|
DeFUDding LinuxInsider's Latest on TCO |
|
Saturday, July 02 2005 @ 04:00 PM EDT
|
I think LinuxInsider has been misnamed. Clearly they hate Linux enough that they scour the world looking for anti-Linux material. Consequently, I think we should come up with a new name for them. My offering is LinuxBasher. That is at least accurate. Or how about Linux"Insider"? If you can come up with something more elegant, go ahead.
Today's Exhibit A is a masterpiece of FUD, titled:
"Open Source: High Costs Mean Low Uptake for Linux." It's a reprint from China Daily.
Oooh. Sounds bad, no? But let's read the article and examine what it really says, and what it doesn't.
First, it's talking only about China, and there are some local factors there that factor in. Also,
the same research firm found: - Linux TCO is lower than Windows on web servers.
- TCO is the same on network servers.
- Linux is projected to grow in China by 35% this year, "creating a big opportunity for the country's software industry."
All of that is in the same research report. Why isn't any of that headline-worthy in an entity calling itself LinuxInsider? Where does the choice of the headline they chose come from, then, if not anti-Linux bias?
The TCO is higher currently for Linux than for Windows, because "unlike Western countries, the cost of buying operating systems accounts for a very small portion of the total costs in China, at only 8.3 percent." I believe you can figure out what that means for yourself. The word starts with a "P", if you are the BSA. So the headline could be: "TCO Higher for Windows Than for Linux Even When Comparing Linux with Pirated Windows". Doesn't sound so bad for Linux now, does it? It's just as accurate as the other, meaning it isn't, because it doesn't tell all the story but just cherry picks what is pro-Linux, just like Linux"Insider" picks only what is anti-Linux. Anyway, the only person I know who thinks the most important thing about FOSS is "free as in beer" is Jonathan Schwartz, and you *know* when it comes to Linux and "free as in freedom," he doesn't have a clue. Studies I've seen indicate that what people care about the most is security and not being stuck with Microsoft. Some folks don't trust them. Go figure. What I care about most is freedom, meaning I can do whatever I want with the code, that I "own" the software if it is GPL code, in the sense that no one can tell me what I can and can't do with it on my own computer. It's the difference between owning your own home and just renting.
That reminds me. I'm sure I'll be getting apologies from everyone who said I was mistaken when I said Sun was not a friend of Linux a couple of years ago. Was I "biased"? Or was I just right? I have heard from a lot of readers on this point, actually, which I appreciate. Same with the recent big win for IBM against SCO on SCO's attempt to amend the complaint to add claims about Project Monterey and AIX on Power. I called that one too. Was I "biased" when I did so? Prejudiced against SCO? Or was I just right? In both cases, I called it like it was. Seeing something clearly and having solid, fact-based reasons for your opinion isn't prejudice, despite SCO's antiGroklaw FUD.
The point of the article is that there is a worry uptake could slow down if the universities in China don't start teaching Linux. It seems they don't, so it is harder there than in the US or Europe or elsewhere to find qualified engineers. By all means, they should teach Linux.
Here are some more points I see in the article:
1. The higher TCO is mainly from a lack of applications available for Linux, they claim, so users have to pay engineers to write them for them. I can't imagine what those might be, because the article doesn't say, but it may be specialized apps or it could be lack of awareness of what is available. That is a valid issue, the lack of specialty apps, which is why I want to do a Knoppix distro for lawyers. We're setting up a Wiki for that in due time. Lots going on behind the scenes, trying to get it off the ground. By the way, there is a nice article on using Knoppix and Mandriva Move in an article, "Scaredy Cats' Introduction to Linux," written by a Windows using guy who gave it a try and liked it and was nice enough to write down carefully everything he did. The point is this: because of GNU/Linux licenses, you can write whatever you want, and once it's written, that is the end of the expense for you. It's a one-time expense, and then you are free forever from the upgrade cycle and the license hustle proprietary software likes to keep running on you. Well, it's more like you are running, like a gerbil on a pet wheel, because you never actually get anywhere. If you wish to keep your code in-house and secret, you can, as long as you don't distribute it merged with any GPL code you might have used. But if you are smart, you can donate your code back to the common pool of GPL code, if you wish, so the community can tweak it and extend it for you, and that is how development rapidly solves problems in FOSS. One should never underestimate the benefit the GPL provides of ensuring that code, once written by anyone, is written for everyone, so if one person writes speciality code and releases it under the GPL, no one else ever has to write it again, unlike in the proprietary world where you have many programmers imprisoned in secret vaults all over the place reinventing the wheel over and over again, because they aren't allowed to share knowledge.
2. Windows is cheaper on mail servers and file/print servers, they say. They claim that the TCO is 41.3 percent higher on application and database servers. *Database* servers? Puh-lease. This can only be ignorance. Ignorance is a fixable problem.
3. Another reason costs in China are higher, they say, is because users are not yet as familiar with Linux as with Windows, which is also a fixable problem in short order, and so for now they have to hire support services to keep their Linux systems running "stably". That too is a one-time cost. Once you learn, you have it solved. They have no blue screen of death issues in Windows? No need for support? No issues with viruses and spyware and malware of various kinds in Windows? No costs associated with having to buy firewalls and antivirus and antispyware applications? They did figure that in, didn't they? No? And no matter what you do, do you ever get those problems permanently solved? There is an article on security issues in Linux and Windows, showing that Linux is by far superior. Of course you can't find it on Linux"Insider". But you can find it on OSDir.com's Spoolfeed. It has this: Recent U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team (CERT) vulnerability metrics reported 250 episodes for Microsoft Windows, 39 of these having a severity rating of 40 or greater. With Red Hat Linux there were only 46 episodes, of which only with only 3 scored over 40. There are thousands of reports that compare the two operating systems but reports like this by an independent government body, on the relative number of critical flaws between them, should be given greatest consideration. No one in China has spread the word that there is free support on the internet for GNU/Linux? Maybe the Internet scares them. It could explain why there is such a low level of skills in GNU/Linux systems there. But on the point of support, I suggest you read Brian Proffitt's report on Linux Today, Microsoft Support? Ha! Better Use Linux Instead
, on his experience trying to fix a Windows box and a Linux box. They both went out on him at the same time. It's instructive.
