Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Attacks Linux With Retail-Training Talking Points
DesiVideoGamer writes "Over at Overclock.net, a user has posted screen-shots from Microsoft's 'ExpertZone' training course entitled 'Linux vs. Windows 7.' This course is available to BestBuy employees and will make them eligible for a $10 copy of Windows 7 upon completion." The screenshots linked show at least some creative interpretations of the state of Linux vs. Windows on a wide range of things, from media playback and video conferencing to ease of updates to (of all things) keeping your PCs "safer." Most of the claims, though, aren't concrete enough to be perfectly refuted. Writes DesiVideoGamer, "I think I now know why, when I enter BestBuy, the employees say the odd lies that they do."
Linux vendors would do exactly the same thing
Except that they don't. Not like this.
Who is to say which OS is safer for example? It entirely depends on what metric you use to measure it
Like, say, which is more prone to being part of a trojan-infected zombie botnet scamming info for identity fraud and/or spreading spam?
I don't blame Microsoft for selling their products. That is what a software company SHOULD do.
If they can't sell their product without bullshitting (or at least keeping it to a tasteful minimum), isn't that a condemnation of their own product?
The only reason these are "stories" is because people [incorrectly] feel Linux is a community effort ...
Actually, they are stories because this is an attempt to bullshit people, and people hate being bullshitted. People on slashdot especially hate seeing people who might not know any better being bullshitted by a cynical, self-serving marketing group. I don't mean to absolve other tech companies (most, if not all, do the same or similar), but Microsoft has long occupied a special place in tech history as one of the most blatant bullshit-marketing organizations ever. I personally have been involved in tech distribution for about 15 years, and no other vendor comes close to their level of arrogance or deceit. I've been to an RSA conference where Microsoft astroturfed a whole session that was promoted as a balanced and impartial hack-off, but instead was a scripted Windows lovefest. I've seen Microsoft flat-out lie to peoples' faces. I've seen them ship free product to people who didn't order it to inflate their "install base" of a particular item.
These are stories because in an industry saturated with kool-aid and known for marketing gross exaggerations and lies, Microsoft stands out as the worst.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
More expensive doesn't always mean higher margins. That's only the same if the markup is proportional to the cost, which it often isn't.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
I'm not about to wait until hell freezes over. You see, in Linux, it is entirely common to have multiple different versions of shared libraries and they all coexist just fine. Every single point you made in every post in this thread was blatantly wrong, and shows that you are either a complete moron, haven't tried to use a decent Linux distribution in years, or are a straight M$ shill. Since you are offering up blatant lies about both Linux and Windows, and they all favor the virusOS, I'm betting on the latter.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
You have no idea how 'Linux drivers' even slightly work, do you?
No piece of hardware ever comes with Linux drivers. Maybe a few barely-supported things a decade ago, but not any recent stuff.
This is because, unlike Windows, Linux doesn't expect hardware manufacturers to make their own shitty drivers that crash all the time because they're a hardware company and don't know how to write software.
Something like 90% of Windows blue screens post-Windows 98 are because of third-party hardware drivers. XP onwards stopped applications from being able to crash Windows, but there's not a damn thing it can do about shitty drivers. Now they have this 'certification' thing that works somewhat, but hardware companies are not software companies, and still cannot write good software.
This is why Linux drivers come with the kernel, and why kernel developers write them. Of course, the company is free to write their own and submit it to the kernel devs, but that's the distribution point, not some driver CD.
There is nothing stopping hardware manufacturers from saying, in the requirements, 'Linux kernel 2.6.4 or greater', and many, of course, actually do.
In fact, Linux is basically the only OS that you can be sure hardware devices that worked on a version of it in 2000 still work on modern version, which makes your entire premise absurdly idiotic. Linux may sometimes suffer by not having the absolutely newest hardware support, but it has about 10x the backwards compatibility that Windows has. The devices that used to be supported under Linux but are not anymore are probably countable on two hands, whereas there's plenty of XP stuff out there that will never get signed Vista drivers, just like there was plenty of stuff under 98 that never got XP drivers.
This is because the company is in charge of updating them, and they don't give a flying fuck about supporting hardware they don't sell anymore. In fact, they'd rather that old hardware didn't work, because they've got some new stuff to sell you. Whereas with Linux, the kernel people are in charge of keeping the driver updated, and hardware will only stop working if some kernel APIs change enough to break it and no one bothers fix it so it gets removed. (Recently, Linux lost the ability, as it redid its entire IDE/PATA/SATA/SCSI support to be in one unified driver, to read MFM hard drives. Aka, pre-IDE. No one seemed to mind.)
It's somewhat hilarious to hear anyone talk about a 'kernel ABI' on Linux. Man, the Windows kernel ABI and API changes every release, making all hardware manufacturers update, or not, their drivers. Whereas 99% of Linux drivers are already in the kernel, and just change along with it and keep working. It's only the companies that insist on releasing their own drivers that have problems.
Now, WRT to software ABI, there's a valid concern. Or, at least, it was. A long time ago. Nowadays it's trivially easy to release commercial software for Linux that works fine. You put an install script on a CD, you have that either use the package manager (either dpkg or rpm, you can include both on the CD and use whichever one the OS is) or you don't bother with that and just put it in it's own /opt/ directory. Then you stick icons in the right place for Gnome and KDE to pick them up.
If the libaries it needs aren't found, you can install your own, either compat libs for the entire OS, or just in your own directory.
Anyone who can't package software for Linux and have it work on any full-fledged Linux distro made in the last five years shouldn't be writing software.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?