Don’t confuse bad Linux support for bad Linux

David M Williams
Wednesday, 02 July 2008 12:52

Opinion and Analysis

Anti-Linux evangelists try to level many claims against the free open source operating system Linux. Arguments against the base cost (nothing!) or about the turnaround time to repair security exploits don’t work. But there is one item in the anti-Linux arsenal which often hits hard: lack of support. Here's why it makes good Linux techies groan when they see it.

Earlier this year I railed against Microsoft’s “comparison” site which alleges to give unbiased points of distinction between Microsoft’s server products and the range of Linux distributions. This had once been heavily campaigned under the name “get the facts” which Microsoft later stated they had dropped – but yet “get the facts” still turns up in Google ad blocks and the site itself claims to give “the facts” on the server choices available.

You can find many case studies on this site relating to genuine real-world business implementations and technology platform choices. I’m interested in good, reasoned arguments as to why a pragmatist would choose one technology over another for a given application. Yet, the first case study I read – on well-known Australian entertainment company Video Ezy – hardly inspired confidence. There was no titanic battle between the two operating system contenders.

Now, some feedback complained that the events of the case study had happened years prior (although it is still available on Microsoft’s web site as a case study pretending to support Windows Server over Linux.) I thus returned to the comparison site and picked up the very latest case study, hot off the metaphorical press. This time web host HiChina were in the hot seat and Microsoft detailed the benefits Windows Server 2008 offered them over their previous Windows Server 2003 environment. Yes, quick minds will have noticed they upgraded from Windows to Windows. And indeed, the case study would have served a good purpose if it were used to promote why existing customers ought to upgrade. As a comparison between Microsoft and Linux it served little point.

I reviewed some more. Each was flawed. Large radio network AusStereo, we were told, dumped Linux because of how troublesome it was. Reading the case study beyond the headline we discover it was actually Novell Netware that was the troublesome component. I wrote to Microsoft PR to question how they believed these stories genuinely presented a comparison and whether they were average stories coupled with deceitful headlines. I did not receive a reply, as mentioned in my fourth and last piece, which received wide distribution thanks to SlashDot.

That’s not to say nobody was watching, mind you. HiChina’s case study disappeared off the front page of the Microsoft comparison site. Readers pointed this out to me, and I noted you could still get to it via the direct link. A couple of days later it was gone from there, also. I think it is reasonable to say iTWire claimed a virtual scalp.

I am pleased that these columns were well-received but after four stories thought it time to move on to Ubuntu, Firefox and Wine. Yet, it’s time now to check out Microsoft’s case studies again. Especially because just maybe this time they’ve sharpened their act and landed a glove.

CONTINUED