4. The results reported come from one analyst house in all of China, CCW Research. I haven't had time to check yet, but let's look for ties to you know who. They are certainly on message, on Microsoft's "Get the Facts" message. Excuse my paranoia, but I just read Joe Barr's latest on Microsoft paying journalists after the fact to use their FUD on their website, "The facts behind the 'Get the Facts' ad campaign". It seems any journalist or researcher can cash in by writing something Microsoft might wish to display on its web site. Pay for journalism being what it is, that is quite a temptation, I would imagine. Here's what Barr found out: Not long ago, a story and subsequent discussion on Slashdot revealed that one of the latest additions to the GtF -- a biased "study" which supposedly shows disinterest in Linux in the enterprise -- was being taken at face value, exactly as Microsoft intended it to be. Never mind that study's author had twisted the facts and inserted his pro-Redmond bias at every opportunity, as was revealed in a story right here on NewsForge several weeks earlier. The study -- which in fact shows Linux is continuing to penetrate deeper into the heart of Microsoft turf -- was cited on Slashdot as evidence that the GtF campaign was working, and that Linux was losing.
What I didn't know at the time that story was written was that the Info-Tech report was paid for by Microsoft -- just not up front, as in the "funded" reports Microsoft has used before. . . . They paid for it after the fact.
How? I queried Microsoft about that very thing, via their public relations people at Waggener Edstrom. Spokesperson Ted Roduner told me:
Microsoft paid Infotech their standard reprint fee to post their study to the "Get the Facts" site. To be clear, Microsoft did not participate in the creation of the Infotech study and only contacted the firm after the report was made public.
Earlier I had learned that the payment was an "industry standard" reprint fee. But like most Microsoft "industry standards," it was secret, and Microsoft won't reveal it, referring me to Info-Tech for the answer.
Repeated queries to Info-Tech as to the amount of money they earned by having the "study" included in the GtF campaign have gone unanswered. The same firm that originally contacted us about the report, and offered to make its author available for an interview, and which was quick to point out that the report had not been funded by Microsoft, had no comment whatsoever on the amount.
If you haven't noticed, Microsoft has locked in on the erroneous conclusion that Linux has peaked and is now receding in the marketplace. The company will be beating the drums about this for as long as they can. Remember the hilarious CapGemini "independent" research report it turned out Microsoft paid for, that Newham, a borough of London, relied on to decide they'd go with Windows instead of Linux, based on that study's conclusion that Windows was cheaper than open source and more secure? When Newham made the announcement and said that, the room full of journalists spontaneously burst out laughing.
If you want to read any of CCW's reports, you have to pay $2,000 and up, but that is where it is, if you are so inclined. They are based in Beijing, but I see a Hong Kong number listed too. On their
About Us page, they say they do their analysis "from perspectives of manufacturer, service provider, investor, government."
5. They don't mention in the article that the Chinese government has already decided to support Linux uptake. No doubt Chinese businesses will be interested in that. I believe it will have an impact on continued uptake in China. Don't you? Remember the story last November about the government scolding Beijing for buying Microsoft?
The Beijing municipal government has come under fire for damaging China's nascent software industry by giving United States software giant Microsoft the lion's share of a large software purchase order.
Unsuccessful domestic competitors and some central government officials say the city failed to respect China's law on government procurement, which stipulates that when a local product is available it should receive preference over foreign products.
According to the official Beijing Times, Microsoft last week won a 29.95 million yuan (HK$28.14 million) contract which licenses the Beijing municipal government to use all of its software products for three years.
For Microsoft, it is the second major China procurement victory in less than a month. It concluded an office software agreement with the Tianjin municipal government at the end of October.
Li Wuqiang, vice-director of new and high technology development in the Ministry of Science and Technology, accused some local governments of ignoring the law's buy-Chinese-whenever-possible stipulation. Saying that he was expressing a personal view, Li strongly urged the authorities to "check the unhealthy tendency" of local governments to buy large amounts of foreign software.
Not only were they flouting the law, he argued, they were also hurting the Chinese software industry.
This Linux"Insider" article is silly FUD. No one sensible or clued in will believe such nonsense. And no one will believe that Linux"Insider" is anything but FUDding. More proof: Here's their list of stories for today:
High Costs Mean Low Uptake for Linux
Red Hat Gets Mixed Financial Review
PalmSource Linux Phone Promised for Next Year
Linux Gets Black Eye in Chinese Report Judge Won't Throw Out SCO Slander Lawsuit Software Knight Kapor Takes Up New Quest
Microsoft Swats at Open Source in Latin America
IBM Offers Middleware Support for Solaris, Renews Java Pact
Open Source and the Legend of Linksys
Sun Bolsters Java With $387 Million Acquisition
The article "Linux Gets Black Eye in China" is, believe it or not, the exact same info from the same research group saying the same thing, but this time they highlight the 41.3% higher TCO on applications and database servers. They not only did not highlight the figures from the same study that showed Linux cheaper on network servers, they publish two stories, one from China Daily and one from UPI, saying the exact same thing. No headline on IBM's huge win in the courts against SCO, but they do mention Novell not winning a dismissal. Natch.
They probably don't even read this junk before they publish it. It looks like they just grab any headline that sounds negative. You shouldn't read this junk either. When we read it and send them emails complaining or correcting them, they probably like it. They probably collect it, and show their positive numbers to their advertisers. No, I think the best strategy is just to correct it once, as I have just done, and then ignore them utterly.
