# Microsoft: yep, we teach Best Buy to trash Linux



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/09/09/microsoft-yep-we-teach-best-buy-to-trash-linux/



> *Microsoft: Yep, we teach Best Buy to trash Linux*
> 
> Sam GustinSam Gustin RSS Feed
> Sep 9th 2009 at 1:20PM
> ...


Mod edit: Reduced the portion of the article quoted to protect the rights of the copyright holder.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Talk about a misleading and incorrect article title...Nowhere did Microsoft say, "yep, we teach Best Buy to trash Linux."


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

sigma1914 said:


> Talk about a misleading and incorrect article title...Nowhere did Microsoft say, "yep, we teach Best Buy to trash Linux."


hey it is the 5th estate, what did you expect, accuracy?


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

Is this a surprise? Actually, it is old news that came out before the holiday weekend. 

I have been to more training seminars in my life than I want to think about. From radar detectors to cell phones to stereo equipment to software. I don't think I have ever been to one who didn't also cover how to sell against the competition. 

However, I think the biggest "selling" point at Best Buy should have been their own experience... the return rate for Linux equipped PC's was over 80%. There is nothing wrong with Linux... it just isn't ready for regular folks.


----------



## 4HiMarks (Jan 21, 2004)

LarryFlowers said:


> However, I think the biggest "selling" point at Best Buy should have been their own experience... the return rate for Linux equipped PC's was over 80%. There is nothing wrong with Linux... it just isn't ready for regular folks.


Best Buy sells Linux equipped PCs?


----------



## Hansen (Jan 1, 2006)

4HiMarks said:


> Best Buy sells Linux equipped PCs?


Actually, the better question is: the Best Buy computer sales people know what Linux is?


----------



## 4HiMarks (Jan 21, 2004)

Hansen said:


> Actually, the better question is: the Best Buy computer sales people know what Linux is?


True. I would wager there are quite a few who don't know what an OS is. I have certainly never seen a Linux equpped computer at my local BB. It was only recently they started selling Macs (I think).


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

4HiMarks said:


> Best Buy sells Linux equipped PCs?


Oops... correcting myself... it was not Best Buy who had the problem, it was Wal-Mart that had the 80% return rate on linux equipped computers.


----------



## Lee L (Aug 15, 2002)

Personally I would assume just about any piece of advice coming from a best buy employee had some ulterior motive behind it. I seriously doubt that Microsoft and Monster cable are the only two that do this stuff.


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

LarryFlowers said:


> Oops... correcting myself... it was not Best Buy who had the problem, it was Wal-Mart that had the 80% return rate on linux exquipped computers.


You don't say!?
http://peopleofwalmart.com/


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

Hansen said:


> Actually, the better question is: the Best Buy computer sales people know what Linux is?


better yet - does Joe Sixpack that make up the primary source of revenue for factory built home computers know or even care what Linux is?


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

This is no different than any other training material I've seen. Actually, the Mac commercials that degrade PCs are pretty much the same stuff. I'm sure BestBuy would be willing to allow a Linux provider to come in and train their sales force too...for the same price they charged Microsoft.


----------



## Hansen (Jan 1, 2006)

wingrider01 said:



> better yet - does Joe Sixpack that make up the primary source of revenue for factory built home computers know or even care what Linux is?


And that is why Linux failed miserably for Walmart.


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

At least it is factual, it actually is for the most part...compared to the actually incorrect crap that some other large computer company spews in their broad marketing 

Linux is not easy to install things on, does not easily support many things, and is really not a average users best way to go. Windows and OSX are both much better suited to the average consumer.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

Hansen said:


> And that is why Linux failed miserably for Walmart.


And the same goes for ANY retail brick and mortar outlet that is not a specialty store with training available for the end user


----------



## Hansen (Jan 1, 2006)

wingrider01 said:


> And the same goes for ANY retail brick and mortar outlet that is not a specialty store with training available for the end user


True, and that is why Linux is not a mainstream PC OS for the average PC user.


----------



## Milkman (Dec 6, 2006)

As much as I HATE Microsoft and LOVE Linux, I really don't see what is so surprising or shocking about this... ALL companies do this. I don't particularly have any problem with this whatsoever.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

Hansen said:


> True, and that is why Linux is not a mainstream PC OS for the average PC user.


and doubt that it will ever be


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

Two things:

1. If Linux is so obscure, why is MS going after it so aggressively?

2. Fact-based training aids are OK, but is it OK to lie?


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

I disagree on one point. I found Ubuntu very, very easy to install. Easily as simple a process as Windows Vista. Unfortunately, after that it quickly fell back into being Linux - a very powerful, very stable, very non-user-friendly environment.


----------



## CopyCat (Jan 21, 2008)

Considering my experiences with the Best Buy sales force, it makes no difference as they have no idea about what OS is on the machine or for that matter what an OS is.

Not that I have not run into the well educated sales person in Best Buy, they just don't stay on the floor long or move on to better jobs.


