Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: Microsoft: Open source 'not reliable or dependable'

  • Subject: Re: Microsoft: Open source 'not reliable or dependable'
  • From: "DFS" <nospam@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 07:21:52 -0400
  • Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • Organization: BellSouth Internet Group
  • References: <FJrbg.8$vm.3@newsfe09.phx> <1148091813.935950.151770@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1634104.MxORjuOJnF@schestowitz.com>
  • Xref: news.mcc.ac.uk comp.os.linux.advocacy:1111121
Roy Schestowitz wrote:

> All it comes down to is this: far higher expenses, both at time of
> purchase and over-the-years maintenance; consequently, performance is
> poor, too. Why would /anyone/ choose Microsoft for server?

Because they obviously have compared the systems and determined MS\Windows
offers advantages for their situation.

> Many think that
> because it has the same logo as on their desktop, it ought to be
> better. Many also think that Windows Mobile will integrate better
> with their worktation if it carries the same logo.

That's called brand extension marketing, or brand stretching.  Linux can't
offer that because it has 400+ brands (distros), and none has the money or
muscle - or the technology - to pull it off.

>> Doesn't he know that BSD Unix, which is almost entirely Open Source,
>> place a critical role in nearly every aspect of modern 21st century
>> life, all the way from controlling the telephones and the power grid,
>> to provding the real-time trading of stocks, futures, and bonds for
>> nearly every major financial exchange?

Which has fsck-all relation to its appropriateness as a desktop system.

> The manager will not allude to these facts. It's deceit through
> masking or obscurity. The reporter definitely did not challenge him
> on that statement either. Microsoft got a microphone. Perhaps it's
> about time they gave the microphone to some folks with beards,
> ponytails, and sandals.

I agree, it's time "they gave/Linux took/the microphone".  What's been
stopping them?  Besides a lack of funds and effective spokespeople, of

>> I could understand a "pointy head" making a statement like that, but
>> this goes to the point of fraudulent deception.
>> Perhaps he was referring specifically to very specific Open Source
>> software which competes directly with Microsoft products.  Perhaps he
>> was comparing Open Office to Microsoft Office, or Linux to Windows
>> XP.
> That man should be banned from speaking to the media again.

What?  Figures you'd be such an intolerant goob and whining baby.

Roy Schestowitz: "waaaahhhhh!!!   He said something bad about open source!!!
waaaahhhh!!!  Don't let him talk no more!!!"

> Sadly,
> there are little such rules in the media. People can lie and cheat,
> then get away with it.

You and half of cola lie and "get away with it", as inconsequential as "it"
may be.

> The reporter should perhaps be demoted for
> letting such comments be made without judgment.

Why don't you demote yourself?

> There are many
> scenarios where reporters lose their credibility for exposing the
> viewers to deceit and propaganda.

Sure.  We see it nearly every time you post a "news" item to cola.

> Note that no attempt to balance
> that view was made. It's much like that report that improperly
> counted and aggregated bugs from different operating systems. Open
> Source advocates have to jump through hoops to clarify why the study
> was flawed.

Which report?  Did the hoop-jumping include "Linux is just the kernel!"?

>> Even then, such an assumption would be no more accurate.  Linux and
>> Windows each have their respective advantages and drawbacks, both are
>> excellent products, because both have been evolving for over 20
>> years. To say that Linux is unreliable and Windows is vastly
>> superior would just be fraudulent and slander.

It depends on the context in which it was said.

> Microsoft is never intimidated by such terms. It is, after all, a
> convinced monopoly already.

RedHat, Novell, Mandriva, Xandros, etc are far, far more guilty of
misappropriating technology that MS could ever be.  Their entire business is
built on selling others unpaid work for a profit.

> Corrupted practices have been proven to be part of the deal too.

The only "corrupt" practice MS engages in is continuing to sell products
people demand, while inferior competitors try to attack them via the courts.

>> Such a statement is an insult to all who have participated in what
>> makes UNIX and Linux great.  It's an insult to Sun, IBM, HP, DEC, to
>> the United States government, to all of those who participated in
>> projects ranging from ARPA to Athena to BSD to sendmail to Internet
>> to X11.  It's an insult to all of the Insurance companies,
>> transportation companies, banks, brokers, and the millions of other
>> businesses and corporations that have come to benefit from all of
>> these Open Source projects.
> What can I say...?

Nothing.  You've said enough.

> Best wishes,
> Roy
> PS - in defence of the report, it clearly says "Microsoft: " before
> that ludicrous lie.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index