new microsoft server ads.

[Specialsauce]

okay, so i was reading a pc magagazine (i beleive it actually was pc magazine) and i came to an ad for microsoft server. it had a picture of some business man waiting in an airport, and he was asking all sorts of questions. the last two questions, in the biggest print where: "is it a linux server?", and "or is it a microsoft server?". Then it goes on to explain that this company is saving "millions of dollars" by using microsoft server instead of linux.

Now, what i wanna know is, how in the world does using an expensive peice of software, over a virtually free peice of software make you able to save "millions of dollars". As if it wasnt bad enough that microsoft is now directly targeting linux, that gotta lie about things too!

-MAREK

[BWF89]

Free Linux os's are ok for home use but no one is going to use them in a commercial setting because of the lack of support.

Linux usually is cheaper but I've heard that RedHat charges you out the ass for their products.

[Specialsauce]

thats true, and SUSE is expensive too, for the full version. But still, so many servers are linux, i would assume that its pretty good for the job.

[Kelpie]

yes so many servers are linux, they run for days on end using linux, its kinda hard to make a computer have a nice uptime on microsoft products and plus that stability, security, and features like that are out of the question for a microsoft server, people use windows more so its a target for hackers to get past, which makes it more easy to get into

[Ampersand]

The usual claims tend to be that it's cheaper to upgrade to the latest Windows version than to move to Linux and retrain all you MSCE employees or something...

[nemik]

it's all true guys. microsoft is the way to go. you'll save millions by hiring employees who can click GUI's rather than more knowledgable ones (and hence more expensive ones) that ::gasp:: have to go into the shell from time to time! :eek:

plus they're so reliable. you hear non-stop about all these apache vulnerabilities, but IIS is ROCK solid! not to mention its pure stability and the fact that windows machines almost never have to be rebooted, ever!

oh man i feel so dirty now... :p

[GeneralZod]

Now, what i wanna know is, how in the world does using an expensive peice of software, over a virtually free peice of software make you able to save "millions of dollars". As if it wasnt bad enough that microsoft is now directly targeting linux, that gotta lie about things too!


I'm not going to go into whether this hypothetical situation holds here, but the theory is that the cost of the software is pretty much a drop in the ocean compared to the cost of staff to keep your servers running, plus the cost of any downtime. An inexpensive product that requires an army of people with very specialist (and therefore expensive!) skillsets to keep it running more than 10 minutes in a row is going to be more expensive in the long run :)

Plus, as BWF89 notes, very few large companies are going to be running a "free" version of Linux.



plus they're so reliable. you hear non-stop about all these apache vulnerabilities, but IIS is ROCK solid! not to mention its pure stability and the fact that windows machines almost never have to be rebooted, ever!


You'd be surprised - IIS 6.0 seems very solid indeed:

http://secunia.com/product/73/
http://secunia.com/product/1438/

[prizrak]

Well I would assume that runing a Linux server would cost just as much as running a Windows server. The price of the software itself is not that different and even if it is, like mentioned above it's a drop in the bucket. The admins that would run either MS or Linux server would be getting a salary and it will be pretty much comparable for both. Now rolling out an enterprise wide Linux install would be very costly since users would have to be trained to use the new OS on the desktops. Any claims to one being more expensive than the other are largely unfounded they cost about the same, the question is which one suits the company better.

[YourSurrogateGod]

Now, what i wanna know is, how in the world does using an expensive peice of software, over a virtually free peice of software make you able to save "millions of dollars". As if it wasnt bad enough that microsoft is now directly targeting linux, that gotta lie about things too!
Less training. The average Joe doesn't want/can't learn about the inner workings of an OS (yes, even the stuff that we consider simple.) I hope I don't get flamed...

[erikpiper]

90% of all computer users are useless drones

[xequence]

Its stupid... Honestly, if someone hired to manage servers doesent know basic unix stuff, its pretty sad.

Windows server doesent save you any money. Linux servers are much cheaper and more reliable. (Just compare a week with linux and a week with linux on the desktop, where windows rules the market. Linux is much more stable)

[YourSurrogateGod]

Its stupid... Honestly, if someone hired to manage servers doesent know basic unix stuff, its pretty sad.

Windows server doesent save you any money. Linux servers are much cheaper and more reliable. (Just compare a week with linux and a week with linux on the desktop, where windows rules the market. Linux is much more stable)
Yar...

[YourSurrogateGod]

90% of all computer users are useless drones
Yar...

[prizrak]

Its stupid... Honestly, if someone hired to manage servers doesent know basic unix stuff, its pretty sad.

