Main "Hating Microsoft in a nutshell" thread

[nextbillgates]

Windows 2003 Server:

Hardware Cost: $350 (Low End PC from Dell, meets recommended system requirements)
Software Cost: $600 (With 5 client licenses)
$250 (Guess for viable backup suite)
Labor: $375 (Windows setup will save me some time)
Support Costs $0 (We don't know it's going to break.

Total: $1575

Sooner or later business are going to figure this out as well. Some already have, and the more popularity Linux gains in the business world, the more this knowledge is going to go mainstream. I'm not talking about linux on the desktop or office packages for linux. I'm talking about network services like web servers, DNS servers, email servers, SQL servers, etc.

Granted I would never place either of these pieces of hardware in a business production environment. It is old and there is no redundancy. However I would use a used PowerEdge or similar. I can even go to a used low-end Compaq Proliant server to run linux, but not Windows Server 2003.

Well, let's try another example:

You are an administrator of a mission-critical server cluster that must remain up at all times. Suddenly and without warning, clients are no longer able to communicate with the cluster. There are no obvious problems in the logs or in the configuration, and you've tried everything you can think of. Every hour that this cluster is down costs the company hundreds of thousands of dollars. Everyone from the customer support techs to the executives are breathing down your neck.

In this situation, would you rather:

A) start Googling your brains out because you wanted to save money and went with a free, community supported OS.

B) spend $350 and have Microsoft solve the problem.

I don't think this a difficult decision

Windows Server 2003 is not targeted at Joe Power User who just wants a firewall and MP3 server. It's targeted at businesses who need a reliable server platform with the support of a major company behind it. When you put the price of Windows 2003 Server up against RHEL Server, Solaris, or any number of commercial Unices, Windows no longer seems so expensive. Keep this in mind next time you rant and rave about the cost of Windows

[mmills]

1st thing 1st anyone who charges an unrulley amount of cash for something thats limited to a basic operating system should be shot.
I am a dual boot user due to the fact that my wife cant use linux, or moreless refuses to use SUSE. The whole modem issue is crooked,
but he has his hand in everything.





Indiana Linux Society.
http://ils.t35.com
sllimm@sbcglobal.net


Suse 8.1, 120gig/60gig HD, Sony CRX225E, Shuttle AK39N, 512 400MHz

[Sepero]

Originally posted by nextbillgates
A) start Googling your brains out because you wanted to save money and went with a free, community supported OS.

B) spend $350 and have Microsoft solve the problem.

Or
C) spend $350 and have Redhat solve the problem.

[nextbillgates]

Originally posted by Sepero
Or
C) spend $350 and have Redhat solve the problem.

That's what I'd do

It's still just as expensive as a Microsoft solution, if not moreso

[andycrofts]

You are an administrator of a mission-critical server cluster that must remain up at all times. Suddenly and without warning, clients are no longer able to communicate with the cluster. There are no obvious problems in the logs or in the configuration, and you've tried everything you can think of

Well, if you're in the position of Sys. Admin. in this kinda company, then (whether you've used Linux or Windows) you will be good enough to fix it, or alternatively wheel the 'contingency plan' into place.

That, or you lied your face off on your Resumé....in which case, you deserve what you're gonna get.

Hypothetical arguments are all well-and-good in their place, but this one was created to force the reader into an impossible hole...

No flame, honest!

-Cheers
-Andy

[nextbillgates]

Originally posted by andycrofts
Well, if you're in the position of Sys. Admin. in this kinda company, then (whether you've used Linux or Windows) you will be good enough to fix it, or alternatively wheel the 'contingency plan' into place.

That, or you lied your face off on your Resumé....in which case, you deserve what you're gonna get.

Hypothetical arguments are all well-and-good in their place, but this one was created to force the reader into an impossible hole...

No flame, honest!

-Cheers
-Andy

And what would this "contingency plan" be, hmmm?

A failover cluster would be far more expensive than a support contract, and is yet another thing to maintain. You could restore the cluster to a known working state with backups, but you're still looking at at least several hours of downtime. You could have a single server temporarily replace the cluster until you get it working, but who's to say that the same thing that brought down the cluster won't kill the stand-alone server?

I don't know how you run your systems, but when I'm faced with a problem, I use all resources available to me. If Google doesn't turn up anything relevent, I could always get Microsoft/Red Hat/whoever on the phone and have them help solve the problem. It may take 5 minutes, or it may take 5 hours, but at least it will get solved. The last thing you want to tell your boss as the company's operation grinds to a halt is "I don't know what to do". I'm sure you can understand that

[blackbelt_jones]

A couple of weeks ago, I read a story in LINUX TODAY about a survey that Microsoft had been sending to certain LUGs and other Linux organizations. The drift of the questionaire was "How can we get your business?"

The same week, I looked into the possibility of getting a DSL connection for my box. It turns out that Versizon's DSL service is handled by MSN and so... guess what? DSL for Linux is not available.

And there you have it. The company that claims to want my business is, in effect, simultaneously boycotting my computer! This sort of disingenuous duplicity is representative of a company that simply does not deserve my business-- and is not to be trusted with what it wants, which is EVERYBODY's business.

