No Docs?

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.

5 comments

More Articles by Anthony Lawrence - Find me on Google+

Click here to add your comments




Thu Jun 8 13:46:42 2006:   BigDumbDinosaur


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.

i=1
while [i -lt 256 ];do
    echo "192.168.2.${i}\thost_2_${i}" >> /etc/hosts
    i=$((i+1))
done

The above is for any Windows jock who is reading the above article and wondering what a UNIX/Linux jock would have to do to generate a host to IP address map like what Tony postulated. It sure beats having to fire up a word processor or Notepad and spend 20 minutes typing away, and can even be done from the shell prompt. BTW, I thought about this for a while trying to come up with a batch file that would do this on the one and only Windows box around here. I was unable to leap the hurdle of incrementing and testing the index variable `i'. It could simply be because I have little experience with DOS scripting, seeing as how that "language" is child's cap pistol compared to UNIX's high powered hunting rifle.

As for the Microsoft claim about reliability, it goes to show that with enough money you can proclaim virtually anything and get away with it. Since I have yet to see any Windows system stay up and stable for more than a few months, and have *NIX boxes running in various places with high triple-digit uptimes, I'd have to say the claim in the Yankee group report that Windows is 20 percent more reliable than Linux is almost as believable as my saying that I will be offering the Brooklyn Bridge for sale at a clearance price. By the way, Laura DiDio popped up in the discussion -- a classic example of a paid shill. If her "analyst" job at Yankee Group doesn't work out she can always go to work at QVC hawking trinkets. She'd fit right in.



Thu Jun 8 23:07:10 2006:   drag


But, but! What about Monad? Microsoft's command line interface will kick butt when it finally gets released sometime in 2008...

(my personal feelings is that it'll make a good scripting language, but a lousy shell. In Linux we already have things like Perl and Python that work quite well)

The hunting rifle thing is funny. Brought up two references in my mind.. The first one is from a great (if a bit old) essay called 'In The Beginning Was The Command Line'. Specificly the part called 'Hole Hawg Unix' were he compares power drills to operating system, specificly the weedy little plastic ones you can buy in any hardware store as Windows vs the professional 'Hole Hawg Drill' which is powerfull enough to dig post holes if you want it to (or break your arm if used improperly).

http://www.spack.org/wiki/InTheBeginningWasTheCommandLine

The command line interface was one of the reasons I started using Linux in the first place. I don't understand sometimes some folks who say 'GUI for everything'. And if anybody needs proof of why command line is nessicary and usefull look at the "once proud that there was no command line" Apple MacOS and the big astroturf push by Microsoft to get the word out on Monad.

The second and a bit more amusing reference that it brings up is another website called 'Box'o'Truth' were a retired fella goes and documents himself having fun dispelling urban myths about firearms in a very entertaining manner. Several places he says stuff along the lines of 'Goes to show you; pistols are pistols and rifles are rifles, the differences are obvious'. Rifles are exponentionally more powerfull then pistols, which is exactly how I feel about a Unix shell vs the Dos-style command line interface provided with Windows. Much easier to use and much more powerfull.
http://www.theboxotruth.com/



Fri Jun 9 13:28:33 2006:   BigDumbDinosaur


Actually, my analogy about pistols vs. rifles was partly triggered (doncha just *hate* those silly puns?) by an article written by Tony some time ago about the value of the shell. His analogy involved hunting buffalo for dinner and how with UNIX or Linux, you can pick your buffalo, bring it down, butcher it for steaks and serve it up exactly as you want. With Windows, you get one portion size, cooked the way Bill Gates likes it, and it so happens there's no buffalo on the menu. See, Tony, we really do read all of your stuff!



Fri Jun 9 13:38:56 2006:   TonyLawrence


That was http://aplawrence.com/Opinion/gdunix.html by the way..




Sat Jun 10 16:02:54 2006:   BigDumbDinosaur


So it was. Of course, since I was in the Navy, I'd think more in terms of the weaponry on a ship than that of a horse-mounted hunter. That's it: the Bourne or Korn shell is like a battleship's 16 inch rifles (that's what they're called, naval rifles) and Windows' pathetic "batch language" is a kid's squirt pistol.

Don't miss responses! Subscribe to Comments by RSS or by Email

Click here to add your comments

If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar

Jump to Comments

Many of the products and books I review are things I purchased for my own use. Some were given to me specifically for the purpose of reviewing them. I resell or can earn commissions from the sale of some of these items. Links within these pages may be affiliate links that pay me for referring you to them. That's mostly insignificant amounts of money; whenever it is not I have made my relationship plain. I also may own stock in companies mentioned here. If you have any question, please do feel free to contact me.

Specific links that take you to pages that allow you to purchase the item I reviewed are very likely to pay me a commission. Many of the books I review were given to me by the publishers specifically for the purpose of writing a review. These gifts and referral fees do not affect my opinions; I often give bad reviews anyway.

We use Google third-party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our website. These companies may use information (not including your name, address, email address, or telephone number) about your visits to this and other websites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here.