Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||||
Microsoft Dismisses British Objections to Anti-Linux Ad (eWeek)
Several readers have sent in links to a variety of versions of a story
about a recent Microsoft FUD campaign. To sum it up: Microsoft ran an
advertisement that included a graph comparing the dollar cost per
megabit-per-second of one Linux image running on two z900 mainframe CPUs
with one Windows Server 2003 image running on two 900MHz Intel Xeon CPUs,
"proving" that Linux is 10 times more expensive to run. This eWeek article
contains the
relevant facts. "Microsoft sources said Wednesday that a British
regulatory agency's objections to an anti-Linux advertisement published as
part of its controversial "Get the Facts" campaign are moot because the ad
is no longer running."
(Log in to post comments)
Microsoft Dismisses British Objections to Anti-Linux Ad (eWeek) Posted Aug 26, 2004 19:03 UTC (Thu) by AnswerGuy (guest, #1256) [Link] ... but assuming that I wanted to by an IBM z900 mainframe and I wanted to succumb to Microsoft's advertising how much would I pay for a copy of XP on it?
Oh? I can't have it?
Oh! Microsoft doesn't even offer an operating system, any operating system, that's capable of running on any mainframe. I see. Yes. That comparison makes *perfect* sense. No apples to oranges problem here, no sireee!
Microsoft Dismisses British Objections to Anti-Linux Ad (eWeek) Posted Aug 26, 2004 21:07 UTC (Thu) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] Well they have distorted the true a bit,... and are playing with the fact that a couple of Xeon servers could do the job for a order of magnitude lower price than a z900 mainframe... it is obviously a complete anti-IBM propaganda... who *really* needs a z900 mainframe, anyway ?
They dont have to offer an OS for mainframes since big parallel machines are an almost extinct specie with 'perhaps' less than 0,01% of the market instalations,... it isn't their market and is completly irrelevant even to the point they are trying to make...
Never the less i belive Microsoft will try to use *everything* to hit Open Source and their corporate leadership...
They are affraid that IBM, HP, SUN, perhapd AMD, and who knows, VIA, could join forces to really create a really competitive commoditized hardware platform arround bulk market technologies, for Open Source software like openbios or EFI and Linux... and open it to the world wide integration game ... the world really *first* competitor for what is generally knowned as Wintel(Apple always had closed platforms)... otherwise i cannot understand why they go *that* low to attack IBM and Open Source when there isn't yet such tremendous opposition to them.
Linux hw Posted Aug 27, 2004 9:31 UTC (Fri) by eru (subscriber, #2753) [Link] They are affraid that IBM, HP, SUN, perhapd AMD, and who knows, VIA, could join forces to really create a really competitive commoditized hardware ...Such as this: http://www-1.ibm.com/technology/power/newsletter/august2004/article3.html A quote The objective of the Avalanche Desktop Reference Management Platform (DRMP) project is to investigate and validate the promise of a complete open source software (OSS) solution from kernel to plug-in. Through this project, Avalanche member companies sought to document the value of lower IT costs through collaboration in the implementation of a complete PowerPC technology based OSS solution. Factors considered in the reduction of total cost of ownership (TCO) included: hardware, support and operational costs, and intangible costs, such as staff familiarity with the software stack and the hardware. Finally, as most senior managers, CFOs, CIOs, or COOs, are not aware of the complexity and risks of OSS and application stack version control, it is Avalanche's objective to enumerate and clarify these issues. Had not hear of this before, saw the link on a PowerPC linux site (http://www.penguinppc.org/). Worth a LWN article? Or is this just one of those hyped industry co-operation projects, most of which vanish without making any kind of splash.
Microsoft Dismisses British Objections to Anti-Linux Ad (eWeek) Posted Aug 27, 2004 15:12 UTC (Fri) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link] As a long-time "IT" worker, experienced in mainframes, OS/MVS, VSE (formerly DOS/VSE, etc), VM/CMS, OS/2 (a little), DOS (the "fun" days!", various Atari's, and all the rest of it (including Rexx and clists), I have only 1 thing to say about this comment:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHHHHAAAAAAAAHAHHHAAAAAAAAA! ROFL! GULP---SWALLOWED MY GUM AND SPIT OUT MY MIKL! HAAAHAAAAAAAHAHAHHHHAAAAAAAA!