The legend of Linksys article, by the way, is based on "facts" from a very old Dan Lyons' FUD piece in Forbes on the FSF. And as for their Red Hat headline, everyone else has headlines that read "Red Hat Revenue Surges 46%." It's all about what you *want* to say.
They do seriously need to change their name. Whatever they do, it's obvious that they publish all the negativity they can on Linux, so whatever they call themselves, we know now who they really are. And who they are not. They are *not* Linux Insiders.
They need to fix their page too. If you go to the page url I was sent by a reader, there is a message saying the article doesn't exist: "We're sorry...
The requested document: /story/spQHdeHBhs9iyX/ is no longer archived or does not exist. You may wish to use the search box below to locate articles on a particular topic. The article is right there, though. And it's the right URL. Maybe they are using Windows database servers?
Just horsing around. I don't know what they are using, but whatever their problem is, they need to fix it. My all-time favorite headline on TCO studies is this one: "If Microsoft's Cheaper Than Linux, The Earth's Flat." Now that's a headline. But the truth is, even if it did cost more, I'd pay more for it, gladly. But of course you can lower your costs by switching to Linux, and that shows up in studies that look at more than just the first month or so after you switch. Here's one study that did that, looking at a 3-year time frame, just to clear our palates: "Companies with at least 2,000 employees can reduce their total cost of ownership (TCO) by as much as 26 percent over three years by using Linux servers over Windows, and 12 percent on open-source office applications over Office products from Microsoft Corp., said Soreon, an IT researcher who focuses exclusively on European markets." The savings come from reduced operating costs and because you've made a clean getaway from license fees, including, I might add, the costs of tracking them and monitoring them and BSA visits, etc. Even Gartner has told the world, "You'd be stupid not to use open source as part of your application management strategy." Duh. Get the facts. That's my advice. By that I mean, look beyond the spun headlines and the slanted FUD. And think about where you get your Linux news.
|
|
Authored by: artp on Saturday, July 02 2005 @ 04:13 PM EDT |
Instructions are right below the text entry box after you press Reply.
Follow instructions for HTML, Preview, and select HTML Formatted Post Mode.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Wallace V IBM has Pacer update - Authored by: stats_for_all on Saturday, July 02 2005 @ 05:01 PM EDT
- OT Editor's Note: Microsoft Support? Ha! Better Use Linux Instead - Authored by: bsm2003 on Saturday, July 02 2005 @ 05:24 PM EDT
- Help needed on software patent history in the US. - Authored by: Erwan on Saturday, July 02 2005 @ 05:47 PM EDT
- Another IE Vulnerability - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 02 2005 @ 08:06 PM EDT
- M$, the BSA, Google, video clips and who do the BSA represent in the European patent debate? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 02 2005 @ 08:48 PM EDT
- HP has Linux server shipment lead - Authored by: artp on Saturday, July 02 2005 @ 09:10 PM EDT
- "Knoppix" for Lawyers... - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 03 2005 @ 03:05 AM EDT
- Red-Hot Red Hat - revenues grew by 45.5% - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 03 2005 @ 03:17 AM EDT
- OT Comments - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 03 2005 @ 03:48 AM EDT
- reduce TCO with Intel =) - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 03 2005 @ 08:08 AM EDT
- OT Comments - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 05 2005 @ 05:37 PM EDT
|
Authored by: artp on Saturday, July 02 2005 @ 04:16 PM EDT |
So PJ can find them all in one place. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: meshuggeneh on Saturday, July 02 2005 @ 04:18 PM EDT |
"LinuxInciter" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Wisecracker - Authored by: artp on Saturday, July 02 2005 @ 04:20 PM EDT
- my vote - Authored by: major.tom on Saturday, July 02 2005 @ 05:20 PM EDT
- my vote - Authored by: PJ on Saturday, July 02 2005 @ 05:46 PM EDT
- LinuxOffsider? - Authored by: bmcmahon on Saturday, July 02 2005 @ 06:46 PM EDT
- LinuxInditer - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 02 2005 @ 06:54 PM EDT
- MicrosoftInsider - Authored by: Fredric on Saturday, July 02 2005 @ 07:00 PM EDT
- LinuxMaligner - Authored by: Jude on Saturday, July 02 2005 @ 07:23 PM EDT
- my vote - Authored by: svyerkgeniiy on Saturday, July 02 2005 @ 07:59 PM EDT
- Other nominees - Authored by: RealProgrammer on Saturday, July 02 2005 @ 08:22 PM EDT
- my vote - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 02 2005 @ 09:04 PM EDT
- LinuxInsideHer - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 02 2005 @ 09:06 PM EDT
- LinuxDerider or if you prefer ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 02 2005 @ 11:12 PM EDT
- my vote: I like LinuxSnider - Authored by: leopardi on Sunday, July 03 2005 @ 01:37 AM EDT
- my vote - Authored by: tyche on Sunday, July 03 2005 @ 02:09 AM EDT
- my vote - Authored by: schaste on Sunday, July 03 2005 @ 08:58 AM EDT
|
Authored by: vruz on Saturday, July 02 2005 @ 04:21 PM EDT |
Let me check the shape of the Earth.
No, it's not flat.
---
--- the vruz[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: stephenry on Saturday, July 02 2005 @ 04:25 PM EDT |
PJ,
Maybe it would be best simply ignoring them opposed to giving them a platform
for their view's on Groklaw. After all, all their really after is the exposure
that an article on Groklaw provides them; and by stepping up to that plate your
giving them what they want.
