Training
In the section of the email on TCO, Ballmer also raised issues of the cost and availability of trained Linux resources to support Linux deployments, citing a Forrester Report, from early 2004, entitled The Costs and Risks of Open Source.
The Microsoft chief executive claimed Forrester found that training for IT employees was 15 percent more expensive for Linux than for Windows due to a lack of internal knowledge and a lack of availability of training materials.
But according to Novell's Hogan, the Forrester report also states that the added training costs for Linux are transitory and will reduce as companies gain more experience with the OS.
Security
The Ballmer memo also quotes data from a Forrester study entitled Is Linux More Secure than Windows?. It states that according to the analysts' study the four major Linux distributions have a higher incidence and severity of vulnerabilities, and are slower than Microsoft to provide security updates.
Representatives from Red Hat, Novell and Mandrakesoft claim the Forrester report was flawed.
Earlier this summer, Mark Cox from Red Hat's security response team told ZDNet UK that his firm had worked closely with Forrester, and that these findings were flawed because the analyst group had just taken a simple average of the data.
"An average is not representative. Red Hat fixes issues which other operating systems wouldn't fix, such as temporary file vulnerabilities," said Cox, adding that the report also failed to take into account the severity of the issues.
"A vulnerability which could allow a remote attack on Windows was considered in the same light as a file vulnerability on Linux which makes the system slow down," said Cox.
Novell's Hogan agrees with Cox that the report fails to take into account severity. "Mr Ballmer failed to mention that the study found Microsoft had the highest number of critical flaws," he says.
Hogan also says that the study measured the time to fix a flaw from the time it is made public, which is different for Microsoft and open source. "In open source, this is immediate, so a fix can be generated quickly. Microsoft delays making the existence of a flaw known as long as possible, unless your company has signed a special non-disclosure agreement with them," he says.
Talkback
I wonder if MS calcuated the time/cost of the Windows tweaking as part of the TCO. If they did not it is more than deceptive, it's an outright lie.
After reading Mr. Ballmer's claims I can only conclude:
1. Mr. Ballmer has fear, an enormous fear.
2. Mr. Ballmer thinks customers are stupids. They do not know how to add and substract, that's the reason why they are not aware of JUST THE FACTS. (in another circumstances this would be comic, in these, this is pathetic)
3. You, Mr. Ballmer, can not hide the sun with your thumb. If your products are so wonderful, they will sell by themselves. They shouldn't need from your wisdom to illuminate people about JUST THE FACTS.
Please, Mr. Ballmer, stop this cheap marketing strategy of FUD. I wish you and Mr. Gates to duplicate or triplicate your personal fortunes!, but for your own good: try to not think customers are stupids, because, after this sort of claims coming from you, the only gay that appear to be stupid are you.
Post scriptum: When I use the word "stupid" is in the clinical sense, so please, no hard feelings.
Yours very truly,
Andrés González Cantú
Use free software. Use GNU/Linux.
Ballmer says MS has the shortest average time from the announcement of a security hole to the release of its patch.
That's statement is true. Unfortunately it misrepresents the reality.
Security holes in the Linux kernel and in Linux applications are announced *immediately* upon discovery, and posted to "bugzillas", along with demonstration scripts, so that users are immediately informed and can test their installations and take precautionary measures.
Microsoft, on the other hand, has forced security organizations to inform only them and not the general public. Microsoft has sat on some security holes for months, only to "announce" the hole the same day they release the patch. Worse, they attempt to generate upgrade revenues on their applications holes by not patching holes found in older products. Meanwhile, consumers use their Windows platform and products unware that they are placing their personal information at severe risk by connecting to the Internet.
Fortunately, Microsoft has been less than forthcoming *so often* on so many holes, that consumers are voting with their feet and moving to FireFox in HUGE numbers!
When the dog barks, it is afraid of something, like what Baldmer is doing now!
For all open-source lovers.
I wish that number of Linux and Windows desktops in the world be 50/50.
In that case the number of hackers will be as well 50/50. So far Linux has been used only by developers, which would never admit any flaw on that perfect system, but only try to hack Windows systems, used on 98% of computers.
