Microsoft has opened up a new front against Linux with a series of events around Britain in which UK companies are invited to take part in what the company calls 'an open and honest technology discussion' about open-source software.
ZDNet UK met with senior Microsoft executives at the first of the '20:20 Seminar Series' and would encourage IT managers and directors to get along to one of the remaining three events (which are being held in Edinburgh, Manchester and Newport - full details below).
To encourage an open and honest debate, we've compiled a list of questions that emerged from the first meeting. If you can't make it to one of the 20:20 events, perhaps you could put them to the next Microsoft salesman you speak to.
1: Total cost of ownership
Microsoft is vulnerable to the claim that deploying Linux must be cheaper than Windows because it charges a licence fee for Windows while open-source software is, well, free. It now points to research conducted by IDC in 2002 that found that systems running on open-source software can cost more than Windows in terms of service and management costs over the lifetime of their deployment. You might ask:
When Microsoft says that choosing open-source software is "by no means a certain way of lowering whole lifetime costs", does that claim include projections for the damage that will be caused by vulnerabilities and security holes in Windows that haven't yet been discovered?
2: Support and maintenance
Microsoft is also keen to point out that there are more than 450,000 Microsoft Certified Software Engineers worldwide, which it says means a better support network than is possible with Linux. If you think there's a lack of support in the open-source community, you might ask:
Can Microsoft cite an example of a Linux project that was delayed because of a shortage of staff?
3: Interoperability
Microsoft says that Windows is a great choice for desktops because it supports an 'ecosystem' of desktop applications such as Word, PowerPoint and Excel, and fits well with Microsoft's server software. However, many open-source applications also work perfectly well as replacements to Microsoft's own apps. Some experts say that deploying these programs can be a good first step in a long-term migration to Linux. You might ask:
Why shouldn't I replace Microsoft Office with Open Office, or Internet Explorer with Mozilla? Won't this work as an excellent first step towards full-scale open source deployment, given Microsoft's commitment to openness and interoperability?
4: Deal cost
Journalists who attended last week's 20:20 Seminar Series Event were presented with a long list of 'customer success stories' -- examples of companies who have recently chosen to deploy Microsoft software.
One of these was the London Borough of Newham, which has upgraded its desktop and server infrastructure. After a long consultation process, Newham eventually decided that Microsoft offered better value than open source.
Microsoft is trumpeting this win, claiming that Newham may make double the productivity savings than if it had chosen Linux instead.
Talkback
I am sorry to have to be the one to break your bubble about Linux being more secure than Windows.... But when you mentioned this:
"How many of the viruses that have hit the Internet this year have taken advantage of vulnerabilities in Linux? "
You should very well know that not even 1 percent of the worlds PC's run any type of Linux operating system, as compared to Microsoft's Windows, which runs on more than 90% of PCs around the world.
The reason Microsoft has more security threats is because with more than 500 million people using Microsoft Windows, it is the major target for virus developers and hackers because of the obvious reason, more impact.
Why would anyone care (except for hackers who are dedicated to have something hacked) to make a virus for Linux when they can make an impact that would be 90 times bigger, on an operating system such as Windows?
By the way, considering the fact that Microsoft Windows is closed-source, if Linux were to go mainstream, as you clearly recommend, anyone who can issue a couple programming commands would be able to find flaws in the open-source Linux software. So, in reality, if Linux had 90% of the operating system market we would be having hundreds "critical" updates being released by our vendors and community support. That's if all of that is possible to manage.
Hackers and virus makers manage to find a way to discover exploits on a closed-source system, just imagine if they had the source code to Windows. Because in this case, they have the source code to Linux.
Thank you.
Mike
That isn't true. Windows isn't secure and it has taken all these years for it to admit it has a security problem in the first place. Windows gets hacked more often because it's easier to hack. People using dial-up connections can't even update their systems properly and that is Microsoft's fault, they have always known about this. The patch system for Windows today requires over 35 megs of downloads on a new XP machine out of the box. Some of these updates make using the PC troublesome. The only reason Linux is gaining popularity is because Windows isn't the product as advertised. 99% can use Linux and Open Office and never need Windows.
Oh, and something I forgot to mention: the fact that the Linux code is open-source, is actually an advantage.
When a bug is found... It's fixed immediately.
When a bug is found in Microsoft, it takes months or years before the problem is addressed.
i'm sorry Mike, but you need to learn and use Linux to start talking about, i use Windows and i had lots of messages like you win a trip and shit like that while i work on internet explorer or a nice windows with a message wich says save your work because microsoft windows is going to restart in ## seconds %windri%\%systemdir%\application.exe do not close correctly.
Tools to remove sasser blaster or same threats dont work at all the times...
Linux is the kind of operating system that has such legendary stability, that when code is discovered that can actually crash the machine, ie lock up - (Blue Screen Of Death to win32 users), it makes headline news.