Stephen[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 02 2005 @ 04:28 PM EDT |
Duh! I don't understand. I thought MS had stopped piracy by means of
registrations tricks. So how can so much in China be pirated? Aren't they
using XP yet? That's hardly a good model for the future for China, as MS pulls
the plug on support for their older stuff.
Maybe those special MS software editions for that part of the world do not
require registration - as a subtle but desperate attempt by MS to keep Linux out
of the region[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dyfet on Saturday, July 02 2005 @ 04:53 PM EDT |
...is a news site named "MicrosoftInsider"! :).
Though more seriously what
the world really needs is simply honest reporting
from honest
journalists and
honest analysists.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: cmc on Saturday, July 02 2005 @ 04:54 PM EDT |
The whole "TCO (Total Cost of Ownership)" issue is a tricky one, and
can easily go either way. It really on depends on your perspective, or more
importantly, on what you decide to spend your money on (which will determine the
total cost of ownership).
For example, if you choose to purchase Red Hat Enterprise Linux subscriptions
for your five-computer network, and pay an overpriced Linux administrator to set
up and maintain it, then it will obviously be more expensive then five copies of
Windows XP Pro (or Home) set up as a peer-to-peer network and maintained by a
zero-cost intern.
Similarly, if you download your favorite flavor of Linux and can set up and
maintain your own 250-user mail server (using Postfix, Sendmail, of your
favorite open source MTA), then it will obviously have a much lower TCO then a
server with Windows Server 2003 and Exchange 2003 (both licensed for 250
users).
Both sides will have extremes and even grey areas which favor their side,
depending on their requirements. That's what makes the TCO comparisons
completely useless. The TCO for one company is useless to use as a metric for
the TCO of another company. For example, Microsoft probably has a much lower
TCO running Windows then their TCO would be if they tried to switch to Linux.
Does that mean that Red Hat's TCO will be the same or similar? Of course not.
My feeling is that most companies who are staying with Windows (instead of
switching to Linux) are doing so for a few reasons. First, they know there are
a lot of people who can service Windows-based systems, while there still aren't
that many (proportionately) that can service Linux-based systems. Second, they
may run software that only runs under Windows. Some of my customers use
Symantec Antivirus Corporate Edition, which still doesn't have a Linux
component. The AV server only works under Windows or Netware. You could always
set up a Windows XP box to use as the AV server, but that means having yet
another system to maintain, which most small businesses wouldn't want. Then, of
course, the third option is because of all the FUD. The biggest reason, I think
(for small businesses, at least) is that they rely on their service/support
company to tell them what they need, and most service/support companies are more
comfortable with Windows.
As for the desktops, that will be an incredibly difficult switch to pull off.
Most of my customers require MS-Office. I can't recommend OpenOffice to them
because OO still doesn't have great MS-Office compatibility (I'm using OO
1.1.4). And since most companies transfer documents back and forth with other
companies (who use MS-Office), that compatibility is key. I know you can always
say (for documents, for example) "Well, just save it as an .RTF file".
That doesn't always work, either. I just got two .RTF files from Comcast
(service agreement and Ts&Cs for Workplace Internet service). OpenOffice
didn't display either one of them correctly. The service agreement was
incorrectly layed out, and didn't even show the last 1/3 page. The Ts&Cs
didn't display right because OpenOffice tried to show it all on one page (it's
actually ten pages). To be fair to OO, Wordpad didn't display either of these
documents correctly, either. But this points out that even using Word to save a
document as an .RTF file doesn't guarantee compatibility.
cmc
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 02 2005 @ 04:56 PM EDT |
According to Netcraft's "Whats that Site
Running" the Linux Insider website or its hosting provider runs
Linux/Apache
http://upti
me.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.linuxinsider.com
H
ere is the Site Report which indicates Linux Insider is owned by E-Commerce
Times, or ECT News Network www.ectnews.com
Also, here is the ECT News Reprint
Information which outlines the licensing costs of reprinting.
-ragnar [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: cmc on Saturday, July 02 2005 @ 05:02 PM EDT |
I do have one clarification with something mentioned in the article:
"What I care about most is freedom, meaning I can do whatever I want with
the code, that I own it if it is GPL code."
That's not correct. We have almost all of the rights we would if we owned the
code, but we still don't own the code (unless we wrote it) or the binaries.
It's more like renting with permission to redecorate and sublet. But above all,
the GPL is still a license which must be honored, or your rights to use the
software will be revoked.
cmc
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: TerryL on Saturday, July 02 2005 @ 05:09 PM EDT |
Linux is Free...
Well, I can't object to Linux being free as in beer -
provided it's a decent pint/distro, but I won't accept a "naff" (please check
your Brit slang dictionary if the word "naff" is foreign to you) pint OR a naff
distro (in my opinon, others are free to disagree), I'd rather pay a few bob
extra for a decent pint/distro than have the upsets of a inferior "free"
example.
I use a "free as in beer" distro, Ubuntu, on one of my computers
but I've also paid my 65 quid for Suse 9.3 that's installed on another of my
PC's and I'm more than happy that I got my moneys worth, even if it wasn't free
(as in beer).
Both distros (and many others I've tried) are however free (as
in freedom) and that is a nice feeling.
It's such a shame that English,
which is such a rich language in so many ways, is stuck with one word, free,
that is used for both free as in "gratis" and free as in "libre".
Given how
centralised the Chinese society is I wouldn't be surprised to see them
addressing the shortage of Linux trained IT personel very rapidly if their
government decides that is where the advantage lies. They may be dabbling with
"commercial enterprise" but it's not their way of life (yet).
--- All
comment and ideas expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of
any other idiot... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 02 2005 @ 05:12 PM EDT |
The new name for LinuxInsider? How about "LinuxInfighter", where
"we're spreading discontent, misdirection, and divisiveness, just because
we can."
Scott[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 02 2005 @ 05:37 PM EDT |
You have written a fine article, Pamela.
