This is an interesting comment. Nine times out of ten, you are the company that sold a piece of hardware/software to my mother/friend/relative and promised it was plug and play and 100% compatible (and inevitably leads to me trying to bail everything out).
Hey, I am sorry your life is tough dealing with people that aren't computer-savvy, but you chose that line of work.
Now, from the perspective of someone who _can_ use a computer with a high degree of cometancy - tech support is getting worse. Everytime I deal with a help desk, it is a nightmare. My cable internet service will have problems - I'll tell the guy, "You're smtp server isn't responding." He asks me to check whether I have File and Print sharing enabled - heh - nope - not using Windows. I repeat myself, he wants to look at DHCP settings. I repeat that I can access every other host I try, but not the smtp server, he says he will put me on hold and elevate the call to a "Level 2". I mean come on! Its like pulling teeth.
I had an issue with a friend's Iomega USB drive and Win2K. Iomega brshes me off as a 'hardware conflict' - ya whatever. The other 3 USB periphs work fine.
My point is simply this: you sold the product, and you are responsible for supporting it. If you don't like it, quit. The majority of techs I deal with, however, are undertrained, underequipped, and not very willing to help. Most of the time I find better help in the newsgroups, and frankly, community based support is a large factor in my use of linux at home.
apt-get is a utility that lays on top of Debian's pkg manager - dpkg. Compare RPM to dpkg, but not apt-get to RPM.
I see no enlightenement in this article at all. First the author rants about a perceived corporate update cycle, labelling it some random thee letter acronym, then compares two dissimilar tools.
I am guessing a large reason for it not being litigated is the risk on both sides.
Right now, proprietary software companies must not sufficiently threatened by its existence to litigate. There is a huge amount of downside risk for a company like MS to challenge the license, since the precedent could go either way. I think it is safe to assume that the GPL has enough legal foundation to make any outcome questionable.
What a lot of this comes down to is enforceability of a license. Many of the same arguments I have used against shrinkwrap licenses can be adapted to the GPL.
Finally, one thing I have never reconciled is how much duplication of code constitutes a violation? How many programs have a "while not EOF" type routine? Is it the approach to a problem that determines the uniqueness of the code?
IMO, neither side (pro or con) wants the GPL to go to court anytime soon. When you consider the other cases pending, such as RAMBUS, domain name trademark infringement, etc., any case involving the GPL would be a stressful time for a lot of people (myself included).
First of all, the text is too static - easily recognizable. In addition, it is a simple CGI only routine, so in its current state you 'private' message could end up in the web logs, or worse, a database, of the operator. Finally, since it is a single decode routine there is obviously only one key. Steganography has potential when using things that are a bit more innocuous, like jpgs. The problem is if someone is surveilling you (ala Carnivore et al.) then steganography isn't a great way to protect yourself.
Read the MS EULA. You don't own jack now. You have been granted a license to use. Which is revocable at any time. If MS takes the server down and says "No More Installs of Whistler" tough luck. You know how few companies immediately switched to win 2k? In the fututre - no prob - MS will guarantee switches because you can't instll hte old junk.
Any IT manager that can't see what is coming down the mountain and isn't giving Free and Open Source software a look isa going to spend some uncomfortable time in front of executive management explaining outrageous license fees that can't be avoided.
That is the problem with today's IP laws and user licenses and software.
>>Oh, and umm...in a business sense ChiliWare makes the software that lets you run a website using.asp on linux...yeah...that's it. See? I did learn something from ChingaWare
Actually, no. ChiliSoft (as in Chili pepper) develops the open ASP interfaces.
Chilliware (a loose reference to Chilly the Penguin I imagine) is what this story is about.
Apparently their trinkets weren't only cheap - they didn't do their job.
The problem with AT&T's logic is the assumption that online business models would support this. Take Amazon, for example. Margins are absolutely cut to the bone. Reduced pricing is one of the things that make online retailing attractive. If you add cost on top of the current prices for purchases, let alone *accesses* then that cost is passed through to the consumer. As a result, by some factor, online purchasing is not as attractive. Not a good strategy for something still in its infancy.
The two questions that lurk in my mind are:
1. AT&T is planning on charging for access and sales on the basis that they are crossing their network. Hasn't that access already been paid and accounted for by either: a.) consumer paid fees to ISP's or b.) merchant fees for their bandwidth? It seems like all of the cost AT&T could already incur is paid for.
