Slashdot Mirror
Novell Doubts Microsoft Latest "Linux Facts"
Robert writes "Microsoft Corp's "Get the Facts" campaign comparing Windows with Linux
continues to prove controversial, with Novell Inc describing the latest set of facts
offered up by Microsoft as "misdirection." The latest report offered up by
Microsoft as evidence that Windows is a better bet than Linux is a white paper from
Security Innovation Inc that compares maintenance, patch application, and system failures
related to a migration from Windows Server 2000 to 2003, and Novell's SUSE Linux
Enterprise Server 8 to SLES 9. The report found that there were more system failures
experienced by Linux systems administrators, and that more patches needed to be applied to
the
Linux systems, while more time was required to complete the Linux migration."
Windows : migrate or die
*nix : oh, I've not touched that server for 3 years, bulletproof, see : 1 year uptime
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
I know! I just read about it!
You can even ask the author about it!
So windows comes with no applications that need patching, and look of all the security patches required for JUST the OS! Linux on the other hand comes with hundreds of applications not related to the OS. You get a complete server in a box with all the tools needed, mysql, php, etc. THESE ARE WHAT NEED PATCHES IN MOST CASES! Microsoft provides you nothing with windows.
We all know Microsoft ain't gonna say anything bad about their product, so why even bother?
I'm sure Windows has it's uses, but you simply can't compare a system like Windows to a system like SLES they way that they do. They're vastly different systems, built with different things in mind.
Apples and pears, my friends. Apples and pears...
Blog -
microsoft has better .exe files that linux.
Yes with Windows you *NEED* to migrate because it breaks so easily. Linux: rock solid. So hardly a fair comparison that.
MSCEs dress better than *nix sysadmins, too!
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Microsoft just doesn't understand that one's Linux distro doesn't need to be on the cutting edge to be functional. Case and point:
Windows 98 (latest patches) running Apache = Big security risk.
Red Hat 5 (latest patches) running Apache = Solid
Security Innovation Inc - aren't they owned or at least funded by Microsoft? Move along please ... nothing new to see here .....
Evil Overlord Rule #86. I will make sure that my doomsday device is up to code and properly grounded.
"The study compared the experiences of three expert administrators on each side, a number that Security Innovation itself admitted was "too small to provide conclusive statistical comparisons."
Conclusive statistical comparisons?!?!? How about any statistical comparisons? Why, I could find 3 "expert" linux administrators who'd say just about anything I wanted them to say. Anecdotes do not evidence make, but they do strike that folksy note so beloved of advertisers.
-Brendan
Welcome to Microsoft Technologies. Please place your offering on the sacrificial altar before contacting product support, please note that nothing less that yo bleeding heart or soul will suffice.
Microsoft may have got their facts wrong in their Windows/Linux comparisons ?
OMG my world is so falling appart !
Sun seems less bright, my coke doesn't taste like it used to, I have suddenly lost interest in the opposite sex...
Please give me something else to beleive in !
I run a Samba 3 / OpenLDAP network that spans fifty branches in twelve states, and I am here to tell you that once we got rid of Microsoft, our (systems) support problems went through the floor. The Microsoft clients still suck just as bad, though. By the way, all of our routers are Linux based (Freeswan, netfilter/IP2Route, Snort), as well, and for wireless we run Sveasoft's Linux based software on Linksys (Cisco) Wrt54gs's and Wap54g's. I could not be more happy (or late night phone-call free).
No, I didn't say you wanted it, but you do get it.
Pining for the fjords
I am sick and tired of your shady and misinformed "studies". Instead of trying to convince people that you have a better operating system, why don't you get off your lazy ass and MAKE A BETTER OPERATING SYSTEM!? I swear to god, my image of this company has been reduced to a 5 year old girl kicking and screaming because another girl in her class has a bigger lollipop. [/rant]
Hero of Allacrost, a FOSS RPG for *NIX/*BSD/OS X/Win
Hello? Slashdot moderators?
For future communications with moderators, please note that all messages should take the form "MOD PARENT UP", "MOD PARENT DOWN" or "MODS ON CRACK". Your cooperation with this etiquette will be appreciated (and modded down).
Isn't this stuff in the FAQ?
I doubt it too
``Come on now, people. Don't we all know not to trust simple advertising?''
Maybe we do know better than that. Still, I think even advertising shouldn't be a blanket license for lies and deception. If the advertisement presents provably incorrect information, I say sue the advertiser.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Microsoft Corp's "Get the Facts" campaign appears to have been confused with a voicemail to instruct certain employees that a fax has arrived on their fax machines. It is not clear how this happened, but Microsoft will be releasing a correction on the second Tuesday of the month.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
I am very impressed by MS' strategy here. As an IT professional, I've never been crazy about working under the same roof as sales & marketing people. I think this move shows that MS corporate is being sensitive to their developers by relocating the Mar/Comm function to the offices of Security Innovation, Inc. If they want to be coy and call it 3rd party research, well- that's just semantics.
In a non-blinded, non-randomized, anecdotal study, one user (who is a certified Microsoft Shill) found that installing Windows XP Home Edition on a non-networked computer was easier than installing Fedora Core 4 and setting it up as a server using Samba and configuring it to act as a firewall. "We found that in 100% of the cases, Microsoft products came out ahead. Looking at our experience here, why would somebody want to use anything else?" Wow. I think I'm going to go wipe my server and jump right on the Microsoft bandwagon!
Novell says Microsoft is wrong.
What part of this is exactly news?
If you go to Microsoft's Get The Facts website, you pretty much know you'll be bombarded with Windows-praising propaganda anyways. Or did you honestly expect them to just stand there and say "We suck at these workloads, and would prefer you to run $NON_MS_OS instead"?
As an 'expert' system administrator (albeit unpaid) I have four servers. One is running Microsoft Windows Small Business Server 2003, one is running Microsoft Window Server 2003, one is running Ubuntu Linux 5.10 (Server), and the other is running Apple OS X Server (10.4).
I can tell you now that when I first started my company, although I was a major advocate of Linux, I soon found that I did not have the time to maintain a then Gentoo or custom LFS distribution, Debian was far too heavy to pick up, and Slackware felt a little dated. So I took a look at Microsoft Windows Small Business Server 2003, liked what I saw, and bought a Dell PowerEdge 400SC with an OEM install.
At first Small Business Server was a breath of fresh air. It was easy to maintain, with a full complement of features, having been bundled with Microsoft Exchange, Microsoft SQL Server, and Window Sharepoint Services. I actually enjoyed - yes, enjoyed - using it.
Until backup stated to fail. Until my tape drive disappeared. Until the sharepoint website database got corrupted. Until exchange monitoring failed. Until the POP connector started to thrash the CPU. Until the Windows Update website failed to check for updates.
These things happened. I'm not saying that they wouldn't happed with another system, but that is not the point, since they happened to me, and that caused me grief, and time, and money to resolve. I ended up trying to build a new system based on Microsoft Windows Server 2003, since I already had Microsoft specific data (files and tables), but this proved even more difficult to maintain.
I struggled for eighteen months, and then decided to build an Ubuntu 5.10 server. I use Ubuntu on one of my laptop, and had gently learnt the apt- way, and liked it. I set up a server with similar features to the Small Business Server, using Postfix, MySQL, and Plone, and even went some ways to transferring my sharepoint data. It works. It hasn't failed yet.
I bet the guys who took part in the survey only set up a server, installed some applications, and patched it. I bet they didn't try running a business for 18-months, just to see what it was really like.
I must say that we recently purchased an Apple PowerMac, and were so impressed we are now looking at completely switching, hence the OS X Server. It is a dream to install and configure, but we are going to run it for several months until we are satisfied that it can do the job.
Any fool can talk, but it takes a wise man to listen.
Does Novell have horses in this race?
What team colors are they wearing?
Cogito Ergo Sum
Yes, that's right, if you want unbiased reporting on the facts and a strict comparison done under rigorous conditions, then the only place to turn is Consumer Reports. Unfortunately a peek at their site shows nothing about comparing Linux to Windows. Anyone for a letter-writing campaign?
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
Is it just me, or does Microsoft's rhetoric sound a lot like the rhetoric coming from the White House?
I know, deep inside me, there's a Linux nut just waiting to be let out.
Whatever M$. Next thing they'll say is the sky is green is just none of us see it that way! Cut the Rubbish Micro$oft. Admitting you're faults is a virtue! Is anyone else getting tired of this Micro$oft marketting nonsense ?
Are these 'revelations' really news anymore? Microsoft has been trying to prove how much better their OS is for years now.
.... Sony Rootkits Won't Run.
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
Of course, there were more linux failures then windows failures. More people are running linux so the number will be higher. But the real question is what was the percentage of failure?
Windows is easy to maintain for the week required to set up a test system. After a while though, the system gets clogged, something ends up thrashing the CPU, all the icons start to jump from their applications to something else they fancy (hello Windows 2000?!), and you WILL require a reboot, which causes costly downtime - and some poor admin to come in on his weekend. This is NOT good in a situation where even 5 minutes of downtime on the weekend is NOT a good thing.
