It would appear that the official word from the company is that this never happened. That this isn't the case. That this is not who or what they are.
Either the company is in denail, afraid (very unlikely), or does not exist.
If they are in denial then "this never happened" and they are not a site reference that is usable.
If they are afraid they have personal issues. Never trust a vendor -- but also know that the instances of vendors breaking legs is very rare and more likely to occurr with an Open Source advocate than a public company that needs to show a profit to the street.
The third option is the most logical -- and I'd love to have a good site reference for Linux -- but this isn't one of them -- yet. Give a company name and life will be good -- give a site reference that is verifiable and no vitrol will flow.
...sounds like a case of poor administration, a well written article although not technologically objective.
What's missing are any verifiable facts. Until any are presented this article goes in the round file -- i.e.: somebody's pipe dream of the way Linux should help.
All of the major vendors list the company name with most case studies -- it is common practice. Who is the company? Is their third party verification of the reported shift?
It could happen -- it might have happened -- it is useless to use this article to sell management on the benefits of open source -- this has few if any real details.
Please, please present some factual and verifiable accounts that can be used in making OS decisions!
Which does Multi-headed Windows quite nicely with or without Citrix.
If it's X vs. WTS (with/without Citrix) then X may be in a wee bit of trouble. Licensing and support are issues but the truth of the matter is that WTS wins when you cost it out (TCO).
The sad part is that the X clients (servers for you non-X people) have to be sized almost identically to the WTS boxes (15 to 30 users per CPU, minimum 1gb per 15 users or so -- all based on application mix) when you actually install the box.
..or brush up on roaming profiles/home directory location.
The truth of the matter is if that is what you are living with now I don't trust you to implement another platform -- you haven't mastered the one you are on and you are whining that it is flawed because you havent.
MS had a bug or two here. Oracle has them. Sybase has them. MySQL has them. PostGres has them.
The value of the software that has reached stable and shipping is not that it is bug free but rather how the company deals with the bug. In this case MS looks to have done well.
The unfortunate fact is that most users would not do this no matter what OS they are on. It requires thinking differently -- starting from a my system is secure perspective. Users in general start from the "my system is easy" perspective.
So in general, on Linux, the end user would always log in as root. Would execute any binary executable the minute it was received as root. Would say that Linux (or any other OS) is insecure.
Performing well... to tell the truth it would be interesting to see the numbers that MS has on this -- short term APPL has not been a gain on the portfolio (17% decrease in one day -- this week alone). Long term how much has MS made/lost on paper from this investment?
Perhaps you should seek to hire competent administrators.
I've seen Oracle, Sybase and MS SQL Server run very well in critical environments with no data loss. I've also seen all three "loose" data all over the place -- the critical points are usually the administrator/administration and the application utilizing the db.
After all.. the open source people have adopted it (it's all in the interpetation).
Notice how the also ran languages supported on Linux (Python, etc) never make the cross platform big time -- yet with this move the Linux community gave.Net and C# the smack of legitimacy and since it will be numerically close to #1 in the future (based on number of developers using it) have really put it over the top.
Liability = responsibility -- and our (the consumer's) ability to hold their feet to the fire. MS has a chain that can be "jerked" --it's called not buying their product -- hurting their bottom line. Their bread is buttered when you buy their product.
Business understands that incentive and can use it.
Open source is based on less tangible drivers --which still makes many business' queasy about large committments to the technology. If you can not explain your motivations as a contributor (vendor) why should I risk my company on your product?
Hmm... rather than saying troll-bait and moving on...I'll consider it for a moment (bite)
MS spending time and money on unethical hackers when they are already in court on charges in a case that this would not help? Not too smart... and whatever else you say about Bill G you need to acknowledge he is smart, sharp, intelligent and driven otherwise you are dog-food.
Wait -- this is the open source crowd, dog-food to bein with.
The biggest repository of free code has been rooted, alledgedly for => 5 months which has to make every security expert out there question any and all projects containing any code from that source and request proof of valid code.
MS can "prove" their code internally when hacked (back ups/ownership/check digits) and is liable if they produce rooted code. Who can prove the code in the case of SourceForge? Who is liable?
In a corporate world liability = responsiblity. In the open source/free software world we rejoice in no responsibility or liability. As such the open source/free software code base represented by SourceForge is suspect at best at this point. This is a potential flaw in the open source model.
Why should any corporate manager trust any open soruce project containing code from SourceForge at this point? Think twice if you are in a management position -- your companies existance and your job/future depend on your answer.
Or perhaps the issue is that MS is so huge that even for/.'ers it takes up 90% of their time, market and brain power. At least looking at the number of MS related articles on/. it seems that way.
includes a CD cutter, an IRC client, a browser and let's not forget an IP client is great. As a matter of fact what OS wouldn't include these features today?
All competent OS's today (OS9, some day soon OSX, Linux in most distributions, etc.) include all of these modern features in the box.
And why not? Most mature markets for complex devices are like this today -- take cars for instance. If the argument against MS holds water then Honda should be forbidden from from selling fully loaded vehicles with cruise, electric windows, power door locks, etc. because other vendors sell those parts?
