The Continuing War Against Microsoft's "Facts" Campaign

davidmwilliams writes "I've been rallying against Microsoft's so-called 'Get the Facts' site for the last fortnight in my blog. Rather than give any legitimate comparison facing off Windows Server vs similarly spec'd Linux options, the Microsoft spin doctors opt for bunkum and hogwash with sensational headlines that don't have any substance underneath. Here's the state of play, including an update on my request to Microsoft PR to do something about the blatant lack of integrity displayed. I also go over the latest case study put up by Microsoft: they promise to show why people are choosing Windows Server 2008 over Linux using the City of Uppsala as an example."

Comments

who cares?

[timmarhy]

people will choose the software they feel suits their needs best. shockingly it's not always going to be linux.

Re:who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

people will choose the software they feel suits their needs best. shockingly it's not always going to be linux.

Also shockingly, if they are continually fed lies without anybody disagreeing, this affects what they feel suits their needs best.

Re:who cares?

[AftanGustur]

people will choose the software they feel suits their needs best. shockingly it's not always going to be linux.

You are right, but the keyword is "feel"..

If I spend a million dollars in publicity where I suggest product X is, not only, superior to product Y, but also that everybody is going for product 'X'.

It would be normal for you to "feel" that product 'X' suits you best, even though it doesn't.

Re:who cares?

[Trracer]

Mod this up. The blog in the headline is just a bad fanboi expression.

Re:who cares?

[timmarhy]

how is that different to the stupid blog in the story? this guy is clearly out to sway the audience in favour of his preffered os. I fail to see why people invest so much emotion into this, if MS truely was so aweful no one would be using it. MS does something right, it's why they have stayed so much bigger than everyone else

Re:who cares?

[value_added]

people will choose the software they feel suits their needs best. shockingly it's not always going to be linux.

For your benefit and others who similarly haven't read the article or missed its point entirely, the case study cited in the article involves the city of Upssala that has two networks, one a 150-server Windows network, and the second a 100-server Windows network with some Linux and Netware thrown in. Virus outbreaks and a need for increased control were cited as motivating factors for a change.

The case study goes on about how TrueSec and the city participated in the Microsoft Rapid Deployment Program in order to get Windows Server 2008 pre-release version early. They made a test network, they purchased new hardware, they made a pilot deployment in January 2008 in the city administration network and things are looking ok so far.

So, what do we learn? Firstly, the existing platform was far more of a Windows environment than a Linux one. The Windows-exclusive network was insecure. A third-party company who maintained the network - and who were a Microsoft partner - recommended new features in Windows Server 2008 that would help. So far, the Windows-exclusive network has been partially upgraded.

Hang on? Where's the Linux aspect? Why is this on Microsoft's site? Weren't we promised we'd be told why customers are choosing Windows Server 2008 over Linux?

Oh yeah, there was a single reference hidden away. "If you go with Linux, you can never be sure of what kind of support you're going to get" a server technician said. "Maybe the product is free, but you still have to put in the staff hours to basically support the product yourself."

If there's a "suit one's needs" aspect to any of this, it certainly isn't in the article.

Re:who cares?

[NickFortune]

this guy is clearly out to sway the audience in favour of his preffered os

Which is a fair point if you assume that anyone with an opinion is automatically a liar by the very fact of their advocacy. I don't think that necessarily follows.

Certainly it doesn't seem to be the case in this instance. I can't see anything that looks to be untrue, or even deliberately misleading the article. Mr. Williams even goes so far as acknowledge that one case, (the Hi China story) actually reflected well on Microsoft. So you can't really paint him as being just as dishonest as the corporation he is challenging.

A deeper point is this: do we really want to live in a world where lies and deception are regarded as the norm, and where all opinions are automatically worthless simply by virtue of their being opinions? I can't see that polluting the world's data flow like that is a good thing, personally. I think we need people who are willing to challenge spin and propaganda wherever they find it. Williams seems to be doing that, and personally, I applaud him for his efforts.

Re:who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

if MS truely was so aweful no one would be using it. MS does something right, it's why they have stayed so much bigger than everyone else Yeah, just like an artist being on top of the charts is a accurate and undeniable evidence of their talent and excellence of their music.

Re:who cares?

[Tribbin]

Since the improved GPU-detection of 'Product X' you won't have to fiddle with xorg.conf anymore. This leaves me with no 'feel' of satisfaction when it works.

Re:who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems you do not understand that most users have no technical understanding.
I work tech support for an OEM and if you tell someone something (for example Ill take a real world example, Vista is underpolished, buggy, has compatibility problems, networking problems, shaky drivers, as well as hogging resources)
If you tell these uneducated users that this is the case, and that Linux is perfect and works well, what do you think they are going to choose. Microsoft has been doing this to Linux since it arrived, this is why they remain a monopoly.
The customers of Microsoft are not you, you are not even important enough to be considered a Microsoft customer. Microsoft has done an amazing job of convincing non technical business people that their software is the best, and they have succeeded in tricking them very well. The only problem is that more and more people like me are spreading the truth, that Microsoft is not the end all be all, and that you have a choice in what you use. When the computing industry matures a little more, maybe we will have a fair environment where choice is supported.

Re:who cares?

[lattyware]

I see the 'Everyone uses windows, it must be good.' Argument all the time in YouTube comments, I never thought I'd see it on Slashdot.
That is the stupidest argument you can make. People use Windows because Microsoft have cornered them. Software they need runs under windows, DRM, hardware, games, etc...
Windows is by far worse than the competition.

Re:who cares?

[Mig]

people will choose the software they feel suits their needs best. shockingly it's not always going to be linux. You are right, it can also be BSD.

Re:who cares?

[denzacar]

If I spend a million dollars in publicity where I suggest product X is, not only, superior to product Y, but also that everybody is going for product 'X'.

It would be normal for you to "feel" that product 'X' suits you best, even though it doesn't. Yeah, I know what you mean...

Imagine them making a series of commercials that way.
Lets say... with a young, "hip" and slim actor portraying their product (A) and a older, fat, bespectacled, "corporate drone"-like actor portraying the competition (B).
And then let them play it out so that product A is not just better than B, but B also sucks. Like... you know.. big time.

Pure evil!

Re:who cares?

[javilon]

"A deeper point is this: do we really want to live in a world where lies and deception are regarded as the norm, and where all opinions are automatically worthless simply by virtue of their being opinions?"

It is not only that. What stands out the most is what Microsoft has decided to call this: "Get the facts". They are trying to pass it as facts, when they are, at best, opinions. At worst, marketing rethoric. It has the smell of the ministry of truth all around it.

Re:who cares?

[thetoadwarrior]

if MS truely was so aweful no one would be using it. And if smoking is bad for you then no one would do it would they?

Re:who cares?

[totally bogus dude]

"Maybe the product is free, but you still have to put in the staff hours to basically support the product yourself."

Sorry to hijack your post, I didn't RTFA but this ticked me off.

They strongly imply that you don't have to support commercial software yourself. As an aside: the fact that companies can go around making these sorts of claims and not get sued into oblivion for blatantly lying to the public (or hell, thrown in jail) says some pretty bad things about the state of our societies, IMHO.

Unless you need someone to babysit you while you do basic tasks with the software, any reasonably competent tech is going to be able to install and use the software, regardless of whether it uses arcane text files or pretty tick boxes to configure it. If you have problems, you search the 'net for it -- chances are good someone else (or a lot of someones) have already encountered and solved the problem. The only times we've ever resorted to paid support from the vendor is when we have a really unusual problem we can't diagnose or fix ourselves; and guess what? The people providing the support are themselves simply reasonably competent (if you're lucky) techs who end up being just as stumped as you.

This means that for servers and infrastructure, paid support is a fucking joke. This bodes poorly for the Open Source companies that want to make money from providing support, but that's just how it is. Maybe it'll work out different when there's actually competition: in theory, since everyone can see the internals there's nothing stopping anyone else from becoming an expert at the software, and anyone can find and fix problems in the code. So possibly for popular software there'd be enough competition to provide paid support that they'd have to be competent and actually fix things, instead of fobbing off the customer until they give up. Maybe the current state of paid support is simply a symptom of monopoly inefficiency.

But I'm not certain about that. At its essence, paid support rewards good marketing of bad software. If the software does what you say it does, does it well, and is straightforward to set up, then there's not going to be any market for support.

<rant>

We use Sharepoint 2007 at work for our websites, and the licensing ain't cheap. Over $50,000 for each internet-facing server, another $20k for SQL 2005, and a bit of change for Windows licenses to run the servers and AD (plus additional licensing for the authoring environment). But that money's just a drop in the bucket compared to the money spent on developers to customize it and training of staff.

I'm pretty sure Microsoft knows this, and that's why they're not afraid to release a half-finished product whose key features (like content deployment) don't actually work. So we spend even more money on their Premier Support service, who proceed to waste my time over the course of several months collecting gigabytes of trace files, doing repetitive "tests" and sending them the error logs (which are, of course, incomplete; seems that part's a bit broken too) and then stalling me for a while until they come up with some other pointless exercise to waste some more of my time.

I'm positive they do this deliberately, because they know that eventually I'll get fed up with getting nowhere and resign myself to working around the defects. As I have, of course. But it's ridiculous that companies can charge you for the software, and then charge you again for (no) help with its problems, and then act like you're getting fantastic value for money.

If I'm getting free support from mailing lists or forums or what have you, then I'm happy to go through all the debugging shit -- installing minimal clean environments to see if the problem is reproducible there, etcetera. It annoys me having to spend my time doing this if I'm paying for support from someone else, though. Isn't that what they're being paid to do?!

</rant>

Re:who cares?

[thetoadwarrior]

And sometimes it is Linux which upsets Microsoft so they go out and make up stories to scare people into sticking with Windows.

Re:who cares?

[peragrin]

Whenever I hear that The best comeback line is everyone eats at McDonald's it must be good .

Just because you served a billion people doesn't mean your shit is very good, it just means it is good enough.

Re:who cares?

[yorugua]

Also shockingly, if they are continually fed lies without anybody disagreeing, this affects what they feel suits their needs best.

"There won't be anything we won't say to people to try and convince them that our way is the way to go." -Bill Gates

Re:who cares?

[Killjoy_NL]

citation needed plz :)

Re:who cares?

[domatic]

http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/ms_tuncom/major/mtc-00030631_ex4.htm

Re:who cares?

[contrapunctus]

See, you highlight the quote, and paste it in google, and get your own citation.

Re:who cares?

[totally bogus dude]

I'm complaining about a lot of directed debugging that leads to nothing but more stalling. Even basic things like handling of times was broken when it was released so timer jobs wouldn't fire; even if content deployment actually worked reliably for us, that's a pretty significant problem. I'll also throw "completely useless error messages" into my list of complaints, while I'm ranting.

Microsoft chose to sell us -- to aggressively sell us -- their complicated product, at a pretty high price compared to other content management systems, with the promise that it does all these wonderful things that'll save us time and money and enhance our workflows, and so on. For that kind of price, I'd expect things to just fucking work, and if we do have problems then I'd expect a decent level of support to be provided, not bought as an extra.

So having bought the support as an extra, you're damned right I'm complaining about having to spend even more of my time debugging their software for them. For what we paid for it, I should be able to just set up a test farm with the same configuration and custom code as our production environment, give them RDP access, and let them debug the shit out of it. (Actually it would probably be better if we told them how we'd configured it, then they set up their own farm and tested our code in it.)

Commercial software houses are always spouting the "you get what you pay for" line. It's nice and pithy, but it means nothing if they don't deliver on it. And my experience with most vendors says they don't.

Re:who cares?

[hostyle]

If its full of awe, ergo "aweful" as you put it, then I woudl have expected that everyone would be using it. But you appear to be arguing the opposite: that people only use non awe inspiring products - that a load of awe is just too much when it comes to computing. Whats that timmarhy? ... why yes I will have fries with that tyvm!

Re:who cares?

[shywolf9982]

uh, RTFA. Seriously.

This is about Microsoft putting under a big "Windows beats Linux!" a case study where their customer upgraded from Windows 2003 to Windows 2008.

Re:who cares?

[Merusdraconis]

Linux: The War Against Facts?

A ready-made Microsoft campaign right there.

Re:who cares?

[Hognoxious]

if MS truely was so aweful no one would be using it. MS does something right, it's why they have stayed so much bigger than everyone else

Sounds awfullly (note the spelling) like the argument from popularity to to me.

Why don't you go eat shit - it can't be that bad or all those flies wouldn't do it.

Re:who cares?

[JustinOpinion]

I prefer this analogy:
"Microsoft is demonstrably the best OS in the same way that McDonald's ubiquity makes it demonstrably the best restaurant."

Popularity is a poor metric of quality.

Re:who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Also shockingly, if they are continually fed lies without anybody disagreeing, this affects what they feel suits their needs best.

Or that makes them feel good about the choises they make. Works both ways.

Re:who cares?

[Anivair]

This is normal advertising. Three out of four dentists can't like everything. Granted, MS is throwing around skewed numbers and outright misdirection as fact, but what else is new? they always have. So do most businesses. the only difference here is that most linux distros don't have the money or sway to combat it.

Re:who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing is, FUD exists on both sides of this (all three sides if you factor in Apple), and it always has. The problem with die-hard Linux advocates is that they continually insist that the only reason Microsoft is on top is because of marketing.

The thing is, a lot of organizations, as well as individual users, actually do look at the options available to them and actually determine that the Microsoft offering is the best for their needs.

I'll take a real-world example:

Vista is underpolished, buggy, has compatibility problems, networking problems, shaky drivers, as well as hogging resources

I've been hearing that ever since the early beta releases. However, I don't just listen to marketing, I try things out for myself and make my own decision. And guess what? I've found Vista to be extremely polished, with only a handful of bugs (minor annoyances, nothing that inhibits my ability to work productively), and I've had absolutely no compatibility problems, networking problems, driver problems, or resource problems.

On the other hand, I've also tried Linux on the desktop (old Red Hat, Fedora, and more recently Ubuntu). I like it, but I still have enough problems with it that I'm continuing to stick with Windows. Of course, the server is a different story. I don't use Windows on any of my servers, they're mostly Ubuntu with one old Fedora box (which will soon become Ubuntu).

The only problem is that more and more people like me are spreading the truth, that Microsoft is not the end all be all, and that you have a choice in what you use.

Of course there are choices. Linux is being used by enterprise customers all over the world. Big business is considering the alternatives. However, you need to recognize that Microsoft's offerings actually do meet most business needs.

Re:who cares?

[Narpak]

I think the general point is that the software people chose to cover their needs should be chosen based on facts and features.

Re:who cares?

[zzottt]

See, you highlight the quote, and paste it in google, and get your own citation. well his name is killjoy heheh, cant expect much from someone with that name

Re:who cares?

[Lumpy]

A deeper point is this: do we really want to live in a world where lies and deception are regarded as the norm, and where all opinions are automatically worthless simply by virtue of their being opinions?

welcome to the world of marketing. It's been that way for over 30 years now.

Re:who cares?

[stewbacca]

Leave Britney ALONE!!!!

Re:who cares?

[stewbacca]

Just because you served a billion people doesn't mean your shit is very good, it just means it is good enough. Or it just means there are a billion (or more) stupid people on Earth (most of us live here in the US by just looking around at all the fatsos).

Re:who cares?

[strabes]

Too bad there's no xorg.conf on a server because X isn't even installed.

Re:who cares?

[mhall119]

The problem with die-hard Linux advocates is that they continually insist that the only reason Microsoft is on top is because of marketing. Actually the claim is usually that Microsoft is on top only because they are on top. More specifically, due to the ubiquity of Microsoft's mono-culture, you can't just provide a better alternative to one piece of MS software, you have to be able to replace _all_ of the pieces simultaneously.

