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.'"

12 of 504 comments (clear)

  1. *boggle* by Akardam · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Microsoft is one to make claims of reliability and dependability.

    1. 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.

    2. Re:*boggle* by mausmalone · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Since switching to Win XP from Windows 2000 during RC1, I've experienced a few crashes due to some bad ram, but beyond that it's been steady as a rock. Also, I haven't needed to waste resources with a virus checker because I know how not to get viruses. A good firewall goes a long way.

      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? Or would their problems be fixed with a fresh install of Windows, a good firewall, and the abolition of Internet Explorer?

      I think that if most Windows users just used to use Windows in a safe way (and read the fucking dialog boxes that came up instead of reflexively clicking "OK" to everything), a lot of the "unreliable" and "virus-laden" views of it would start to dissipate.

      While I know that Linux and OSS can be very secure and stable, Windows can be also. 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 (than their current Windows install ... I have no desire to compare Windows and Linux). The biggest unreliability with Windows is the stupid things that users do.

      --
      -=-=-=-=-=
      I'd rather be flamed than ignored.
  2. Automatize please by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

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

  4. NEWSFLASH! by rolfwind · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re:*shrug* by Arker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Another difference is that you can, if you wish, actually help make it stable!

    Well, in firefox's case that would probably mean forking it since the development team has a chronic case of featuritis, but again, you can do that if it's important enough to you.

    There are some definite advantages in terms of reliability and security to the free software model, but that doesn't mean all free software is going to be more reliable or more secure than all proprietary software - far from it. Free software, however, does allow users to become involved and part of the process, rather than condemning them to exist only as passive 'consumers.' And it does respond to their needs, rather than to the desires of the marketing department.

    IE is much better coded than firefox - and firefox therefore crashes more often. Yet, despite that advantage, IE is much less *secure.* And that's what you get when marketing determines the program specifications...

    --
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
  6. Where would you live? by DumbSwede · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
  7. Hmmm by linvir · · Score: 5, Insightful
    While I'm not an IT expert, so I can't say anything particularly clever, there is one difference even a lowly dickhead such as myself can see.

    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.

  8. Re:SourceSafe vs CVS by 955301 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Just a few questions.

    First about "I tried to install CVS or subversion". So, which one was it?

    Second, you seem to value speed on something you do once - installation and setup - over the steady-state use of the source control tool - keeping your data integrity intact.

    For Subversion, the explorer client is TortoiseSVN.

    I've used Source Safe, Clear Case, Starteam, CVS and Subversion, RCCS, and a few others I've forgotten. By far, Subversion has been the best. Starteam was close, but it required a Microsoft setup back when I used it.

    I do not agree that Subversion is difficult to set up.

    --
    You are checking your backups, aren't you?
  9. 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? """
  10. Re:BULLSHIT by linvir · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Just because Microsoft stops officially supporting a product does not mean everyone has to run out and get the latest version
    WRONG. You're one person. Arguments based on "you're full of shit because your point doesn't apply to me" tend not to work. There is a wider world of people out there who need security updates and other patches. Most important of all of these are the business and school networks, Microsoft's real source of money. They have to stay up to date, or they get owned.

    Now, the real issue is whether or not the updates are the source of the exploits. If MS didn't reveal the flaws, maybe there wouldn't be so many exploits for the unpatched systems. You might have had an interesting post if you'd gone with this, instead of two long paragraphs of narcissistic swearing. Do you understand that, dickhead? I don't give one rat's ass how you use your computer, I'm using my vague knowledge of IT in general. Let me clue you in on something: YOU ARE NOT THE YARDSTICK BY WHICH THE REST OF THE WORLD IS TO BE MEASURED.