Slashdot Mirror
Open Source is 'Not Reliable or Dependable'
Exter-C writes "News.com is reporting that Jonathan Murray, the vice president and chief technology officer of Microsoft Europe has made claims that 'some people want to use community-based software, and they get value out of sharing with other people in the community. Other people want the reliability and the dependability that comes from a commercial software model.'"
It is reliable
Microsoft is one to make claims of reliability and dependability.
Of course people want dependable, that's why they're looking for something not laden with spyware, viruses, etc.
Sorry, MS.
Says the Goose.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Could we simply auto-tag all stories containing "Jonathan Murray said" as "fud"? It would save a lot of work and I doubt we'll get too many false positives.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
how did slashdot editors managed to understand "ther people want the reliability and the dependability that comes from a commercial software model.'"" to "OpenSource is unreliable".
Hey, sometimes Open Source does it right, someties people preffer other ways. If THERE ARE companies that sell CLOSED software and services and their services al GREAT, yes this is FUD, but this time it is the editors the ones that are throwing it.
BURN KARMA BUUUUURN!!
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
And really now, what did you expect him to say? Our model sucks, and please, let me now genuflect in the hotbed of OSS dev?
It's like asking Steve Ballmer to take estrogen.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
LMAO
What more can you do in the face of such irony?
I would have replied to this sooner, but Windows keeps crashing.
Pot Kettle Black!
Reliable as in holding critical updates for weeks on end and not fessing up to your customers as to just exactly what it is you are patching. The only thing Microsoft does reliably is piss people off and dissapoint. The only thing more reliable is the rate that windows born viruses are spawned.
"If God can do it for 10% why can't the US Government?"
Cue the Linux Zellots flame war...
I don't think it's any more reliable or dependable than any other development paradigm. The difference is that instead of paying somebody for unreliable and undependable software, I can get it for free from open source. Firefox crashes more often, on every environment on which I run it (4 different OS's) than any other application I have. The difference is, I didn't have to pay for it.
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
I bet to differ Microsoft. Why would I use SourceSafe, which is slow (checking out takes a very long time), unreliable (corrupts itself regularly) and costs money when I can use CVS which is fast, reliable and is free?
Summation 2
"Hello Kettle.... you're black."
MS claims that F/OSS sucks. Where's the news? Why does everything those fuckheads say have to make it to news sites? It's just the same as mainstream media and politicians - those morons don't have anything to say that's worth listening to, yet they're taking up to 90% of daily news.
...I mean, why are they so freaked out by Google? Since their entire infrastructure is based around software that isn't reliable or dependable, they can't possibly grow to any size.
~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
"Cars are not reliable or dependable"
.... How could this article be defined as anything but FUD? Stereotyping an entire class of software as 'unreliable' is just dumb. Go FUD, go!! Let's keep trying to fool the fools, that'll keep them buying our stuff for longer.
"Airplanes tend to crash into buildings"
"Musicians do drugs"
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Microsoft Executive will try to talk you into buying commercial software! GASP!
Well... actually, he said "commercial", so perhaps he's suggesting Mac OSX:) Perhaps he can clarify if he's trolling for his own company's software or if he means all commercial software. In which case he's not a marketing troll, but an idiot using a blanket statement who clearly doesn't care about the issue as he should be aware that Microsoft has used Open Source components in it's own OS - (TCP/IP stack?) - whereas they could have used a "superior" commercial solution.
That's "neither reliable nor dependable"
/. posts.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled
surprised I am that a Microsoft Europe exec would flame Linux. not.
Right now, Microsoft is having to deal with possible lawsuits over tax implications of relocating patents and trademarks in Ireland to avoid taxes on US holdings, and being required to play fair with Open Source in Europe.
However, he's right about Open Source not being reliable - we accidently rebooted one of our Linux servers yesterday when trying to install some UPSMON software. So, it was only up and running for 80 days.
Now that is unreliable.
Meanwhile, I shut down my WinXP box, the only one in the lab, every day, as it gets unstable if I leave it on too long. OK, plus I save power. Every few days some software on it wants me to reboot the WinXP machine, so I might as well.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
The guy says nothing about open source, he talks about relying on community support or going with commercial support. What's the point of posting this article other than a million angry responses from people who just read the title?
Game dev and music blog
Why is this tagged "Linux"? Shouldn't it be tagged "IT"?
I mean, the people who use Apache clearly use it because they don't want the reliability and the dependability that comes from a commercial software model.
Seriously, why is stuff like this even news anymore?
OMG!!! I never would expect Microsoft to say such a thing!
Error 2101: all your sig are belong to us
...so he certainly knows about things that are not reliable or dependable.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
First Microsoft flirts with Open Source saying it's 'maturing and more commercial,' and now they say it is not 'reliable or dependable.'
I think they are just badmouthing them because Open Source won't let Microsoft go all the way on the first date.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
I guess he hasn't check the virus alert level and adware totals for this year for the "closed" software solutions such as *cough* *cough* software made in Washington State.
That's the title of the article at news.com.com.com.com. Perhaps you can address your question to the editors there.
It is always a wonderful thing to read comedy for free on the Web.
Not that all proprietary software is bad nor is all FOSS software good. A blanket statement is just plain foolish. Or self serving, as in this instance.
Hearing this out of MS reminds me of the quote: "We're seeing crazy uptime numbers now, like three months, six months. I fully expect we'll see a year of uptime when Windows Server 2003 is finished," said Jeff Stucky*. So uptimes, for MS's latest and greatest, that are far short of what *nix administrators experience, are a demonstration of MS's commercial stability? Does the other side of the pond experience MS in a different way?
That said, there are plenty of 3rd party applications that run well and are commercial. It's just Windows itself that doesn't run well. Some development groups are more focused on quality than others on both sides of the fence. I run a large number of commercial applications on Windows that run very well. I couldn't ask for more reliability or dependability. I could of Windows and that is the point.
*http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/04/25/ballmer _ushers_in_windows/
But our windows based server went down in flames crippling the office for two days. Fixed everything with Knoppix.
Thank god for reliable, dependable commercial software!
So to make an analogy, I should prefer buildings that are built that allow no inspections while being built or even after construction is completed, to buildings that are free to be inspected. Which would you trust to live in?
Letter To Iran
Because, after all, what is "reliable" or "dependable"? By whose standards?
I just loaded FC5 on a machine cleanly. I then had it do a yum update. Once completed, firefox was unable to start as a regular user. (Root could start it.) Turns out that somehow the ${HOME}/.mozilla directory was chown root.root for some reason. I changed it and all was well again.
So yeah, it's "imperfect."
But GOOD-FREAKING-GOD! This is Microsoft claiming this? As if they set the standard for reliability and dependability? All this while their EULA states that their software is not guaranteed to be suitable for any purpose at all. That just OOZES customer-service, reliability and dependability.
Ridiculous...
That includes MS, RedHat, and OpenBSD.
need I say any more? ;)
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
You have to read the marketing subtext. "reliability" doesn't mean the software is reliable -- at least not in the sense that it consitently behaves the way you'd like it to. It means that it is less risky for you, personally.
