Neowin.net - Microsoft's Ballmer bombards Linux OS

Microsoft's Ballmer bombards Linux OS

Posted by malebolgia on 27 October 2004 - 19:27 · 100 comments & 2881 views

A memo signed by Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer has piled into the Linux operating system, claiming that users adopting it will be vulnerable to security breaches. And he hit out at the way open source advocates worked on the Linux OS, which he claimed suffered from a lack of structured software development. Steve BallmerBallmer also claimed that open source software lacks adequate protection against possible intellectual property claims by third parties.

News source: The Inquirer

Thanks to Mr. Peabody for the heads-up on this one!

Hide additional information

About the Author
Full name: Unknown
Forum name: vet

malebolgia
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline

Total votes: 0

Bookmark on del.icio.us

Advertisement

(1 reply) #1 Posted by andy2004 on 27 Oct 2004 - 19:30: i got one word for ballmer ( apart from wtf stfu newbie ) and that is " IPOD " dam mofo why cant this guy just shut the hell up ?

(6 replies) #2 Posted by Cyranthus on 27 Oct 2004 - 19:31: guy doesn't know when to shut his mouth...

#3 Posted by R-Style on 27 Oct 2004 - 19:31: let the OS war begin

(3 replies) #4 Posted by radink on 27 Oct 2004 - 19:32: Ballmer is a retard.

#5 Posted by andy2004 on 27 Oct 2004 - 19:33: agreed ^

#6 Posted by jasidog on 27 Oct 2004 - 19:34: The real story >> at the register

#7 Posted by Zeni on 27 Oct 2004 - 19:36: The only thing being breached here is Ballmers sanity.

(7 replies) #8 Posted by STV on 27 Oct 2004 - 19:40: i dont agree with him, too much. but i do think that he has the right to voice his opinions. to deny that would be hypocritical and basically unamerican (if you live in the US) or anti-freedom.

STV

#9 Posted by andy2004 on 27 Oct 2004 - 19:40: nah i think beings from another planet got to him before his sanity lol

(6 replies) #10 Posted by datafreak on 27 Oct 2004 - 19:41: oh, him!

(1 reply) #11 Posted by imcrazydammit on 27 Oct 2004 - 19:45: He is doing what any high ranking executive is supposed to do: sway people to his side. If he tells people who aren't savvy about open source software and operating systems that they are full of security holes then they are likely to believe that. At Neowin, most of us know better and aren't buying into it, but I think he is trying to keep others from realizing the potential of the open source world. That is just my opinion though.

PS: I am a Windows user if that pertains.

#12 Posted by markjensen on 27 Oct 2004 - 19:53: My take on this, as a Linux user and supporter:
users adopting it [Linux] will be vulnerable to security breaches.
True. There are security issues in Linux, just as in Windows and MacOS. It is in dispute what OS is more secure, but I believe that Linux is better at the "security game". One can safely say that any Linux user today is certainly better-off with respect to the multitude of hazards out there right now. But for anyone to think that they are 100% secure, based on the Operating System they use is ludicrous.

[Open Source programmers] suffered from a lack of structured software development
Oh, sure... The 'long-haired hippy that lives in his mother's basement' stereotype. While there certainly are people like this, there are a large number of corporations with dedicated Linux/Open Source programmers on paid staff. I am confident that these people have directions and goals, just like their counterparts in Redmond.

These are good examples of PR 'spins' on sound bites that are in fuzzy area of reality vs fiction. Face it, Ballmer is good at his job of generating hype and energy.

(5 replies) #13 Posted by Skyfrog on 27 Oct 2004 - 19:56: I HATE LINUX!!!

(8 replies) #14 Posted by twiglet on 27 Oct 2004 - 19:58

QUOTE

Steve BallmerBallmer also claimed that open source software lacks adequate protection against possible intellectual property claims by third parties.

#14.1 Posted by imcrazydammit on 27 Oct 2004 - 20:01: Isn't that what the open source is all about? Not letting any one particular company or person own it.

#14.2 Posted by twiglet on 27 Oct 2004 - 20:07: re-read my post. i'm simply pointing out that he put ballmerballmer, not making a comment on open source software. jeez.

#14.3 Posted by imcrazydammit on 27 Oct 2004 - 20:11: Take it easy. I thought it was a good point whether you were trying to make it or not.

