A new Microsoft-commissioned anti-Linux study debuts
Summary: On September 25, Mercer Management Consulting released a new Microsoft-backed study. The study is entitled “Driving Lower TCO and Rapid ROI through UNIX Migrations.
Microsoft seemingly has backed off from trumpeting its “Get the Facts” studies, as of late. But that doesn’t mean the company has ceased commissioning research outfits to perform its anti-Linux dirty work.
On September 25, Mercer Management Consulting released a new Microsoft-backed study. The study is entitled “Driving Lower TCO and Rapid ROI through UNIX Migrations.” The synopsis: “Microsoft Windows the preferred choice for UNIX migration when IT organizations migrate servers as part of a focused effort to improve business processes, deploy critical applications or restructure their IT architecture.”
The old Microsoft would be touting this study as “Windows beats the pants off Linux in server migrations.” But in the new, Bill-Hilf-era Microsoft, the emphasis is on ROI and TCO, with Linux competition a mere footnote.
Mercer talked to 30 companies for this study. In attempting to debunk the supposed superiority of Linux as a replacement for Unix, Mercer reports:
“We found that many times when companies had chosen to migrate from UNIX to Linux, those decisions were made at a much lower level within the organization. In fact, it was often an IT administrator who was making the decisions, typically not using robust ROI (return on investment) or TCO analyses.”
TCO and ROI numbers, like any data, can be tailored to prove a desired conclusion. I know I’d trust my IT administrator’s recommendations on technology more than those of an upper-level manager armed with a TCO study.
That said, just because a report is commissioned by Microsoft doesn’t mean it’s automatically bogus. But it definitely makes me more leery. Any other skeptics out there?
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
Hey, it's only...
It is funny to hear people complain about "The FUD comming out of Redmond" when there are orders of magnitude more anti-MS FUD being produced every day. Just visit sites like Slashdot, etc. ZDNet also produces a lot of FUD. Most Mary Jo "articles" contain heaps of FUD. Most ZDNet readers seem to post huge amounts of FUD.
So, again, I find it funny that you, Mary Jo, and 90% of the future posters to this story complain about MS' FUD when there are so much anti-MS FUD around here.
You don't think that is a bit disingenuous, Mary Jo, hmmm...?
Interesting, if not moronic, post...
Mary Jo has lots of experience with the MS band wagon, and you ARE part of that. How about provinding something more than just your obvious bias and throw in some substance.
Time to slap Mary Jo around.
Ok MJ, so since when is trying to demonstrate your product is better "dirty work"?
Many (yourself?) seem to have a big problem saying their product is better so MS hires someone to do an unbiased study and you call it "dirty work".
What would you have them do? Noever compare their products to others? Never have a third party do the comparison? What is it you do want?
Keep in mind, Bill Gates himself CHALLENGED Linus T. and the Linux supporteres to a head to head competition (use the same hardware and let each group set up the machines) and Linux (community as well as Linus) turned tail and ran away.
In an effort
The challenge happened.
The challenge was refused because, according to a statement, it would make Microsoft's criticisms of Linux more prominent.
Me, I think that situations vary so much that any one situation is not decisive for all. And the factors, such as the knowledge and past experience of those working with Windows/Linux, are difficult to control.
Still, I think it can be said that there are situations in which Windows is superior. Absolute statements are always false.
Absolute statements are always false.
Yup.
Erm...
Sorry littel one
Oh please
I'm too busy too
Yeah I saw those too
LOL
The burden of proof would seem to be on you
Proving something *didn't* happen by contrast is nearly impossible.
I've done several Google searches and come up with nothing to support your assertion. Quite frankly, you appear to be spreading male bovine waste product.
No_Ax_to_Grind does not know the facts or details on this.
Pardon...
Provide a link to support your claim.
To be precise
I'd like to see the official statement. The only one I saw from OSRL was that their charter as a tax-exempt nonprofit research organization did not allow them to do marketing promotional projects.
The real story
http://os.newsforge.com/os/05/08/29/1443204.shtml
"Martin Taylor of Microsoft invited me [head of the OSDL, Stuart
Cohen ] to meet with him to discuss shared research and other
topics at LinuxWorld and I accepted. "
It was Cohen.
"As far as working with Microsoft on a study, I [Cohen] explained
that Microsoft could probably find one negative line on Linux in
a 100-page research report that it would spend $10 million
marketing while ignoring the other 99 pages. Why would OSDL
want to participate in that?
The real reason ODSL declined.
Not only but also...