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: Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 06:46:45 +0100
  • Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • Organization: schestowitz.com / MCC / Manchester University
  • References: <FJrbg.8$vm.3@newsfe09.phx> <1148091813.935950.151770@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
  • Reply-to: newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: KNode/0.7.2
[Ignore previous post. I hit the wrong keyboard accelerator]

__/ [ Rex Ballard ] on Saturday 20 May 2006 03:23 \__

> The parent article was
> http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39270042,00.htm
> I really find it hard to believe that
> Jonathan Murray,
>  the vice-president and chief technology officer of Microsoft Europe,
>  told BBC World
> "Some people want to use community-based software, and they get value
> out of sharing with other people in the community. Other people want
> the reliability and the dependability that comes from a commercial
> software model. And again, at the end of the day you make the choice
> based on what has the highest value to you," Murray continued.
> This isn't some pointy headed ex-jock who doesn't know a spreadsheet
> from a word processor, this is a chief technology officer, someone who
> should be the ultimate ubergeek, someone who should know every aspect
> of the industry, inside and out.

I urge you to read:


Many people seemed to agree with that analysis. If not in my blog, then in
Scoble's blog, i.e. his /own/ readers.

> Doesn't he know that practically every message, e-mail, and web site
> sent over the internet depends on Open Source technology for reliable
> and secure delivery?

It's not about whether he knows it or not. He simply lies, that pig. What
bothers me the most is that, once again, Microsoft gets an undeserved voice
in the media. Did you know that 2 of Microsoft's biggest evangelists, Robert
Scoble and Chris Pirillo, have moved to running their sites on Open Source
software? Yes. Chris Pirillo migrated to WordPress a couple of days ago. I
even helped him. Is that what Microsoft considers to be a positive
reflectant upon its dominance in the servers market? Or better value?

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? Brochures and senior managers
that approach their retirement? 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

> 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?

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 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. Sadly, there are
little such rules in the media. People can lie and cheat, then get away with
it. The reporter should perhaps be demoted for letting such comments be made
without judgment. There are many scenarios where reporters lose their
credibility for exposing the viewers to deceit and propaganda. 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.

> 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.

Microsoft is never intimidated by such terms. It is, after all, a convinced
monopoly already. Corrupted practices have been proven to be part of the
deal too.

> 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...?

Best wishes,


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

Roy S. Schestowitz      |   McDonald's Certified Sandwich Engineer (MCSE)
http://Schestowitz.com  | Free as in Free Beer ¦  PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
  6:30am  up 23 days 13:27,  11 users,  load average: 1.16, 0.93, 0.70
      http://iuron.com - semantic engine to gather information

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