It's the difference between having your Linux based mail servers slammed with malware and having your exchange servers slammed with malware. In the first case you made a individual decision, so you're repsonsible. In the second case you made the same decision as practically everyone else, so practically everyone else is responsible.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
It would be rather a strange thing for a company totally dependent on the sales of proprietary closed source software to go out and talk up how wonderful open source is. It would be similarly looney to expect say, RMS, to talk about the advantages of closed source software. News for Nerds: Stuff that's obvious.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
I've administered windows servers, i've administered LINUX (almost always slackware) servers 1. More than a few times i've lost data on windows servers because of a lack of a journaling FS. 2. the NT4 servers tended to crash at least once a week while the LINUX ones have been up for months. so simply from personal experience i've chosen the one I find "reliable" strangely enough It also happens to be cheaper... another claim microsoft disputes.
Way back in the day... of Windows 95/98/Me, when you had to reboot your box at least once a day/week, when it would lockup for no reason...remember back then when Windows was an unreliable and undependable POS (note to MS apologists : yes, I know Windows doesn't crash that much nowadays etc., but do remember those ancient times when it did).
You know why that was? That's right. It's because Windows was open source back then. It had to be. Because there's NO WAY it could be otherwise if they used a "commercial software model".
gcc always comes to mind. its free, its opensource and SO much of the world depends on it!
unreliable? works as well (if not better) than many commercial compilers.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
When someone stops supporting an Open Source product, it's still available to be updated by the community. When Microsoft decides that it's time for you to buy the latest version of their OS, you have NO FUCKING CHOICE. That's not dependability.
Obviously Jonathan Murray has never used Windows, especially if he thinks is reliable or dependable.
...say anything about support, he talks about "community-based software" (not "community support") versus the "commercial software model" (not "commercial support"). Now, its quite possible he is trying to conflate things and leverage the very real benefits to many companies of purchasing commercial support (which you can get for many open source software packages) and portray it as a benefit of the software development model, as part of Microsoft's ongoing effort to spread FUD about OSS that competes with Microsoft products.
Yes, the basic gist of what he said is enough to send coffee and coke up millions of readers noses worldwide... but look carefully at that statement. There's some more subtle twisting there, that might just slip by under your radar, especially if you're busy trying to breathe or looking for something to clean up the keyboard.
He contrasts free software, not with *proprietary* software, but with *commercial* software. This is also completely off the mark - most free software *is* commercial after all. What Microsoft is desperately trying to cling to against the march of progress here is not *commerce* - which is not in any danger - but against *proprietarism* - a very different beast.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
This is why only commercial software like windows Vista will ship on time, on schedule, and on budget. With no bug and all the feature one could dream of.
Ok I am going to stop now. While one could argue this when only looking at a model it certainly dose not hold up better then the commercial model, at lest the one Microsoft uses.
While it is true that you do not have some one to bitch to when something goes wrong with the system is that any better then having a company ignore you complaints, or just listen and say it is ok we will fix it is a service pack? If you think Microsoft is accountable to you please by all means share what ever you are smoking because it has to be some good stuff.
Because after reading the EULA for Windows XP, I would say that Microsoft software is reliable or dependable either.
Vista is reliable and consistent. You can rely on MS shipping it late...with bugs....oh and pushing back the date...reliably. And you can certainly rely on MS support to tell you if you have issues from an upgrade or otherwise to reformat and reinstall. You can rely on MS Office crashing on you and you can always rely on Viruses and Spyware making it on your copy of windows....so yea Windows is super reliable. And hey it's guaranteed.
Now to get your average joe to read slashdot and they will know the truth of the matter. We just need a site that tells the real deal in the Techworld. Not the ones who do fluff pieces.
..that ALL of these comments come from Microsoft employees only.
Interesting that the rest of the computing world doesn't agree with them.
And by 'computing world' I don't mean mere slashdotters.
"Just Smile and Nod." --Huck
if he was using my wife's "Mobile Winblows" based vx6700 phone. POS is slow, the phone portion freezes up at the most inopportune times, it doesn't work (and the word work is a stretch) with anything but windows programs and did I mention it was a sluggish bloated pig ? Is that the type of corporate software he is referring to?
Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
Apple, yes, is a good example. Microsoft, no, is a bad example. Open source really isn't as great as its hyped up, though. Its something in between Apple and Microsoft i'd say :)
then I guess we have something in common.
From Zero to Hero... Starbuck Zero
That's why Microsoft just released an open source website called CodePlex.
Random Musings
Your post reminded me of a conversation I had with a client a week ago. I had just helped him get a project set up on a series of 7 Windows servers (I will avoid delving into the details of licensing complexity, remote access, et al). IMHO, the infrastructure was needlessly complex and certainly more expensive than necessary-- and this was due primarily to going "the Microsoft way".
I am used to BSD systems (Open, Free) and some Linux, and my client is almost exclusively Mac. I host a few other web sites for him, some e-commerce backends, massive email infrastructure (Cyrus), and encrypted remote backups (rsync+SSL+gdbe). We have never had an unplanned outage in 10 years (ok, one extended power outage before we were in a large hosting facility).
Well, two weeks later the Windows system "broke". Nobody could log in, lots of MS-SQL errors, etc. The part time Windows admin that coded much of the system was able to get it back up and running again in a few hours.
My client said to me, "I don't get it-- I'm used to stuff just working."
The company I work at has been struggling with VOIP for years now. They tried a Bell solution but it was far too expensive. They bought a huge 3COM solution but could never get it working correctly. Now they're jumping through hoops trying to get Cisco to work but it's taking about 1000% as long as they planned. When I mentioned Asterix to the head of IS, she said it wasn't even an option because "no company can be held accountable for failure".
Saying that commercial software is better than open source is BS. Which would you prefer - Foobar2000 audio player with a zillion features and a super clean interface, or Windows Media Player which displays ads every time you run it and tries to phone home behind the scenes?
Home PC users will generally try free software first, and if it doesn't meet their needs they'll shrug it off and try somethign else. Companies seem to be afraid of open source, though, because they need a hotline to call and a target at which to point their finger if something goes wrong.
troll
Is this their PR for the constant Vista delays?
Why focus on the bad you create, when you can attempt to spread FUD about others who benefit from your own recent and big Vista mistakes.
Proprietary software is rigid, and doesn't lend itself easily to odd (mis?)uses and configurations. Microsoft is lazy and unresponsive to the market, by their own inaction allowing self-serve and share alike open source to successfully compete with them them in their own markets with only a tiny fraction of the funding. If Microsoft listened and responded to customer demands instead of pissing them off at every chance, and locking down their products to reduce their usefulness, they'd have nothing to worry about.
Well, in firefox's case that would probably mean forking it since the development team has a chronic case of featuritis
I can't list the number of times that a project I was using just dropped off the face of the earth because the lead developer decided he didn't feel like doing it anymore. Usually they say stuff like "I had increasing real world obligations".
That's all fine and dandy, but now everyone that used that program is fucked.
Not everybody is a developer. Not everybody can just pick up where some guy failed to follow through. "Reliabe or Dependable" would mean not being expected to become a programmer just because the application's developer decided he'd rather spend more time with his Xbox 360.
I'm completely down on open source lately.
It is reliable. You can rely on it to propogate viruses, spyware and carry holes that create DDoS across the globe due to it being reliably easy to setup and then not patch. After all, its many iterations are more hole-ridden than any other OS.
It is reliably the most ubiquitous OS out there. You can reliably buy software for it that will do just about anything you want to do with a computer. Then again, you'll pay for it as it has created a market wherein both the maker (microsoft) and third party developers profit, hugely, from license instead of open source software freely available.