Windows server doesent save you any money. Linux servers are much cheaper and more reliable. (Just compare a week with linux and a week with linux on the desktop, where windows rules the market. Linux is much more stable)
You are not a 100% correct, if the goal of the company is 100% uptime they will have to use clustering anyway, which makes either solution just fine since single machine can go down w/o taking down the service. If the company can afford downtime then they can afford to restart the server once in a while :)

[gonçalo]

90% of all computer users are useless drones

This is not very nice of you to say that. And that makes what? 10% of usefull people on the world? And how many of them actuallly corp something or grow something to be eaten? I hope you are joking.
Most people have to use computers on their jobs just to get a text document or a spreadsheet done. They don't have to like it and hack it or be able to do a shell script. Above all 100% of computer users are humans and deserve respect, no matter what OS they use or their proficiency at it.

[endersshadow]

For reference:
Red Hat Enterprise AS Premium Edition: $2,499
Windows Server 2003 R2 Enterprise Edition: $3,999

Red Hat Enterprise AS Standard Edition: $1,499
Windows Server 2003 R2 Standard Edition: $1,199

SUSE prices a bit differently, which can be found here (http://www.novell.com/products/linuxenterpriseserver/howtobuy.html).

[prizrak]

For reference:
Red Hat Enterprise AS Premium Edition: $2,499
Windows Server 2003 R2 Enterprise Edition: $3,999

Red Hat Enterprise AS Standard Edition: $1,499
Windows Server 2003 R2 Standard Edition: $1,199

SUSE prices a bit differently, which can be found here (http://www.novell.com/products/linuxenterpriseserver/howtobuy.html).
So the pricing isn't all that diffeferent, MS is even cheaper in the small business market. Although it would be good to know the terms for each, MS limits the amount of machines that are connected and licensing fees vary accordingly.

[Xboxbum10044]

well i guess microsoft feels threatened by linux or else they wouldnt be playing those adds

[erikpiper]

This is not very nice of you to say that. And that makes what? 10% of usefull people on the world? And how many of them actuallly corp something or grow something to be eaten? I hope you are joking.
Most people have to use computers on their jobs just to get a text document or a spreadsheet done. They don't have to like it and hack it or be able to do a shell script. Above all 100% of computer users are humans and deserve respect, no matter what OS they use or their proficiency at it.

They are drones at the moment and need to be liberated from windows because linux CAN serve there needs better!

(Yes, mostly joking!)

[TeeAhr1]

Free Linux os's are ok for home use but no one is going to use them in a commercial setting because of the lack of support.

Linux usually is cheaper but I've heard that RedHat charges you out the ass for their products.
So so wrong. I work for a major reprographics (blueprint printing) company, with at least a dozen sites in the Minneapolis area. Although all the workstations run XP (this being Korporate America), the IT department itself runs on Knoppix. When I asked one of them why, he cited the ease of data restore/rescue operations using Knoppix (which is a live CD distro), and the fact that Microsoft server software just isn't realiable enough to coordinate the gazillion physical locations that we have.

[erikpiper]

TeeAhr1- I love rocky/bullwinkle!!!!! And that is cool!

[TeeAhr1]

Well, advertisements lie all the time, that's not really news.

What I do think is interesting is the way it's presented, very much classic MS-think. It's totally marketed to the executive class, not the IT administrators, who all know better.

[ardchoille]

it's all true guys. microsoft is the way to go. you'll save millions by hiring employees who can click GUI's rather than more knowledgable ones (and hence more expensive ones) that ::gasp:: have to go into the shell from time to time! :eek:

plus they're so reliable. you hear non-stop about all these apache vulnerabilities, but IIS is ROCK solid! not to mention its pure stability and the fact that windows machines almost never have to be rebooted, ever!

oh man i feel so dirty now... :p
OMFG!!! That was hilarious!!! Thanks, that made my day :)

[dishkuvek]

This is not very nice of you to say that. And that makes what? 10% of usefull people on the world? And how many of them actuallly corp something or grow something to be eaten? I hope you are joking.
Most people have to use computers on their jobs just to get a text document or a spreadsheet done. They don't have to like it and hack it or be able to do a shell script. Above all 100% of computer users are humans and deserve respect, no matter what OS they use or their proficiency at it.

This is true. Thank you for saying so.

[gonçalo]

They are drones at the moment and need to be liberated from windows because linux CAN serve there needs better!

(Yes, mostly joking!)

Yeah, ok. But that's a mentality that has to be changed too. Evangelism and proselytism will only draw people away. We can't behave like I-ve-seen-the-light people.

