[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: For those in need of some amusement.....
Hello RGB,
Please see my attached parody.....
Sincerely,
Jeff Waddell
jwaddell@ix.netcom.com
PS. Many responses at linuxtoday.com....
On Wed, 6 Oct 1999, Robert G. Brown wrote:
>
> ...this may fill the "Bill". Sure turned my day around!
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/ntserver/nts/news/msnw/LinuxMyths.asp
>
> For further amusement, the "Terms of Use" link at the bottom of the above
> page is recommended, largely in the spirit of being an encore. One of the
> conditions (in a follow-on page) being that "the use is not disparaging."
>
> I am in the mood for a rebuttal. Any help would be welcome, via private
> email of posting to the group.
> Regards,
> ---> RGB <---
>
<!-- X-URL: W2kMyths.html -->
<BASE HREF="file:///~/W2kMyths.html">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META NAME="DTC_DATESTAMP" CONTENT="DATESTAMP=10/6/99">
<META NAME="DESCRIPTION" CONTENT="The Windows 2000(tm) operating system is not suitable for mainstream usage by business or home users. Today with Linux(tm), customers can be confident in delivering applications that are scalable, secure, and reliable--yet cost effective to deploy and manage. Windows 2000(tm) clearly has a long way to go to be competitive with Linux(tm)">
<META NAME="KEYWORDS" CONTENT="Microsoft Windows 2000(tm), Windows 2000(tm) myths, Windows 2000(tm) vs Linux(tm), compared with Linux(tm)">
</HEAD>
<BODY TOPMARGIN=0 LEFTMARGIN=0 BGCOLOR="#ffffff" TEXT="#000000" >
<!-------- Start Page Content -------->
<h1>
<a href="file:///~/W2kMyths.html#disclaimer">DISCLAIMER</a>
</h1>
<br>
<span class=ldText>With all the recent attention around Windows 2000(tm) as an operating system, it's important to step back from the hype and look at the reality. First, it's worth noting that Windows 2000 (tm) is a DOS based VAX-like operating system. Windows 2000(tm) fundamentally relies on outdated and proven to be insufficient operating system technology and architecture. Windows 2000(tm) was not designed from the ground-up to support symmetrical multiprocessing (SMP), graphical user interfaces (GUI), asynchronous I/O, fine-grained security model, multi-user process space, multi-process task space, multi-server clustering and many other important characteristics of a modern operating system. These architectural limitations mean that as customers look for a platform to cost effectively deploy scalable, secure, and robust applications, Windows 2000(tm) simply cannot deliver on the hype.</span></p>
<span class=ldTitle>Myth: Windows 2000(tm) performs better than Linux(tm) </span><br>
<HR size=1 class="clsHR">
<span class=ldText><b>Reality: Linux(tm) Outperforms Windows 2000(tm) On Common Customer Workloads</b></span></p>
<span class=ldText>Microsoft claims to have improved performance and scalability in the latest versions of the DOS (ahem Windows 2000) system, however it's clear that Windows 2000(tm) remains inferior to the Linux(tm)<sup>®</sup>operating system. </span></p>
<span class=ldText><ul>
</ul></span></p>
<span class=ldTitle>Myth: Windows 2000(tm) is more reliable than Linux(tm)</span><br>
<HR size=1 class="clsHR">
<span class=ldText><b>Reality: Windows 2000(tm) Needs Real World Proof Points Rather than Anecdotal Stories</b></span></p>
<span class=ldText>Microsoft likes to talk about Windows 2000(tm) as a stable and reliable operating system, yet there is no real world data or metrics and very limited customer evidence to back up these claims. </span></p>
<span class=ldText><ul>
<li> Linux(tm) has been proven in demanding customer environments to be a reliable operating system. Customers such as Burlington Coat Factory, The Boeing Company, Cisco, NASA, and many others run mission critical applications on Linux(tm).
<li> Windows 2000(tm) lacks remote administration, and stable operation. This means that in the event of a system failure, such as a power outage, or application crash, data loss or corruption is possible. In any event, the system must attempt to repair itself and to restart (causing costly downtime for your users), a process that will likely cause you to pull your hair out and SCREAM.....
<li> There are no commercially proven clustering technologies to provide Parallel Computing Environments for Windows 2000(tm). Microsoft may point to WolfPack and DNA, but these are unproven and seemingly inherently flawed clustering solutions.
<li> There are no OEMs that provide uptime guarantees for Windows 2000(tm) that are above 99.9 percent uptime.
</ul></span></p>
<span class=ldTitle>Myth: Windows 2000(tm) is available </span><br>
<HR size=1 class="clsHR">
<span class=ldText><b>Reality: Availability is there for Beta's that are not ready for prime time and only for a cost.</b></span></p>
<span class=ldText>Microsoft talks about the low-cost nature of Windows 2000(tm). It's important to understand that licensing cost is only a small part of the overall decision-making process for customers.</span></p>
<span class=ldText><ul>
<li>The cost of the operating system is only a small percentage of the overall total cost of ownership (TCO). In general Linux(tm) has proven to have a lower cost of ownership than any other operating system on the planet.