2. Doesn't this set the stage for a Miscrosoft of the internet? For example, there are 2 services, X & Y. AT&T invests in X, but not Y. AT&T then gives substantial discounts (perhaps even waiving) the merchant fees for network access to X, thereby making it more competitive. This part extends beyond books and DVD's, in as much as AT&T could charge to access things such as paid tech support or downloads of updated products. What about live internet radio and other broadcasts? They have revenue streams from ads. AT&T could decide to charge for access to those items.
The whole concept isn't workable. It is like an excise tax that is paid to a corporation. It also flies in the face of free interchange of ideas and information.
Although it is on the fringes of freedom, I hope the EFF takes a look at the possibilities here.
He claims they offer a "mostly open source license" but then goes on to point out:
1. Costs $20 (open?)
2. Needs to retain basic functionality, but could be extended (eh, this guy doesn't get it, does he?)
3. Reverse engineering is 'infringement'
4. Can't compete with DC.
Okay, he's obviously top management as a CTO, so I will cut him some slack based ont eh inevitable brain damage that always seems to follow when one accepts an Executive position, but come on! To even use a reference of open source is ludicrous.
Ah well, ony those who wish to be enlightened can be...
Read the article. He is talking about humankind's lifespan on Earth. It is quite arrogant to believe that we can actually harm teh planet. We harm ourselves, the planet will endure. A different planet, but a planet nonetheless.
Just be upfront with ousrselves - it should be "Save the Humans", not "Save the Plant".
1. Competition? Get real. You think another cable company can lay miles and miles of wire for broadband access in the same city as Time Warner? This is monopoly, not competition. Had they been deemed a common carrier, TW would have to allow other ISPs access to their lines. All this does is mean for millions of broadband subscribers they will be regulated by AOL. Oh Joy.
2. As far as liability - my personal belief is that it is in the common good that ISPs not be liable for conduct. Nowhere should private indestry be given the responsibility of censorship.
3. FCC regulation is the only thing that could prevent bundling of broadband and say, premium TV channels. Now if you want TW broadband - you need to get HBO, Starz and all that other junk they are losing to teh satellite/DSS market.
I don't see how this can be beneficial for anyone except AOL/TW. And here is a hint: if it is good for a corporation, it is usually bad for the consumer.
Sun doesn't care about Linux. They never did. Nor open source software. They GPL'd Star Office because it wasn't worth paying developers to work on a product that can't compete in the Windows space. Or maybe to be a thorn in Gates' side..
Sun probably has a marketing dept. that insists on being able to say their server appliances are powered by the same 'high-powered' OS that the big iron is.
I have nothing against Solaris, there are a few features I actually like, but I don't see how a new Solaris port to MIPS could possibly be:
- more stable
- as fast or faster than
- as supported as
Linux.
This is a case of corporate pride leading to poor decisions.
The fallacy of that analogue is that your examples are only applicable to U.S. Citizens. That's the point, the INS says, "Hey, you can come on a TEMPORARY visa, but you are not a citizen or a permanent resdent." This means that all teh rights afforded a citizen are not automatically transferred to a *citizen of another country on a temporary visa*.
I have a lot of compassion for the problem that exists, but the fact that this was all part of the deal is incontrovertible. They are not eligible for "Equal work - Equal pay" protection, because they are not a citizen. Certain other rights are transferred to their stay, but all can be revoked unilaterally by the U.S. Government. It is a terrible thing to do, and I think it is swarming with ethical issues, but the bottom line is that it was part of the contract.
Also, to call H1-B workers indentured servants is hyberbole to the 10th degree.
We should be sympathetic to their plight and supportive where we can, but accountability lies with all three parties (worker, employer, U.S. Gov't.)
Now we can be thankful to have even more choice in the Debian distribution. Regardless of the past, I am quite happpy to see Debian embrace the newly licensed Qt library and subsequently KDE. I find myself switching from Gnome to KDE to XFCE on a regular basis, as I have yet to really decide on the environment I like best.
This will also give a nice boost to the number of available packages in the Debian archive once all of the KDE based apps are ackaged and placed into main.
And you would never know if word tried, since it is the Internet Explorer compnent accessing the net, which I am sure you have granted access. Being a "necessary component of the OS" (their words, not mine) it will always be available, and chances are your firewall will never pick it up.
