[119078] in Cypherpunks
Re: Bullshit article from Microsoft
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sunder)
Thu Oct 14 12:31:54 1999
Message-ID: <380603C1.BA32D06D@sunder.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 12:24:33 -0400
From: Sunder <sunder@sunder.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com
CC: cypherpunks@toad.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Reply-To: Sunder <sunder@sunder.net>
mark galliart wrote:
>
> This article is from the Microsoft NT Server Web site.
> http://www.microsoft.com/ntserver/nts/news/msnw/linuxmyths.asp
>
>
> With all the recent attention around Linux as an operating system, it's important to
> step back from the hype and look at the reality. First, it's worth noting that Linux is a
> UNIX-like operating system. Linux fundamentally relies on 30-year-old operating
> system technology and architecture.
This is a GOOD thing. It means the technology has had 30 years to mature and
grow.
> Linux was not designed from the ground-up to
> support symmetrical multiprocessing (SMP), graphical user interfaces (GUI),
> asynchronous I/O, fine-grained security model, and many other important
> characteristics of a modern operating system.
This is of course true, but it does support SMP now, and it supports whatever
GUI you would like it to support. You're not limited to one particular GUI.
You can run Gnome, KDE, and even several Windows like window managers.
It does however have very nice asynchronous I/O. In terms of security, ACL's
(access control lists) are supported. So this is bullshit. It's no less
secure than NT, that's for sure.
> These architectural limitations mean
> that as customers look for a platform to cost effectively deploy scalable, secure, and
> robust applications, Linux simply cannot deliver on the hype.
Turn that on it's head. These aren't architectural limitations. The fact
that you can only run NT on Intel machine is an architectural limit. The fact
that Microsoft no longer supports NT on PowerPC, MIPS, or Alpha is a
limitation to any large shop requiring powerful machines. NT simply can't
deliver on the HYPE. You can run Beowulf clusters with Linux and extend them
very nicely.
>
> Myth: Linux performs better than Windows NT
>
> Reality: Windows NT 4.0 Outperforms Linux On Common Customer Workloads
Right, when the tests were done the NT box was tuned, the Linux box was
misconfigured and not tuned. Sure. Smells like grade A bullshit to me.
>
> The Linux community claims to have improved performance and scalability in the
> latest versions of the Linux Kernel (2.2), however it's clear that Linux remains inferior
> to the Windows NT® 4.0 operating system.
In what way?
> For File and Print services, according to independent tests conducted by PC
> Week Labs, the Windows NT 4.0 operating system delivers 52 percent better
> performance on a single processor system and 110 percent better
> performance on a 4-way system than similarly configured single processor
> and 4-way Linux/SAMBA systems.
That's because they compared it using SAMBA not using NFS. The limitations of
SAMBA stem from the fact that Microsoft keeps changing stuff in the shares and
SAMBA breaks, so to keep it from breaking they server the lowest common
denominator. FYI: To get file sharing performance increases you don't add
more processor power (i.e. 4 CPU's versus 1 CPU), you add more memory so the
file caching can speed things up. Every MCSE wanna be learns this day 1.
> For Web servers, the same PC Week tests showed Windows NT 4.0 with
> Internet Information Server 4.0 delivers 41 percent better performance on a
> single processor system and 125 percent better performance on a 4-way
> system than Linux and Apache.
Compared to what? How did they tune Apache? How did they tune NT?
> For e-commerce workloads using secure sockets (SSL), recent PC Magazine
> tests showed Windows NT 4.0 with Internet Information Server 4.0 delivers
> approximately five times the performance provided by Linux and Stronghold.
Again, how was it tuned?
> For transaction-orientated Line of Business applications, Windows NT 4.0 has
> achieved a result of 40,368 tpmC at a cost of $18.46 per transaction on a
> Compaq 8-Way Pentium III XEON processor-based system. This industry
> leading price/performance result from the Transaction Processing
> Performance Council (TPC) clearly shows how Windows NT can deliver
> world-class performance for heavy duty transaction processing. It's
> interesting to note that there is not a single TPC result on any database
> running on Linux, and therefore Linux has yet to demonstrate their
> capabilities as a database server.
Um, yeah, whatever. More bullshit. Comparing their own standards which
they've created to non existance.
> Linux performance and scalability is architecturally limited in the 2.2 Kernel.