My favorite bit of sarcasm when arguing with Windows bigots used to be: "If Windows is ready for the enterprise, when will it have a pervasive, OS-native, always-available, scripting language so system programmers can do all the work on Windows that we've been doing for years on the mainframe?"
Ironically, now we have it: vbscript.
You know, that language that people are now using to DESTROY THE E-MAIL SYSTEM, because *somebody* didn't bother to secure anything first?
I have a vacation day today, and then 2 days off. You definitely made my weekend! Thanks!!!!
Microsoft Dismisses British Objections to Anti-Linux Ad (eWeek) Posted Aug 27, 2004 15:23 UTC (Fri) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link] "... but assuming that I wanted to by an IBM z900 mainframe and I wanted to succumb to Microsoft's advertising how much would I pay for a copy of XP on it?"
I've often wondered what would happen if some folks from the demoscene were given a z900 machine so they could code demos right on the bare metal?
I've been away for awhile. Is it possible to get one of these to work closely with graphics hardware?
Microsoft Dismisses British Objections to Anti-Linux Ad (eWeek) Posted Aug 26, 2004 19:47 UTC (Thu) by dwheeler (guest, #1216) [Link] Oddly enough, the study on which this ad was based, and was lambasted as misleading, is still one of Microsoft's "Get the Facts" studies. It's not clear why this is moot.
Microsoft Dismisses British Objections to Anti-Linux Ad (eWeek) Posted Aug 26, 2004 19:55 UTC (Thu) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link] Because Microsoft says it is. Haven't you got that yet? Ignorance is strength.
</bitter sarcasm>
How could Microsoft...? Posted Aug 26, 2004 20:18 UTC (Thu) by freemars (subscriber, #4235) [Link] How could the powers that be at Microsoft have decided to run this comparison in the first place? Even the most pointy haired of PHBs is likely to notice that by the time you've paid for a mainframe, pulled in a dedicated power feed and installed extra air conditioning you've probably paid a tad bit more than the cost of a run-of-the-mill desktop computer. It doesn't take a lot of brainpower to ask why Microsoft set up this extreme difference in platforms for their comparison. Just what was Microsoft's target audience here? I'm guessing their research shows a lot of decision makers never read beyond the headline.
How could Linux on a Mainframe only be 10 times more expensive? Posted Aug 26, 2004 22:37 UTC (Thu) by rjamestaylor (guest, #339) [Link] It's a sure-fire win for MSFT. That it is so incredibly tilted in MSFT's favor should be an indication how much pressure MSFT had to press to make the scale tilt their direction.To me, the news in the study was that Linux on a Mainframe was **ONLY** 10 TIMES MORE EXPENSIVE than a Microsoft installation. This is especially true since having one Microsoft server means you'll need several more (GreatPlains 7.1, which I oversaw the installation of a couple years ago, needed it's own server plus a MS SQL Server, plus an Active Directory server, plus an Exchange server, plus a file server, plus...). With the Linux on a Mainframe, once you've paid for the first instance, the second through thousandth instances are "free" (comparatively). So, what I'd like to see is how many typical servers are needed for MSFT and comparable Linux solutions and go ahead and use MS on a dual processor commodity box in comparison with Linux on a Mainframe. I bet the cost curves converge a lot quicker than most people would guess. That said, in a recent Slashdot post I mention a few considerations beyond hardware costs I would have when selecting Linux on a Mainframe as a solution (specifically for a web hosting company).
How could Microsoft...? -> HEADLINES Posted Aug 27, 2004 7:52 UTC (Fri) by janpla (guest, #11093) [Link] Unfortunately a lot of people in leading positions aren't all that literate and will simply swallow the headlines and the more colourful ads. So the PHB will see 'Linux is 10 times as expensive' and never read the actual facts
How could Microsoft...? -> HEADLINES Posted Aug 27, 2004 13:45 UTC (Fri) by huffd (guest, #10382) [Link] As as a contractor I sometimes wonder if that is the reason we sign a NDA, it isn't the stealing of processes or methodology they are concerned about but the (in)ability of their leaders.
The "Peter Principle" comes to mind Posted Aug 27, 2004 14:22 UTC (Fri) by csigler (subscriber, #1224) [Link] The "Peter Priniciple" gives an explaination of this "headline-level" understanding of the prototypical PHB. The usual and amusing summary of it is "managers rise to the level of their own incompletence," which explains a lot. Ref. the Wikipedia entry.