Consider the fact that one of the main reasons holding business back from using Linux on the desktop is Exchange, which has absolutely nothing to do with the OS. Or the fact that people don't switch to OpenOffice mainly because of file formats, which have nothing to do with the quality of the software itself.

People don't switch to Linux, not because Windows is better, but because there is some critical piece of their Windows environment that they can't get on Linux (like Photoshop), or because they don't want to change their entire environment just to get the benefits of a better OS. Either way, it is resistance to change, rather than deciding on quality, that keeps people using Windows. If the tables were turned, and Linux, OpenOffice and Firefox currently had 80% market share, and Microsoft was trying to compete with Vista, MS Office and IE, nobody would be switching to them.

Re:who cares?

[mweather]

Right. Sometimes it's BSD.

Re:who cares?

[mopower70]

This is an amazingly poor rebuttal. McDonald's ubiquity demonstrates that for the market it's targeting, it is indeed, the best restaurant. It makes no pretense of being a fine dining establishment. People have a choice and people make that choice every time they visit McDonald's. People go to McDonald's instead of, say, Wendy's, Taco Bell, or for that matter Charlie Trotter's. It's not like they don't know what they're getting into - they know EXACTLY what to expect from McDonald's and are probably pretty familiar with what they'd get from those other restaurants.

There are reasons for Microsoft's ubiquity. And after spending a week trying to talk a non-Unix co-worker through getting wireless and USB working on his Ubuntu desktop, it's pretty clear to me what those reasons are.

Re:who cares?

[mopower70]

Yeah, just like an artist being on top of the charts is a accurate and undeniable evidence of their talent and excellence of their music. No. It is accurate and undeniable evidence that a large number of people are willing to purchase that music because it fulfills their particular needs or desires.

Re:who cares?

[His Shadow]

if MS truely was so aweful no one would be using it.

This is nonsense, but I am not sure what kind of nonsense. The modern technological world is full of hardware, software and practices that are not optimal, or are simply stupid. The QWERTY keyboard is one of the most egregious examples: having been designed purely to sell typewriters, or slow typists down, it is an indefensible tragedy that it is the standard. Yet everyone uses it. That use does not excuse or deny it's true awfulness.

Viruses, malware, grayware and a great deal Spam owe their entire existence to the miserable and fatally flawed security model of Microsoft's Windows. This cannot be meaningfully denied. Said ailments make the average PC users daily computer experience a nightmare of inconvenience and paranoia. Yet the vast majority are forced to use it. And that has nothing to do with the quality of the product. It has to do with the monopolistic strong arm tactics that prevented meaningful competition in the PC OS space.

There is this idea that the modern capitalist ideal allows only the best products to survive and inferior products must change or disappear. This idea is mostly fiction. There are products that survive and thrive in the marketplace because they are good products, but they only serve to highlight the background noise of garbage products that owe their existence to the imbalance of the marketplace due to billions of cash bribes. Many of the these bribes are known as marketing.

Re:who cares?

[Mongoose Disciple]

For what it's worth...

I did some work a few years ago on a project for a Fortune 100 company which was deployed on a handful of Windows Server '03 boxes. Everything worked fine on the developers' machines, but predictably, once we got the thing into the production environment and started to put serious enterprise load on it we had serious issues with leaking memory and threading.

Naturally, the developers responsible for the service with the problems swore up and down that their code was correct and a bug in WS03 had to be the problem. The company had some kind of Microsoft support contract, and they went through the same kind of song and dance you're talking about with massive trace files and logging and what not.

It took probably 2-3 weeks of back and forth, but the Microsoft guys actually found the problem for them, and it was in the project's custom code after all. (Do you bet on Microsoft releasing a bug-free product, or on your standard arrogant cowboy developer to write code that's as perfect as claimed? No good choice there, really.)

That's really the only exposure I've had to the MS paid support and it was mostly favorable, although, I couldn't say whether the support actually usually is better than you've seen, or if this company's problems got routed to the "good" support people because it was such a high profile company.

Re:who cares?

[NickFortune]

welcome to the world of marketing. It's been that way for over 30 years now.

Respectfully, I disagree. It's not marketing's world, it's ours.

If the issue were purely a matter of marketers lying to one another then I might agree with the whole apathy-is-the-best-policy meme. But it's not, and we need to allow people to challenge organized deception without automatically assuming them to be tarred with the same brush.

Obviously there are issues with astroturfers and viral marketers, and it's not always a trivial matter to tell them from the genuine seekers after truth. But if we simply assume duplicity whenever anyone challenges the marketers, then the battle is lost before it begins.

Re:who cares?

[PockyBum522]

"A deeper point is this: do we really want to live in a world where lies and deception are regarded as the norm, and where all opinions are automatically worthless simply by virtue of their being opinions?"

...I hate to burst your bubble...

Re:who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

awfullly (note the spelling) *sigh*
If you're gonna go spelling-Nazi on someone...

Re:who cares?

[tbannist]

Personally, I'd prefer if people chose the software that actually suits their needs. I'd prefer it if they think about it, research it, or get an actual expert opinion.

When people buy what they "feel" they need, it's almost always bad. Feeling your way through complex choices, usually means you've been tricked by a marketing pitch and have just managed to screw yourself and in the case of a company, everyone else you work with, and your investors.

Re:who cares?

[number6x]

'feel' might be the wrong word, however it is a good way to confuse 'best' product to market with the best product.

The prouct that wins in a competitive open market is rarely ever the product a human would 'feel' was best. Often they would 'feel' it was an inferior product.

As an example try to think of the best hamburger you ever ate. I know that this is a matter of opinion, but that's the judgment I want you to use. What was the hamburger you 'feel' was the best you ever ate? One that makes your mouth water just thinking about it. You're thinking of how you could plan a road trip right now so you can taste it again.

I know all the vegans reading are calling me an insensitive clod right now, but stay with this...

Was the hamburger you thought of a McDonald's brand plain hamburger? The plain regular McDonald's hamburger is clearly the market leader in hamburgers. It has complete market dominance and is the undisputed all time best seller in the market place. Billions and Billions served.

The product that the market place chooses as 'best' is rarely what a human would think of as 'best'. Market winners are usually best described as 'adequate'. They get the job done, and usually not much more. However the best to market is also cheaper. a product that functions adequately and costs less usually grows to dominate its market. More expensive products that offer more functionality can usually still carve out their own niche in a market, but they will not dominate.

Sony Beta was a superior product to VHS. It was also more expensive to license. VHS dominated the mass market, but Beta survives in the production studio where the extra cost is justified by the greater demands for sound and image quality.

Ford's Model T was inferior to other cars produced during its day. The other cars were hand made affairs. They were faster more comfortable and more powerful. Many were status symbols. The Stanley brothers would refuse to make a car for you if they 'felt' you were the wrong type of person to be seen in one of their vehicles. Ford however was the first to use complete mass production techniques to build his vehicles. This resulted in drastically reduced prices. His Model T was adequate and cheaper. Mass produced cars grew to dominate their market.

The IBM PC was about the worst PC you could purchase when it was introduced in the Early 1980's. It was under powered, had almost no software that would run on it, and was more expensive than almost anything else on the market (except for the Apple III and the Lisa). They would have been a tremendous flop if it weren't for IBM's existing corporate customers. An Apple II, a Commodore, an Amiga, even the TRS 80 had more software and was cheaper. Their market share was also larger than IBM's. IBM sales were almost exclusively made to corporate customers who used the pc's as terminals for existing mainframe computers. Think about it, a $2400, 640K, green screen dumb terminal. (nice keyboards though). But then came the clones. When the Bios was reversed engineered the market place was flooded with cheaper clones that ran that knockoff of CPM called MS-DOS. The cheaper, but adequate, clones gained dominance in their market. Just like the cheaper but adequate product always does.

A human would rarely choose the market winner based on how they 'feel' about the product. The market winner will need to perform adequately and to be cheaper. More expensive products can easily survive by offering more functionality or quality for their extra price (think gourmet hamburgers, Mercedes cars or Macintosh computers). Bill Gates knows his history and He knows the market place, and that is why he fears Linux. He knows that it is more than adequate and that it is cheaper. He will lose market dominance unless he can raise the cost of Linux (patent and copyright law suits that force license fees on Linux) or redefine what it means to be adequate (get enough corporation's documentation in patent encumbered formats that force a new mea

Re:who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem comes back to support. What do you tell a newly converted Linux user when he/she asks why their software and hardware won't work?

Sure there are many Linux alternatives to various Windows software, but only a scant few are actually complete enough to seriously compete. One of the major problems with many open source projects is they never leave the alpha stage of development and often look/feel amateurish. I would further say that there is a lot more software for Windows than there is for Linux, both free and commercial.

Linux has a place, but not as far as end users should be concerned. Until the day that Linux can run all of my software at native speeds and supports all of my hardware out-of-the-box I'll be sticking with Windows on the desktop. Like it or not, it "just works" (and on commodity, mix n' match hardware), which is a quality that many people and companies find attractive.

Re:who cares?

[ILongForDarkness]

The full context is as referenced in http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/ms_tuncom/major/mtc-00030631_ex4.htm : There's no level of performance or specific application of corporate information systems that we don't intend to go after... [and] there won't be anything we won't say to people to try and convince them that our way is the way to go. That's because this new, electronic world of the information highway will generate a higher volume of transactions than anything to date, and we're proposing that Windows be at the center, servicing those transactions.

How evil a company that wants to have the market. How many large companies do you know that only want a part of the market they compete in? You go for 100% and settle for whatever the free market gives you. Has MS been anti-competitive sure. But this quote (which probably came from a public announcement or a board meeting etc) is all that the representative of a company can be expected to say.

You don't hear a president say "America is a pretty good country, probably in the top 10". You hear them say "the greatest country in the world", and those that disagree with them are "an axis of evil" etc. A car salesmen doesn't sell many used Jalopies by saying it is alright, but by saying "I got just the thing for you" to every customer that comes in the lot.

Re:who cares?

[NickFortune]

...I hate to burst your bubble...

You're more than welcome to try...

Re:who cares?

[nbritton]

Microsoft is like McDonalds, It sounded like a good idea at the time, but now you've got explosive diarrhea and can't find the bathroom.

Re:who cares?

[nbritton]

On second thought, Microsoft is more like Hot Pockets. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFFTwnYXI20

Re:who cares?

[Pinchiukas]

Yeah, and drugs are not that bad. If they were, nobody would be using them.

Re:who cares?

[initdeep]

somebody who finally understands....

amazing on /.

Are you feeling ok?

Re:who cares?

[Killjoy_NL]

oi, just trying to be fair here, we can bash MS all we want, but let's be fair about it.

FUD is their way, not our way, so I think it's better to always place the right references to the comments we make or we will sink down to their level.

Have to say though, it's been a long time since I have been modded troll hehe ^_^

Re:who cares?

[Haeleth]

McDonald's ubiquity demonstrates that for the market it's targeting, it is indeed, the best restaurant.

No, you are making the same old mistake. McDonalds is the most popular restaurant, and it is the most successful restaurant, but those are not at all the same thing as being the "best".

What does "best" mean? In the context of the market McDonalds targets, "best" means the optimum combination of low prices, efficient service, and food that looks, smells, and tastes consistently good. But the fact that McDonalds is more popular and more successful than any other fast-food chain does not mean that it actually scores better on any of these metrics: it just means that people think it does. In other words, we're talking about quality of marketing, not quality of product.

And it's not even a great analogy, because the fast food market is very competitive, while the computer operating system market is about as uncompetitive as they come.

People don't choose Microsoft because it's the best. People don't choose Microsoft because it costs less, or because it's more secure, or because it's more reliable, or even because it's easier to use. People choose Microsoft because it's familiar, because everyone else chooses Microsoft, because nobody ever got fired for choosing Microsoft. Most people never even get so far as evaluating alternatives or trying to decide whether or not Microsoft provides the best fit for their needs -- Windows is so ubiquitous that people simply stick with it automatically!

There are reasons for Microsoft's ubiquity.

Of course there are. The main one is that about 15 years ago Microsoft managed to achieve a situation where there was no serious alternative on the desktop, and then they leveraged the power this gave them brilliantly to entrench themselves firmly enough to become almost impossible to dislodge, however good the would-be competition becomes.

To take your fast-food analogy in a different and possibly more successful direction, the reason Microsoft dominates the desktop is pretty similar to the reason fast food is more successful than haute cuisine: the vast majority of people don't care about quality, they just want to stay in their comfort zone and stick with what they've always been used to having. Whether Linux + OpenOffice.org is better or worse than Windows is completely irrelevant: most people will reject it purely because it's different.

(The fact that you and your poor friend had trouble getting wireless to work in Ubuntu, on the other hand, is totally meaningless. I can counter that anecdote with another: I and a very IT-literate friend spent the best part of a weekend unsuccessfully trying to get wireless to work in Windows XP. Wow, now we have two opposing stories, and neither of them is a valid argument. [In fact, neither of us can even prove we're not exaggerating!] Can we drop the FUDdy silliness now and get back to rational discussion? Thanks.)

Re:who cares?

[BitZtream]

Popularity is a rather good metric for quality, its just not generally related to what its spun as.

McDonalds has horrible food, no argument there.

Their popularity shows they have a quality business machine however.

Microsoft's popularity doesn't show quality in their software, but it does show they are doing 'something' right, maybe not legal or ethical, but they are a large very profitable business, like it or not. They have a quality something, perhaps its the marketing and propoganda department. It might be the 'buy out your competition or crush it some other way department'. I can't really say, but they definately have a quality something.

Re:who cares?

[professionalfurryele]

That their operating system comes preinstalled on most hardware?

Seriously I've install DOS, Windows 3.11, Windows 95, 98 and XP (with SATA RAID support), and I've installed Gentoo, Ubuntu (Hardy and Gutsy), and Debian and they were all a monumental pain to get working (although Gentoo was king).

I'd be hard pushed to pick a winner in this catagory. It's like thermonuclear war, there are no winners, and Ubuntu probably loses the least. Windows is pretty far down in the getting hardware to work first time stakes.

This being said my comparison isn't really fair. I've not tried to install Vista yet, and I haven't installed Ubuntu anyhere other than on a virtual hard disk recently, so maybe Vista has made mind blowing improvements and Microsoft's offering has caught up.

Re:who cares?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

No, you are making the same old mistake. McDonalds is the most popular restaurant, and it is the most successful restaurant, but those are not at all the same thing as being the "best".

You two are simply using the term best in reference to different qualities. You're referring to the best quality of product, whereas the previous poster was referring to the best fit for the demands of the market. One does not preclude nor imply the other.

But the fact that McDonalds is more popular and more successful than any other fast-food chain does not mean that it actually scores better on any of these metrics: it just means that people think it does.

Accurate information is prerequisite for an efficient, capitalist market. Marketing does work to change what is believed rather than what is. That said, it is hard to argue McDonalds succeeds in the market because their marketing department is so much better than that of Burger King or Wendy's. They're all competing and marketing at once and it is only smaller players in more niche markets that do not have significant, traditional marketing.

And it's not even a great analogy, because the fast food market is very competitive, while the computer operating system market is about as uncompetitive as they come.

Agreed. This is a very important differentiator. You can look at the fast food business as a success for the capitalist market, whereas the desktop OS market is an abysmal failure. I would add to your comments that because of antitrust law enforcement, most people assume a free market is operating, even when it is not. As such, they assume that large market share is an indicator of whether or not a product is suited to the market and end users. This is not true for markets that are being abused by monopolists.

Re:who cares?

[wylderide]

They say "Get the facts", which is good advice, really, and likely something you'll have to do after reading their stuff. But as to believing what they write to be facts, well ... "I'm just going to be over here saying things. If you just happen to hear them and believe them, that's your own fault."

Re:who cares?

[Repossessed]

Most of those examples had the distinct advantage of being *cheap*. This is one of the most important qualities out there if you want your product to be ubiquitous.