It is dependable too. You can depend on anything the windows OS doesn't do, but is done elsewhere, to eventually be available as microsoft will innovate by assimulation. It will dependably keep using ideas developed by the open source community, and then it will dependably keep making money from licenses funding the whole endeavor.
Microsoft will then reliably and dependably not share as is done in the open source community. Afterall, it is closed-source (AKA, commericial).
When I was a kid, I had a ti99/4a and we shared the code, bought magazines with code in it, and computers were fun. There was a community. Then came Bill Gates and then came Windows....
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
Imagine an open business of "godfather" being named like "olives of ", but "Cosa Nostra". This never happened, did it?
Even the existence of darkmarket and theftservices is a joke and slap in the face of the common sense. Catch the person who registered those website and execute him publicly in front of Googleland.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
...some people like Russian Roulette.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
Realise that he gets a nice pay check to say this sort of thing.
He may have to stomp on his consceince every so often, but I bet it pays well.
needs to be sued into oblivion. That's it, I'm completely done with those assholes. Any web pages I put up from now on gets an automatic redirect to a page that ranks them severely if they show up running IE. I'll say don't need business from people who obviously support an illegal criminal gang based capitalist PIG business. Microsoft=cyber terrorists and extortionists. They have corrupted the laws,co-opted just a plethora of other businesses, destroyed everything they can get their pig hooves on if they can't squeeze a penny out of it, push products with no warranty, are crap code, and rip people off to create PIG millionaires and billionaires. I have MORE respect for Mafia dons, at least they don't try to weasel out of what they do or what they are.
You can be in business without being a PIG. The internet is constantly FUCKED because of their pigshit products. I am TIRED of my tax money going to those PIGS and even more money going to "industry" that keeps having to have higher prices on most everything because of those PIGS.
Can someone please explain me the difference between "reliable" and "dependable"? It's a honest question, as I'm not a native English speaker.
I already looked in the dictionaries included with Tiger. They appear as synonyms in the thesaurus and dependable is defined as "trustworthy and reliable". (And furthermore trustworthy is defined as "able to be relied on as honest and truthful"!)
Like the highly reliable and dependable Vista schedule.
When I bought this company it was a strictly Windows shop. I would have to do some form of repair to a server atleast once a week. After switching to Linux I do my security updates and that's pretty much it. 3 years of trouble free operations vs. less than 1 week. I think my track record is going against that.
I won't even get into logging issues that leave ALOT to be desired in the MS camp. Not that MS software doesn't have it's uses, I just find it funny that they can say something like this when all the data points otherwise.
I seem to recall them saying the same thing about NT. Something to the effect of "1 Windows NT server can replace up to 10 Novell servers". That's when many Novell administrators walked out of the conference. But then the people that "know" what's going on aren't the ones making the purchasing decisions in too many cases which is why we have the problems we do today.
Many of the Open Source projects are extremely robust and reliable. Samba, Apache, PostgreSQL, MySQL, Postfix... all examples of very high quality software, at least as good as most commercial software, if not better. The basic system utilities are often overlooked when thinking about open source reliability, but packages like vim and bash and perl are all extremely powerful and incredibly robust. Most stuff that's actually gotten to the point of being a defacto part of Unix is so reliable that you could literally bet your life on it. (Well, you could bet your life on Windows too, but you'd probably lose rather more often than you'd like: once.)
That said, however, there are a number of packages that are less robust. PHP has been a mass of security bugs forever. Ethereal is constantly in the news for similar reasons. The Linux kernel has been much less reliable in the 2.6 series. (which really sucks, because no matter how good your other utilities are, if the kernel's not up, they don't run.) Those are just a few examples, ones that I've personally had to deal with... I'm sure there are many, many others.
Being open source tends to make products better, but it's no panacea. Good testing is important. A bad development process will result in poor products, even if the individual code pieces are brilliant. Over time, the groups that pay attention to process and focus on quality will stand out. That's how, I believe, Apache took over the world.
Reliability isn't a fundamental quality of either open OR closed source. It's a combination of factors: the skill of the coders and the quality of the development/testing process are probably the two main ones. This fellow is trying to paint the open software coders as amateurs -- which they often are -- and implies that only software you pay for can be reliable. Both types CAN BE reliable or unreliable. But open code is a strong advantage, to the point that the less-disciplined free software teams can often do a better job than the highly-structured closed-source ones.
That said, many open source projects aren't run very well, and it's hard to tell whether software is stable based purely on IRC chats and web forums. Fortunately, there's a nice answer to that: the distros. This is where organizations like RedHat and SUSE shine. They try to cut through the BS, find the stuff that really works, and ship that. Whether or not they succeed in that endeavor is up to the market to decide. Is it willing to pay them for their time and expertise in assembling their distros?
By and large, they seem to be doing pretty well. All revenue these companies earn is entirely voluntary on the part of the customer, since their products are free software. The fact that so many people do pay is a strong sign that they're doing a good job.
Oh please. Jonathan, that FUD is so 1990's. It's been long disproved. Can't you come up with a new lie?
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Perhaps the Editors could simply have a script post an article every week along these lines:
"Execudroids from Microsoft Corporation have again used public occasions and/or media interviews to spread Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD) about Open Office, Linux, open document formats, and/or open source software. If you are shocked, surprised, or alarmed by this, you really need to get out more."
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
If being commercial is the arbiter of quality, Novell & Red Hat (Enterprise)are as commercial as any. They do have community versions , but you don't have to use those, pay for the Enterprise editions and you are automagically using 'commercial, aka, better software.
greg
Sure, unreliable. Right.
That's why I can have a server at my house running NFS, Apache, Samba, CUPS, NTP, IMAP, postfix and other services for about a year without a need for a reboot/restart. And I have no formal computer training.
commercial software came the "Five Phases of Project." This old office saw came about because of the need to have a scapegoat in case of problems. The Five Phases of a Project are: 1. Enthusiasm; 2. Panic; 3. Search for the Guilty; 4. Punishment of the Innocent; 5. Praise and honor of the non-participants. This is in-line with the American program to (re-)conquer the economic world (again), this time through the constant application of stupid, employee abusing business practices to clearly soluble problems. But I'm not bitter. Right.
Like the inimitable Groucho Marx, I would never join a club that would have me as a member.
There is this special biologist word for "stable".
It is "dead".
There is no question that open source software itself can be at least as reliable as closed source software (Firefox, Apache, Linux, MySQL etc.)
However, the development process and delivery process is nowhere near as reliable or dependable. While closed source software certainly slips ship dates with alarming regularlity the only real metric most open source software can give for a release is "when it's done". If you have customers waiting, this is frequently not acceptable.
So - MS's claim on the software itself is obviously false. On the development process, it's probably fairly true.
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
I would have replied sooner but I had to recompile my kernal.
Excuse me ... i got these 6 webheads ... running only on open source software and all six of them showing the following uptime (and yes, they are under constant load, and i should introduce two more webheads *grin* but well, servers aint cheap and management rarely likes to spend money on new hardware)
www1:~# uptime
19:06:49 up 350 days, 16:07, 5 users, load average: 3.00, 3.00, 3.00
Also the loadbalancer, the mail and database servers, all running on open source software with similar uptimes. But we also have these two Exchange servers running which wont stay online for more than one month since there are constantly new hotfixes to be installed, the machines to be rebooted and we can be lucky if all our management remembers to "archive" their outlook emails every few weeks, otherwise they are in trouble (since outlook wont work anymore) and that means i am in trouble pretty much regulary just because of crappy M$ software.
