[mdlug] OT: Microsoft Monopoly

[Adam Tauno Williams]

On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 07:17 -0400, Peter Bart wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-08-19 at 10:55 -0400, Robert Adkins II wrote:
> > > > Recently I was informed that a Linux server is being replaced by a 
> > > > windows 2008 server.  I started to think about “Microsoft Monopoly” 
> > > > case. MS must have a very good legal team.
> > > The problem is not the "monopoly", it's the flawed perception 
> > > that, somehow, Windows severs are easier/cheaper/better than 
> > > *nix servers.

There are two problems with these types of discussions:

(a) what matters here is the *legal* definition of "monopoly".  Ones'
opinion about what constitutes a monopoly just don't matter.

(b) speaking of things as "better" is so vague as to be meaningless.

And lets compare setting up a LINUX host as a DC vs. setting up an SBS
instance as a DC?  Clearly setting up the LINUX host is, by any sane
definition, "harder".

> > > The fact is that Internet-facing Windows servers are MUCH 
> > > more vulnerable to attack than Linux/BSD/Mac-based servers.  
> > > I don't have the exact statistics in front of me, but from 
> > > what I have seen, WAMP servers (Windows/Apache/MySQL/PHP) are 
> > > more vulnerable than LAMP servers, with the Win/IIS server 
> > > stack the most vulnerable of all to attack.
> > When it is said that it is "easier" to Administer a Windows Server than a
> > Linux server, what they really mean is that there are more people out in the

IMO, what it really means is they-are-right.  I'm an Open Source
advocate and a UNIX/LINUX admin for ~15 years.  And I have no problem
admitting this in many regards.  The Open Source communities' insane [or
just lazy] addiction to the-txt-config-file is a serious hold-up for
LINUX deployment;  it means all admin tools, to the point that they even
exist, essentially *suck* and will eventually trash your config [acting
as anti-admin tools].  Fortunately with XML configuration, XDG, D-Bus,
etc... we are *finally* starting to move beyond the
idiot-who-thinks-sysadmin-is-proficiency-in-vi.

<rant>
Heck, even adding a CA certificate to a LINUX host's openssl [or is it
gnutls?] configuration is a stupidly arcane exercise.  So most LINUX
hosts I find [yes *most*] communicate either in-the-clear or with
certificate verification disabled.  All the while their "administrators"
jabber on about how much more secure LINUX is that Windows.  And the
response to the criticism is usually that interanet traffic is trusted.
Wow! [But do you need 802.1x authentication just to plug any laptop into
a switch?  Ha, no, you'll just get an address from DHCP.  Oh, right,
802.1x would require a working PKI configuration.... back to square
one].
</rant>

> > wilds of the job market that are "knowledgable" about Administrating Windows
> > than Linux systems. It has absolutely nothing to do with the actual
> > configuration or maintaining of the resulting systems.
> >   Modenn Linux distros are in many ways as easy or easier to setup and
> > configure than comparable duty Windows servers/systems.

And implied in the statement "in many ways as easy or easier" is the
statement "in many other ways as hard or harder".  Inherently these
kinds of statements negate themselves - they have no meaning, IMO.

> Easier is almost never better. What Rob says about about Windows vs
> *nix people can be said about almost any trade/occupation. For example
> handyman vs licensed plumber. I don't get it as much anymore; because I
> do mostly commercial/industrial work; but I can still hear "I can get
> that at xxxxx for much less". Yes, but can you install and maintain it
> correctly for a long and troublefree life?

TCO vs. what-it-costs-me-now; and age old conundrum.
-- 
Adam Tauno Williams <awilliam at whitemice.org> LPIC-1, Novell CLA
<http://www.whitemiceconsulting.com>
OpenGroupware, Cyrus IMAPd, Postfix, OpenLDAP, Samba