This argument is old, wrong and bordering on ridiculuous.
who decides what is a reasonable charge? If I believe my source is going to cost a large amount to maintain and give the binary away cheaply but charge 1,000,000 US for the source with no right to re-distribute the source am I open-sourced?
Please provide an accurate number of contributors to significant open source projects over the last 6 to 12 month period.
Somehow I think you'd have several hundreds of thousands less than hundreds of thousands.
The point? Most open source users are users and contributors are still relatively few. As time goes on if open source has a true impact on the user base the percentage will go down from here.
..so well. Most other systems end up with either a glut of theory and no application or a glut of application and no theory.
Capitalism is the system that actually seems to balance both out over time. Applied science -- production of product (see Microsoft or Edison). Theory -- this is the foundation structure (see Newton or Einstein). Without the theory it is difficult if not impossible to make true advances -- incremental only. Without the application you will never be able to drive theory to any next level -- application refines theory and allows you to start building "products" and refining them over time -- the bedrock that a lot of new theory rests on.
Some theory goes off on a tangent and then you get real breakthroughs. This is rarely it seems the realm of the corporation although many times it is funded by the corporation either directly or indirectly (university and government are both indirectly funded by the tax base of the capitalist country -- which is either the corporation directly or employees of the corporation). Think food chain.
Implication: if a corporation can apply theory and make money they will have either a direct (funded research) or indirect (food chain) effect on making theory better over time. Without application you have less opportunity for more theory. Without application you have no economy. Without application you have stagnation.
MS is relatively good at iterative application. Some other companies excel at it as well. MS also has thinkers (both direct and indirect [ps: Linus is an indirect thinker that MS uses as a resource -- as is the entire industry and if Linus is smart MS is the same for him]) who it strives to use to improve theory. It is not a company so married to it's own interpetation that it will not adopt outside interpetations or models when MS sees the benefit for the application.
Do not understimate a company ready, willing and able to re-interpet itself based on a changing world scene and the concept that over time and releases it will prevail.
No longer in existence:
Netscape (swallowed by AOL), Borlans (I ssume you meant Borland -- not a player in most any market anymore), Word Perfect (gutted the best word processor in any market and relegated to third tier performance by Corel now).
and he did -- a very successfull business model not unlike some software houses today (long hours, etc.).
Many of the same complaints about Edison are being slung against MS today -- not original, not a new thinker, etc.
What you must remember is Edison was an iterative implementer (see incandescent lamp) who ruled his area of the industry through his personality alone. MS is definately an iterative implementation company not unlike the Edison model. Bill G is not unlike Edison in some ways as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Either the company is in denail, afraid (very unlikely), or does not exist.
If they are in denial then "this never happened" and they are not a site reference that is usable.
If they are afraid they have personal issues. Never trust a vendor -- but also know that the instances of vendors breaking legs is very rare and more likely to occurr with an Open Source advocate than a public company that needs to show a profit to the street.
The third option is the most logical -- and I'd love to have a good site reference for Linux -- but this isn't one of them -- yet. Give a company name and life will be good -- give a site reference that is verifiable and no vitrol will flow.
Not saying it isn't true -- just saying this article doesn't have a ring of truth to it.
What's missing are any verifiable facts. Until any are presented this article goes in the round file -- i.e.: somebody's pipe dream of the way Linux should help.
All of the major vendors list the company name with most case studies -- it is common practice. Who is the company? Is their third party verification of the reported shift?
It could happen -- it might have happened -- it is useless to use this article to sell management on the benefits of open source -- this has few if any real details.
Please, please present some factual and verifiable accounts that can be used in making OS decisions!
Today true Unix administrators are rare.
Tommorrow it's all script kiddies if you believe the Linux crowd.
At that point Linux is ripe for a virus.
If it's X vs. WTS (with/without Citrix) then X may be in a wee bit of trouble. Licensing and support are issues but the truth of the matter is that WTS wins when you cost it out (TCO).
The sad part is that the X clients (servers for you non-X people) have to be sized almost identically to the WTS boxes (15 to 30 users per CPU, minimum 1gb per 15 users or so -- all based on application mix) when you actually install the box.
The truth of the matter is if that is what you are living with now I don't trust you to implement another platform -- you haven't mastered the one you are on and you are whining that it is flawed because you havent.
MS had a bug or two here. Oracle has them. Sybase has them. MySQL has them. PostGres has them.
The value of the software that has reached stable and shipping is not that it is bug free but rather how the company deals with the bug. In this case MS looks to have done well.
The unfortunate fact is that most users would not do this no matter what OS they are on. It requires thinking differently -- starting from a my system is secure perspective. Users in general start from the "my system is easy" perspective.
So in general, on Linux, the end user would always log in as root. Would execute any binary executable the minute it was received as root. Would say that Linux (or any other OS) is insecure.
Performing well... to tell the truth it would be interesting to see the numbers that MS has on this -- short term APPL has not been a gain on the portfolio (17% decrease in one day -- this week alone). Long term how much has MS made/lost on paper from this investment?