Sure, I've had monster planning and installs of Linux and FreeBSD - but those servers just don't go down. I almost forget that they are there. We built all the monitoring scripts ourselves so they let us know by email if they are experiencing trouble. A Solaris box we have has been running since 2000 without rebooting, surviving several software upgrades in the process.
Meanwhile my Windows 2000 desktop icons have decided to have an icon swapping party, and my laptop seems to get slower every year... not to mention the number of viruses it can get.
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
In my opinion, anyone considering Microsoft operating sytems should consider this: Self-destruction is a "feature".
You'll hear a lot of people bashing Microsoft and its 'independent' study.
But how is this news? Novell has a Linux disto, Suse. Obviously they are going to say this.
I'm not saying I agree with the study or that Windows is better than Linux because I think they both have their uses. What I'm saying is that this was an expected response from a company with a lot of money tied into the community that the 'study' tried to put a bad light on. What else did we expect from Novell?
The number of patches is irrelevant.
:)
I could produce a report detailing the number of 'Cumulative Updates' for various OSes. Windows.. lots, Linux.. nil
A report on reliability/security should count the number of vulnerabilities. The time it takes to patch the system should include the time between the vulnerability is found until it is patched.
The report doesn't even mention vulnerabilities once.
I guess getting some gimp to produce an 'independent report' means MS can't get sued for false advertising.
I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
Price comparisons are hard to make because the 360 is made primarily for graphics, the price/value_to_you -ratio
depends on what you are using the thing for. I'd say it will be great in mathematical beowulf-clusters but
on the desktop it may be beaten by traditional PCs.
Definately funded by them. I found this interesting...
Novell has previously criticized Microsoft for selectively quoting from the reports and has encouraged potential Linux users to read the reports for themselves and come to their own conclusions, rather than relying on Microsoft analysis
If you read the whole reports you notice a trend. There's always some gotcha. Generally, they aren't very scientific. They're about as professional as a review on a blog. They take short cuts. Deviate from their original methods. Make assumptions. Are inconsistant.
Sadly though, most don't read the whole reports as they are generally hundreds of pages long and very esoteric.
If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
First non-trolling beowolf reference ever. :)
In general, you are correct.
In the specific case of this specific "study", the criteria were such that the SuSE sysadmins were required to download and install code from the mysql site and back-port patches from SLES 9 to their SLES 8 systems, themselves.
Without being allocated the time to correctly test those systems.
Meanwhile, no non-Microsoft patches were installed on the Windows boxes.
It isn't the number of patches, it is the patches themselves. I can apply a hundred patches (or more) to my Ubuntu box quickly and easily. And because 99.9% of them do not require a system reboot, I can easily test them.
This "study" was setup so that SuSE would fail. That's all there is to it.
Agree or not, I found your post to be both insightful and informative. I think you make some excellent points and I appreciate your perspective. I think we will all be disappointed if we were to look for complete objectivity in anything in life. However, I take the side that this study is nothing but propoganda, but only due to the lack of research and data, not who funded it.
/.
As for Novell's objections, it would be nice if they would do more than say of course they claimed X because it's in their interest. I would've liked to see them come out with more research and data to put MS in their place. All they would have to do is take take some notes from posts here on
Do what is right and let the consequence follow
"So windows comes with no applications that need patching, and look of all the security patches required for JUST the OS!" - by spikestabber (644578) on Tuesday November 22, @08:28AM
And, Linux never needs to be patched/updated? Come on man, give us a break!
(the same goes for applications that run on that platform as well, let alone its API's & compilers used to create what apps it does have (which pales by comparison to Win32 in amounts & functionality on ALL levels))
"Microsoft provides you nothing with windows." - by spikestabber (644578) on Tuesday November 22, @08:28AM
Right... ever heard of Technet, MSDN, Microsoft's Knowledge Base, & monthly updates (patch Tuesday)?
For all of the "hundreds of applications not related to the OS" statement you made?
Linux pales by comparison to how many applications are out there for it (end user apps -> back office server oriented apps) as well as drivers for device support.
For an "OS that provides nothing", it's certainly funny that 95-99% of both personal computers (desktops/laptops) & servers out there run some form of Windows NT-based OS (most likely @ this point, vs. Win9x/ME) like 2000/XP/Server 2003... argue with the numbers.
To all of the above? Heh, no questions asked! Windows just outdoes Linux in most all areas - except clustering (for now, I am curious on how the Windows Server 2003 (rated 99.999% uptime no less) Clustering Edition will perform by comparison).
APK
It's not relevant? I would say it's completely relevant. I think what you should be saying is that it *might* not be true. If you strictly apply the rules of logic to real-life situations, then let me present you with the "Crack Pipe of Hope Award".
Silly. It would seem now that Novell are taking the claims seriously - a bad move on the part of their PR/Marketing department. They would have got far more mileage with a billboard scale "Whatever Bill" campaign, if at all.
...I have to say that I am glad to see that the truth eventually prevails. I've been hearing my employees whining "linux this" and "linux that" for the past six year. But they never have anything to back themselves up when they are faced with a challenge. Just because Linux is the buzzword of the decade doesn't make it a viable business technology. Anytime the dirty L word ever comes up in meetings I smash it down the the heel of my boot by instantly asking the person who uttered it the following question: "You don't like your job here. Do you"? That usually silences them. But I always follow up with, "If Linux is so good. Then show me where the *working* alternatives to important development applications like PowerPoint, Photoshop and Macromedia Flash are". The response is usually a visibly annoyed grumble. And do you want to know why? BECAUSE THERE AREN'T ANY VIABLE ALTERNATIVES.
.Net shop now because that's all the rage with code cooks) They *might* be able to watch my PowerPoint stuff in OpenOffice.org but probably not considering that they don't have enough RAM to hold that bulky app and my presentations (which top out at about 600 megs typically. Per UI screen.). They *could* view my Flash presentation in their web browsers with the Flash player for Linux but they wouldn't be able to see the intricate timings that I coded into the presentation. And Photoshop? Don't make me laugh with your Gimp thing. I can't work with an application that refuses to use normal menus and plain English for filters. Not to mention there aren't enough filters for the kind of work I do. Where is Bryce for Linux? How am I supposed to make award winning UIs when I can't render a complex texture with a few button clicks? How am I supposed to make grand looking buttons when I don't have any kind of lighting control that is realistically flexible?
We produce an award winning database with a truly intuitive user interface that goes lightyears beyond anything that Linux's GUI has to offer. And I'm the one who draws up the mockups and gets things ready for the code monkeys to sling their stupid poo at. My typical devel/design cycle:
1. Watch The Matrix, Hackers, Virtuosity, The Minority Report and a few hours of the SciFi channel to spot new but unimplemented UI features
2. Fire up Photoshop and create mockups for each UI screen
3. Pull the mockup into PowerPoint and add the sound effects and MPEG1 videos (That's what wins awards in the DB world folks. Good special FX. Just felt the need to school you.)
4. Do a little more work in Flash to indicate what the pointer should look like in various parts of the UI at various times.
5. Turn it all over to the code jockeys so they can make the pointless stuff happen.
If my coders were using Linux they wouldn't be able to dissect my work and convert it to their pointless language. (We're a Visual Studio
So your beloved Linux has nothing to offer this Fortune 1000 developer. It seems to be moored in the backwater ages when everything was CLI (which is dying out in case you didn't notce) and the world was encumbered by the albatross of elitist intellectuals who called themselves "programmers". What's so special about being able to type cryptic Unix and C commands and just to get 1+1=2? It's 2005 people! I shouldn't even NEED a keyboard anymore! I get so annoyed when an application makes me reach for the keyboard that I curse anyone who thinks it's a decent textual input device. Give me a 3d gyro mouse and a Dasher-like interface any day. But better yet, give me complete and total voice recognition. As a developer all I should have to do is tell my computer to build me an award winning DB app in Excel and then rake in the cash. Then I can finally cut the losses that I employ called "programmers".
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
NO, that's wrong.
The burden is to prove that this guy is somehow dishonest.
Citing his funders IS NOT that proof, nor is it evidence. Until you can show that his funding does in fact affect his data, then you're simply making shit up.
So stop.
And all you jackass mods, what part of my post was a troll? Was it the part where I said something true and logica, or the part where you didn't what I said, despite the fact that it is true?
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
It'll be news when Microsoft doesn't lie, slander, cheat, and libel any competition. Move along.
Well, let's take a closer look at the page you are quoting:
A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy because a person's interests and circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made. While a person's interests will provide them with motives to support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their own. It is also the case that a person's circumstances (religion, political affiliation, etc.) do not affect the truth or falsity of the claim. This is made quite clear by the following example: "Bill claims that 1+1=2. But he is a Republican, so his claim is false."
Fair enough. Just because you have a problem with someone's affiliations that doesn't mean that automatically they are lying about everything. But read the next paragraph:
There are times when it is prudent to suspicious of a person's claims, such as when it is evident that the claims are being biased by the person's interests. For example, if a tobacco company representative claims that tobacco does not cause cancer, it would be prudent to not simply accept the claim. This is because the person has a motivation to make the claim, whether it is true or not.