-------------------
Steve Stites
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 02 2005 @ 05:43 PM EDT |
I thought Linux was the trademark of somebody-or-another.
If I started a magazine called Mickey Mouse Insider and had a bunch of articles
about SCO's management team, I think I'd pretty quickly have a few lawyers from
a few different places going after me.
Why isn't this the case with LinuxInsider, LinuxBusinessScam, and the rest of
these anti-linux linux magazines?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 02 2005 @ 05:44 PM EDT |
eom [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 02 2005 @ 06:08 PM EDT |
but your quote, "This can only be ignorance. Ignorance is a fixable
problem." is not accurate. Just look at Darl.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 02 2005 @ 06:12 PM EDT |
We already have a direct line from CCW Research to SYS-CON: here
The China Daily is pretty incoherent and
seems to consist of random quotations from a CCW report (probably already
reduced to a press-release). We do not know if the original report was even
genuine in the sense that it is based on figures obtained from an actual study
in China; certainly there is nothing to indicate how the numbers were
obtained.
Even if we put all this to one side, what does this article tell
us? We have of course the usual spuriously precise figures showing, for
instance, that the extra cost of a Linux mail server (over Windows) is 0.1%
higher than the extra cost of a Linux file/print server.
Just seems to be
the usual MicroFUD (see if it turns up in GTF) - lets just move on.
Alan(UK) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: emmenjay on Saturday, July 02 2005 @ 06:35 PM EDT |
> Recent U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team (CERT)
> vulnerability metrics reported 250 episodes for Microsoft
> Windows, 39 of these having a severity rating of 40 or
> greater. With Red Hat Linux there were only 46 episodes,
> of which only with only 3 scored over 40.
That statistic would only be meaningful if the number of installations were
approximately equal. Windows still has the vast majority of installations - so
a higher number of issues is to be expected.
**NOTE** that doesn't mean that Linux is *not* more secure - simply that these
numbers don't really prove it.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 02 2005 @ 06:57 PM EDT |
Those figures look awfully familiar. I suspect the original Chinese article
or
CCW research were repeating one of the old TCO "surveys" from a
couple of years
ago.
This was probably the web & file/print comparison, as
summarised by
"The Register":
R
egister article on IDC TCO study
This lshould make a nice research
project for the team. It should be on a
par with the
Monterey on POWER job,
which we all knew about but didn't neceessarily
have the references. I have a
vague recollection that parts of the "study"
were used on Microsoft's "Get the
Facts", but they appear not to be there
now.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 02 2005 @ 07:36 PM EDT |
Msft may be selling windows for less in China. I think msft was selling windows
for $1/copy in Thialand; and $30/copy in Brazil (for striped down version).
Living in the USA, what difference does it make to me if windows has a lower TCO
in China? Yet the headline, does not specify China.
Here in the USA, Windows only raises the cost of a PC about $100, and that's
only once every 5 years. So $20 a year? I can handle that. But I don't. I don't
even use the legal copy of Windows that came with my PC, I use Linux instead,
because I like Linux better.
walterbyrd[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Avada Kedavra on Saturday, July 02 2005 @ 07:58 PM EDT |
LinuxInsulter
AK[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: blacklight on Saturday, July 02 2005 @ 08:20 PM EDT |
The assertion that Linux is even more expensive than pirated Windows is a
mystery:
(1) There should be some pretty strong Linux talent in the PRC, given that Red
Flag Linux is designed in the PRC and that there are Chinese contributions to
Linux.
(2) Microsoft sets one price, which is the same all over the world. Given that
the PRC GNP is far lower than the US's, the cost of skilled labor in the PRC is
far lower than in the US. Yet, the study asserts counter-intuitively that
Miscrosoft is the one with the lower TCO.
(3) The study claims that in the PRC, there is very little software that runs on
Linux. However, there are not too many Windows apps that have been adapted to
Mandarin either. This is most likely a case of the pot calling the cattle
black.
Microsoft is to Linux as checkbook journalism is to journalism.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kawabago on Saturday, July 02 2005 @ 09:08 PM EDT |
The Chinese aren't allowed to visit any site containing the word 'free' as in
freedom, it's considered subversive.
---
TTFN[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: darkonc on Saturday, July 02 2005 @ 09:42 PM EDT |
It also looks like their parent company is ectnews.com....
At least they're
running a version of UNIX...
[root@localhost config]# nmap -O
www.LinuxInsider.com
Starting nmap 3.70 ( http://www.insecure.org/nmap/
) at 2005-07-02 18:26 PDT
Insufficient responses for TCP sequencing (0), OS
detection may be less accurate
Interesting ports on www.ectnews.com
(207.178.165.2):
(The 1653 ports scanned but not shown below are in state:
filtered)
PORT STATE SERVICE
21/tcp open ftp
22/tcp
open ssh
53/tcp open domain
80/tcp open
http
110/tcp open pop3
113/tcp closed auth
443/tcp
open https
Device type: general purpose
Running: HP HP-UX
11.X
OS details: HP-UX B11.00 U 9000/839
Nmap run completed -- 1 IP
address (1 host up) scanned in 26.406 seconds
An earlier run with
the wrong parameters (I'm not to up on nmap) found that they
seem to be running
relatively old versions of openssh and apache...
22/tcp open ssh
OpenSSH 3.5p1 (protocol 2.0)
53/tcp open domain ISC Bind
9.2.1
80/tcp open http Apache httpd 1.3.33 ((Unix)
mod_perl/1.29)
--- Powerful, committed communication. Touching the
jewel within each person and bringing it to life.. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dyfet on Saturday, July 02 2005 @ 10:19 PM EDT |
I am not so immediately concerned with what LinuxInsider says or does, as it is
clear what they are doing and why. I am far more concerned with sites that do
claim to be and are normally thought of as part of our community but, yet
choose to run Microsoft's "gtf" attack ads. This issue troubles me far
more.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: darkonc on Saturday, July 02 2005 @ 10:33 PM EDT |
I think that IBM has missed another nice torpedo in their arguments
(noth that
there's much left of his boat to aim a torpeeo at!)