Just as an FYI - O'Reilly has updated the text to include current desktop environments in their 3rd edition released this year. I agree that this is one of the best books out there to read cover to cover - it explains the whats, but also the hows and whys of topics. I believe you have a much better understanding of how to manage the OS rather than respond to the OS. Other books I have read seem to gloss over the concepts and just spit out robotic procedures. Little learning there for me. I want commands in context.
I am an AMD fan. I seem to always root for the underdog. However, in this circumstance, the best thing we can do is not be too critical of Intel. Companies are all too reticent to admit a mistake was made. When they continue to be chastised in the press it will only strengthen their resolve in fighting any sort of recall or admitting any sort fo wrongdoing.
Don't interpret this to mean that Intel doesn't deserve any criticism. Obviously they should be questioned as far as the timing of the CPU release, and the obvious fact that it is an overclocked 1000MHZ (just look at voltage and MB specs, along with huge heatsink). At the same time, praise is in order for making the situation right by admitting error, getting the chips back, and going back to the drawing board.
Which would you rather have: shoddy products with recalls, or shoddy products without recalls? The bottom line is that in the PC market teh one constant will always be bleeding edge products that haven't matured.
The author released this under the GPL, but he used Gecko from Mozilla, which I understand to be under the MPL. This from the FSF website (http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/license-list.html).
"This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft; unlike the X11 license, it has some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the GNU GPL. That is, a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the MPL cannot legally be linked together."
Granted, this is one interpretation. What this illustrates is the huge problem that is created by using a license such as MPL, QPL, etc...
We went through this with the QPL - recognition of that incompatibility has seemingly disappeared except for the Debian distrubtion. The license incompatibility still exists, however.
The bottom line is that Non-GPL'd software really causes some hairy licensing issues. At some point, these issues need to get resolved and some sort of education / standardization needs to take place.
In actuality, other than being angry with the dishonesty exhibited by Inprise, how does this materially affect the OSS community? I personally think this will be a huge win. Imagine the discussions that will ensue if the Firebird project outperforms the Inprise led effort, providing better code on a faster track. Once Inprise open sourced the DB, they let the Genie out of the bottle. If Inprise decides they made a mistake, too bad.
The point I am trying to make is that collaboration doesn't necessarily need corporate sponsorship. If a project forks because corporate pomp is interfering with development efforts, then I argue that is the best thing that can happen. Inprise needs to remember that they are the newbies when it comes to *this* type of software license, and that they aren't the Grand Poobah of development in the OSS community.
Microsoft has been down this road before, and it is nothing new. Examples:
JAVA - J++ adds proprietary extensions with the default compiler options - a clear attempt at making a Microsoft 'standard' supercede a JAVA 'standard' (yes, I know that there is technically no JAVA standard per se).
Kerberos - Extend this product in such a manner that non-MS clients lose functionality
IE - adopt DHTML and DCOM as standards that render thousands of web sites nearly unusable with any other browser
Is the next move simply, "MS Office with MS GNOME (note, Office may not work with regular GNOME...)", and extend GNOME/MS GNOME to the point where they basically control that platform as well. MS has never concentrated on dominating an OS as a whole, based on technical competance. They dominate the market by dominating the last 6 feet (that's 3 feet fo monitor cable and 3 ft. of keyboard cable). As long as you have user support, the rest will be a snap.
Marc
I have read your article on www.abnews.com and have the following comments:
1. You need to disclose your bias toward MS as you have done extensive research on their company and products. After reading your article I see that you have yet to undertake such an evaluation of linux.
2. How do you figure that NT has taken over as the server platform of choice? I direct you to www.netcraft.com for a complete survey of internet servers and their platforms. NT is no where near the leader.
3. Being open source, bugs are much easier to find and report in linux. Generally, Microsoft does not even disclose the existence of bugs it does not have a fix for. The 99 NT bugs is a depressed figure.
4. Given that your 99 NT bugs are significatly (over 15%) greater than linux, and the 99 number is a depressed value, how do you justify your "worst operating systems ever" statement.
5. Admit your mistake in not reading the footnotes to the table
6. All of the linux bugs have been patched. I challenge you to produce 99 patches for NT. Also, evaluate the timeliness.
I urge you to research these topics before you continue your position as a Microsoft tool printing FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt).
Marc A. Dukes
Marc Dukes
Provident Bank
mdukes@provident-bank.com
Slashdot Mirror
This is an interesting comment. Nine times out of ten, you are the company that sold a piece of hardware/software to my mother/friend/relative and promised it was plug and play and 100% compatible (and inevitably leads to me trying to bail everything out).
