Bill heeft (als onderdeel van z'n NT Server site) een page in elkaar gerammeld waarin het de zogenaamde 'Linux Myths' weerlegt. Volgens Microsoft is Linux niet sneller dan NT, is het niet geschikt voor de desktop, is de beveiliging klote en is het besturingssysteem niet gratis (rekening houdend met Total Cost of Ownership).
Uiteraard vind de Linux community het niet leuk als Billie dat soort dingen gaat zeggen, met als gevolg een 65 kilometer lange thread bij Slashdot en een instant reaktie van Mandrake (die gozer van Enlightenment):
So naturally, surfing the net, I came across the official microsoft linux FUD page. I'm not sure I even know how to respond to this - instead of just attacking microsoft in general I'll stick to the bits I have personal knowledge of.
- Reality: Linux Makes no Sense at the Desktop.
We'll start with this point, since I find it the most amusing one, personally. I don't think they've been paying attention to the world, do you? look at all the various works that are being done by various parties, be it the GNOME camp, the KDE camp, enlightenment, windowmaker, etc. Just because it doesn't act like windows, and it doesn't look like windows, that doesn't mean it's not usable.
Maybe they should spend some time investigating how difficult it is for people to use windows before they start harshing on other systems.
- Linux does not provide support for the broad range of hardware in use today
Well, maybe we don't support all the hardware out there, but because of companies like microsoft it becomes increasingly harder to support some hardware because you make people feel they have to hide how everything works. The REALITY of the situation is that linux really DOES support the bulk of hardware out there - exception maybe being modems, since winmodem is about the poorest idea that anyone has come up with.
- Application support is limited
Okay, this is just total crap. Sure, the same applicatiosn aren't found on linux as are found under windwos, but the reverse is also true. I can't use a lot of the familiar X applications under windows, either. So what's your point? You talk about ISV's supplying software for windows (93%) but then you forget about all the rest of us who don't write software that you have to pay money for. Maybe you should investigate this further, too
- cumbersome nature of existing GUIs
Right, you must be talking about windows here. makes sense, it's difficult to maintain windows boxes, so the inverse must be true, eh? ick.
- Linux security model is weak
because it's based on the unix security model? that's your argument?
- a user who needs any administrative capability must be made a full administrator
that's crap and you know it! haven't you ever heard of SUDO? oh, I forgot, you windows people don't really understand permissions delegation if it's not in a point-and-click gui.
- windows nt security is easy to set up and administer with tools such as the security configuration editor
right - this tool is going to keep your box actually safe from stuff. GIVE ME A BREAK! you can't configure all the services that users add onto their system from it, keeping THEM from having buffer overflow problems, etc. PLEASE do some research people!
- total cost of ownership
You never ONCE explain where all these bizarre linux costs came from. oh, wait, you made them up. you didn't bother taking into account all the free help out there for support, including web sites, community, newsgroups, etc. I hate it when people make up numbers like that to make themselves look good.
- Linux needs real world proof rather than anecdotal stories
there are LOADS of linux realworld success stories, not just anecdotes. Feel free to contact any of the customers of VA (and now companies like dell, penguin computing, etc) and talk to them for yourselves. don't take MY word for it.
- Windows NT 4.0 outperforms linux on common customer workloads
if you don't bother configuring your linux system you're asking for just as much trouble as if you don't bother configuring your windows NT workstation for testing and benchmarks. I would show you benchmarks to prove things the other way, but microsoft has lots of clauses where they don't allow you to publish benchmarks against them, unlike free software. we're not perfect, and we'll admit to it, but we don't try to hide behind a wall of beaurocracy until we have some tailored benchmarks biased against our competitors before we let some be published.
- largest file size is 2gb
oh come on - that's a system dependant limit - on a 64 bit system you don't have this problem (and iirc ufs doesn't display this problem als, even if only read-only ) NOTE: I clarify this due to some emails I received.
- swap size limited to 128 mb
that's not true with the systems you even tested with (2.1 removed this limitation iirc) even before that you could have multiple swap partitions
I'm going to stop here, because I just don't have time to go muhc further than this. I hope that microsoft does some more research before they put up more pages like this one. If anyone from microsoft is reading this, and wants to explicitly give me the rights to put up benchmarks of their OS, fileserving, webserving, SQL server, etc... I'll beat you at your own game. If not, then you're just lying chicken behind the same wall of crap you always do.