Slashdot Mirror
Ask the Author of the Latest MS-Funded Windows vs. Linux Study
Last week on Slashdot you saw a (Microsoft-funded) research
study on Windows vs. (Novell) Linux reliability by Dr.Herbert
Thompson. Novell disagreed
with the study's conclusions. So did most Slashdot readers.
Thompson's work been mentioned on Slashdot before, especially his
famous five-line
script that could change electronic voting machine results
and his novel, The
Mezonic Agenda: Hacking the Presidency. He's a real,
genuine-article computer security expert (and regular Slashdot reader)
who is happy to put on his flame-resistant
suit and discuss his Microsoft vs. Linux study with you. So
ask whatever you like, one question per post. We'll send him 10 of the highest-moderated questions and publish his
answers next Monday. He'll jump into the discussion then, which ought
to make it rather lively.
ok i wish i hadn't posed the WTF mate? because right now i would give you all the mod points i have.. i never looked at it in that light
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
I have a question, you know full well that most of what you said regarding the TCO issue is bollocks....so why did you say it?
Yours,
nother_nix_hacker
Is Jiminy Cricket in on this too?
[alk]
So did most Slashdot readers.
Ya think? In related news, the sun is bright.
How do you sleep at night? ;)
Oh, wow, your comeback strategy is go to Google, type in "cross platform multimedia libraries" and link the first four that show up... impressive. If you've ever actually *done* multimedia programming on the other hand... Allegro sucks (last time I used it... sorry) openAL and libSDL I haven't even heard of; and its been said that D3D actually outperforms OpenGL (according to gamedev.net and others...)
(myself I code OpenGL in C++...)
-everphilski-
I agree with your basic argument, but you speak of Standards and Linux in the same sentence. Linux talks entirely open standards between applications, yet cannot even master copy/paste between those applications.
If Linux finally had a good standard agreed on for how programs accept arguments, how copying and pasting works, even (gasp) where to store config files then it would be a serious player on the desktop. At the moment all it's doing is touting openness, on the condition that to use the openness you need to be able to write your own bits to make one application talk to another.
How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
First of all, performance varies wildly with what you are doing. Anyone can easily show that windows or linux outperforms the other just by testing the right things.
Second, the question is about credibility. The guy is outright lying. "More consistant, reliable and easier to manage"? You would have to be on serious drugs to believe that. Windows is famous for being flaky and unreliable, and its GUI tools are "acceptable" at best, "crippling" at worst. Its command line tools range from poorly documented to non-existant.
The point is people aren't deny all evidance that windows is better than linux. The point is there is no evidence that windows is more consistant, more reliable, or easier to manage. There is quite alot of evidance to the contrary though.
What's dismissive about that? Microsoft really does think that everyone ought to use Microsoft software, and the FSF really does think that everyone ought to use free software. Everyone is biased.
Not necessarily. And in this case its a matter of degree.
Put it this way: Who do you trust more, the FSF or Microsoft... and why? For that matter, why does someone go to work for Microsoft vs. the FSF or particular FOSS projects? The former is always characterized by money, whereas the latter operates on and advocates for a mix of business models and incentives. Does providing an alternative to vendor-lockin have to mean that someone is "biased" instead of using good judgement?
Just because some people have strong opinions or come to certain conclusions doesn't meant they're "biased". And I must say, this is the typical "Fox News Defense". They won the right to knowingly LIE to viewers in a court of law, then they try to tear down everyone else with innuendos starting with "everyone is biased". That's the defense of someone who cannot convincingly marshall actual facts in response to criticism.
Maybe you should be more concerned with how complete and accurate a picture the different parties are willing to reveal.