I do believe that ubuntu and other free OS's are better than what Microsoft produces, mostly in a political way. My choice of apps, my choice of updates, my choice period. I look at other people that just turn on the computer booting up XP not with contemp or pity [why should I] but when they have a problem, and XP draws some, I tell them first of the alternatives: Firefox, Gaim, OO2, firewall this ad remove that et cetera. Then if the problems persist and they are unhappy: «Hey, I have a CD here, do you want me to show you?It won't remove anything, this is called a live CD and it's for testing to see if you like it. If you do, I'll get it working for you»:D And from then on it's up to them.


cheers
Gonçalo

[tageiru]

Free Linux os's are ok for home use but no one is going to use them in a commercial setting because of the lack of support.

Linux usually is cheaper but I've heard that RedHat charges you out the ass for their products.
Uh you do realise that Linux is used by many major corporations, right?

Google, NASA, IBM, Sun...

[GeneralZod]

Wise Words

Couldn't have put it better myself :)

[gil-galad]

For reference:
Red Hat Enterprise AS Premium Edition: $2,499
Windows Server 2003 R2 Enterprise Edition: $3,999

Red Hat Enterprise AS Standard Edition: $1,499
Windows Server 2003 R2 Standard Edition: $1,199

SUSE prices a bit differently, which can be found here (http://www.novell.com/products/linuxenterpriseserver/howtobuy.html).


Centos (aka free redhat): Free
Debian: Free
Ubuntu: Free

When you buy redhat, you are paying for support. How much support does microsoft give for its "cheap" versions of windows 2003? Basically none.

[jdong]

So how do you KNOW that IIS 6 is not vulnerable?

Most of Apache's vulnerabilities come out because literally millions of people (even many college grad students being forced to do so to pass their security classes) are combing through the source code looking for flaws.


Either way, IIS has become a stronger product -- much better than v5. At the same time, most vulnerabilities come through other venues to Windows servers, and don't even get started on the performance aspect.


How cheap Linux will be depends on how much effort administrators want to put in. It's as simple as that. Traditionally the "Windows is cheaper" studies have been shown time and time again to be biased in some fashion.

[N8MAN1068]

Its stupid... Honestly, if someone hired to manage servers doesent know basic unix stuff, its pretty sad.

Windows server doesent save you any money. Linux servers are much cheaper and more reliable. (Just compare a week with linux and a week with linux on the desktop, where windows rules the market. Linux is much more stable)

Up until the past 9 months, I wasn't a big *nix guy. I'm still not. I love me some Ubuntu, and testing out other distros, but Ubuntu is where i'm comfortable right now.

As far as stable..when was the last time MS pushed out an OS update that crashed the gui, or wiped out the video card drivers?

I considered a Suse box for our new web/email/groupware platform, but I couldn't get the 1 retailer in my state to return my call for weeks, yet I spoke with plenty of MS solution providers. When I had an issue w/ my new server (due to my error), I had a consultant out the next day helping me out.
Now, I'm not flaming *nix, but when's the last time you saw a support company in the local yellow pages? When was the last time 1 linux tech knew the different commands for Ubuntu/FC4/Gentoo/Xandrose/etc?

I think it's very easy for those of us that are able to get an install and online to take shots at those that can't. For every person in this thread, there's probably 5x that amount of help requests on this board alone.

Again, I'd love to put a *nix box into production, but it'd have to be RH4 or Suse, because there HAS to be support. I can't wait for all of our applications to be recoded to work on *nix, nor can I sit around and wait for a response on a message board when there's an issue. Time is money. I also have a Knoppix cd I keep is my disaster bag.

Sun and IBM may run on *nix, but Sun develops their own Solars/Sun Java desktop, as does IBM with their own flavor of unix/linux.
I'd like to be able to replace the desktops with linux powered Thin Terminals, or Xandros.

[jdong]

As far as stable..when was the last time MS pushed out an OS update that crashed the gui, or wiped out the video card drivers?

SP1, SP2, GDI+ security update, need I go on? Windows is not flawless in its updating. On our school computers (around 2400 Windows XP workstations) regularly hotfixes would fail to apply or completely crash a workstation. It happens too.

Besides, Windows has much less to update. It's just an OS, while Ubuntu releases updates for an OS and thousands of additional software too.



I considered a Suse box for our new web/email/groupware platform, but I couldn't get the 1 retailer in my state to return my call for weeks, yet I spoke with plenty of MS solution providers.

Sorry that happened... I know a few local Linux consultants around and they're pretty responsive. I don't think you can generalize about that.


