Windows and Linux: Get the facts

  • rjstephens
  • Professor
  • Professor
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 774
  • Loc: Brisbane, Australia

Post 3+ Months Ago

Here is something I saw in the google ads at the top of ozzu

http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/facts/default.asp

Now microsoft is famous for fudging figures, I want to know how they have done it here. I can't see anything obvious but I haven't looked "below the surface" of the data
  • rtm223
  • Mastermind
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1855
  • Loc: Uk

Post 3+ Months Ago

I would suggest, at first glance, that linux technicians are more expensive than windows techs. How many people train to do sys admin on windows copared to those who train for linux.

More available techs = cheaper techs.

BTW that was an assumption, but it sounds quite likely

Also, statistics can always be manipulated. That is the whole point of a skilled statitician (sp?). Probably what they have told you is 100% true, but they haven't told you 100% of the truth. Subtle but important difference.
  • Daemonguy
  • Moderator
  • Web Master
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 2700
  • Loc: Somewhere outside the box in Sarasota, FL.

Post 3+ Months Ago

You have to look at it much more closely and see what it is they are not saying, not what they are.

As an example, they talk about TCO, total cost of ownership. They compare many distributed Windows 2003 servers to a mainframe running LVM's -- Linux Virtual Machines.
It's apples and oranges.
Of course mainframes are a higher cost item, one doesn't buy a mainframe to use as a file server running LVM's. If you are starting out or don't require your own infrastructure and want a simple solution that can be leased, and is on reliable hardware, one might consider it, but to compare it to an end to end, is ridiculous.

They hope that people read the headlines, and not the fine print. The art of deception has always been their strong suit.

"Here, look at what my left hand is doing, isn't that amazing!?"
While the right hand picks your pocket clean.

Cheers.
  • Foxy
  • Guru
  • Guru
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1037
  • Loc: places..

Post 3+ Months Ago

yea but linux is free, and windows is like 200+$
  • rtm223
  • Mastermind
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1855
  • Loc: Uk

Post 3+ Months Ago

rtm223 wrote:
what they have told you is 100% true, but they haven't told you 100% of the truth. Subtle but important difference.


I still maintain that this is the defining principle of statistics and marketting etc. The facts will not be fudged, but only the "good" facts will be promoted. Things will be rephrased to prove a point, tests will be designed to achieve a favourable outcome. This is the nature of statistics.

The beauty of it is that they are not lying, you cannot accuse them of making stuff up because it is all factual. You cannot argue with fact.

I bet you any money you could employ a statitian to take all the evedence that was used for this report, and re-analyse it to be 100% pro-linux. Same facts same, data, but a completely different conclusion. Neither would be any more valid than the other.

Consider that my maths teacher was able to do this sort of thing - every year she would "prove" that the maths results were getting better and better than the previous years. Each time by analysing data in a different way.

Microsoft can afford expensive statitians. They can probably find facts to prove any point they want (they could possibly prove the bill gates is <b>not</b> the antichrist if they really tried, although I doubt anyone would believe <i>that</i>)

Always view statistics with skeptisism, no matter what the source.
  • Vladdrac
  • Mastermind
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 2136
  • Loc: Louisville, Ky

Post 3+ Months Ago

hmm that is something to consider for corporations. It probably would cost more for an outside tech. But If they hire techs on the inside, it shouldn't be that much of a difference. The more companies that start using linux; I will assume will increase the demand for those techs.

...btw our school has no classes on linux, or any other unix os
  • Foxy
  • Guru
  • Guru
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1037
  • Loc: places..

Post 3+ Months Ago

dont forget

Linux= FREE
windows= Not o.o
  • rtm223
  • Mastermind
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1855
  • Loc: Uk

Post 3+ Months Ago

Actually, in about 6 months I will be able to get <i>legal</i> coppies of windows for "a nominal fee" (like 20 quid) from uni :D - not free but as close as dammit
  • Tom the Great
  • Expert
  • Expert
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 727
  • Loc: B.C., Canada

Post 3+ Months Ago

Foxy wrote:
yea but linux is free, and windows is like 200+$


Windows servers are $800+, and to get red hat enterprise is, I think $100-$300, and if I was running a high end server that needed good upkeep, I would pay and get the stable version of Red hat, then a hafl beta version of fedora. (I know there are other distros, just using an example) But like said before, it will cost more to find a pay a Red Hat certified engineer, then it would to find/pay a MCSE, almost everyone in the IT field has a MCSE.
  • b_heyer
  • Web Master
  • Web Master
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 4581
  • Loc: Maryland

Post 3+ Months Ago

The dealio is those lame arse MS techs which are a dime a dozen. GOOD *nix tech's are much much more expensive.

Post Information

  • Total Posts in this topic: 10 posts
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests
  • You cannot post new topics in this forum
  • You cannot reply to topics in this forum
  • You cannot edit your posts in this forum
  • You cannot delete your posts in this forum
  • You cannot post attachments in this forum
 
 

© 1998-2014. Ozzu® is a registered trademark of Unmelted, LLC.