Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Proclaims Death of Free Software Model
geoff313 writes "
As previously mentioned here,
Microsoft's new wave of FUD has begun to arrive. This time it is
courtesy of Bradley Tipp, Microsoft's UK national systems engineer, who
spoke at the Microsoft IT Forum in Copenhagen. In this article
from ZDNet UK, he is quoted as saying that 'Linux is great' and 'there
are a lot of things we should learn from open source' but then is quick
to point out that 'We haven't talked to a single user who has said
they're using [open source] because it's better.' Another Microsoft employee was quoted as
saying 'At least if Linux takes off, their viruses will propagate and
we won't be seen as the bad guys any more.' I for one am happy to see that they are taking their new interest in security seriously, and I'm
sure you all are too. Most interesting is the assertion that the decision by Red
Hat to end support for its free distribution and Novell's
aquisition of SUSE marks not only the death of free software,
but actually is a validation of Microsoft's business model. Does anyone
besides Microsoft see these events as the end of Free software?" I use Free software because it's better; they just didn't ask.
Always question the person who proclaims a thing dead. Ask if they gain anything from the death. If so, assume they are full of shit.
"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
Havent we been hearing "BSD IS DEAD!" from the linux/unix guys, "Linux is outdated/obfuscated!" from the Bsd guys, "Linux's inteface sucks!" from the mac guys, and "Open source is not more secure" from the corprate guys since the begining of time? Microsoft can proclaim anything they want. Me? I proclaim its just another bit of junk.
When life gives you crap, Make Crapade.
Sluggy Freelance.
1. Find the latest anti-FS/Linux FUD story that has quotes from Microsoft exec. /.
2. Submit to
3. ???
4. Accepted!!
5. Sit back and watch as the flames fly!!
C:\>
We need not, nor care not, about the opinions of the world regarding our existance, relevance, or lack thereof of both.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Microsoft surely has the better money-making model, but people interested in open source are usually more interested in the quality of software.
Does anyone besides Microsoft see these events as the end of FREE software?
No. Absolutely not.
I use free software because it is often developed and a more agressive pace, and the features I want are more likely to be implemented. Free software also cuts out the middleman a lot of the time as far as getting help with some software. Numerous times I have had a problems compiling x program and emailed the developer and gotten the help I needed to get it working, not to mention clued the developer into the fact that there is an issue getting their software to work on insert my platform here.
Compare, for example, the MSN Messenger, and Gaim. Gaim has more features, has an extensible architecture so that even non-geniuses can write plugins, and no advertisements.
Free software is better because it does what paid developers can't.
I would expect such blatant racism on Fark, but on Slashdot? Mods please ban this asshole.
Pure high quality top management PR bull$hit. I don't see free software dying anytime soon, as long as debain, gentoo, slackware, LFS are around.
And if Microsoft's business model is indeed true and going by their word, that s/w amounts to only a fraction of total cost, then whether linux is free or not, really doesn't matter does it ?
So going by microsoft's argument, it really doesn't matter costwise (only software) whether you are using linux or Windows. But by using linux you get a much stable, scalable, SECURE, reliable , easily configurable, accountable s/w, instead of propritory, unsecure, un-scalable, s/w.
for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
Look at RedHat's price structure (sorry, can't find a good URL) and offerings. It sure has some similarities with MSWindows, and I'm sure it's not an accidental coincidence. They seem to agree with Microsoft that dividing the OS into segments and having a tiered price model is a viable strategy. I tend to think that Fedora is just an 'appeasement' effort and that dropping the Pro line from the consumer channel (i.e. Fry's, Best Buy) is a serious mistake, but we'll see how well this all works.
Cat, the other, tastier white meat.
and the majority of webserver admins using apache aren't using it because it's better but because it's free?
heh, no.
It may be gratis (i.e. Free Beer), but it won't be libre (i.e. Free Speech) until they let users modify and share the source.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
What makes you think the goal of the Linux O/S is to replace Windows XP?
Mozilla ... because it's a better web browser and e-mail client ... because it's a better firewall, server and router (i.e. GNU/LAMP is a better yaddayadda) ... because it's a better CLI environment ... because it's better (exchangeable data formats, no clippy)
Linux
cygwin
OpenOffice
I also think that Free software is better for humanity as a whole, but I'm not dogmatic about it.
I still use Windows on the desktop, because I didn't yet have time to move everything over to Linux (f*ck NTFS, otherwise I wouldn't have to), and because Soulseek works much better under Windows.
