Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > An analysis of Linux TCO and MS's "get the facts campaign....

Reply
Thread Tools

An analysis of Linux TCO and MS's "get the facts campaign....

 
 
thing2
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-14-2006
Fred Dagg wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:15:50 +1300, David Mohring
> <(E-Mail Removed)> exclaimed:
>
>
>>On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:01:27 +1300, Fred Dagg wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 09:14:18 +1300, thing2 <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>exclaimed:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Of course we trust the boys in Redmond to tell us the whole truth and
>>>>nothing but the truth....yeah right....
>>>>

>>
>>http://www.levanta.com/linuxstudy/EM...a-Linux_RR.pdf
>>
>>>Wow, that Levanta-sponsored report doesn't even stand up to the most
>>>basic critical evaluation.
>>>

>>
>>Could you quote the statements in the report that have failed to "even
>>stand up to the most basic critical evaluation (or are you just a gutless
>>prat)?

>
>
> This says it all:
>
> "As a 37 year old CEO of Enterprise Management Associates (a OEM for
> server, workstations, etc that does NOT do MS-WINDOWS) I can say that
> many of us contribute much to the Linux community. The profit of my
> company that pays my salary has to be able to provide for my family
> and put my four kids through college. I bet the entire thing on Linux
> as I see it as a winner."
>
> - Nicholas Donovan
> CEO Enterprise Management Associates
>
> http://akakom.ac.id/~yudhi/1044225.html
>
>
> Still think this "report" is even slightly unbiased?



This is not the report....

They did some phone surveys and got data which they presented, looks way
less biased than MS's "studies".

regards

Thing









 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
thing2
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-14-2006
Fred Dagg wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 09:14:18 +1300, thing2 <(E-Mail Removed)>
> exclaimed:
>
>
>>Of course we trust the boys in Redmond to tell us the whole truth and
>>nothing but the truth....yeah right....
>>
>>http://www.levanta.com/linuxstudy/EM...a-Linux_RR.pdf

>
>
> LOL!!! Want to see an example of the "facts" on display in this
> Levanta-sponsored FUD report?
>
> Take a look at the table on Page 11. If you can't spot at least 4
> (most likely deliberate) major blunders, you should do a little
> research into what these products are, their necessity, their
> necessity in the supposed environment discussed, and their suitability
> to the project.
>
> I'm a little disappointed, thing. I really do like analysing reports
> on both sides, but, IMO, this is quite honestly the most one-sided and
> blatantly biased one I've seen yet.



My page 11 shows salary comparisons........so I cannot quite see your point.

regards

Thing




 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
thing2
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-14-2006
Fred Dagg wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 11:00:16 +1300, Fred Dagg <(E-Mail Removed)>
> exclaimed:
>
>>>Could you quote the *actual* statements in the report that have failed to
>>>"even stand up to the most basic critical evaluation (or are you just a
>>>gutless prat)?

>>
>>I'm not going to go through and analyse the "report", as I simply
>>don't have time, and I'm sure plenty of others are busy laughing at it
>>at the moment.
>>
>>Honestly, if anyone can look at this and believe it is a legitimate,
>>objective and/or credible report, they are either fooling themselves,
>>or particularly easily led. Could those people please contact me, as I
>>have a very nice bridge for sale up in Auckland.
>>
>>
>>However, here are some overall points to get you started:
>>
>>1. The report was made up from surveys given out to only those that
>>administer Linux boxes. Some were contacted via phone, and a great
>>many were self-selecting web surveys amongst the Linux community.
>>
>>2. There was no analysis of the actual TCO of Linux versus Windows,
>>only Linux users' opinions. However, the report implies that these
>>self-selecting Linux users' opinions are actually researched facts.
>>
>>3. Legitimate studies look at both sides, compare the two objectively,
>>then present their results and conclusions. This entire report takes
>>the position of Linux, stating how it is better in each area without
>>providing any objectivity whatsoever.
>>
>>4. The authors are a self-professed "OEM...that does NOT do
>>MS-WINDOWS" who "contribute much to the Linux community", rely on
>>Linux to "provide for [their] families and put [their] kids through
>>college", and have "bet [the house] on Linux". Sound objective?
>>
>>This "report" lacks even the most basic credibility or objectivity. Is
>>this really the best the Linux community can come up with? This sort
>>of FUD and non-objective nonsense does more harm ot the cause than
>>good.

>
>
> Well, 4 hours since I posted comments explaining how the very basis of
> the "study" is subjective, biased to start with, and seemingly lacking
> in all credibility, and no reply from you. Do you have a counter,
> would you like to admit you were wrong, or are you just a gutless
> prat?


Actually I have been working......

First pages, companies surveyed showing thier revenue.....some are
$10Billion...so not small fry.....

Now this is not a TCO of Windows v Linux study....which you seem to
think it is.....it is a look at management tools What I found
interesting was they are just as available for linux as Windows (what it
didnt mention is whether such tools are cost effective)

It does touch on some interesting points, salaries for admins seem to
not differ significantly compared to what previous "reports"
claimed....are you challanging this asertion?

