M$ attacks Linux with BestBuy (propaganda) course

[w1z4rd]

Another anti-M$ article on a Linux website. Surprising ANd when I quote something from ZDNET, I'm told they're M$ shills, not to be taken seriously.

Kinda like you. Sorry.. you dont really have a real technical opinion. No offense... its kinda obvious though. Im sure you love MS.. and Im happy for you.. but I would be surprised if you even knew how TCP/IP layers work.

 

[Kloofvreter]

Kinda like you. Sorry.. you dont really have a real technical opinion. No offense... its kinda obvious though. Im sure you love MS.. and Im happy for you.. but I would be surprised if you even knew how TCP/IP layers work.

Don't love M$, just don't hate it. And I have Ubuntu running on my one PC, and I fail to see the glamour.

 

[w1z4rd]

Don't love M$, just don't hate it. And I have Ubuntu running on my one PC, and I fail to see the glamour.

Its not about glamor when it comes to business, its about functionality, practicality and expense.

 

[Conradl]

No, it doesnt. It make more business sense if you only have MS techies, but its cheaper in cost to setup Linux desktops and maintain them than it MS desktops.

Which is why you find so many of the major corps running their dumb terminals on linux and most of their big servers are on linux.

If your user is a normal computer user at a company and needs the normal.. email, office applications and a card game then linux offers all that (without the need for a costly antivirus).. for nothing.

If you have no skilled labour and only have MS techies.. then yeah.. it would make more sense to go with MS machines so your techies have a clue.

I've been involved in many discussions with various levels of management regarding FOSS implementations, and unfortunately they struggle to make the business case required to take MS out and implement Linux. If they can build a case, then it is usually for a tactical solution, i.e. a service; rather than a strategic solution.

Some of the questions, non-technical, and non-cost related, that are asked (regarding a move to open source) where Linux is found wanting:

Will Linux fully support our current applications, and could you supply guarantees?
Who provides support for the applications?
Will emerging technologies be compatible with the new Linux system?
What is Linux's vision for the next 5, 10, 15 years?
How easily will our users adapt to the new system?

Answer negatively to any of those questions and the CIO/IT Manager/Boss of choice is going to find it very difficult to go to Linux....

 

[w1z4rd]

I've been involved in many discussions with various levels of management regarding FOSS implementations, and unfortunately they struggle to make the business case required to take MS out and implement Linux. If they can build a case, then it is usually for a tactical solution, i.e. a service; rather than a strategic solution.

Some of the questions, non-technical, and non-cost related, that are asked (regarding a move to open source) where Linux is found wanting:

Will Linux fully support our current applications, and could you supply guarantees?
Who provides support for the applications?
Will emerging technologies be compatible with the new Linux system?
What is Linux's vision for the next 5, 10, 15 years?
How easily will our users adapt to the new system?

Answer negatively to any of those questions and the CIO/IT Manager/Boss of choice is going to find it very difficult to go to Linux....

Im sure what I said is not true for every network, but most PC users in a company dont need it for beyond the office+email. Does Linux support your current applications? No idea.. I dont know your application needs, and some applications wont be supported.. but most of them.. yeah. Including Outlook connectors and such. A lot of the larger companies I work with use some kinda terminal services to interact with their databases... so Linux comes through there fine.

The software writers normally provide support for the applications and there are dozens of good 3rd part FOSS supporters out there.

Will Linux keep up with emerging technologies? *kof* Will Microsoft keep up with them is a better question.

Linux is extremely back compatible. More so than Microsoft...

What is linuxs vision? You mean like Microsofts one to make profit? Linux`s vision is the same as it has always been I imagine. To create a better alternative platform than paid for systems.. I dont imagine this ever stopping and is not really a real question in my opinion, lol.

How easy will they adapt? Depends on their levels of indoctrination. MS techies will have a harder time adapting than the secretary that hardly uses her PC. Ive dropped in hundreds of Linux workstations and normally within a couple of days the support calls stop. Until hardware breaks.

Once you got the machines going... you dont really support them often.. if at all.

These are the facts as they are. Linux makes the best server OS... Linux is young in the desktop but every release it makes massive inroads. In several years time I honestly believe as a business platform Linux will out perform any MS desktop out there... except perhaps in specialized niche`s.