In fact, Microsoft gained its market share, largely by being cheaper than the alternatives, the rash of IBM clone machines guaranteed that DOS hardware looked more attractive.

Software, however, is a special economic scenario, once the market became mostly saturated with one OS, the software was all written for one OS, and the hardware was all designed for one OS, which meant that Microsoft now gets to be the more expensive option (usually), and even in cases where the quality is clearly lower (not always of course), it ends up being used simply because it is the application that is the entire point of having the computer.

Re:who cares?

[WK2]

Just make sure that the actor playing (B) doesn't come off as the friendly fat kid in glasses, while the actor playing (A) comes off as a smug jerkwad who picks on the fat kid with glasses.

Re:who cares?

[Bert64]

The problem comes back to support. What do you tell a newly converted Linux user when he/she asks why their software and hardware won't work? You tell them to call up the company from whom they bought linux support from...
Just like you would if they were using windows.

The difference is that linux offers a free unsupported version, you wouldnt complain about being unable to call microsoft for help if you had a pirated copy of windows (the closest thing you can get).

Re:who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

QWERTY isn't designed to slow typists down. It's designed to avoid jamming. Two quite different things.

Re:who cares?

[Free the Cowards]

The thing is, a lot of organizations, as well as individual users, actually do look at the options available to them and actually determine that the Microsoft offering is the best for their needs. Of course, for certain places, Microsoft's offerings are the best available. But your fallacy comes from assuming that they're the best because they're good. In reality, they're the best merely because everything else is worse. And the only reason for that is because Microsoft completely destroyed almost all reasonable competition.

Look at the available competition. You have Apple, which survives and prospers because they target basically a single niche. You have Linux, which survives and prospers because it's free. (Linux is good, but it never would have gotten this far if it had been commercial.) And that's it! There are various really minor players but they're either dying or emulating one of these two.

Now flash back to the early/mid 80s. Lots of viable systems out there. Where did they all go? Microsoft killed them with superior marketing, anti-competitive tactics, and just plain evil.

So while it may not be correct to state that the only reason people use Microsoft products today is because of better marketing, it is pretty much correct that the only reason they're on top today is because of marketing and underhandedness in the past.

Re:who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the claim is usually that Microsoft is on top only because they are on top. ... Consider the fact that one of the main reasons holding business back from using Linux on the desktop is Exchange, which has absolutely nothing to do with the OS.

In this example, why would Exchange hold anyone back? Aren't there alternatives to Exchange? Why not switch to one of the alternatives? Or are those alternatives simply not as good as Exchange (which is, interestingly enough, a Microsoft product)? Therefore, would it not be correct to say that, in this instance, the business stays with Microsoft because it's actually the best option for their needs?

Re:who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if that guy could be sued for libel.

Re:who cares?

[number6x]

Very true.

That does add an additional factor for competitors to overcome.

Re:who cares?

[schlick]

"Microsoft is demonstrably the best OS in the same way that McDonald's ubiquity makes it demonstrably the best restaurant." Uh Oh,
If Microsoft is McDonalds, that makes Apple TGI Fridays's.

Re:who cares?

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

Of course you install X on a server.

How else do you run Webmin?

Re:who cares?

[_Sprocket_]

In this example, why would Exchange hold anyone back? Aren't there alternatives to Exchange? Why not switch to one of the alternatives? Or are those alternatives simply not as good as Exchange (which is, interestingly enough, a Microsoft product)? Therefore, would it not be correct to say that, in this instance, the business stays with Microsoft because it's actually the best option for their needs? Why should and email / calendaring system dictate an entire platform and infrastructure choice?

Re:who cares?

[init100]

Viruses, malware, grayware and a great deal Spam owe their entire existence to the miserable and fatally flawed security model of Microsoft's Windows. This cannot be meaningfully denied. Said ailments make the average PC users daily computer experience a nightmare of inconvenience and paranoia. Yet the vast majority are forced to use it.

What is equally bad is that many people think that this is something fundamental to computers, and do not understand that these security problems could have been avoided with an operating system with a better security model.

It's just like in the days before Windows XP, when people thought that daily crashes were a fact of life in computer use, not a deficiency of their current operating system.

Re:who cares?

[AeroIllini]

There is this idea that the modern capitalist ideal allows only the best products to survive and inferior products must change or disappear. This idea is mostly fiction. There are products that survive and thrive in the marketplace because they are good products, but they only serve to highlight the background noise of garbage products that owe their existence to the imbalance of the marketplace due to billions of cash bribes. Many of the these bribes are known as marketing. I disagree. The capitalism ideal of competition creating the best products is based on a set of assumptions that are mostly correct in some markets and not even applicable in others. It's based on the idea that a market is free, i.e., competitive. It's also based on the assumption that the description of "best" in the market translates into "what people want to buy." What you think is best is not necessarily what the market, in the aggregate, thinks is best.

However, when you look at the PC OS market, all those assumptions are invalid because it's not a competitive market. Since there's essentially only one player, that one player can (and does) do anything they can to keep their marketshare, instead of having the incentive to improve their products. Windows is not the best product for the market. People hate their computers, but they are a necessary evil so they put up with them. That's not the same thing as having a choice of products and choosing the one you think is best.

The GPP's assertion is nonsense because that statement only holds in a competitive market. The PC OS market is no such thing.

Re:who cares?

[AftanGustur]

The prouct that wins in a competitive open market is rarely ever the product a human would 'feel' was best. Often they would 'feel' it was an inferior product.

As much effort as you seem to have put into your post, the OS market simply isn't a "competitive open market".

Unlike hamburgers which you choose as a example, people don't go around shopping for an OS, over 95% of people buy a computer and the OS comes bundled with it.

The OS market is what economists call a "lemon market", that is, the seller knows much more about the product than the buyer.
Buyers try to look for "signals" about the quality of the product, such as word-of-mouth, price, reviews and advertising, but the feature of "lemon markets" still holds, which is that the "lemons" get sold first.

Re:who cares?

[AeroIllini]

The product that the market place chooses as 'best' is rarely what a human would think of as 'best'. Market winners are usually best described as 'adequate'. They get the job done, and usually not much more. It depends on how you define "best". There is not one scale for that.

In your hamburger example, you have defined "best" as "highest quality". But quality and price are a sliding scale, and your idea of "best" is also the most expensive (or at least more expensive than the "adequate" hamburger from McDonald's).

But the market doesn't describe "best" that way. The market describes "best" as the equilibrium point of supply and demand, which dictates a quantity and a price. Since price and quality are very much related, it also tends to dictate quality. The market's "best" product, therefore, is better described as the optimum point on a balance of quality and price. This is why most mainstream products are just "good enough" ... because people have a finite amount of money to spend, and they have to choose carefully, so they end up choosing cheaper products (which are usually lower in quality).

Such is the nature of the market. People don't buy based on quality alone, they also buy based on price and many other factors, including image, convenience, expectations, etc. And the product they chose (assuming the market is competitive and the consumer is aware of all the alternatives) is, by definition, the product they "feel" best balances all those factors. It is usually not the highest quality product, because there are other factors involved.

As for Billy G. raising the cost of Linux: I'm not sure he has to. All he has to do is keep Windows "free"--i.e., standard install on all OEM computers. As long as Windows is "free" and the dominant player, any other player will have trouble competing.

Re:who cares?

[repapetilto]

hilarious

Re:who cares?

[mhall119]

In this example, why would Exchange hold anyone back? Aren't there alternatives to Exchange? Why not switch to one of the alternatives? The specific scenario I was referring to was switching desktops to Linux. If a company uses Exchange for email/calendaring, there are no Linux clients that integrate as well as Outlook. Sure they could change their server software when they change their desktop software, but that reinforces my point, now you don't just need an alternative to Windows, you need an alternative to Outlook+Exchange as well.

Or are those alternatives simply not as good as Exchange (which is, interestingly enough, a Microsoft product)? There are many alternatives to Exchange that work just as well or better. From packaged suites like Lotus, Zimbra or IceWarp, or you can put together your own choices of Pop3/Imap, WebDAV, CalDAV and LDAP servers. The point is that when deciding whether or not to switch away from Windows, the MS monoculture forces you to have to switch server software too.

Therefore, would it not be correct to say that, in this instance, the business stays with Microsoft because it's actually the best option for their needs? No, it's just re-enforcing my original point, that Microsoft makes it hard to leave, not easy to stay. Exchange is a terrible email/calendaring system, everyone I've seen use it on a large scale has problems with it. But the fact of the matter is that once you've implemented the entire Windows+Outlook+Exchange stack, you can't switch just one piece of it, you have to switch it all.

Re:who cares?

[repapetilto]

Ok... so I'm no computer geek, but I've spent alot of time on them over the years (22 now so probably at least 12 with computers) trying to get shit to work,etc, and moreso I'm interested (I like knowing but don't have unlimited time to spend on everything I like knowing about) in how it all works. Always been windows, except for at gradeschool where we had iMacs. Anyway, so my buddy gave me a kubuntu version whatever live cd/install cd the other week, I messed around for it with a bit, and everything was just more confusing. Now I realize the role familiarity is playing here, but it wasn't just that. It was that if I was wondering how to do something, I would look it up and come across so much jargon and other stuff I didn't understand (because the advice/help assumed that I had some sort of previous knowledge) that looking it all up just wasn't worth it to switch. Now I also have a laptop with a messed up power input jack that I might get fixed and use to explore the world of linux so I never have to pay for an OS again, but at this point it just wasn't worth it for me to switch. So, what am I missing? What feature(s) (besides cost and idealism)does an open source OS allow someone like me that windows doesn't?

Re:who cares?

[His Shadow]

QWERTY isn't designed to slow typists down. It's designed to avoid jamming. Two quite different things.

But that's not any better, is it? The manual typewriter has been dead for how long? The fact that computer keyboards were standardised on a layout made expressly for mechanical devices is ludicrous, especially when superior designs (Dvorak) were available.

Re:who cares?

[mhall119]

Now I realize the role familiarity is playing here, but it wasn't just that. It's probably not so much a familiarity thing, but rather a difference in concepts. Linux isn't just a different Windows, things that you may think are inherent in computers themselves, like drive letters (C:\) are actually Window-isms, while things like mount points, which you would never have come across on Windows, are pretty ubiquitous on other operating systems.

Another problem you will run into, especially when looking for online support, is that there is no single "Linux" setup. Depending on your disro, and even your individual setup, menu items and programs may be different, or not there at all. Imagine someone trying to write a support article that covered everything from Windows 3.1 to Vista with a single explanation. This is one of the reasons why most help you find online are for the command line, because that is where most Linux systems are most similar. The other reason is that command line instructions are smaller and harder to misunderstand than a laundry list of "go here and click, now go there and click, now go here again and click".

Linux has a steep learning curve if all you're familiar with is Linux. Then again, you'd have the same learning curve going to BSD, Mac OSX, Solaris, or any other non-Windows OS. But once you start learning the basics, like mounting drives, the separation of the GUI from the actual OS, and the like, you will not only be as comfortable in Linux as you are on Windows, you will actually understand what your computer is doing much better, and all that daunting "jargon" will feel as natural to you as "C drive", "Start menu" and "Control Panel" do now.

Re:who cares?

[spasm]

ok, let's correct it: qwerty is designed to avoid jamming, through the mechanism of slowing typists down.

Re:who cares?

[El Cabri]

Avoiding jamming on mechanical typewriters is the same as having as much alternating between left hand and right hand as possible for successive letters, which makes typing faster and more comfortable. The story that qwerty slows typing down is one lame urban myth. One case of perfect match between engineering practicality and ergonomics, which is why it was so succesfull.

Re:who cares?

[micheas]

What feature(s) (besides cost and idealism)does an open source OS allow someone like me that windows doesn't?

I have an O'Reilly vi handbook that was published before you were born.

Everything in that book works on FreeBSD, Linux, OSX, and most other operating systems except Windows. (although there is a port of vim for windows.)

A windows book from that era would probably be of no use what soever.

Look at the XP -> Vista outrage. That is a relatively minor windows change and it is causing all sorts of havoc. What of your current skills will be of any use when Vista is end-of-lifed? My guess would be just the little bit you picked up from playing with kubuntu.

I will admit that Linux distributions are not as polished as Vista, but you can see how Ubuntu, Debian, Mint, Mandriva, SuSE, and RedHat, could get there. (one of the reasons why it is so frustrating that they are not there now.)

If you are looking at a startup web company, Amazon web services are only available to you if you run Linux, (FreeBSD support is being worked on, limited by Xen support in FreeBSD.) $72/month plus actual usage is a lot cheaper than $1500/month for space in a colo, plus hardware, plus bandwidth.

One thing you also get is unified software updates of all your software. Image if windows update grabbed the latest version of photoshop, firefox, Norton, Google Earth, in addition to Windows and Microsoft office.

Another thing you get from open source software at the moment, is better compatibility with Microsoft Word and Excel. I have a client that uses NeoOffice to open OfficeXP .doc and .xls files because MS office for the mac does not open them. (however office for the mac will open .xls and .doc files saved from NeoOffice, as will OfficeXP)

Also, end-of-life is less final in the open source world than in the closed source world. FreeBSD 4.x was EOL in 2005 but there have been security patches issues for it after that date as there are still companies like verio with large installs of FreeBSD 4.x

While driver support for NVidia, and ATI video cards is poor under linux compared to windows, for obscure hardware linux has much better support for it.

I am sure one could come up with more things you get out of open source, like developers tools, niche products etc. but I hope this gives you a bit a taste for why you might take the time to learn a Linux distribution or one of the BSDs.

Finally, if you insist on being Windows centric you might keep an eye on http://www.reactos.org/. Which could use some help in trying to become a successor to XP.

Re:who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is this idea that the modern capitalist ideal allows only the best products to survive and inferior products must change or disappear. This idea is mostly fiction.

The "mostly fiction" is this BS you type. First, what is the "modern capitalist ideal"? Why use the adjective modern? In my mind, Adam Smith would be sufficiently modern but anything with copyright or patent protection is not capitalist per se. You muddy the waters by merging your ignorance of technology with your ignorance of philosophy. Which is the greater ignorance, I cannot say.

WRT QWERTY, if you go there, tred lightly. QWERTY was designed to speed up M-E-C-H-A-N-I-C-A-L typewriting. It was not designed for the modern keyboard (just as DVORAK is not designed for one-handed typing or texting on a phone). At the time, it was deemed better than alphabetical but by no means could it have been the best. It was designed to scratch an itch (the jamming of adjacent hammers in the keyboard).

The QWERTY keyboard is a perfect example of just how full of shit you are when you use phrases like "capitalist ideal" or "Microsoft's Windows". Nobody's bread is buttered by the on-going ASSKICKING that QWERTY is giving the rest of the world (tongue-in-cheek - texting and recorded media and speech interpretors will take marketshare from QWERTY). It was not deemed a winner by a "free" market or even an "unfree" market. The market has dick to do with it (nor is it "market failure" at least not until a country invents "communist success"). It won (period). The QWERTY mafia won't knock down your door if you switch to something else and alternative layouts are available at reasonable cost.

It is all about "switching costs". These are real, indisputable and neither a free nor an unfree market can avoid them. Arguably, a free market could elect to avoid or defer them and an unfree market could force the change through (the idiots might pick DVORAK over Colemak or something designed by an undersecretary's sister).

All that aside, I'm just being an asshole and largely agree that inferior products can dominate VERY easily. I just don't like stuipd, ignorant inferances about modern capitalists (of which, you know nothing about).

Re:who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

FUD is their way, not our way

You're new here, aren't you?

Re:who cares?

[Samah]

Interesting point: In Australia, McDonalds, Hungry Jacks (Burger King), and KFC are pretty much equally popular. There's not really a "definitive market leader" burger as such. Personally I think KFC's chips are the best ;)

Re:who cares?