The general response from the linux community will be a source code patch in a 2Kb download (fairly quick on a dial-up) sometimes within hours.
On another note, I think Microsoft are helping the 'Snowball' effect of Linux with these seminars. It's free advertising for the Linux Companies. The computer people who are looking at getting the latest OS for their networks will want to see how much Microsoft is prepared to admit about the advantages of using Linux.
It is up to Microsoft to be HONEST about the FACTS for their own credibility when discussing Linux.
"You should very well know that not even 1 percent of the worlds PC's run any type of Linux operating system, as compared to Microsoft's Windows, which runs on more than 90% of PCs around the world."
This line of reasoning is flawed at best. Apache runs on ~70% of all Internet hosting servers yet there have only been a handful of remote compromises in its history. Further, Linux runs on most of these servers so there is an ample supply of Linux machines to target on the Internet. If your argument was valid, we should see that Apache (esp. Apache on Linux) would be ravaged by worms and trojans but it isn't. Quite the opposite, actually as IIS continues to be the web server target of choice. (Just to clarify: I'm not talking about defacements here but exploitable conditions that lead to system compromise.)
Also, almost 80% of the world's DNS servers run BIND or some other open source program. If market share is the determining factor for targeting by virus/worms, shouldn't the Internet be down for long periods of time since the "bad guys" have the source for these critical Internet infrastructure machines? (http://dwheeler.com/oss_fs_why.html)
Anyway, just how many computers would you consider an acceptable number? There are many millions of computers connected to the Internet and even at a paltry 5% share, there is still more than enough computers to wreak havoc on the Internet. (which, by the way, is probably closer to a real number for Linux computers in use as a desktop OS. It's a whole other issue on how market share is determined to which the propagation of Linux does not lend well for counting.).
The reason these computers are not attacked large scale is the difficulty in their exploitation. Most of these machines are setup to where none of the Internet facing services have any "rights" on the host computer. Even if exploited, there would still need to be a secondary attack to provide any real access to the host machine (such as a local privilege escalation attack). MS's OS's, until recently, had no way to separate the the "root" privileges from the service. So if you exploit the service, you gain system compromising capabilities. Because most of the conditions on Windows were trivial and easy to exploit, Windows became the preferred target.
"So, in reality, if Linux had 90% of the operating system market we would be having hundreds "critical" updates being released by our vendors and community support."
It's important to separate "Linux the OS" from "Linux the kernel" and compare apples to apples here. If you think there would be hundreds of critical updates on just the Linux kernel, you would be mistaken (there haven't been hundreds of updates in the 12 year history of the kernel). Now, if you are speaking about "Linux the OS," that would be equateable to Microsoft and the security advisories of the companies with the next 5000 most popular applications. When Red Hat (or any Linux vendor) issues an advisory, 95% of the time, it is an application included in the distribution and not the Linux kernel itself. So, if you added up all the advisories issued from MS and Intuit and Adobe and Macromedia.... Well, you should be catching my drift here...
"Hackers and virus makers manage to find a way to discover exploits on a closed-source system, just imagine if they had the source code to Windows. Because in this case, they have the source code to Linux."
Well, some crackers and virus writers do have some of the source to Windows (http://www.harper.no/valery/CommentView,guid,d82a41c8-14ba-4b7c-b6a2-876cbcf0d460.aspx). Further, MS's own management says that it can't release source code because there are vulnerabilities so serious, it would compromise the security of the OS ( http://www3.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?doc_cd=106790). At least with Linux, the source is out there and yet somehow, it's not been exploited anywhere close to the numbers of Windows.
No OS is perfectly secure.
All these arguments about security and which OS is better at what are all very well and quite informative.
However, the fact remains that the primary reason I would switch to Linux (given the time - there's one downfall of any switch) is not because I prefer Linux, but because I prefer *not* to use Microsoft.
Now this is purely a personal decision - not one founded on economics. But I frankly don't much care for the antics of monopolistic companies like Microsoft.
Right now, Linux or Mac OS are the only viable alternatives to me and I'd rather not change my hardware again, so Linux it would be. I would actually rather return to RISC OS, but it is too much of a niche OS for my liking these days.
There is much ignorance about the issue of Linux and security.
The case scenario pointed here about 70% of web-servers running Apache but only a few sucessful worms just states how the "but if more people ran Linux..." is very flawed.
On top of that Apache is a server.
Linux Client machines (non-servers) just won't be able to catch and spread viruses - let alone worms. Compare that with a Windows machine (not running as a server) is so vulnerable even connecting to the Internet is sufficient to catch something nasty.
Having said all that - I do not recommend Linux for fools. Keep your Windows, your Office and Outlook. It''s interesting watching these masochists losing precious data, and having their documents corrupted (or worse having their PC easily hacked) when using Windows. People abhor using their brains.
