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.'"

5 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. 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? """
  5. Re:*boggle* by ahodgson · · Score: 3, Funny

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