I usually spend about 35 hours a week managing problems with M$ bases services and just about 5 hours on doing some updates on the open source driven services.
So who is more reliable? Ask Google and Akamai.
What's even more interesting is that most of us in the know choose FOSS because it is more dependable.
ROFLMAO!!11!!!111binary7!!
When's the last time you used Open Office??
Sourceforge Vault is the best I've used. Good for remote development - uses web services for client connection. All of the features of the standard source code stores and free for a single user. Also does incremental updates to code changes for quick response.
I had a much longer comment but I have to go reboot all the windows servers here.
"Other people want the reliability and the dependability that comes from a commercial software model."
Why did Symantec and IBM Technical Support Services spring to mind?
Let's review:
1) collaborative third party development and evolution is impossible with closed source, except by a proprietary gatekeeper of some type
2) visible source is easier to fix than invisible source
3) it's impossible to judge application quality and security without seeing source; otherwise it's hearsay
4) open source survives the ills of its progenitors
5) it's still ok to charge for software, even open source, IMHO
6) trade secrets can be encumbered by closed source, and so can lots of copyrights and patents not owned or licensed by its developers
7) you don't learn by reading closed source code (an oxymoron), however, you can learn by reading open source code
8) closed source doesn't actually suck, but it can be used to hide, obfuscate, cajole, and frustrate both developers and users
OS/2 was a technical success and market failure, and took eons to get bug fixes finished. The same can be said for BeOs. Simply building a better mouse trap and thinking that people will flock to you is one of those sweet lies that duped engineers believe. It's simply not so.
And now Apple probably sucks because their microkernel and some of their codebase is now closed. For that, we'll all suffer.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Microsoft: You're Black.
Kettle: What the fuck, dude?
When I mentioned Asterix to the head of IS, she said it wasn't even an option because "no company can be held accountable for failure".
Than ask who thus far has been held accountable and what it got them? It seems you are still without a viable VoIP solution.
When we built a new building we installed a PBX with VoIP abilities. The only VoIP it used by the time I left was VoiceMail and connecting remote locations to the local phone system via Frame Relay. VoIP was just to unstable for our offices.
I use VoIP at home now though and it's been fine. Then again, our VoIP services are provided by our ISP and therefore our calls arn't being squeezed by them.
I signed up just to comment on this newspost. From my experience anything that microsoft makes, someone has made better and usually free. Their outcries on Open Source software are trying to get the sheep to follow without question. While it has been proven O.S. programs are a community effort to keep forward driven, constantly improving. Keeping people marked and dependant, Conforming to microsoft's ideals, prejudice against oposing companies... You know there was another group of hatemongers that used this same method... and they were called NAZI's!!!
UNIX machines, including 32 and 64 bit versions of Linux go down infrequently enough that I investigate personally when it happens. We've had two hardware-related cases of UNIX machines becoming unresponsive to telnet and ssh requests in the past 6 months or so.
Reliability. Hah. Like how Outlook likes to remind me 7 hours after a meeting that I'm 7 hours late for the meeting. It couldn't be bothered to let me know before the meeting, mind you. That would be too convenient.
Microsoft has no clue what reliablity means. Some marketroid in Microsoft shouldn't be shooting his mouth off about how reliable their software is, when he's obviously never used reliable software. I'd like to address the following personally to the pencil pusher Jonathan Murray: "Shut the fuck up and go back to trying to convince companies to drink your company's poison kool aid. I dream of the day when your products are so marginalized that I never have to use them ever again."
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Yeah, this is total open source FUD, but it's not as much nonsense as slashdotters make it out to be.
The big difference between Open Source and proprietary software is accountability. If you have a problem, who do you turn to? A vendor who you paid a lot of money to for support, or a mailing list that may or may not get back to you? Most businesses won't accept that kind of uncertainty.
Now, this is not as important for a lot of small/home businesses without an IT department. But once you get into the "medium" size businesses, fuzzy support options are unacceptable, and your IT management has two choices: Hire a bunch of expert Linux gurus to set up a great FOSS environment, or hire a bunch of MCSE monkeys at half the cost and spend the rest on software and support.
You know the software company is gonna be there in 5 years, and have documented knowledge of your environment, where your IT guru sysadmins may have moved on to other jobs. The training is standardized, so you can expect anyone you hire with an MCSE to be moderately familiar with the environment. It's probably ultimately easier on IT management to go the proprietary software route, because if there is an emergency, there is always a company who can be held directly accountable.
There is no cut and dry rule for whether or not you should use Open Source. But if your IT operations are not part of your core business, it may ultimately be easier to just pay for support. The reliability of Open Source largely depends on the skill of your administrators, and good admins cost more money than MCSEs and can be hard to replace because sysadmin skillsets vary widely.
In other news: The Devil claims God ain't such a great guy after all.
or else!
I don't use free/libre software, and have similar stability. (Yep, I've got a Mac.)
Interesting. What OS are you running on it?
--MarkusQ
The irony of a "users want reliability" comment coming out of Microsoft is melting my brain.
So if they are guaranteeing reliability and dependability, can we sue Microsoft?
You said:
When I mentioned Asterix to the head of IS, she said it wasn't even an option because "no company can be held accountable for failure".
Uhhh... how about Digium?
http://www.glasswings.com/
You can't blame the user. Apple, Sun and Linux don't have Windoze problems. In the Apple case, the user is less expected to fiddle and may know less about their computer than any other kind of user. Viruses and worms for any system other than Windoze never last long outside a lab. It's not the user's fault that Windows botnets form the backbone of every computer crime network, it's Microsoft's.
Oh yeah, I put much less time and effort into my computers running Linux than I ever did when they ran Windoze. I don't need a firewall for anything more than sharing my cable connection. I don't need to fool with installation and upkeep three or four vendors worth of programs I don't need. With the time it took to work two Windoze computers, I can easily take care of nine gnu/linux boxes. They work faster and better and require much less upkeep. I've never had a virus or lost a file to a system failure. Even hardware failures have been graceful.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Next time I'll see an article about linux dependability/reliability I'll tag it as FUD.
Dependability and reliability are counted on the basis of what you need and excuse me guys but MS has products that are much more dependable and reliable than the open source equivalents.
I would be very reluctant to promote the majority of the open source products as dependable/reliable in a real world situation (Where people have to use computers in order to perform some work) if I cannot have the management. E.g. that I would hardly recommend mySql when I can go with SQL Server Express because I get the functionality I want with the same cost and my job is MUCH easier. (This example in fact applies to many situations)
On the other side, I am an SVN advocate, because VSS is crap, svn has all the features I want, it's stable and the company can depend on it (partly because I am maintaining the installation).
I think that it would be better for both sides to stop FUDing and consume that energy to something more productive.
i know this isn't that constructive and probably just trolling, but "reliable" and "dependable" are the last words i'd use to describe commercially driven software. it's been said a million times before but commerical software is about business, it's about being able to sell people something, regardless of how good it is. OSS is about making good, useful software. sure there are lots of projects which end up languishing and dying, but that's also true (more so probably because of the closed source) in the commerical software world.
