Why Microsoft will dump their anti-Linux rhetoric

David M Williams
Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:07

Opinion and Analysis

Is the Austereo case study a good one? Well, you might think so based on the heading. Instead, click the link and you learn the operating platform did have Linux, true, but predominantly Novell NetWare. So that’s right; the inference Austereo turned off Linux and turned on a functionally equivalent Windows server is once again deceitful, because we know right away Netware was also part of the problem and it too was removed.

Now, in the case study – because the doc is here this time – we don’t get to find out just how many systems were on Netware and how many were Linux boxes, but we do read about some of the problems face – and which largely stemmed from having so many disparate environments and applications. It makes sense the company benefited from having a single and consistent environment over all sites. There’s no story in here that Linux was a bottleneck. Instead the story is “Austereo simplified their infrastructure.”

Enough is enough. I’m calling Microsoft’s bluff. I’m going to phone and write to Microsoft PR in Seattle. I’m going to ask them what the go is with these crappy comparisons. How can Microsoft put these on a site called “get the facts” but yet fail to give any legitimate comparisons?

Each case study I look at is grossly flawed. Either the case study isn’t even there at all, or its Linux-busting headline is so grossly removed from the true story that they become pure fantasy.

I’m not even fighting hard here, my critiques of the case studies have used their own words. It was the Microsoft case study which said why Video Ezy rubbed out Linux. It’s the case study which says HiChina provided ASP.NET hosting – not anything on a Linux system. And it’s Microsoft’s own case study which says Austereo had a mixed heterogeneous environment and greatly simplified it.

Perhaps the person or persons who write Microsoft case studies leave them in the hands of the sales group who then, as we’ve seen, rabidly whack on titles which make big promises but don’t deliver on any. They even built up a whole campaign – “get the facts” – on it.

Did anyone at Microsoft actually read the headings put to the case studies? Can anyone at Microsoft genuinely defend the headings they are using?

I’m going to ask Microsoft. I’ll let you know what they say.