See? Microsoft has a bias, and so do the people they pay. I agree that it is wrong to reject their claims out-of-hand, but only a fool would say that there couldn't possibly be any connection. It absolutely is relevant. Even your source thinks so.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
I don't understand the arguments in these comments. We run more Linux AND Windows servers than ever before. Both platforms are more solid and more useful than ever (RHL9, RHEL3/4 and Windows Server 2003 Enterprise). Microsoft's policies and treatment of its customers isn't great. The Linux distro vendors do much better, IMO. But, Windows Server is actually quite useful today. This being said, it's far easier to do many network-related things on Linux (open source application servers, primarily), and Microsoft licensing costs keep creeping up, so we tend to do it in Linux first. But if there's an application we need that runs on Windows, I'm not afraid. We know how to skin that puppy, too.
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
Wow, that's a *massive* flame. I mean, saying you're a lead programmer, and then revealing that you don't actually do any programming whatsoever? Then, you go on to say you'd be lost without Bryce? I think we know which member of your dev team is dead weight! ;)
;P
:)
Don't get me wrong, your "pretentious asshole" tone and writing style will certainly carry a lot of weight with practically no-one who reads this site. But don't let that stop you from reaching new found heights of mediocrity! 600MB per PowerPoint page? Yes, this is definitely the sign of a well-trained professional who knows how to properly do their job.
It was a good laugh on a slow monday though, so thanks.
-- sudo.ca
Why would anyone try to use Gentoo or LFS for production server use is completely beyond me. That's as wrong as trying to use Windows 98 on a production server (although Gentoo/LFS and Windows 98 don't share many characteristics, I was merely pointing out that the writer picked a clearly wrong tool for the job, to represent "Linux".)
RHEL, SLES or Debian Stable are the distributions I know of which have a change process geared to a corporate (or SMB) server environment. How someone could choose Gentoo as a representative of the Linux product family in this kind of comparison is totally beyond me. What were you thinking?
There were perhaps a dozen slashdot articles on this already. We even interviewed the guy. Now we're back to article #2.
Despite all comments to the contrary, generally Canada is considered a civilized country, where one would expect decent infrastructure.
Never confuse volume with power.
So, using your logic, experience counts for nothing. I am inherently suspicious when I hear "facts" being spouted by spokespeople/companies/foundations that receive funding from the company/organization they are evaluating. It's called conflict of interest. And if you're going to take those facts at face value simply because you've applied a rule of logic then I suspect you will soon find yourself out of a job. In some areas, people are not allowed to even show an appearance of a conflict of interest under the law. It may not fit in with the rules of logic, but I'm not going to risk my career or life (drug company "facts") just to keep in line with those rules.
Microsoft's "Get Defects" :)
I don't feel like it...
I didn't think there was any room for doubt here: even when you discount all the times something breaks due to the latest M$ patch, Windows still tops the list for unreliability.
there can't really be reports that are objective. a person will prefer one over the other, and somehow be biased against windows or linux. when he or she writes a report, it will skew towards his own liking. MS will say good things about windows, and Novell will say so for Linux. who do you trust? the best is yourself and your experiences.
I imagine sometimes the integration that Windows offers can be convenient, but it's more of an inconvenience when you just need a new feature in one part of the system. With Windows, you need to upgrade the whole kit and caboodle!
Yes. I agree completely. Linux is not for everyone. However Linux is for those of us who want stability security and just plain fun. MSWindows annoys the hell out of me. I end up losing 40-50% of my total system speed to various problems, even with AV and AS installed. AS for server environments. LINUX KICKS THE WINDOW IN. Why just look through the window when you can have the whole house? We used to run our web services on windows and novell Netware. Now we use linux and dont have any problems. As for the .net thing. I'm sorry you program in such an annoying program as that. Mayhap you should spend some of that time that you get payed for to find a better solution. Oh and by the way. Linux kicks MS a$$ and there's nothing your ranting self can do about it.
In general, whenever you're doing a task with a GUI, and you're within the intended solution space of those tools, they will be faster. And easier. And probably less buggy... because at least in theory, the GUI tool will configure things correctly every time. (actual practice, of course, differs somewhat. :) )
An initial implementation of virtually ANYTHING in Linux/Unix has always taken longer than Windows. Getting off the ground in Unix is slow, because you're often writing your own tools to do what you need.
However, because those tools are written in, usually, fairly simple code, using simple and extremely robust utilities in novel combinations, they don't break much. And if your admins are good, your tools will be far more extensible than anything you could buy off the shelf, because they'll match your solution space almost precisely. Microsoft has to write stuff that's good for everyone, so their tools will rarely be a perfect match to your specific problem.
It's interesting that we're even having the discussion... it used to be completely taken for granted that Linux was way, WAY harder. The upfront cost was tremendous in comparison, but then your maintenance cost was very low.
Now Microsoft has to go out of its way to point this out. That is an ENORMOUS shift, a sea change. Microsoft wouldn't bother pointing this out if everyone already knew it. This implies that many administrators are finding the tools (GUI and otherwise) in Linux to be perfectly functional for what they need, and they're able to get things built fast enough that their bosses aren't pissed off.
It's probably a mix of free software getting better and administrators getting more skilled. Both are very good news.
<rant>Now if we could just get a stable kernel to put all of this cool infrastructure on..... </rant>
I don't know what a MSCE is
but a MCSE is a
Minesweeper
Consultant &
Solitaire
Expert
Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/
Amazing how hard some people will work to get a negative scoring / Troll rating...
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Windows is great, Linux is bad... Nothing new here, please move along...
And in other news:
Emacs Rules!
Emacs Sucks, Vi Rules!
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
In the end, I guess I'm just thankful I don't work for you.
they got us on one thing and thats the amount of data that has to be downloaded. its pretty ridiculous to have to redownload entire packages that are several MB in size when the binary diffs between the previous (or even original) and the new package data are a small fraction of that size.
Huh? Whachoo talkin' bout Willis?? ;P Cheers!
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
quite right, but how would 'statistics' help?, seriously:
using a statistical test and assigning a 'p'-value would add what ?
statitics attempts to assign value judgements (e.g. 'significant') to numbers. the process is *always* ultimately arbitrary (and pointless)
When the seagulls follow the trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown in to the sea
As a developer all I should have to do is tell my computer to build me an award winning DB app in Excel and then rake in the cash.
Two words: Wishful Thinking. BTW, who would want to build a db app in excel...that is so-not-like-a-lead-programmer.
It's Tuesday dear sir and I'm not paying for my hamburger so THERE!!!!
How many MS Funded "Facts" have you been spoonfed that are completely false or carefully fabricated to obscure accuracy or methodology? ahref=http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem /facts/default.mspxrel=url2html-18084http://www.mi crosoft.com/windowsserversystem/facts/default.mspx >
Findings from Consumer Reports/NTSB should be weighed slightly heavier than reports from Ford/Firestone.
In this case, MS funded "independent" findings from reports should be filed alongside the rest of the junk mail you get everyday. (Is there a new as yet unknown large group of web users in need of fake rolexes?)
OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
I work as a unix administrator in a mixed shop. The windows and unix guys are in the same group, so we get their email and go to the same team meeting. From everything I see, the bane of their existance is trying to keep everything patched. They have people in every weekend doing patching, and seem to be getting farther and farther behind. Every time a new "critical" windows patch is issued, you can hear the groans from over the cube wall. We run Solaris, and apply a patch cluster 4 times a year. When we need to patch to address a security vulnerability, we rarely have to reboot. Also, our uptime reports put theirs to shame. It boggles my mind that MS claims that maintaining their systems is less work.
http://cubemonkey.net/quotes -- fortune-mod quote generator
"So, using your logic, experience counts for nothing."
Show me where I said that. More importantly, NO experience counts for something.
If this guy was demonstrably an MS shill, that would be one thing. Show me evidence of that, and I'm behind you.
BUT YOU DIDN'T SHOW ANY EVIDENCE. So you don't get to make claims that disparage this guy. Or rather you can't have any credibility when doing so.
"I am inherently suspicious when I hear "facts" being spouted by spokespeople/companies/foundations that receive funding from the company/organization they are evaluating."
You should be, but that's not the same as dismissing outright, which is what is actually happening. You can't claim the research os bad, because you have no FACTS to back you up. If you do, then post them, and this will be an entirely different conversation.
"And if you're going to take those facts at face value simply because you've applied a rule of logic then I suspect you will soon find yourself out of a job."
Where did I ever suggest that either? I didn't, in fact I suggested the opposite, the close examination of the facts, and genuine critical review.
So, for your reply if you choose to make one, DO NOT paraphrase my post. Respond to what I say without adding straw men (as you did here) don't make claims that I said something when I didn't, and don't assume my denunciation of the moronic use of fallacies is an endorsement of MS. It is not.
Now, a question for you. Why is being asked to maintain a consistent, logical pattern of examination such a problem for you? Why are you trying to get away with relying on fallacies to make your argument?
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
See here for the concept illustrated above. Same for all mods who mod my original post down... Learn it. Love it. Dismissed private!!
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
In contrast, with a linux or BSD distro, even an ancient one, it's standard practice to fix only the problem and not change any functionality unnecessarily.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Oh come on, surely they still bundle IE and notepad?
-- it's ridiculous how many people misspell ridiculous... (damn, damn, damn...)
"In this case, MS funded "independent" findings from reports should be filed alongside the rest of the junk mail you get everyday."