Now, I'm not flaming *nix, but when's the last time you saw a support company in the local yellow pages?

Well, that's not because of Linux's inferiority... it's just that Linux has not a large enough market share yet for these companies to feel the need to adopt an advertising campaign.



When was the last time 1 linux tech knew the different commands for Ubuntu/FC4/Gentoo/Xandrose/etc?

That's pretty unfair to say. I don't think I'm a mutant Linux nerd, but I can tell you that though over the phone I can't tell you where exactly mod_dav_svn's configuration file is located in RHEL like I can with Ubuntu/Debian, give me 5 minutes at a RHEL box and it'll be configured :)

When was the last time the average Windows tech can configure the customized variety Windows XP + MIT krb5 systems that large hybrid networks usually have?

[Goddess_of_Linux]

As a security person, I can honestly say that it isn't just because of lack of support the reason some businesses don't use linux, its also because of the new or at least for my corporation, the Active Directory Domain Controls that we use. And in some other cases because we at my corporation haven't been able to convince the Senior Admins and Security Admins that its actually safer to give up windows.

But hay even I haven't gave up on Windows at home. My gaming system and my backup computer and most of my friends still use Windows.

[curuxz]

What the hell is all this "thats why people don't use linux" crap? Most big company servers are linux who the hell unless they are totaly retarded untalented grads (ie people with nothing more than a peice of paper certifying them in outdated text books) would PAY for any windows server. Honestly who in a server enviroment wants something slow, unstable and prone to viruses, hackers etc etc.....

Linux servers are used by people like Google, Nasa etc for their speed security and when you hear of security flaws in linux most of the time your hearing about admins who don't know how to set things up correctly. You can't leave fort kox in the hands of the smurfs and not expect it to get ripped off, its the same with linux if you have good admins then its never going to be beaten by microsoft products and the prices quoted are for support packages from compaines like red hat. As for this saving money BS its a total lie they did this a few years ago and the advert actauly got banned by all govenments exept south africa (coruption won over there) they were found to be backing up their lies with 'research' from compaines and groups they fund.

Don't worry about the adverts any one stupid enough to follow them deserves MS products.

2cents over :D

[N8MAN1068]

I run a IIS/Exchange 2k3 box...but it sits behind what I feel is the best Linux firewall...a Smoothwall box with many mods.
I got rid of XP on my home machine, and use Breezy. I had Breezy on a Dell laptop up until about 1500 when I added Dapper repo's and hosed Xorg. I put OpenSuse 10 on it to try out but I still have the Breezy iso ready to go ;)

I think that linux developers need to hash more with Windows as a necessary evil. No company in their right mind will wake up and say 'oh. lets switch to linux next quarter!'. It'd be easier to dispose of legacy desktops and move in linux boxes and use Terminal Services to still run Win32 apps, than get rid of all software and find linux compatible programs.

Autopackage is a slick jobby too. It's aggrivating to find an application you'd like to put in place, but it's only on RPM or available w/ Portage (i know..use ALIEN..)

I think you look at 2 companies..A and B.
A has a MS Windows Active Directory domain, WAN, TB's of data like documents and emails in .pst's for thousands of users.
B is a new company with no infrastructure, but has the resources to plan/test/implement an open source environment, and isn't tied to years worth of history and contracts with vendors.

B would see the most benefit in a Linux environment. They don't have to spend money converting data, losing formatting from MS Office to OO0 conversions, won't lose their email data, and won't have to keep around legacy machines for financial history on Win32 applications.

Linux companies/providers should be looking at NEW businesses if they want to gain shares in the market, not converting old ones. Any Sys.Admin or IT Manager will always have horror stories of moving from one vendor to the other..heck, I've got issues w/ a local telecom co. when we switched from Verizon to a new VoIP service...it's bound to happen. And when you talk to people about it, they listen and digest that, and get it in their mind when said vendor knocks on their door that X from Y company said he went with you guys and had issues...no way am I switching. I like my comfort zone.

What does this mean? When someone asks me 'Hey..my computer crashed and I can't find my XP cd key...can you hook me up?' I say 'Hm...sorry dude, I can't. What did you use your computer for? Surfing the web..checking email...sharing photos? Let me show you this thing called Ubuntu.....' What've they got to lose? I've got a binder with several different Distrobution install sets. Some might like a clean desktop, some might like eye candy.