"if i'd known it was harmless, i'd have killed it myself"
Training does go a long way, but Microsoft and the windows software vendors share a huge portion of the blame for the problems which plague the average user. When 60% of Windows applications fail to work with at least some administrative privileges, how can one operate any version of windows in a safe manner?
I think it's more a case of the pot calling the (chrome) toaster black.
That's gnuflect.
No, really, this just shows that M$ has not changed. You can't trust anything they say and they will say anything to market their inferior junk.
What I expect from an honest company is an honest effort. Name calling and lying do nothing for their product. Microsoft is simply and wholly dishonest.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I double dog dare you to find it. They've been leaning in this direction for a while.
Judging by most projects out there, and I'll take gaim for example, the only thing you'll learn about coding by reading the source is how NOT to write good code.We could prove your point if we could see the source :O
I never said there weren't benefits to OSS, you misread what I said. He said the model sucks and I gave examples of where it does not suck. Your response basically takes my words and twists them saying the OSS model sucks or has no benefits over proprietary closed source. Which can't be further from what I said.No, not really. It's my belief that the words uttered are just another round of Microsoft hormonal secretions. I wasn't intentionally trying to twist your words, only demonstrate open vs closed benefits. There is good code and bad code, and closed and open. The benefits to open is that there is peer review, possible meaningful contribution, and perhaps comprehension and good example. None of those are available in closed source. Closed source isn't inherently evil, nor is it inherently good-- just like OSS. But you can see it. That fact is empowering.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
...such things as the UAE, GPF, and the BSOD.
In Vista, I fully expect crash screens to have "This crash brought to you courtesy of Open Source Software, the FSF, Intergalactic Communism, and the number 666. Help stamp out evil in the world by purchasing and using only software stamped with the Microsoft Genuine Advantage(tm) seal of approval".
Of course, the MGA program will only be open to Microsoft-developed software. And even then, it'll still crash.
Article, -1, Troll. Sensationalist title.
Microsoft -5, Troll. Trolling all along.
Person who mods this down, head bashed in.
Do not downmod posts "overrated" simply because you disagree with them.
$ uname -s -r
/sbin/ifconfig ...
Linux 2.4.21-27.0.2.ELsmp
$ uptime
14:04:05 up 400 days, 7:36, 2 users, load average: 1.89, 2.10, 1.86
$
eth0
UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:1187551728 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:2669545924 errors:7 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:7
Some people want to use commercial software, and they get value out of not sharing with other people in the community. Other people want the reliability and the dependability that comes from a community-based software model. And again, at the end of the day, you make the choice based on what has the highest value to you.
You will observe that my points are as well-researched, supported by evidence, and clearly explained as Mr. Murray's. I expect a phone call from Ingrid Marson any minute now.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
as in beer. It is free of cost and has been for some time now. Even when it was ad supported, I didn't mind the very small ad window.
I'm posting this using Opera 8.54 and have been using it daily since 5.xx I use Firefox, too, but visit my regular daily sites with Opera. I use it on Windows, Linux and OS-X.
"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
I agree that Windows XP is fairly stable, and compared to Win2K it's damned stable. However, after using Windows and linux for many years, and recently OS X, I've decided that I just don't have the time needed to properly configure and maintain linux, or even to learn all the latest ways to configure and maintain it. Nor do I have the time it takes to fix all the problems that constantly pop up with Windows. Mac OS X, although still has its problems, has the most impressive out-of-the-box experience I've had in many years, and I suppose I'm kind of a fanboy now even though my main server is still linux.
.info file corruptions which is *really* annoying, even tho it happens once every couple months.
/gam/
Add all the amazing OSS software into this and it can be overwhelming for one person to manage every piece of OSS software that's installed. Microsoft does a relaatively good job of updating Windows out-of-the-box, although the quality of the updates can be debated. However, they really suck at keeping their software updated or users informed. Using yum, apt, or some other software management solution usually requires fiddling with settings to get just the right mirror, and even then I have to put my trust that the mirror I chose is good, i.e. legitimate, secure, and stable. Once it's set up it's Ok, but it clearly lacks stature. Mac updates are very simple and requires very little effort to manage. Apple applications also appear in their updater, which should be expected. However, I often find myself running a variety of tools after a major system update to fix permissions, settings, and application
Overall, I prefer simple to complicated. I don't want to spend time fiddling with every danged setting just to make something work anymore. And I don't want to constantly keep restoring my system to a previous state when a system patch goes south.
Anyways, it seems like MS has it right, but they also need to add the perspective that their crap isn't so reliable either. And from my experience with the Vista beta, they have a long way to go before they can make it simple. In fact, I personally think they made it too complex for the average user. Something's wrong when I'm thinking more about how to make my OS do something than I am about completing my tasks.
"In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice, they are not."
Lame lame lame.
www.wildpad.com
n/t
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
"Other people want the [perceived] reliability and the dependability that comes from a commercial software model." Let's see, I can either have my credit card ready and be prepared to hold on the phone for some tier one lacky who is reading to me troubleshooting steps from a book OR I can just get on a community forum with knowledgeble users and probably even developers who are happy to help out a fellow user. Seems obvious to me.
There are many different, independet axes of development models that often get confused with one another during debates like this:
1) top-down versus bottom-up
2) commercial versus non-commercial
3) closed-source versus open-source
4) open-source versus GNU-defined "free software"
Please remember that these are all different axes. It's entirely possible to have top-down non-commercial "free software" development, just as it's entirely possibly to have bottom-up commercial closed-source development.
I think the Microsoft rep's statement confused "commercial" with "top-down". It's generally true that top-down development results in a clearer, more dependable plan and better-architected, more coherent software.
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
t/n
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
As long as we're twising quotes form TFA around. Sheesh.
"We've chosen free and open software because it's better, and because it means the children can participate in making the software better over time," Negroponte said.
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
Anyone who gets my nntn joke earns a cookie.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Is. Mr. Murray implying that MS has plans to get into the reliable and dependable software business? This could be huge if they're succesful, combined with their existing market penetration this could pose a real threat to the rest of the industry.
more like "you can rely on there being security updates and depend that there will be more"
Whaddaya mean I can't mod the story "-1: Flamebait"?
Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
Judging by the bags under the model's eyes on their webpage, looks like this service is even more of a headache!
Seriously though, when my company is ready to flock to their next VOIP fad this is exactly the kind of company I'll mention.
There should be a law against lying.
Yes, Microsoft software is that bad.
http://outcampaign.org/
". When Microsoft decides that it's time for you to buy the latest version of their OS, you have NO FUCKING CHOICE. That's not dependability."
I am so sick and fucking tired of hearing this argument all the while the same jackasses claim that everybody is still using Office 97. Which is it? Is everybody being forced to upgrade and everyone who claims they're still using Office 97 is full of shit or are people still using Office 97 and you;re full of shit for claimng that Microsoft is forcing you to upgrade? Just because Microsoft stops officially supporting a product does not mean everyone has to run out and get the latest version. I still run Windows 2000 on one of my computers despite Windows XP being available. I have Outlook 2003 running side by side with Office 2000. I guess this answers teh question for you, huh. You're full of shit because I can still use older MS products.