Hey, I am sorry your life is tough dealing with people that aren't computer-savvy, but you chose that line of work.
Now, from the perspective of someone who _can_ use a computer with a high degree of cometancy - tech support is getting worse. Everytime I deal with a help desk, it is a nightmare. My cable internet service will have problems - I'll tell the guy, "You're smtp server isn't responding." He asks me to check whether I have File and Print sharing enabled - heh - nope - not using Windows. I repeat myself, he wants to look at DHCP settings. I repeat that I can access every other host I try, but not the smtp server, he says he will put me on hold and elevate the call to a "Level 2". I mean come on! Its like pulling teeth.
I had an issue with a friend's Iomega USB drive and Win2K. Iomega brshes me off as a 'hardware conflict' - ya whatever. The other 3 USB periphs work fine.
My point is simply this: you sold the product, and you are responsible for supporting it. If you don't like it, quit. The majority of techs I deal with, however, are undertrained, underequipped, and not very willing to help. Most of the time I find better help in the newsgroups, and frankly, community based support is a large factor in my use of linux at home.
apt-get is a utility that lays on top of Debian's pkg manager - dpkg. Compare RPM to dpkg, but not apt-get to RPM.
I see no enlightenement in this article at all. First the author rants about a perceived corporate update cycle, labelling it some random thee letter acronym, then compares two dissimilar tools.
I am guessing a large reason for it not being litigated is the risk on both sides.
Right now, proprietary software companies must not sufficiently threatened by its existence to litigate. There is a huge amount of downside risk for a company like MS to challenge the license, since the precedent could go either way. I think it is safe to assume that the GPL has enough legal foundation to make any outcome questionable.
What a lot of this comes down to is enforceability of a license. Many of the same arguments I have used against shrinkwrap licenses can be adapted to the GPL.
Finally, one thing I have never reconciled is how much duplication of code constitutes a violation? How many programs have a "while not EOF" type routine? Is it the approach to a problem that determines the uniqueness of the code?
IMO, neither side (pro or con) wants the GPL to go to court anytime soon. When you consider the other cases pending, such as RAMBUS, domain name trademark infringement, etc., any case involving the GPL would be a stressful time for a lot of people (myself included).
Marc
First of all, the text is too static - easily recognizable. In addition, it is a simple CGI only routine, so in its current state you 'private' message could end up in the web logs, or worse, a database, of the operator. Finally, since it is a single decode routine there is obviously only one key. Steganography has potential when using things that are a bit more innocuous, like jpgs. The problem is if someone is surveilling you (ala Carnivore et al.) then steganography isn't a great way to protect yourself.
Marc
Read the MS EULA. You don't own jack now. You have been granted a license to use. Which is revocable at any time. If MS takes the server down and says "No More Installs of Whistler" tough luck. You know how few companies immediately switched to win 2k? In the fututre - no prob - MS will guarantee switches because you can't instll hte old junk.
Any IT manager that can't see what is coming down the mountain and isn't giving Free and Open Source software a look isa going to spend some uncomfortable time in front of executive management explaining outrageous license fees that can't be avoided.
That is the problem with today's IP laws and user licenses and software.
>>Oh, and umm...in a business sense ChiliWare makes the software that lets you run a website using .asp on linux...yeah...that's it. See? I did learn something from ChingaWare
Actually, no. ChiliSoft (as in Chili pepper) develops the open ASP interfaces.
Chilliware (a loose reference to Chilly the Penguin I imagine) is what this story is about.
Apparently their trinkets weren't only cheap - they didn't do their job.
Marc
The problem with AT&T's logic is the assumption that online business models would support this. Take Amazon, for example. Margins are absolutely cut to the bone. Reduced pricing is one of the things that make online retailing attractive. If you add cost on top of the current prices for purchases, let alone *accesses* then that cost is passed through to the consumer. As a result, by some factor, online purchasing is not as attractive. Not a good strategy for something still in its infancy.
The two questions that lurk in my mind are:
1. AT&T is planning on charging for access and sales on the basis that they are crossing their network. Hasn't that access already been paid and accounted for by either: a.) consumer paid fees to ISP's or b.) merchant fees for their bandwidth? It seems like all of the cost AT&T could already incur is paid for.