Why? Because you said so? What evidence about THIS STUDY leads you to this conclusion? EVIDENCE please, not your opinion, which admittedly can be colored by past experience.
You see the point you and every other anti-MS troll misses is that YOU DO NO GET TO DISMISS A STUDY JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE THE FUNDER. Yes, it can raise questions, but the way you discredit any study is the same, regardless of funder. Why don't you people get this?
"How many MS Funded "Facts" have you been spoonfed that are completely false or carefully fabricated"
It doesn't matter. Do you understand, IT DOES NOT MATTER. The credibilty of a study is a function of it's design, NOT its funder. No part of this study should be influenced by the funding source. If it IS, then that's evidence. But where, oh where is said evidence in ANY of the dozens of copycat posts about MS funding this?
You discredit this study by providing credible counter evidence. The funder is NOT credible counter evidence. Saying it was a single data point, or not rigorously controlled, IS credible evidence.
That's just you restating the same moronic fallacy I showed you. Why are you trying so hard to be allowed to do so?
Seriously, it amazes me how many people here claim to know about science, but make the same simple mistakes that you do.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
Easy, Dixon!
not to say that Microsoft has to, every once in a while, give their existing customers this "warm and fuzzy feeling" and feel good about using Microsoft products.
it's like cigarettes. the cigarette companies know this is bad for you, but they want you to feel good smoking cigarettes.
I once had a signature.
MOD PARENT SIDEWAYS
Yes, because we know Novell has nothing to gain by pimping Linux. Riiiiight...
And I say this as somebody who actually likes Novell's Netware or whatever they are calling it this year. But they are TERRIBLE at the business side of business. They had a great product, but they priced themselves out of the reach of most customers.
I don't know about independent studies, but every Linux deployment in an enterprise setting I have seen has been subpar compared to a Windows server. Instead of being maintained as per company standards, the Linux stuff requires outside consultants (jacking up the price), and tends to have far more trouble. Which nobody can fix besides the consultant! Not a recipe for reliability.
End solution, everything that doesn't have to be Win2K, run off linux.
See my journal, I write things there
>> And, Linux never needs to be patched/updated? Come on man, give us a break!
Actually, this is nearly universally true. Serious software doesn't need to be constantly coddled and bottle fed. You just install it and it let it run until your requirements change. This is true for Unix in general, VMS and mainframes. It's really only the consumer style development model of Microsoft (and friends) that requires constant maintenance due to shipping crap product.
"Oh don't worry about getting all the bugs out, we'll address some of those in the first patch release."
That doesn't cut it in environments where "no downtime" also includes "no excuses for maintenance".
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
The basic problem is that microsoft has no credibility any more.
Based on 20 years of lying and being caught (and convicted in multiple cases), it is not worth the time to disprove the lastest survey any more.
Let me put it this way..
If you get 100 pieces of news a day.
And you only have time to read 60 of them, you have to dump 40 of them.
At first, you are going to dump things randomly. But if news from one news creator turns out to be consistently worthless/false, then it is going to be shifted into the 40 that get dropped automatically.
Once that happens- EVEN IF that news person starts being honest/valuable, it's unlikely to get a look again unless you get spare bandwidth enough to give it a look to see, "hey this isn't crap any more."
In most cases, our bandwidth is decreasing, not increasing.
It's simpler for me to say:
1) I need windows for a game platform (for now) since I play EQ (on Rodcet Nife).
2) Microsoft wants to lock me into a subscription model where I pay them monthly dues.
3) Microsoft is actually fairly evil and lies a lot- way above average for corporations.
4) Any study paid for by a company that lies that much and is that evil probably is junk.
5) Even if the study -isn't junk= some things are worth putting extra effort into to avoid supporting lying evil bastards. So if there -is- extra effort involved with linux, I'm STILL going to put it out anyway because once that effort is expended, it will save me hundreds if not thousands of dollars and will save any company I work for even more.
---
Your post basically says, "Okay... fooled me for the 863rd time, shame on me-- but I'm STILL going to give you the benefit of the doubt."
Oh-- and I think it was shitty to mod you down like that. At a minimum, any post that prompts reasonable argument should be flagged "interesting" since clearly it is. Slashdot's modding system sucks in that regard.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
It's "case in point".
Microsoft is improving their *stability* at a much faster pace than is Linux.
:)
That said, they had much farther to go
Okay, I'll apologize in advance, but I recently had a bad experience with Novell and am not too sympathetic with Novell in this latest advertising war.
Although it was not an upgrade of Enterprise version to Enterprise Version, I had a bad experience with a Suse upgrade recently. I purchased the software from Novell and it was shipped to me. I then proceeded to upgrade my wifes computer from 9.3 to 10.0. I had over 50 packages which failed to load and at the end grub was not able to upgrade properly.
I am finally going to resort to booting with Knoppix and try to save as many of her files as possible and re-install.
This is one of the ways in which I judge software before using it in a production environment and from this experience all I can say is it isn't even close. I have used Linux for 8 years and this has got to have been one of the worst experiences I have had in about 5 years with Linux.
There is no way I am going to allow Novell Enterprise Linux into a production environment and I may kick the ass of the next YAST clicking technician that comes in saying we should switch our linux servers over to Novell Suse.
I believe this is Novell's fault and it pisses me off, because this is going to be or could create a weakness in the adoption of linux. After so many have done so much to get it this far.
I know every linux person is going to say you shouldn't upgrade you should do a fresh install. You should put all of your files in a directory and then copy that directory over to another computer and then do a fresh install.
Well guess what, if you were one of my users/customers that would just work fine, but let's look at the bottom 20% of the average joe blow user I run into. The directory concept has just completely gone over their head. They save pretty much everything on their Desktop with occasional saves to a directory so that nobody can find those files (their version of security). They've got shit scattered all over their hard drives. Yeah we could lock it down, <RANT type=facetious> but these are executives and executive secretaries that have to be able to do whatever they want. They know exactly what they are doing because they have above average intelligence. So it must be that knew OS that was installed or that new Office Suite </RANT>
Okay I'll shutup now, thanks for letting me get that off my chest and I'll continue to use RH. I still haven't decided what to do with my NOVL stock.
Yes, much like you have to reboot your computer from time to time, we're going to reboot our computer from time to time to make sure it doesn't happen again. - this is the last sentence found in this story. As you can see it is now a popular attitude - computers need to be rebooted time to time. Did this perception came out of GNU/Linux world? No. Not even Macs. It came from the MS/Windows world and I am not going to disagree with it. MS builds these so called OSs that create this perception in the peoples' minds. People don't even understand that computers/software built right do not need to be rebooted at all. Ever.
You can't handle the truth.
MCSE is Moron Confused by Sun Equipment.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I'm appalled that no one else thought it was funny.
Sheesh... what's wrong with you people? I don't think it's Americans that don't get humor... it's geeks in general.
And for the parent, a well-deserved LMAO.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
So... let me get this straight.
You're saying that I should expect people to, in general, be honest when it behooves them to lie?
People lie even when they don't have to.
Microsoft and SI, I'll bet, as individual entities, have very very shoddy track records regarding honesty to consumer.
You're point is only sound out of context, dear sir, and I don't just mean this context, I mean ANY context. It's been a long time since I've met a man who wouldn't lie about the facts if doing so would gain him something.
I administer two xserve systems. G4 (10.2 server) and G5 (10.4 server) for two different departments. Here is my experience.
1. Setting up some services is very easy. Mail, file sharing and so forth are great.
2. Disk i/o for certain services (databases in particular) is very slow!!!!!! Its the fundamental flaw with OSX. I suspect the next release to run better presuming apple rips off freebsd's fine grained virtual file system code.
3. Forced upgraded. 10.2 does not get security patches very often. Samba was never patched for a bad hole and although i can replace it with my own compiled version, i lose apple's ease of administration. Solution is to buy 10.4 server but my boss won't approve it.
If you do go with osx server anyway, consider the xserve. They are very sweet and the cost of a osx license plus a nice g5 box is the same as an xserve anyway.
Also remember apple is going intel so you may not get OS upgrades in the future. They have not said if they will release 10.5 as a ppc build yet.
MidnightBSD: The BSD for Everyone
I was on a meeting with top microsoft employess about 6 months ago and they were doing this thing about Windows been safer and with way less fixes. They had the facts and documents.
A typical linux distro is made of 1000's of programs from different teams and programers all over the world. While Windows is only 100's or less programs. Yes of course you have more exploits on linux but. I think this is not a good statistic you need to realy count only Remote exploits of with linux has very few and windows/explorer one every other day.
BSD licensed software can't be stolen....
The higher number of updates required for Suse Linux was a misdirection by Security Innovation Inc. No self-respecting Linux admin would be using Suse, an rpm based distro, to run arbitrary commercial applications, knowing that the apps in question will require frequent updates and add-ons. Rpm based distros are more suitable for main stream Linux project software and particular versions of commercial applications. You don't go to freshrpm.net and get dependencies for updates and/or add-ons to commerical software that require non-standard library/kernel versions unless you enjoy living on the edge. No, you wait until Suse has the required libraries available, then do the updates. If instead, the Security Innovation Inc test used a compiler/ports based distro like Gentoo or Debian, switching glibc's and kernel capabilities would be much easier, more stable, and quicker. The test results in this case would have been very different. Using an rpm based distro and then requiring out-of-distribution libraries to be installed inorder to update the applications was an unfair pre-planned setup for failure. Typical Micro$oft monopolistic tactics. Yawn...
