Feeds

MS-Gartner in tangle over Linux-knocking reports

Linux Myths page claims MS newsletter published by Gartner is Gartner report - now read on

  • alert
  • submit to reddit

Protecting users from Firesheep and other Sidejacking attacks with SSL

From the look of events over the weekend Microsoft would appear to have appointed Stan Laurel as VP i/c propaganda. What else can you say when Microsoft's famous Linux Myths Web page references a stack of "Gartner" reports questioning Linux's viability, and then the reports turn out to have been written by er, Microsoft? Actually they're only maybe written by Microsoft, because although Gartner claims they are, Gartner also, er, claims they're not. Well, not exactly anyway. But we'll get back to that - the easiest way into this ludicrous morass is to start at Linux Myths and work backwards. At time of writing Linux Myths included a short section headed "Gartner Group Reports." Three were listed: Will Linux be viable competition for Windows desktops/; 1999 OS Forecast: the Linux Face-off; and Red Hat's Future: Boxed in. Briefly, the reports conclude that Linux isn't a serious competitor on the desktop, that it won't gain acceptance as a substitute for Unix and Windows in the near term, and that Red Hat's "future success is not a foregone conclusion." No, we don't know why they bothered with that last one either. But here, in any event, we have three reports written by an independent analyst outfit that question the viability of Linux. That's what you'd understand from how Microsoft presents them, anyway. But follow the URLs to Gartner, and you find they lead to http://www.gartnergroup.com/webletter/microsoft/article3/article3.html and so on. It's worth noting that only articles 3, 5 and 6 are referenced, and that what is being published on the Gartner site currently seems to be in some state of flux. There were five articles up there on Friday, according to Rick Moen, who's been beavering away at the matter, but some of them have been going MIA. Number 1 at time of writing was something dull about desktop upgrades with no mention of Linux, 2 had an "access expired" notice on it, as had 4, which doesn't appear to have been live when Moen complied his first list on Friday. But it would appear to have been called "TCO best practice" at some point in its short life. No matter - doesn't the form of the URL look suspicious to you? No? But if you check right down at the bottom of each article, it certainly does. There's a disclaimer. It's long, but worth reading a couple of times so you get the meaning: "Microsoft Web Letter is published by Microsoft. Additional editorial material supplied by Gartner Group Inc. © 1999. Editorial supplied by Microsoft is independent of GartnerGroup analysis and in no way should this information be construed as a GartnerGroup endorsement of Microsoft's products and services. Entire contents © 1999 by Gartner Group, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction of this publication in any form without prior written permission is forbidden. The information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable. GartnerGroup disclaims all warranties as to the accuracy, completeness or adequacy of such information. GartnerGroup shall have no liability for errors, omissions or inadequacies in the information contained herein or for interpretations thereof. The reader assumes sole responsibility for the selection of these materials to achieve its intended results. The opinions expressed herein are subject to change without notice." OK, so we've got a Microsoft publication here. On the Gartner site. Microsoft's Linux Myths page is presenting a Microsoft publication hosted on a Gartner site as an independent Gartner viewpoint. Gartner is saying that Microsoft supplied the editorial, and that it's "independent of" (note this doesn't necessarily mean "not") Gartner analysis. Gartner does admit to supplying "additional editorial material," but although it disclaims all liability for the content, it claims copyright for the lot anyway. It all looks incredibly murky, doesn't it? But an "explanation" offered to ComputerWorld Australia (this paper originally wrote up the reports as straight Gartner ones) complicates matters further. Gartner Australia VP of marketing John Barrow claimed to ComputerWorld that Gartner originally sold the research to Microsoft for use in the Microsoft Webletter hosted on Gartner's site. Despite this claim, Barrow is also quoted as claiming that the Webletter had reproduced Gartner's original research in its entirety, and that the research had not been funded by Microsoft. But didn't he just say it had been paid for by Microsoft? Different matter altogether, apparently. Gartner says that its reports were independent and objective, and that it stands by them. So shall we disentangle? We must of course believe Gartner when it says that Microsoft didn't fund the research. But in Gartner's line of work the research clearly gets paid for by companies who want to use it. Gartner's customer contracts, one surmises, will cater for situations where the customer wishes to use Gartner research in conjunction with its own presentations. Gartner however will want to keep hold of its own intellectual property (can't have these expensive reports getting all over the place for free) while protecting itself in the event of customers getting over-enthusiastic with the embroidery. We think that explains the disclaimer/copyright notice. But what about the hosting itself? With hindsight Gartner may now be thinking of this as an innovation too far. You'd expect Gartner reports to be published on the Gartner Web site, but research sold by Gartner to Microsoft, and presented (apparently) by Microsoft is a different matter. Wouldn't you expect that to appear on the Microsoft Web site? But then, if it did, and it wasn't an unadulterated Gartner report, people might think it had been sponsored by Microsoft. So Microsoft wouldn't like that, so maybe we'd best publish it on the Gartner site. But in a special Microsoft newsletter. Come to think of it, there seems to be some kind of Stan Laurel input in version 1.0 of Gartner's Web publishing plans as well. ® See also Rick Moen's analysis

Website security in corporate America

More from The Register

next story
Phones 4u slips into administration after EE cuts ties with Brit mobe retailer
More than 5,500 jobs could be axed if rescue mission fails
Apple CEO Tim Cook: TV is TERRIBLE and stuck in the 1970s
The iKing thinks telly is far too fiddly and ugly – basically, iTunes
Israeli spies rebel over mass-snooping on innocent Palestinians
'Disciplinary treatment will be sharp and clear' vow spy-chiefs
Huawei ditches new Windows Phone mobe plans, blames poor sales
Giganto mobe firm slams door shut on Microsoft. OH DEAR
Phones 4u website DIES as wounded mobe retailer struggles to stay above water
Founder blames 'ruthless network partners' for implosion
Found inside ISIS terror chap's laptop: CELINE DION tunes
REPORT: Stash of terrorist material found in Syria Dell box
OECD lashes out at tax avoiding globocorps' location-flipping antics
You hear that, Amazon, Google, Microsoft et al?
Show us your Five-Eyes SECRETS says Privacy International
Refusal to disclose GCHQ canteen menus and prices triggers Euro Human Rights Court action
prev story

Whitepapers

Providing a secure and efficient Helpdesk
A single remote control platform for user support is be key to providing an efficient helpdesk. Retain full control over the way in which screen and keystroke data is transmitted.
Saudi Petroleum chooses Tegile storage solution
A storage solution that addresses company growth and performance for business-critical applications of caseware archive and search along with other key operational systems.
Security and trust: The backbone of doing business over the internet
Explores the current state of website security and the contributions Symantec is making to help organizations protect critical data and build trust with customers.
Reg Reader Research: SaaS based Email and Office Productivity Tools
Read this Reg reader report which provides advice and guidance for SMBs towards the use of SaaS based email and Office productivity tools.
Security for virtualized datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.