I have to call bullshit on that.
I know every single server I manage, every single workstation in my house is linux. But I support sales people. I must use Windows on a workstation to natively support those guys - yes I have many "workstaions" for various projects - only one with windows. So I am paid to use MS. If you were PAID to use MS, you would as well. Don't kid yourself and don't even think of calling me a sellout.
ymmv
If you did a search for it, you'd find that there are. However they are mostly "theoretical" and nobody has yet seriously sat down to design a fast-spreading, damaging Linux virus. (As an aside: there are experimental viruses that are able to infect cross-platform -- i.e., they run on both Windows and Linux. Pretty crazy, huh?)
Microsoft's point is fundamentally correct however: there are no serious Linux viruses not because they are impossible on Linux, but because Linux just isn't popular enough yet to make it worth the virus writer's time. It makes much more sense to exploit that vast majority of Windows machines. (If you look at Google's Zeitgeist page, you'll see that only 1% of Google queries come from Linux boxes. I consider that a fairly good indicator of the popularity of Linux.)
None of what I just said should be construed to mean that Microsoft isn't responsible for the security of their operating system. There is a major difference between Windows and Linux viruses: on Windows it is very easy to obtain administrator priviledges, which makes Windows viruses much more dangerous. However, it is dishonest for people to claim that Linux is impervious to viruses. It's not true, and to boastfully make that claim is to court disaster.
Free software was common and useful in the days when Apple, Commodore, Atari, and CP/M dominates (and Microsoft was mainly a company that did a BASIC interpreter for a few of the platforms).
Free software has been common and useful during the Microsoft era (from DOS to Windows), and freeware for Windows PC's and other platforms abounds on Sourceforge and www.download.com (once you look past the crippleware falsely labelled as "Free").
There is no reason to believe that this will change, and we have Microsoft partially to thank for this: they promote Visual Basic, which is used to write a lot of programs which are given away to run on the Windows platform.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Red Hat has found out that they can -make- money by selling Linux and doing service value-adds.
SuSE was worth $210 million to Novell for doing the same thing.
Both of those points -validate- the free software model, they don't prove it is dead at all.
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
It's now twenty years later... how many people do you know that use a Beta deck?
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
As far as the comment regarding more viruses. Yes, there would be more viruses, but I doubt any of them would be so devastating as the ones we've seen for Windows. The fundamental problem is with Windows, the user is powerless to safeguard themselves--because everything is hidden. On open source software, users have access to source code, they have abilities to disable certain parts of the system without breaking everything else in the system. In essence, users are enpowered to protect themselves.
In any case, viruses for open source software would probably be written by Microsoft just to prove their point.
The one thing to keep in mind about the majority of Microsoft's marketing efforts is that it is, by design, preaching to the choir. When you have over 75% market share retaining clients is more important than getting new ones.
Microsoft becomes a very easy creature to understand at that point. Change is scary. FUD makes change even more ominous. Make it easy for your customers to make no decision and not engage in any silly religious wars. "Good Enough" is what Microsoft is banking on.
What's funny is that this approach has worked so well that many Microsoft devotees are so scared of upgrading anything that they are risk averse to the point of hurting Microsoft's bottom line. These are the people who arent quite sure if they are ready to stop using NT4.
I'm very curious to see what happens in this regard. I hope, I'm rooting for IBM, someone launches a huge marketing campaign and says BULLSHIT loud and clear.
OSS did not become important (mainstream) because people were working on it to make it mainstream. OSS became important because it matured as people worked on it because it was important to them.
That will never change.
They cannot break our spirit, for we do not care if they like us. They cannot run us out of business, for it is our passion not our livelihood. They cannot deceive us, because it is in the open. They cannot lie about us, for we hide nothing. They cannot fight us, for we are legion.
Someday, the OSS movement will be looked upon as an emergent enlightenment comparable to the expression of the scientific principal and the enlightenment that occured as the result of the unencumbered distribution of scientific knowledge.
Companies like Microsoft will be remembered as malicious entities, profiteering on ignorance, with a great deal to loose from any "enlightenment".
The reason that it can be true that 1+1 > 2 is that very peculiar nonzero value of the + operator
Obviously, Microsoft can only comprehend companies rather than organizations. If "free software is dead" is true, why can you 1) still download it 2) still develop it and 3) have an eager community still willing to contribute?
Last time I checked, Debian is still "in business" (so to speak) and is in fact one of the more vital and robust Linux distributions.