Not onlt that but let me cue you in on something, NOT EVERYBODY WANTS TO BE A FUCKING COMPUTER PROGRAMMER!!! Do you undertstand that dickhead? I don't give one rat's ass if I can see the source code or not, the value to me is in the software's ability to function how I need it to, period, end of story. As a graphic and motion graphics/ multimedia designer Open Source software doesn't even enter the radar for me as there are no apps that come close to providing me with the ability to get my work done the way Adobe and Macromedia apps do (amongst others - I still use some Sonic Foundry apps for audio work until I get the hang of Audition). I'm too fuckign busy being creative to spend time mucking around with the code for GIMP or whatever else OSS app supposedly replicates the functionality of the tools I use.
There are several good reasons to use Windows. Reliability and Dependability are not among them.
That's not to say Windows isn't reliable -- it is -- it's just not quite as reliable as its open-source counterparts (to which it's being compared).
If Mr. Murray wants to market his product in contradistinction to Linux, he needs to focus on Windows' existing user base and worldwide familiarity with their interface.
Mods: Do you disagree with me? Go ahead and mod me down. Meta-mods will sort it out. Good luck!
Yup it is reliably and dependably CRAP.
1. Random Microsoft dude insults Linux and/or open source
2. Slashdot editors post the story
3. Hordes of slashbots drool and fester and act like it matters -- generating ad revenue for Slashdot in the process
4. PROFIT!
When you think about it, Slashdot is no less of a click troll than Dvorak/ZDnet/etc.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
Quite simply, the best debugger in the world is another developer that knows the code, and the more people look at the code, the smoother it will run (even if there are some messy bits from too many people working on the same part.) With this in mind, open source should work better because there are far more open source developers and testers than any one company could possibly hope to employ and swear to secrecy about their code.
"The biggest unreliability with Windows is the stupid things that users do."
I think what you are trying to say is:
"The biggest unreliability with Windows is that the users are too damn lazy to plug all of the holes in Windows."
If you can honestly say that Open Source is not reliable or dependable, does that mean that by changing the license to a proprietary one instantly makes it reliable and dependable?
I think not.
Anyway, what happened to the old TCO argument?
Linux/Open Source/Anti Microsoft News
Windows is reliable. You can rely on it having problems Windows is dependable. You can depend on it having problems So he is really right.
Well, considering they are the original creators and maintainers of Asterisk, they certainly ought to be a good choice for support.
http://www.glasswings.com/
This reliable? "MS Word Zero-Day Exploit Found"http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1965042 ,00.asp
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
MS has found a like-partner.
Puppy love
Go read the article at the top of slashdot right now and tell me how he can justify that statement.
I've heard this a number of times. I tried booting a Linux live CD on a couple of those machines where XP crashes from "bad RAM" and guess what? It ran, well, let's say it was steadier than a rock.
This "bad RAM" thing, along with "faulty third-party device drivers" are XP emperor's new clothes.
"Open Source" means that the source code is visible to the public.
/ddos,
Even licen$ed $oftware could be open source.
It is really quite silly to base generalizations on software's reliability upon whether or not its source code is visible. It's tantamount to saying "green bikes are faster."
On the other hand, the reason open source software is desirable is that it fosters trust on the part of the user. When I say trust I mean that the user can look into the source code of the software, and verify that it:
opens no backdoors,
installs no rootkits,
does not locally snoop,
does not locally spy, spam or advertise,
or leech system resources,
or delete the user's files,
or mess with security levels,
or alter files that it doesn't own,
or send out a flood of packets
or hack remote systems by means of worm or proxy,
or open a local port,
or port scan and relay,
or be a blockscanner,
or a wardialer,
or do any of those other nasty things that we've seen and/or heard of.
in other words, open source software helps the user to verify that the executable software it compiles will not hack remote systems, and will not hack the local machine, either.
that's not to say i know anybody that sits down and reads the open source, any more than i know anybody that reads the full license agreement before clicking "i agree". but "trust", that's the theory.
there's also the creative commons aspect of it, as in "the software engineer you help train to day might be the one you hire tomorrow." if the guts of the software are visible then others can learn and share, and build upon each other, providing the best overall source code.
i've heard arguments that such a thing opens the door to piracy or software plagerism, risking profit loss. Well. Consider how many HUMAN hours went into writing and re-writing the same code based on some business man's notion of profit. Jesus Christ said that the love of money is the root of all evil.
"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
It's gratis. It's not free. If it were free I could fork it...
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
This quote was made by Jonathan Murray on Code Breakers, a series on FOSS that aired on BBC World on 11th and 18th May.
Among other things he also called Open Source as a "friend" and "competition" which is a "good thing".
Open source software may be reliable and dependable as software, but there is no one a company can stop giving money to, or sue, if it does not work as advertised. There is no obligation for the people who make it to make it well, and they don't lose money if no one uses it. So in that sense it is not reliable, because no one is accountable for it, and it is not dependable, because there is no financial obligation to make it work as advertised.
Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
CVS may be quite basic (OK, it has proven to scale to hundreds of developers over a large geographic area which SourceSafe never could), but combine it with the Eclipse CVS client and you get something really impressive. There's even the new "blame mode" where you can find out who wrote that offending line ;-)
Eclipse also has quite intelligent merge and compare tools, whereas with SourceSafe you need to copy your copy somewhere, get latest, then use something like Vim-Diff to merge them.
Biggest problem with SourceSafe - if not everyone logs out at night you can't get a nightly backup.
Steve Ballmer is on Estrogen?!?! THAT explains the man-boobs!
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
From my experience as an IT person I have seen pros and cons for Windows and Linux-based operating systems and commercial vs. open source applications. Sure older versions of Windows were not very stable, but the operating systems that were did not make people want to use computers. Now almost everyone is using computers and it was commercial software that got us here. These days if you need a server that is stable, shares files rapidly, rarely has massive security holes, and requires a higher level of knowledge to operate *nix is great. If you need central calendaring, massive organization, granular access control, detailed logging and office software everyone can use Microsoft's products seem to actually perform better. In addition to MS-Office working well it is intuitive for our users and lowers cost by not having to have extended training. I do think that OpenOffice is making strides in this area and their latest release is quite nice. It still does not format some things correctly, especially if they were created with a competing product. Many IT professionals would not have jobs if it weren't for their ability to use both commercial and open-source applications and operating systems and recognize the strengths and weaknesses of each. For me I guess it depends how much time I want to invest with the end user. I cannot expect them to catch on to new concepts overnight, or adjust to a new or different UI as soon as it hits the shelves. Users, in general, like what they are comfortable with and so far commercial folks are much better at marketing. Once the support for open-source becomes more available and standardized I think there will be a shift from the current method of thinking. A newbie getting on a forum today however typically gets the following standard responses when seeking help: "RTFM" "M$-Sucks" "just use apt-get" "patch your kernel" "recompile that module with no dependencies so that...." Those aren't the best way to win people to open-source, and right now you don't have to know what any of that is for most comercial applications or operating systems. Hopefully we can make open-source easier to use and support so that it will catch on with the people who spend the money on stuff.
Normally, you quote things that people actually said.
Good troll of a headline, though. You must be in marketing.
Well, the majority of M$ computers ARE infected. It does not take long and it requires no "stupid" action by the user. Indeed, no action is required other than plugging the thing in. Study after study has shown this, but here are two for you:
Things have gotten worse not better and the numbers match personal experience all of us have. I've seen people bringing broken computers into stores. I've seen broken computers in banks, you know, the ones so far gone nothing can be done. While a user can help the process by going to net nasty sites, it's still not the user's fault. Their computer should not fail them that way.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
You dont have to choose between "the value of sharing with other people in the community" or "the reliability and the dependability that comes from a commercial software model". An open source application can be obtained or supported from a commercial entity, like Red Hat, SUSE, Canonical and others.
