1) This article is about PHP5. You might want to take a look at PHP5's OOP before you make yourself look like an idiot. PHP5's OOP offers everything and then some that.NET does.
2) Event driven architecture for a server side language is silly. That's why ASP.NET's is such a hack with the giant postback hidden form element and the entire viewstate being persisted. It makes debugging all kinds of fun. no thanks.
3) Browser abstraction only if you stick to using the server controls and having your page postback and refresh every time the user interacts with it. Again...no thanks.
4) No unified coding model, (again unless you want the refresh...) there's no magic here. you want client side code, you still have to write client side code. There's a few canned controls for you with client-side code...many of which are (suprise) not browser agnostic.
5) More like "complex yet complex.".NET is an extremely verbose language almost on par with Java. The cludgy postback model that comes with the ASP stuff only makes it even uglier. I dare you to come up with an ASP.NET solution that would contain less code and be architecurally simpler and more elegant than a PHP equivalent.
As to "any RAD developer can use it...":
If I'm looking for a web developer, I generally don't hire a VB lackey. I hire a web developer. (And yes, it is fair for me to assume VB...it has over 90% of the RAD market.)
And I wouldn't be tearing on Java when you seem to be such a fan of it's MS rip-off. At least Java and PHP have a real developer community instead of a fake manufactured one that has grown up on proprietary software and hence won't share code or release anything to the community for the sake of the common good.
I agree with you 100%. Selling a *pure* linux environ to a small business is going to be a very difficult thing. Can it be done? Sure. Would I do it if it were my small business? Yes. But only because I am comfy w/ it and have the resources and knowledge to cover myself.
The usability tide is turning though. I wanted to do my part to make sure that that was known. I'm sorry if my sarcasm toward the end of the post seemed condescending to anyone.
You bring up an interesting point w/ custom apps. And I have to agree, simply saying "WINE" doesn't address those. (Especially since many custom apps use custom hardware, and specific interfaces to said hardware.)
I've had different experience with windows users and windows boxes in the virus dept. than you have, however. Particularly the viruses of the past year. Many companies I had contacts at got hit by them, and many home users (myself included) got hit by them as well.
Desktop sell is def. more difficult. Server sale is extremely easy until you run into the MCSE's at said company who feel threatened by it.
And yeah, I agree. Hetrogenous networks are going to be seen more and more as the market becomes more and more competitive.
GNOME offers standard cut and paste across the board. Not all app developers take advantage. Just like windows. This is not a desktop issue. It's an app issue.
The hourglass not rotating is a usability issue?
That's insane.
Even if it was...you are again talking about an app. not the desktop environment.
So to be consistant with your line of reasoning...I now refer you to the 1000's of custom windows apps that use non standard active X controls and icons and button sizes and fonts. And I'll go ahead and blame microsoft for all of it.
okay. you are actively ignoring anything that is posted in reply to your posts, and you think that this is a fight/court case rather than a discussion.
in short: you are a troll.
now i feel dumb for responding to your other two posts.
there's no air of superiority here. i'm as much an end-user as the next guy.
but when i see errors in fact posted in a public forum...yes I am going to correct it. if they are premise of the author being "in the know" especially so.
it's not good for the uninformed reader to be given information that isn't true.
so i replied. and demonstrated that "yes" it is just as easy as windows...and in many cases exactly the same as doing it in windows.
you seem to imply that i jumped up and said a bunch of complicated things that "would seem easy to me and you...but not joe schmoe." if joe schmoe can understand windows (which is assumed by both you and previous poster) then he can understand how to do what i demonstrated. i didn't tell you "drop to command line...edit config files etc." I gave you steps that are extremely similar if not *identical* to how they are done in windows. i also offered a section of help files that are in as nice if not nicer format than the windows help files.
now, if I can correct and comment on some of your statements without you immediately labeling me as a condescending linux zealot...
i'd wager that at least 90% of consumer hardware runs fine on linux. i'd add that regardless of your choice of OS, you must check compatibility (though it sure is nice that the windows/mac stuff tends to be on the box.)
two of my three USB devices run on linux, but *not* on windows XP.