Actually, its the arrogant attitude of superiority given off by the Henry G.'s of the world that turns me off to Linux. That and the entire Viral GPL / near-religious politcal zealotry of its adherents and their crusade against business in general.
If you are using a CURRENT and patched version of windows and your Windows desktop / server crashed as often as some linux users claim,you are either A) a liar with an agenda, B) Incommpetent at installation / configuration / hardware compatibility, C) Have incompetent IT departments doing setups or D) haven't touched windows since Win98 (not SE) and are pushing dated info.
I've not see this constant crash phenomenon the field since 98 (original, not SE) / ME / NT3.5-4.0...and yes, the crashes all the time charges were 100% accurate when applied to Win95 / Win98 / ME NT3.5 / NT4.0. With XP Corp / W2K (desktop and server) and W2K3, linuxites are blowing smoke up our collective asses when they point to frequent crashes...they just do not happen to reasonably skilled IT personnel that take the time to learn how to install, configure and administer properly.
Do I like Microsoft's pricing....no. Do I like Microsoft's business methods....no. But it is an OS, not a political statement. Would I inflict a geek OS on my end users....no. Would I try a new OS at some point....yes, as long as it is FULLY GUI based and not tied to a political statement like the GPL and is supported by a real business.
This article is interestingly biased towards Linux Zealots....:)
Like many many people out in the REAL IT world we use Microsoft desktops...sure there are patches for it all the time....but if you set it up correctly you can get around that....well a little anyway..using SUS.
I like Anons. comments...show ANYONE in my company (35,000 + users) Linux desktops & they would simply laugh at Linux...it looks terrible...has little or no business software (yes yes we know about openoffice)....it sucks...fact!
In its current revs ( OMG - how many different version of the same thing are there? - way too many) it will never gain a big share from MS....
...and back to the Zealot on the root not being touched....once your code is open source...people can poke around & will find ways to get round & hack.....
It seems that price & security are the main reasons for going to Linux... ..Price..yeah.....Security...I don't buy it.......If someone finds a bug in MS it's on the news.....on Linux it quietly finds it's way into the next core....
there will always be vulnerabilities, in Linux or MS...
enough ranting...I need to go find some software......click run done in MS......er, find, download, er compile, er error...er support? nuff said.
....perhaps in the future when a lot of work with the GUI has been done & linux runs MS software :) and you don't have to recompile every goddam thing you download.....maybe then I'll switch :-P
...and to reply to those that say NT/2K server etc crashes all the time ....LOL...go back to school & learn how to be a better admin.
haha this is getting funny.
Whoever posted this and didn’t see the MS vs. Linux battle coming? :)
I particularly like comments where ppl say they wont switch OS because it's not entirely GUI driven. Absolutely insane. Microsoft has a lot to answer for. BTW, are all MS products entirely GUI driven? Ever used NTDSUTIL, CSVDE or LDIFDE in a GUI? The point is if you get technical with any OS, your gonna need something a little more low level, unless your on a helpdesk :P
People forget that IT is a science, it's not supposed to be fluffy and easy. It is (supposed to be) an elite profession that provides unlimited learning upon existing related knowledge - for those ppl that are interested in learning. Where's the satisfaction in commissioning and administering an MS OS? Its all wizards and ambiguous tickboxes.
IT today is too full of those who complain as soon as something difficult turns up, and those who lack the discipline of methodical, clear thought.
Personally, I am far from a Linux guru, but it really isn't that difficult - providing you can read and apply a little generic IT knowledge.
This is a crazy article, so obviously biased that it isn't really worth the web space. What we need from news organisations is something objective and independant, not this sort of frenzied nonsense.
I agree with John Allen. This article was poorly grounded and written as if it was to be posted in one of the Linux advocacy news groups.
This is not the standard of journalism I have come to expect from ZDNet. Please don't let it happen again.
I use a mixture of Linux and Windows at home, I use each for what it/supporting software does best.
Apart from the occassional crash, Windows XP has been reliable, just a couple of games have pushed the video drivers too hard and cause it to blue screen or instantaneously reboot.
Likewise, my Linux boxes sit in the corner and chug away, and apart from the odd Kernel patch, don't need rebooting.
I would say Windows XP crashes more often than SuSE Linux or IPCop (firewall), but there again, I could probably count the Windows crashes per month on the fingers of one hand. IPCop has been running for 5 months since the last reboot, and that was because I went away for a month and switched it off!
l use both Windows and Linux daily. I have switched to Kontact for my e-mail, not only doesn't it support VBScript, it displays HTML e-mails as source code, with a button to render the HTML if you want - although if somebody can't say it in plain text, then I probably don't want to hear it ;-)
For the guy who said the Linux GUI looks horrible, he is right, the default skin on SuSE now looks a lot like XP, which looks like a kids Lego box. I changed my XP back to the "classic" and use one of the alternate skins on SuSE.