From page 15 of IBM's memorandum
(document 18)
... the plaintif needs to show that the
defendant has market power. A
company has market power if it can raise prices
above a competitive
level without losing its business.
Wallace
contends that the basis of his complaint is that the GPL requires
software to be
licensed for free. (although IBM has pointed out that you
can charge for
delivery of the product). How can you raise the price of a
free (as in cheap)
product above a competitive level -- with or without
losing
business?
--- Powerful, committed communication. Touching the jewel within
each person and bringing it to life.. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Hop on Saturday, July 02 2005 @ 10:54 PM EDT |
While I might agree about the general bias of LinuxInsider, it's hard to bash
them for the title of the article. The title comes directly from the chinese
article. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Saturday, July 02 2005 @ 11:00 PM EDT |
While I agree that Mr. Schwartz is not winning any friends at the FSF and I'm
also sure he was attempting to be provocative like ESR in this
interview. I'm not completely sure he's wrong.
A major attraction
of Linux is it's lack of required, costly upgrades. There are plenty of
"free as in beer" community support resources for Linux, Unix and
Windows. For many users, including usually me, that is sufficient support.
For other users the availability of paid support from multiple independent
providers at competitive prices is more than enough reason to eschew expensive,
impersonal, proprietary support.
The ability to move between different
Linux distributions or even to Solaris, which is now "free as in
beer", is a major plus. If you find your current distribution lacking,
you can go look for one which better meets your needs, without costly conversion
or porting.
The only people who benefit directly from the "free
as in freedom" portion of the GPL are those users who actually modify
their applications to solve the issues they identify. As Linux becomes more
widely adopted these people will be a smaller and smaller portion of the user
base.
Hardware vendors like IBM also benefit from community development
because they gain have a code base which is actively developed by a wide and
diverse community, at low cost to them (but not quite "free as in
beer"), which will help them sell more hardware at better prices and
margins.
Finally all users also benefit from this process but whether
they benefit more than they would under another model is somewhat less certain.
The old line Unix vendors, for example, generally did a pretty good job of
developing their operating systems and serving their customers needs. Using
Microsoft as the standard of comparison is, In My Opinion, very
questionable.
As one of the voices speaking for Sun around here, I have
never said they were a friend of Linux. Sun has always been somewhat wary of the
GPL and has always lined up behind Solaris. Why they chose to use Linux in their
JDS when the could have used Solaris has always been a mystery to
me.
Sun has been vocally supportive of Open Source and Open Standards
over the years. They are also a very entertaining company to watch and generally
make pretty good hardware. That are a little hard to keep up
with.
On The Other Hand Microsoft is, In My Opinion
EVIL. Had Microsoft acted in a reasonable and ethical manner it would
have made less money but also fewer enemys and likely Linux would not have
gained the traction it has today.
--- Rsteinmetz - IANAL
therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: whoever57 on Sunday, July 03 2005 @ 01:29 AM EDT |
"In Italy, it
takes on average 3,041 days to obtain a definitive sentence in a civil
case." [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: pscottdv on Sunday, July 03 2005 @ 01:43 AM EDT |
PJ, I loved your crack about Microsoft support. I recently attempted to upgrade
a client's computer from win98 to windows XP. There was a problem with the
installer and it would not install. The problem was clearly a bug with the
installer because it claimed I had to uninstall an application which had never,
ever been installed on the computer in the first place before I could install.
Because it was a retail box, I figured I could get installation help from
Microsoft.
First call: I am asked if the computer is connected to a network with more than
10 computers.
Me: "Yes, yes it is"
Native-to-Farsi Tech Guy (NTFTG): "I'm sorry, you have to pay $220 for a
support contract before we will talk to you"
Me: "I only paid $189 for the software, thanks anyhow" <click>
Me: unplugging the computer from the network and dialing the number again.
New NTFTG (NNTFTG): "Is the computer connected to a network?"
Me: No sir, no it is not!
Thereafter I get "tech support" which consists of the NNTFTG finding
stuff on Google and asking me to try the stuff that I already found on Google
and tried myself before I bothered to call.
I explain repeatedly (this support request was open for more than 8 weeks) to
the NNTFTG that if he would just talk to the team responsible for developing the
installer, they could tell him what is the registry key or file the installer is
finding that is causing it to report that I have this 3rd party application on
my machine, but *NO*! *HE* wants to set up a conference call with the makers of
the 3rd party application even though that application was never installed on
this computer!
We finally get the conference call set up and the 3rd-party-application-tech-guy
(3PATG) is understandably confused--if we never bought the product from them and
we never installed it, why are we expecting him to resolve a problem with what
is clearly a bug in the Windows XP Upgrade installer?
Me: That's what I've been saying for two weeks!
NNTFTG: But all we want is for you to help Scott (we're on a friendly,
first-name basis by this time--his kids are going to spend the summer with us
next year) make sure all components of <3rd party application> are removed
from the computer!
Me: Hey, don't drag me into this. *I* have been asking you to contact the
installer development team.
3PATG: If the application was never installed, I don't see how it *could* be
uninstalled.
Me: Thank you! <gesturing wildly to towards where the NNTFTG is sitting in my
mind's eye>
3PATG: I can't open a problem ticket if you never purchased the software.
Me: Nor should you.
3PATG: OK, goodbye <click>
NNTFTG: You could have been more helpful (He's getting a bit snippy by now.
I've never had one of the NTFTG's get snippy before--I'm feeling pretty good
about it).