[rtechie]

This means that for servers and infrastructure, paid support is a fucking joke. This bodes poorly for the Open Source companies that want to make money from providing support, but that's just how it is. You seem to be dealing with the wrong companies. My company is willing to do custom development for customers if they're willing to pay for it and our support organization knows more about the product than any customer ever could. So our support is generally excellent. It's also fairly expensive. These things are closely connected.

The time has past when you can expect even marginally decent free technical support. If you want support in the enterprise you're going to have to pay through the nose for it. MS actually isn't too bad in this regard, at least compared to Sun, Oracle, Novell, and many Linux vendors.

We use Sharepoint 2007 at work for our websites, and the licensing ain't cheap. Over $50,000 for each internet-facing server, another $20k for SQL 2005, and a bit of change for Windows licenses to run the servers and AD (plus additional licensing for the authoring environment). But that money's just a drop in the bucket compared to the money spent on developers to customize it and training of staff. So stop pissing and moaning and make your own custom portal, a Wiki, use Remedy, Websphere, or one of the many other document management solutions/web portals out there. Of course, none of that has the features of Sharepoint. Personally, I wouldn't use Sharepoint as a customer-facing web solution (it shines mostly in an AD environment) but you might have a specific need.

Re:who cares?

[laddiebuck]

It is -- why do you think Apple doesn't run those ads in the EU? Most EU countries (not all, but most) have laws about advertising, and one such law is that you can't knock a competitor's product specifically when advertising yours. This is the reason why, say, washing powder ads always compare the brand to a "generic brand" or "competing brand". Knocking the other person's product is always evil (and thankfully illegal in much of Europe), no matter whether it's Apple or Microsoft doing it. For the record, I use Linux, and I won't touch either Windows or OS X, and I don't like either company much, but with Apple it's a mild distaste and with Microsoft it's pure resentment and loathing.

Re:who cares?

[turbidostato]

"Or are those alternatives simply not as good as Exchange"

Or are those alternatives not so entangled to other... Microsoft products like Microsoft Office or Microsoft Active Directory? (surprise, surprise).

Microsoft was accused -and found guilty, of abusive monopolistic practices and today one of the strongest arguments to stay with Microsoft is Microsoft entanglement and lock-in (it's so curious... or is it?)

"Therefore, would it not be correct to say that, in this instance, the business stays with Microsoft because it's actually the best option for their needs?"

Certainly Microsoft is the best *percieved short term* option for their needs.

Re:who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

"QWERTY isn't designed to slow typists down. It's designed to avoid jamming. Two quite different things."

QWERTY is design to avoid jamming by slowing typists down. Two not so quite different things.

Re:who cares?

[Repton]

<sigh> Do you remember the good old days when you could physically damage your monitor if you made mistakes in XF86Config? Alas for progress...

Re:who cares?

[wrook]

I like your rant. Mainly because it really emphasizes something I've been thinking for a while.

When you consider the two options:

1. Buying a proprietary software package, and buying a support contract with it.

2. Buying a custom development contract based on free or open source software.

Which would be better?

Proprietary companies generally are in business to sell licenses. They don't want to give support, even if they have sold it. Since they get paid no matter how much actual support they do, they view support as an expense, not revenue.

With free/open source software development contracts, the point of the contract is to get paid for extending the software. At best you can use that change to procure other work. At worst, it improves your reputation so that your shop becomes the "go to guys" for the software. So providing real benefit is crucial.

Couple this with the fact that you can change vendors without having to change your software, and it seems obvious to me that for complicated software you want open source development contracts.

I wonder, given your story, if the money you spent on Sharepoint would have been enough for a complete, working open source solution that met your needs exactly.

Re:who cares?

[jawahar]

If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you. -- Oscar Wilde

Re:who cares?

[ta bu shi da yu]

OK, if the debugging led to nothing then I agree that you should feel shitty. It's always bad when bugs for things get released into code - I work for a software company and always cringe when I see this - what was their time to fix?

With regards to complex errors: so long as you get good support, who can interpret the errors, it shouldn't be too bad. You may feel differently, don't blame you if you do.

I would also agree that if they can reproduce the problem on their end, that is what they should be doing, not get you to test on your environment.

Re:who cares?

[ta bu shi da yu]

Oh come on! That wasn't a troll.

Re:who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

If they were using Windows, they wouldn't HAVE to call anyone. It would already be supported.

I also think that both you and I know exactly what kind of answer we would get if we contacted some company to ask for Linux support. Something along the lines of "Sorry, no". The Linux community is in no position to demand support from any company. Linux is the underdog and therefore the community needs to start taking the initiative if they ever want to convert more desktops. Whether that is done through organised arrangements with those companies or reverse engineering, it needs to happen.

I certainly won't do it, because I don't prescribe to the Linux-is-best-for-everything dogma. Windows works just fine for me and for millions of others. We aren't going to change our OS unless there is a true alternative. Put out something that "just works" with 90+ percent of all PC hardware and Windows software, then the Linux community might start taking market away from MS. Until then, Linux will remain "behind the scenes" as servers and headless workhorses, areas in which it currently excels. Personally, I am satisfied with this setup, Linux for servers and Windows for desktops.

Re:who cares?

[uniquegeek]

More likely call your kid, or your neighbour's kid. My parents are still using Windows and I've been using Linux for two years. When they phone me, I don't know if I should feel happy or sad. "Uh... it's doing what? I don't know where to fix that or change that, I don't remember. Look in the menus or help file?"

Re:who cares?

[Hognoxious]

Better a ham fisted typist than an ignorant fucktard, or so my old granny used to say.

The word is "buncombe", not "bunkum".

[jcr]

Doesn't anybody read H. L. Mencken anymore?

-jcr

Re:The word is "buncombe", not "bunkum".

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't anybody read anymore?

Re:The word is "buncombe", not "bunkum".

[wilder_card]

Geez, man, nobody reads anymore!! Where have you been? When they make this H. L. Mencken guy's book into a movie, maybe people will have heard of him. Of course, it won't help the spelling of "buncombe" unless it's in the movie title.

Re:The word is "buncombe", not "bunkum".

[elrous0]

Mencken's days as a prominent social critic are *long* over, my friend. And it doesn't help that most of his colorful colloquialisms have long since fallen out of the popular lexicon. I'm not surprised that someone misspelled "bumcombe." I'm surprised that anyone today even used the word in the first place.

Re:The word is "buncombe", not "bunkum".

[jcr]

I'm not surprised that someone misspelled "bumcombe."

Change that first "m" to an "n".

-jcr

Re:The word is "buncombe", not "bunkum".

[zobier]

I'm not surprised that someone misspelled "bumcombe." I'm surprised that anyone today even used the word in the first place. I still hear the forms bunk and de-bunk relatively frequently. Also to GP, both wiki and MW think the main form is bunkum, though the etymology is buncombe.

Microsoft bashing is outdated

[Bender_]

Nothing against a well founded unbiased comparison of different products. But your article already starts off stating that it is purposefully against one of the options. Why should this be any better than the Microsoft press department gibberish?

Re:Microsoft bashing is outdated

[RiotingPacifist]

1+(-1) = 0
If we bash there lies then the two should cancel out, unfortunately
1) they're bigger than us
2) this article is preaching to the MS bashing choir, if you want to cancel out their fud you have to buy the same adspots they do, fight them were they fight. If anybody on /. is using MS its due to an informed decision, not some MS bull, so your not going convert anybody posting here. (maybe digg, has a few suckers who fall for MS bull) But most likely you have to buy some ads at PHB.com or preconfiguredservers.com

Re:Microsoft bashing is outdated

[Bender_]

How about just having a third party review that compares products according to certain customer applications without using words and phrases suchs as "war", "rallying against", "Rather than", "legitimate comparison", "spin doctors opt for bunkum and hogwash" ,"sensational headlines", "don't have any substance", "blatant lack of integrity displayed"?

Oh, did I just quote the entire article? Surprising how little substance remains after cutting out the polemic.

Re:Microsoft bashing is outdated

[Anonymous Coward]

Especially if you arbitrarily redefine everything as polemic. I think you need to look up what that word means.

Re:Microsoft bashing is outdated

[Lincolnshire Poacher]

> How about just having a third party review that compares products

That is difficult to achieve when, for example, Microsoft and Oracle EULAs prohibit releasing the results of benchmarking.

In Microsoft's case, this prohibition originated with SQL Server and now encompasses any product which uses the .Net frameworks including, apparently, WMP 11.

Fortunately I don't have any such concerns with the software I use, OpenBSD. Does that make me a shill?

Re:Microsoft bashing is outdated

[Lincolnshire Poacher]

Follow-up.

SQL Server remains off-limits for benchmarking. From the EULA for SS2005 Std / Ent:

5. BENCHMARK TESTING. You must obtain Microsoft's prior written approval to disclose to a third party the results of any benchmark test of the software.

However the company has now changed its restrictions for .Net benchmarking. One can release results according to certain ( sane ) requirements on the condition that Microsoft can reciprocally benchmark your software:

Benchmark Testing, Microsoft .NET Framework

Still glad I don't use proprietary software.

Re:Microsoft bashing is outdated

[Anonymous Coward]

Surprising how little substance remains after cutting out the polemic.

Put a nice big bold-type-and-graphics-rich cover on it and you'd have next month's Wired.

Re:Microsoft bashing is outdated

[crimson30]

Nothing against a well founded unbiased comparison of different products. But your article already starts off stating that it is purposefully against one of the options. Why should this be any better than the Microsoft press department gibberish?

Why? Maybe because it contains facts.

Similarly, when proponents of homeopathy/psychic powers/etc put out a study/meta-analysis and skeptics come in basically with their minds already made up, do the facts that they bring up to prove their point somehow become less factual?

Re:Microsoft bashing is outdated

[Anonymous Coward]

AhA! OWNED!

Re:Microsoft bashing is outdated

[hackstraw]

SQL Server remains off-limits for benchmarking. From the EULA for SS2005 Std / Ent:

5. BENCHMARK TESTING. You must obtain Microsoft's prior written approval to disclose to a third party the results of any benchmark test of the software.

How is this legal?

I'm not just thowing a car analogy out there, but its the first thing that I thought of. Cars when they say they have XXX horsepower, these claims are within government guidelines on how to measure horsepower.

The same is true for gas milage.

Benchmarks are part of the decision making process, and they are useful within and between different products (eg, SQL Server 1998 vs SQL server 2001 vs Oracle 15).

Yes, I know that benchmarks are not the end all be all, but they are a fairly standardized unit of measure that is used in many industries.

I also just hate EULAs, especially ones that don't even stay the same within a single product.

Re:Microsoft bashing is outdated

[CODiNE]

I've wondered, can you do a sort of "clean room benchmarking" in cases like this? It's sort of ridiculous, but at least it would get some benchmarks out there.

ie: Bob installs hostile EULA software which forbids benchmarking, Steve asks Bob if he can use the server for a bit. "Why sure Steve, no problem". Steve then runs a comprehensive set of benchmarks and publishes the results. Steve never installed or bought the software and certainly never agreed to the EULA. Bob doesn't even know what Steve was doing and doesn't care to ask.

Re:Microsoft bashing is outdated

[rtechie]

That is difficult to achieve when, for example, Microsoft and Oracle EULAs prohibit releasing the results of benchmarking. Yeah, and? EULAs are not valid contracts. You can safely ignore them.

As far as I'm aware, nobody has ever been sued for posting MSSQL or Oracle benchmarks. If you can come up with a case I'll consider this a serious problem.

I've never seen any benchmarks for WMP11 except encoding benchmarks, which are everywhere as well.

Fortunately I don't have any such concerns with the software I use, OpenBSD. Does that make me a shill? Yes, because it's nonsense that you can't benchmark MS products. And it's not like you need to use this kind of bullshit to defend mySQL or whatever. MSSQL is not a particularly fast database.

Re:Microsoft bashing is outdated

[zobier]

I couldn't find a way of advertising on PHB.com, but who could take these guys seriously.

I dunno if I'd call it a "war"

[BadAnalogyGuy]

What would happen if you had a war and no one showed up?

Re:I dunno if I'd call it a "war"

[rjames13]

What would happen if you had a war and no one showed up? You'd get fired.

Re:This is a typical Microsoft tactic...

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish I had modpoints right now!

Trolling the blog-whore

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Two wrongs don't make a right... or do they?

Re:Trolling the blog-whore

[atezun]

No, but I hear third time's a charm.

Re:Trolling the blog-whore

[SuperBigGulp]

No, but I just read some really weird stuff about Ann Coulter.

Re:Trolling the blog-whore

[utnapistim]

>> Two wrongs don't make a right... or do they?

No, but three lefts do.

Re:Trolling the blog-whore

[rucs_hack]

== TRUE, so in first order logic, they do.

Re:Trolling the blog-whore

[tuxgeek]

Two wrongs don't make a right

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Double negatives can make a positive if applied just right.

Swedish public sector

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who lived and studied in Uppsala and has worked in several places in the public sector in Sweden, I can tell you that there are LOTS of Pointy Haired Bosses and sysadmins theres who are unabashedly Microsoft-philes.

The bosses because they all they know how to use is MS Office and they demand Outlook integration so they can book meetings and keep tabs on employees. Sysadmins because they are often self-taught (from magazines such as Datormagazin and they feel threatened whenever someone suggests using something other than Windows.

Sadly many Swedish universites are in the process of switching to AD.

Re:Swedish public sector

[Anonymous Coward]

Ironically Datormagazin is one of the most Linux friendly Swedish magazines, they even had a 5 page guide for people who wants to switch from Windows to Linux or OSX just a couple of months ago. :)

People who actually read it should have a more nuanced view than the "Microsoft-philes".

Re:Swedish public sector

[Anonymous Coward]

Ironically Datormagazin is one of the most Linux friendly Swedish magazines, they even had a 5 page guide for people who wants to switch from Windows to Linux or OSX just a couple of months ago. :)

Yeah I know, perhaps I was a bit unfair, it is a mixed bag... Programming sections lately though are always just about vb vb vb .net .net .net....

People who actually read it should have a more nuanced view than the "Microsoft-philes".

Thanks, I've read it since issue #1 (the "V" cover) in 1986... when it was about C64. 5 years ago I thought it was very good, but these days I find very little interesting in it. Don't know if I've become better or the quality of the writing has declined.

Re:Swedish public sector

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree !

In my university (Umeå) http://www.umu.se/umu/index_eng.html we are leaning more and more against AD and other Microsoft backbone software such as exchange. I wonder if the fact that the President of Microsoft in Sweden Peter Kopelman is a member of the university board has anything to do with it ??

Re:Swedish public sector

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like ego and politics rather than technical merit is being considered...That's too bad, for Sweden.

Pot? Kettle? Black?

[antifoidulus]

"I've been rallying against Microsoft's so-called 'Get the Facts' site for the last fortnight in my blog. Rather than give any legitimate comparison facing off Windows Server vs similarly spec'd Linux options, the Microsoft spin doctors opt for bunkum and hogwash with sensational headlines that don't have any substance underneath.

Not defending Microsoft, but decrying them using the same tactics you are admonishing them for using probably won't win you any followers that weren't on your side to begin with.

Re:Pot? Kettle? Black?

[icebike]

That and blog pimping on /. just screams "loser".

Re:Pot? Kettle? Black?

[Anonymous Coward]

A company is trying to present themselves is the best possible light. On the Internet, even.

I must blog about this.

Re:Pot? Kettle? Black?

[initdeep]

blog pimping anywhere just screams loser.

in fact it screams more loser than Paris Hilton.

Re:Pot? Kettle? Black?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not defending Microsoft, but decrying them using the same tactics you are admonishing them for using probably won't win you any followers that weren't on your side to begin with. He doesn't use the same tactics! What he is admonishing Microsoft for is putting up sensational headlines that are not supported by the actual stories behind them. His own headline might also be sensational, but the article backs it up with actual facts.