Sigh...
It's a straightforward article really. Ask real-life though questions when confronted with FUD. It's as simple as that.
This Microsoft Roadshow is nothing more then FUD. So why do some (perhaps with commercial motivations?) try to counter-act with more FUD?
Answer: they don't know any better and hope that their FUD will fool you to spend even more budget dollars on their "great" advise.
What has that done for you in the last past 10 years? Ever increasing budget demands, more overhead, more problems, more comprimises and less security.
Their answer? Spend more, restrict more, comprimise more and swallow a lot. Granted, most have already become used to that.
However, if you can't see it's time for something else by now then you're obviously in the wrong job...
Then again, anyone who doesn't know any better would disagree with the above. Question is, would you want to employ one of those? And do you think your competition will?
I especially like the usual FUD response: "if you know what you're doing then Windows is safe". Yeah, at what price, time frame, effort, (business) risk, etc.? Usually followed by the remark: "Windows is easy, just click, run and ready". Yeah, just as easy as how to secure it, right? Not!
Or, "it's Microsoft's IP and market demand will solve all". Yeah, as if no choice will lead to choice somehow. Simply ask your CEO what kind of power he wishes the company would have if he could make anything happen and then how he would like to be on the receiving end of that once it would be the case. Most likely is that you won't get a honest answer.
Any fool can succesfully toast your Windows environment. Hackers and your trusted administrators and employees alike. Plenty of click, run and ready tools around to achieve just that. And yes, this includes using various products as they're supposed to be used.
Sure, Windows environments can be made safe. But do you know how? Do you have the budget for it? Do you have the stomach for it? Would you like to work at such a place? Can you maintain that level of security for several years without having to rewrite prognosed budget expectations? Will your competitors do the same?
In you answer "no" or "maybe" to anyone of these questions then it's time to look around. There's always more then one way to solve a problem. One only needs to be creative and innovative enough. Question is, are you for the amount of salary (or fee) you're receiving?
To Anonymous USA, the network administrator.
We are talking about computer networks.
You obviously do not administer a windows network, that is one that has power connected to it.
Anonymous people, have something to hide.
eg Microsoft employees
Don't forget to ask about the cost of CAL
(client access licenses)! They really add up!
You need one for each client who access
a file or email server, and who knows what else...
Not to mention, on the interoperability front
Can Microsoft cite a single example where a Linux vendor placed spurious error messages into their product to provide the illusion of a problem with 3rd-party products?
I like the idea that one linux club came up with. They made a couple thousand copys of linux distro's and stood outside the MS sideshow and gave them to people as they entered. Even if all you could afford was a couple hundred cd's... whynot.<br>
As far as the security is concerned... I really like MS products, I made my living teaching people to use Office products. But, I am glad I am not MS and having to deal with such crap as the OS's of theirs. I don't hate them, I pity the poor (oops wrong word) fools. They will either fix all the holes in their bucket or they will eventually fall to linux or some dependable OS. There has to be something better, as for me I use both linux and MS (2/95 machines 4/xp 1/linux server 1/linux desktop), so I hope they eventually get their act together. I refuse to fight over someone else's problematic OS. Anyway the tickets to this show are real cheap..<br>
bye now
Since we seem to be having a Linux Vs Windows debate...
The standard Linux GUIs are awful, even the ones made up to look like a windows desktop are nasty to look at. And thats just what they look like. Actually using a program to change settings in Linux can take forever if you dont know what you're looking for. It might be fine for the professionals and those who have used Linux for a long time (lets face it you can always drop back to the command line), but Linux will never gain a large share of the desktop market whilst it is this badly laid out. Windows on the other hand looks fine (not great), and is generally very easy to use (if it was always very easy to use then I wouldnt ever have to use RegEdit or TweekXP).
And I dont care what any of you say, Windows XP is stable... My desktop was rebooted a total of 10 times in the last year and a half. A few of those occasions were from installing drivers and software (annoying that I had to reboot, but they werent crashes), and the rest I will admit were probably Windows having a stroppy moment after I've been using it to do a thousand things at once.
I used to have Linux installed as well... It was a pain in the proverbial, since drivers for half of my hardware werent available or were buggy (my screen for instance used to go blocky, my modem didnt work at all, and it was never worth the effort of switching my printer on). I'd like to think that I tried my hardest to get everything to work, and being a CompSci student who needs to know about Linux and Unix, I put all of my skills into experimenting with settings and software to fix the numerous problems I was having. Needless to say I couldnt do it, and therefore I'm back on Windows, where everything works and I dont have to make compromises...
My point is, that Windows is more user friendly, and therefore will have the larger market share in the desktop world until the Linux GUI is redesigned from scratch and hopefully not cocked up this time. In the meantim, Linux and all other open-source stuff is easier to patch, slightly more stable, and has a large support community through the internet so can continue it's dominance in the server market until Microsoft start coding their O/S better.