Just don't tell them 'If such and such happens, grep this apt-get that dpkg-reconfigure the other thing.' :D

[prizrak]

I run a IIS/Exchange 2k3 box...but it sits behind what I feel is the best Linux firewall...a Smoothwall box with many mods.
I got rid of XP on my home machine, and use Breezy. I had Breezy on a Dell laptop up until about 1500 when I added Dapper repo's and hosed Xorg. I put OpenSuse 10 on it to try out but I still have the Breezy iso ready to go ;)

I think that linux developers need to hash more with Windows as a necessary evil. No company in their right mind will wake up and say 'oh. lets switch to linux next quarter!'. It'd be easier to dispose of legacy desktops and move in linux boxes and use Terminal Services to still run Win32 apps, than get rid of all software and find linux compatible programs.

Autopackage is a slick jobby too. It's aggrivating to find an application you'd like to put in place, but it's only on RPM or available w/ Portage (i know..use ALIEN..)

I think you look at 2 companies..A and B.
A has a MS Windows Active Directory domain, WAN, TB's of data like documents and emails in .pst's for thousands of users.
B is a new company with no infrastructure, but has the resources to plan/test/implement an open source environment, and isn't tied to years worth of history and contracts with vendors.

B would see the most benefit in a Linux environment. They don't have to spend money converting data, losing formatting from MS Office to OO0 conversions, won't lose their email data, and won't have to keep around legacy machines for financial history on Win32 applications.

Linux companies/providers should be looking at NEW businesses if they want to gain shares in the market, not converting old ones. Any Sys.Admin or IT Manager will always have horror stories of moving from one vendor to the other..heck, I've got issues w/ a local telecom co. when we switched from Verizon to a new VoIP service...it's bound to happen. And when you talk to people about it, they listen and digest that, and get it in their mind when said vendor knocks on their door that X from Y company said he went with you guys and had issues...no way am I switching. I like my comfort zone.

What does this mean? When someone asks me 'Hey..my computer crashed and I can't find my XP cd key...can you hook me up?' I say 'Hm...sorry dude, I can't. What did you use your computer for? Surfing the web..checking email...sharing photos? Let me show you this thing called Ubuntu.....' What've they got to lose? I've got a binder with several different Distrobution install sets. Some might like a clean desktop, some might like eye candy.

Just don't tell them 'If such and such happens, grep this apt-get that dpkg-reconfigure the other thing.' :D
I'll agree, switching costs are a huge problem especially if it's a large organization. I'd also like to add that Windows doesn't suck as much as everyone claims it does any admin worth anything will be able to keep Win machines up and running with as few problems as possible.
FYI Linux has security holes as well, believe it or not there ARE Linux virii in the other thread I was in Apache Slammer was one of the examples. An unpatched system is an unpatched system it doesn't make that much of a difference what OS it is.

[mfarquhar]

90% of all computer users are useless drones

Hell Yeah, but don't tell the drones that:-$

[ziostanko]

For reference:
Red Hat Enterprise AS Premium Edition: $2,499
Windows Server 2003 R2 Enterprise Edition: $3,999

Red Hat Enterprise AS Standard Edition: $1,499
Windows Server 2003 R2 Standard Edition: $1,199

SUSE prices a bit differently, which can be found here (http://www.novell.com/products/linuxenterpriseserver/howtobuy.html).

Centos Community Enterpsise Operating System: $0

http://www.centos.org

[jdong]

Centos Community Enterpsise Operating System: $0

http://www.centos.org

I don't think licensing costs are anything near an issue in Linux -- even with the most expensive licensing option, you're getting something back for it that well offsets the initial licensing price.

[sad_iq]

I think that that commercial may have some point somewere...picture your average BIG japonese company...say a newspaper one...with the average of 3000-4000 computers in one building, (print servers, internal DNS servers, firewalls, proxy servers.and all the like) and many buildings in the entire country. Every time one of thowse computers is not working ..money is lost...now picture some sysadmin trying to implement any linux distro in such a building..backups...reformats...reinstalls..config urations..finding alternative software..all take time! Lost time=Lost money!!! So they would actually save money by spending money on windows licences,antivirus licences, and all that. Also to hire 50 windows sysadmins is pretty easy...go to your nearest HighSchool and pick them up...now try to find 50 (very capable) linux sysadmins...takes time...loosing time is out of the question!!!
And about the pricing on windows Vs. Linux ... no one mentioned Debian...the thing is harder than a rock when it comes to security...and is free...but skilled sysadmins are required to run a critical machine...so get them skilled gurus and you don't need to pay for support!!!
Why do you think the US Army runs linux on the computers that control the missiles ?? I don't think they ever call for tech support...but they have the very best gurus money can buy!!!