<li> The very definition of Windows 2000(tm) as Proprietary Software effort means that commercial companies cannot enhance and fix any problems you might have other then Microsoft. Therefore, commercial support services for Windows 2000(tm) will be fee-based and will likely be priced at a premium. These costs have to be factored into the total cost model.
<li> Windows 2000(tm) is a DOS based VAX-like operating system and is therefore complex to configure and manage. Existing UNIX users may find the transition to Windows 2000(tm) easier but administrators for existing Linux(tm)/UNIX(tm)<sup>®</sup>-based or Novell environments will find it more difficult to handle the sheer strangeness of Windows 2000(tm). This re-training will add significant costs to Windows 2000(tm) deployments.
<li> Windows 2000(tm) is a higher risk option than Linux(tm). For example how many certified engineers are there for Windows 2000(tm)? How easy is it to find skilled development and support people for Windows 2000(tm)? Who performs end-to-end testing for Windows 2000-based solutions? These factors and more need to be taken into account when choosing a platform for your business.
</span></p></ul>
<span class=ldTitle>Myth: Windows 2000(tm) is more secure than Windows Linux(tm) </span><br>
<HR size=1 class="clsHR">
<span class=ldText><b> Reality: Windows 2000(tm) Security Model Is Weak</b></span></p>
<span class=ldText>All systems are vulnerable to security issues, however it's important to note that Windows 2000(tm) uses the same broken security model as the original DOS and Windows implementations- a model that was not designed from the ground up to be secure. </span></p>
<span class=ldText>
<ul>
<li> Windows 2000(tm) only provides security through obscurity. In contrast, every object in Linux(tm), from files to operating system data structures, has an open access to all programmers to assess these structures security.
<li> Windows 2000(tm) security is all-or-nothing. Administrators cannot delegate administrative privileges without compromising their data integrity: a user who needs an administrative capability must be made a full administrator for that task, which compromises best security practices. In contrast, Linux(tm) allows an administrator to delegate privileges at an exceptionally fine-grained level to individuals, groups, and the world if appropriate.
<li> Windows 2000(tm) has not supported key security accreditation standards. Windows 2000(tm) has never been evaluated at either a C2 level under the U.S. Government's evaluation process or at a C2-equivalent level under the British Government's ITSEC process. In contrast, Linux(tm) products are open for corporate and government testing (of specific installations, no less) at any time.
<li> Windows 2000(tm) system administrators must spend huge amounts of time rebooting the system and denying service to there many and now quite angry customers. This is made more frightening due to the fact that there isn't any location to trust for security issues to be reported and fixed. In contrast Linux(tm) has multiple sources of bug tracking, discovery, and patching that are independent of any given vendor. Also Linux many linux patches can be done on the fly reducing service downtime and customer disatisfaction.
<li> Configuring Windows 2000(tm) security requires an administrator to be an expert in the intricacies of the operating system and how components interact. Misconfigure any part of the operating system and the system could be vulnerable to attack. Linux(tm) security is easy to set up and administer with tools such as the Webmin and linuxconf.
</ul></span></p>
<span class=ldTitle>Myth: Windows 2000(tm) can replace Linux(tm) on the desktop</span><br>
<HR size=1 class="clsHR">
<span class=ldText><b>Reality: Windows 2000(tm) Makes No Sense at the Desktop </b></span></p>
<span class=ldText>Windows 2000(tm) as a desktop operating system makes no sense. A user would end up with a system that has fewer applications, is more complex to use and manage, crashes more often, damages files, and is less intuitive. </span></p>
<span class=ldText><ul>
<li> Windows 2000(tm) encourages peripherial manufacturers to waste your cpu cycles on the job you bought the peripherial to do. Windows 2000(tm) does not support important new technologies such as the Alpha, the PowerPC, and the StrongARM processors, nor does it support legacy processors such as the Intel 386 and the Motorola 68000 series. Linux(tm) does this TODAY.
<li> The complexity of the Windows 2000(tm) operating system and cumbersome nature of the existing GUI would make retraining end-users a huge undertaking and would add significant cost
</ul></span></p>
<span class=ldTitle>Summary</span><br>
<span class=ldText>The Microsoft Windows 2000(tm) operating system is not suitable for mainstream usage by business or home users. Today with Linux(tm), people can be confident in delivering applications that are scalable, secure, and reliable--yet cost effective to deploy and manage. Windows 2000(tm) clearly has a long way to go to be competitive with Linux(tm). With the release of the Linux 2.2, the Linux Community extends the technical superiority of the platform even further ensuring that customers can deliver the next generation applications to solve their business challenges. </span></p>
</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
</td>
</tr>
</TABLE>
<address>
<a name="disclaimer">
<h1>DISCLAIMER</h1>
<br>This is a parody, I repeat this is a parody. Any truth found in this document is irrelevant and self serving. Please serve with pickles....
</a>
</address>
</BODY>
</HTML>