Until then, as a home user I will be continuing to use Windows XP, which I find to be fantasticly stable, easy to use and a nice to look at.
Oh, and to illustrate my point about the User Interface...
http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cups-horror.html
I realise it's about a professional, and an issue that most ordinary people will never have, but similar stuff happens to beginners all the time with much simpler issues. I'm not a beginner on computers in general, and in fact not even on Unix, but hey, someone has to point out that ease of use *does* have an effect on how much an operating system is liked.
I am going to introduce you all to a concept that is far-reaching and beyond comprehension: Business User Buy-in = IT dept's existence.
Without business users, and without business user buy in, IT dept's get fired or worse, made a whipping boy. Anon, Network Admin USA is the only person I have seen make a reference to business users.
Let's face a fact. No user truly gives a shit what an IT boffin thinks about security, GUI, kernel, root, Apache, IIS, etc; what they care about is that things work, things are easy to use, things deliver what they need to and that there is some entity (be it Microsoft or someone else) accountable for the product. When all of the above criterion are met, users are happy. Remember, their jobs use IT, but are not IT! If users are happy, IT departments get to live another day. Unless you live in a dream world, IT is merely a service provider in the majority of the world's industry. They are not a profit centre for the large part, but rather a COST centre. And, without their users, they don't exist.
So, enough of the techno-babble and face this fact; if Linux is better prove it by getting your users to buy in; not by attacking Windows. If Windows is the option, criticise the product, work to improve it and stop being sissies and whining! BUT, YOUR BUSINESS USERS ARE THE KINGS, NOT YOU! Without them, none of us matter!
And finally, enough complaining about Microsoft. Monopolistic overtones or not, they are free to practise business the way they see fit and there are laws and rules in place to punish them if they go awry. But, tell me one for profit company in the world who would not go to all lenghts to protect its revenues and increase its profits. Your personal business opinions should not be the basis for judging what product is best for your business users and ultimately your organisation.
Companies are made up of real human beings - a corporation is not an animate object that acts of its own accord - it is the people there who create its culture. So by having a go at MS, you have a go at 55,000 people you actually don't know and more importantly, you get jack-shit done.
I am neither a proponent of Windows or Linux; merely a user who gets fed up with IT debating amongst themeslves what is best for me! Ask me, I am your customer; I will tel you what I want and you tell me the best way to deliver that at the best cost and with the lowest TCO and risk and have someone whom I can hold accountable for when it goes wrong, then I am a happy user and won't block IT from getting more funds for the next fiscal year.
After reading these messages, you see M$ shills spitting the same old FUD:
XP stable - sure, use Notepad and it won't crash. The guy who posted that said he had to reboot 10 times mostly due to software drivers. Newsflash: you shoudn't need to reboot to intstall drivers, period.
The rest is the usual stuff about "nice GUI interface", "use what works", yada, yada. GUI looks are a matter of opinion, so I won't go there; but the "Windows works and I have support" is just plain silly. If something does a better job for less, you should switch. M$ support is a joke, time after time the Linux community proves its support is way better than M$. Oh, and please read M$'s EULA before using the argument of having someone to sue, you will be surprised. If you think Linux is hard, it because:
1. You are used to 'Doze. Just as speaking anew language, the process can be hard but the rewards are much greater.
2. Maybe IT just isn't your field, deal with it and get some help. LUGs are a great source.
Linux and Open Source is the future, you M$ shills will be dinasours unless you learn more practical skills.
Wow Derek. Spokken like someone who chooses something because it "looks pretty". I hate getting involved in these rants because you will always have your fanatics. Windows versu Linux, Mac versus PC, Look versus Functionality. If your fine with Windows, Stick with Windows. If you long to get more out of your computer and OS, try Linux, you might actually enjoy it. I switched to Linux because I was tired of having to constantly wonder when the next virus would be released and just the normal BS of wanting to configure the OS. Linux = change a text file, MS = try to find the configuration file, run it and hope THEY let you change what you want. I wanted to be in control of my OS and Computer. You evidently haven't spent a lot of time researching your Buisness App claim. Open office, sure it doesn't look as pretty as MS Office, but it works just as good, and ITS FREE, not $350. Oh, and that buisness software you can't find...its free too. Maybe not in cost, but you want to make a small change to the program to customize it for your buisness...no problem...just get the source. you want to make a code change to MS...good luck. It all about choice. you can choose to be happy with MS or you can choose to actually "see how far the rabbit hole goes". Linux is what you make it. I have made my choice. If I can help open someones eyes to the fact that yes, you are the master of your computer then I have done my job. Good Luck with Microsoft.
Just a response to Kiko's message....
