Linux vs Windows - a new angle?

[Satanic Atheist]

Once again I'm sat in work bored off my nut, so I mosied on over to The Microsoft Website (http://www.microsoft.com) and entered "Linux" into the search field expecting to get back a huge load of articles about why Windows is superior.

Strangely enough, I found this (http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=4415a0aa-a62a-4f1e-91b4-761f32cefccf&displaylang=en), this (http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=0c5eb0ad-e1ad-4100-9b76-8772a8220062&displaylang=en) and this (http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=e005e40b-13fa-4b42-90fe-b245e1c7d2ed&displaylang=en) as well as the usual bumpf I was expecting.

So why is Microsoft releasing software for Linux? I always believed them to be mortal enemies and that Microsoft would never port anything to Linux.

Hmmm, the Passport SDK? Passport is one of Microsofts top products (in terms of usage statistics).

Oh well, I'm off to read a few inflamatory articles. I am that bored.

James

[l01yuk]

Note the common thread
Apache http server

[hard candy]

Bored? (http://www.btinternet.com/~welensky/)

Not Bored! (http://www.notbored.org/index1.html)

Bored-sh*********less (http://www.bored****less.com/)

Links for when you're bored (http://www.i-am-bored.com/)


I find some of these sites are good for those days- you could always start programming a new kernel. Linus Torvalds kept himself busy for a year doing the basic stuff- of course he stayed inside for most of the year. oh, I forgot this one:
Buy yourself a girlfriend (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2962323541)

[Hayl]

they also have Print Services for UNIX in Win 2000 and XP for printing to LPRng print queues.

Win XP also has native support for CUPS printing :) with no extra software required (meaning, on the Linux side, you don't have to set up printers in SAMBA).

[amgeex]

Software requirements
- Linux version 6.1 or 6.2

That's from one of the articles Satanic Atheist dug up from microsoft. Linux v. 6.1 or 6.2?!?!?! What are they talking about!!??!?!? There's no official linux distro, or is it???

[ricstr]

Originally posted by Satanic Atheist
So why is Microsoft releasing software for Linux? I always believed them to be mortal enemies and that Microsoft would never port anything to Linux.

James
I dont know, possiby so they can entrap existing linux user into the Microsoft ways.

Or using the Microsoft application on a linux system could alter the system to perform more poorly than a windows system, so it may appear that the windows system is working better, eventualy making the users switch to a windows system.

[hard candy]

Naw, they just want to integrate into a unix environment. Just like we want to integrate into a microsoft environment.

[l01yuk]

Linux 6.2 - MS Standard Linux :D

Good one MS, maybe they could tell me if it works on Debian 9.3 Spud ;)

[danscript]

I did a search at M$.com also with Linux as the keyword. They have posted a few articles about "research" that has been conducted proving that Windows has a lower total cost of owernship (TCO) in 4 out of 5 scenarios. They said that Linux is cheaper by 6% in scenario of web server usage. I don't make the decisions at my place of work so we don't run linux. Does anyone have any expereinces with TCO in the real world they could discuss here?

[Satanic Atheist]

Jeez, you guys are quick. Normally during the day there are few posts on here (until 5pm - got you to a tee!).

It is rather strange and I did notice the Apache HTTP thread (although I haven't contemplated the significance yet) but I certainly don't think Microsoft would deliberately attempt to sabotage a Linux system with poor products (they do it to their own products accidentally, it would seem).

As the case for interoperability goes, I'm now happily digesting a court transcript for MS vs Dell and RedHat that appears they are deliberately preventing UNIX and Linux interoperability with Kerberos PAC (don't ask me, I'm just reading the stuff).

There are a couple of "Windows is better than Linux" threads which I have absolutely no interest in whatsoever (first hand experience is better than second-hand knowledge) and these will obviously be biased coming from a commercial company marketing rival products.

I still don't understand why there would 18 (yep, count 'em) products from Microsoft that are designed to work on Linux. It even says in it that the damn stuff is not designed to run under the Windows Operating System. I just never thought it possible.

As for 6.0 and 6.1 I believe they are referring to the RedHat distro since that seems to be the one they target the most. Indeed, the comparison tests are all done against RedHat. I'm guessing that it's ignorance on their part that precludes Debian, Mandrake, Slackware et al.

Some of these packages could be interesting... The Passport Software Development Kit (SDK)??? Why would Microsoft want to port Passport software development stuff to Linux? We don't need particularly need it (although it probably helped the Instant Messenger developers no end to resolve this encryption business).

Is it possible that they were forced to convert it due to non-compliance with inter-operability of software? I think this may warrant an e-mail. I'll throw one at them later and if I get a reply, I'll post it here. In the meantime, if anyone has any questions I could ask them or could expand on my little knowledge of this product so that at least we'll get a more conducive (i.e. not MS BS) answer then please post them here. I'll compile the e-mail and post it here later.