Re:Pot? Kettle? Black?

[ClamIAm]

Dear OP,

To successfully argue a point, one needs three things: a claim, data to support that claim, and reasoning that shows why the data is relevant to the claim. In your post here you make a claim, but you don't provide any data or reasoning in support of it. Because of this, your claim is completely unconvincing.

If you wish to clarify your position, I'm sure people would be interested in hearing about it.

Re:Pot? Kettle? Black?

[Anonymous Coward]

From TFA...

(UPDATE: This article has been Slashdotted; in the comments some Slashdot readers express that even as of today "Get the facts" showed up as a sponsored ad for them.)

Is there a first person term for slashdotted, oh yeah, "loser".

Re:Pot? Kettle? Black?

[SacredByte]

No offense, but what part of /. doesn't?

In India and many other countries

[jkrise]

It is impossible to get support from Microsoft for a company based in India; even if one is willing to pay money. Microsoft sells Server licenses and Volume licenses and Corporate licenses; but nowhere do they sell Support for server, desktop or home software - atleast in India.

One has to go in for support from Microsoft partners and such, but the MCSEs who work there have little clue as to real problems faced by end users.

It thus makes a lot of sense to invest in Linux-based Open Source solutions because IT users have no use buying just Servers and Licenses - the benefit comes from the applications built on top of the servers.

At a hospital I consult with, for instance; we are replacing the entire in-house VB and .Net based system with a completely open source, open standards compliant system. The company that develops this software provides the necessary support for Linux as well. Unlike frequent virus, service pack and other application compatibility issues on Windows - post-Vista; we are yet to face a single issue with the Linux-based solution over the past 2 years.

I think the "Get The Facts" page from Microsoft should be modified for each country and each industry - a general scenario makes no sense.

Re:In India and many other countries

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't you get premier support in India? That would be a surprise??

http://www.microsoft.com/services/Microsoftservices/srv_premier.mspx

Re:In India and many other countries

[jkrise]

As I said, Premier Support is not available from Microsoft India. Support typically comes from Gold partners, and they have no clue about Server technology, choice of platforms, architecture etc., since these are controlled by Microsoft.

Even in rare instances of virus attacks etc, the firewall vendors provide the support and do the cleanup, not Microsoft. And this is the case despite Corporate Volume Licensing.

Re:In India and many other countries

[Anonymous Coward]

ok lets live in the real world here, none of this "i hate M$ because they are M$"

To be honest with you. It would be a dumb idea to replace windows server with linux servers.

For most business windows servers are better value. Purely because Linux developers/admins are few and far between, they are more expensive to hire, and development on the linux platform is alot harder.

So linux ends up being alot more expensive in the end.

I know this from real world experience.

I get sick of these 17 year old kids that say "linux linux linux", but that have never worked in the real world and never solved real business problems.

Linux in only good hobbiest.

Re:In India and many other countries

[r_jensen11]

It is impossible to get support from Microsoft for a company based in India; even if one is willing to pay money. Microsoft sells Server licenses and Volume licenses and Corporate licenses; but nowhere do they sell Support for server, desktop or home software - atleast in India. Of course they don't, imagine how expensive it would be to do so! If they provided support in India, where the hell would they outsource to? You can't provide support in the same country as your offices with tech support- a fundamental requirement is that nobody can understand anyone.

Re:In India and many other countries

[jkrise]

It would make excellent business sense for Microsoft to provide support in India. Because India is where software gets produced and supported; it makes sense to be liked by the developer community.

Currently in India, most companies prefer to develop on Java and Oracle on Linux, or PHP on Linux - the LAMP stack. .Net has a long way to go - even the Microsoft Compare page talks about PHP, Apache etc on Windows - but few developers are swayed to tkae up Windows servers for Open Source development.

Re:In India and many other countries

[Lumpy]

we are yet to face a single issue with the Linux-based solution over the past 2 years.

WE have. Linux skilled workers cost 50% to 100% more than MCSE candidates.

Granted we need 1 linux guy for every 3 MCSE's and it seems that the Linux guy is actually doing the MCSE work as well and more efficiently.

But real skilled It workers are expensive. It's far cheaper to hire the paper windows experts.

I mean come on, Microsoft certifies them, they have to be really good at what they do.

Re:In India and many other countries

[geminidomino]

Says apparently another 17 year old who has never worked in the real world.

A linux developer/admin may be hard to come by, and may or may not be more expensive to hire (I find that difficult to believe, personally), but you ignore the other side of the coin.

Pay $10k/yr more for a linux admin over an MCSE Monkey, or:

Pay for Windows Server License * $NUM_SERVS
Pay for MS SQL Server * $NUM_DBSRV
Pay for "Seat licenses" * $NUM_USERS
etc..

Lim $NUM_SERVS -> infinity, $WindowsCost/$LinuxCost = infinity

Microsoft doesn't scale, financially.

Re:In India and many other countries

[BitZtream]

Ironic, since everytime I've had to call them for support I talk to someone from India ...

Re:In India and many other countries

[rtechie]

It is impossible to get support from Microsoft for a company based in India; even if one is willing to pay money. Microsoft sells Server licenses and Volume licenses and Corporate licenses; but nowhere do they sell Support for server, desktop or home software - atleast in India. Total bullshit. Microsoft offers more support in more languages than any other OS vendor, and it's been that way for a long time. Try to get support for MacOS or Solaris in India.

One has to go in for support from Microsoft partners and such, but the MCSEs who work there have little clue as to real problems faced by end users. Virtually EVERYONE goes to the partners, whether they're in the US or not. MS only deals directly with the "top tier" customer that spend millions of dollars. The reality with Windows is that you can generally get outstanding support if, and only if, you're willing to pay for it. This is pretty similar to every other OS vendor.

It thus makes a lot of sense to invest in Linux-based Open Source solutions because IT users have no use buying just Servers and Licenses - the benefit comes from the applications built on top of the servers So you dislike MS because of their poor support and propose as an alternative systems which have no support whatsoever?

oh the irony!

[ionix5891]

i just spotted a "Get the facts" google adsense text block at the top of the page, rofl!

Re:oh the irony!

[ionix5891]

heres a screenshot!

http://img357.imageshack.us/img357/609/image2jl5.png

or

http://i27.tinypic.com/34xf094.png

Re:oh the irony!

[tzjanii]

You cannot fathom the terror in my heart as I reached for a link with an image describing Microsoft's advertising campaign.

*Crosses fingers* Oh, please don't be goatse, please don't be goatse, please don't be goatse...

Re:oh the irony!

[toddestan]

Well, I guess you can't accuse them of being off-topic.

Shocked, I am shocked!

[gsslay]

You mean to say that a sales and marketing website is manipulating the facts in order to show their product in a better light than competing products?

I am honestly shocked! I commend you on your campaign and congratulate you on your inevitable victory. Microsoft can do nothing but shamefacedly admit their blatant bias here and comply with your demands.

Re:Shocked, I am shocked!

[Mongoose Disciple]

Wait a minute... you're saying people can lie on the internet in order to get me to give them money?

How will I know which male performance enhancing products and Nigerian generals to trust?

Re:Shocked, I am shocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a difference between embellishing the facts and blatantly lying.

Re:Shocked, I am shocked!

[stelios78]

I think what people are saying is that a company deliberately lies to its customers(calling this manipulating the facts softens the notion substantially). When a company cannot even get its own customers (who no doubt get substantial discounts to hand out their endorsements) to say the things it wants them to say, you know they are in trouble.

Re:Shocked, I am shocked!

[Gazzonyx]

As a general rule of thumb, don't trust the ones that contact you. Be weary of the ones you contact.

Re:Shocked, I am shocked!

[ozmanjusri]

Be weary of the ones you contact.

If I was that tired, I'd wait I'd got some sleep.

I'm always wary of making fatigue-influenced purchases.

Re:Shocked, I am shocked!

[archeopterix]

You mean to say that a sales and marketing website is manipulating the facts in order to show their product in a better light than competing products?

There is a difference between waving something off as "marketing bullshit" and documenting particular manipulations. The former might give you +5 on Slashdot, the latter is more effective in real world.

Re:Shocked, I am shocked!

[yada21]

That's what you go to law school to learn!

Re:Shocked, I am shocked!

[elrous0]

Anyone dumb enough to base a purchase decision entirely on the seller's marketing materials *deserves* to get fucked. I wouldn't buy a toaster without looking for 3rd party opinions, much less make a major purchasing decision for my company.

Re:Shocked, I am shocked!

[b4dc0d3r]

I will tell you how to separate the wheat from the chaff, for one low price of $29.99 USD. Send inquiry at my e-mail address.

Re:Shocked, I am shocked!

[Gazzonyx]

touche.

does anybody read that garbage?

[nguy]

That Microsoft site is even more disorganized than the Windows control panel or the .NET documentation.

I think nobody is going to dig through that mess to help them make a decision. The only people who are going to bother with that are Microsoft fanboys trying to justify their OS with "data".

Re:does anybody read that garbage?

[Kalriath]

I'm sorry, did you say it was actually harder to browse the "Compare" site than MSDN? That's... near impossible!

Re:does anybody read that garbage?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it is on purpose. M$ just want to basic decision takers to know this web site exists. They read the titles of each article, have a look at the introduction and don't dig any further. Something clean and interesting could be more dangerous.

lol

[Tom]

my request to Microsoft PR to do something about the blatant lack of integrity displayed. You are questioning MS PR's modus operandi?

The whole thing is a FUD campaign. It's purpose is to be blatant, to lack any integrity, and to cause as much uncertainty and doubt as possible. Yes, that includes doubt about the integrity of MS. Any doubt is good doubt, as long as it stops people from switching to Linux.

Re:lol

[Anonymous Coward]

More and more I'm coming to the conclusion that Marketing. PR and advertisers are just people paid to lie.

Re:lol

[Tom]

You're late, take a number. ;-)

Re:Relax

[gsslay]

What, too long a word for you?

Seriously, I don't think he's looking for a date from you.

You mean...

[lilfields]

You mean Microsoft is doing what every other company on earth does in a comparative analysis? That's crazy, it's like what if Apple made a commercial where they assumed all PCs were basically eMachines running Windows 98...I'm so glad they don't do that...oh wait. If you're going to attack advertising campaigns attack everyone who does it (which is everyone) not just the ones you don't like. Then again if you successfully attacked and claimed victory over this advertising method....you wouldn't make much if any money from your blog, considering it's ad driven and your blog is basically just a comparative advertisement anyhow.

Re:You mean...

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean it's OK for companies to lie out their arse at people and we should just swallow the bullshit?

Does that mean we can like like shit too, or is it only rich companies allowed to do this?

Or, rather, can we call ANYONE out for lying like a bastard?

Re:You mean...

[denzacar]

You mean it's OK for companies to lie out their arse at people and we should just swallow the bullshit? -No, it is not OK. But everyone does is it anyway. Only it is not a good long term business policy to lie to your customers.
-No. Nobody forces you to swallow it. Make your own decisions.

Does that mean we can like like shit too, or is it only rich companies allowed to do this? -Yes. You can like shit too.
-No. Rich companies are allowed to like shit too.

Or, rather, can we call ANYONE out for lying like a bastard? -Yes, you can call out ANYONE. But ONLY if you call out everyone.
If you cherry-pick who you call out based on your personal preference - you Sir are a pussy.

Re:You mean...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hear hear!

I don't fully understand how this is not illegal

[pembo13]

I would think that a company intentionally spreading misleading information under the guise of facts would be illegal, if only so as to protect consumers. How is this not so?

M$'s "honesty"

[Anonymous Coward]

As a mid-term observer of M$ from a business perspective, I must say that virtually every statement out of the company ranges from dishonesty to outright lie. I am not in a position to analyze white papers and technical statements but the occasions on which an honest public statement were made in the last ten-plus years can be easily counted on one hand. It's the arrogance of a company that has, of course, prospered as a result of a monopoly, not because of any consistent quality to its products. (Why should they waste money on making something other than crap unless pressured? That's what a monopoly brings: crap shoved down your throat.)

I'm surprised the poster is surprised by M$'s dishonesty.

Jesus, M$ makes Apple look straight and honest....

Re:M$'s "honesty"

[Kalriath]

Jesus, M$ makes Apple look straight and honest.... Oh hell no. At least Microsoft doesn't claim to be the second coming of Jesus. Try getting Apple to admit that they aren't god's gift to computing.

Re:M$'s "honesty"

[Wingsy]

Maybe they won't admit that they aren't, because they and the vast majority of the people who use them think they are.

Re:M$'s "honesty"

[geminidomino]

Maybe they won't admit that they aren't, because they and the vast majority of the people who use them think they are. Wow. Talk about double-talk. "Vast majority" of 1/11th of the computer users.

Re:M$'s "honesty"

[Anonymous Coward]

That doesn't say much for the intelligence of the people who use Apple products.

By the way, want some Kool-Aid?

The Company of Evangelists

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you expect from a marketing company?! For technical expertise you need to look at companies with technical people in it. Not full of 'evangelists'.

They have some bright people, pity they are drowned out by rest of the machine.

Steven.

Re:The Company of Evangelists

[Anonymous Coward]

It gets even better. They can't even market well. That is outsourced to a plethora of companies including the infamous Waggoner-Edstrom.

Exactly!

[comm2k]

It's really just that FUD. Go to http://www.microsoft.com/ On the upper right is a search field, search for "FUD" - the first or second hit should help you out ;)

Re:Exactly!

[Anonymous Coward]

Couldn't help myself. I tried it.

Oh man! That was funny shit!

Re:Exactly!

[HighPerformanceCoder]

That's funny. Particularly as FUD does not appear on the page, so it must have been added to the metadata.

Re:Exactly!

[Anonymous Coward]

That is some intelligent search engine they have running there.

the word fud (or chars as a subword) isn't on the page, although the red hat one does have two links that contain fud within the url.

So does that mean their search engine AI intelligently examines each page's content to generate the search index?

Must be a third party product as I'm sure m$oft wouldn't write an AI that thought of their own products as fud. Or is it comparing them to linux or just mentioning linux that makes it fud?

hmm

[DerWulf]

there should be a rule against blatant pushing of blog or other websites that the submitter has any ties to.
Really getting tired of slashdot being an ego deflation device for some people.

I've been rallying against Microsoft's so-called 'Get the Facts' site for the last fortnight in my blog.
Translation: I am a gigantic douche. Why in the hell would you grace what is essentialy marketing with so much attention and why can't you just say "two weeks" for the love of ...

Re:hmm

[Eivind]

fortnight is a silly word anyway, to anyone who doesn't know that spesific word it sounds a lot more like 4-nights or even a fourth (i.e. 1/4) night.

Re:hmm

[TapeCutter]

Spesific is even siller, no?

Re:hmm

[Myrddin Wyllt]

... and why can't you just say "two weeks" for the love of ...

The guy's an Aussie. 'Fortnight' is in general use in Oz and the UK, and has no pretentious nor archaic overtones. I get the feeling that it's use has been deprecated in the US fork of the language, but this isn't a valid point to beat someone up over.

Re:hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

well, in this case I must apologize. Sorry Australia & UK!

Re:hmm

[DerWulf]

Sorry for the AC posting (feeling very dirty now!): well, in this case I must apologize. Sorry Australia & UK!

First problem:

[jareth-0205]

PR to do something about the blatant lack of integrity displayed

Well there's your *first* problem...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Decision abdicated to Certified Gold Partners

[SgtChaireBourne]

If you read the article, there was no comparison done. The decision was outsourced to MS resellers who, surprise, peddled more MS wares. Comparison of other technologies never happened.

Oh, that and MS Sweden couldn't be bothered to look up any of the dozens of regional companies that provide support for non-MS systems and packages. That 'no support' argument worked in the early 1990's but not anymore.

