Gates: Windows Less Expensive, More Secure than Linux

Joshua · 12-08-2003, 11:21 AM

Microsoft Chairman and Chief Software
Architect Bill Gates was speaking about Linux just this week. He noted
that Linux is "a significantly more expensive solution" than Windows
and that Linux is less secure. "If you look at security," he said,
"there are three things to consider. One is the number of critical
security updates. We are significantly better than Linux or UNIX on
that. The second would be how quickly you make these updates
available. We are significantly better than UNIX or Linux on that. The
third thing is propagation. If you have a virus or worm that is
scanning to go find somebody else to hop to, and you don't stop
propagation, then popularity is your enemy. So this is a bigger
problem for us than for other platforms. No one else stops
propagation, but we have to. It's our fault--a faux pas--that we
didn't make it clear to customers how to prevent propagation. And that
is something that we are going to provide to customers. We are going
to give them free tools to do that." Gates's comments fly in the face
of conventional wisdom, and for that he's sure to get a lot of flack.
But I've always believed that a blind trust in unproven Linux
capabilities would come back to haunt people. Regardless, no one
should dismiss the amazing security work Microsoft is doing: No other
company is working that hard on security right now.

bachviet · 12-08-2003, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SnotRocket
Microsoft Chairman and Chief Software
Architect Bill Gates was speaking about Linux just this week. He noted
that Linux is "a significantly more expensive solution" than Windows
and that Linux is less secure. "If you look at security," he said,
"there are three things to consider. One is the number of critical
security updates. We are significantly better than Linux or UNIX on
that. ...

Yeah because Windows have more holes for worms/viruses to attack...

jase71 · 12-08-2003, 02:35 PM

Bill's a funny guy.

If he can say that with a straight face, he oughtta
run for office....

cheapchinese · 12-09-2003, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by chosenfool
for all we know hes not even using ANY of his own operating systems at home.

REALLY

why would windows be less expensive???
damn pricey S.o.b

WhiskeyPapa · 12-09-2003, 07:56 AM

Because MS always harps on the "TCO" - total cost of ownership. They say that you will spend less money on traning and maintenance by using MS software.

Blast Bill all you want, but he has made me more money than anyone connected with Linux.

Jeffbx · 12-09-2003, 10:58 AM

Yeah, Windows is already firmly embedded in most corporations. The cost to switch would be enormous in terms of training, finding support, porting applications, etc. The cost of the OS is barely a consideration when you look at all the factors.

Cubsfan · 12-09-2003, 11:01 AM

I've found that generally almost anyone with a little bit of training can manage a Windows machine, but it takes someone with a lot of experience to manage a *ix machine, and they are usually paid more. However, they also tend to take care of more machines and generally are more secure. I'm not saying that this means that Linux is cheaper, I'm just saying it make the water a little more muddy when determining things.

jase71 · 12-09-2003, 11:31 AM

Nice little story on CNet about Ernie Ball, the guitar string company, and their switch to Linux. Wasn't nearly as painful or expensive as you would think...

Granted, it's a smaller company, but it's interesting, and addresses the TCO issue. Only one case, but it's a nice read.

http://news.com.com/2008-1082-5065859.html

Jeffbx · 12-10-2003, 05:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jase71
Nice little story on CNet about Ernie Ball, the guitar string company, and their switch to Linux. Wasn't nearly as painful or expensive as you would think...

Granted, it's a smaller company, but it's interesting, and addresses the TCO issue. Only one case, but it's a nice read.

http://news.com.com/2008-1082-5065859.html

Wow, that's a good article. As painful as that transition sounds, I have to admit that I would love to have been part of that (from an IT perspective).

12-08-2003, 11:21 AM	#1
Joshua Rear Admiral Upper Half Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Long Island, NY Posts: 3,390	Gates: Windows Less Expensive, More Secure than Linux Microsoft Chairman and Chief Software Architect Bill Gates was speaking about Linux just this week. He noted that Linux is "a significantly more expensive solution" than Windows and that Linux is less secure. "If you look at security," he said, "there are three things to consider. One is the number of critical security updates. We are significantly better than Linux or UNIX on that. The second would be how quickly you make these updates available. We are significantly better than UNIX or Linux on that. The third thing is propagation. If you have a virus or worm that is scanning to go find somebody else to hop to, and you don't stop propagation, then popularity is your enemy. So this is a bigger problem for us than for other platforms. No one else stops propagation, but we have to. It's our fault--a faux pas--that we didn't make it clear to customers how to prevent propagation. And that is something that we are going to provide to customers. We are going to give them free tools to do that." Gates's comments fly in the face of conventional wisdom, and for that he's sure to get a lot of flack. But I've always believed that a blind trust in unproven Linux capabilities would come back to haunt people. Regardless, no one should dismiss the amazing security work Microsoft is doing: No other company is working that hard on security right now. __________________ The Apexer formerly known as SnotRocket. "Like I **ing said, "Ok, so I hear it may be a repost. Blah But I had never seen it, so..." ** you Canta." -Jenny 12/4/2003

12-08-2003, 02:35 PM	#3
jase71 Rear Admiral Lower Half Join Date: May 2000 Location: East of Eden Posts: 2,060	Bill's a funny guy. If he can say that with a straight face, he oughtta run for office.... __________________ And I found that hope and a lucky card were all I had to walk with me...

12-09-2003, 07:56 AM	#5
WhiskeyPapa Rear Admiral Upper Half Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: 45° 11' 35" North Latitude, 95° 8' 37" West Longitude Posts: 3,427	Because MS always harps on the "TCO" - total cost of ownership. They say that you will spend less money on traning and maintenance by using MS software. Blast Bill all you want, but he has made me more money than anyone connected with Linux. __________________

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

12-09-2003, 10:58 AM	#6
Jeffbx Fleet Admiral Join Date: Mar 2000 Location: Michigan Posts: 9,390	Yeah, Windows is already firmly embedded in most corporations. The cost to switch would be enormous in terms of training, finding support, porting applications, etc. The cost of the OS is barely a consideration when you look at all the factors.

12-09-2003, 11:01 AM	#7
Cubsfan Rear Admiral Lower Half Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Colorado Posts: 2,743	I've found that generally almost anyone with a little bit of training can manage a Windows machine, but it takes someone with a lot of experience to manage a *ix machine, and they are usually paid more. However, they also tend to take care of more machines and generally are more secure. I'm not saying that this means that Linux is cheaper, I'm just saying it make the water a little more muddy when determining things.

12-09-2003, 11:31 AM	#8
jase71 Rear Admiral Lower Half Join Date: May 2000 Location: East of Eden Posts: 2,060	Nice little story on CNet about Ernie Ball, the guitar string company, and their switch to Linux. Wasn't nearly as painful or expensive as you would think... Granted, it's a smaller company, but it's interesting, and addresses the TCO issue. Only one case, but it's a nice read. http://news.com.com/2008-1082-5065859.html

User Name
Password
Remember Me?