Me: You're the help guy.
Anyhow, I'm sure you all are dying to know how this problem eventually resolved
itself. Well, they kept calling two or three times a week to "help",
but of course, I don't camp out at the client's office so I am never in front of
the client's computer when they call. They desparately want me to say
"problem resolved" so they can close the book (tome?) on this issue,
but I won't let them. They finally closed the ticket when I went on vacation
earlier this summer...
NNTFTG: OK, well if we don't hear from you in the next 48 hours, we will assume
the issue is resolved and will close the ticket.
In the meantime, whenever I have a problem with an FOSS application, I contact
the appropriate mailing list and usually *the guy who wrote the code* helps me
fix it. Post question-to-solution-time? Best so far: six minutes. Worst: two
days.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DannyB on Sunday, July 03 2005 @ 02:08 AM EDT |
You wanted a new name. I suggest LinuxInsulter. Other top
picks, LinuxImposter, LinuxInciter, LinuxIntruder
Looking at my /usr/share/dict/words file, I can suggest
other candidates.
LinuxIgnorance
LinuxIgnoramous
LinuxIgnored
LinuxIllegal
LinuxIlliteracy
LinuxIllusory
LinuxImbecile
LinuxImbiber
LinuxInebreator
LinuxImitator
LinuxImpeacher
LinuxImpediment
LinuxImpenetrability
LinuxImperceivable
LinuxImperceptable
LinuxImposter
LinuxInaccuracies
LinuxInciter
LinuxIncompetents
LinuxIncredulity
LinuxIndigestion
LinuxIndignation
LinuxIndiscreet
LinuxInfidels
LinuxInflamer
LinuxInfringer
LinuxInjurer
LinuxInjustice
LinuxInnuendo
LinuxInsincere
LinuxInstigator
LinuxInsulter
LinuxIntruder
LinuxInvader
Although it is not in the I's...
LinuxTormenter
I sure hope I am not infringing SCO's intellectual property
by looking at /usr/share/dict/words file.
---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: zman58 on Sunday, July 03 2005 @ 02:14 AM EDT |
Interesting post PJ. It is good to expose the ongoing
propaganda campaign.
I suggest we refer to them as "LinuxOutsider". It seems to
fit--since they appear to be on the outside concerning
Linux. They are the antithesis of what they appear to be
at first glance. There are probably many who actually
believe what they have to say--perhaps only to comfort
themselves in their own choice. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 03 2005 @ 02:55 AM EDT |
SCOInsider [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 03 2005 @ 04:21 AM EDT |
"LinuxInsulter" might be a reasonable name for those guys.
The article on TCO might be right if no-one pays license fees
and MS deliberately encourages piracy as a market strategy.
Is it be a crime for MS to deliberately encourage illegal use
of their own product. Perhaps a comprehesive crackdown on piracy in China and
other developing nations could be the worst thing that could happent to
Microsoft.
Maybe the open source community should push for genuine anti piracy action
rather than the puppeteer approach used by the BSA. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 03 2005 @ 05:59 AM EDT |
From about 2000 I maintained the Linux from Scratch boot CD; I minor distro
for people who like compiling their systems. I was surprised that China was a
major user of this CD, there being many hundreds of downloads for every version.
I traced some sites back from the access_log to a Chinese Linux site; and made
contact via their IRC channels. There is massive support and enthusiasm for
Linux. The major problem is language. They need to learn basic English; though
a lot has been translated or written in Chinese now.
Among the people
that I know is an IT worker. He had worked in the city for months and was going
to visit his parents during Chinese New Year. He was very proud to have saved
up 1000 yuan; this massive fortune is worth $200 in the West.
To
buy a operating system for your home computer, takes at least one months pay;
that is why people buy pirate copies. If you price things so that people just
cannot afford them; they they seek out alternatives. But there is no need that
CDs are that expensive. The development costs are already paid in the West.
The cost of production of a boxed set of CDs cannot be more that $2.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: paivakil on Sunday, July 03 2005 @ 06:34 AM EDT |
PJ,
About your wish to create a distro for lawyers, please have a look at
the Debian-lex
project.
Please subscribe to the mailing list (that is if you have
the time to), and tell the project what lawyers in the US of A look for in a
distro.
And rest of you lawyers / para-legals from other countries,
please give inputs for your own countries.
Thanks[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 03 2005 @ 06:35 AM EDT |
How about renaming it...
LinuxIgniter Linux non-news and
mis-information from around the world
It sure as hell seems like they are
trying to burn Linux... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 03 2005 @ 12:19 PM EDT |
Perhaps people are also confused over what the licence gives you and what you
own. The mention of the BSA and the "P" word made me think of the ads that have
appeared on TV in the past (don't watch TV now as don't get time) - regarding
films and DVDs:
"From xxx, the film yyy will be yours to own and
treasure forever on DVD [and video]..."
Except that when you actually
"buy the film", you don't: you only buy a licence to watch the film. If I had
bought it and now owned it, I could do what I liked with it, and not be
restricted by a licence that says "for home use only". (The next time I come
across one of those ads I'm going to complain to the ASA as it is
misleading.)
People are also being confused over what you get for your
money with Linux and the GPL, and what you get from MS and their Licence; the
former is [almost] "I now own it and do what I like with it" (eg install on as
many machines as I like with as many processors in each as I like), whereas the
latter is "for home use only" (eg install on one HOME machine only, and if that
machine changes significantly (eg changing one piece at a time I've replaced
most of my first PC) then it no longer works even if it's the only machine
you've got).
TCOs seem to skip over licencing costs very conveniently.
