toupeiro
August 24th, 2007, 06:03 PM
Ok, I'm gonna rant a little bit here, but hopefully these rantings end up making people think twice about reading crap like this. :-D
I read a full page (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver/compare/compare_linux.mspx) of microsoft jargon trying to convince companies and admins in the position of choice for their server platform to use windows. This was of the following excerpts were my favorites:
Over the first 650 days of product life for Windows Server 2003, Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4, Windows Server 2003 had 75 percent fewer published vulnerabilities.
“Although it’s still often used as an argument, it seems quite clear to me that the “many eyes” argument, when applied to security, is not true.”
Ok, I call foul. Microsoft, show me ONE CASE of a worldwide virus epidemic that catastrophically brought down Redhat servers and Oracle Databases in the way they have with MSSQL and Server 2003. Show me one incident where a patch from redhat or any other vendor FORCED A REBOOT ON ALL PRODUCTION BOXES, costing the company millions. Microsoft has little room to talk about vulnerabilities. THe key thing here that they said is PUBLISHED vulnerabilities. "many eyes" means better patching, and in some cases more frequent patching, but overall a more secure environment. Windows, however, is subject to what their lab rats find out in an unreal world environment, or what their customers report to them AFTER it already cost them productivity and money in addition to what they've already paid.
Lets also not forget, up until very recently, Windows Server was not in the 64-bit game. It couldn't hold a candle to linux on a technical computing level. It taps out at 4GB of RAM, and swaps to disk WELL before that. It's bloated code takes up valuable memory that could be used for computing, but has to be used instead to support itself idling. and as far as subscription costs in redhat, let us not forget one more thing, Microsoft licenses its OS by CAL, and typically server 2003 gives you 3-5 CAL's.. Linux, however, is not licensed by such nonsense. They are actually comparing Server 2003 to RHEL3 and RHEl4 AS which is absurd, windows cannot even scale to the level of RHEL3 and RHEL4 ES which is SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper than AS. If you want to talk about license costs, why don't you analyze their terminal services costs or the concurrent client connection costs of windows to those of Linux? Then, figure in microsofts server licensing costs for small and medium sized businesses compared to the appropriate RedHat server version that small and medium sized business would deploy. (ES). Unless you plan on having more than 2 physical processors in your server, RHEL4 AS is not the choice for you, and neither is Server 2003 standard. You have to buy ENTERPRISE for that, so if you want a fair apples to apples comparison, compare 2k3 Enterprise to rhel4 AS and see if Micro$oft is still a cheaper option.
Windows is outscaled, overpriced, and overblown. There are some things tailored for windows still because of the longivity of their dominance, but to say they are a better choice today is a hard thing for me to swallow.
*gets off podium* :-D
I read a full page (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver/compare/compare_linux.mspx) of microsoft jargon trying to convince companies and admins in the position of choice for their server platform to use windows. This was of the following excerpts were my favorites:
Over the first 650 days of product life for Windows Server 2003, Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4, Windows Server 2003 had 75 percent fewer published vulnerabilities.
“Although it’s still often used as an argument, it seems quite clear to me that the “many eyes” argument, when applied to security, is not true.”
Ok, I call foul. Microsoft, show me ONE CASE of a worldwide virus epidemic that catastrophically brought down Redhat servers and Oracle Databases in the way they have with MSSQL and Server 2003. Show me one incident where a patch from redhat or any other vendor FORCED A REBOOT ON ALL PRODUCTION BOXES, costing the company millions. Microsoft has little room to talk about vulnerabilities. THe key thing here that they said is PUBLISHED vulnerabilities. "many eyes" means better patching, and in some cases more frequent patching, but overall a more secure environment. Windows, however, is subject to what their lab rats find out in an unreal world environment, or what their customers report to them AFTER it already cost them productivity and money in addition to what they've already paid.
Lets also not forget, up until very recently, Windows Server was not in the 64-bit game. It couldn't hold a candle to linux on a technical computing level. It taps out at 4GB of RAM, and swaps to disk WELL before that. It's bloated code takes up valuable memory that could be used for computing, but has to be used instead to support itself idling. and as far as subscription costs in redhat, let us not forget one more thing, Microsoft licenses its OS by CAL, and typically server 2003 gives you 3-5 CAL's.. Linux, however, is not licensed by such nonsense. They are actually comparing Server 2003 to RHEL3 and RHEl4 AS which is absurd, windows cannot even scale to the level of RHEL3 and RHEL4 ES which is SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper than AS. If you want to talk about license costs, why don't you analyze their terminal services costs or the concurrent client connection costs of windows to those of Linux? Then, figure in microsofts server licensing costs for small and medium sized businesses compared to the appropriate RedHat server version that small and medium sized business would deploy. (ES). Unless you plan on having more than 2 physical processors in your server, RHEL4 AS is not the choice for you, and neither is Server 2003 standard. You have to buy ENTERPRISE for that, so if you want a fair apples to apples comparison, compare 2k3 Enterprise to rhel4 AS and see if Micro$oft is still a cheaper option.
Windows is outscaled, overpriced, and overblown. There are some things tailored for windows still because of the longivity of their dominance, but to say they are a better choice today is a hard thing for me to swallow.
*gets off podium* :-D