> Linux only supports 2 gigabytes (GB) of RAM on the x86 architecture,1
> compared to 4 GB for Windows NT 4.0. The largest file size Linux supports is
> 2 GB versus 16 terabytes (TB) for Windows NT 4.0. The Linux SWAP file is
> limited to 128 MB. In addition, Linux does not support many of the modern
> operating system features that Windows NT 4.0 has pioneered such as
> asynchronous I/O, completion ports, and fine-grained kernel locks. These
> architecture constraints limit the ability of Linux to scale well past two
> processors.
Limitations or not, you can remove them at any time. Just write your own
modifications in the kernel and recompile. I'd like to see NT 4 run on a 64
bit Alpha using all 64 bits. NT is crippled on Alpha's to run with a 32 bit
address space by ANDing every memory call with a 32 bit mask. Linux? It runs
fully 64 bit and removes the memory limitations listed above.
> The Linux community continues to promise major SMP and performance
> improvements. They have been promising these since the development of the
> 2.0 Kernel in 1996. Delivering a scalable system is a complex task and it's not
> clear that the Linux community can solve these issues easily or quickly. As D.
> H. Brown Associates noted in a recent technical report,2 the Linux 2.2 Kernel
> remains in the early stages of providing a tuned SMP kernel.
And Microsoft fears they will catch up.
> Myth: Linux is more reliable than Windows NT
Try getting uptimes in excess of 450 days on NT. Good luck.
> Reality: Linux Needs Real World Proof Points Rather than Anecdotal Stories
>
> The Linux community likes to talk about Linux as a stable and reliable operating
> system, yet there are no real world data or metrics and very limited customer
> evidence to back up these claims.
How many times did you have to reboot NT. Hell, even installing NT with a web
server requires a few reboots.
1. You install NT in text mode.
2. It reboots and goes to configure graphically.
3. It reboots into the OS.
4. You install SP3. Another reboot.
5. Now you get to install IIS. Another reboot.
6. Now you get to install SP5. Another reboot.
7. Now you get to install hot fixes. For each one, you need to reboot.
> The Linux community will talk about the free or low-cost nature of Linux. It's
> important to understand that licensing cost is only a small part of the overall
> decision-making process for customers.
Right, you have to count in the cost of the applications. Which with Linux
are also free. Free web server, free office suite (star office), free OS,
free databases, free development environments. Support isn't free. But
neither is Microsoft support at $200/incident. The rest of this is bullshit.
> Linux is a UNIX-like operating system and is therefore complex to configure
> and manage. Existing UNIX users may find the transition to Linux easier but
> administrators for existing Windows®-based or Novell environments will find it
> more difficult to handle the complexity of Linux. This retraining will add
> significant costs to Linux deployments.
Um, yeah, I take it they've never given novices boxes to install Linux VS NT
side by side. Linux is a piece of cake to install.
> Linux is a higher risk option than Windows NT. For example how many
> certified engineers are there for Linux?
Versus how many paper MCSE's are certified out there? I know, I've trained
bunches of them. These are the lowest common denominator. They somehow
manage to pass the MCSE tests, and yet fail miserably in real life when it
comes to fixing things. Paper MCSE's are a dime a dozen.
> How easy is it to find skilled
> development and support people for Linux?
Very easy. Get on IRC and usenet. Ask around. Quiz them before you hire
them.
>
> Myth: Linux is more secure than Windows NT
>
> Reality: Linux Security Model Is Weak
True, the Linux model is less secure than NT's, however in terms of security
bugs, it's another story. :) Did we mention that while NT 3.5 passed C2
tests, NT 4 did not?
> All systems are vulnerable to security issues, however it's important to note that
> Linux uses the same security model as the original UNIX implementations--a model
> that was not designed from the ground up to be secure.
>
> Linux only provides access controls for files and directories. In contrast,
> every object in Windows NT, from files to operating system data structures,
> has an access control list and its use can be regulated as appropriate.
> Linux security is all-or-nothing. Administrators cannot delegate administrative
> privileges: a user who needs any administrative capability must be made a
> full administrator, which compromises best security practices. In contrast,
> Windows NT allows an administrator to delegate privileges at an exceptionally
> fine-grained level.
> Linux has not supported key security accreditation standards. Every member
> of the Windows NT family since Windows NT 3.5 has been evaluated at either
> a C2 level under the U.S. Government's evaluation process or at a
> C2-equivalent level under the British Government's ITSEC process. In
> contrast, no Linux products are listed on the U.S. Government's evaluated
> product list.