#14.4 Posted by ThisIsNotMe on 27 Oct 2004 - 20:46: DamnItDamnIt BallmerBallmer II thoughtthought II toldtold youyou toto fixfix thatthat stutterstutter!!!!

#14.5 Posted by Paulba on 28 Oct 2004 - 01:04: The hard part with so many having input into open source is that its nearly imposible to know if the code is new or a copy of someone elses code. Closed source may do the same but its hard to know if its copied or not without a heap of work (ie SCO/IBM), but open source does not protect you from IP issues.

#14.6 Posted by Paulba on 28 Oct 2004 - 01:04: The hard part with so many having input into open source is that its nearly imposible to know if the code is new or a copy of someone elses code. Closed source may do the same but its hard to know if its copied or not without a heap of work (ie SCO/IBM), but open source does not protect you from IP issues.

sorry for the duplicate, server busy errors

#14.7 Posted by markjensen on 28 Oct 2004 - 01:30: You are right, in that Closed-Source nor Open Source can really prevent or guarantee that there are no IP violations (and I hate the term "Intellectual Property", as there are no Intellectual Property laws. There are copyright laws, trademark laws, patent laws, and the such, but "IP is a term thrown out when there are no specific items being discussed).

However, with Open Source, anyone (the coders, the copyright/patent/whatever holders, and third parties) can check for infringements and errors can be identified and corrected (by removal, or proper licensing, etc.).

With Closed Source, it is like groping around in the dark (but not near as fun!)

#14.8 Posted by Paulba on 28 Oct 2004 - 02:20

QUOTE

I hate the term "Intellectual Property", as there are no Intellectual Property laws

I guess your right but in Australia we (government) do group laws together under the heading IP.
IP Australia

(2 replies) #15 Posted by elpipetuanis on 27 Oct 2004 - 19:59: the john kerry of OS'

#16 Posted by Sn1p3t on 27 Oct 2004 - 20:05: I dunno. I tend not to believe anti-Microsoft stories from The Inq. Perhaps Steve just doesn't understand how the OS community works?

I'd agree security is still up in the air, but there is adaquete (at least legal, not virtual) protection for intellectual property rights.

(5 replies) #17 Posted by The_Wired on 27 Oct 2004 - 20:22: OK I'll start of by saying that I'm a huge Microsoft fanboy..............but can we please kill this guy?

(6 replies) #18 Posted by SVT on 27 Oct 2004 - 20:38: All OS's have their trolls, but only one OS maker hired a troll as CEO.

SVT

(2 replies) #19 Posted by slapnuts_ox on 27 Oct 2004 - 20:53: wow......well this is the age old debate......linux is better, no windows is better......my os is more secure than yours, is not......etc... and so on and so forth. I just wish that he would stop taking cheap shots and actually list actual and factual reasons windows is better or not better.

(im a linux user)

(2 replies) #20 Posted by xxpor on 27 Oct 2004 - 20:56

LAMO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111111one

this guy is a dip ****.

QUOTE

claiming that users adopting it will be vulnerable to security breaches

DUMB POS! you are vunerable to as many if not more attacks under windows

#20.1 Posted by Surr3al on 27 Oct 2004 - 21:32: Actually, it depends... also Linux doesn't always release every vulnerability to the public. Not only that, the number of vulnerabilities for linux were fairly close to the number for windows... although windows had more.

#20.2 Posted by I-mmortal on 27 Oct 2004 - 21:34: Hmm...obviously someone isn't aware of the fun that can be had when one stumbles upon an inept newbie linux user who isn't versed in security or strong password procedures. Quite fun indeed.

#21 Posted by Adnan248999 on 27 Oct 2004 - 20:58: Well I know one thing he's vulnerable to a punch in the face

#22 Posted by MikeN on 27 Oct 2004 - 21:17: Every time I read something like this from Steve, I dig out my video of Monkey Boy dancing around the stage like some whirling dervish while proclaiming his love for Microsoft. It never fails to make me chuckle and remind me why I cannot take this guy seriously.

(3 replies) #23 Posted by Chicane-UK on 27 Oct 2004 - 21:31: See the problem is Microsoft wants to retain this air of being the professional outfit - the ones that serious business people should consider over the 'immature' Linux.

But having MS Asshats like Ballmer going round spreading what is basically complete bull$hit just doesn't help the Microsoft cause. Linux ISNT insecure, nor does it not have a structured upgrade path. Does he just not involve himself with or keep upto date on anything to do with Linux?