"Newsflash: you shoudn't need to reboot to intstall drivers, period. " <- You're right, I shouldnt have to reboot, but I also shouldnt have to compile files, move them into a specific folder and then recompile again... (Redhat have been working on ways to stop users having to do this, though I suspect that once it happens, current Linux users will start complaining that it's too easy to do stuff).
"M$ support is a joke" <- have you ever used the MS Knowledge base? It's fantastic... Maybe not quite as good as searching the entire web for a forum of Linux users and then posting your problem, but certainly damn good.
"You are used to 'Doze. Just as speaking anew language, the process can be hard but the rewards are much greater. " <- The point with software (and the website I posted pointed this out) is that if it's difficult to learn and/or use, then it has been badly designed. Linux is difficult to learn, and most of the Linux community freely admits this (Redhat ,again, are getting better at designing their programs). Until Linux is easy to learn, it cant take off in a big way.
"Maybe IT just isn't your field, deal with it and get some help." <- this reads an awful lot like, "no matter how much you know about IT, if you cant use Linux you're dumb"... So we're back to throwing insults...
"Linux and Open Source is the future" <- It's something all IT proffesionals should at least have experience with even now... However, it doesnt mean that we all have to use it. The same goes for Windows, everyone should have experience of it, but if they dont like it, then they should find something they do like and stop bitching.
"you M$ shills will be dinasours unless you learn more practical skills" <- Define "practical skills" for me... If you mean we all have to go back to the command line, fine... I'm comfortable with Unix and DOS commands, and again all IT professionals should have experience of using them. If you mean we need to learn how to solve problems, then surely as "inferior" Windows users, we've come across several million problems to solve already (I havent, but thats because I can use a PC). If you mean we should learn how to program, well I dont see how that should be a requirement to using an OS... (I can program in C, C++, Java, Basic, QBasic, and thats before we get onto stuff like JavaScript, HTML and PHP <- I'm reasonable at these, but still learning).
I'm gonna stop arguing now and go to the beach, but I'll come back later expecting some sort of retort insulting me as a Windows User, or Java programmer... Just so long as we can all bear in mind that at the end of the day each individual has a choice of which OS they use, and I choose Windows...
<- have you ever used the MS Knowledge base? It's fantastic... Maybe not quite as good as searching the entire web for a forum of Linux users and then posting your problem, but certainly damn good.
Since when? News flash Mr Student. As an IT Professional, anytime something needs to be fixed because of all of the issues that Microsoft has a hole here or a inconsistancy there with thier own software or OS..
When you do search it in the knowledgebase, its try these 25 same articles or it just takes hours of weeding though the knowledgebase and ending up in an area that is not even close to what the issue is and finding it there. This may work as a student, but as a professional this does not. We are not paid to search on something that Microsoft should of fixed before it went out the door. With all that money they should be able to develop a very nice OS and not so many security holes, and/or bugs.
Granted not all coding is completly full proof but there is something called a Development Process that involves testers to send the code back to development when it doesn't work or shows a hole. Any company that had as much patches as Microsoft does would be out of business.
Response to Ben Noble -
I believe your aversion to GUIs in Linux stems from the your comfort with Windows. A GUI in Linux can be varied depending on what window manager you use, what desktop environment if you use one at all, and widget set. Some GUIs (not a great term but to not introduce too many new terms) try to emulate a Windows environment (XPDE), others a Windows environment with customizability (KDE), a Windows-like environment but going for high usability and having things "just work" (GNOME), and others nothing like Windows at all (Fluxbox). Still others try to get rid of the mouse altogether (ratpoison). The point of all this is that if you use a graphical environment in Linux it will not be Windows. Repeat, it will not be Windows. So you must learn the environment first. The most important thing is that you the user have a choice on what environment to use, unlike Windows where you're stuck with Explorer unless you go for somewhat unstable hacks and overlays.
And not all Linux GUIs are ugly; check out http://www.dropline.net/gnome/optical/dropline-3.png. And even if it is ugly, it is the user who has made that decision. Some environments go for substance over style (ratpoison again). So instead of critizing trivial things such as the way things look, focus on more important aspects of the OS.
Ben Noble - As for example provided...
It is not about GUIs, it is about CUPS, a printing system. Printing in Linux is difficult because only a few printer companies have released Linux drivers. The rest of the drivers have to be reverse engeneered. But there is more to it than that: there are filter, formats, and other stuff that has to be done before a page can be sent to the printer. CUPS attempts to make all of that easier. Now the example you provided critiques not the CUPS supplied GUI (that is web-based) but one provided by Red Hat. So the author of the article is attacking the wrong people when he says, "The CUPS people, despite good intentions, have utterly failed at this." Now, I'm not defending the GUI, just reducing the power of the argument somewhat; you don't critisize the coffee company if the coffee maker you used is crap (unless the coffee company made the maker as well). Next the guy says the GUI designers should probe the local network for printers. What if the network is 5000 printers large (like at some college campuses)? It would certainly take a long time; so much time Aunt Tilly might try to close the GUI (and therefore the process) thinking everything hung. Next he talks about /printers/queue1 like he's never seen it before. He talks about ssh yet he doesn't know about Linux device handling? It sounds like he's trying to run before he can walk. I don't want to use up any more of your time by having you read this so I'll close with this:
Your example had more to do with the author's frustration at a 3rd party GUI than it did when it came to GUIs in general, and the author could have gone to LinuxQuestions.org and found multitudes of help on this problem. Instead, he keeps his pride and tries to muscle his way through instead of asking questions and learning. Everybody needs to do this with an OS. Imagine your first time using Windows.
