7 months now. MS should have a fix ready any day/week/month/year now. But only if they're publicly embarrassed into making it. |
| #12 By 32132 (142.32.208.238) at 2/14/2006 11:33:14 AM |
|
#11 Latch, you are humiliating yourself even more.
It is 1499 for the version they described "perhaps for their test solution they wanted a firewall and caching server on the same box" Latch is trying for the Gold Medal in stupidity! The claimed ISA was a web server as anyone who looked at the report would know. They compared it to Apache/Jboss -- neither of which are [Firewalls] (delete web servers) And Windows 2003 does have a very good firewall built-in. You are pathetic Latch. As is the report. This post was edited by NotParker on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 at 13:58. |
| #13 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 2/14/2006 1:29:30 PM |
|
#12: Can you not read? I was questioning RHAS being $1500 PER YEAR, as per your claim. I don't believe this to be true. And as for your claim that Apache is not a web server, that should come as a surprise to the 70% of all websites running Apache httpd. You might be better understood if you'd take your foot out of your mouth.
|
| #14 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 2/14/2006 2:06:15 PM |
|
#13 "I was questioning RHAS being $1500 PER YEAR, as per your claim."
Go to their website if you don't believe me. Its 1499 a year for the mid-range version if you wish security patches (plus support). "And as for your claim that Apache is not a web server" So I mistyped web server instead of Firewall ... I've corrected it. It was OSDL's mistake in a published report that claimed ISA Server 2004 was a Web Server. But that fact stands, OSDL artificially inflated the price of a Windows Web/Application server by close to 30,000$ by claiming ISA Server 2004 was a Web Server and by insisting you needed Windows 2003 Server R2 Enterprise Edition with 25 CAL's to serve up web apps. You can in fact run IIS 6 (more secure than Apache) on Windows 2003 Web Edition for 399$, and choose to use MSDE or SQL 2005 Express for free, and use the .NET 2.0 Express Editions to develop your app for free if you choose to do so. If you choose to buy Visual Studio 2005 Standard or Pro or Team System, you could do that as well. You could use SQL 2005 Enterprise for free if you want to as well, but it isn't necessary. This post was edited by NotParker on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 at 14:06. |
| #15 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 2/14/2006 3:37:20 PM |
|
#14: So the $1500 per year is for optional support. You can apply your own patches without RH holding your hand.
I suspect they were trying to come up with a baseline rig for both platforms by using top-level offerings from both vendors. For instance, there's no need to spend $1500 on RHAS when you could run the same stuff with a number of other distros. You could even run it on CentOS which is basically RHAS compiled from source - for free. Maybe they're running ipchains and squid, and used the MS equivalent of ISA server to handle firewalling & proxy. Anyway, if that's the best you can do to shoot holes in it... |
| #16 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 2/14/2006 5:56:54 PM |
|
#15 If thats the best you can do to try and explain away such blatant dishonesty ... you lose.
Calling ISA Server 2004 a "Web Server" and claiming Microsofts "Web Server" costs 25,000 is ludicrous. |
| #17 By 16797 (69.156.52.200) at 2/14/2006 10:57:12 PM |
|
#11: perhaps for their test solution they wanted a firewall and caching server on the same box. Most Linux distros come with that already, but for Windows you have to buy expensive add-ons.