Linux is reliable.....uptimes compare to windows or exceed, not it may
well be that this is a comment by Linux users, at worst it shows that a
properly run Linux box matches a properly setup Windows one.

Linux is quick to provision, I agree, no slower than Windows.

I can do a kickstarted RH box in 45mins from bare metal to fully patched
and working....most of that delay is downloading the updates from
Redhat, when I get a local patch proxy server going and hold them
locally I suspect it will be under 10 minutes. This easily matches
Windows deployment...

If you bother to look at the report it shows not that Windows is bad, &
Linux good but that Microsoft dissing of Linux is unfounded,
unsustainable and based on no firm footing, ie do it properly and a
Linux deployment can match a Windows one, this then leaves Licencing
costs which Windows looses....

regards

Thing






















 
Reply With Quote
 
Fred Dagg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-14-2006
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 16:34:47 +1300, thing2 <(E-Mail Removed)>
exclaimed:

>Fred Dagg wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 09:14:18 +1300, thing2 <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> exclaimed:
>>
>>
>>>Of course we trust the boys in Redmond to tell us the whole truth and
>>>nothing but the truth....yeah right....
>>>
>>>http://www.levanta.com/linuxstudy/EM...a-Linux_RR.pdf

>>
>>
>> LOL!!! Want to see an example of the "facts" on display in this
>> Levanta-sponsored FUD report?
>>
>> Take a look at the table on Page 11. If you can't spot at least 4
>> (most likely deliberate) major blunders, you should do a little
>> research into what these products are, their necessity, their
>> necessity in the supposed environment discussed, and their suitability
>> to the project.
>>
>> I'm a little disappointed, thing. I really do like analysing reports
>> on both sides, but, IMO, this is quite honestly the most one-sided and
>> blatantly biased one I've seen yet.

>
>
>My page 11 shows salary comparisons........so I cannot quite see your point.
>

Huh?

It's the table showing, apparently, licensing costs.

I don't know too many people who run ISA as a web server, for
instance...

Right after the hardware comparison, where it says that they'd run Red
Hat Enterprise Server on a P-100 with 256MB RAM...


Do you, in all honesty, believe this "report" has credibility?
 
Reply With Quote
 
thingy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-14-2006
Fred Dagg wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 16:34:47 +1300, thing2 <(E-Mail Removed)>
> exclaimed:
>
>
>>Fred Dagg wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 09:14:18 +1300, thing2 <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>exclaimed:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Of course we trust the boys in Redmond to tell us the whole truth and
>>>>nothing but the truth....yeah right....
>>>>
>>>>http://www.levanta.com/linuxstudy/EM...a-Linux_RR.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>>LOL!!! Want to see an example of the "facts" on display in this
>>>Levanta-sponsored FUD report?
>>>
>>>Take a look at the table on Page 11. If you can't spot at least 4
>>>(most likely deliberate) major blunders, you should do a little
>>>research into what these products are, their necessity, their
>>>necessity in the supposed environment discussed, and their suitability
>>>to the project.
>>>
>>>I'm a little disappointed, thing. I really do like analysing reports
>>>on both sides, but, IMO, this is quite honestly the most one-sided and
>>>blatantly biased one I've seen yet.

>>
>>
>>My page 11 shows salary comparisons........so I cannot quite see your point.
>>

>
> Huh?
>
> It's the table showing, apparently, licensing costs.


OK, saw that, there is already a better and very detailed TCO on this
point. Certainly the CALS is what kills MS licencing really dead.

We often use MS for the simple reason as an educational establishment we
usually dont need to by CALS plus we get a 50% discount off the MS OS,
so for us RH v MS licencing is the same-ish...In a few areas we use
Linux or 3rd party GPL software because MS says we have to buy CALS eg
for students and 20,000 CALs is serious money....

> I don't know too many people who run ISA as a web server, for
> instance...
>
> Right after the hardware comparison, where it says that they'd run Red
> Hat Enterprise Server on a P-100 with 256MB RAM...
>
>
> Do you, in all honesty, believe this "report" has credibility?


Points inside it show how the claims that Linux is more expensive
dubious in certain areas, so MS's claim that these were offsetting
licencing costs dodgy, eg admin Salary.

Otherwise the hardware comparison is probably its weakest point, however
it highlights how Linux will still run on meager hardware, unlike
win2k3........Though in reality we just buy a basic spec'd server eg
Dell 1850 with 2 cpus, 4 gig of Ram, 2 x 73 gig disks for either
platform......so I dont think it is a biggee.

So does it have credibility? yes in areas most definately it certainly
agrees with our experiences running both....

regards

Thing






















 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris Wilkinson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-14-2006
Hi there,

Fred Dagg wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 09:14:18 +1300, thing2 <(E-Mail Removed)>
> exclaimed:
>
>
>>Of course we trust the boys in Redmond to tell us the whole truth and
>>nothing but the truth....yeah right....
>>
>>http://www.levanta.com/linuxstudy/EM...a-Linux_RR.pdf

>
> Wow, that Levanta-sponsored report doesn't even stand up to the most
> basic critical evaluation.