1) Acer External CD Burner 2) Kensington WebCam
they work on 98 fine. but nothing after 98. as you said, the os isn't to blame. it's the lack of support from the hardware manufacturer. kensington i believe went out of business.
they work in linux, because in many cases with linux you don't necessarily need the support of the hardware vendor.
for your needs to read/write ms-office documents, I suggest you take a look at Open Office, regardless of your platform. It's free and will allow you to open and create ms-office documents.
now...why is osx on more desktops than linux?
because apple has a reputation with the public going way back. and apple has a *huge* marketing campaign to sell macs and promote their use in schools. linux...not so huge (yet.) it has a lot less to do w/ usability than it does with marketing and brand recognition.
the "winblows" comment and the entire superiority/zealot spin were brought into this argument by you. i never said anything even against windows. i simply demonstrated that particularly in the examples given...linux is just as easy if not easier to use.
you assumed the linux zealot angle...and without any cause other than presumably: "this is slashdot...he's saying nice things about linux...he must be one of those zealots! get him!"
and that...
well that is why you are a w1nd0z3 l4m3r!! RTFM n00b!! 1 c4n cr45h j00 fr0m h3r3!
here's some help for joe blow (on fedora core 1...most modern distros have similar functionality):
Setting up that printer:
"Foot Menu" -> System Setting -> Printing
Click the button that says "New"
Follow the wizard.
Installing OpenOffice.
"Foot Menu" -> System Setting -> Add/Remove Packages
Check Office/Productivity checkbox.
Click "Details" if you want to specify further
Click "Finish"
Office is now in "Foot Menu"
Learning even more neat h4x0r tricks
"Foot Menu" -> Help
So I guess the big "learning curve" issues would be: 1) Menu is a foot. Doesn't say "Start" on it. 2) Printer setup took one less click on linux. Confusing not having to click that extra time. 3) Step to go out and buy CD, put CD in drive and enter serial number not there for open office. Very Confusing not having to drive around and pay money.
"My windows PC WORKS FOR ME AND DOES WHAT I NEED IT TO DO."
and you claim to be a geek. windows aside...i dont know anyone geek that takes that attitude:)
at any rate, you used one distro...had a bad experience and wrote off anything related. i think geek, i generally think of someone with a curious/investigative mind. at the very least in the realm of computers/technology. but that's me.
but windows huh? i don't like it. it doesn't do what i need it to, it's way too complicated and half of my hardware won't work with it. but i guess if that works for ya man, more power to you. i don't care if other ppl use linux or not. i only care that i've found something better. other ppl acknowledging it and using it doesn't really make it "feel" better.
yeah. linux should use easier to remember names. for example...if windows users have to register a new ActiveX control they have only to type this easy to use and sensible command:
regsvr32
not only easier to remember than "yum" but easier to type.
I must say...it's a bit disappointing that you persist in excluding it from your list of "real" RDBMS systems even after being confronted with the *fact* that mysql is being used in some very large, important, and time sensitive environments.
Clearly, you stopped actually reading my responses and acknowledging facts put in front of you a long time ago.
I'm sorry that you think that this is an OSS thing. I'm sorry that you didn't bother to see the facts that were put in front of you. maybe you missed out.
You seem to prefer a fat database that will protect you from yourself and do all the work for you while you write a little code to connect it all. I guess at the very least it gives you someone to point fingers at when the problems come.
I prefer a light-weight high performance database that will give me precise and deliberate control over the data that I am working with. I don't need the database protecting itself from me.
Sooooo back to the original point.
MS offers a lot of tools. I don't need any of them since I already have alternatives that I prefer.
since you seem to have strayed way off topic and turned this into retorting rather than discussing...i am done with this thread.
I will grant you that VS.NET does come with a lot of tools beyond it's IDE. These tools are generally either something that an OSS developer wouldn't need, or already has (and with a much more established and better reputation.) But your point is correct. Boa itself is not a good comparison against Microsoft's "architect" toybox. I guess I take a lot of my other development tools on linux for granted since I don't have to pay through the nose for them or keep up my "subscription." Most of them came with my distro and are just there when I need them.
As for MySQL being enterprise:
You sir, are terribly misinformed. Go here http://www.mysql.com
Read.
There are quite a few tiny little enterprises out there using MySQL, all giving it glowing reports:
NASA, Avery Dennison, Sabre Holdings, The U.S. Census Bureau, etc.
It's quite a bit more than the toy you seem to believe it to be.
There are some features found in other RDBMS products that you won't find in mysql. This is the way it is between any 2 db servers. IE: There are a lot of features in mysql that you won't find in SQL Server. Personally, I haven't found mysql lacking. Apparently, neither has NASA or the US Census Bureau.
The feautres ppl pick on mysql for not implementing:
1) Views
coming next version
2) Stored Procedures Also...next version. Personally, I don't like sprocs anyway. In the MS environment, they are especially ridiculous. Why use a crippled language (TransactSQL) to write your data access when you could do it on a seperate teir with a full featured language at your hands. The performance gained by precompiled sprocs generally isn't worth it. Sprocs are too often a band-aid for a poorly designed database.
3) Foreign key enforcement Already there. (Don't know why people always throw this one up.)
Your link to mysql's "problems" was funny. So...much...spin. The page was really just a page about features that you will find in SQL Server that you won't find in mysql. These are not bugs. These are not showstoppers. These are generally not even inconveniences.