Add to that, FreeBSD is more than just around, it is an alternative that some choose to use and many that do proclaim as superior.
And that's just a few. There are others, but I have work to do. Fill in your own blanks, that's why there's Google.
Folks need to remember that the easiest way to tell Microsoft is lying is the simple fact that they are talking.
The issue is that for a Microsoft customer, Windows software is better, that is, easier to use and easier to maintain (even if it does take more time, it is understandable to the point-and-click user).
Kind of like Joe Pesci says in Lethal Weapon 4 - "not better than froggy, just different"
Exactly how does free(dom) make it WORK better - there is a good bit of free (beer) software that sucks, too. If you're so inclined, give away your product, let others tinker, and figure out a way to make money.
I am a long time Mac user and I don't like Microsoft's business practices, nor the Windows platform, but when it comes down to it, I use MS Office because it works AT LEAST AS WELL AS I NEED IT TO WORK, and it has features I like. I certainly don't dump the Mac OS because Steve Jobs is a flake. Let's keep the baby in the bath.
Faith is the very antithesis of reason, injudiciousness a critical component of spiritual devotion. Jon Krakauer
1% of Google queries come from Linux boxes. I consider that a fairly good indicator of the popularity of Linux.
Don't make the same kind of mistake as MS.
That is an indicator of the popularity of browsers hitting Google that provide a UserAgent string that identifies the system as Linux.
On topic, though, I think there have been (cheese, lion) worms that have exploited applications typically run on Linux.
Public marketing security comparions are always suspicious, though: Linux the OS has been much less vulnerable than applications overlying, such as PHP on top of Apache, or sendmail, etc.
Likewise, Windows security looks worse because of overlying misconfigured misdesigned applications such as IIS, Outlook. Since Win2K, the OS per se has been much less vulnerable than in the Win 9x days.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Open source software and free software are not 100% synonymous with each other. I think that this is a point missed by a lot of people. You can charge $1,000,000 for an open source piece of software that you write... if you wanted to. Of course, now the company has the software and the source but you got your money.
Free software scares microsoft because they spend a lot of money making it and the only way they can continue at the level they are at is keeping everyone running windows so manufacturers keep bundling their computers with it (paying money to do so). If people are giving away software for free then the end-user isn't necessarily going to be willing to pay the extra money for bundled software they don't need.
The more and more free software gets used the less of a market share microsoft will have leading to them not being able to fund more software. But where are we going to get enough free software to make it so that we don't MS? Its already here. How do the people who are making this software stay alive with out starving to death? They are good at what they do. They aren't necessarily sitting at a desk with 2 32" lcd's flaunting an ugly blue XP screen making salary wage. They are sitting on hardware they have accumlated through the past that hey... still is good enough to run the free software coding cause they like it and they want to. (i'm severly generallizing here).
Anyways, the point to my rant:
Free Software is not dead, its just getting started. Paying for software is dying, it always has been. We, as users, will easily pay for hardware. Why? we can pick it up, hold it, brag to our friends. Why won't we pay for software? its just making our shiny hardware do what it already could/should do on its own. Its a total mental thing. Hardware companies should be investing in free software and stop forcing users to pay for unethically created software.
Of course I might be wrong...
And I hope nobody sees me as some kind of Microsoft evangelist for my comments, because that's about as far from truth as you can get :-)
Microsoft's point is fundamentally correct however: there are no serious Linux viruses not because they are impossible on Linux, but because Linux just isn't popular enough yet to make it worth the virus writer's time.
Just to re-phrase that a little better:
"there are no serious attempts at Linux viruses not because they are impossible on Linux, but because Linux just isn't popular enough yet to make it worth the virus writer's time."
If Linux magically took over 90% of the desktop tomorrow, sure, there would be an assload of activity going towards writing viruses for it.
The damage that would come out of this is less certain.
In order to create such wonderful things as Blaster or Slammer in this imaginary Linux world, we'd have to see every major distro start shipping with an SSH daemon or Apache running by default. And running as root, or a lot more local root exploits.
It's certainly possible, just a lot less likely.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
While RedHat is terminating support of the free distribution, it appears that Fedora has free support for Fedora Core - same up2date client, same registration process. So, it seems that RedHat is removing free RedHat production and support from its books so that it can make real money - which in turn provides some of the paid manpower that makes free Fedora production and support actually remain available at either no cost or a modest cost.
Most X window managers support mutipal desktops (Windblows doesn't)
You are just trying to flame right? You know that windows does support that right? Or maybe you just meant "multipal" desktops instead of "multiple" and I just talked off my ass, in which case, please precise what exactly is a "multipal"...