2. Doesn't this set the stage for a Miscrosoft of the internet? For example, there are 2 services, X & Y. AT&T invests in X, but not Y. AT&T then gives substantial discounts (perhaps even waiving) the merchant fees for network access to X, thereby making it more competitive. This part extends beyond books and DVD's, in as much as AT&T could charge to access things such as paid tech support or downloads of updated products. What about live internet radio and other broadcasts? They have revenue streams from ads. AT&T could decide to charge for access to those items.
The whole concept isn't workable. It is like an excise tax that is paid to a corporation. It also flies in the face of free interchange of ideas and information.
Although it is on the fringes of freedom, I hope the EFF takes a look at the possibilities here.
Marc
He claims they offer a "mostly open source license" but then goes on to point out:
1. Costs $20 (open?)
2. Needs to retain basic functionality, but could be extended (eh, this guy doesn't get it, does he?)
3. Reverse engineering is 'infringement'
4. Can't compete with DC.
Okay, he's obviously top management as a CTO, so I will cut him some slack based ont eh inevitable brain damage that always seems to follow when one accepts an Executive position, but come on! To even use a reference of open source is ludicrous.
Ah well, ony those who wish to be enlightened can be...
Marc
Read the article. He is talking about humankind's lifespan on Earth. It is quite arrogant to believe that we can actually harm teh planet. We harm ourselves, the planet will endure. A different planet, but a planet nonetheless.
Just be upfront with ousrselves - it should be "Save the Humans", not "Save the Plant".
Marc
1. Competition? Get real. You think another cable company can lay miles and miles of wire for broadband access in the same city as Time Warner? This is monopoly, not competition. Had they been deemed a common carrier, TW would have to allow other ISPs access to their lines. All this does is mean for millions of broadband subscribers they will be regulated by AOL. Oh Joy.
2. As far as liability - my personal belief is that it is in the common good that ISPs not be liable for conduct. Nowhere should private indestry be given the responsibility of censorship.
3. FCC regulation is the only thing that could prevent bundling of broadband and say, premium TV channels. Now if you want TW broadband - you need to get HBO, Starz and all that other junk they are losing to teh satellite/DSS market.
I don't see how this can be beneficial for anyone except AOL/TW. And here is a hint: if it is good for a corporation, it is usually bad for the consumer.
Marc
Sun doesn't care about Linux. They never did. Nor open source software. They GPL'd Star Office because it wasn't worth paying developers to work on a product that can't compete in the Windows space. Or maybe to be a thorn in Gates' side..
Sun probably has a marketing dept. that insists on being able to say their server appliances are powered by the same 'high-powered' OS that the big iron is.
I have nothing against Solaris, there are a few features I actually like, but I don't see how a new Solaris port to MIPS could possibly be:
- more stable
- as fast or faster than
- as supported as
Linux.
This is a case of corporate pride leading to poor decisions.
Marc
The fallacy of that analogue is that your examples are only applicable to U.S. Citizens. That's the point, the INS says, "Hey, you can come on a TEMPORARY visa, but you are not a citizen or a permanent resdent." This means that all teh rights afforded a citizen are not automatically transferred to a *citizen of another country on a temporary visa*.
I have a lot of compassion for the problem that exists, but the fact that this was all part of the deal is incontrovertible. They are not eligible for "Equal work - Equal pay" protection, because they are not a citizen. Certain other rights are transferred to their stay, but all can be revoked unilaterally by the U.S. Government. It is a terrible thing to do, and I think it is swarming with ethical issues, but the bottom line is that it was part of the contract.
Also, to call H1-B workers indentured servants is hyberbole to the 10th degree.
We should be sympathetic to their plight and supportive where we can, but accountability lies with all three parties (worker, employer, U.S. Gov't.)
Marc
Now we can be thankful to have even more choice in the Debian distribution. Regardless of the past, I am quite happpy to see Debian embrace the newly licensed Qt library and subsequently KDE. I find myself switching from Gnome to KDE to XFCE on a regular basis, as I have yet to really decide on the environment I like best.
This will also give a nice boost to the number of available packages in the Debian archive once all of the KDE based apps are ackaged and placed into main.
Marc
And you would never know if word tried, since it is the Internet Explorer compnent accessing the net, which I am sure you have granted access. Being a "necessary component of the OS" (their words, not mine) it will always be available, and chances are your firewall will never pick it up.
