Slashdot Mirror
MS Struggles to Discredit Linux
PrimeNumber writes "The Register has this interesting story about a supposedly "leaked" email from Microsoft Windows division VP Brian Valentine. Although half of it is admittedly suit/rah rah speak, the interesting nuggets mention use of Microsofts "Sun and Linux insiders"."
The whole email is pretty funny actually.
It's not like it takes a lot of effort to discredit Linux. The product sucks so bad it's hard NOT to discredit it..
Let's have a close look at the costs involved when running a Linux system.
An important factor in Linux' cost is its maintenance. Linux requires a *lot* of maintenance, work doable only by the relatively few high-paid Linux administrators that put themselves - of course willingly - at a great place in the market. Linux seems to be needing maintenance continuously, to keep it from breaking down.
Add to this the cost of loss of data. Linux' native file system, EXT2FS, is known to lose data like a firehose spouts water when the file system isn't unmounted properly. Other unix file systems are much more tolerant towards unexpected crashes. An example is the FreeBSD file system, which with soft updates enabled, performance-wise blows EXT2FS out of the water, and doesn't have the negative drawback of extreme data loss in case of a system breakdown.
According to Linux advocates, an alternative to EXT2FS would be ReiserFS. Unfortunately, ReiserFS is still in beta stage. This means it is not intended for production use (although according to many Linux advocates this shouldn't be a problem, which makes me wonder how (little) valuable they find your data).
The other proposed 'solution', EXT3FS, is nothing more than an ugly hack to put journaling into the file system. All the drawbacks of the ancient EXT2FS file system remain in EXT3FS, for the sake of 'forward- and backward compatibility'. This is interesting, considering that the DOS heritage in the Windows 9x/ME series was considered a very bad thing by the Linux community, even though it provided what could be called one of the best examples of compatibility, ever. When it's about Linux, compatibility constraints don't seem to be that much of a problem for Linux advocates.
Back to Linux' cost. Factor in also the fact that crashes happen much more often on Linux than on other unices. On other unices, crashes usually are caused by external sources like power outages. Crashes in Linux are a regular thing, and nobody seems to know what causes them, internally. Linux advocates try to hide this fact by denying crashes ever happen. Instead, they have frequent "hardware problems".
The steep learning curve compared to about any other operating system out there is a major factor in Linux' cost. The system is a mix of features from all kinds of unices, but not one of them is implemented right. A Linux user has to live with badly coded tools which have low performance, mangle data seemingly at random and are not in line with their specification. On top of that a lot of them spit out the most childish and unprofessional messages, indicating that they were created by 14-year olds with too much time, no talent and a bad attitude.
I could go on and on and on, but the conclusion is clear. Linux is not an option for any one who seeks a professional OS with high performance, scalability, stability, adherence to standards, etc.
...is the results of these surveys they are conducting. How exactely they are going to argue that MS products are less expensive than running Linux? I guess they will try to gloss over the original software costs and bring up the training and "support" issues (which are vague and hard to quantify, thereby easily manipulated). And of course they will also gloss over security issues.
Oh well.
Point.
Two.
Four.
Percent.
Linux is NOTHING on the desktop. NOTHING! For that reason alone, this is OBVIOUSLY fake.
I know you're a troll, and just waiting for bites, and since I'm in a sporting mood, I'd like for you to send me an e-mail (baberg.at.mps.ohio-state.edu), from your Microsoft account at work, with some kind of obscure message. It doesn't matter what's in the message. I just want to receive a valid message from a microsoft.com account. THEN I will believe you.
Thanks, troll, you gave me a reason to live this afternoon.
*Yawn*. The Netcraft survey is pretty meaningless, as it excludes SSL servers - ie every real ecommerce site extant. Take a look at the SSL numbers and surprise!! Microsoft have twice as much market share as Apache.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
I believe it's genuine. but it's not terribly incriminating. I expect nearly every large company gathers intelligence on their competitors. And if they can find willing insiders - that's their competitor's problem.
That said, I'm frankly getting pretty tired of all the posts insisting that Slashdot has degenerated to nothing but MS bashing.
People SHOULD be MS bashing. MS is actively working to take away our freedom (digitally speaking) and it makes me mad as hell. Did anyone read the finding of facts? Does it mean nothing to you that they use their monopoly to stifle competition, starve out competitors and break standards?
It should be telling that the only real competition that MS sees on the horizon is free software. It's the only model that can withstand the onslaught of FUD, standards-breaking, product tie-in's and out-spending that characterizes an MS reaction to competition.
If you think they're just tough competitors, you're naive and I would be happy to compete against you any day.
Textbooks and Open Educational Resources
It's fucking Linux zealots like yourself that make me laugh out of control. Get a grip, you punk bastard, and quit throwing arbitrary numbers into the air. One MCSE for every five users?! AHAHAHA, I've managed decent-sized companies that had one MCSE for every 100 users. Eat a dick.