Mike believes that the "reason Microsoft has more security threats is because with more than 500 million people using Microsoft Windows, it is the major target for virus developers and hackers because of the obvious reason, more impact."
So, let's see another example:
Apache has 67% of the web server market, and Microsoft only 21%. In this case open source is more popular, but still more secure and reliable than the proprietary competitor.
In other words, this is not a Windows vs. Linux comparison, but Open Source vs. Proprietary Software -- and open source *is* more secure.
I have used Windows 95, NT, 98, NT4, 98se, Me, 2000, XP... Office 95, 97, Me, 2000, XP... I have programmed in VB3, VB4, VB5, VB6...
Eventually, I found something better. It's time to stop. Microsoft, I'm leaving you here.
Hmm, I use both. I've been around personal computers for a long time, and I don't see why people get into tirades about such things. There are so many more important issues in life...
I have a Gentoo Linux box, and prefer the control and stability for the applications I run on it (web serving, email routing, network stuff).
I use Windows boxes of many varieties. I haven't found a good bookeeping system yet on Linux (it's not GnuCash), and this is a major breaking point. Also, I would not like the challenge of converting my coworkers to a different operating system than the one they're used to.
Most of the software I use is available on either platform; Firefox, Thunderbird, Open Office. I like free (as in beer and speech) software, and have found mostly (there are exceptions) that it's easier to find help.
The nutty comments in here about security are definitely from people who don't actually deal with it on their own computers. It's a concern on every platform, and a pain to keep up with.
No, Linux is not automatically secure, you have to keep up with the changes. But at least the code is open, and many times an update is available before someone's exploited it. And updates are small and plentiful; easy to do, but gotta do 'em often. Plus you have to learn much more about the system to do security right; but at least the options and documentation aren't usually hidden.
M$ has a tendency to let loose security updates in large batches, so I monitor the web and usenet for postings of problems people encounter, try to get the update file while zillions others do at the same time, and play Russian Roullette with the computers while installing them.
So there ya go. Put aside your zealotry and open your mind. Micro$oft isn't going away, and Linux doesn't really care. It's not a race to own the desktop.
It's all about what you want to do. Do you need some guy in a monkey suit to tell you?
Dear: Ben Noble
I would like to thank you, I find your comment inspiring and uplifting.
If your the competition in the computer science field I should have a job directly after graduation.
OK now then.
Everything has it's place in the IT industry. Linux runs servers beautifully. Microsoft right now does s better End-User job on the desktop. Visual Basic is perfect for little stuff to please the managerial staff. Java and C++ works better for those releasable programs which need to be polished and perfect. ASP is great for certain things, but some things just run better through PHP. There's always choices in any field. their all tools. STAY OFF YOUR HIGH HORSE AND USE THE BEST TOOL FOR THE JOB. Or you might not have that job very much longer.
"My point is, that Windows is more user friendly, and therefore will have the larger market share in the desktop world until the Linux GUI is redesigned from scratch and hopefully not cocked up this time. In the meantim, Linux and all other open-source stuff is easier to patch, slightly more stable, and has a large support community through the internet so can continue it's dominance in the server market until Microsoft start coding their O/S better. "
I've felt the need to repeat this paragraph from one of my earlier comments, as I dont think any of you are actually reading it... I'm fairly certain that most of what I have written is unbiased, that paragraph definately suggests that both Windows and Linux have problems, and each have their uses in industry.
Admittedly I may have gone off on a Windows is good tangent, but thats because it is good... And I havent wandered off on a Linux is bad line either, cause it isnt... It's stable, and good for people who have the time and patience to look through Windows which are often cluttered (and yes I know what word XP looks like if you enable all of the tool bars...)
Essentially, to make the most out of both operating systems takes effort.
I just read this web page:
http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/facts/default.asp
It has errors in almost every part of it and here's why.
Most Linux operating systems are available for free to download and install. But, I paid $6.00 US for a set of disks which I used to install Linux. The install took me 30 minutes and was error-free - and I didn't have to "activate" or "register" anything.
When I found that I could do everything with my new Linux OS that I was doing with WindowsXP (and more), I promptly threw my WindowsXP disks in the trash and have never looked back.