Red Hat Enterprise, for example, has a full upgrade and future 'path' - hell its got to be more reliable than Microsofts "shall we, shan't we" approach to Longhorn and the huuuuugely delayed successor to SQL Server!

#24 Posted by Mav Phoenix on 27 Oct 2004 - 21:41: He's a real guy just being himself. I won't fault him for that, he's got a great job.

(1 reply) #25 Posted by SniperX on 27 Oct 2004 - 23:24: Doing his job or not, he has to be an embarassment. It seems to me like he's read about other charismatic speakers and figured, "I can do charismatic" without having the first clue of what it meant. His message gets lost in the unease of his yelling.

#26 Posted by icecaveman on 27 Oct 2004 - 23:37: Guess they should have posted the full quote...

[QUOTE]In the thousands of meetings that Microsoft employees have with customers around the world every day, many of the same questions consistently surface: Does an open source platform really provide a long-term cost advantage compared with Windows? Which platform offers the most secure computing environment? Given the growing concern among customers about intellectual property indemnification, what's the best way to minimize risk? In moving from an expensive UNIX platform, what's the best alternative in terms of migration?

Customers want factual information to help them make the best decisions about these issues. About a year ago, a senior Microsoft team led by General Manager Martin Taylor was created to figure out how we could do a better job helping customers evaluate our products against alternatives such as Linux/open source and proprietary UNIX. This team has worked with a number of top analyst firms that have generated independent, third-party reports on cost of acquisition, total cost of ownership, security and indemnification. Some of the studies were commissioned by Microsoft, while others were initiated and funded by the analysts. In each case, the research methodology, findings and conclusions were the sole domain of the analyst firms. This was essential: we wanted truly independent, factual information.

At the same time, our worldwide sales organization is going even deeper with customers to understand their needs and create a feedback loop with our product development teams that enables us to deliver integrated solutions that support real-world customer scenarios, and comprehensively address issues such as manageability, ease of use and reliability.

I'm writing to you as a subscriber to executive emails from Microsoft, and to other business decision makers and IT professionals, to share some of the data around these key issues - and to provide examples of customers who opted to go with the Windows platform rather than Linux or UNIX, and how that's playing out for them in the real world. Much more information on this is at www.microsoft.com/getthefacts.

Total Cost of Ownership and Acquisition Costs

In the past few years, you haven't been able to open a computing magazine or visit a technology Web site without running into an article about Linux and open source. Not surprising: who doesn't like the idea of a "free" operating system that just about anyone can tinker with?

But as the Yankee Group commented in an independent, non-sponsored global study of 1,000 IT administrators and executives, Linux, UNIX and Windows TCO Comparison, things aren't always as they seem: "All of the major Linux vendors and distributors (including Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Novell [SUSE and Ximian] and Red Hat) have begun charging hefty premiums for must-have items such as technical service and support, product warranties and licensing indemnification."

Yankee's study concluded that, in large enterprises, a significant Linux deployment or total switch from Windows to Linux would be three to four times more expensive - and take three times as long to deploy - as an upgrade from one version of Windows to a newer release. And nine out of 10 enterprise customers said that such a change wouldn't provide any tangible business gains.

Yankee also noted that, for larger organizations with complex computer networks, it's important to look beyond Linux's initial low investment cost and consider all of the TCO and ROI factors.

This is exactly what one of our large enterprise customers, Equifax, did recently. Equifax, a $1.2 billion U.S.-based enterprise with 4,600 employees in 13 countries, needed more computing power than its mainframe systems could deliver for rapidly searching the company's vast marketing database. They spent several months conducting an internal analysis, which proved that, compared with Linux, Windows would realize a 14% cost savings and shorten their time to market by six months. (Equifax Case Study)

Another comprehensive, non-sponsored study by Forrester, entitled The Costs and Risks of Open Source, drew a similar conclusion: "The allure of free software is accelerating the deployment of open source platforms, but open source is not free and may actually increase financial and business risks."

