Wednesday, August 29, 2007

Get the Facts on Windows Server Compare

Several people, including Indianboy, martinluther/Mary Jo Foley, and The Geekery have focused on Microsoft's selective Linux targeting - namely, how Microsoft's "Windows Server Compare" page on Linux seem to talk a lot about Red Hat, but not about Microsoft's Linux "good guys" such as Novell and Linspire.

But frankly, Microsoft trashing Red Hat is like a southern California weather report in the summer. I'm more intrigued by what Microsoft has to say about UNIX.

Here's an excerpt from the mission-critical section:

UNIX systems are considered highly reliable and secure for most enterprise scenarios however as existing UNIX platforms age, customers experience a lower level of reliability, scalability and security due to hardware limitations and issues with out-of-date software.

So, in its response, does Microsoft say how they deal with hardware limitations and issues with out-of-date software?

Microsoft has made major investments in making Windows Server truly enterprise ready. Windows Server is now considered by many customers to meet or exceed the reliability, scalability and security found in enterprise UNIX systems.

And it's even more fun to compare the mission-critical comments on the mainframe page.

There is no question that mainframes have a reputation for reliability and security. However, with the high cost of specialist skills, the complexity of mainframe management and the lack of standards-based interoperability, customers are increasingly looking to Windows Server solutions for mission-critical workloads.

Um...was that standards-based interoperability? It's interesting to see what D.C. Parris says about Microsoft and standards:

Microsoft is attempting to turn the tables on the OpenDocument supporters by arguing for choice in document format standards. Ironically, having a second standard will only serve to perpetuate the interoperability nightmare....

The purpose of OpenDocument, as I have always understood it, has been that it will enable me to use the office suite I want to use, while still being able to share documents with people who use other office suites, including Microsoft Office. Unfortunately, someone at Microsoft decided not to participate in the development of OpenDocument....

Had Microsoft contributed to OpenDocument, they could have helped to ensure its compatibility with the billions of aging Office documents sitting on hard drives everywhere....They certainly could have helped improve ODF. Instead, they rejected ODF, and threw millions of dollars into developing an alternative format....

Microsoft's only arguments for choice have been about choosing which versions of Windows and Office you want to use. Their only use of standards is to adopt so they can adapt to lock customers into their solutions. And now, instead of contributing to the biggest interoperability push the world has ever seen, they want to force you to keep converting between document formats. How backwards is that?

[mrontemp business] | [mrontemp politics] | [mrontemp technology] | [mrontemp tags]

Sphere: Related Content