Just as an FYI - O'Reilly has updated the text to include current desktop environments in their 3rd edition released this year. I agree that this is one of the best books out there to read cover to cover - it explains the whats, but also the hows and whys of topics. I believe you have a much better understanding of how to manage the OS rather than respond to the OS. Other books I have read seem to gloss over the concepts and just spit out robotic procedures. Little learning there for me. I want commands in context.
Disclosure: I use an AMD Athlon in my home PC.
I am an AMD fan. I seem to always root for the underdog. However, in this circumstance, the best thing we can do is not be too critical of Intel. Companies are all too reticent to admit a mistake was made. When they continue to be chastised in the press it will only strengthen their resolve in fighting any sort of recall or admitting any sort fo wrongdoing.
Don't interpret this to mean that Intel doesn't deserve any criticism. Obviously they should be questioned as far as the timing of the CPU release, and the obvious fact that it is an overclocked 1000MHZ (just look at voltage and MB specs, along with huge heatsink). At the same time, praise is in order for making the situation right by admitting error, getting the chips back, and going back to the drawing board.
Which would you rather have: shoddy products with recalls, or shoddy products without recalls? The bottom line is that in the PC market teh one constant will always be bleeding edge products that haven't matured.
Marc
Because this is free software, licensing discrepencies aside. Your statement is akin to saying "Why do we need FreeBSD when we have AIX?"
Marc
The author released this under the GPL, but he used Gecko from Mozilla, which I understand to be under the MPL. This from the FSF website (http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/license-list.html).
"This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft; unlike the X11 license, it has some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the GNU GPL. That is, a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the MPL cannot legally be linked together."
Granted, this is one interpretation. What this illustrates is the huge problem that is created by using a license such as MPL, QPL, etc...
We went through this with the QPL - recognition of that incompatibility has seemingly disappeared except for the Debian distrubtion. The license incompatibility still exists, however.
The bottom line is that Non-GPL'd software really causes some hairy licensing issues. At some point, these issues need to get resolved and some sort of education / standardization needs to take place.
Marc
In actuality, other than being angry with the dishonesty exhibited by Inprise, how does this materially affect the OSS community? I personally think this will be a huge win. Imagine the discussions that will ensue if the Firebird project outperforms the Inprise led effort, providing better code on a faster track. Once Inprise open sourced the DB, they let the Genie out of the bottle. If Inprise decides they made a mistake, too bad. The point I am trying to make is that collaboration doesn't necessarily need corporate sponsorship. If a project forks because corporate pomp is interfering with development efforts, then I argue that is the best thing that can happen. Inprise needs to remember that they are the newbies when it comes to *this* type of software license, and that they aren't the Grand Poobah of development in the OSS community.
Microsoft has been down this road before, and it is nothing new. Examples: JAVA - J++ adds proprietary extensions with the default compiler options - a clear attempt at making a Microsoft 'standard' supercede a JAVA 'standard' (yes, I know that there is technically no JAVA standard per se). Kerberos - Extend this product in such a manner that non-MS clients lose functionality IE - adopt DHTML and DCOM as standards that render thousands of web sites nearly unusable with any other browser Is the next move simply, "MS Office with MS GNOME (note, Office may not work with regular GNOME...)", and extend GNOME/MS GNOME to the point where they basically control that platform as well. MS has never concentrated on dominating an OS as a whole, based on technical competance. They dominate the market by dominating the last 6 feet (that's 3 feet fo monitor cable and 3 ft. of keyboard cable). As long as you have user support, the rest will be a snap. Marc
I have read your article on www.abnews.com and have the following comments:
1. You need to disclose your bias toward MS as you have done extensive research on their company and products. After reading your article I see that you have yet to undertake such an evaluation of linux.
2. How do you figure that NT has taken over as the server platform of choice? I direct you to www.netcraft.com for a complete survey of internet servers and their platforms. NT is no where near the leader.
3. Being open source, bugs are much easier to find and report in linux. Generally, Microsoft does not even disclose the existence of bugs it does not have a fix for. The 99 NT bugs is a depressed figure.
4. Given that your 99 NT bugs are significatly (over 15%) greater than linux, and the 99 number is a depressed value, how do you justify your "worst operating systems ever" statement.
5. Admit your mistake in not reading the footnotes to the table
6. All of the linux bugs have been patched. I challenge you to produce 99 patches for NT. Also, evaluate the timeliness.
I urge you to research these topics before you continue your position as a Microsoft tool printing FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt).
Marc A. Dukes
Marc Dukes
Provident Bank
mdukes@provident-bank.com