Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

Linux still seen as most secure

Filed under
Linux

The Linux-Windows 2005 TCO Comparison Survey, to be published in full in June, is based on responses from 509 companies of all sizes in markets such as healthcare, academia, financial services, legal, media, retail and government, Yankee Group said this week.

While respondents rated Windows security much higher than in last year's survey, Linux was still perceived to beat Windows in every security category, the survey found.

The survey largely reflects the attitudes of companies that are already Windows shops. The vast majority of respondents - 73 percent - used Windows 2000 Server or Windows Server 2003 as their dominant operating system, followed by Linux with 15 percent, Unix with 6 percent and Novell's NetWare with 4 percent, and "another open source distribution" at 2 percent.

The open-source operating system now used as a secondary operating system in 60 percent of the companies, compared with Windows NT at 62 percent, Unix at 35 percent, NetWare at 16 percent and Mac OS X at 14 percent.

Customers who have already deployed Windows Server 2003 are unlikely to be seduced by Linux, saying they found the Microsoft operating system's quality, performance and reliability equal to or better than Linux, Yankee Group said.
Linux continued to hold a perceived edge over Windows in all security categories, including user systems and Web, file, application and database servers. Linux scored at least 8 out of 10 in every category, compared with 6 or 7 for Windows. Windows' overall rating of 7.6 on security was nearly double last year's score. Respondents said Microsoft's changes to its patching system were working - they spent an average of 80 percent less time on patch management.

Participants' Linux servers took longer to recover from security attacks than Windows - 17 hours for Linux and 13.2 hours for Windows, respondents said. To put this in perspective, however, 92 percent of Linux developers say their systems have never been infected with a virus, and 78 percent said their systems have never been hacked, according to last summer's Linux Development Survey from Evans Data.

Respondents said their Windows downtime was three to four times more expensive than Linux downtime, reflecting the more critical data stored on their Windows systems, Yankee Group said.

The survey was curiously lacking in hard TCO (total cost of ownership) data. Most respondents lacked specific information on comparative Linux and Windows capital expenditure, even though more than half of those surveyed said they had performed a thorough TCO (total cost of ownership) analysis. Those with specific information indicated that costs affecting TCO tended to occur in applications and services rather than at the operating system level itself, Yankee Group said.

The research firm did not specify how it selected its respondents. Last year's Yankee Group TCO study attracted criticism when it became clear that that the sample group was taken from a mailing list aimed at Windows system administrators.

Last year's Web-based survey was funded and carried out by Sunbelt Software, a vendor of Windows utilities, which publicised the survey solely through a mailing list called W2Knews, billing itself as "the World's first and largest e-zine designed for NT/2000 System Admins and Power Users". In the 16 February edition of W2Knews, which launched the survey, the company said it and Yankee Group were "surveying Windows Sites" to see how they were "responding to the Linux phenomenon and the TCO question".

There is little consistent data comparing Linux and Windows TCO. A 2002 IDC study called "Windows 2000 Versus Linux in Enterprise Computing", for example, found Linux was more expensive than Windows. But this was funded by Microsoft, and more importantly, one of the report's authors later said Microsoft had chosen scenarios for analysis that would be more costly using Linux.

In December Melbourne-based IT services firm CyberSource published an updated version of what it says is one of the few fully transparent studies comparing the costs of running Linux vs. Windows, finding that Linux installations can be up to 36 percent cheaper to install and run over a period of three years than comparable Windows systems, though subscribing to enterprise technical support and buying new hardware and infrastructure can lower the savings to as little as 19 percent. The report is available here [pdf].

Another major independent study contrasting Linux and Windows is a report from Germany's Soreon Research, using data collected from interviews with 50 enterprises. The report found that Linux had up to 30 percent lower TCO than Windows.

Source.

In related news Latest Linux/Windows research reports queried.

Large questions have appeared over the accuracy of two recent reports comparing the relative costs and benefits of the Linux and Windows operating systems in which Windows was painted as being superior to its open-source rival.