Marketing numbers would have us believe that MS SQL is not only commonly used but frequently used.
MS SQL is just as good in an appropriately sized environment as ORACLE, SYBASE, etc.
Incompetence usually comes in with improper design and implementation and administration (rampant).
I've seen Oracle, Sybase and MS SQL Server run very well in critical environments with no data loss. I've also seen all three "loose" data all over the place -- the critical points are usually the administrator/administration and the application utilizing the db.
Does that also mean that owning the schools will give free/Free software only 5% of the market?
Notice how the also ran languages supported on Linux (Python, etc) never make the cross platform big time -- yet with this move the Linux community gave .Net and C# the smack of legitimacy and since it will be numerically close to #1 in the future (based on number of developers using it) have really put it over the top.
Business understands that incentive and can use it.
Open source is based on less tangible drivers --which still makes many business' queasy about large committments to the technology. If you can not explain your motivations as a contributor (vendor) why should I risk my company on your product?
You assume the tree is safe. In this case the tree is suspect.
Please reread the original post. In SSL sites Apache is NOT king at this point -- it is a distant second to IIS.
MS spending time and money on unethical hackers when they are already in court on charges in a case that this would not help? Not too smart... and whatever else you say about Bill G you need to acknowledge he is smart, sharp, intelligent and driven otherwise you are dog-food.
Wait -- this is the open source crowd, dog-food to bein with.
The biggest repository of free code has been rooted, alledgedly for => 5 months which has to make every security expert out there question any and all projects containing any code from that source and request proof of valid code.
MS can "prove" their code internally when hacked (back ups/ownership/check digits) and is liable if they produce rooted code. Who can prove the code in the case of SourceForge? Who is liable?
In a corporate world liability = responsiblity. In the open source/free software world we rejoice in no responsibility or liability. As such the open source/free software code base represented by SourceForge is suspect at best at this point. This is a potential flaw in the open source model.
Why should any corporate manager trust any open soruce project containing code from SourceForge at this point? Think twice if you are in a management position -- your companies existance and your job/future depend on your answer.
Or perhaps the issue is that MS is so huge that even for /.'ers it takes up 90% of their time, market and brain power. At least looking at the number of MS related articles on /. it seems that way.
All competent OS's today (OS9, some day soon OSX, Linux in most distributions, etc.) include all of these modern features in the box.
And why not? Most mature markets for complex devices are like this today -- take cars for instance. If the argument against MS holds water then Honda should be forbidden from from selling fully loaded vehicles with cruise, electric windows, power door locks, etc. because other vendors sell those parts?
This argument is old, wrong and bordering on ridiculuous.
who decides what is a reasonable charge? If I believe my source is going to cost a large amount to maintain and give the binary away cheaply but charge 1,000,000 US for the source with no right to re-distribute the source am I open-sourced?
What percentage of open source is coming from non-capitalist countries?
Somehow I think you'd have several hundreds of thousands less than hundreds of thousands.
The point? Most open source users are users and contributors are still relatively few. As time goes on if open source has a true impact on the user base the percentage will go down from here.
Capitalism is the system that actually seems to balance both out over time. Applied science -- production of product (see Microsoft or Edison). Theory -- this is the foundation structure (see Newton or Einstein). Without the theory it is difficult if not impossible to make true advances -- incremental only. Without the application you will never be able to drive theory to any next level -- application refines theory and allows you to start building "products" and refining them over time -- the bedrock that a lot of new theory rests on.
Some theory goes off on a tangent and then you get real breakthroughs. This is rarely it seems the realm of the corporation although many times it is funded by the corporation either directly or indirectly (university and government are both indirectly funded by the tax base of the capitalist country -- which is either the corporation directly or employees of the corporation). Think food chain.
Implication: if a corporation can apply theory and make money they will have either a direct (funded research) or indirect (food chain) effect on making theory better over time. Without application you have less opportunity for more theory. Without application you have no economy. Without application you have stagnation.
MS is relatively good at iterative application. Some other companies excel at it as well. MS also has thinkers (both direct and indirect [ps: Linus is an indirect thinker that MS uses as a resource -- as is the entire industry and if Linus is smart MS is the same for him]) who it strives to use to improve theory. It is not a company so married to it's own interpetation that it will not adopt outside interpetations or models when MS sees the benefit for the application.
Do not understimate a company ready, willing and able to re-interpet itself based on a changing world scene and the concept that over time and releases it will prevail.
Midgets: Linux, GNU
Middlings: Apple, Corel
No longer in existence: Netscape (swallowed by AOL), Borlans (I ssume you meant Borland -- not a player in most any market anymore), Word Perfect (gutted the best word processor in any market and relegated to third tier performance by Corel now).
Many of the same complaints about Edison are being slung against MS today -- not original, not a new thinker, etc.
What you must remember is Edison was an iterative implementer (see incandescent lamp) who ruled his area of the industry through his personality alone. MS is definately an iterative implementation company not unlike the Edison model. Bill G is not unlike Edison in some ways as well.
Prepare for incoming troll attacks!