Linux is easier to run and use than WindowsXP ever was. Linux is faster as well. And I can install my new Linux OS on thousands of computers, give away copies to my friends and family, get into the source code and change things around to suit my needs, write my own programs, etc., and no one is going to care.
That was last year. Since then, I have been running Linux, setting up and running servers and firewalls, writing my own apps, and am learning how to create my own Linux distro. My total expense to-date has been the original $6.00 US plus $20.00 US for blank CDR/RW disks which I use to keep my source code on.
I had been using Windows since Windows 95 came out and I upgraded to Windows 98 and Win98 SE and then to WindowsXP when those operating systems first appeared to the public. And it cost me a fortune.
I have learned more about computers and software since I installed Linux than I ever learned while using Windows OS's.
Total Costs:
with Windows OS: $500.00 + continual problems due to virii/worms/trojans/etc. + upgrade costs for new versions of the OS.
with Linux OS: $26.00 (never had a virus/worm/trojan/etc. problem and OS upgrades and enhancements are free for life)
Anyone who says that Linux costs more to own and operate needs to have their head examined. I can see now why Microsoft is starting to fear Linux.
I predict that Microsoft products aren't even going to be in demand in a few years.
* How many Linux machines have been zombied by Netsky, Sasser, MyDoom, or similar worms? Do your Windows TCO estimates include administrator time spent cleaning up after these infestations?
* Can you explain why Windows IIS websites are cracked or defaced more often than Apache ones, despite the fact that IIS runs less than a third the number of sites Apache does?
*Is Microsoft willing to add a hold-harmless clause to Shared Source licenses that protects shared-source licensees against being sued by Microsoft for alleged IP violations related to the software? If not, then please explain again how Shared Source is just the same as open source?
Sincerely,
Ex-Windows User that has turned to Linux.
It's just beginning!
I'd like to tell microsoft a idea i had and was thinking you guys mite be abal to help.
Hey Michael Kingston!
You should check your facts before posting such crap to these forums. Linux runs on better than 3% of the desktop market (just about on par with mac or slightly above) and was on well over 25% of the new servers shipped last year. Check this link out Mr. CEO (http://linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reports/5381/1/). The article is over a year old so it UNDERREPORTS Linux's market penetration. If you're really a CEO you should no doubt be interested in finding out why IDC projects that Linux's share of the server market will continue to grow.
Also, your bizare comment about microsoft software being more secure is just a reference to the 'security though obscurity' concept that is so often warned against by security professionals. You know, professionals - people who actually know what they're talking about and don't just spue non-sense they read in a newsweek article bought and payed for by MS. If you want proof just take a look at PGP Inc.'s policy with respect to their cryptography code here: (http://www.pgp.com/downloads/sourcecode/index.html). That's right, buddy, they make it freely and PUBLICLY available for peer review so that any flaws in the code can be found and fixed. So unless you think you know more about software and systems security than the cryptographers at PGP, the countless developers working on Linux and the IT security community in general than you should retract you comment about closed source being more secure than open source - thats just as inane as it is insane.
Do us all a favor and get your facts straight before you post anything else here.
we have been using the internet and this sign about a erro keeps coming up it said to tall microsoft so i am even when we put a disc on to our cd-rom it still comes up please can you do some thing about this 5thank you
this is the first time ive posted here, i dont know if you need to quote people or whatnot.. but the comment about windows having more security problems because it is more common!? what kind of reasoning is that? sure if you are talking about script kids trying to break into as many computers in a day as they can, that makes sense.. but, on the other hand, if you are talking about people really getting in and FINDING exploits the figures always show that there are far fewer in the linux world.. and in converse to your reasoning that is purely BECAUSE it is open source.. it is surely analogous to an open society having less to fear because everybody already knows what is going on and is able to combat problems head on, as opposed to a completely closed system where people are left in the dark and hoping that the problem will be fixed in the next automatic update (which will probably break more than it fixes).
Site - very comprehensive and meticulous from all points of view, it’s good!
Just excellent website, I'm sure!
<a href='http://phentermine.pharmacy-on-line.org/buy-phentermine.html' >Buy Phentermine</a>
<a href='http://phentermine.pharmacy-on-line.org/phentermine-diet-pill.html' >Phentermine Diet Pill</a>
<a href='http://phentermine.pharmacy-on-line.org/phentermine-online.html' >Phentermine Online</a>
<a href='http://phentermine.pharmacy-on-line.org/cheap-phentermine.html' >Cheap Phentermine</a>
http://phentermine.pharmacy-on-line.org/buy-phentermine.html
http://phentermine.pharmacy-on-line.org/phentermine-diet-pill.html
http://phentermine.pharmacy-on-line.org/phentermine-online.html
http://phentermine.pharmacy-on-line.org/cheap-phentermine.html