(Especially as the licencing cost often has to be repeated for MS, but for Linux
it's generally a one-off.)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 03 2005 @ 09:08 PM EDT |
Since they can't spell 0wnership :) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Nick Bridge on Sunday, July 03 2005 @ 09:19 PM EDT |
How about LinuxIncisor? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: arf on Monday, July 04 2005 @ 12:00 AM EDT |
My belated suggestion:
'LinuxTermiter'
(true 'insiders'!)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 04 2005 @ 05:33 AM EDT |
<i>The point is this: because of GNU/Linux licenses, you can write
whatever you want, and once it's written, that is the end of the expense for
you. It's a one-time expense, and then you are free forever from the upgrade
cycle and the license hustle proprietary software likes to keep running on you.
Well, it's more like you are running, like a gerbil on a pet wheel, because you
never actually get anywhere.</i>
Sorry, Pamela, but whilst I respect enormously what you do here, the above is
just plain wrong.
Few things in life are free, and code is no exception. Writing it for yourself
is anything <b>but</b> a one-time expense. On the contrary, that's
the model that the mainframe computer industry has been largely living with
since it began, and it's often very expensive.
Understand that I'm not talking about bug-fixing here; there's that to be done,
but it's not where the main cost lies. The problem is that organisations, the
way they operate and what they need from their computers systems change (and, of
course, so do the technologies they use). The code that your computer folk
wrote last year to support what you were planning then, almost certainly doesn't
actually quite do what you need it to do today, let alone support the ambitious
plans you have for tomorrow.
So you either change the code, or live with its limitations. Which you do is a
business decision, so it's going to get taken by people who don't want to know
the technical reasons why it's hard, they want to see code they've paid for
keeping their business working - so things tend to get changed, in practice.
And even so, there comes a point when the software itself becomes a key
inhibitor - at which point, you write a replacement from scratch (often with a
lead-time that makes senior management seriously unhappy). Either way, you're
back to the start, and the cycle begins again.
The hard truth is that the average IT software department doesn't spend the bulk
of its time, or even anything like it, writing genuinely new code. It spends
most of it - often 80% or more - tweaking old stuff to keep it running and
approximately meeting the changing needs of the organisation. And whilst we're
not necessarily always talking about exactly the same sort of software when we
discuss the GPL, the basic facts of life apply: if you write something yourself,
you get control and ownership; but unless it's something so simple that it's
never going to be changed (and such code is rare), you also get to support it,
modify it and enhance it yourself. And that costs.
Which is not to say that doing things yourself is necessarily more expensive
than paying someone else to do it for you. Buying off-the-shelf solutions comes
with its own raft of problems, as we all know. But it's no coincidence that
maintaining their existing code base is seen by most IT software managers as
their number one inhibitor to moving the business needs forward. In any
discussion of the pro's and con's that needs to be understood.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 04 2005 @ 05:42 AM EDT |
Why isn't any of that headline-worthy in an entity calling itself
LinuxInsider? Where does the choice of the headline they chose come from, then,
if not anti-Linux bias?
I wonder if they payed their fees to
http://linuxmark.org/...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 04 2005 @ 06:01 AM EDT |
Is that if it didn't cost more to administrate a Linux system, then it wouldn't
cost more to administrate a Linux system.
Slow. Hand. Clap.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Wol on Monday, July 04 2005 @ 09:59 AM EDT |
Or LinuxQuisling.
Both have the "insider" connotation, but make the intent quite
plain...
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SammyTheSnake on Monday, July 04 2005 @ 10:19 AM EDT |
Just for reference, Linux"INSIDER" does run their webserver on linux, at
least according to n
etcraft
Cheers & God bless
Sam
"SammyTheSnake" Penny [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: chaosd-II on Monday, July 04 2005 @ 11:55 AM EDT |
I vote that 'we' (the FOSS community, and Groklaw specifically) stop talking
about TCO claims, because they have no meaning. It's like comparing the cost of
private and public transport - technically possible to do, but will have no
impact on car/train choices. What would make a difference are questions like:
Can I change my route on a train? Can I legally drink a beer while driving my
car?
In the software context these questions becomes ones like: Can I browse
(Insert name of MSIE only
website)? Can I recompile my apps for my processor to enhance
performance?
TCO is just something you toss into a board meeting to wake
up the directors, or something politicians use to put the electorate to sleep
(ID cards anybody?).
So, I'd like to propose Dersons First Law of IT
Management: "If your primary justification of purchasing choice is TCO, your in
the wrong job". The corollary would therefore be "Citing TCO means you just
lost the argument". --- Chaosd II
Stupid question is an oxymoron [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 05 2005 @ 10:08 AM EDT |
So the headline could be:
"TCO Higher for Windows Than for Linux Even
When Comparing Linux with Pirated Windows".
Headline on the cover of a
recent Readers' Digest: New Proof Prayer Works. The actual story: a bunch of
anecdotes and a survey showing that people who pray believe it works[1]. The
headline is only there to get people to buy the publication. It serves no other
purpose. That, unfortunately, is the state of journalism in the US: sales
first, truth second.
[1] I'm not debating whether or not prayer really
works. The point is the article doesn't prove it does as the headline claims.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 05 2005 @ 12:18 PM EDT |
Just imagine where our society would be and computer usage if this was true and
really applied instead of all the secrets that are kept.
"If you wish to keep your code in-house and secret, you can, as long as you
don't distribute it merged with any GPL code you might have used. But if you are
smart, you can donate your code back to the common pool of GPL code, if you
wish, so the community can tweak it and extend it for you, and that is how
development rapidly solves problems in FOSS. One should never underestimate the
benefit the GPL provides of ensuring that code, once written by anyone, is
written for everyone, so if one person writes speciality code and releases it
under the GPL, no one else ever has to write it again, unlike in the proprietary
world where you have many programmers imprisoned in secret vaults all over the
place reinventing the wheel over and over again, because they aren't allowed to
share knowledge."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|