Its likely thats its too early to move over to Linux only if you have specialized needs.. as theres still a lot of work to be done still. I know many different companies that are changing their db structures and technologies to migrate their systems to FOSS with the next upgrade.

The biggest thing with Linux and deploying it, is you have to have the right skilled staff. If you just have dime a dozen MS techies then your FOSS deployment will most likely fail. Dont do it.. real skilled labour is difficult to come across and cost money. MS techies you can pick up in a socials ad for next to nothing and will be able to support your MS network for cheap. Though the cost of your network with liscences makes their cheapness rather redundant.

 

[The_Unbeliever]

Biggest issue I have with M$ is their retarted WGA, WPA, licensing, activating and the such schemes.

Linux... no licensing, no activating, just install and work.

 

[kingrob]

Only way that I can see Microsoft regain the ''initiative'', is to make their desktop OS and server OS very cheap.

Sometimes I wonder where Ubuntu might have been now, if they just charged everyone R50 for a copy of their desktop OS and R100 for the server OS. I know Canonical's philosophy is never to charge anything for their software & instead opt to charge for support contracts....but still, you need proper funding to run a major software company.

 

[Conradl]

Im sure what I said is not true for every network, but most PC users in a company dont need it for beyond the office+email. Does Linux support your current applications? No idea.. I dont know your application needs, and some applications wont be supported.. but most of them.. yeah. Including Outlook connectors and such. A lot of the larger companies I work with use some kinda terminal services to interact with their databases... so Linux comes through there fine.

The software writers normally provide support for the applications and there are dozens of good 3rd part FOSS supporters out there.

Most of them, and normally are not guarantees From a management point of view:

CIO: Will all your apps work?

MS: Yes. We have a robust testing program for all our applications and they are signed off buy our technical QOS team. We also have a massive investment in a MS program that allows 3rd party vendors to meet our standards, and ensure application compatibility.

Linux: Some won't work, but normally they should. We leave it the software writing community to fix stuff....

What is linuxs vision? You mean like Microsofts one to make profit? Linux`s vision is the same as it has always been I imagine. To create a better alternative platform than paid for systems.. I dont imagine this ever stopping and is not really a real question in my opinion, lol.

CIO: If we invest in your product, where will our IT system be in 5/10/15 years?

MS: Here is our roadmap, including information about every product, and the benefits it will bring to your organization.

Linux: We will still be trying to create a better alternative to paid for systems.

Linux systems will start to make inroads when they start to build a strong business case. The problem is that a lot of the discussion regarding Linux is centered on technical specifications and the fact that Linux is free; whereas most IT decision makers would list price and technical capabilities behind support and CYA (the safe option).

 

[w1z4rd]

Most of them, and normally are not guarantees From a management point of view:

CIO: Will all your apps work?

MS: Yes. We have a robust testing program for all our applications and they are signed off buy our technical QOS team. We also have a massive investment in a MS program that allows 3rd party vendors to meet our standards, and ensure application compatibility.

Linux: Some won't work, but normally they should. We leave it the software writing community to fix stuff....



CIO: If we invest in your product, where will our IT system be in 5/10/15 years?

MS: Here is our roadmap, including information about every product, and the benefits it will bring to your organization.

Linux: We will still be trying to create a better alternative to paid for systems.

Linux systems will start to make inroads when they start to build a strong business case. The problem is that a lot of the discussion regarding Linux is centered on technical specifications and the fact that Linux is free; whereas most IT decision makers would list price and technical capabilities behind support and CYA (the safe option).

LOL.. natural selection in business is a bee with an itch. Good luck with that

 

[Conradl]

Only way that I can see Microsoft regain the ''initiative'', is to make their desktop OS and server OS very cheap.

Sometimes I wonder where Ubuntu might have been now, if they just charged everyone R50 for a copy of their desktop OS and R100 for the server OS. I know Canonical's philosophy is never to charge anything for their software & instead opt to charge for support contracts....but still, you need proper funding to run a major software company.

Thats a fantastic point. It would remove the free label and force Linux people to rethink their sales approach....

I was in a meeting the other day with a sales person pushing a freeware solution. The customer was at the time busy signing off on a Office 2007 upgrade.... The freeware sales guy hears this, smirks and says: "Huh, why would you pay money for something, when there's an alternative that you can get that's almost the same and free".

Good sales pitch: question the managers ability and provide nothing except: "Its free". This is just one example, but I see it all the time....

