LinuxWorld.com - sys-con.com's archive of magazines - SYS-CON ...

MANAGEMENTAnti-Linux Claims...Claim #4:Linux is less reliable and available.Older research cites longer repair times for Linux caused by less skilled resources and difficultieswith problem diagnosis, documentation, and repair. The EMA study found the opposite to be true– Linux environments are extremely stable with high availability and short problem resolution times.Only 2.5% of the respondents reported availability worse than 98% while 80% reported availabilityover 99.95%. When problems occur, the average time to fix a Linux server for over 60% of therespondents was less than 30 minutes.Claim #5:Open Source doesn’t mean free.Granted, we know that Open Source doesn’t always mean free. Score one for the big boys. Butevaluating the differences in hardware, software, and licensing costs between Linux and Windowsservers makes a compelling case for Linux. Without going into detail here, the study found thatWindows requires more substantial hardware than equivalent Linux distributions (EMA compared RedHat Linux AS 4.0, SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 9.0, and Microsoft Windows Server 2003 DatacenterEdition) with a corresponding increase in base hardware acquisition costs. Software acquisition costsfor Linux-based systems are also significantly lower than for proprietary systems. The report providesa side-by-side software acquisition cost comparison for a high-performance Web application server(base operating system, Web/application server, database, and a development stack running on afour-way x86 processor with five developers and 100 direct end users) that shows that Windows ismore expensive by a factor of 10!“A side-by-side softwareacquisition cost comparison saysWindows is more expensivethan Linux by a factor of 10”Why More Vendors ShouldDo Neutral Studies to CombatMicrosoft FUDLinux supporters are well aware ofMicrosoft’s persistent campaign to debunkthe business and technical benefits ofLinux. This full court press seems to comefrom all sides even rearing its ugly head inthe form of veiled advertising as a “LinuxResource Center” on a Linux-centric Website. This resource center consists of freewhite papers, case studies, and independentreports that espouse the lower costof ownership and security superiority of...surprise...Windows.Then there’s Microsoft’s “Get the Facts”campaign aimed at attacking the technical,security, and cost assumptions that peoplemay or may not have made about Linuxand Open Source. I’ve even come acrossGoogle AdWord sponsorships for Microsofton Linux-related keyword searches! Tell meif any of these headlines rings a bell: “MicrosoftChallenges Linux’s Legacy Claims,”“Independent Study Shows that WindowsServers Recover Faster from SecurityAttacks than Linux Servers,” “Microsoft-Sponsored Study Gives Nod to Windows inReliability,” and “Costs and Benefits StillFavor Windows Over Linux Among MidsizeBusinesses.”The fact is Linux poses a huge threat toMicrosoft’s standing in the marketplace– maybe not today (with the exception ofApache) – but if trends hold the whole ITlandscape could be turned on its head. Soit makes smart business sense for Microsoft(with its limitless resources) to do anythingin its power to keep the status quo. Nobodyever claimed that Microsoft is bad at generatingrevenues!It is undeniable that, relative to Linux,Microsoft still has the ear of the enterpriseand small and medium-sized enterprisesand though its anti-Linux spin is full ofhalf-truths and biased reporting, theirmessage is being heard. Granted journalistswho cover Linux (notably Steven Vaughan-Nichols of eWeek, Linux-Watch.com,and DesktopLinux fame) regularly writecounterpoints to Microsoft’s anti-Linuxclaims. And, of course, the Linux zealots lettheir poisition be known (is vehemence toostrong a word?) via blogs and communitysites (Slashdot, anyone?).Levanta put in its two cents by sponsoringa study that objectively looked at Linuxmanagement versus Windows management.Now to quote Joe “Zonker” Brockmeierfrom NewsForge (commenting on aMicrosoft-sponsored study), “The problemwith this sort of study, as most peoplealready know, is that you can set up a studyto prove just about any point you wantto, even if it’s not really true – or only trueunder limited conditions.”In the end, you can always do a sanitycheck of the results of a study comparingit to your own experience. When I talkedto the people at my company responsiblefor managing our Linux servers their experiencerang pretty true with the Levantastudy. This report by Levanta is a goodexample of what’s possible when a vendorcommissions a study that debunks mythswithout pushing products – the net resultis something that pushes industry discussionforward. Alternatively, when vendorsponsoredstudies promote specific pointsolutions, the whole exercise is discredited.LINUXWORLD MAGAZINE WWW.LINUXWORLD.COMAPRIL 2006 10 www.LinuxWorld.com