Re:Decision abdicated to Certified Gold Partners

[Anonymous Coward]

You wrongly assume that the article contains all possible information about the decision process of the upgrade. It does not. Linux was considered, as were other operating systems. None could compete with Windows Server 2008 for the customer's needs, so they were not selected. Just because you don't see the value offered by Microsoft products doesn't mean that the rest of the world has to agree with you.

Re:Decision abdicated to Certified Gold Partners

[ozmanjusri]

Just because you don't see the value offered by Microsoft products doesn't mean that the rest of the world has to agree with you.

The "Get the facts" campaign is Microsoft's own advocacy site.

If Linux was actually considered, but wasn't competitive, Microsoft would have been able to show that. They can't, which makes their claims deceptive.

Re:Decision abdicated to Certified Gold Partners

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux was considered, as were other operating systems. None could compete with Windows Server 2008 for the customer's needs, so they were not selected.

If that is true, then why the hell does Microsoft's case study not say so?

Because it doesn't, if you read it. It is strongly implied in the headline, but if you read the actual case study then it does not give any indication that any non-Microsoft solution was given serious consideration.

Please, Microsoft apologists: back off, calm down, think rationally, and read what is being said, not what you incorrectly assume will be being said. Nobody with any sense is saying that Microsoft products do not offer value to customers. Quite the opposite: the reason this article was written is that Microsoft is saying that Linux products do not offer value to customers. And the point of the article is that the case studies Microsoft is citing to support this claim do not in fact prove any such point.

This is not an attack on Windows, nor is it an attempt to promote Linux. It is an attack on deceptive marketing and an attempt to promote truthful competition in a fair marketplace. What is so bad about this that all the Microsoft apologists have to come out and try to stifle the debate?

Re:Decision abdicated to Certified Gold Partners

[Bert64]

And they certainly would have shown that, if they could, since it would greatly help their campaign.
The fact they can't is actually a lot more telling.

Re:Decision abdicated to Certified Gold Partners

[Risen888]

You wrongly assume that the article contains all possible information about the decision process of the upgrade. It does not [citation needed]. Linux was considered [citation needed], as were other operating systems [citation needed]. None could compete with Windows Server 2008 [citation needed] for the customer's needs, so they were not selected.

Re:I don't fully understand how this is not illega

[Dan541]

Because the "facts" can be proven.

Remember Linux comes in many flavors Microsoft get to pick and choose.

It is called "Tell the truth" nowadays

[Anonymous Coward]

The good thing about changing labels: The contents remains the very same.

Re:I don't fully understand how this is not illega

[amazeofdeath]

Isn't that just called "marketing"?

90% discount for threatening to use open source

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod this up. The blog in the headline is just a bad fanboi expression. Perhaps you would care to comment on the greater than 90% discount that Uppsala received from MS a few years ago on MS Office to prevent it going Open Source in productivity software.

Re:90% discount for threatening to use open source

[shywolf9982]

I think medium/big companies and institutions should use that tactic more, especially when they know they are stuck on Windows for whatever reason.

They can phone up Microsoft and ask how much upgrading will work, then, upon hearing it, starts to say that it's "too much" and that they will instead switch to Linux and tell everyone how much they have saved switching to Linux etc etc.

Bet that way, you can get loads of free software from Microsoft :D

If by "the same tactics" you mean

[Anonymous Coward]

Telling people about things.

MS put one example of choosing Windows 2008 over Linux as being a choice of such but it was a choice between Server 2003 and Server 2008.

Does the article show any such similarly irrelevant examples? That would be using the same tactics. E.g. Show a linux-only shop (with a few windows NT boxes) having the NT boxes being moved to linux because NT was going out of support. Find any?

The only similarity in the tactics is to use the internet to get a message out.

That's not much of a tactic, is it.

SMBs ... not Enterprises

[perlith]

This looks like it would probably only lure Small and Medium sized businesses towards Microsoft. And it makes sense, the 60% slice of the TCO piece chart attributed to staffing costs, however true or untrue it might be, simply doesn't beat the fact that Windows is more intuitive than Linux in a lot of ways.

I'd be surprised if few Enterprises are going to visit this website and be impressed. Rather, they are going to rely on unbiased, comprehensive, independent research sources before making their decisions.

Re:SMBs ... not Enterprises

[msuarezalvarez]

simply doesn't beat the fact that Windows is more intuitive than Linux in a lot of ways.

There is nothing intuitive about neither system, if you are talking about system administration. You have to know what you are doing, otherwise you are a disaster waiting to happen.

Re:SMBs ... not Enterprises

[domatic]

It's only more intuitive until something blows up. It's then you find that the fixes are at least as arcane as anything Linux may expect of you. I've tangled with horked domain security policies, AD issues, and Exchange issues. All were at least as hard if not harder to troubleshoot and fix as the equivalent Linux issues. In the case of a Linux server I had that wouldn't boot at all, I got it back up in less than 10 minutes with a Knoppix disc. Every Windows server I ever had that wouldn't boot, things got ugly. I fixed the last one of those with a livecd too (mirrored volume lacked a bootloader and needed one written to it. Could not convince any of the MS tools to do it for me......)

Given the choice between a little harder to configure but Just Does It's Job or something that is easy to configure but violently eats itself, I'll take the first.

Uppsala

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't Uppsala the city with university forcing professors to leave using strange methods because did not have the same opinion as the leaders of the university?

Ah. Marketing - my specialist subject

[vorlich]

After years of study I feel only one voice has summed up this entire academic discipline:
Tyler Durden: "Man, I see in fight club the strongest and smartest men who've ever lived. I see all this potential, and I see squandering. God damn it, an entire generation pumping gas, waiting tables; slaves with white collars. Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need. We're the middle children of history, man. No purpose or place. We have no Great War. No Great Depression. Our Great War's a spiritual war... our Great Depression is our lives. We've all been raised on television to believe that one day we'd all be millionaires, and movie gods, and rock stars. But we won't. And we're slowly learning that fact. And we're very, very pissed off."

Dear davidmwilliams & other zealots...

[pandrijeczko]

...as primarily a Linux user myself who works as a consultant in a telecoms company where most of our products are already running on Linux, can you please stop with this stupid idea that Linux is "at war" with Microsoft or Windows?

Linux is an operating system, and a very good one at that, but please treat everyone else like adults who are capable of making their own minds up as to what OS they want to run. Fine, if they choose not to consider Linux then so be it, let it be their loss but let them get on with it.

Unless you are fighting for open file standards (so Linux can interoperate on par with Windows) or pushing back on DRM, you will do more harm than good to Linux and the Open Source movement because you will appear as nothing more than a religious zealot.

It's quite clear that recently, Microsoft is quite capable of putting its own foot in its mouth without your assistance.

So I would strongly suggest your energies would be put to better use giving assistance to those who have just started to explore Linux - help them along with it, make their experience with it easier & firmly dissuade them from any thoughts that Linux people are not lunatic hippies but actually nice helpful people.

Linux exists DESPITE Microsoft, not BECAUSE of Microsoft and it will still be here in years to come whether Microsoft is here or not.

Re:Dear davidmwilliams & other zealots...

[Anonymous Coward]

firmly dissuade them from any thoughts that Linux people are not lunatic hippies but actually nice helpful people. Sheesh, I thought the article was about NOT lying to spread your OS.

Re:Dear davidmwilliams & other zealots...

[Anonymous Coward]

Agree!

True Linux users are happy with it.

Most of this war is flamed by Linux-wannabes that are not happy with windows. Please stop with that, Linux doesn't need your advertising neither your defense. FUD doesn't hurt Linux.
- -

"In the land of the blind, one eye man is king"

Re:Dear davidmwilliams & other zealots...

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I'll stop considering it war when Microsoft stops rattling their patent sabers.

If Microsoft thought they could sue Red Hat out of existence, do you really think they wouldn't?

Well, they sort of already tried via proxy vis a vis SCO.

Re:Dear davidmwilliams & other zealots...

[_Sprocket_]

This isn't about Windows. This isn't exactly about Microsoft. This is about Microsoft's marketing and associated "facts". There's the "war".

Sure - there could be a little less hyperbole. That crossed my mind as I was reading the article. The author would make an excellent observation and then bury it with a few lines of text that came across like gloating. Pity. One could distract the reader and cause them to miss the point with that kind of behavior.

But the underlying premise is solid. It might sound archaic to our jaded readership... but how about a little truth in advertising?

Re:Dear davidmwilliams & other zealots...

[ClamIAm]

Linux is an operating system, and a very good one at that, but please treat everyone else like adults who are capable of making their own minds up as to what OS they want to run. Fine, if they choose not to consider Linux then so be it, let it be their loss but let them get on with it.

Unless you are fighting for open file standards (so Linux can interoperate on par with Windows) or pushing back on DRM, you will do more harm than good to Linux and the Open Source movement because you will appear as nothing more than a religious zealot.

I think it's pretty unethical to say no one should call out the powerful on their lies because somebody might feel offended, or because someone might see you as a radical. I can understand if you lack the courage to speak truth to power, because it can be scary. However, please don't use the irrational reasoning of a social phobic to try dissuade those who want to stand up for what's right.

And before the retarded replies of "WHY R U FORCING UR LUNIX ON ME COMMIE", note that my opinion here has nothing to do with the particular companies or philosophies in this discussion. I support this criticism of Microsoft because I think lying is bad, and it's pretty clear that "Get the Facts" is not very honest.

Re:Dear davidmwilliams & other zealots...

[pandrijeczko]

I think it's pretty unethical to say no one should call out the powerful on their lies because somebody might feel offended, or because someone might see you as a radical. I can understand if you lack the courage to speak truth to power, because it can be scary. However, please don't use the irrational reasoning of a social phobic to try dissuade those who want to stand up for what's right.

Your argument will have better standing in the eyes of others if you stop resorting to silly little personal attacks at me (I can understand if you lack the courage to speak truth to power, because it can be scary) purely because you're unable to come up with a more reasoned response.

There are positive and negative ways of being a Linux advocate. The positive way is to tell people what Linux is and what it can do for them, then let them make their own minds up about using it. If they decide to use it, then help them understand it, make their initial experiences better.

As for the negative ways, I hate to say this but "ALL CORPORATIONS LIE, ESPECIALLY MONOPOLISTIC ONES!" Yep, Microsoft lies, so does GM, Walmart and all the others. But so what?

Why would ANYONE use an alternative OS purely for making a political statement? Why would anyone "cut off their nose to spite their face"?

Oh, how about this idea then? Next time my niece hands me her XP laptop for me to repair, I'll make a political statement shall I? I'll wipe XP and put Ubuntu on it instead? Or would that just be "forcing" her to use it in exactly the same way Microsoft forces XP and Vista on the world.

Sorry, I complain very loudly when something is wrong but your stupid little OS war is irrelevant. It makes *NO* difference to my computing experience or to that of anyone else, (and here is my personal attack back at you) it just lets otherwise insignificant people make themselves feel important fight some silly crusade that has no relevance.

Re:Dear davidmwilliams & other zealots...

[pandrijeczko]

But the underlying premise is solid. It might sound archaic to our jaded readership... but how about a little truth in advertising?

I agree entirely and for that reason alone I'm more than happy (here in the UK) to pay an annual TV license on the assurance I get advert-free TV and radio broadcasting from the BBC.

But at the same time, I'm bad enough and smart enough not to be taken in by advertising so I don't believe anything that's shouted at me from a brightly coloured page somewhere.

And I'd much prefer the sheeple who do get sucked in by ads to also find some smarts and not get taken in the same way. Then they won't need someone else fighting their battles for them on the "corporate lies" front.

Re:Dear davidmwilliams & other zealots...

[ClamIAm]

I've kind of lost the desire to continue this thread, unless you can point out what parts of your post here is the reply to my main point, being:

I think it's pretty unethical to say no one should call out the powerful on their lies because somebody might feel offended, or because someone might see you as a radical.

I can't figure out which of the half-dozen things you rant about is aimed at actually addressing my thesis.

----

Also, since it appears I was unclear on some of the more tangential bits of my post I'll try and explain myself:

The reason I wrote "don't use the irrational reasoning of a social phobic [...]" was because you did, in fact, use such reasoning. People with social phobia/anxiety refrain from doing things because they think that others will judge them as stupid, crazy, insane, etc. Compare this with your original post (emphasis mine):

Unless you are fighting for open file standards (so Linux can interoperate on par with Windows) or pushing back on DRM, you will do more harm than good to Linux and the Open Source movement because you will appear as nothing more than a religious zealot.

I didn't say this out of spite, I said it because this passage is exactly the line of thinking people with this disorder go down.

Perl/PHP Screencasts

[warlorddagaz]

"Our good friend Firefox" - that would be friends in the the same way as the Jedi and the Sith I presume.

For what it's worth..

[RichiH]

..'Uppsala' is something a Bavarian might say after making a mistake. Think Homer's 'doh'.

job security

[Anonymous Coward]

I asked our IT dept why they hadn't moved the infrastructure to linux they had two answers. The first, boring but correct, is that for a small company (which we were) MS just integrates too easily. The second answer intrigued me though. No one in the IT dept knows ANY practical linux - it wasn't looked for on CVs or needed day-to-day. Every time the CTO questions linux, they fight against it with the REAL reason being they would be effectively demoted as skilled hires came in above them to support the new systems.
Now THAT's "suiting ones needs"

Re:job security

[Sun.Jedi]

It's nice to work in a MS-centric shop. For every failure of exchange, backup, or vista there is a very real, almost predictable question posed to my team; "How can you fix this?". Ease of integration is one thing, getting the job done in an environment that doesn't fail daily allows growth.

Growth is new Harley on 'bonus day' for me. Vroomvroom.

Re:job security

[Yogiz]

The parent is absolutely correct. I keep suggesting the IT department of my hospital should start slowly migrating over to Linux and open-source software to cut the costs and give users more control over their software. They agreed that Linux would probably work better and more reliably but:

• 1. Every single application that is used in the hospital depends on Windows (surprisingly even the special hardware- MRI, X-rays).
• 2. We would have to retrain or replace the whole IT staff as no one has even seen Linux in action.
• 3. Even more surprisingly the vendor that develops the hospital software modules has conditions in the contract that do not allow it to be used anywhere other then Windows.

Microsoft has pretty much everyone by the balls and getting out of this mess has not been made easy.

microsoft doesn't buy its own hype

[Anonymous Coward]

http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://www.getthefacts.com

The site is running IIS 6 on Win2k3 Server, an upgrade from IIS 5 they only made four months ago - look at the history. It's a solid, reliable upgrade choice, IMO, they did very well staying away from Server 2008.

correction..

[rucs_hack]

NOT NOT == TRUE

doh...

Re:correction..

[cloricus]

NOT NOT is null. NOT NOT Var is Var.

:. NOT NOT True == True is true.

Re:correction..

[Simon Brooke]

NOT NOT is null. NOT NOT Var is Var. :. NOT NOT True == True is true.

In some particular programming language, perhaps.

More generally, however, the GPP is correct.

In first order predicate calculus, and also in propositional calculi, and at least half a dozen other logical formalisms, a negated negation is an assertion. It's called 'principium tertii exclusi' and is present in most western logics (although, interestingly, not in many classical bhuddist logics).

bunkum and hogwash?!

[mike_sucks]

I say pish-posh to that!

/Mike

The sub made a blatant plug for his own blog

[dave1791]

1 - Make a slashdot sub plugging your own blog with a bit of flaimbait.

2 - Get slashdotted.

3 - Profit!

Re:I don't fully understand how this is not illega

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if it is illegal it is almost impossible to get a judgment against a company the size of MS. A Better Business Bureau wouldn't have the know-how to make a decision either way. It would be a very brave (and wealthy) expert witness who testified against MS.

If you buy Windows, you don't know...

