ESR's Halloween XI -- Get the FUD

dave writes "In the newest Halloween Document (mirror), Eric Raymond analyzes Microsoft's 'Get The Facts' road show. The anti-Linux arguments they are using now -- and, even more, the arguments they're *not* using -- reveal how desperate Microsoft is getting. He explains why he thinks we need to focus more on government adoptions, and predicts serious ugliness during the next year."

Comments

Who moved my cheese?

[ElDuderino44137]

Hey There,

If anyone out there has read this book ...
you know exactly what I'm talking about.

Things change.
Business models must adapt.
People must adapt.

Far too often we want today to be just like yesterday.
When we need to keep an eye toward creativity.

If these initiatives were a bad idea ...
they would collapse under their own weight.

Cheers,
-- The Dude

Re:ESR, again.

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

Stunningly accurate predictions, like MS's monopoly collapsing in 2001, and Windows becoming obsolete when computer prices dipped below $350.

Oh, good Lord, you are sniffing glue, right? Microsoft is alive and well., and the only vanilla box you can get for below $350 is a used piece of shit that has Windows ME installed. Get out of your basement, your parents need the space.

Small business perspective

[utlemming]

Something that is interesting with the whole Microsoft FUD campaign is that my work choose a Win 2003 Server over Linux/FreeBSD. I work as a manager, but I also am a fulltime student. Since my major is IS they inquired about my opinion. I told them I thought a Linux or FreeBSD system would be the way to go. Well, the IT company that contract convinced them to go with a Win 2003 Server. What has amazed me is that the server has crashed nearly once every two weeks and is down for fours to days when it does crash. In my apartment I am running a FreeBSD 5.2.1 server with FTP, Mail handling, Samba, etc., and it has been stable. The server is doing essentially simular tasks as the retail enviroment. However, the FreeBSD machine has yet to crash. I guess my point is that even IF Linux is more expensive to adopt, how much more stable is it? You don't hear of reports stating that MS is more stable. In my opinion if it is 20% more, but provides 90% more stability then which one cost more. Afterall, in a retail enviroment if the computers being down cost the company $1,000 an hour (and typically they do), then MS is more expensive. What I want to see is a report detailing the average cost of a downed MS machine and then a downed Linux box and compare down times. Then tell me which one is cheaper. Because in my opinion, a stable system is worth 1000X the cost of an instable system.