And finally, CHOICE!
So you use choice B because you have a choice. I can't think of any worse reason than that...
Write boring code, not shiny code!
So by way of association does that also mean that Microsoft's acquisition of Great Plains Software marks the death of small business ???
Romana: "How did you know?" Doctor Who: "Ah, well, knowing is easy. Everyone does THAT ad nauseum. I just sort of hope"
MS already collapsed back in 2001, just like ESR predicted:t ml
4 8
http://slashdot.org/articles/00/12/13/216237_F.sh
Besides, Windows became obsolete with the introduction of $350 computers.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/02/28/13242
How *DARE* Microsoft use such harsh language towards OSS! That type of doom and gloom FUD is exclusively reserved for predictions of THEIR demise, that invariably come true.
The only real opportunity would be through some single flawed release of one certain distribution, but even this is far-fetched and questionable. Most distributions are now using sensible alternatives to traditionally flawed services (sendmail being replaced by postfix, exim or qmail for example, even diversity there) and a few are shipping with basic firewall functionality by default. Also bear in mind that servers (where Linux really figures in terms of installation counts) don't search Google....
After all - TERRORISTS could get access to it, right?
U.S. restrictions on cyptography have already driven its development and maintenance offshore. How you can equate exporting math formulas with exporting machine guns is beyond me.
an ill wind that blows no good
Microsoft has something to gain by being late to the game: They could have learned from all the mistakes made out there in Unix-land, and delivered a product with good security early in its life cycle.
They chose not to. They chose to forgot security in favor of "ease of use". That was their conscious decision to make.
N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
Ok, so the parent didn't know XP has multiple desktops (slower than a snail, but has it). But "choice B because you have a choice"?? I use choice A (GNU/Linux+KDE), instead of choice B (GNU/Linux+GNOME, e.g.) or C (FreeBSD+KDE) or D (OpenBSD+GNOME) or even E (NetBSD+BlackBox) or F.... or ZZX (WindowsXP) because:
1. it's safer.
2. it's faster.
3. it's more customizable.
4. it's so customizable that, if looks are the only thing that matters and if you really love the way Luna looks, you can make your desktop the same as Luna (not that I would want to)
5. I have the choice. this means that, if NetBSD continues improving its scalability, as they did last two weeks, maybe it will be a better KDE desktop than Linux, and I will migrate with much less pain, and generally using the same applications that I used under Linux. Means that, if I want to run a web server or a router in the old 386 I have under my bed, I can do so, because I can customize it easily.
I don't even know why I am feeding an obvious troll, but... so be it.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
Quote: We haven't talked to a single user who has said they're using [open source] because it's better.
And thus, by extension, if YOU say open source software is better, we won't talk to you either.
-fred
Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
>Here's the big issue with so-called free software: you still need to hire someone to install, configure and maintain the software. That type of maintenence ain't cheap, to say the least, especially for large organizations.
Large and medium organizations have always had to do all of these things with proprietary software and still do. But how much of a headache do you have maintaining it once you have it set up? What kind of uptime are you getting? What needs to be done to maintain security? How expensive are ongoing support contracts? What about support for your older hardware? That is where the real cost comes in for businesses. It's complex. Taking all that into account, Linux (even if you pay US$200.00+ for it), looks pretty good.
~==>RocketSHE
Linux is great for today's environment but severly lacks long term innovation.
This is the long term cost of maintaining the lowest common denominator cost of having a traditional UNIX system call api.
I personnally can see many advantages to a Monopoly in a software OS environment: compatibility, familiarity etc. Yes, there are bugs and vulnerabilities but you need to look past your bias and wonder why it has worked for Microsoft. It is a good solution for a majority of users.
If everyone sold computers with Linux pre-installed, how many of those users who 'find Windows a good solution' would go out and purchase XP? Win32 isn't successful because it's good for the users. It's successful because MS knew when and where to sell it - to OEMs with restrictive licensing.
"Since Win2K, the OS per se has been much less vulnerable than in the Win 9x days."
I would not agree, while win2k made advances in basic things like user authentication and file permissions, it combined default network services of questionable value for desktops (messenger, rpc portmap) with a lack of a firewall.
The combination of these monumental design blunders produced a machine that had all sorts of entry points just waiting for an exploit.
At least win9x was so useless that it didn't have any services running, exploitable or otherwise.