It's gratis. It's not free. If it were free I could fork it...
Uhh free is a SYNONYM for gratis ie they both mean "without charge". They have the same meaning (explaining what a synonym is to you since you obviously don't know). Opera is free, but it is not open source is what you are attempting to say. There is a big difference between that and not free, closed source, software.
Hey, there is only one Return and it's not of the King, it's of the Jedi.
some people want to use community-based software, and they get value out of sharing with other people in the community, the reliability coming from hundreds of reviewers that spend more than 8 hours a day on the programs (because of passion) and the dependability that you can see on millions of servers worldwide
other people want microsoft products
seriously, I've seen interviews with ex-ms-employees stating that the deadlines forced them to leave bugs unfixed
so a commercial software model, that needs deadlines because of the needed income, forcing programmers to leave bugs unfixed is more reliable than a software model that has no deadlines and hundreds of reviewers? I don't think so...
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
c|net's fault for making up a quote for the headline, slashdot's fault for repeating it without fact-checking the body of the story, or attributing it.
I think it's somehow ironic to have this article and also this article on the same day... I'd say this is poetic justice...
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
This is news? Why do slashdotters insist on being Microsofts best advertisers by spreading this shit around?
It's been a long time.
Linux: Open Source 'not reliable or dependable'. Uh-oh.
The question is, which is more dangerous and/or harmful?
Commercial software that you invest hundreds to thousands of dollars in and gives you the false sense of security that you are somehow more protected, or O.S. software, where you know you are getting unsupported software?
Seems like commercial sofware is far more harmful, since it wastes company resources and supports the fraudulent perception that commercial software is somehow "better".
Few software companies, and even fewer large software companies release reliable or tested software. Read the EULA. Commercial sofware has the same guarantee as O.S. software>: Use at your own risk, this software isn't guaranteed or waranteed for *any* purpose. At most, you can get a refund for the price paid for one copy of the software (same as OS, free cost = refund free).
The "advantage" of closed source, is that you can be sure that eventually,the feature you want, or the bug that you need fixed won't be. Not only will it not be fixed, it's quite possible it will _never_ be fixed -- that old feature you wanted fixed, isn't included in new, replacement product, or you can't update, because some other feature is broken in the new version.
At least with OS, you have the possibility (no guarantee that it will be buildable, despite the source being available) of fixing the problem or feature -- even if you have to hire someone to do it.
With a commercial vendor, you may not be able to get your "pet"-bug or feature fixed/implemented at any price (especially if the company has gone out of business or has sold themselves to a software acquisition company (Semntc, Corl) who buy up working software projects from others, then run them downhill, often because the don't have the intellectual capital, resources or focus to spend on the adopted product to keep it up the same level as the company they bought it from.
Like the tags said, this article is "flamebait" to waste our time posting obvious replies like this one.
l
I use Linux/Windows/OS X and I think this guy has a point. There are good and bad things about commercial software. It's unfortunate that many people in the open source community only acknowledge the bad things. If they recognized the good things and applied them to their own products open source software would be unstoppable. I appreciate the consistent look and feel of Windows and OS X. This is a direct result of an organized and managed effort to create a product. You have experienced leaders making decisions. It seems like people have a hard time making decisions in the open source community.
The real point of difference between a free OS like Linux and a commercial product like Windows is the business models and how they relate to the product.
Linux is free, kept updated by the community at large. As a political and spiritual statement, that is awesome. What isn't awesome is that there are no "ties that bind" someone to a project. The community as a whole has worked together so far to create something pretty sepectacular, when you think about it. But for how much longer? What happens in 10-20 years when all the current developers have retired? When are best programmers are VB.net programmers? Linux has failed in the last few years to develop a graphical UI that better matches current gen OSes. If someone where getting paid to work on that, they would have either gotten much further along by now, or been fired. But in the open source community, Linux is what it is. It is amazing that it has gotten as far as it has.
At the end of the day, there is absolutely nothing keeping people from completely abandoning Linux. You and I know it is very unlikely. But not impossible.
Windows on the other hand, is a commercial product. It generates revenue for a company, which entices them to improve the product. When money is involved, no one is just going to walk away. Even if every Windows developer quit today, MS would continue producing Windows. Abandoning Windows is not an option. (Other than abandoning old OSes that have reach end of life.)
So no matter what "aspect" you want to compare between the two, many many businesses are going to chose Windows. Simply for the fact that when you are paying someone, they are less likely to leave you high and dry. Home users will continue to buy Windows, because since MS wants your money, they spend time making the OS look and run better.
As a business man, I would much rather hitch my wagon to someone who is going to be able to hold someone accountable for various functions. As a consumer, I want someone who can afford to staff a support center that I can talk to, instead of strolling through message boards for an answer.
I am sure many people will say that I just don't understand how Linux is developed. I do understand exactly how it is developed. There are a few companies who do sell corporate versions of Linux for money. But the largest day to day development comes from volunteers.
As captilism has shown us again and again, competition for money increases productivity. Any group that isn't competing for the money isn't going to be able to keep up. Case in point is that with as many people working on Linux it should blow Windows out of the water in every aspect from security to graphical interface. Heck with so many people working on Linux, it should be able to sprout legs and impersonate a human by now. But it hasn't.
And yes, I am a Linux fan and use it regularly to "learn." I would use Linux in a business, because I am prepared to support it myself. If I am your average businesman who just wants something that works and someone to hold accountable for getting it fixed, I go with Windows.
"MS Word Zero-Day Exploit Found"
Well, what could I add?
Other people want the reliability and the dependability that comes from a commercial software model.'
Translation: You people aren't keeping our revenue stream up.
Whatever. I just spent another $120US over at Tux Games. http://www.tuxgames.com/
When will Microsoft treat me like a customer instead of a thief?
Enjoy,
It's just the normal noises in here.
Things don't just happen because you wish they are, or because your desperate FUD. There are almost a quarter of a billion 'M$ Windoze' machines out there. Your claims are infantile at best, and you are obviously unable to deal with facts or reality.
Any nob knows dat ya paints it red ta make it go faster!
The distinction made by Murray was between community-based software and commerical software, not between open source software and commerical software. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is an example of open source software, but it is commerical and not community-based.
Now, before you get your panties in knot, we all know that the Red Hat commercial product is based on open source software, but the community does not control what Red Hat distributes. Red Hat, as a company, decides what it distributes. Red Hat, as a company, tests software beyond what any community-based distribution does. And the commercial software it distributes is more reliable than community-based software, whether community-based fan boys want to admit that or not. And Red Hat is just one example of a company that distributes commerical open source software, as opposed to community-based open source software.
If it passes the test of redundancy,
it bears repeating.
[Dept. of Redundancy Dept.]
...omphaloskepsis often...
Seriously though, when my company is ready to flock to their next VOIP fad this is exactly the kind of company I'll mention.
It's "the kind of company" you'll mention? You have no idea that they wrote and maintain Asterix, do you? No wonder you failed so completely to convince your PHB, if you can't even be bothered to do basic research and offer suggestions to address PHB concerns.
Even if they have no programming skills, their input and opinions of how the software project should be done is invaluable to the team members of the project.
Like anyone would really expect Microsoft to to be an Open Source booster? Steve Ballmer is a closet Linux junky, maybe? And listens to an iPod in the privacy of his home loo?
Bill Gates is hiring Linus Torvalds to fix Vista?
Well sometimes I think its reliable, just not very dependable.
I think its not a good or advisable or preferable sort of software or code to use.
That's funny they say that, because their wireless network on campus runs on linux-based routers/APs made by Aruba Networks.
8 4996;fp;16;fpid;0
http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;7540
Here's the question you have to ask yourself, though... will your friends and relatives who don't use OSS and who have crashes & viruses actually do better with OSS and a fresh install of Linux?
In every organization I have ever been, a support person has been able to support about ten times as many UNIX/Linux machines as Windows machines. So, yes, I'd say there is a clear advantage to UNIX/Linux: keeping a Windows machine that sees any significant amount of usage running properly is a lot of work compared to a Linux machine (it also costs a lot of money).
If people put the time into Windows that Linux-users put into Linux/OSS (by way of customization, and finding apps and drivers), they'd have a much more reliable machine
People can't even install the Windows OS (let alone any Windows applications) in the time that it takes to install a full Linux desktop system with a full complement of applications (something that would cost you days of work and a lot of money for Windows).
Most people, in fact, install Windows with their credit card--by buying a new machine.
Having read this, i have to totally disagree based on personal experience. I have used Linux for 2 years straight now, and i have run into small stepbacks on my way with it. But nothing like the problems i have encountered when trying to use windows again. I am recently studying Cisco and enroled in an online course that requires shockwave, not available for Linux. So, i, very sadly, had to get windows running on a machine. I swear, it requires much more hardware capabilities than Linux, takes up more time to fix than to be able to work with it, you pay to get an OS that people hate and try to hack one way or another. I just can't believe people choose to use windows out of mental laziness or ignorance.
Building for a shallow grave Must be something else we say Somehow to defend this place
When Microsoft says commercial software is dependable, what they are implying is that you can depend on the software vendors. While this can be the case, it is unfortantely a poorly recognized issue that, not only can you depend on them, but you can't not depend on them. In other words, you are forced into a dependant relationship with the vendor.
When vendors are good to their customers, it's a kind of dependant relationship that we can get into willingly. It's akin to when one chooses to depend on a good friend or spouse--you decide to make yourself vulnerable to the person because there is a level of trust. Usually, this sort of relationship is mutual.
Ideally, software vendors and their clients should have a similar mutual relationship. Companies like Microsoft, however, are clearly in a dominant position, the type that damages said relationships. There's a reason why we call the applicable laws "anti-trust."
With Free software, one does not need to make oneself vulnerable when choosing to use a certain piece of software. Less dependable? Less secure? Repeat after me: FUD.
Free software and proprietary software have their individual strengths and weaknesses. Systems like linux are important because sometimes essential system software and development tools are so necessary that a greedy vendor can easily pull your strings when there aren't viable alternatives to their solution. Free software ensures that you don't accidentally get forced into an oppressive relationship. Free as in freedom, folks. =)
flamebait...No Digg.
But then again, those greedy blighters from Redmond have never been too short on cheek, have they?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
You can always rely on M$FT to produce buggy software and you can always depend on them for delayed patches.
"If people put the time into Windows that Linux-users put into Linux/OSS (by way of customization, and finding apps and drivers), they'd have a much more reliable machine"
Wait, what do you mean? Does constant tweaking and upgrading make a Windows machine more stable? Well, guess you've got totally different experiences with computers.
Nonsense, of course. Windows machines are (usually) stable the moment you pull them out of the box. The moment you start using them, and the moment you start installing and changing stuff, that's when they start deteriorating. Until you need a fresh install, that's right.
This is a classic of the talk before you think type ;)
Several statements in TFA only make sense when one recognizes that the MS mouthpiece is using "reliability" and "dependability" to describe states of perception, that, like beauty, are in the eye of the beholder. Not intrinsic to the product.
I work with a network administrator who perceives MS software to be reliable and dependable. I don't understand his world view at all. I think he may have so much time and effort invested in mastering MS OS and network products (about 25 years) that he can no longer allow himself to think about any other possibility... his ignorance about what I see as current major issues in IT, such as FOSS, GPL, ODF, strikes me as incredible. He has no desire to talk about such things, he dismisses such talk in the same manner as he dismisses discussions about the social affects of Grand Theft Auto... as having no meaning wrt to the Important Work of keeping the campus infrastructure running. He doesn't even know the meaning of those acronyms.
Letting anything other than MS products into his domain is a direct threat to the way he makes his living. So in his perceptions, in his world, MS products are the only ones that have the reliability and dependability that he needs to stay on top of things.
Microsoft is betting that there are enough IT managers out there who are like this guy that a backhand appeal to their fear of having to learn something new will be an effective marketing ploy. By associating the words "reliability" and "dependability" with commercial software, this MS mouthpiece is preaching to his choir (and hoping that his choir will then sing loud enough to make some parts of the rational debate hard to hear).
So that's how this type of FUD works. Neener, neener, nyah-nyah.
Of course there are people that prefer the reliability and dependability of commercial software. For example, the spamming industry could never survive without the ability to reliably and dependably create all those Windows botnets.
What is interesting is that the BBC code breaker programme was supposed to show FOSS in use for development (as in AID). What I did not understand was why Microsoft was obliged to show up every time FOSS was presented to show that they can do it too?
It is like if you show Microsoft products on BBC click online and RMS comes all the time and say "oh, we can do that too".
Jesus H. Christ. What's with the paranoia? While you were obsessing and whining over your "OMFSPIFFYLINUXMICROSOFTISTHEDEVILBBQPVVN3D" network, your wife was banging her MS-Fanboy intern. How's that for an unallowed MS intrusion?
Chums up, let's do this!
I agree and think Vista presents a good window for a strong push. I do not see the value-add of switching to Vista outweighing the costs, especially for govt purchases. I suspect most govts could get their databases and web pages built on Red Hat 6, or W98.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Microsoft should shut it's mouth till it can learn how to make a halfway decent OS. Excuse my language, but DAMN!!!!!!!! I mean, NASA had the MARS rovers programed by the open source comunity!!! Google runs on open source technology, infact it couldn't have run without it!!! HEll, entire companies running open source technology will tell you it was the best decision they made cause they don't have to worry about the damn severs! And, may I remind you that Hollywood has been using Open Source to produce your most famous blockbuster hits using Linux and that the fastest super computers in the world run on Linux?!!! Microsoft is dying, they will go under cause they screw up so damn much. It's already started. Vista and Xbox360 are proof of their future down fall. They can't say a thing.
to anyone who wants to look at an Open Source project to see whether or not, the code is well written or not.
Indemnification of a product, like a closed-sourced product, requires either a trusted 3rd party review and not really likely to be done at the source code level. Yet an Open Source project is viewable to its core. Open source projects live and die by being best of breed for the solution they're designed for. Closed source products will maintain a shelf-life, provided a large enough marketing budget is behind them. Evolution of software is different for each path of the type of product.
When will people realize they're comparing two completely different paths to develop two completely different products who's core fundamentals or reasons for existence are driven by completely different motivators?
Scientia et Potentia