Over the last few years, we've seen and heard some pretty visceral reactions from the Linux community to Microsoft-funded reports about Linux. Rightfully so - some of the "facts" in Microsoft's "Get the Facts" campaign have been outright false and most have been misleading at the very least.

Perhaps no studies have drawn more ire from the Linux community than the total cost of ownership ("TCO") studies by Laura DiDio at the Yankee Group and the community also had a strong collective outcry against some very one-sided Microsoft "facts" about Linux security.

But one particular focal point of Microsoft's fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) campaign has gone unchecked for far too long - and that's Redmond's assertion that Linux is inherently more difficult to manage than Windows systems. While the studies themselves haven't been quite so one-sided and blatantly inaccurate as some of the other FUD areas, Microsoft-funded reports like the Meta Group's study on "File, Web, and Database Server Administration" (for Linux versus Windows) are built on antiquated, one-sided research findings - and it's long past time that the enterprise community got a refresher on where Linux management stands today versus Windows.

"While Linux is in heavy use in the enterprise, there is a misplaced perception that managing Linux environments is somehow more difficult or labor-intensive than managing Windows environments," Dave Rosenberg, principal analyst with Open Source Development Labs, says. "Microsoft has fueled this idea that Linux is a geeks-only hobbyist niche, which is simply not the case. In fact, Linux system management tools are in many cases outpacing Windows management tools. The market needs more information about the tools at their disposal and to understand that there is nothing more complex or expensive involved with managing Linux environments."

Enter Levanta and OSDL, who jointly funded the Enterprise Management Associates (EMA) report released in February, "Get the Facts on Linux Management." The study, available in its entirety at Levanta's Web site at www.levanta.com/linuxstudy/, is the first significant non-vendor-biased look at Linux management in a long time.

The report focuses on the wide variety of cost, concerns, personnel, and other considerations related to managing Linux versus Windows environments. The sample size is quite substantive - the report is based on a telephone survey using a random sample of several thousand IT organizations, a Web survey of self-selecting respondents, and in-depth interviews with CIOs and MIS managers in 13 enterprises with Linux environments. Here's the take-away - Linux has matured, and management solutions help to make it simple and economical. Below, I've pulled some notable findings from the report (see sidebar) that, at the very least, provide stats that call into question the validity of some of the anti-Linux claims.

Why More Vendors Should Do Neutral Studies to Combat Microsoft FUD
Linux supporters are well aware of Microsoft's persistent campaign to debunk the business and technical benefits of Linux. This full court press seems to come from all sides even rearing its ugly head in the form of veiled advertising as a "Linux Resource Center" on a Linux-centric Web site. This resource center consists of free white papers, case studies, and independent reports that espouse the lower cost of ownership and security superiority of...surprise...Windows.

Then there's Microsoft's "Get the Facts" campaign aimed at attacking the technical, security, and cost assumptions that people may or may not have made about Linux and Open Source. I've even come across Google AdWord sponsorships for Microsoft on Linux-related keyword searches! Tell me if any of these headlines rings a bell: "Microsoft Challenges Linux's Legacy Claims," "Independent Study Shows that Windows Servers Recover Faster from Security Attacks than Linux Servers," "Microsoft-Sponsored Study Gives Nod to Windows in Reliability," and "Costs and Benefits Still Favor Windows Over Linux Among Midsize Businesses."

The fact is Linux poses a huge threat to Microsoft's standing in the marketplace - maybe not today (with the exception of Apache) - but if trends hold the whole IT landscape could be turned on its head. So it makes smart business sense for Microsoft (with its limitless resources) to do anything in its power to keep the status quo. Nobody ever claimed that Microsoft is bad at generating revenues!

It is undeniable that, relative to Linux, Microsoft still has the ear of the enterprise and small and medium-sized enterprises and though its anti-Linux spin is full of half-truths and biased reporting, their message is being heard. Granted journalists who cover Linux (notably Steven Vaughan-Nichols of eWeek, Linux-Watch.com, and DesktopLinux fame) regularly write counterpoints to Microsoft's anti-Linux claims. And, of course, the Linux zealots let their poisition be known (is vehemence too strong a word?) via blogs and community sites (Slashdot, anyone?).

Levanta put in its two cents by sponsoring a study that objectively looked at Linux management versus Windows management. Now to quote Joe "Zonker" Brockmeier from NewsForge (commenting on a Microsoft-sponsored study), "The problem with this sort of study, as most people already know, is that you can set up a study to prove just about any point you want to, even if it's not really true - or only true under limited conditions."

In the end, you can always do a sanity check of the results of a study comparing it to your own experience. When I talked to the people at my company responsible for managing our Linux servers their experience rang pretty true with the Levanta study. This report by Levanta is a good example of what's possible when a vendor commissions a study that debunks myths without pushing products - the net result is something that pushes industry discussion forward. Alternatively, when vendor-sponsored studies promote specific point solutions, the whole exercise is discredited.