How could Microsoft...? Posted Aug 27, 2004 18:38 UTC (Fri) by mmarsh (subscriber, #17029) [Link] I think that what they're trying to imply is that, in order to have the same performance, you have to run Linux on a mainframe that costs a heck of a lot compared with Windows on a commodity PC. Bogus? Sure, but if they can get away with it it spells dollars in the bank.
Microsoft Dismisses British Objections to Anti-Linux Ad (eWeek) Posted Aug 26, 2004 23:41 UTC (Thu) by petegn (guest, #847) [Link] Now Cmón folks get real .
can you honestly think of any serious Mainframe maker that would even consider anything from M$ Corp I mean nuff said.
Pete
UniSys! Posted Aug 27, 2004 0:30 UTC (Fri) by leonbrooks (guest, #1494) [Link] But I guess they're no longer available. On the way out, you might say.
UniSys and the WayBack machine Posted Aug 27, 2004 14:35 UTC (Fri) by havoc (guest, #2261) [Link] he, he, he!
http://web.archive.org/web/20040202013104/www.wehavethewa...
gone, but not forgotten.....
Microsoft law? Posted Aug 27, 2004 2:29 UTC (Fri) by libra (guest, #2515) [Link] So, as they stopped doing something unlegal they never did anything unlegal?Like if I manage to regularly steal money from you, it will not be considered a crime if you do notice only after I stopped?
Microsoft law? Posted Aug 27, 2004 7:56 UTC (Fri) by janpla (guest, #11093) [Link] Hey, this is capitalism: if you steal and get away with it, it wasn't a crime. This is deeply rooted in American tradition: look at the storeies Billy the Kid and Jesse James. It was an actual fact that they were robbers and murderers, as far as I know, but they are still considered heroes in America, for some reason. Probably because they got away wth it for a long time.
Microsoft law? Posted Aug 27, 2004 14:58 UTC (Fri) by bchilds (subscriber, #23751) [Link] It was an actual fact that they were robbers and murderers, as far as I know, but they are still considered heroes in America, for some reason.I don't think they were ever considered heroes. At most, I would say they were infamous.
Something is definitely wrong... Posted Aug 27, 2004 8:02 UTC (Fri) by janpla (guest, #11093) [Link] when the laws of a country are such that
- the leaders can get away with going to war based on a lie, leading to the unecessary death of tens of thousands, including their own soldiers.
- the powerful businesses can get away with lying and stealing, in the process ruining perhaps hundreds of lives
- but if you are an ordinary citizen you will go to jail for an offence much smaller than any of that. And if you kill even 1 person you risk death penalty
I'm not saying that people shouldn't be punished for comminting crimes - I just say it should be the case for all, even if you are Microsoft or the president.
Something is definitely wrong... (turned political) Posted Aug 27, 2004 22:07 UTC (Fri) by whano (guest, #24315) [Link] I almost let this reply go...guess I'm a sucker for a troll.
"- the leaders can get away with going to war based on a lie, leading to the unecessary death of tens of thousands, including their own soldiers."
10's of thousands? proof please, reliable source not moveone.org or such. Oh and just so you know, reenlistment rate for all services are at or above targeted levels. As for the lie comment, the investigations that was conducted by Congress and British Parliment found that there was no proof that the President or Prime Minister 'cooked the books', you will believe what you need to though.
"- but if you are an ordinary citizen you will go to jail for an offence much smaller than any of that. And if you kill even 1 person you risk death penalty"
If you kill 1 person intentionally and not in self-defense then you should die as long as there isn't extenuating circumstances such as insanity. Some European countries don't believe in self-defense though, based on the spelling of 'offence' in your post I am guessing you are in Europe, I can understand if you don't buy this.
"I'm not saying that people shouldn't be punished for comminting crimes - I just say it should be the case for all, even if you are Microsoft or the president."
1st famous person that comes to mind that was convicted recently and is sentenced to jail time is Martha Stewart, that was for lieing to an FBI agent while said agent was conducting a criminal investigation. 2nd is Ken Lay (sp?), former CEO of Enron, has also been charged.
Sorry if anyone thinks I hijacked this thread but some statements don't get a free pass.
Randy
Here is something for ya! Posted Aug 30, 2004 8:19 UTC (Mon) by gornius (guest, #24362) [Link] Maybe he is referring to this link here, http://www.iraqbodycount.net andthis one here http://icasualties.org/oif/
|
|||||||||||||