In early 2004, Forrester conducted in-depth discussions with 14 companies that had been running Linux platforms for longer than one year to see what the costs really were. Several key themes emerged:

Few companies know what they're really spending. Only five of the 14 kept detailed metrics - and each of those five found Linux more expensive (5% to 20%) than their current Microsoft environments.
Preparation and planning activities took 5% to 25% longer for Linux than Windows.
Training for IT employees was significantly higher for Linux than for Windows - on average, 15% more expensive. The reasons: training materials were less readily available, and customers spent more on training to compensate for the lack of internal knowledge about Linux.
All 14 companies said it was difficult finding qualified Linux personnel in the marketplace to support their Linux projects. When they did find third-party help, they had less leverage negotiating hourly rates than with Windows consulting resources.

One of our mid-market customers, Computer Builders Warehouse (CBW), came to a similar conclusion. CBW builds computers to order for education, government, and corporate customers. Several years ago, it deployed Red Hat and Mandrake versions of Linux to support its corporate, retail and e-commerce applications. Challenged with high costs, CBW subsequently migrated to Microsoft Windows Server System, and reduced its total cost of ownership by 25 percent. It also consolidated its server population by 50 percent, reduced maintenance time by 50 percent, and boosted developer productivity by 200 percent. These benefits - totaling $650,000 in savings - are dwarfed by the millions of dollars in new revenue that CBW expects as a result of bringing a key security and monitoring product to market more than two years faster than it could have done using Linux. (CBW Case Study)

Security

About three years ago, we made software security a top priority, and since then we've invested heavily in a multi-pronged effort to improve software quality and development processes, and to reduce risks for customers through education and guidance, industry collaboration and enforcement. I think it's fair to say that no other software platform has invested as much in security R&D, process improvements and customer education as we have at Microsoft.

Still, Linux has often been touted as a more secure platform. In part, this is because of the "many eyeballs" maxim of open source software that claims a correlation between the number of developers looking at code and the number of bugs found and resolved. While this has some validity, it is not necessarily the best way to develop secure software. We believe in the effectiveness of a structured software engineering process that includes a deep focus on quality, technology advances, and vigorous testing to make software more secure.

A number of third-party reports have questioned how safe the Linux platform really is. For example, a recent independent study by Forrester, Is Linux More Secure than Windows?, highlighted that the four major Linux distributions have a higher incidence and severity of vulnerabilities, and are slower than Microsoft to provide security updates.

According to Forrester, Microsoft had the lowest elapsed time between disclosure of a vulnerability and the release of a fix. They found that Microsoft addressed all of the 128 publicly disclosed security flaws in Windows over the 12-month period studied, and that its security updates predated major outbreaks by an average of 305 days.

Other independent sources of data show similar conclusions. According to statistics posted on the security Web site Secunia, Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 has averaged 7.4 security advisories per month, compared with 1.7 advisories for Windows Server 2003.

And as Yankee Group noted in its Linux, UNIX and Windows TCO Comparison study, "Linux-specific worms and viruses are every bit as pernicious as their UNIX and Windows counterparts - and in many cases they are much more stealthy."

This was a deciding factor in farmaCity's selection of Windows over Linux. Headquartered in Buenos Aires, farmaCity is a rapidly growing Argentinian drugstore chain with 50 outlets and 1,200 employees. Although farmaCity's growth in recent years was a testament to its success, the company's aging technology infrastructure had become a hindrance to further expansion. After careful analysis, farmaCity concluded that Windows would reduce network administration by 30 percent compared with Linux, and would also simplify identity and desktop management. But the core reason for selecting Microsoft was the increase in network security, complemented by the ability to reduce patch-deployment time by 50 percent while cutting unsolicited e-mail by half. (farmaCity Case Study)

Indemnification

Increasingly, we're hearing from customers that another factor in their consideration of computing platforms is indemnification. In 2003, we looked at our volume licensing contracts to see what we could do to increase customer satisfaction, and a top issue we heard about was patent indemnification, which then was capped at the amount the customer had paid for the software. So later that year, we lifted that cap for our volume licensing customers, who are most likely to be the target of an intellectual property lawsuit.

Today, when a volume licensing customer - a business or organization ranging from as few as five computers to many thousands - licenses a Microsoft product, we provide uncapped protection for legal costs associated with a patent, copyright, trademark or trade secret claim alleging infringement by a Microsoft product. We do this because we are proud to stand behind our products, and because we understand that being on the wrong end of a software patent lawsuit could cost a customer millions of dollars, and massively disrupt their business.