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

Marlin Guy said:


> Two things:
> 
> 1. If Linux is so obscure, why is MS going after it so aggressively?
> 
> 2. Fact-based training aids are OK, but is it OK to lie?


1. Simple... you never ignore a potenial competitor, to do so is foolish. Start your campaign early and reiterate it often.
2. I do not see a lie here... ANY OS is equally vulnerable. ANY OS if it become Financially Profitable to attack will be attacked. Do you think the hotbed of hacker/exploiters are going to spend the time designing or even searching for exploits and vulnerabilites on an OS that barely registers on the user scale?

Let me add, that I have used Linux in several flavors. It was a great system and I enjoyed it... but it has no place in the markets I support every day. Until it does, it will remain the reserve of the technically competent and those with the "anything but Microsoft" mentality.


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

Marlin Guy said:


> Two things:
> 
> 1. If Linux is so obscure, why is MS going after it so aggressively?


Because it is becoming more popular. As PC prices continue to plummet, the one single most expensive component is going to be the O/S. Imagine a sub-$100 notebook. It's entirely possible if there is no licensing cost for the O/S (as with Linux). I know WalMart tried this and it failed, but it was probably the wrong time and their advertising wasn't entirely clear that it wasn't a "Windows PC".

Also, many corporate environments are choosing to use Linux servers over Windows-based systems because of cost. While targeting BestBuy won't necessarily address that, Microsoft has to address the competition at all levels.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

Marlin Guy said:


> Two things:
> 
> 1. If Linux is so obscure, why is MS going after it so aggressively?
> 
> 2. Fact-based training aids are OK, but is it OK to lie?


Sorry not a lie, try reading the CERT security bulletins


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

To be fair, there are seldom facts in the kind of scenario described. I can easily use a Windows PC safely without any "protection" depending upon how I use it. I'm sure I can also find a way to use Linux unsafely.

Despite the low instance of viruses and such on Macs, I can still find ways to use my Mac unsafely if I wanted to... So the general "fact vs myth" selection on that topic really is just an example of someone creating slides that doesn't know the tech of which they are speaking.


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

I'm going to have to disagree with those assessments.
Windows seems to need constant patching and a vigilant guard to remain free of vulnerabilities and infections.
I have seen the fake antivirus links come up in Google search results. Merely clicking on the search results will allow the malicious code to begin its exploitation of the gaping holes in Windows.

I'm not aware of any comparable behavior in Linux.

I'm not complaining. Windows pays the bills at my house quite nicely. 
But it's hardly a secure and stable platform.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Basically it depends on how you use your computer. In an isolated network, it's very easy to isolate a Windows PC from the Internet... and just use it in-house and not have any major exposure or problems. Use a different computer to download/scan all updates/patches before applying them to the isolated PC.

I'm not saying you should have to do that... but I've done it before just for convenience when I really wanted to have a "clean" PC that I knew wasn't going to be infected.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

rudeney said:


> Because it is becoming more popular. As PC prices continue to plummet, the one single most expensive component is going to be the O/S. Imagine a sub-$100 notebook. It's entirely possible if there is no licensing cost for the O/S (as with Linux). I know WalMart tried this and it failed, but it was probably the wrong time and their advertising wasn't entirely clear that it wasn't a "Windows PC".
> 
> Also, many corporate environments are choosing to use Linux servers over Windows-based systems because of cost. While targeting BestBuy won't necessarily address that, Microsoft has to address the competition at all levels.


Yes, some corporations are moving to Linux based servers. It's not always cost though. Do you know how much Red Hat charges for their enterprise flavors? It's not cheap.

Microsoft is still relatively new in the server marketplace...they didn't really start going after that business until about 10 - 12 years ago. Before that it was Unix, Banyan Vines, and the biggie was Novell. I'd say they've pretty much blown past that competition during that time.

I have a notebook that runs a flavor of Linux (Xandros Presto). Even for the things that it and XP both do (Skype, Web Browsing, etc.) I'm almost always willing to wait the extra 15 seconds for XP to load because the UI is just far superior.

Perhaps one day...the Unix community will really put their heads together and find a way to create an interface that truly makes the OS user friendly...actually, as I posted before that's pretty much what Apple has done with OSX


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Marlin Guy said:


> I'm going to have to disagree with those assessments.
> Windows seems to need constant patching and a vigilant guard to remain free of vulnerabilities and infections.
> I have seen the fake antivirus links come up in Google search results. Merely clicking on the search results will allow the malicious code to begin its exploitation of the gaping holes in Windows.
> 
> ...


Do you think that is because the hackers can't attack Linux or because there is little motivation for them to do so? Seriously, if you want to create a large bot network a Linux (or Mac for that matter) virus isn't exactly the way to go. Seventeen guys running low-end machines with Debian isn't exactly going to create the denial of service attack they want.


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

Ken S said:


> Yes, some corporations are moving to Linux based servers. It's not always cost though. Do you know how much Red Hat charges for their enterprise flavors? It's not cheap.


