Weekly Edition
Return to the Announcements page
| |||||||||||||
Yet another Microsoft-funded anti-Linux study
Here's a press release from Microsoft touting another study it bought; this one claims that Windows is more reliable than Linux. "'Customers have told us that kernel uptime or availability of a single
component is only one factor in how they view reliability; real customer pain
is caused by the system itself failing to meet its reliability requirements
over time,' said Martin Taylor, general manager of the Platform Strategy Group
at Microsoft. 'This study shows that when compared to Red Hat Enterprise Linux
3.0, Windows Server 2003 is easier to maintain and predictable, and allows end
users to access the resources they need in a timely manner.'"
(Log in to post comments)
Yet another Microsoft-funded anti-Linux study Posted Apr 6, 2005 13:01 UTC (Wed) by wilreichert (subscriber, #17680) [Link] Funny, my cat did a reliability study of Linux and Windows, too. After months of licking himself and eating cat food, his conclusion was 'meow meow hiss' thus proving Linux is far more reliable than Windows 2003.
Yet another Microsoft-funded anti-Linux study Posted Apr 6, 2005 13:09 UTC (Wed) by lolando (subscriber, #7139) [Link] > "Customers have told us that..."
Well, they would, wouldn't they? If I did a survey among my customers, they'd probably tell me that free software works better for them. Otherwise they wouldn't be my customers.
Talk about a biased sample...
Yet another Microsoft-funded anti-Linux study Posted Apr 6, 2005 13:16 UTC (Wed) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] I just skimmed through the test report. I haven't been able to find any solid data regarding the test configuration, except dozens and dozens occurrences of "under normal conditions", "by default", "we can measure X" and "it is possible".Indeed, the report is quite clear about its goals: "[..] to compare the performance of Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition to Samba 3.0 running under Red Hat Enterprise Linux ES 3.0 using different configurations of both Samba 3.0 and Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition that modify the default behavior surrounding how each environment responds to requests by clients to commit their data to stable storage." So, basically, it's about nothing.
Which veritest report was quoted? Posted Apr 6, 2005 13:54 UTC (Wed) by simon_kitching (guest, #4874) [Link] Following the included link to veritest leads to a page full of reports. But none of them appear to be the report that the press release quotes from as far as I can tell.
Quoting from a "report" which is not public, so that no analysis of the methodology can be made, is just hogwash. What a surprise.
The Independence Air example is quite ridiculous. All it proves is that if your in-house staff are all skilled in platform X, and you aren´t willing to retrain them on platform Y or hire staff skilled on platform Y, then using X is cheaper and more reliable than Y. That´s no big surprise.
The National Enterprise Systems example is more interesting. Given they *were* a SCO shop, it is reasonable to assume they did have unixy skills already. I wonder if we´ll ever see more details on this...
Which veritest report was quoted? Posted Apr 6, 2005 14:17 UTC (Wed) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] Given they were a SCO shop, I'd say they didn't have enough time to prepare a gradual transition to Linux in the first place, what with SCO breathing down their neck. ;-)
|
|||||||||||||