No vendor today stands behind Linux with full IP indemnification. In fact, it is rare for open source software to provide customers with any indemnification at all. We think Microsoft's indemnification already is one of the best offered by the leading players in the industry for volume licensing customers, and we're looking at ways to expand it to an even broader set of our customers. It's definitely something businesses want to think about as they're building or expanding their IT infrastructure.

It was certainly a factor for Regal Entertainment Group, the largest movie theatre chain in the world. In 2001, they moved to Red Hat Linux. After evaluating Linux in their business for several months, however, they migrated to the Microsoft platform - not only because of lower TCO, stronger support and services, and greater reliability and manageability, but because they were more fully indemnified on IP. J.E. Henry, CIO of Regal Entertainment, told me that "reduced risk was a decision factor in selecting Windows over Linux. We needed to minimize our exposure to the distraction of potential IP infringement claims, and we had a big enough open source presence to be concerned. With the way that Microsoft stands behind its products, it's one less thing that I have to worry about."

UNIX Migration

One of the hot topics among enterprise IT and business decision makers today is the costs and benefits of migrating enterprise resource planning systems (ERP) from costly, proprietary UNIX environments to Windows or other platforms. ERP integrates various company functions such as human resources, inventories and financials, and links a company to its vendors and customers.

An independent, qualitative survey of organizations that recently completed a migration of their SAP or PeopleSoft ERP system from a UNIX environment to the Microsoft Windows Server platform found a more than 20% reduction in the number of servers required compared with UNIX. The survey, by META Group, found that in one large telecommunications company, consolidation on Windows allowed a greater than 50 percent reduction in the number of required servers.

The survey also found a more than 50 percent improvement in areas such as reliability, accessibility and scalability; significant savings in cost management, IT staffing, performance monitoring and vendor management; and measurable savings in technical support and training. More than half of business function decision makers also saw significant improvements in areas such as consistency, accuracy, reporting enhancement and performance.

"Windows is now a mainstream option for the vast majority of ERP projects," META Group concluded.

A great case study is the Raiffeisen Bank Group, the largest private bank group in Austria with about 2,600 branches. It wanted to reduce costs and provide better customer service by consolidating the number of servers in its branches by 50 percent. Raiffeisen investigated migrating from UNIX to either Linux or Windows. After evaluating the possible solutions, the company found that Windows Server 2003 would provide the most economical solution along with better performance, while giving bank employees an integrated view of customer information that they needed to improve customer service. (Raiffeisen Bank Group Case Study)

One of our mid-market customers had a similar experience. Grand Expeditions is a consortium of luxury travel companies that significantly reduced its Web development and hosting costs, and improved site reliability and performance, by moving from a combination of Linux- and UNIX-based servers to Windows Server 2003 and the Windows Server System. The new system was up and running in just 60 days, and is saving Grand Expeditions $200,000 a year. (Grand Expeditions Case Study)

In Closing...

There is no question that customers are benefiting today from a healthy, competitive IT industry. Competition requires companies to really focus in on what customers want and need. At the same time, customers have a clearer opportunity than ever before to evaluate choices.

For example, BET.com, the Internet portal created by Viacom subsidiary BET Networks, did an in-depth comparison of Red Hat Linux and Windows Server System. They found that Windows offered 30% lower TCO, was more secure and reliable, and enabled quicker time to market. As BET.com's CTO, Navarrow Wright, said: "When I looked at all the costs - not just the straight price of software - a Windows Server System-based solution made better financial sense than sticking with our Sun and Oracle environment or switching to Linux. We decided to migrate the whole enterprise from various software vendors to standardize all of our software on Microsoft."

By implementing Windows Server 2003, Windows XP Professional, Office Professional Edition 2003, Exchange Server 2003, Content Management Server 2003 and Visual Studio .NET 2003, BET.com conservatively estimated that its workforce will increase productivity by 25-30%, while saving significantly in licensing and redevelopment costs.

As organizations increasingly rely on IT to perform mission-critical functions, and with complexity a growing challenge, choosing the right computing platform for the long term can make the difference between profit and loss, and between future success and failure. And it's pretty clear that the facts show that Windows provides a lower total cost of ownership than Linux; the number of security vulnerabilities is lower on Windows, and Windows responsiveness on security is better than Linux; and Microsoft provides uncapped IP indemnification of their products, while no such comprehensive offering is available for Linux or open source.

The vision and benefits of an integrated platform are what distinguish Microsoft's app