Its really difficult for me to believe that in 2002 or 2003, when ever XP was released, MS still thought that it was a good idea to turn on all these services by default and not provide a firewall. Whare do their security "experts" come from that in 2003 they could not recognize the insanity of this? Didn't everyone know this by the early 90's?
I wouldn't begin to get worried if I was Adobe. Don't get me wrong, the GIMP is good and all, but free software will also be looked down upon as being "inferior."
Try telling that to the millions of people running Apache on FreeBSD or Linux.
A few years back I worked for an ISP. A big ISP - in fact the biggest in the UK at that time, and possibly still (how you count AOL is an interesting problem).
Microsoft tried to sell us on their mail systems - cost would have been no object as far as software was concerned since they would bury us in software to do this one fairly simple (but large scale function) because they were desparate to get a big ISP on board their bandwagon.
We looked at the stuff, but walked away. Actually we ran away screaming. We just didn't have enough data centre space to handle the number of boxes it would take to run their unproven messaging system for our userbase of 3 million (and expecting growth) users.
Instead we implemented an open-source based mail system - exim as the MTA, a set of pop servers, an open source radius system for authentication - all the normal stuff. Becuase it was better. Because it worked. Because we could fix it when it broke. Because we knew how it scaled, how to make it scale better. Because it didn't have the possibility of us getting a buttload of licensing additional costs at a later date. Because it was better in every way than the MS option other than having a point-and-drool interface that a monkey could use to completely shaft a million users at a time.
Exactly.
Folks who claim Linux isn't ready for the desktop are poorly informed. I've been using Linux as my main OS for several years now, and for my work (writing) it is much better than Windows.
Why? Well, here's a little personal history. I started writing oh so many years ago on an Atari ST. When the time finally came to admit that Atari was never going to overtake the PC clone, I bought a Pentium 60 and Wordperfect. I kept Wordperfect through a succession of clones, since it was perfectly adequate for writing professionally.
As an sf writer and general techfreak, I was almost immediately intrigued with Linux and the open source model. Also, when the web first appeared, you had to know a little Unix to put up a site (my first site was hosted by UNC, like a lot of web pioneers.) So I experimented with a Slackware installation, but at that time, Linux really wasn't ready for the desktop.
Time passed, Windows progressed, I started building my own boxes and had to actually start paying actual money to put Windows on them. I kept reusing Wordperfect in each new box, even though I worried that someday the big box of floppies might not work. Eventually I tried Redhat 6.1 and discovered that Linux was now ready for the desktop, or at least the desktop of a writer who wasn't much interested in games. I found a copy of Wordperfect for Linux and thought I was set for life. But it got even better when I started using OpenOffice, and knew that my files would be eternally transportable to new machines.
Couple that eternal transportability with the worry-free nature of Linux online (much less danger of virii, worms, etc.) and with the flexibility of Linux (I can run an Atari emulator and access files from 15 years ago written on the ST) and with the availability of all kinds of software to play with that would cost me an arm and a leg in a Windows environment. It's more fun for me to use Linux on my desktop and more practical.
Free software such as Linux is better because it's free
John Milton wrote an essay about this freedom (in a broader sense) called Areopagetica. It's one of those things journalism majors usually have to wade through their senior year in mass communication history.
In his time, one in Britain could not print without prior authorization from the crown. The King's official reason for this prohibition was to "protect libel from being spread." Milton argued that it took the public grappling of truth against falsehood to determine what really was true. Without this public airing, you simply could not know whether the facts you had were true or not.
The closed source vs. open source issue, especially from the perspective of code security and reliability, is inherently linked to this issue argued nearly 400 years ago by Milton. There simply is no way Microsoft can expose its proprietary code to the inspections open source benefits from. The result is horribly broken, insecure and crash-prone Microsoft code vs. a base of increasingly stable open source.
And the future gets worse for Microsoft. Complexity is the instigator of this dynamic; as software complexity grows, the ability of closed source to hang on evaporates.
*scoove*
Just because it's the only viable solution for the majority of users, does not make it a good solution.
There are markets where REGULATED monopolies are probably a good idea.
Software is not one of them.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
I just don't understand why everyone gets in an uproar every time Microsoft speaks poorly about OSS..
... )
They are a company that is attacking their biggest competitor.. of course they will talk bad...they want to increase market share, and marketing is a big part of accomplishing this... ( which they do a much better job then we do, in this one subject...