"The basic problem is that microsoft has no credibility any more."
First, thanks for not being a dick.
Second, this really has little to do with MS. It is the inability of the slashbots to separate MS from people who do work for MS that is the real problem.
All I;ve suggested in any of my posts on the subject is "Examine the evidence critically, using the well established protocols, and do not rely on your personal biases, because they are inappropriate."
If the research is bad, then examining in the same light as other research will expose the flaws.
The fact that the study was funded by MS is in no way a valid criticism, because I KNOW I can find at least one MS funded study that is well done.
"Your post basically says, "Okay... fooled me for the 863rd time, shame on me-- but I'm STILL going to give you the benefit of the doubt."
I cringe when people try to paraphrase my statements, and I did this time too. Ask yourself this, does this researcher have a history of shady dealings, or are you simply generalizing the traits of MS to those who do work for MS?
1. Watch The Matrix, Hackers, Virtuosity, The Minority Report and a few hours of the SciFi channel to spot new but unimplemented UI features
I'm still throwing a tantrum that we don't have Jetsons technology in homes today. Why should I WALK to the refrigerator when I can just hop on a conveyor belt? Do I look like an Olympic athlete for crying out loud?
Slashdot requires you to wait longer between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.
You said this about UNIX/Linux programs not needing to be patched:
"Actually, this is nearly universally true" - by jedidiah (1196) on Tuesday November 22, @11:58AM
Here's my reply, based on fact:
Tell Richard Stallman that, & how his work was used by guys like those from the book by Clifford Stoll "The Cuckoos Egg" (a true story) was utilized to attack & invade United States Military Systems... due to buffer overflows in programs HE wrote!
(So, all I have to say to your statement is, 'Ahem - BULLSHIT!')
Sorry to be blunt about it, but that's only 1 single VERY IMPORTANT EXAMPLE of how Unix programs DO NEED TO BE PATCHED!
APK
The burden is to prove that this guy is somehow dishonest.
No, it isn't.
He was paid by Microsoft to perform a job.
The *required* assumption is that he is now working to help Microsoft. Period.
That isn't even an assumption. It's the way business works. In fact, Microsoft's leaders would be liable if this were not the case.
Until you can show that his funding does in fact affect his data, then you're simply making shit up.
No, until you can show absolute proof that every word in the study is accurate, every possible interaction was taken into account, and every single possible bias is explicitly listed in the study with all possible differences they could cause, then you are simply shilling.
Where could you possibly have gotten the idea that the default assumption *in any case ever* should be that the paid advocate is to be believed blindly until proven otherwise?!?
And all you jackass mods, what part of my post was a troll? Was it the part where I said something true and logica, or the part where you didn't what I said, despite the fact that it is true?
It's probably the fact that what you ssaid isn't true, coupled with the fact that it is not a logical fallacy to be skeptical, coupled with the fact that your claim boils down to "believe whatever a corporate shill tells you".
The first and last microsoft "white paper" I read was a the time of NT4 server with terminal services. The paper in question, under a gloss of technical aspect, was pushing statements like "this does not exist yet on unix", while X11 had been working semmlessly with a number of network transports for roughly 13 years before the paper was authored.
1. Choose hardware that has known difficulties with Linux.
2. Plan simulated study over a time period in which the number of patches favors Windows.
3. Compare minor version change - Win2000 to Win2003- against a more complex Linux migration. SLES 8.0 (2.4 Kernel) to SLES 9.0 (2.6 kernel)
4. Deny administrators use of test systems, which is a Linux cost advantage. Test system can be run on available hardware with free license.
5. Run Linux with all available services instead on the needed minimum. This reduces system performance and adds difficulty to patches and migration.
6. Deliver external data from third party in a Windows favorable format.
7. Require several feature changes that are pre-built into Windows but requires customization in Linux
With just a little planning, you can create and sell your very own Microsoft FUD.
Consumer Reports does do a good job of being objective and maintaining distance from potential conflicts of interest that could add bias their opinions. I wouldn't buy a car without checking their guide (among others). However, when they try to rate anything even barely outside thier vehicle / household appliance focus, the report is next to useless. They just don't know enough about the subject to pick good criteria for comparison, and they don't have a large enough number of reader interested in the review to justify a thorough comparison. So they end up with a small number of products, and odd assumptions about what they think is important about the product.
Futhermore, the correct answer to the Linux vs Windows question is it depends on the situation. There are far to many use cases to compare. There are many instances where we use windows at work and it is the most cost effective thing to do because we have software that only runs on windows. There is no general purpose study that you can do determine if the long term costs of migrating to linux will be less expensive in the long run, because the migration process is different for every company.
You can't run a business that relies on computer technology for about 50% of your work, without the servers running. Downtime is not acceptable.
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
Dear folks, I think Linux has a higher variance. 1) Windows works to a mediocre, acceptable level even if configured by someone of mediocre qualities. 2) Linux works amazingly good if configured by a real expert, a real hacker. 3) Linux works bad if configured by someone of mediocre qualities. Linux is not forgiving of incompetence. Do you agree? This question is similar to politics: the Left consists of people of mediocre intellectual qualities. The Right consist of a bunch of complete fascist assholes and some geniuses of exceptional qualities, like Simone Weil in The Need For Roots (L'Enracinement). Average folks use Windows. Geniuses use Linux. However, there is a bunch of 19-years old "wizards" who convice customers they can configure a system for them and they use Linux. Because it is free and and cool. Besides geniuses, Linux is the playground of many big losers. And then it does not work. Linux is not forgiving of incompetence.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I find it amusing that Novell didn't go further and attack the methodology in some pretty crippling ways. Sure this is presented as fact but:
1) It is a simulation, not a study of real world data.
2) The paper provides no information on how to reproduce this simulation.
3) Assumptions are not documented with regard to requirements engineering or data analysis. This diverges even from this same company's prior Microsoft-sponsored study regarding database security.
In other words, this latest study is *meaningless.* There are *no* conclusions that can be drawn from it one way or another. There are many valuable studies on the GetTheFacts site (I particularly find the IDC study interesting), but this one does not belong in part becuase it contains *no* facts, just a bunch of conclusions based on, well, who knows really...
What is even stranger is that I am the only person here attacking the study on its methodological merits. This study is about as scientific and informative as a newspaper horoscope.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
"He was paid by Microsoft to perform a job."
NO, he was paid to do a STUDY, which is completely dependent on his individual credibility. You're assuming he would risk that for a paycheck, which speaks more to your lack of ethics than his.
"The *required* assumption is that he is now working to help Microsoft. Period."
It's only required if you are completely devoid of ethics, and expect that everyone else is as well.
"Where could you possibly have gotten the idea that the default assumption *in any case ever* should be that the paid advocate is to be believed blindly until proven otherwise?!?"
Ok, I get it. HE'S NOT AN "ADVOCATE". You have assumed he is because you don't like his results. That's bad science, but I doubt very seriously if you care, because this about being right for you, not about the facts. You want MS to be evil, and by association, everyone around them must be evil as well.
That argument didn't work in kindergarten, and it doesn't work here. Nice try with the semantic games, though.
"It's probably the fact that what you ssaid isn't true, coupled with the fact that it is not a logical fallacy to be skeptical, coupled with the fact that your claim boils down to "believe whatever a corporate shill tells you"."
Ok then, Mr. All-I-do-is-talk, prove what I said wrong. Where am I factually inaccurate? Why is it NOT a logical fallacy when it meets the exact definfition of the fallacy provided? And why are you so fucking excited to be a shill for Novell? See, works both ways, but because you know nothing of logic and reason, you didn't see any of that coming.
Face it, you're way out of your league here. We're discussing science and research, and since you clearly have no experience with either, it's best if you stick to making "soviet russia" jokes. That's more your caliber.
Compare this SI study with the IDC study.
1) The IDC study is a survey on where and how much companies are/were paying. The SI study is a simulation regarding unknown (to anyone but SI) but changing hypothetical situations.
2) While the IDC is fairly careful in providing good information on what they are comparing, SI is not. This means that while the IDC study provides a basis for rational debate, the SI study provides no information whatsoever except vague general claims of more agility based on nothing that is verifiable.
I personally think that the IDC's numbers are correct even today and indicate a willingness to spend more for Linux and Open Source products (though the network infrastructure category is way too vauge to be meaningful), and that these things are seen as strategic investments. So while the TCO in the IDC study is higher, it is almost certainly higher because of greater ROI rather than higher because of cost bloat. THis conclusion matches my experience introducing businesses to Linux.
To anyone with any sort of science or computer modelling background, the SI "study" is appalling. I don't think I have read any comments by anyone who has read the study with any sort of critical analysis who is willing to defend it. It is peerless in its lack of useful data.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
In the last year, I have had to fsck one Solaris machine by hand to get it booting, one Linux box to get it booting, and I've had two Windows boxen that had to be reinstalled due to the BSOD on a corrupted boot volume. Power failures eat filesystems, Solaris is no different. Of course, I have battery backups on my equipment but some of my customers are cheaper...