Really? Apache and JBoss are firewall and caching solutions? As Bush said once: Well.. yes, but no. :P |
| #18 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 2/17/2006 12:01:21 AM |
|
ok, it us a huge stretch..... but...the ref opposite ISA and "some" Apache implementations "is"
referencing ISA 2004 Standard and Enterprise Edition with SP/2 abilirty to support the requests for and responses to "Requests for Compressed" HTTP and HTTPS content. They are not even close and the guy - if he had ever configured either, would know that. In one sense alone, he was right - it was not about Firewalls of any type and anyone asserting that ISA Server 2004 is "just a firewall" hasn't a clue - while likely the best firewall [ICSA Group IV], it is so much more and with R2 it just slams, ROCKS, and OWNS any product line designed to support the real goal - advanced trusted environments - where the virtualization of the named space is much more about truly enabling file replication services - which with ISA and R2 is certainly much more than a name [DFS is now quite something]. That means that providing for REALITY - SMB business markets with small businesses of 25 50 people having two to threee offices vice one and enterprise-like needs for centralized management, access control and "KB" or controlling their own IP [property]. That's the real world - and opposite relatively weak, DSL or business cable circuits. So.... <read on> Microsoft added, with ISA 2004 SP/2 the ability to control such compression requests and responses for HTTP/S content on each interface and to control it opposite a number of variables. Unlike realtively simplistic capabilities in both Apache and II6 to compress HTTP content responses [Meta Data Explorer any one...any one...?], ISA 2004 with SP/2 adds a great ability to control compression - I have enabled it at home and for one client so far and brother does it ROCK! I have to say that again...IT ROCKS! Similarly, and even without WSUS running, ISA 2004 w/SP/2 adds the ability to cache Microsoft and Windows Updates - deamy little gem for SBS Premium guys without enough clients to justify WSUS, or for self-admins that really don't want to get into GPOM/GPO. They did this, so leveraging the virtualized named space using weak circuits would be possible and even small remote offices with 2-4 people in them could remain a part of the larger SMB network. It was/is brilliant! So, there you have it - the real lie and while we're at it.... the killer position favoring the real value and benefit of Microsoft over OSS/RHAS. Forget initial provisioning - try virtualizing multiple locations for a 40 person company across three states - try it using what they have - try it each way - OSS, then R2 with ISA 2004/SP2 - I will personally guarntee which is easier and less costly on day one and every second after. You can doubt me, but ask Steve White of Excell Communications if he'd ever dream of going back to Linux and away from me or the Microsoft software we use. He and his staff would run that person out of town on a rail. Oh, and note one other truth.... RHAS is "commercial" software in OSS clothing - and this proves it. Also, Bill Gates was right again, RH is a company and he can compete with companies. Forget the dribble in this article and examine the case I presented. It really is about the virtualization of the named space in "REAL" ways and not as DFS used to be known. It is about 40 something companies growing past 12-14 mil in gross revenue, to 25 mil and the rewards their principals that risked their homes and good names to build. RHAS hasn't even begun to address that - much less enable chump little companies like mine help men and women build truly secure, distributed and fast <enough> networks that one can afford to buy and also operate. I could kiss the faces of the devs for R2 and ISA 2004 SP2! |
| #19 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 2/17/2006 12:24:50 AM |
|
Oh...most important...what do you do with all of it - <see my post above> well, simple...
and here be the real meat.... You provide "Practical Business and Marketing Intelligence" - or, "Information that has personal and group relevance as appropriate, that may be used to a) make effective decisions, and or, b) conduct effective interventions." The secure virtualization I spoke of is the vehicle - it carries the work and or results of distributed work. Now the meat....SQL 2005 with WSS Web Parts Built in, leveraging SSRS 2005 [native to SQL 2005], that is used opposite existing line of business applications - say project manangement for multi-state, multi-site turn-key wireless communications tower engineering - to produce, "Finalized Business and Marketing Intelligence Products that can be actioned instantly - because.....they are connected to the personal productivity layer [Office 2003] and integrated to the messaging layer [Exchange 2003]. Get it? "PLATFORM" Final thoughts on this: Like it or not, Microsoft had a vision that it shared - it focused on the real and evolving needs of the business segment that employs over 90% of all people - the American SMB market. it built a platform of clients, servers and tools. It built some fun stuff, too - because we can't all work all the time. RHAS/OSS focused on Microsoft - just as the article reports. And any one wonders why, despite what they admit are areas that need work - security by evolving better ways to identify what one can, or cannot "Trust" - why Microsoft wins each and every round...? They focused on us - not their competitors. As I have said so often, "When in a race, drive your own car!" Until RHAS, or any other *Nix - including Apple, builds a platform that enables people like you and me [AWIN posters] to "deliver" or "extend" that platform, they will continue to lose to Microsoft - and they should, because that is "competition" |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 333 Last | Next |
The time now is
10:25:45 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