This is an outright lie.
> Linux system administrators must spend huge amounts of time understanding
> the latest Linux bugs and determining what to do about them.
Translation: they spend time reading Bugtraq instead of NTBugtraq and they
apply patches. NTBugTraq users on the other hand, must wait and bitch at
microsoft for the next hotfix, which in turn will cause other bugs. Sure.
>This is made
> complex due to the fact that there isn't a central location for security issues
> to be reported and fixed.
Bugtraq@iss.net :)
> In contrast Microsoft provides a single security
> repository for notification and fixes of security related issues.
YEah, and to get access to it, you need to pay them $200 per incident. :)
Either that or buy technet.
> Configuring Linux security requires an administrator to be an expert in the
> intricacies of the operating system and how components interact.
Ditto for NT. In fact, by default, NT's security permissions on every hard
drive and on every share you create say "Everyone -Full Control." Further, if
you don't bother to change them, you'll instantly have an insecure box.
> Misconfigure any part of the operating system and the system could be
> vulnerable to attack.
Ditto for NT.
> Windows NT security is easy to set up and administer
> with tools such as the Security Configuration Editor.
Which is not included with NT and you have to install separately. Oops!
> Myth: Linux can replace Windows on the desktop
It can, and it does. Every day. And it replaces Windows servers too.
> Reality: Linux Makes No Sense at the Desktop
>
> Linux as a desktop operating system makes no sense. A user would end up with a
> system that has fewer applications, is more complex to use and manage, and is less
> intuitive.
Um, no, lots of free applications, incuding StarOffice, Netscape Communicator
for a browser, and plenty of hardware is supported by Linux. Just as if you
buy the latest and greatest WinModem, it won't work under NT, neither will it
work under Linux. Just as if you buy the latest and greatest 3D video card
that doesn't have drivers for NT, neither will it have drivers for Linux. The
reality is that not every piece of hardware is supported by NT. So the rest
of this is bullshit.
> Linux does not provide support for the broad range of hardware in use today;
> Windows NT 4.0 currently supports over 39,000 systems and devices on the
> Hardware Compatibility List. Linux does not support important ease-of-use
> technologies such as Plug and Play, USB, and Power Management
Heh, NT doesn't support Plug and Play either. Really it doesn't. Try
ejecting a PCMCIA card while NT is running. You can't. You need to REBOOT
NT! Power Management? What a joke, it's non existant under NT. Where's the
Suspend and Sleep functions? Not there. The about is an outright LIE!
> The complexity of the Linux operating system and cumbersome nature of the
> existing GUIs would make retraining end-users a huge undertaking and would
> add significant cost
It takes as much effort for an NT Administrator to be trained from nothing as
it does a Linux administrator. Just because there are pretty buttons to push
doesn't make it simpler. Infact, it makes it harder in some cases since you
don't know and can't know what's under the hood, nor can you fix it.
> Linux application support is very limited, meaning that customers end up
> having to build their own horizontal and vertical applications. A recent report
> from Forrester Research highlighted the fact that today 93 percent of
> enterprise ISVs develop applications for Windows NT, while only 13 percent
> develop for Linux.3
So fucking what? Hire programmers.
> Summary
> The Linux operating system is not suitable for mainstream usage by business or home
> users. Today with Windows NT 4.0, customers can be confident in delivering
> applications that are scalable, secure, and reliable--yet cost effective to deploy and
> manage. Linux clearly has a long way to go to be competitive with Windows NT 4.0.
> With the release of the Windows 2000 operating system, Microsoft extends the
> technical superiority of the platform even further ensuring that customers can deliver
> the next generation applications to solve their business challenges.
Bullshit.
--
---------------------------- Kaos Keraunos Kybernetos --------------------
+ ^ + Sunder "Only someone completely distrustful of /|\
\|/ sunder@sunder.net all government would be opposed to what /\|/\
<--*--> -------------------- we are doing with surveillance cameras" \/|\/
/|\ You're on the air. -- New York City Police Commissioner \|/
+ v + Say 'Hi' to Echelon Howard Safir, 27 July 1999.
---------------------------- http://www.sunder.net -----------------------
I love the smell of Malathion in the morning, it smells like brain cancer.