[argent]

I've posted about this before, but if you buy Windows you don't know what support you're going to get. When we installed our first Windows domain servers we bought two servers and enough client licenses for our user base, and it was good. Then we upgraded from NT 3.1 to NT 3.51 and we started getting users kicked out because we didn't have enough licenses. So we called Microsoft, and they told us to make some changes to our license settings, and we did that, and EVERYONE started getting kicked out. Nobody could log in to the domain. So we called Microsoft back and they said, oh no, we'd used up the three free support calls, now we had to get a support contract, they were sorry that it was their fault they'd made things worse but they couldn't do anything about that... policy was policy, even if our whole domain was broken...

So I asked on Usenet, got the right answer, and everything was working fine the next week when someone more senior from Microsoft called VERY apologetically and saying they'd reset our calls. For all I know they're still waiting for me to make 'em... because since then I've gone for the free "you don't know what you're going to get" support FIRST and it's always come through.

Re:If you buy Windows, you don't know...

[UnknowingFool]

Yeah sounds right. Someone at my company had an issue with Access. He called a few times, but since it was a hobby project and not something for the company, he was asked to pay for support. He paid his fee for them to look at it. All they did was take his money and respond "Oh, yes, we know about that issue. No, we didn't list it on the website as a bug because technically it's not a bug. It won't be in the new version of Access, but won't change it in this version. Thanks for calling." He was a bit upset.

Caveat Emptor:

[absurdist]

This means YOU.

So...

[SirCodeAlot]

You are saying a corporate marketing department is spinning things?? Shocked I am..

Marketing

[too2late]

I've been a linux user for 6 years and I can't stand microsoft, but what they're is doing is not wrong, it's marketing. This is what companies do! That's how they sell their product. As a business owner myself, I'm all too familiar with the desire to do anything to sell your product. The OP's reaction is the correct one. Microsoft has every right try and sell their products.... the only thing the linux camp can do is fight back with the same tactics.

Re:I don't fully understand how this is not illega

[Anonymous Coward]

It's only illegal when there's a specific company that is the victim of the misleading information, and then has the resources to sue against Microsoft to defend the truth. And only then if they actually win.

Re:I don't fully understand how this is not illega

[thatskinnyguy]

If you can prove that it is fraud, I will join your class-action suit. I just don't see it as fraud when the attempt at FUD is so blatantly obvious.

Sigh

[edittard]

You don't rally against, you rail against. You rally a fleeing regiment or rally people to a cause

And "spec'd" is just retarded[1]. If you can't be bothered to write "specified" or at least "specced", why not just go the whole OMG-i@m-t3h-733t route and write "spcd"? It saves two more characters, w00t!

[1] or rt'd, as the scl'd author would probably put it.

idiot

[toby]

(In the drugged sleepwalking nightmare world of falsitude that is the FUD ghetto MS tries to create,)
People will choose the software that suits Microsoft's needs best. Unshockingly this is NEVER Linux.

No, the word is "bunghole", not "buncombe".

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't anybody watch Mike Judge anymore?

-Beavis

e.g. LinPro in Norway

[toby]

LinPro. Disclaimer: Friend works there. :)

it's not deception if it's true :P

[toby]

Product B really does suck.

Re:it's not deception if it's true :P

[elrous0]

Product A sucks too. He just doesn't have enough of a customer base for anyone to notice.

Hey you forgot to start your post with:

[toby]

"I'm no fan of Microsoft, but [MS bashing is outdated]."

Sorry, it's not outdated. They are a criminal bunch of liars and thieves who need to be shut down for the sake of civilisation.

Once that has been concluded: Bashing Microshit will be done only as a quiant ceremonial gesture when the winning side wishes to celebrate past victories in the great war to save technology from pure sick greed!

In a couple of generations nobody will remember who Microsoft was, or if they do, only for what it truly is: an embarrassing and incalculably costly stain on the history of technology.

Re:who cares? LINUX SPINMASTER @ WORK, lol!

[Anonymous Coward]

Eliza? Is that you?

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[Ox0065]

That's a very good point. Still better than when they were caught using BSD to run their website though.

Who cares really...

[codepunk]

You see Linux is a tool, it's cost and functionality is a competitive advantage. While Company
A is stroking million dollar licensing checks each year Company B is running Linux. Company
B is placing that million dollars into sales, marketing, equipment etc to put a hurting on company A's market share. I guess company B hopes you continue running windows.

Re:Who cares really...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly your comparison shows complete ignorance. Lets clear it up a little. If company A is spendind a million a year on licensing then they are probably spending 30-50 million on hardware and facilities, another 5 million+ on IT workers. Now a company that spends that sort of money obviously has to have a rather large turnover and profit. So while your 1 million in savings is nice it really is a small drop in the bucket for most companies that spend that much on licensing, what's more they probably then go and spend a lot of that if not more on support from redhat/novell etc as even linux needs support.

Opposite water

[Hognoxious]

fortnight is a silly word anyway

Au contraire, I find it perfectly cromulent.

Re:Figures

[elrous0]

My dream is to one day meet Justin Long and punch him right in his smug fucking face.

Re:Relax

[toby]

Since when does "usage that is perfectly commonplace in a country other than I live" = "stupid shit"?

And you wonder why we "who live in other places" get pissed at Americans...

Don't expect the world to change to suit you. It's a lot bigger than you are.

Oh shit

[toby]

You mean my new friend is NOT depositing USD $40 million into my bank account tomorrow? I gave him all the information he asked for... I already put a deposit on Ferraris for myself and my girlfriend...

Re:Oh shit

[mcmonkey]

You mean my new friend is NOT depositing USD $40 million into my bank account tomorrow? I gave him all the information he asked for... I already put a deposit on Ferraris for myself and my girlfriend...

I hope for your sake those deposits are refundable.

I mean, your mom rather have a prius or VW.

Re:Oh shit

[toby]

Well I already called the dealership... No dice... I'm fucked.

Plus my friend overseas isn't returning my calls. Weird.

Thanks for the hint though, but now my cards are in the hole... but maybe my guy can send me a few thou while I wait for the millions.

Unfortunate Irony?

[stewbacca]

I couldn't help notice the eyesore of a Microsoft advertisement plastered right in the top left corner (premium real-estate) of this guy's blog.

I don't get his complaint either. He's mad because a capitalist organization is advertising? I bet he REALLY hates the "Get a Mac" ads, since those make this MS page seem very intelligent, indeed.

Re:Unfortunate Irony?

[mweather]

So PCs don't get more viruses and spyware than Macs? No? Then I guess the Mac ads are nothing like this.

Re:Unfortunate Irony?

[stewbacca]

Don't get me wrong. I love the Get a Mac ads. All I'm saying is that the substance of the Microsoft "Facts" campaign is not empty, or flippant (like the Mac ads tend to be, skimping on facts, capitalizing on market momentum and funny-yet-true stereotypes). I see that "facts" site to be similar to the Apple web sites of the past that were setup to get people to see why Macs were so much better, and more recently, the "switcher" sections.

Cheer up:

[toby]

It looks like you might get your own Great Depression, at least. :-)

Not exclusive:

[toby]

"Marketing" can indeed be "wrong". Ethics apply to everything, but as has been proven time and again, MS has none.

Linux advocacy has its lies too

[tjstork]

I do prefer Linux because well, I do... but, honesty demands a few good look at everything.

If we're going to get into, yet again, a tired debate about Windows vs Linux, let's challenge some basic "truths" about Windows circulated in the Linux community. A lot of these basic "truths" are circulated about older versions of Windows...

1. Windows is unreliable. Not true. Any more, Windows Server is very reliable. IT departments in a number of my clients run Windows Server 2003 and can keep it up for years, if they want. I think it has been about five years since any Windows server I have seen has ever crashed.

2. Windows isn't multiuser friendly. Not true. I know one guy who started an ISP, threw up a bunch of Windows servers and gave all of his customers unfettered access to their own SQL Server databases. I thought he was crazy. But, now he's a millionaire and his business is well regarded. In the enterprise scale, I've got multiple people connecting to Windows databases via RDP, and honestly, this setup makes VNC look like crap. Windows terminal services works so extraordinarily well that outsourced development teams in India are using RDP to run Visual Studio on US hosted boxes.

3. SQL Server sucks. Not True. I think that was a pretty accurate claim up till around 7.0, but starting around SQL Server 2000, you could make a pretty good case for SQL Server 2000 for a lot of medium sized businesses and medium sized datasets. I've seen SQL Server instances running with terabytes of real row data (not just tons of images) and it holds up like a champ. Law firms, power companies, people that have big data, are using SQL Server and it works for them pretty well.

4. IIS Sucks. Not true. I'm not a real big fan of ASP.NET, but, its working pretty well for a lot of people and keeps me employed. It has its hiccups, but, for the most part, if you build an application in ASP.NET and know -something-, the IIS/SQL Server/Windows Server stack is actually going to be there for your more than it will let you down.

Of course, that's not to say Microsoft is perfect. They aren't. Internet Explorer STILL sucks, Word sucks (but MS Office still blows Open Office out of the water), the help in Visual Studio is just terrible any more, and there's a lot to not like about how Visual Studio manages projects and solutions. But, going around and saying that "everything Microsoft makes sucks", isn't true, and honestly, it never has been. For a lot of customers, a lot of the time, they have actually succeeded because they offer a better product.

Re:Linux advocacy has its lies too

[pandrijeczko]

Since it's good to see an intelligent discussion on here comparing Windows to Linux, here's my 2 cents worth. Yep, I'm primarily a Linux user but I also use XP and, once I've stripped back the terrible default desktop back to "Classic" view and done a few more tweaks, it's pretty usable and I like it. I don't rate many of Microsoft's built in utilities like Notepad, IE and Windows Media Player but I strip those out with XPLite and just put on better free or Open Source equivalents.

My two biggest bugbears with Windows are The Registry and the fact it's not multiuser in the same way that UNIX/Linux are.

With UNIX/Linux, all your files and program settings are held in your home directory so to migrate those over to other machines or users is simple. Yet to do the same in Windows means exporting parts of The Registry & trying to copy everything in the user account under "Documents and Settings" which invariably results in you trying to copy a system file that stops the whole process.

The multiuser part is mainly as a result of Microsoft's licensing stupidity which means deliberately crippling an OS so that more than one user cannot have a desktop session simultaneously. Yep, RDP probably is sleeker than VNC but for someone like me who helps out friends and relatives with XP problems over the Internet, I have never found a way yet with RDP that both of us can see the same screen simultaneously (even though I have remote control of the desktop) so I can show the person what I'm doing while talking to them on the telephone. With VNC, it's straightforward to do this.

Other than that, Windows needs to get rid of the GUI when it's not needed on some server applications. GUI means third-party graphics drivers which add instability onto any server system, whether it's Windows or Linux. Not to mention the additional, possibly wasted overhead.

Re:Linux advocacy has its lies too

[tjstork]

My two biggest bugbears with Windows are The Registry and the fact it's not multiuser in the same way that UNIX/Linux are.

I agree with that completely.

I have never found a way yet with RDP that both of us can see the same screen simultaneously (even though I have remote control of the desktop) so I can show the person what I'm doing while talking to them on the telephone. With VNC, it's straightforward to do this.

There's a stupid utility in Windows XP that does kinda this. Unfortunately, in true MS dumbly integrated fashion, you have to get MS Messenger to use it. It's that "have a friend bail me out" service that the end user runs. They launch that service, and then, you can, using your MS Messenger, log into their desktop and both of you can talk and chat. It works pretty well actually, but, I would have preferred, as you perhaps do, to just have one remote desktop client that I can use for the task...

Other than that, Windows needs to get rid of the GUI when it's not needed on some server applications. GUI means third-party graphics drivers which add instability onto any server system, whether it's Windows or Linux. Not to mention the additional, possibly wasted overhead.

I agree there too.

I don't rate many of Microsoft's built in utilities like Notepad, IE and Windows Media Player but I strip those out with XPLite and just put on better free or Open Source equivalents.

Notepad is the root of all evil.

Re:Figures

[geminidomino]

My dream is to one day meet Justin Long and punch him right in his smug fucking face. As a slashdotter, I am excused, I think, for not being up with the current "pop culture." Is justin long the guy I've been referring to as "Androgynous Mac Boy" for years, or recently "Mac Fag from Die Hard?"

What questions should be asked?

[plopez]

So suppose for a minute you are in the loop somehow for purchasing decisions. E.g., an it manager or part of a technical evaluation team. What sort of questions should be asked to debunk a vendor?

BTW, on my last job I had a manager who was a maniac for requirements for software. However, when it came to buying Microsoft he refused to develop any requirements. When I asked "What are our needs and will it fulfill them?" he would get mad. So be careful.

Thread hijacked for comic relief

[totally bogus dude]

Right, I'm hijacking this troll to get eyeballs. Let's all post anecdotes about our funny/stupid bosses.

So we have this website, and a few Sundays ago the database that drives it fell over. It was around 1.30am. Around 11.30pm just before going to bed I decided to check my work email, just in case there was anything I needed to know for Monday. Turns out I needed to know our website was down all day. Of course, I have Nagios monitoring this, but since it was a weekend I didn't check my work email and never knew.

We happened to have a meeting the next day, so I mentioned that the site had been down for nearly 24 hours. Naturally nobody knew, because it was on a Sunday. So I said I wanted to get a GSM modem so I could receive SMS notification if important things went South, and after assuring the boss it'd only be a few hundred dollars he said okay.

Later a colleague (who was going to actually get quotes and buy it) told me he'd been asked to defer it. We had security auditors coming in soon, and the boss wanted to get their okay, because he thought it was a security risk. Bit strange I thought, but fair enough; we're hooking a wireless modem up to a server on our internal network, I can see how that can be perceived as a risk. Easy enough to explain how it wouldn't be possible to access the server using it.

But no, that wasn't the risk. The risk was we were using Nagios. It's open source!, he says. Doesn't that mean it's less secure?

Wow. Just wow. I'm disappointed I heard this 2nd hand, otherwise I would've been in there with a "1998 called; they want their FUD back". He might not have understood, but it would've amused me a great deal. And that's what matters, after all.

So it just goes to show there are still people buying the Microsoft-styled spin hook, line and sinker. I sure hope he doesn't discover the Brocade SAN switch we use runs Linux. Or our ESX servers. He might have a heart attack or something. Maybe it's okay if there's some proprietary code on it, though?

Bonus anecdote: my colleague also wanted to get pricing on sides for the racks in our server room, in order to improve airflow (they're completely open at the moment). The same boss said we don't need them, because hot air won't be coming out the back of the servers. It appears our boss feels that if cold air goes in the front, then cold air ought to come out the back. Sadly my colleague was too awed by this to press further, so we'll probably never know the full thought process behind this.

Re:Thread hijacked for comic relief

[Free the Cowards]

I sure hope he doesn't discover the Brocade SAN switch we use runs Linux. Or our ESX servers. Maybe you should actually tell him about these things. The ignorant won't stop being ignorant unless you make some effort to educate them.

Re:Thread hijacked for comic relief

[_Sprocket_]

Bonus anecdote: my colleague also wanted to get pricing on sides for the racks in our server room, in order to improve airflow (they're completely open at the moment). The same boss said we don't need them, because hot air won't be coming out the back of the servers. It appears our boss feels that if cold air goes in the front, then cold air ought to come out the back. Sadly my colleague was too awed by this to press further, so we'll probably never know the full thought process behind this. One coworker's "bad boss" story involves a cooling failure. The server room's cooling system went down and they were scrambling to keep things stable until repairs were made. The boss' solution was to put in some fans. Fans would cool things down. He refused to acknowledge there was an issue with simply circulating ever-hotter air. I have to agree; moving air is the key. Unfortunately, it is also the key to convection ovens.

Re:Thread hijacked for comic relief

[Anthony]

My sympathies. Workplaces like yours confirm that Dilbert is more of a documentary than a fanciful cartoon.

Re:who cares? LINUX SPINMASTER @ WORK, lol!