I think Mauve has the most RAM. --PHB (Dilbert Comic)
I hear what you are saying. My point is-- they have lied to me so often in the past that now they no longer get the benefit of the doubt. It doesn't matter how many MS studies you can find that are well done. That is why people should avoid lying- once they do it enough people do not listen any more when they tell the truth.
Linux is now Microsoft's Wolf. It literally does not matter to me what Microsoft or anyone associated with them (including indirect funding of astroturf groups) say any more.
Over the course of the last 25 years I went from being neutral to basically assuming microsoft is lying and cheating. I'm already way past the "probably lying and cheating". Now microsoft is so deeply associated to me with lying and dishonesty that anyone who produces papers for them is automatically distrusted.
With regard to this latest particular paper it looks like Microsoft very carefully framed a particular question that they could answer well and then paid someone to verify that that very carefully framed question's answer was.
At some point, it's not worth spending effort to check that maybe this time they really aren't going to lie to me again. I long ago passed that point.
I don't hate them. I use their products. But they have no credibility with me.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
"He was paid by Microsoft to perform a job."
NO, he was paid to do a STUDY,
How is performing a study not a job? Exactly.
You're assuming he would risk that for a paycheck, which speaks more to your lack of ethics than his.
No, it says nothing about my ethics, nice try at the around the back strawman attack, but no dice bucko.
I am not assuming anything. Microsoft has demonstrated repeatedly their total lack of ethics. He accepted a *job* with an extremely dishonest company.
That fact alone puts his ethics very clearly in question.
"The *required* assumption is that he is now working to help Microsoft. Period."
It's only required if you are completely devoid of ethics, and expect that everyone else is as well.
Again with the valueless ad hominem attacks that don't even make sense.
He was paid to do a job for Microsoft.
It is required as an assumption unless you are assuming that Microsoft is working against their own financial interests. Why would they pay for something that they expect to hurt them?
Ok, I get it. HE'S NOT AN "ADVOCATE". You have assumed he is because you don't like his results. That's bad science, but I doubt very seriously if you care, because this about being right for you, not about the facts. You want MS to be evil, and by association, everyone around them must be evil as well.
No, I did no such thing, nor is there a rational way for you to conclude that I did based on what I said.
He is an advocate because he was paid *by Microsoft* to do a job. Period.
I do not want MS to be evil, however, the facts demonstrate absolutely that they are an extremely unethical company. Anyone who accepts money from them does bear watching from an ethical perspective, that's just reality.
Why is it NOT a logical fallacy when it meets the exact definfition of the fallacy provided?
Because it doesn't meet the definition for one.
Being suspicious of a study by a person who was paid to do a study by a company with a long history of buying bogus studies is basic common sense, not a logical fallacy.
And why are you so fucking excited to be a shill for Novell? See, works both ways, but because you know nothing of logic and reason, you didn't see any of that coming.
More ridiculous ad hominems with no basis in reality.
I got my BS in mathematics, so I know quite a bit about logic and reason. You clearly do not since you are continually misapplying a basic definition. It's a little tough to maintain a consistent argument when you can't even understand the definitions you are trying to use.
Linux and Windows are (I think) both easy to setup as a barebones OS. The question becomes one of finding software, installing the software and maintaing the software. In this arena, Windows is the clear winner. Windows (most of the time) makes installation of software easy, with it's integrated setup files consisting of all required library, configuration and help files compressed into a single setup program. Linux on the other hand requires the user herself to locate all the required libraries and the correct versions and thats if the software is in binary form. Things really get hairy in source form, since the correct C compiler version and C libraries are required as well in order to compile the program correctly or at least occording to the enclosed README. Moreover, if the makefile really gets fancy you could find yourself downloading and installing a bunch of different helper interepters just to compile a program. Yes, there are package management programs but what good is such a program when a library required by a program is no longer available? Since installing software is big part of system migration, Linux needs a different approach to installing software and I think this is where Microsoft has the upper hand.
However, once things are in place (installed) then Linux is no more difficult than Windows to maintain. In fact, Linux can be easier since it's configuration files are text based and not located in a global binary registry as in Windows which has been known to get corrupted. This is why Live CDs like Knoppix have become so popular, since everything comes installed for you.
BUT one must be familiar with the command line in order to use Linux effectively. GUIs like GNOME or KDE **WILL NOT REPLACE** knowledge of concepts like permissions, pipes, signals, environment variables and standard input/output. I think this is where less knowledgable administrators get frustrated with Linux since they attempt to treat it like just another version of Windows. Unix, Linux, BSD, whatever you call it, was designed for a different audience. The programming audience. Just look at at any Unix startup script and you'll realize that fact.
So is Windows easier to use, maintain and/or migrate to, than Linux? Not necessarily, but lest we forget Unix's (or in this case, Linux's) design was centered around the assumption that it's user will have some knowledge of programming. On the other hand, Windows NT and it's newer server brethren were born from concepts designed and implemented by "user friendly" graphical desktop operating systems. Sure X windows has some marvelous and highly configurable GUIs, but nowhere near the usability of the Windows OS and the market shows that.
Everyone loses one hard disk before they learn what backups are for. Its an operating-system independent rite of passage. Er. And the way you're supposed to work is to put your working stuff into a partition out of harms way, preferably on a separate disk. And why is "resorting" to Knoppix such a big deal??
That Microsoft's release cycles are so slow isn't anyone else's fault. Admins aren't forced to make do with years-old technology, they can upgrade and patch nearly everything without killing the service or restarting the computer.
As people have been saying, the only true test is to take top linux guys and top windows guys and give each team a budget to build a server that meets a certain requirement (10k simultaneous web users, # of database queries per second, etc) in a given benchmark. The only restriction is the base OS, the Microsoft team must pick a released (Microsoft doesn't allow running Dev releases for non-dev purposes) version of Windows and the Linux team have to pick a Linux (BSD supporters should form a team!) flavour. It'd also be interesting to test the config MS would sell you - if you need a DB, it's MS, if you need a web server, it's MS, etc... This is probably more realistic because their prices always make this sort of this the best deal, and management will insist on using product they have licenses to...
I'd also include time, both the time taken to provide a solution, but the number of admin hours over that time, and the ammount of time it would take to roll the exact same thing, out to 10, 100, and 10k similar machines.
Until then, Microsoft is still lying.
It is relevant to compare Win9x/2k/XP/2k3/LHbeta+IIS+MSSQL+Exchange with 'Linux'.
Linux is a technology, delivered by completely independent distributors. (Does second-sourcing mean anything to anyone anymore?) If you want tweaked performance for a group of identical machines, gentoo and the right X manager might save your company thousands. If you want rock-solid without much work, go debian. If you want to do web hosting, use a custom-built light kernel with XEN and let the clients pick their flavour for the virtual servers. If you serve a ton of prerendered web content and latency is an issue, use squid. Need a database, pick anything from a SQLLite to Postgres, Firebird, or one of the many fine contenders.
I'm a much happier admin when I can use the tools I want, not just what comes bundled with the distro. Especially a distro like MS sells, where extras cost more.
Where is my Goddamn flying car? They promised us flying cars!
Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.
Claiming that because Linux has more patches to install is a "bad thing" is a throw away argument. Quite frankly...I don't care how many patches I have to install on my linux machines...I'm just comforted by the fact that, in large, I don't have to worry about the friggin patch crashing my machine/server. I don't think any Windows admin can attest to the same and remain honest with him/herself. Also, the more patches that are released...the less holes are left to find by the black hats. I'm sure Microsoft is trying to say that because they release less patches...that their software is more secure...HA HA HA. There are countless other reasons why Linux is superior...there is just not enough time to list them all.
all aspects of the methodology would need to be openly documented as well as assumptions in analysis.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Most of the rebuttal of this study seems to have focused on both Windows
vs. Linux patch application and the fact that Microsoft funded the study
in the first place. However, the biggest technical flaw in the study
appears to be the deliberate use of at least one 3rd party application
which was never properly designed or developed to run on SLES8.
The central component of the study is the ability of each OS to meet 4
functional "milestones", namely data mining, enhanced search, list
management and finally a platform upgrade (SLES8 to SLES9 and Windows
2000 to Windows 2003).
Anyway, the SLES8 system fell down at milestone 2. This was because the
3rd party "enhanced search" application chosen for the study required a
GLIBC upgrade (which is clearly going to break the system) to accommodate
the particular MySQL version used by the application (the specific
applications are not named anywhere in the report).
So the rather far reaching conclusions claimed by this study appear to be based
mostly on the fact that certain 3rd party application developers are simply
ignorant about developing for Linux. I've seen the "we only support RedHat"
or the "you need to be running kernel version 2.x.x" line often from certain
vendors of commercial software many of whom simply don't have a clue about
Linux software development. Most of these vendors, needless to say, approach
Linux application development in a very "Windows-centric" way.
Is it really too much ask to have commercial software developed to specific
kernel and glibc versions? Perhaps then we can have proper application support
from the big commercial vendors such as the Oracles, the SAPs, even the IBMs
and studies like this could show Linux for part of what it really is:
simply the most reliable, flexible and supportable server platform on the
planet.