[blackbelt_jones]

Originally posted by nextbillgates
Well, let's try another example:

You are an administrator of a mission-critical server cluster that must remain up at all times. Suddenly and without warning, clients are no longer able to communicate with the cluster. There are no obvious problems in the logs or in the configuration, and you've tried everything you can think of. Every hour that this cluster is down costs the company hundreds of thousands of dollars. Everyone from the customer support techs to the executives are breathing down your neck.

I

Nice hypothetical... but in the real world, Linux servers have proven to be far more stable and secure, Microsoft support has been reputed to SUCK (I wouldn't know) and this whole "Googling your brains out" options seems to assume that that there aren't trained and certified Linux tech support people out there. Guess what? There are, and there are more every year. Some of them are working for IBM-- a major company by anyone's standards, and in particular a company whose reputation for top-flight service and support have been established over generations.

In the future, it's going to be easier to find tech people with a deeper knowledge of Linux than is possible for Windows because what's inside Windows is secret. It's not uncommon to find people who know literally know their Linux systems inside and out because they have built their own systems from scratch.

There's no greater favor that you can do for cyberterrorists or mailicious hackers than to create a world where the entire information infrastructure is built on one operating system, because-- duh-- it'll only take one nasty virus to do huge damage. The world according to Microsoft is not a safe place, and I don't want to live there. Fortunately, it's beginning to look like I won't have to.

[hard candy]

Since it's cold outside, this may warm things up a bit:
"Wednesday, January 07th 04:08:13
Microsoft has launched a marketing assault on Linux, in a sign that the open-source solution may be a mounting threat to the company's server system sales.
Microsoft would not disclose how much it will spend on the campaign.

In the ads, Microsoft points readers to a Web site, titled Get the Facts on Windows and Linux, that contains research on the cost benefits of licensing Microsoft's Windows Server System versus a Linux-based solution. Much of the research has been commissioned by Microsoft"


Get The Facts

"In the past, when people were making decisions about Linux, it was more emotional like, 'I don't like Microsoft,' for example," said Martin Taylor, general manager of platform strategies for Microsoft.

"There's a lot of misconceptions in the marketplace around Linux, and this is our attempt to make sure people understand the facts around the total cost of ownership of Linux as it relates to Microsoft Windows," Taylor said."
"This is squarely aimed at companies considering Linux on servers," Helm said. "
The article

I love this quote from the small business case studies from the provider of the "solution":
"First, the initial lack of cost for the Linux operating system was overshadowed by the complexity and technical sophistication needed for effective setup and installation, as well as the need for greater technical knowledge for service and keeping up with OS updates. The ability to serve applications was compromised by the need to purchase application server software for Linux, plus the additional time and money required to integrate that software with the Linux OS. In comparison, application server functionality is built into the Windows Server operating system."
Excuse me, but doesn't the contractor set up the network to start? I thought the contractor usually provided a "turnkey" setup and the maintenance could be purchased as well. I'm sure they're charging for the windows network maintenance as well as licence renewals. I just don't get it. "License + maintenance > maintenance" -shouldn't this be true?

I guess it's just business as usual.

[trouble.ted]

my beef with M$ is is cost soo much. and it is always full of virus, and M$ corp. is trying to corner the market. Thats what makes me madd. Microsoft's problems are a product of thier own selfish Pride. I loot you ms, Have a virus free day Cornhole-oh!

[Sepero]

Originally posted by hard candy
Microsoft has launched a marketing assault on Linux

Sweeeeet!
OMG! I never thought MS would be this stupid! In case anyone doesn't know, MS hurt GNU/Linux the most when they completely ignored it. Now they are going to try and take it head on. GNU/Linux has hardly any advertising. Now MS is going to be introducing GNU/Linux to people that never heard of it. They will be advertising for us!!! Ha! I would have never believed it if I hadn't seen it. If anyone is still holding on to that MS stock, I recommend selling real soon, it's only going downhill from here...

[trouble.ted]

I agree, The message passed on to common folk is: M$ is sueing Linux because its Free, open, nothings hidden, can't be hacked as easily, Won't sue you for millions for license, just ask the town of Bloomington, Indiana. They are going to Linux because M$ sued them for going over thier license. Guess what M$ would probably want to sue me if I use the word"start Button" to the start application button in my FREE SuSE OS. opps too late I already renamed it, I geuss I just cost myself 130 dollars. Here ya go Billy............. SIKE!

[blackbelt_jones]

eweek published an article this week, inevitably titled "Get the FUD". Worth looking at for those who want to uhh... Get the facts. Can MS sue me for using their slogan?

WAR IS PEACE!
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY!
LINUX COSTS MORE THAN WINDOWS (in the long run)!

[je_fro]

"Embrace and Strangle"

Anyone else see a M$ distro in the works?

[Sepero]

Originally posted by je_fro
"Embrace and Strangle"

Anyone else see a M$ distro in the works?

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. If they were planning to switch to GNU/Linux, I seriously doubt that they would launching an 18 Month campaign agaist it. We probably won't see MS deploying GNU/Linux for quite a few years still.