|
| Latest Web News |
WebWorks Helps Documents Flow Smoothly
WinHelp documentation does not create itself, especially out of around 80 assorted manuals; for one business, WebWorks ePublisher Pro for Word took that material and seamlessly assembled it into the format they needed.
Google Extends Firefox Some Love
The Google Toolbar for Firefox will soon emerge from its beta status; also, the company introduced a synchronization feature to make one's browser settings available on multiple computers.
Google.com Vanishes From China
Reporters Without Borders has observed the Google.com address can no longer be accessed from China. Chinese Googlites can visit the local version of the search engine at Google.cn, but the main, and uncensored, home of Google has vanished.
Sergey Brin Goes To Washington
The challenge of finding Senators willing to hear Google's point of view on network neutrality will look like a walk in the park compared to the prospect of changing course with its business in China.
Your Search Ad Gets A Zero
After carefully crafting a new ad for Google AdWords, the search ad receives no impressions and no clicks; before giving up in despair, read this. Fridays are bad for submitting new ads for review and approval with Google AdWords.
Google Spreadsheet No Excel Killer
News stories and blog posts have begun to fill with the carillon of funeral bells for Microsoft as Google readies its minimalist spreadsheet program for public debut.
EBay Reality Show Not Happening
Instead of a summer of having its name associated with a reality show based on people selling items online to fulfill some kind of whimsical wish, eBay has decided to withdraw from participating.
Ask Seen As Google Threat
Microsoft may not get around to unseating Google from the search engine perch, as Ask.com may complete its turnaround and start seeing its market share rise thanks to a host of features available from IAC's Search and Media division.
|
|
|
06.08.06
No Docs?
 By
A.P. Lawrence
Microsoft can buy white papers whenever it wants, and of course they do. They say some of these are "independent, non-sponsored" studies.
Yeah, right. If you look closely, you'll find the same companies that do "independent" studies also have done "Microsoft-
sponsored research". Sure, I trust their "independent" stuff
without question.
Anyway, apparently the most recent Yankee Group study has found that Windows servers are more reliable than Linux, but that Unix servers are more reliable than either. I can't find anything on Microsoft's website referencing this (I guess that's not surprising) though they do have plenty of other studies.
The Enquirer's review of the Yankee Group study says:
Yankee says that Windows 2003 Server is a more reliable server operating system than Linux as the downtime was longer for Red Hat Enterprise Linux, and Linux distributions from "niche" open source vendors. It says that one reason for this was that there was a shortage of Linux and open source documentation.
Huh? A "shortage of Linux and open source documentation"??
I'm still shaking my head over that one.
PC World covered a similar study. They report:
In the absence of a clear definition of reliability or benchmarks, Microsoft commissioned a study that pitted Windows Server 2003 against Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3.0 AS. As part of the study, 18 Linux and 18 Windows system administrators were hired to run the simulated IT environments of a midsized company over a four day period.
That's not the Yankee Group study. This is one Microsoft paid for and can be found at Microsoft Windows Server 2003 vs. Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS 3.0: IT Professionals Running a Production Environment
We'll assume that there was enough integrity that the Windows administrators weren't ten year veterans pitted again Linux noobies fresh out of community college. There was testing of the admins hired for this study. However, the testing wasn't much for either the Windows or the Linux folk. The Linux test questions were slanted toward Linux in a Windows environment, which is not totally unreasonable but definitely not always the case. The Windows test didn't take any notice of a Unix or Linux environment being present though, and in fact that is pretty likely at larger organizations and even quite a few small shops. Overall, the qualification questions were fairly basic.
PC World continues:
The administrators had to troubleshoot intentionally introduced errors and conduct tasks such as configuring new devices, making backups and setting up remote access.
What sorts of errors? Were the "errors" truly similar? Were they equally likely to happen?
You can download the PDF and read it for yourself. My take is that it was a bit slanted toward Microsoft environments (heavy concentration on user file deletion and SMB browsing issues), but in general no competent Linux admin should have had any difficulty reacting to the tasks and induced problems and solving them quickly. In fact, the results seem to bear that out: there were some Linux and some Windows admins that got stuck in certain areas, but most solved the problems in the time frames I'd expect.
As hinted at above, it might have been more fair had the Windows folks had to interface with Linux or Unix machines, but they didn't have to. Linux admins did have to deal with Samba and Active Directory issues.
The study ignored the sorts of tasks that are common in any environment. For example, let's ask the admins to create a file mapping IP addresses to host names, using a naming format where (for example) 192.168.2.1 is host_2_1. Almost all Linux/Unix admins would script that and be done in seconds, while a depressing percentage of Windows admins would fire up Microsoft Word and start typing. Of course that's really nothing to do with the OS proper, but it does show WHY Windows servers usually do require more work: their admins lack both proper tools and the skill to use them.
Overall I'd say this whole study is meaningless. There's tremendous variance between the various admins and variance between similar tasks for the same admin. This is simple reality for troubleshooting: sometimes even the best of us head down the wrong path for a while. I don't find the time differences compelling.
For me, it doesn't change the basic observations every Unix/Linux tech knows: once the system is properly set up, it will probably run for years without attention, and any organization with Windows servers or desktops will always have a larger number of support techs than the equivalent Unix/Linux shop. Those are the real facts, and Windows compares disfavorably.
About the Author:
A.P. Lawrence provides SCO Unix and Linux consulting services http://www.pcunix.com |
