A new study Windows vs Linux in a business environment

[Montesquieu]

First, let's get this out of the way: Yes, it was funded by Microsoft, but that doesn't necessarily invalidate what it has to say. In fact, the 47 page PDF was written by Herbert H. Thompson, PhD of the independent firm "SecurityInnovation", which has no ties to Microsoft aside from Microsoft contracting them to perform the study.

Basically this makes everything clear. They give you the money, you give them these "scientific studies" with no serious things inside. Bribery works, and Microcrap uses it frequently. I don't trust this study. Just an impartial scientific analysis of the whole thing, with no Microsoft or OSS money flowing inside, will be trustable.

[Asher]

And which analytical company will provide its services pro bono? And even then, it it isn't in Linux's favor it must have behind-the-scene MS bribery.

What you're saying is identical to what the tools on Slashdot have been saying. You ignore the study and instead of taking issues or rebuting points you feel are inaccurate in the study, you dismiss it and plug your ears -- "lalala, I can't hear you".

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Asher
Do you understand the difference been a systematic study and an opinion piece?

Systematically biased? Sure.

[JohnT]

187 patches in one year! And that's just the Novell releases - as they say, they didn't do any outside-party patches, though they could have.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Systematically biased? Sure.

Provide an example.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Asher
French people have less intelligence - FACT.

Oh love, if only you could tell me what is a work of art

[Kuciwalker]

Stuff rich people pay absurd amounts of money for.

[Fake Boris]

Bathrooms are works of art?

[Asher]

[ixnay]

Originally posted by Montesquieu
Bribery works, and Microcrap uses it frequently.

I see what you did there. You subsituted the word 'Microcrap' for 'Microsoft', likely signifying your opinion of the company and the products they produce. How clever!

However, I think you could have gone even further by substituting some currency symbols in for letters, signifying that not only is Microsoft crap, but they are greedy and only care about money (LOL)!

For example, you could try 'Micro¢rap'; that might work!

[Whaleboy]

Basically this makes everything clear. They give you the money, you give them these "scientific studies" with no serious things inside. Bribery works, and Microcrap uses it frequently. I don't trust this study. Just an impartial scientific analysis of the whole thing, with no Microsoft or OSS money flowing inside, will be trustable.

Hardly, where is your evidence and reference to the article that it is unfairly biased and not objective? A given source of funding does not constitute a conflict of interest by itself, it does not automatically cause bias. To say that there is bias, you must show that the article is based upon false assumptions and not facts, and that inferences and conclusions based upon facts do not accurately reflect the facts. I see no such reason in your post. Having read the article, I think there is little to doubt its objectivity.

[Urban Ranger]

It's not that hard, really

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Hardly, where is your evidence and reference to the article that it is unfairly biased and not objective?

You know one of the big Linux vendors is going to look at the report and come back with their answers.

Waltham, Massachusetts-based Novell has hit back, however, claiming that the report "aims to confuse", and pointed out that the number of patches required for Windows and SLES are not comparable as SLES comes with "a vast number of packages" above and beyond the operating system and its management framework.

Pointing out that Security Innovation is a Microsoft certified partner, Novell also maintained that the company had overestimated the interoperability problems faced by SLES customers and overlooked concerns related to Microsoft's "integrated innovation" approach.

The study compared the experiences of three expert administrators on each side, a number that Security Innovation itself admitted was "too small to provide conclusive statistical comparisons."

It's not the first time that Microsoft's "Get the Facts" campaign has sparked controversy. Launched in January 2004, it has contained reports from organizations such as VeriTest, Forrester, BearingPoint, Yankee Group, Giga, IDC, and Meta Group.

Novell has previously criticized Microsoft for selectively quoting from the reports and has encouraged potential Linux users to read the reports for themselves and come to their own conclusions, rather than relying on Microsoft analysis.

[emphasis my own]

Novell doubts Microsoft latest Linux "facts"

[Asher]

There's a surprise, Novell issues a press release with rhetoric saying "it ain't true" after their Linux distro looks pretty bad in a comparision.

The only useful thing Novell pointed out was that the sample was "too small to provide conclusive statistical comparisons," which is funny because those are virtually word-for-word admissions made in the real report, which you clearly have not read.

Novell's press release is expected, typical, and lacking of any value. They have not addressed any of the real factors in the report, instead trying to dismiss it by chanting "MS commissioned the study, therefore it is teh biassssed".

It works for zealots who were chanting the same thing, but it is nowhere near close to refuting the study and its findings.

Try, try again. This time, try reading the actual report and responding to its contents rather than quoting a press release, Urban Ranger. It's a bit more challenging, sure, but it makes you look less like a partisan tool who likely works in IT managing people's passwords, and more like an intelligent member of the industry.

[Boris Godunov]

Re: A new study Windows vs Linux in a business environment

Originally posted by Asher
I'm not expecting any detractors to have anything of substance to reply other than knee-jerk "if MS funded it, it's false" bull.

You're psychic!

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Asher
The only useful thing Novell pointed out was that the sample was "too small to provide conclusive statistical comparisons," which is funny because those are virtually word-for-word admissions made in the real report, which you clearly have not read.

Since the report admitted that it's rubbish, and you agreed on the point, why should I read it?