Linux vs Microsoft testing

[abowlsbey]

I'm preparing a speech persuading non-technical people to embrace and support linux. I'm hoping to find independent testing results that will support the speech. I would think the areas of performance, reliability, security and tco would be key. Has anyone suggestions?

[pythagras]

I'm straining to think of numbers that would make sense to non-technical people, aside from $$. I'd wow them with glitter and glitz rather than showing performance specs. Maybe install the windows version of half-life on a linux box and show off graphics. Show off the vast variety in window managers.

Much of linux though (the cli, the technical things) are things that only geeks are going to get excited about.

[LrngTheHardWay]

Head over to Linuxsecurity.org for the security end of the deal.
Also look into the very few Linux-based virui/worms and their minor effect upon release. Contrast that with the innumerable windows viri/worms/security holes, the major impact that many have had, and the cost to clean up the damage caused. (We're talking in the bilions, here.)

[El_Cu_Guy]

You'll find a hard time finding hard data to back up your claims. That because a lot of it is biased. You'll also find examples where people stray too far from the question.

This is one of the reasons why I propose that there should be an International "OSS supporters should shut the hell up and answer the damn question" Day/Week/Month.

Example:

Q: I am having difficulty getting <blank> to work properly with KDE.

A1: KDE sucks GNOME rocks!

A2: KDE and GNOME are bloated try <insert something here>.

A3: I am working on a new gui that will never be done because I'm just trying to keep from shooting myself because I live with my mom and I'm 40 years old and read comics that have chicks with tig bitties and rent video games because I read about a code to make all the girls naked because I'll never see a real girl naked. Actually, I'm not, but rather just staring at my screen try to pretend to be a hacker by randomly typing stuff on the keyboard in a futile effort to figure out the password to this adult website. Bascially, because I'm a pathetic loser with no life.

A4: GUIs are for losers! CLI all the way, baby!

This would be followed by the Worldwide "delete all posts written by these annoying losers" Week.

[Suramya]

El_Cu_Guy: Cool post, and I agree with you 100%.

abowlsbey: You could talk about the stability of linux and how it requires much less reboots and runs longer etc. You can show them the nice graphs generated by the Uptimes Project http://uptimes.wonko.com/ to prove your point.

You should also talk about how most of the software in Linux is free and comes preinstalled. e.g. compare that to get productive on Windows you have to install MS Office, etc etc while in Linux its built in.

One thing my frends were amazed at and like is the multiple desktops in KDE/Gnome. Show them how that can help you be more productive. You can talk a bit about this.

hope this helps.

- Sur

[LrngTheHardWay]

Originally posted by El_Cu_Guy
You'll find a hard time finding hard data to back up your claims.
::: shrug :::
Yeah, if your data comes from IDC. ( http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,741748,00.asp )

You'll find plenty of hard data over at Gartner Research ( http://www3.gartner.com/1_researchanalysis/research_overview.html ). TechRepublic, last time I checked, had a decent archive of their security numbers.
It's my understanding that Forrester Research may also be of some help to you.

http://www.cert.org/ is another good source of research data.

You don't have to drone on with raw data and multiple exemplars...just distill the information to a few, understandable comparisons between the vulnerability of the two OS platforms.

A nice chuckle for any speech on the subject of TCO (now that it occurred to me) would be to lift Steve Ballmer's own admission that Linux is cheaper than w2k in terms of cost, and contrasting it with the eWEEK article above.
It sure looks like m$ was tweaking the conditions to get a lower TCO, in the end.

"We have prided ourselves on always being the cheapest guy on the block--we were going to be higher volume and lower priced than anybody else out there, whether it was Novell, Lotus or anybody else," said Ballmer, during a keynote that closed the event. "One issue we have now, a unique competitor, is Linux. We haven't figured out how to be lower priced than Linux. For us as a company, we're going through a whole new world of thinking."

Instead of leading with price, the company has changed its go-to-market strategy to present a value proposition to customers and partners to explain why a solution from Microsoft delivers more capability at an appropriate price.

"We are actually having to learn how to say, 'We may have a high price on this one, but look at the additional value and how that value actually leads to a lower cost of ownership despite the fact that our price may be higher,'" he said.


This statement is discussed in the Monday, 15 July, 2002 column by Rich Cirillo, for VARBusiness.com.
( http://vb.channelsupersearch.com/news/VAR/36355.asp )

That gives you some direction on the sub-topics of Security and TCO. You may actually find some performance and/or reliability data in the above references, though I've never hunted specifically for 'em myself.

Good luck on the speech.

[sp]

[CMonster]

check out some of the news articles linked over at www.linux.org

[tinderbox]

Long message aside (and a few drinks downed) I'd hafta say that the only oppurtunistic opinion to lay on a bunch of non-technological people (never saw that an insult until now) is the fact that there is a monopoly that winows has, which enables the ability to put anything on your computer without any consent (going off xp pro here) and the creative universiality of things such as open office which CAN recognize other formats and not be pissy about it. As far as security goes, I was using linux way before I knew it due to ftp (ls and get, etc) and could not determine the difference between it and dos other than format. With the advent of the visual age KDE and GNOME and whatever you want to call it nowadays still means the same thing. Pictures in place of typing, visually appealing interpretations of things that can be done without it. The only thing is linux has and always was meant for is multi-processing. Security has come a long way, find out which first used it (might be a bonus time wise). After asking someone else about this, I realized that the monopoly has to be somewhere. I'd rather it be in the place of free software.

The best thing is ease of use (similar to windows with kde and/or gnome), security (which goes without saying compared to windows 50,000 updates about stupid nonsense), and open software. Windows and redhat (which is what i'm using now) already know things bloom out of previous instances, allowing for automatic software updates is vital. It's just that I'd rather not have an EULA and piece both the software and kernel together without spending a bundle. I guess it goes along with the $$ scenario, but who knows how far a sense of community within the technological area will take us, and that's the real question.

I would rather, as a non-technological person, have the most complete ability to do what it is I intended on having the computer for. I found linux to be most suited for what i needed. Reliability and performance have as much to do with the computer purchased as does knowing the software can handle anything you throw at it. Non-technological people can still read, it's just whether they choose to learn more. Security, slight performance gain if built on yer computer (rpms kinda strike that), and reliability in whatever build you have play a small role in the grand scheme of things. Programmers get paid to do the windows b*s*. With problems in both, and technology surpassing itself every second, people with their own interest in happenings cause the greatest changes, free of charge.

Again, as a non-technological person, the best thing would be money. Current linux desktops have the ability to do what windows does and more if they feel comfortable knowing that it's meant to be known. I'd kill to back in the day get linux instead of dos because I wouldn't be so happy about windows overtaking it no matter what, since the skills for linux far surpass anything done in a "dos shell" or whatever it's talked of these days. The fact is I feel more comfortable in front of a terminal than anything.... I'm kinda shocked that the people don't know much more about it other than a mere mention of linux's existence. I'd like to say any server would be linux. But who knows....

My father told me about the system before dos, and when dos came out it was sub-par. Things take time to blossom, and once they do there's something better to come along. It takes awhile for those software operating systems to become commonplace. DOS probably should've been replaced by linux. Windows too. 3.11 was surprising. i've found it's the bits they deal with. Only computers deal with a limit on FSB, chip speed, anything to get by. It just comes to me as linux seems the most to allow for discrepancies. Learn and let learn if simplicity is the goal. Ok i'm done, bash me however you feel fit. Using linux Im happy finding whatever software I need. The only shortside is that what I use is not industry standard. It's almost as if linux is all too happy to incorporate current standards. I guess that is what makes it so great.

drunk danger dan
"i'm not a ranger"