Finally, the situation is improving and the efforts of Novell and RedHat in
providing solid "Enterprise" class Linux platforms which can be supported and
around which commercial 3rd party apps can be properly developed are very
welcome.
How many MS Funded "Facts" have you been spoonfed that are completely false or carefully fabricated" It doesn't matter. Do you understand, IT DOES NOT MATTER. The credibilty of a study is a function of it's design, NOT its funder. No part of this study should be influenced by the funding source. If it IS, then that's evidence. But where, oh where is said evidence in ANY of the dozens of copycat posts about MS funding this?
You discredit this study by providing credible counter evidence. The funder is NOT credible counter evidence. Saying it was a single data point, or not rigorously controlled, IS credible evidence. If you need eveidence gather it bro. I gathered mine and my conclusion is still valid and my confidence in MS funded studies is lowered yet another notch. Check the methodology if you need a hint. If you ever upgraded a SUSE server (or pretty much any linux server) it would be obvious to you.
Maybe I'm being harsh, Maybe Jack Thompson has a point, Maybe SCO has a case, Maybe Netcraft is right and I should upgrade to living distro. Or maybe, just maybe you could take the time to consider the source.
for example; suppose there was an article stating GWBush was sleeping with Condi. If its in (read Funded by) the washington post versus the DNC or worse the Star. Who is likely to be telling the truth.
Why just because the DNC funded it, or the Star/Enquirer printed it? I fail to see how the analogy breaks down. I read the damn study too. Just disagree with it. Not the results mind you, they seem reasonable, just never likely to be a real scenario. No long term stability data, Spurious staffing requirements. I could go on.
I am not an Anti-MS Linux Zealot. I prefer linux on my desk and in my embedded devices because of REAL WORLD FIRST HAND EXPERIMENTS! I work with both Linux and Windows. Some places Windows makes more sense. But YOU should decide which is going to work better not MS. People come here to discuss IT issues with KNOWLEDGABLE people. My experiences are freely shared with all who care to know, even people who must try to categorize anyone they don't agree with.
In other news....
Tobacco cures cancer brought to you by Phillip Morris
Men who eat Doritos last longer in bed brought to you by Frito Lay
Iraq has weapons of Mass Destruction brought to you by GWB
OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
Why does Microsoft persist with these Linux vs Windows comparisons? People don't compare one against the other and then make a to use one. No, people use whichever for their own reasons, which rarely have anything to do with comparing any sort of objective metric. The main 'feature' that Linux has is that it is DIFFERENT than Windows so there is a CHOICE of something else to use. Who cares if Linux falls down or does great relative to Windows? All that matters is that Linux is an option that works well, does a whole lot of stuff, and works with a lot of hardware. As far as most non-Windows users are concerned, Windows might as well not even exist.
I've been using linux in a production corp environment for well over 5 years. Services - cups, nfs, samba, httpd, innd, ftp, imap and pop and probably some more. About eight linux servers alongside five sun sparc servers. I've even done redhat 6 for sparc which was pretty rough at the time, but it worked well. I've been running linux at home since 1993, and no I didn't just put in the floppies and dump windows. It took a long time to poke my way around to get comfortable with it, and the window manager sucked dirtstar when it ran. However that was then. There have been *so many* improvements over the years, it is not the same OS it was back in 1993. Microsoft ought to be thinking about how they will integrate with linux instead of trying to make it sound like the plauge. They are doing their customers a dis-service by selling them a lick and a promise with a sexy desktop.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
I've seen these "Get The Facts" in some Google Ads as well.
Is Microsoft that desperate to buy advertising space on Google?
you go ahead and remove that keyboard then reply to this post :-)
Funny, my Linux computer has no problems for 6 months at a time. My BeOS computer has no problems. My Windows computer on the other hand???????? I have to totally wipe the hard drives clean twice because mal ware managed to invade the hard drive software, five other times because of other problems with Windows, some mal ware related even though I am running the latest-up-to-date "protection". Hmmmmmmmm, I wonder which is better??? Real-world facts bud. Quite different than "Microsoft Reports & Studies". Oh, and Windows does NOT rum on 98% of the worlds PC's, It's just cheaper here (US) to buy it with Windows and replace it (Windows) with something else. Then Mac has about 3.5% of the market. You should really count low end Sun's. How about those "low voltage computers" that come without any OS at all? There are some people that are quite content with thier Apple II models, their TRS 80 II CO-CO's,their Amigas (you get the idea), and somehow manage to still get them fixed and keep them running so they don't have to change to Windows. Personally, I consider Windows XP "Mac Plus Gone Mad" as far as the end user is concerned. Windows related programmers also always have their hands out for such things as registry repair, spy ware, etc--when other OS's written *other ways* don't really have a problem that way. Microsoft Marketing often is just wrong and presents very "adjusted" figures bud. That comes from YEARS of experience. People in the US usually believe anything that comes on the TV or Internet marketing.
one word only to do these in linux : blender www.blender3d.org
"Maybe I'm being harsh, Maybe Jack Thompson has a point, Maybe SCO has a case, Maybe Netcraft is right and I should upgrade to living distro. Or maybe, just maybe you could take the time to consider the source."
Yeah, and maybe none of those things represent themselves as research, so maybe thay aren't relevant.
You can rationalize your flawed thinking all you want. It's still flawed, and you're still rationalizing.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
He doesnt say that linux doesn`t need patching.. He claims that windows ships with far less applications than a typical linux distribution, and yet still has a large number of patches..
It`s also worth noting that any given linux distribution will let you install a complete system that`s useable for all but specialised purposes without having to use anything that wasn`t provided with the distribution. Also on that note, you can update the entire system including all those apps from a single source, whereas with windows you can only update the core os, and need to locate/install patches for all your apps seperately. Similarly if you want to install anything that didn`t come on the installation CD, you need to find and manually install each program.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Well, let's see, I posted my definiton of the fallacy I was applying, which applies perfectly. You claimed I used several falacious attacks, but failed to cite any sources that back you. Hell you called this
"It's only required if you are completely devoid of ethics, and expect that everyone else is as well."
and ad hominem. It's NOT an ad hominem, and the fact that you don;t know that calls the rest of your post into question.
"How is performing a study not a job? Exactly."
Exaclty what? Studies, which are often paid for by specific companies, ar ealso just as often reqired to be INDEPENDENT. Just like you hire an independent auditor if you think your own auditor isn;t accurate, you hire independent researchers to give you their INDEPENDENT research.
Are you really so mentally deifcient that you didn;t know this, but chose to open your mouth anyway? It seems so. Funny that.
"I am not assuming anything. Microsoft has demonstrated repeatedly their total lack of ethics. He accepted a *job* with an extremely dishonest company.
That fact alone puts his ethics very clearly in question."
Yay, you restated EXACTLY the same fallacy I started out denouncing. You know this one
Ad hominem circumstantial involves pointing out that someone is in circumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position. Essentially, circumstantial ad hominem constitutes an attack on the bias of a person. The reason that this is fallacious is that it simply does not make one's opponent's arguments, from a logical point of view, any less credible to point out that one's opponent is disposed to argue that way. Such arguments are not necessarily irrational, but are not correct in strict logic. This illustrates one of the differences between rationality and logic.
Examples:
"Tobacco company representatives are wrong when they say smoking doesn't seriously affect your health, because they're just defending their own multi-million-dollar financial interests."
"He's physically addicted to nicotine. Of course he defends smoking!"
The Mandy Rice-Davies ploy, "Well, he would [say that], wouldn't he?" is a superb use of this fallacy.
Nice job making my point for me.
"Being suspicious of a study by a person who was paid to do a study by a company with a long history of buying bogus studies is basic common sense, not a logical fallacy."
No, that's just what you think, but I've already proved you wrong (twice) so stop restating the same wrong things over and over as though you'll suddenly be right. You cannot speak to the worth of a study based on the funder. That is the same logical fallacy you've already committed, and denying it changes nothing.
"I got my BS in mathematics, so I know quite a bit about logic and reason."
No, you don't. You can claim to, but you continue to deny in the face of overwhelming evidence that you are committing a fallacy. Who cares what your BS is in, because THAT'S THE FALLACY OF ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY!
Sometimes, you people make it too easy.
You got outsmarted, and you got educated. Instead of fighting the fact that you were wrong (as I've demonstrated for you to read in the handy definition of the fallacy you originally used) perhaps you could examine why you feel the need to make things up to try to win arguments on a web board.
Seriously, what's so pathetic and meaningless about your life that such behavior is desirable?
Why do you try so hard to be wrong?
(this is here you'll repost your arguments agian, with no new insight, because you won't ever admit you may have had the wrong side of something. That's fine, we both know the truth, and if you're ok with making things up and behaving like a child by continuously repeating disproven arguments, so be it. But you'll continue to look like an idiot. Just some advice)
Ok eat up.
According to netcraft:
Netcraft is an Internet services company based in Bath, England which is funded through retained profit and derives its revenue in the following ways:
* Providing network security services, including fraud detection, application testing, code reviews, and automated penetration testing.
* Providing research data and analysis on many aspects of the Internet. Netcraft has explored the Internet since 1995 and is a respected authority on the market share of web servers, operating systems, hosting providers, ISPs, encrypted transactions, electronic commerce, scripting languages and content technologies on the Internet.
