Kreuger Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 The chief Linux guru at Microsoft believes that Windows will maintain its dominance in the desktop space and increase its share in the server space because it is more reliable than Linux. The director of platform strategy at Microsoft, Bill Hilf has lead the Linux and open source software technology group at Redmond for the past two years and formerly headed the global Linux technical strategy of IBM. He says reliability and predicability are the key factors which give Microsoft?s software the edge over Linux and open source alternatives. Hilf says: ?When I talk to a middle of the road customer that might be indifferent about Microsoft or Linux, one of the words they typically use with me is predictability. How do I know that the software is extraordinarily well tested and predictable? Source Original source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blik Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 In other news, the sky is blue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirk26 Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 pfft. Like we didn't know already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slickice11 Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 In other news Pepsi soda expert says pepsi is more delicious than coke, more at 11. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurmoth Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 (edited) After using Linux in the real world (the real world being a corporate environment and not at home), I've come to realize that Linux is extremely stable, but it is also extremely unreliable. I would agree with Hilf, Windows is more reliable and will continue to gain market share, especially in the server world. On the other hand, what would expect a Microsoft employee to say? :blink: Of course he is going to say Windows is more reliable, he works for Microsoft. If a Novell employee comes out for Windows, I'll be more excited than what I am right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ichi Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 So is he implying that MS software is "extraordinarily well tested and predictable?"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yagi Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 "chief Linux guru at Microsoft." Enough said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smit Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 After using Linux in the real world (the real world being a corporate environment and not at home), I've come to realize that Linux is extremely stable, but it is also extremely unreliable. I would agree with Hilf, Windows is more reliable and will continue to gain market share, especially in the server world. On the other hand, what would expect a Microsoft employee to say? :blink: Of course he is going to say Windows is more reliable, he works for Microsoft. If a Novell employee comes out for Windows, I'll be more excited than what I am right now. I agree with you. Linux can do some powerful things but it can be a real pain actually setting it up to do it. Windows makes things seem "easier" which is what alot of people want, they don't care how it's done, they just want it "done". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kreuger Posted March 16, 2006 Author Share Posted March 16, 2006 I figured it might be half valid because he was the Linux "guru" at IBM too.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Derf Veteran Posted March 16, 2006 Veteran Share Posted March 16, 2006 I've seen Windows boxes that were very reliable... at displaying the blue screen of death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W1cked-J Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 I figured it might be half valid because he was the Linux "guru" at IBM too.. I agree with you there but you have to look where is paycheck is coming from now.. :whistle: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
water.hammer Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 Some Linux guru that is!! Well you really have to admit, windows is more reliable, no unresolved security issues, driver failures almost never cause a BSOD, no need to reboot windows for almost any update... People keep saying windows is easier to learn. These people seem to forget how long it took them to learn how to use windows or at least to convince themeselves that they know how to use windows; since I can guarantee that in one month of using linux I have leaned more about linux than those so-called windows gurus have leanred about windows in the last 10 years. I have learned how to edit configuration files, how and why drivers are loaded, how a kernel in any OS works, how to create shell scripts to automate tasks, how to compile and package software, how shared libraries works and a lot more... Actually I have found linux easier to learn configure and maintain than windows. I recall contacting MS support once regarding a error message that seemed to popup in c:\windows\system32\catroot2\dberr.txt This error prevented windowsupdate from working. I did get windowsupdate to work half an hour after I submitted the support request because our IT technician fixed it. Nevertheless, MS did reply asking for log files that I already sent with the support request. Two days later, they reply thanking me for cooperation, telling me to ignore the error message, and to thank me for using MS products. ( Translation = we are ignorant of you problem and we don't even know how our own software operates ). If you call that reliable, then windows is pretttty reliable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miuku. Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 After using Linux in the real world (the real world being a corporate environment and not at home), I've come to realize that Linux is extremely stable, but it is also extremely unreliable. I would agree with Hilf, Windows is more reliable and will continue to gain market share, especially in the server world. Right. Having administered what I consider a rather sizeable corporate environment (50,000 Windows workstations and a few hundred Windows servers in addition to a few hundred Linux stations with a good share of Linux servers on top of it) I can pretty much laugh at this and everyone who has expertise on the field would agree (And with that comment you can flush those MCSE kids down the toilet because majority of them have no clue - of anything). I spent months on end fixing Windows related issues, crashes, security breaches, poorly designed software, faulty software.. anything imaginable under the sun and boy was I fed up all the way. I'd say the time I spent fixing the Windows servers vs Linux servers was around 90-95/10%-5% - so I can pretty well flush down the toilet any Windows vs Linux reliability discussion as yet more FUD from people who are downright scared. I've replaced all but few of the Windows servers here at my new work and reliability has gone thru the roof in comparison to the infrastructure that in place previously. Not to mention I've saved a bundle of corporate funds - everyone is happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mouldy Punk Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 I'd agree with him. Because of windows' ease of use* it makes it alot easier and quicker to fix something if something goes wrong, even for an intermediate-type user. In linux goes wrong, you really need to know what you're doing if you want it fixed quickly. Posting on forums and IRC etc are all great, but alot of the time you're left on your own if you're stuck for time. Therefore, in that sense, windows is more reliable. That being said however, an advanced linux user could fix any linux related issue under the sun in 10 minutes flat. Just like an advanced windows user could fix windows mucho quicko. An OS is only as reliable as the person using it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ichi Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 Because of windows' ease of use* it makes it alot easier and quicker to fix something if something goes wrong, even for an intermediate-type user. In linux goes wrong, you really need to know what you're doing if you want it fixed quickly. That would be true for an intermediate-type windows user, as he might know how to fix stuff because he's familiar with the OS. Pick someone familiar with Linux and the situation is the oposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NC Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 I've seen Windows boxes that were very reliable... at displaying the blue screen of death. :yes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llbbl Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 I dont think this should be in the Linux section. Also who cares what a guy employed by Microsoft thinks about their competitors products. Doesn't actually mean what he thinks is true. I will admit that windows is easier to learn, but current distros are making great headway. I think in another generation or two we won't need microsoft windows. Linux is far more reliable than Windows end of story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurmoth Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 I've seen Windows boxes that were very reliable...at displaying the blue screen of death. I've been running Windows XP Professional for 7 months (give or take a few weeks) and have never had a BSOD... yet *knock on wood* I dont think this should be in the Linux section. Also who cares what a guy employed by Microsoft thinks about their competitors products. Doesn't actually mean what he thinks is true. I will admit that windows is easier to learn, but current distros are making great headway. I think in another generation or two we won't need microsoft windows. Linux is far more reliable than Windows end of story. You're getting reliable and stable mixed up. Linux is stable, Windows is reliable ;) Nevertheless, you're correct in saying that what a Microsoft employee says about their competitor isn't necessarily true. The same could also be said for a Novell employee, a Red Hat employee, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ichi Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 Linux is stable, Windows is reliable How can you rely on something that's not stable :huh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiB3R Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 How can you rely on something that's not stable :huh: Thats exactly what I was thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treefrog Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 I figured it might be half valid because he was the Linux "guru" at IBM too.. But being a MS employee, he's certainly not going to say that Linux is better than windows, else he certainly wouldn't be a MS employee for long. (And with that comment you can flush those MCSE kids down the toilet because majority of them have no clue - of anything). Other than the memorization of those cheatsheets that are easily found to get their MCSEs hehe. How can you rely on something that's not stable :huh: Clearly you can rely on the fact that it's not stable lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney T. Administrators Posted March 16, 2006 Administrators Share Posted March 16, 2006 This is simply another example of a Microsoft employee adding his 2 cents to the propaganda marketing machine at MS. Of course a Microsoft employee will say this ... and be published. If he said the opposite, he'd be out of a job. :yes: And.. each camp in this never-ending debate of Windows vs Linux will toast the fact that their view is right and this clearly shows it......... Barney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kreuger Posted March 16, 2006 Author Share Posted March 16, 2006 And.. each camp in this never-ending debate of Windows vs Linux will toast the fact that their view is right and this clearly shows it......... Well I haven't seen Linus toting how good Linux is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mouldy Punk Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 How can you rely on something that's not stable huh.gif A tank is pretty stable. Wouldn't rely on it to get me to the top of mount everest though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudy Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 the guy isnt biased or anything :rolleyes: i can't believe they call that news lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts