Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Open Source is 'Not Reliable or Dependable'

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the beg-to-differ dept.

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.'"

14 of 504 comments (clear)

  1. Not dependable? by DaveM753 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I would have replied to this sooner, but Windows keeps crashing.

  2. Re:*boggle* by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 4, Funny

    We can rely that there will be security updates and we can depend upon them utterly.

    So it's a reliable and dependable model.

  3. MicroJerk! by digitaldc · · Score: 3, Funny

    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
  4. Would have posted on this thread earlier by monopole · · Score: 2, Funny

    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!

  5. Re:*boggle* by theNetImp · · Score: 2, Funny

    We can also rely on there being security holes that will allow all kinds of nasty worms and viruses into my system. So in that sense M$ is quite reliable. ;-)

  6. Microsoft made unreliable systems once by nurhussein · · Score: 2, Funny

    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".

  7. That's Funny by Goo.cc · · Score: 2, Funny

    Because after reading the EULA for Windows XP, I would say that Microsoft software is reliable or dependable either.

  8. Re:SourceSafe vs CVS by hyfe · · Score: 5, Funny
    Comparing SourceSafe with CVS is like comparing MS Office with Emacs ...

    .. it's inheretly flawed because anybody remotely sane will recognize that SVN and VIM are superiour products.

    --
    "" How about taking the safety labels off everything, and let the stupidity-problem solve itself? """
  9. Re:*boggle* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Ah yes, Microsoft - the Republican party of the software world.

  10. Re:*boggle* by ahodgson · · Score: 3, Funny

    But the article says open source is not reliable. Ergo, no firefox.

  11. Re:*boggle* by Reverend528 · · Score: 2, Funny
    Boggle?

    m a l y
    e v e p
    r g a w
    j d p i

    --
    Badass Resumes
  12. Re:*boggle* by jabelson · · Score: 2, Funny

    Are not the brunt of internet "virus" attacks against indivdual desktops? Are you saying that Windows boxes are atacked because it's easy to do so?

  13. It is reliable and dependable! by Usekh · · Score: 1, Funny

    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.

  14. Re:Oh, come on! by geobeck · · Score: 2, Funny

    Your sig line makes your response even more amusing. :D

    --
    Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net