[Aram Fingal]

You didn't RTFA, did you? The whole point is that Microsoft is promising a comparison of Windows vs. Linux and then pointing to studies which don't do that. One example study was only comparing a new version of Windows against an older version of Windows (typical Microsoft marketing). The other study was about a replacement of a network environment, which was mostly Windows but had a few Linux and Novell servers, with an all-Windows environment. They got some benefit from the conversion but that's no surprise because replaced very old versions of Windows with newer ones. For the Linux and Novell servers, they didn't even consider the possibility of upgrading them with newer versions of Linux. There was no bid from a Linux vendor to compare to.

Re:who cares? LINUX SPINMASTER @ WORK, lol!

[NotBornYesterday]

In fact, I'd have to say that the truth of Windows being overall better, shows in market share alone... Market share != better.

Also, market share numbers are often fudged by technology companies, especially Microsoft. I recall one particularly silly ppt slide MS reps used to trot out that showed NT marketshare in the mid-'90s, when Novell Netware was the dominant competitor to NT. I worked for a PC distributor at the time, and every so often a MS rep would come in to feed us some kool-aid. The slide in question showed a bar graph with 3 vertical bars. The tallest bar was NT shipments from a particular time frame. The next, slightly shorter bar was Novell Netware 4.x shipments from the same period, and the third bar was Novell Netware 3.x. The Microsoft dog-and-pony expert would point proudly at the graph, explaining that it showed Microsoft's market dominance, despite the fact that the aggregate Novell NW 3.x + 4.x totals were substantially greater than NT.

I can also recall being told by management (same distributor) to ship at least 1 CAL with every order, for free if need be - whether it was ordered or not. Why? To artificially boost numbers of NT seats shipped.

No matter what attempted "spin" you use, it still doesn't [...] unseat Windows as the most used [...] up to Enterprise Class/Mission Critical systems... I won't dispute the numbers in the home/desktop/small-to-mid server arenas (although, like I said, numbers aren't everything). I call BS on the enterprise/mission-critical stuff, though. Windows is still trying to make inroads into the mainframe/high end UNIX world. I'd argue that through the efforts of IBM and others, Linux can run better on higher-end gear than Windows.

I'm not saying you can't like MS products for whatever reason you see fit. But this isn't high school anymore. Popularity isn't everything.

30 years? Julius Ceasar called

[blueZ3]

and he wants credit for his personally-paid chroniclers. Heck, Hammurabi called too.

Marketing is as old as mankind. I bet Grog was selling stone wheels out of his cave with FUD.

And marketing tells you

[Anonymous Coward]

what your desires should be.

What about this is new to you? If it weren't new, you'd not use "ubiquity" to mean "quality".

The first rule of war..

[Puffy Director Pants]

Is fight on your own terms. Getting into a war of who has the better facts, who is lying...merely puts things into the arena of a back-alley brawl. This doesn't sell Linux very well.

they mention linux to spite solaris

[malevolentjelly]

I think we're all looking at this very backwards. I use linux almost exclusively in several contexts and if there's one thing I can agree with, it's that shit is always broken. On a default ubuntu install, for example, it will throw a thousand HAL and D-BUS errors just trying to boot the system. Fedora or SUSE are no different. Common tasks take an unbelievable amount of time- information is scarce and unreliable.

Running this sort of stuff in an enterprise requires you to have a cabal of "unix people" around who have an intimate almost religious knowledge of often undocumented unix inner-workings. These people write vast hideous perl scripts that are unmaintainable and largely unholy to mangle your systems into working conditions. This is the linux sysadmin way.

I stopped using Windows because it cost money and it never broke. Nothing ever needed to be done or gone wrong. It was absolutely no fun. Even the most polished linux distribution is riddled with problems that require your care and attention. It's like a little flying machine made of hopes and dreams, and a wonderful hobby.

I believe many IT folk were once DOS people who felt underappreciated when Windows got to a more working but less tuner-oriented state. Using the worst case scenario of irresponsible desktop windows use as an excuse (the 12 year old girl's windows 98 box), they legitimized the unbelievable amounts of time needed to create their "perfect" linux box, winning a place in their hearts and minds as an inspiring hobby.

Now it's huge, it's corporate, it's competitive. So is Microsoft scrambling to keep this best kept secret quiet?

No. They're focusing on linux because they can. It means they don't have to compare Windows Server as much to Solaris, which performs fantastically in HPC operations. I can think of many examples (which I can't name unfortunately since they're not public) where major banks with servers in Chicago started migrating servers to linux from Solaris and experienced miserable performance and reliability. Linux only competes with Solaris in the front end as far as this is concerned, making it a really easy target for Microsoft. Since people view linux and unix as the same thing, Microsoft can pick off the weakest but most popular unix in the flock and provide an accurate case while goose-stepping around the reliability, security, and performance of Solaris.

By aiming more effort on linux, they can focus on its obvious amateur/scizophrenic implementation design flaws and weaknesses instead of focusing on their more serious technological competition in some commercial unices.

Design by consortium yields sub-par results, so this a battle against people who believe they can run linux servers as a non-commercial operation- that is, not paying for external support. When business folk are aware that there is no "free" option, linux is no longer on the table as a free alternative. Since they have to pay for support no matter what, now they have to consider Windows side by side by technical merit. If the shop prefers Microsoft and the CTO realizes that running linux is not really free, a sale is made. That's all Microsoft needs in some cases.

Re:who cares? LINUX SPINMASTER @ WORK, lol!

[DaveWick79]

Could you point out some specific features or functionality that a new version of Linux on the server would provide, that is an advantage over the old versions of Linux or even over older versions of Windows Server? In a computerworld.com article just a couple of weeks ago, Ubuntu's server was trumpeted as having the key new features of two virtualization environments and a greater number of ISV certifications for enterprise software that is certified for Ubuntu server. Not a lot to hang your hat on.

I think the point that MS is making is that they are actually developing new features into the new server software that provide additional functionality for businesses, considering not just the server OS but also application servers. Remember they are not only selling to convert Novell and Linux servers to Windows, they are also trying to sell upgrades of their own OS, and for legitimate functional reasons.

they are changing their business methods

[Locutus]

where previously, they would compare their finely tuned stuff to either old Linux stuff, some IBM mainframe running Linux, untuned or detuned Linux stuff. But now, they don't do any of those nasty kinds of things. They've changed and this is the new Microsoft. The open source friendly Microsoft.

Made me laugh when the guy said he'd contacted Microsoft's PR company about these. As if they care. What they care about is if the deception is working. IMO

LoB

Re:I don't fully understand how this is not illega

[initdeep]

you obviously do not know very much about marketing.

Please tell me you don't really think that "New and Improved" bottle of shampoo in your shower is anything more than a different bottle holding the same old shampoo....
They're called "Weasel Words" for a reason.

oh wait......

i just made a terrible assumption......

i assumed a /. user has shampoo in their shower.....

Scientology Too

[Anonymous Coward]

The Church of Scientology also has a "Get The Facts" campaign on YouTube.

This may be due to the fact that Anonymous continues to pwn them both on YouTube and in physical protests around the world.

Re:who cares? LINUX SPINMASTER @ WORK, lol!

[Risen888]

Ah. Um.

Um...

What the fuck did you just say?

Re:who cares? LINUX SPINMASTER @ WORK, lol!

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I think the point that MS is making is that they are actually developing new features into the new server software that provide additional functionality for businesses, considering not just the server OS but also application servers.

I'm not sure how your comments are supposed to relate to the discussion. MS put up articles with titles like "âoeFind out how Windows Server compares to Linux" but which don't actually compare Windows and Linux... and are hence dishonest.

Re:Figures

[knavel]

Yes, that would be him. I don't really blame him, though. He's an actor who knows nothing about the specs of the machines he endorses.

Frankly, I'd probably do it too, if Apple also offered me obscene amounts of money to do so.

And in other news

[Anonymous Coward]

and in other news, a linux nerd takes it upon himself to channel his fit of nerd rage into another one-man anti-microsoft campaign.

Jesus christ, can't you fanbois get another hobby?

Here's a clue : Marketers LIE. Companies LIE. Advertising finds ways to LIE and make it feel good. Get a grip already.

"I've been rallying against Microsoft's site...."

[Joce640k]

Be sure to let us know when they change a single pixel on their web site because of your efforts.

ooh

[Anonymous Coward]

Can I use /. to advertise for my blog too?? I'll include M$ at least 2 dozen times in the post as well..

Slashdot is not Wikipedia

[jmorris42]

> citation needed plz :)

I am seeing this more and more. Slashdot is NOT Wikipedia. Slashdot is NOT a referreed journal. Slashdot is general discussion among people with clue who a) realize the above and b) know the URL to Google if they are intrigued by a quote and want to learn whether it is accurate and in context.

Another important difference is shelf life. The shelf life of a Slashdot thread is normally hours whereas a Wikipedia article is intended to evolve towards a definitive description of it's topic. This makes citations, extensive linking and a generally greater effort in the writing worthwhile. Meanwhile, here on Slashdot I normally don't even bother much with spellchecking because (and look at my posting history for the evidence for my case) the whole point is to participate in a conversation that will quickly move on to another subject. So success (since we can't see number of views) is best defined as direct replies, focusing the conversation (a large nested tree under a post) and attracting mod points. It is my experience that posting quicker influences teh conversation a lot more than a later post even if the later post is longer, more polished and/or including lots of external cites.

Re:Slashdot is not Wikipedia

[Killjoy_NL]

I agree, but read my other reply here for more explanation :)

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=543092&cid=23301842

Re:Slashdot is not Wikipedia

[Anonymous Coward]

I am seeing this more and more. Slashdot is NOT Wikipedia. Slashdot is NOT a referreed journal. Slashdot is general discussion among people with clue who a) realize the above and b) know the URL to Google if they are intrigued by a quote and want to learn whether it is accurate and in context.

Just because Slashdot isn't Wikipedia doesn't mean that quotes used to enhance a post shouldn't be cited. In fact, I'd argue the opposite: If you're going to post a quote for such purposes, you *should* cite it.

Doing so would permit others to quickly review its relevance, without having to resort to Google: This would hasten the conversation, something which seems to be of importance to you.

In addition, it is polite, not that such seems to mean much here :)

I don't see what "shelf life" has to do with it at all: You seem to be suggesting that since a Slashdot article and its attendant responses will eventually be archived there's little reason to create quality posts, and that sites such as Wikipedia are more worthy of your best efforts.

If you truly believe that, why would you bother posting here at all? If Slashdot doesn't merit your best efforts, then it's a waste of time, by definition, and the time you spend here is lost to more worthy pursuits.

Streisand effect

[Anonymous Coward]

You are inviting the Streisand effect. Right now, nobody actually reads or cares about Microsoft's sales pitch. Of course they're going to use FUD to sell copies of their software, everyone in a position to make a decision about that knows it and has known for the better part of a decade or more.

On the other hand, if you keep treating this "Get the Facts" page as if it deserved analysis, some people might actually look at the page as if it were, in fact, worth reading.

Re:who cares? LINUX SPINMASTER @ WORK, lol!

[DaveWick79]

On the page you mentioned entitled "Find out how Windows Server compares to Linux", there are links to case studies, research, and hands on comparisons for 6 different categories of comparison. While few of the links are a feature by feature comparison, they look at the overall implementation, which is what every smart business owner is looking for.
The question I am asking as a business owner when comparing a Linux solution to a MS solution is, what is Linux doing for me and at what cost? Am I losing some functionality or setting myself up for higher costs down the road if I go into a Linux system that is less expensive on the ground floor? I have to look at all my application needs and figure out which solution fits my company. Obviously MS's own website is going to be biased towards their software, but I would expect the same level of bias from a Linux vendor.

Re:who cares? LINUX SPINMASTER @ WORK, lol!

[Zibri]

New versions of linux support more hardware and more features. Ubuntu ain't linux, it's a gnu/linux distro specialized for desktops. "Ubuntu Server Edition" my ass.

Re:I don't fully understand how this is not illega

[rtechie]

What exactly are they lying about? I didn't bother to dig into the case studies, but if you look at actual pagehttp://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver/compare/default.mspx, they make the following claims:

1) Windows Server 2008 can run Apache, PHP, and PERL.

True.

2) Group Policies (and other Windows security features) are superior to SELinux.

True, SELinux sucks.

3) Windows has better support than Linux.

True.

4) Windows has more enterprise partners and applications than Linux.

True.

5) Windows Server 2008 is more interoperable with your old Microsoft products than Linux.

Again, true.

The only thing I see fishy on the front page is the "TCO" arguments, which are a bit dubious. Of course, MS is making arguments that heavily favor their platform. But they're MARKETING people for crying out loud. They're very explicitly ADVOCATES. Nobody should be suprised if the saing Windows Server 2008 cures cancer and raises the dead.

This douchebag should spend his time going after supposedly "objective" reviewers, but he'd rather piss and moan about MS.

Re:who cares? LINUX SPINMASTER @ WORK, lol!

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Obviously MS's own website is going to be biased towards their software, but I would expect the same level of bias from a Linux vendor.

There is a difference between "bias" and "lies." Bias is presenting a comparison of Windows and Linux that favors Windows in a way that is not objective. Lying is when you claim it is a comparison between the two, then don't compare the two. However you try to explain it away, it is a lie. I don't care if it is Microsoft or Redhat, if the title includes the words Windows, Linux, and comparison, it bloody well better compare Windows and Linux or it is a lie.

Not a War

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a war if you're not breaking out the AKs, faggots. Man up or stand the fuck down.

HTMFH.

OMG - that was a joke people

[Locutus]

there is no "new Microsoft" and they are still applying anti-competitive practices and market controls instead of the 'build a better product' type of competition.

"The open source friendly Microsoft." should have been a clue. It's almost sad it's been mod'ed Insightful.

LoB

Re:who cares? LINUX SPINMASTER @ WORK, lol!

[DaveWick79]

So throw Ubuntu out of the picture - apparently you don't take much stock in that company's "server" offering. So then, what is Red Hat doing that Windows Server is not? I really am genuinely curious to know what Red Hat Enterprise would offer me that Windows Server 2003/2008 does not do? Or what does it do better? How does that benefit me overall in my business operations? In the other reply to my comment the guy seems stuck on a bit by bit feature comparison of the OS, but in reality business decision makers are far more concerned with overall results. So what's the advantage?

Re:who cares? LINUX SPINMASTER @ WORK, lol!

[DaveWick79]

It bloody is comparing the two - it's not just bits and bytes that differ, MS is comparing the total solution. Get your head into the big picture! Think compare "Linux Server Solution" vs. "MS Server Solution". Is Linux able to match Windows Server functionality in a 4 server, 50 user SMB? These are the comparisons MS is making.

Re:who cares? LINUX SPINMASTER @ WORK, lol!

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

It bloody is comparing the two - it's not just bits and bytes that differ, MS is comparing the total solution.

No it isn't. It provides a few quotes from reference customers who were not evaluating Windows versus Linux at all, but simply upgrading Windows. It barely even mentions Linux. Did you even read what you're supposed to be talking about?

You could be a little more concise

[iwein]

In summary: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/bandwagn.html

Re:who cares? LINUX SPINMASTER @ WORK, lol!

[iamacat]

One word - future. Ten years from now, Windows Server 2003 will not run on then current hardware and much of your specialized and homebrew applications will not run properly on the new OS. You will have to migrate your data to new solutions and pay massive retraining and software maintenance costs.

With Redhat, you will have an option of staying with any component of your existing solution. If enough other people are interested or you can justify hiring in-house programmers, you can get the whole old operating system running on new hardware. For a less radical solution, you will be able to maintain existing C, X11 and Gtk+ libraries to get unchanged application binaries running on a new OS. The more open source code you have in your disposal, especially with an active development community, the more flexible and inexpensive your future hardware/software migration going to be.