No real news here.. just smile and look the other direction, and keep plugging along.....How we react can also reflect how people perceive us... Be it as adults, or sniveling children...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Most interesting is the assertion that the decision by Red Hat to end support for its free distribution and Novell's aquisition of SUSE marks not only the death of free software, but actually is a validation of Microsoft's business model.
OSS is not a business model. It's a bunch of different things: a community, a way of developing software, a way of distributing software, a way of thinking about information. But not a business model. Business models can be built on top of OSS, but OSS doesn't care. If those business models crumble--and indeed, many will--OSS will remain, to build on again.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
If anything, these things are affirming open source. Yes, Red Hat is removing their free version of the software and strictly selling Enterprise, but oh...Strange that, IT'S STILL OPEN SOURCE.
Microsoft's business model involves black box software, undocumented API's, and sloppy implementations. You want to be compatible with Microsoft? You have to reverse engineer everything. If that can't be done, guess what, you have to buy their software. Microsoft worries that reavealing their source code will destroy them.
Open source lays all out for anyone to see. This won't change with RedHat Enterprise...The GPL forbids it. But yet they are still making money. So tell me again, Microsoft, why open source is dead?
-R
I posted earlier today on Microsoft's next round of FUD vis a vis the idea that they may very well have something to do with the SCO debacle. I mentioned that in 2001 Microsoft did exactly the same thing as they are going to do now i.e. start and spread a large FUD campaign against Linux because they are fucking terrified that their OS is going nowhere, especially in the server space, their reputation is going down the drain with the ceasless sea of viruses and even the big companies are now starting to talk about using Linux on the desktop.
There are some interesting and ironic underpinnings to this story:
Microsoft is terrified. They have no real reason to be terrified because they own somehwere around 97% of all desktop machines and they make money on every damn PC sold with OEM software on it. But that is not Microsoft's problem. Microsoft's problem is that Microsoft is the epitomy of greed and the mother of all control freaks. There has never been another company, apart perhaps from IBM in earlier years, which was so absolutely mindlessly terrified in losing a single percentage point in marketshare. There is no other company that is willing to rack up huge losses in a single market segment, and that over years (xbox, PocketPC anyone?) until, due to simply having thrown enough money and resources at the problem over years, they finally start making gains. It's a fucking minddead approach and one that only Microsoft could afford to do, but it often works in their case.
The ironic bit in this newest FUD campaign is that the same thing backfired on them badly when they did it in 2001. But Microsoft wouldn't be Microsoft if they didn't think they could do the same thing again some years later, only this time they'll try to be more clever about it, including faked security benchmarks and other things. Microsoft cannot resist detracting anyone they are scared of, be it Apple's iTunes, Linux.
They are however extremely quiet and polite in markets where they are clearly the losers, be it in the xbox or mobile phone market.
And why are they the big losers in the mobile phone market? Because Microsoft has a track record of fucking every single partner over that they've ever worked with and apart from Microsoft marketing money dependant shitrag journalists like the creeps at ZDNet and CNet, almost everybody in the branch knows this and won't touch Microsoft with a 10 foot pole if they can avoid it.
This new campaign will almost assuredly fail, just give them time.
I'm working with nine identical machines with identical configurations and one or two of them might lock up once a week for no apperent reason. I'm much more supicious(?) of the hardware now.
I'll preface that my system usage may not be a fair comparison. My Linux and freeBSD systems provide qmail, dns, radius, mrtg, httpd, webmail, snmp management, etc. for tens to thousands of users, many under constant heavy loads.
My Linux desktops are used for network engineering, management, as well as the obligatory desktop stuff (web, mail, etc.).
They don't crash. Uptimes in hundreds of days is normal.
I can't exit Outlook on XP more than 50% of the time without a crash. XP has now decided to start forgetting its wireless cards (dual boot separate drive to Redhat9 has no issues on same hardware). For a 4-month old Dell with clean XP and NOTHING fancy on third party software (intentionally kept clean as "office machine" while my dual-boot does all the network stuff), this is absurd.
I've never, ever had a Windows OS that ran cleanly after more than 6 months. I have thousands of customers with Win98 that suffer absolute DLL hell. Yes, blame third party software a bit, but who was the architect of this disaster?
Again, tools are tools and I'll be the first to acknowledge that my tools I need for some things only work right on Windows (Project, Visio, Powerpoint, etc.). I've tried open source equiv's and they're no match.
But for reliability, *please* don't argue Microsoft can even be considered as marginal contender.
*scoove*
"We haven't listened to a single user who has said they're using [open source] because it's better."
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.