Yes, use Linux everyone and spend 50% of your free time trying to figure out how to do simple things, which you used to do with just one click on Windows.
The last comments sound like something that someone who either works for Microsoft or has never tried open source would say. I have had several computer novices give different pieces of open source software, commonly OOo and Mozilla offerings but also Linux, a shot. The most common response is that the open source software is actually easier to use and more intuitive than the Microsoft products. As for security, if you are so sure a 50/50 mix would render open source software so much less secure than Microsoft's offerings, why is Apache - which has a majority share of the market - more secure than Microsoft's counterpart offering?
I've helped people with both Open source and MS software. What people usually find most annoying is when they ask for help with a MS product, a lot of the answers they get say "switch to linux" and vice versa. Maybe if more tech savvy people actualy helped others with what they actually asked for help with, more people might be open to trying the other product. Then they can make up their mind on what works best for them.
Software is a tool. Use the one that works best for what you're using it for. Hype like "rock solid linux" and "MS is easier to use" just convince most people that they can't trust anybody to give them helpful advice.
This shows how unstable the Microsoft Corporation is. Whithlies and lies again they try to maintiain the marketshare. last report did show a 11% growh of the company. The one before 20%. What we will see next is 5% then -5%. And then the stock will fall like a rock.
Microsoft have not shown any kind of willingness to compete fair in anyway in the business. This makes the future LOSER in the market. This 'get tthe fact' campaign is just bullshit whithout even overdoingit.
In Europe , Asia whole countries are leaving the Microsoft OS for better alternatives like Linux/mac/Free BSD and other. Even EU have a plan to leave Microsoft as a customer. And it gets worse. USA's defence have already left Microsoft behind and have installed Linux to save moey and to be more secure.
So the conclusion is that this is the beginning of the END of Microsoft. If you own any stock sell them now before it is too late. Next year the real Desktop take over begins. And thats the nail in the coffin.
Open source is good, but tell us more
http://comment.zdnet.co.uk/other/0,39020682,39171751,00.htm
I will honestly never know why Microsoft wants to destroy the competition with back-handed, false lies in smear campaign adverts, than try to make a product that can fairly rival the competiton. I think it cost too much to take WiMP out of Windows XP for the UK to make a decent version of Windows...
Microsoft products are perhaps more "convienent",which is one large security flaw. When I first started using Linux, I had to get used to root passwords, and account passwords(very annoying). I do confess however that I do not miss having my virus program(Windows XP) telling me it has detected a virus and then my PC crashing anyway. I don't miss the constant nagging of windows popping up messages that insults my intelligence. TCO I cannot comment on. With Linux I have found that the TPM(Total Peace of Mind) during the mydoom attacks and other attacks too numerous to remember when my co-workers had down PC's(lost revenue) they were relieved to learn I still had uncorrupted data on that "strange system I use". I feel with the fast progress Linux is making, Microsoft is uneasy.
My boss just bought an WinXP powered laptop, and tried to install antivirus software on it. The time he established the connection and downloaded the updates, the laptop was infected with Sasser... Gasp. My linuxbox is acting as a firewall at home and since 3 years of ADSL connection, no hacking and no crash. Where is the security mister Ballmer ? In a software than can't stay reliabily conected for 10 minutes ?
Microsofts' 'get the facts' URL needs a redirection to:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3600724.stm
PERIOD.
In response to Anonymous and his remark that you can spend 50% of your time trying to figure out Linux:
God forbid that you would actually have learn something in order to be secure and productive. This argument is usually put forth by incompetant visual basic users who read a "Learn Visual Basic in 21 days" and decided to call themselves experts. Or worse yet, MCSE's who have no real understanding of basic Computer Science concepts.
The truth of the matter is: How much time do you spend rebooting, applying 50+ security patches, waiting for Windows just to start, installing Adaware detectors, spyware detectors, updating your virus signature, dealing with viruses, dealing with pop-ups, defraging your hard disk, RE-Installing, activating, and all the other fun things that come with windows.