James

EDIT: May hold that e-mail for a short while. I just dug this (http://news.com.com/2100-1001_3-955655.html) up and it appears that this is all part of that anti-trust case. I think Microsoft were forced to allow other platforms to use some of it's web-based services (including Passport on-line authentication). The supposition that the software is designed to work poorly isn't as far-fetched as I originally thought, either. Again, all documented in the article.

[Satanic Atheist]

There's a thread on here about TCO when they did it (last month?).

I think the main straw that they were clutching at was that a Linux/UNIX admin generally costs more to train and have a higher income than an MCSE or MCP guy. We all know from experience that it does take longer to deploy a fully-working system in Linux for a lot of things (DHCP server, DNS server, Web Server) etc and the "arcane" command-prompt system is a little intimidating (although very powerful).

It's interesting to note that some of the key topics (such as initial deployment costs, hardware requirements and ongoing licensing costs) were ignored. I wonder why?

To summarise, the article is a stastical piece of genius and what it says is factually correct. It's just that the most critical facts were not mentioned and as we all know from Disraeli - "There are lies, damn lies and statistics."

Would you trust BMW to do a favourable report on Mercedes?

James

[shakin]

Originally posted by danscript
Does anyone have any expereinces with TCO in the real world they could discuss here?

Linux is as cheap as you want it to be. I run a Linux Java app server with $30,000 of IBM software and a Linux database server with $50,000 of software. I also run an Internet gateway, DNS server, file server and web server that each cost nothing in licensing and have required almost no maintenance. The best part about Linux is that the costs are controllable, while much of Windows' cost is not.

With Linux you need an admin, but one admin can do a lot of machines because they are more trouble-free. Windows networks usually have more admins and the cost of a software failure really hurts because it can affect the entire company.

[l01yuk]

I think that MS want to enable the huge amount of apache servers to use frontpage bits and pieces as well as use ms passport and so on.

It is basically that apache has such a huge share that ms need to deploy important products like passport modules for apache.

They may, in the future, think that it is worth stopping support for apache, if, say *everyone* really can't do without passport or frontpage things.

I would expect that they are happy to have a low deployment of web servers anyway because of the constant hammering these machines have. After all, desktops are in a relativly secure place right.


TCO for Linux is not bad, the only thing is that if you already have a windows licence then why change? If, when you need to upgrade, there is a Linux admin around then good, otherwise you have to train all your windows admins to be inexperienced linux admins and then employ at least one experienced guy or make people redundant and hire new people.

Painful choices either way. The point is that there are few real oportunities to change os at the moment. What needs to happen is for universities to turn out properly trained people who can admin either type of system. Then there will be real choice for industry.

[Satanic Atheist]

I've just found this (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/33923.html) on El Reg.

There could be some interesting times ahead, although it won't be until Dell and Compaq start offering Linux systems that a real threat to Microsoft will exist.

Hopefully this means that games etc will start to be ported to Linux en masse rather than the few that currently exist.

James

[Lostman]

Why would you want to take a stable OS and put M$ products on it? Is it so they can eat away at your OS and them say that Linux is weak?

I'd love to have somebody try and install the passport crap and see how much of a pain it is.

[Satanic Atheist]

Good point. Anyone out there interesting in bench-testing some of this FrontPage and Passport stuff? I'd like to know if it's actually any good. I don't run a web server so I can't test it (and I'm not going to deploy one just for this).

James

[hard candy]

Linux has come a long way in 4 years since I started using it. But I can see programs such as game engines taking another 2-3 years to get built for linux, AFTER there is a profit-producing market for linux games. Re-engineering the current game engines wouldn't take that long but again the incentive would have to be present. Half-life runs successfully on linux, it took approx 2 -3 years to get ported to linux (I'm not talking about emulation).
The outcome maybe 6-10 years from now? I believe a lot of programs will be Version 1a for Longhorn, and Version 1b for linux. Macintosh may be able to run linux stuff off the shelf by then (starting up OS* and loading up gnucash,etc without any tweaking).
(Hope I didn't steal the pulpit).

[Satanic Atheist]

It's not going to happen overnight, you're right. But it's not too far away with Loki leading the market at the moment.

Has Half-Life been ported to Linux? I only knew of it running through Wine.

James

[hard candy]

Loki, RIP :(

Loki died about 11/2 to 2 years ago.

Loki (http://www.lokigames.com/)

[Satanic Atheist]

Hmmm, I didn't know that. I noticed that they've been down since 31/01/02 from their site.

That's a shame, some of the Linux ports they did were great - Unreal Tournament, Soldier of Fortune...

I still can't find Half-Life for Linux anywhere, though. I thought they said they weren't interested in porting it. HL2 won't be ported either.

James

[hard candy]

No Half-Life Linux yet, but do you really need games with Linux on the computer, a regular paycheck, and a woman by your side? Yes you do!
Check out how far Unreal has gotten, especially Unreal tournament.