Many are going the "Open Source" route. I know of several very large ($1B+) companies that are using "free" O/S and database products to run the entire business. In the past, no one would even consider this due to a lack of support and unknown reliability. These companies weighed the cost of using Microsoft and other mainstream products vs. hiring some extra staff to customize and manage the environments. They chose the latter as it was more cost-effective and gave them more flexibility. Personally, _I_ would not choose to do that in my organization, but this is a situation Microsoft will be competing with.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

rudeney said:


> Many are going the "Open Source" route. I know of several very large ($1B+) companies that are using "free" O/S and database products to run the entire business. In the past, no one would even consider this due to a lack of support and unknown reliability. These companies weighed the cost of using Microsoft and other mainstream products vs. hiring some extra staff to customize and manage the environments. They chose the latter as it was more cost-effective and gave them more flexibility. Personally, _I_ would not choose to do that in my organization, but this is a situation Microsoft will be competing with.


If I took that proposal to switch all my servers and databases to open source code to the holding company that foots the bill for the medical and pharmacuetical reseach that we do my employment expectancy would be about 30 secords after I finish the proposal. Do have a few linux boxes though - my Cisco VOIP Phone system and a standalone wireless usage and monitoring system


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

rudeney said:


> Many are going the "Open Source" route. I know of several very large ($1B+) companies that are using "free" O/S and database products to run the entire business. In the past, no one would even consider this due to a lack of support and unknown reliability. These companies weighed the cost of using Microsoft and other mainstream products vs. hiring some extra staff to customize and manage the environments. They chose the latter as it was more cost-effective and gave them more flexibility. Personally, _I_ would not choose to do that in my organization, but this is a situation Microsoft will be competing with.


rudeney,

I can tell you for certain that's not happening in the Fortune 1000 marketplace (or the govt)...at least not enterprise wide. I'm sure there are sites and departments (which can be huge) where it will happen. If some of you folks saw what large companies spend with Microsoft (and others) each year you'd choke. One large chemical company was spending $15 million a year on desktop products....and laying people off....I figured they were just buying it and burning the licenses.


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

Ken S said:


> Do you think that is because the hackers can't attack Linux or because there is little motivation for them to do so?


No. I know that most attacks are written for Windows.
But if you have 80%-90% market share, you owe it to your consumers to make a more secure system and to protect their personal information.

What would be so hard about getting rid of that annoying UAC OK/Cancel box and setting up an actual guardian that warns users when a program is setting itself up to auto-start every time the machine is rebooted?

"WARNING: A program has set itself to start automatically when your computer restarts. Click here for a safe preview of what this program will do. 
1. Allow the program to auto-start
2. Do not allow this program to auto-start, and remove it from my computer"

Would really be that hard for the Windows programmers to setup?
If so, couldn't someone else do it and then let them copy it or buy them out?


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Well my last 3 jobs have been developing Web Based applications for large companies that are sold to Enterprise level customers and Linux based solutions are definitely live and well. In my current company we have mix about 70/30 prevent (Non windows vs windows) . Mainly Oracle running on Linux and Unix with Open source App servers running on Tomcat (Unix). I would say Java is run on 90% Unix/Linux servers so if one is looking for matrix that is one. 

In my experiences where MS has is strong hold is in IT communities where the Mantra is "You don't get fired for picking MS". This is also the same group that cause me a 30 minute delay from time I boot my computer in the morning to the time I can be productive. Yes IT departments spend large sums of money to MS and in my opinion there is a lot of savings that can be made by changing the way companies do business and looking for alternatives that are not made in Redmond. 

MS definitely has a strong hold on the IT departments of these large Enterprise companies and given the level of service and the quality of experience I have had over the last 3 companies I have worked for.. I personally am not one bit enthused or impressed by what I have seen.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Marlin Guy said:


> No. I know that most attacks are written for Windows.
> But if you have 80%-90% market share, you owe it to your consumers to make a more secure system and to protect their personal information.
> 
> What would be so hard about getting rid of that annoying UAC OK/Cancel box and setting up an actual guardian that warns users when a program is setting itself up to auto-start every time the machine is rebooted?
> ...


Get yourself a copy of WinPatrol...it's free. It'll do just what you want. It was written by a good friend and Microsoft MVP, Bill Pytlovany.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

Ken S - I work for a global Fortune 10 firm, and we're going LINUX (server-side) in the USA big-time. Workstations are 99% Windows, 1% Mac (those darn marketing guys).


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> Ken S - I work for a global Fortune 10 firm, and we're going LINUX (server-side) in the USA big-time. Workstations are 99% Windows, 1% Mac (those darn marketing guys).


Wilbur, I wasn't really clear...Microsoft is fighting a battle on the server side where Linux is a viable competitor even in the Fortune 1000 space. And, yes, if you want to find Macs in corporate america find the Marketing/Graphics department and you'll find the little IT nightmare . Not that Macs are bad...it's just always hard to support a dozen different computers and their needs.


----------