 

[d0b33]

The non-free corporate versions of Linux is called enterprise. You can pay for support it's not only free.

 

[The_Unbeliever]

http://linuxinnovations.blogspot.com/

And this thread :

http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?t=190644

 

[grayston]

Good sales pitch: question the managers ability and provide nothing except: "Its free". This is just one example, but I see it all the time....

One reason Linux rocks. Instead of wasting time, money and effort on pitching inferior and overpriced products to tech-illiterates, they spend that effort on improving their product.

 

[Conradl]

One reason Linux rocks. Instead of wasting time, money and effort on pitching inferior and overpriced products to tech-illiterates, they spend that effort on improving their product.

LOL. Brilliant answer that kinkda highlights my point To get mainstream corporate, enterprise acceptance, it is those "tech-illiterates", aka decision makers, whose support you need to get.

Linux dialogue creator:

How to sell Linux

Linux is free awesomeness, and better than any MS product.

How to overcome client objections(those irritating questions that stupid exec noob types always ask)

Remind client that Linux is free;
Remind client that Linux is awesome;
Remind client that MS is rubbish and just out to make money (at this point most decision makers will find the idea of a corporate enterprise focusing on profit an entirely unacceptable business practice and place an order);
Label all objections as MS propaganda;
Call the CIO a noob MS fanboy and sulk because you know Linux is free awesomeness.

A good product is simply not enough. You need to position free products as viable business solution, that incidentally happens to be free; not as a "free alternative".

Oh and before I get called an MS fanboy again; we actively promote FOSS solutions; our server virtualisation product is linux based and free....

 

[grayston]

LOL. Brilliant answer that kinkda highlights my point To get mainstream corporate, enterprise acceptance, it is those "tech-illiterates", aka decision makers, whose support you need to get.

I disagree completely. If you don't know what you're buying you'll buy anything. The trick is not to talk down to tech illiterates - Microsoft already does that. The trick is to get tech illiterates out of the decision-making chair.

If you have an idea on how to do that, I'd love to hear it...

 

[PeterCH]

Only way that I can see Microsoft regain the ''initiative'', is to make their desktop OS and server OS very cheap.

But MS is not doing that.

Speaking at Microsoft's annual Financial Analyst Meeting in Redmond, Washington, chief executive Steve Ballmer told investors that Microsoft, Intel, and PC makers "screwed up" by not delivering "cool" low-price, lightweight, high-performance laptops.

Instead, he said, we have netbooks that do well on price, power, and "cool" factor, but fail on "super-small" screen and keyboard size.

Ballmer promised a range of ultra-thin laptops from PC makers in time for Christmas, for customers who want a full-size screen and keyboard when shopping for a netbook.

Netbook users can also look forward to price increases on Windows.

Ballmer said Microsoft had got it wrong by selling low-priced Windows - Windows XP - on netbooks. These run Windows XP and account for 11 per cent of Microsoft's PC business, but Microsoft's tactic of using low price to win market share against Linux has hurt its revenue.

With Windows 7, Ballmer vowed prices would go up, and Microsoft had a "great chance" to up-sell customers. It sounded like the upsell will come from Windows XP on netbooks to Windows 7 on netbooks and from Windows 7 on netbooks to Windows Home Premium on ultra-thin machines.

"In Windows 7, we are going re-adjust those prices north," Ballmer told analysts looking for the bottom line and dismayed by the impact of netbook sales on Microsoft's business. "With Windows 7 SKU line up, we have a great chance to do some upsell to Windows 7 Starter and Home from XP."

Windows 7 Starter Edition is destined for netbooks and it's been reported this will be priced between $45 and $55 per unit compared to $25 and $30 for Windows XP Starter Edition. Microsoft does not reveal pricing on Starter Edition and has refused to comment on pricing for the Windows 7 edition, but Ballmer's comment appeared to confirm the Windows 7 Starter Edition price is going up.

More at:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/30/ballmer_netbooks_ultra_thins/

 

[Conradl]

I disagree completely. If you don't know what you're buying you'll buy anything. The trick is not to talk down to tech illiterates - Microsoft already does that. The trick is to get tech illiterates out of the decision-making chair.

If you have an idea on how to do that, I'd love to hear it...