'Critical evaluation' huh? Is that your evaluation, or the evaluation
of someone worth a pinch?

> It is not even slightly balanced, and contains pro-Linux statements
> throughout, rather than a balanced analysis and presentation of
> results.


So, does that make it any different from the 'get the facts' site?

> If you believe this hired-gun one sided report over the numerous
> independent reports by recognised impartial industry leaders, then you
> deserve your Linux environment, complete with associated costs and
> nightmares.


Yes he does deserve his Linux environment. I deserve mine too, as
do the vast majority of Linux users. Why? Because it works for us
and costs less to manage...just get over it, troll.

--
Kind regards,

Chris Wilkinson, Brisbane, Australia.
Anyone wishing to email me directly can remove the obvious
spamblocker, and replace it with t p g <dot> c o m <dot> a u


 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris Wilkinson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-14-2006
Hi there,

Fred Dagg wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:19:21 +1300, David Mohring
> <(E-Mail Removed)> exclaimed:
>
>
>>On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:10:13 +1300, Fred Dagg wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 09:14:18 +1300, thing2 <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>exclaimed:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Of course we trust the boys in Redmond to tell us the whole truth and
>>>>nothing but the truth....yeah right....
>>>>
>>>>http://www.levanta.com/linuxstudy/EM...a-Linux_RR.pdf
>>>
>>>LOL!!! Want to see an example of the "facts" on display in this
>>>Levanta-sponsored FUD report?
>>>
>>>Take a look at the table on Page 11. If you can't spot at least 4 (most
>>>likely deliberate) major blunders, you should do a little research into
>>>what these products are, their necessity, their necessity in the supposed
>>>environment discussed, and their suitability to the project.
>>>

>>
>>Could you quote the *actual* statements in the report that have failed to
>>"even stand up to the most basic critical evaluation (or are you just a
>>gutless prat)?

>
>
> I'm not going to go through and analyse the "report", as I simply
> don't have time, and I'm sure plenty of others are busy laughing at it
> at the moment.


So, you haven't really given it any 'critical evaluation'? Methinks
you be full o' **** Kemosabe...

--
Kind regards,

Chris Wilkinson, Brisbane, Australia.
Anyone wishing to email me directly can remove the obvious
spamblocker, and replace it with t p g <dot> c o m <dot> a u


 
Reply With Quote
 
Fred Dagg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-14-2006
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 18:14:06 +1000, Chris Wilkinson
<(E-Mail Removed)> exclaimed:

>> It is not even slightly balanced, and contains pro-Linux statements
>> throughout, rather than a balanced analysis and presentation of
>> results.

>
>So, does that make it any different from the 'get the facts' site?


Whilst MS's advocacy is obviously pro-MS, it is a heck of a lot more
objective than this "report". It does more harm than good to "the
cause".

The Linux advocacy crowd just lost their moral high ground, throwing
this sort of crap around.

<rest of abuse snipped>
 
Reply With Quote
 
A Nice Cup of Tea
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-14-2006
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 11:00:16 +1300, Fred Dagg wrote:

>>Could you quote the *actual* statements in the report that have failed to
>>"even stand up to the most basic critical evaluation (or are you just a
>>gutless prat)?

>
> I'm not going to go through and analyse the "report", as I simply don't
> have time, and I'm sure plenty of others are busy laughing at it at the
> moment.


If Scooter hasn't analysed the report then he cannot be in any position to
offer any informed comment on the report.


A Nice Cup of Tea

--
A: because it messes up threading
Q: why should I not reply by top-posting?
A: No.
Q: Should I include quotations after my reply?

 
Reply With Quote
 
Fred Dagg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-14-2006
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 00:42:12 +1300, A Nice Cup of Tea <(E-Mail Removed)>
exclaimed:

>On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 11:00:16 +1300, Fred Dagg wrote:
>
>>>Could you quote the *actual* statements in the report that have failed to
>>>"even stand up to the most basic critical evaluation (or are you just a
>>>gutless prat)?

>>
>> I'm not going to go through and analyse the "report", as I simply don't
>> have time, and I'm sure plenty of others are busy laughing at it at the
>> moment.

>
>If Scooter hasn't analysed the report then he cannot be in any position to
>offer any informed comment on the report.


You're the second person who's jumped on the comment that I'm not
going to do a page-by-page analysis of the report, yet snipped the 4
very compelling overall points.

Care to comment on them, or are you just going to stick your fingers
in your ears?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Evaluating static analysis and Dynamic analysis tools for C/C++ ssubbarayan C Programming 5 11-03-2009 12:50 AM
Microsofts' shills TCO studies coming home to roost. peterwn NZ Computing 10 09-24-2007 02:51 AM
Five facts you ought to know about high-def and SD DVD Allan DVD Video 0 01-14-2006 03:22 AM
Facts and Fallacies of Software Engineering Casey Hawthorne Java 0 11-23-2004 08:36 PM
FUD: Get the facts Windows v Linux thing NZ Computing 128 11-07-2004 09:47 AM



Advertisments