Linux Maturity
Many products that solve Linux server management problems didn't exist two years ago. Now that mature Linux management solutions are on the scene, big enterprises and SMEs can significantly reduce their Linux management and operations costs (100% of the study's respondents report Linux management is the same or easier than Windows management).

Linux has garnered strong support from mainstream hardware vendors and large management software vendors alike. Microsoft supports Linux as a guest operating system with it latest release of Virtual Server 2005 and promotes technologies that integrate Linux management into Microsoft SMS and MOM. After all, if you can't beat 'em, might as well make money off 'em!

Anti-Linux Claims...

Claim #1:
Linux administrators cost significantly more than Windows administrators.
This research study found that Linux and Windows administrators command similar salaries. More interesting, it found that Linux administrators are easy to source, tend to be very experienced, and typically handle more Linux servers, which, in turn, handle more users. In addition, administrators who can manage both Windows and Linux command around the same salary as Linux-only administrators and add more efficiency to mixed environments.

With respect to Linux consulting, 96% of the respondents had spent less than $10,000 over the past year while 79% spent nothing at all. Only 4% spent over $10,000 on Linux administrator training while over 63% spent nothing. With all factors considered, the total resource cost is likely to be significantly lower than for Windows.

Claim #2:
Deploying and provisioning Linux systems requires significant effort and resource cost.
Over half of the enterprises surveyed reported being able to provision a Linux system in less than an hour and almost 50% could deploy applications in an hour. One-third of the organizations using sophisticated management tools could provision the OS in less than 20 minutes and deploy programs in under 20 minutes.

Claim #3:
The management of Linux systems - including patch management, system migration/repurposing, security management, and virus/software protection - is a significant drain on administrators.
Previous research papers have concluded that, due to a lack of sophisticated, centralized management tools, Linux management resource costs are higher than Windows. This report reveals that centralized management tools for Linux environments are not only available, they are now commonplace with 84% of the respondents managing a vast majority of their Linux systems from a centralized location.

Patch Management/System Migration and Repurposing
Obviously patching can be laborious and resource-intensive if not managed properly. However, it appears that patch management takes very little effort for the average Linux administrator. Fifty percent of the respondents spent less than five minutes a week per server. Eighty-five percent of the respondents who use sophisticated management tools spend less than five minutes a week per server. Whether the Linux administrator uses mostly manual processes, scripts, or a sophisticated management tool, patch management is not a major effort. When you take into account the frequency of Microsoft updates and patches, the reports from Linux administrators are incredible.

Most MIS managers surveyed reported similar time scenarios for migrating, repurposing, and propagating major changes. One respondent from a large city university that uses a sophisticated management tool reported being able to repurpose a Linux server in less than five seconds "from anywhere, even the airport or Starbucks..."

Security and Policy Management/Virus and Software Protection
Ensuring a safe operating environment where users can get to the applications and resources they need to do their jobs is paramount to an organization and can lead to sleepless nights - literally and figuratively - for administrators. According to the study, Linux administrators sleep just fine since 75% spend less than 10 minutes a week on a server managing its security and policies while 86% spend less than 10 minutes a week handling viruses or spyware.

When interviewees were asked to compare their security management efforts for Windows and Linux, Linux was strongly endorsed as being easier to manage and inherently less vulnerable. Most telling, none reported spending more time on Linux.

Claim #4:
Linux is less reliable and available.
Older research cites longer repair times for Linux caused by less skilled resources and difficulties with problem diagnosis, documentation, and repair. The EMA study found the opposite to be true - Linux environments are extremely stable with high availability and short problem resolution times. Only 2.5% of the respondents reported availability worse than 98% while 80% reported availability over 99.95%. When problems occur, the average time to fix a Linux server for over 60% of the respondents was less than 30 minutes.

Claim #5:
Open Source doesn't mean free.
Granted, we know that Open Source doesn't always mean free. Score one for the big boys. But evaluating the differences in hardware, software, and licensing costs between Linux and Windows servers makes a compelling case for Linux. Without going into detail here, the study found that Windows requires more substantial hardware than equivalent Linux distributions (EMA compared Red Hat Linux AS 4.0, SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 9.0, and Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Datacenter Edition) with a corresponding increase in base hardware acquisition costs. Software acquisition costs for Linux-based systems are also significantly lower than for proprietary systems. The report provides a side-by-side software acquisition cost comparison for a high-performance Web application server (base operating system, Web/application server, database, and a development stack running on a four-way x86 processor with five developers and 100 direct end users) that shows that Windows is more expensive by a factor of 10!