
Last night I attended a Microsoft sponsored dinner and talk on the pros and cons of going the Open Source route and in particular the Linux route. The presentation was reasonably well done except for the fact some of the numbers tossed around were open to a lot of interpretation. For instance their tally of the TCO - Total Cost of Ownership - included the figure of 64% of that cost being staffing costs. I've administered both Windows servers and Linux servers and I can assure you that Windows servers require a lot more attention. I've also administered FreeBSD servers and they require the least attention of all. Where Microsoft really skews the numbers is their assumption that staffing costs include the re-training of Microsoft IT staff to handle Linux servers. I have to agree that if you had a completely Microsoft centric IT department then you would likely incur some costs getting switched over. Where I disagree is that those costs would be ongoing. I believe that, overall you would save money and have less headaches and security issues by going the Open Source route.
"...This embedded spyware will have the capability to provide information as to what software was running at the time of the crash and even the contents of open documents..."
Now to be fair, the presentation assumed you were using either Red Hat or Novell's SUSE including the service contracts. That is for sure going to ramp up your costs. In an enterprise situation it would likely be a tradeoff but for a small to medium size business that was out to save money, a service contract would be out of the question. I have seen small IT departments on a tight budget go the Open Source route using the Open Source community for support when necessary. Generally speaking, the only time that support was required was when installation and configuration problems cropped up. After that it was a huge saving by not having to continuously babysit the system.
Anyhow..., near the end of the presentation there was a slide of a "crash report form" with the "send / don't send" buttons. The next slide showed a type of flow chart showing the bug report coming into a huge data-centre, the bug report being analyzed and compared with similar bug reports and then feedback being generated in the form of suggestions or directions on how to rectify the situation. That sounds fine on the surface, but...!
An article I read on CNET just before I headed off to the meeting indicates that Microsoft has plans of embedding the equivalent of a software "black box" into the next version of Windows. This is supposed to assist the software engineers in providing a solution for your next system crash. And this is where the thinking gets a little fuzzy. This embedded spyware will have the capability to provide information as to what software was running at the time of the crash and even the contents of open documents. They claim the user will have the option of submitting the bug report with document contents removed if that is what you wish. Personally I wish they would have a lot more consideration for my privacy but it certainly appears that consideration is not forthcoming. I think Microsoft really needs to consult with the user before throwing this 'feature' at us.
In any case I took a copy of the Windows 2003 Server Standard Edition they where handing out. One of the fellows sitting at the same table as myself suggested a good use for the software would be to set up a 'honeypot'. I thought that was a hell of fine suggestion and I just might do that, otherwise I may have to offer it up to pay the rent.
Check back regularly, no telling what little nugget of gnarled knowledge or whimsical wisdom you're going to unearth here but it could be a 'FUD nugget' - they're always entertaining.
Hasta La L8r Señor Spyware Vendor