Why would I want to do that - I'm in the lucky position of being a geek who can speak sales

The trick is to sell benefits; not features. I see some guys trying to sell a firewall, by stressing that it is NATO5 certified, built on the superscaler blight-night requiem, 1024 mega bit nano 3 phase technology.

When the poor IT managers eyes start rolling back I quickly add: Basically its very secure, which means that your data is safe; and because it prevents unauthorized access to the internet you save on your Telkom bill. That they find easier to digest (spend money - get benefits); it sucks, buts its the reality....

 

[MyWorld]

CIO: If we invest in your product, where will our IT system be in 5/10/15 years?

MS: Here is our roadmap, including information about every product, and the benefits it will bring to your organization.

I highly doubt anyone can give a roadmap of software? Unless they start out by handing you an under par version and later sell you the almost uber leet version followed in 6 months by the be-all-end-all of the product?

I would love to see a MS Windows roadmap, just looking at the juggling they are doing for the last 5 years I would put my neck out and say they do not have one.

The problem with Linux is the geek that tries to sell it, and not a sales rep. If you would read up on the seminars and innovation in Linux then we are headed for a very interesting time indeed.
True parallel computing on desktop PC's.
Server that NEVER needs to be rebooted again even if you upgrade hardware or the kernel (already possible).
Innovations implemented monthly into each new kernel release that is only available on competition platforms years later (64 bit?).

And so we could continue, if there is a hardware breakthrough you can bet that it will be implemented in Linux first and foremost.

Software is where the mayor problem is IMHO, people are too afraid to try alternatives. What I usually do is setup a server and desktop PC with everything they need and ask them to test it out and report back. Assign one person to the desktop PC and before long they have the hang of it and he becomes the "support" to the other desktop users.

But still, people are afraid to leave the know behind for the unknown, and that will haunt Linux for ever.

 

[Conradl]

I would love to see a MS Windows roadmap, just looking at the juggling they are doing for the last 5 years I would put my neck out and say they do not have one.

Most companies have one, even Linux http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/overview/roadmap.mspx

The problem with Linux is the geek that tries to sell it, and not a sales rep. If you would read up on the seminars and innovation in Linux then we are headed for a very interesting time indeed.

That was my original point: that Linux will only get mainstream corporate support when it is sold by presenting a solid business case. Being technically superior is not enough....

True parallel computing on desktop PC's.
Server that NEVER needs to be rebooted again even if you upgrade hardware or the kernel (already possible).

What are you referring to here? Are these releases of Xen?

 

[MyWorld]

Parallel computing - Just hitting a key combination and switching to a totally different OS.
I know there are VM's, but the problem with a VM is that you have to use the hardware that is coded into the VM client, not any more. If they get this sorted you can have more than one OS booted and just hit a key combination to switch between the lot. No more dual booting, and it will be a genuine session, running of your full hardware. And they are almost there!

Point 2.
They have now recently released a kernel patch that allows you to apply kernel patches on the fly without rebooting your PC (http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?t=182360), think Windows update without the need to reboot, ever.

Also, hot swapping has been around for a while now but some manufactures have taken it to new heights. You can even now hot swap a CPU without shutting down the server (multi CPU setups). So unless the PSU breaks down there is no need to reboot any more, 100% uptime.

The 64-bit compatibility. Until this day there is only a handful of software that really uses the 64-bit arch in say Windows, but Linux has taken this to the next level in the last 2 or so years.
You can, on a normal desktop PC, delegate certain tasks to one core of a CPU, set the load it should not exceed, etc. I have a couple of reports of guys having a full on GFX intensive gaming session on one core while the other core is doing some video encoding or compiling. Now that is impressive!

Shortly put, if the hardware vendors make a breakthrough, the Linux devs are there to see how they can implement it.
The problem with MS is that they want to be "King of the hill" in all regards, even hardware, dictating what they are willing to support and what they would like to see happen. This is going to cost them dearly in the near future.

Take HP/ProCurve for example. They have just released some open source servers, and by that I mean everything from hardware to software is open source. I cannot go into more detail but you should see the response they had on this, add on modules that are being created by other companies to enhance the servers, it is just scary!

Some more interesting stuff, no need for a CD to boot an ISO, Grub 2 can do it on the fly:
http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?t=185499
etc, etc.

I'm very excited, we are heading for some big things in the near future on Linux, keep an eye on the press!