The reports, Forrester's "Is Linux more Secure than Windows?" and a Yankee Group survey on the relative costs of running the two operating systems, were both issued in the past few days.
The security study - whose raw data was vetted by Linux distributors Debian, Mandrakesoft, Red Hat and Suse - found that on average, Microsoft patched flaws faster than Linux vendors. The Yankee Group survey reported that, except for small businesses with customised vertical applications, companies deploying Windows enjoyed a lower cost of ownership than those with Linux.

But the Linux distributors involved in the Forrester study today issued a joint statement calling the study's conclusions inaccurate. And the Yankee Group's methodology has been called in question, with critics arguing it could not have possibly delivered objective results.

More in Tux Machines

Leftovers: OSS

OSS in the Back End

  • Open Source NFV Part Four: Open Source MANO
    Defined in ETSI ISG NFV architecture, MANO (Management and Network Orchestration) is a layer — a combination of multiple functional entities — that manages and orchestrates the cloud infrastructure, resources and services. It is comprised of, mainly, three different entities — NFV Orchestrator, VNF Manager and Virtual Infrastructure Manager (VIM). The figure below highlights the MANO part of the ETSI NFV architecture.
  • After the hype: Where containers make sense for IT organizations
    Container software and its related technologies are on fire, winning the hearts and minds of thousands of developers and catching the attention of hundreds of enterprises, as evidenced by the huge number of attendees at this week’s DockerCon 2016 event. The big tech companies are going all in. Google, IBM, Microsoft and many others were out in full force at DockerCon, scrambling to demonstrate how they’re investing in and supporting containers. Recent surveys indicate that container adoption is surging, with legions of users reporting they’re ready to take the next step and move from testing to production. Such is the popularity of containers that SiliconANGLE founder and theCUBE host John Furrier was prompted to proclaim that, thanks to containers, “DevOps is now mainstream.” That will change the game for those who invest in containers while causing “a world of hurt” for those who have yet to adapt, Furrier said.
  • Is Apstra SDN? Same idea, different angle
    The company’s product, called Apstra Operating System (AOS), takes policies based on the enterprise’s intent and automatically translates them into settings on network devices from multiple vendors. When the IT department wants to add a new component to the data center, AOS is designed to figure out what needed changes would flow from that addition and carry them out. The distributed OS is vendor-agnostic. It will work with devices from Cisco Systems, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Juniper Networks, Cumulus Networks, the Open Compute Project and others.
  • MapR Launches New Partner Program for Open Source Data Analytics
    Converged data vendor MapR has launched a new global partner program for resellers and distributors to leverage the company's integrated data storage, processing and analytics platform.
  • A Seamless Monitoring System for Apache Mesos Clusters
  • All Marathons Need a Runner. Introducing Pheidippides
    Activision Publishing, a computer games publisher, uses a Mesos-based platform to manage vast quantities of data collected from players to automate much of the gameplay behavior. To address a critical configuration management problem, James Humphrey and John Dennison built a rather elegant solution that puts all configurations in a single place, and named it Pheidippides.
  • New Tools and Techniques for Managing and Monitoring Mesos
    The platform includes a large number of tools including Logstash, Elasticsearch, InfluxDB, and Kibana.
  • BlueData Can Run Hadoop on AWS, Leave Data on Premises
    We've been watching the Big Data space pick up momentum this year, and Big Data as a Service is one of the most interesting new branches of this trend to follow. In a new development in this space, BlueData, provider of a leading Big-Data-as-a-Service software platform, has announced that the enterprise edition of its BlueData EPIC software will run on Amazon Web Services (AWS) and other public clouds. Essentially, users can now run their cloud and computing applications and services in an Amazon Web Services (AWS) instance while keeping data on-premises, which is required for some companies in the European Union.

today's howtos

Industrial SBC builds on Raspberry Pi Compute Module

On Kickstarter, a “MyPi” industrial SBC using the RPi Compute Module offers a mini-PCIe slot, serial port, wide-range power, and modular expansion. You might wonder why in 2016 someone would introduce a sandwich-style single board computer built around the aging, ARM11 based COM version of the original Raspberry Pi, the Raspberry Pi Compute Module. First off, there are still plenty of industrial applications that don’t need much CPU horsepower, and second, the Compute Module is still the only COM based on Raspberry Pi hardware, although the cheaper, somewhat COM-like Raspberry Pi Zero, which has the same 700MHz processor, comes close. Read more