From the All knowing Wikipedia on Jack Thompson: Thompson frequently refers to medical studies that he claims scientifically prove that there is a link between violent media and aggressive behavior. Although he has used several variations of this argument, a statement on his website is typical of the approach taken:
"Recent medical brain scan studies at Harvard and Indiana University prove ... children's brain functions are damaged by a steady diet of violent images and messages."
The Indiana University study makes no mention of children's brain functions being "damaged" by exposure to violent media. It is mentioned that "there is a difference in the brain activation patterns of youths with Disruptive Behaviour Disorder and those without when exposed to a specific stimulus," but it is not explicitly claimed that there is a correlation between exposure to violent media and brain activity. (The study was funded by "Center for Successful Parenting", a lobby group campaigning against media violence.)
OK, You got me on SCO, nobody but Darl believes they do any real research.
This is not that hard to grasp, I owe you no rationalization. You requested it. Specifically you asked why I and others hold this opinion about MS Funded studies. You know the answer but want to prove an unprovable point. Funding is not an issue. Bullocks my friend, Bullocks. You must ALWAYS consider the source. Not only must consider who did the research (and in this case it appears to be done by a respectable team), but also Who defined the Scope, The Setup, The Methodology. If you craft a question in order to achieve a known good result just to publish the known good result, those results should be discounted. I've said it before in this thread (I notice you did not quote that part) Reputation is a factor in reading research. The rep of the Research Team, of the commisioner, even of the publication publishing the results.
If MUFON published a study saying that 1 in 3 americans have been abducted and they showed the pretty graph of all the people they interviewed, complete with spreadsheets and the math added up, You would consider it credible evidence? No Of course not, not unless it was verifiable, and representative of the population. But you don't have to Verify the statement you can dismiss it almost out of hand (After Reading it). You seem to think we all woke up one morning distrusting Microsoft. Not true. It takes many a wipe & Reinstall/ Server Crash/SEcurityBreach/Broken Uppgrade/Spyware Removals/OverPriced Licenses/BSODs to develop this distrust.
You can rationalize your flawed thinking all you want. It's still flawed, and you're still rationalizing.
Maybe you are just young yet in "IT" years. Of course there is a possibility that you are just rationalizing your decision to pay vast amounts of cash over and above the cost of the hardware before it will function.
OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
Well, let's see, I posted my definiton of the fallacy I was applying,
Yes, you did.
which applies perfectly.
No, it doesn't.
For that fallacy to be relevant, what would have to happen would be for somebody to say that since he has been associated with Microsoft then *nothing* he has to say can be true or of any value.
That is indeed a fallacy of the type you're trying to claim is relevant.
That isn't what is happening.
What is happening is that people are saying that since this person was paid to do this study by Microsoft who has paid for bogus, misleading studies many times in the past, that it makes sense to keep that in mind.
That is what is happening, and it is known as basic common sense.
"It's only required if you are completely devoid of ethics, and expect that everyone else is as well."
and ad hominem. It's NOT an ad hominem, and the fact that you don;t know that calls the rest of your post into question.
In fact it is an Ad Hominem. You are attacking me, saying I must be devoid of integrity to think what it is that you are trying to claim I am saying which I quite obviously am not.
You are attacking me, even though you try to make it look like you are attacking my argument. You didn't understand my point, or didn't like it or whatever so obviously I'm lacking in integrity. Therefore, you'll make up some nonsense and claim I said it.
Arguably, strawman would be a better description, but you're being deceptive on several levels, so it's hard to actually nail down exactly which specific fallacies you're using at any given moment. Perhaps, your understanding of logic is so fundamentally flawed that you're just spouting nonsense. Anyway, trying to put a name on what's wrong with your rant is pretty worthless at this point.
Studies, which are often paid for by specific companies, ar ealso just as often reqired to be INDEPENDENT.
Which is totally irrelevant to the point that he was paid by Microsoft to do this *JOB* for them.
You're also, again, ignoring the main point which is that Microsoft has a long history of paying for "independent" studies and the studies showing up totally slanted.
Again, this *fact* doesn't mean that there is no truth whatsoever in this study (that would be the fallacy you keep trying unsuccessfully to cram in here) but it does mean that it needs to be looked at very hard before accepting anything in it. Again, this is basic common sense.
Oh here, you demonstrate your inability to read the definition again:
"I am not assuming anything. Microsoft has demonstrated repeatedly their total lack of ethics. He accepted a *job* with an extremely dishonest company.
That fact alone puts his ethics very clearly in question."
Yay, you restated EXACTLY the same fallacy I started out denouncing. You know this one
You are so fucking wrong it's silly at this point.
If I said that he could never again be believed on a single thing then I would have made that fallacy.
He chose to take money from a known criminal, extremely corrupt and dishonest company.
That does call his morals into question. How does it not?!?
If it's a fallacy, then it would be trivial to show how it does not, but you can't.
Look at what I said above about how a fallacious interpretation could be made.
Since he blagh blagh, he can no longer be believed under any circumstances. He says the sky is blue. Does that mean the sky is not blue? Of course not, because *that* is the fallacy you keep trying to use where it in no way is relevant.
Examples:
"Tobacco company representatives are wrong when they say smoking doesn't seriously affect your health, because they're just defending their own multi-million-dollar financial interests."
"He's physically addicted to nicotine. Of course he defends smoking!
So, you're saying that if you get some 3rd party app from Linux out on freshmeat, you don't need to get the patch from the OEM/author/software publishing house?
(Ahem - again, b.s.!)
Who are you all trying to fool here? I write this stuff for a living, & have also for years on the shareware/freeware circuits (since 1994 or so)...
I actually know how it works, ok?
APK
Ofcourse not..
The point is, that your far less likely to need to install such a third party app with a modern linux distribution than you are for windows... A modern linux distro is a far more complete package than windows and already includes everything most people/companies would need.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
"The point is, that your far less likely to need to install such a third party app with a modern linux distribution than you are for windows" - by Bert64 (520050) on Monday November 28, @09:39AM
LOL, b.s., period! Apps are apps, & coders make mistakes, on ANY platform... especially regarding security & buffer overflows (especially if they code in C/C++) & that's a KNOWN fact.
(What are most of the apps on Linux written in, no less? C/C++ as to the majority, & the OS itself is largely written in those as well!)
Come on - who are you trying to fool here? I've only been writing code for the last 23 years now, & have seen enough application design & lifecycles to know what happens - the voice of actual experience, in both corporate environs AND in the freeware/shareware world (since DOS & now in Win32 + everything in between as far as MS OS')
Give me a break, enough "F.U.D." crap already "Pro-Linux Penguins"... you're not fooling ANYONE here with that malarkey!
APK
P.S.=> Software's software boys on ANY platform! It usually turns up holes or needs to be modded for added functionality & that comes usually from user demands on a particular piece of software provided the author still develops it that is... & they usually do & take requests... I know I do, both for a living/job & also in the freeware/shareware realm... fact is, this is a fact of software lifecycle & design - modding for security, function, or just aesthetics/useability... apk
You completely miss the point..
On any commercially supported platform the apps that come from the original vendor will be supported by that vendor, this goes for windows, redhat, solaris, suse etc..
The point is that with linux you can stick to the supported apps with the distribution and have a fully functional system, if there are security holes they will be patched by the vendor and you`l be able to obtain your patches from a centralised source for all of your applications, usually just running a single update tool.
Sure, you could go and get exotic apps from freshmeat and install them yourself, but most users would never need to do this, a modern linux distribution will cover a wide range of potential uses..
In contrast microsoft will only supply patches for the core windows os through their windows update system, they have a seperate office update system for their office apps, and furthur seperate update procedures for their other apps.
Aside from this, the primary point is that windows does not ship with a complete set of software for any other than the most basic of users..
A windows user will typically need to install additional apps which won`t be supported by windows update and will need updating seperately and in inconsistent ways, even if only using microsoft applications.
A linux user will typically be able to do all his work using the apps supplied by the distribution and will be able to update them all at once using a single tool.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
"You completely miss the point.." - by Bert64 (520050) on Tuesday November 29, @05:51AM
Yea, sure... and you'll be using Linux more than Windows NT-based OS out there in the real working world, right?
Newsflash - wakeup, realize Windows IS where you will be most employeable, & it's wisest to sharpen your skillsets with its tools, apps, & toolsets for development.
Until you can show me that Linux is more widely used (both in combination with desktops (laptops/desktops), servers, & with apps offered by MS) than Windows?
Well, I guess that's up to you, guess you are above mundane things like having to make money... because, Linux' surface area out there in the REAL WORKING WORLD (i.e.-> where you get PAID) is so far below Windows, it's unreal.
(And, as far as what's on the Linux distro CD's etc.? I can find the SAME or better calibre of apps out on the freeware circuits for Win32, with ease)
APK
P.S.=> Another FUNNY thing about what you said? Heh, try to run as many types of hardwares as you can with Windows using Linux (from the drivers provided on your precious distro CD images/iso's etc.) & we'll talk... Linux is just WAY behind on that front as well, because there's no monetary incentive for companies to produce drivers for Linux... & you NEED that to power development teams... money! apk