Would I trust a financial institution that chose mysql (as much as any other db?) Answer: A lot sooner than I'd trust one that ran SQL Server. Even putting performance aside...I trust the OSS culture a lot more than the MS Lemming culture. That aside...thing that you seem to not understand here is that using a *relational* database in that industry is pretty damn rare.
The factor that you seem to ignore when contemplating what slashdot's "mysql" errors are caused by, is the middle tier. Read the actual error messages before shooting your mouth off.
Without getting into a db religion war, I fail to see how comparing mysql to sql server is "ludicrous." Both are enterprise level databases that have been used to some degree of success for large projects.
I will confess that VS.NET is a *lot* better than Boa as an IDE. Not for any of the reasons you listed, however. VS.NET is better because the graphical designer is a bit more mature and less buggy. That's really about all I can think of. Other than that, the debugging tools, editor features, etc. can all be found in Boa.
VS.NET does not *really* support multiple languages. It supports the same language with minor syntax differences. The feature set of VB.NET and C#, as well as the entire runtime and underlying library are identical. VB.NET is closer to C# than it is to VB. And C# is closer to VB.NET than it is to C++ or Java.
No matter how much MS tries to say otherwise, there's no difference between choosing VB.NET or C#. Since there's no difference...it's arbitrary and there's no real need to have both languages. The "VB programmers will have an easier time adapting to VB.NET line doesn't convince me. It's BS. VB.NET requires so much new learning from VB that the curve is about the same as going to C#. None of your code is going to port anyway.
Methinks Bill Gates is still proud of that first BASIC compiler that he "wrote." and just doesn't have it in his heart to let BASIC die the way it should have a long time ago.
I think that the multiple language thing would have been a lot more impressive if MS didn't have to invent the supported languages when they invented the multiple language support.
I work in a place that is pretty much completely an MS shop. It's interesting just how vendor-locked a lot of people are simply because they've never explored or been exposed to other things.
The other developers there get all excited when they get their MSDN subscription in and sometimes it's really hard not to scream as I see the disks they are rifling through and grinning because they got them "free" (development use only.)
He's rifling through WinXP, Visual Studio.NET "architect", SQL Server, MS Office...etc. And all that's going through my mind is "Wow. I already have Boa Constructor, MySQL and Open Office etc..."
But sometimes it seems there's no point in getting into it over alternatives with people that have already invested years of their career to being locked to one vendor.
It reminds me of when Chuck Whitlocks from 20/20 went to one of those pyramid scams and stood up and told all of the stock holders there that it was a scam. Rather than appreciating his advice, they were practically screeching at him to shut up and leave. He was right, but they had already invested so much, and the only way that they could keep *some* of what they invested was if other people bought into it and invested.
A lot of microsofties I know are a lot like the pyramid scam investors. They don't want to hear anything that hints that they made a mistake when they invested their entire career and education in one set of technologies developed by one company.
They don't want to hear anything that might imply that from the very core of their business, Microsoft's products are simply not the only, nor even the best choice out there.
They really don't want to believe that the tide is turning and that maybe someday that MCSE isn't going to be worth the paper it's written on.
They've invested too much to acknowledge that. Acknowledging that means having to be wrong...and having to start back at being a newbie.
Slashdot Mirror
HTML is exteremely easy to learn. Write your text, put tags around it to stylize it. What's hard about that?
1) This article is about PHP5. You might want to take a look at PHP5's OOP before you make yourself look like an idiot. PHP5's OOP offers everything and then some that .NET does.
.NET is an extremely verbose language almost on par with Java. The cludgy postback model that comes with the ASP stuff only makes it even uglier. I dare you to come up with an ASP.NET solution that would contain less code and be architecurally simpler and more elegant than a PHP equivalent.
2) Event driven architecture for a server side language is silly. That's why ASP.NET's is such a hack with the giant postback hidden form element and the entire viewstate being persisted. It makes debugging all kinds of fun. no thanks.
3) Browser abstraction only if you stick to using the server controls and having your page postback and refresh every time the user interacts with it. Again...no thanks.
4) No unified coding model, (again unless you want the refresh...) there's no magic here. you want client side code, you still have to write client side code. There's a few canned controls for you with client-side code...many of which are (suprise) not browser agnostic.
5) More like "complex yet complex."
As to "any RAD developer can use it...":
If I'm looking for a web developer, I generally don't hire a VB lackey. I hire a web developer. (And yes, it is fair for me to assume VB...it has over 90% of the RAD market.)
And I wouldn't be tearing on Java when you seem to be such a fan of it's MS rip-off. At least Java and PHP have a real developer community instead of a fake manufactured one that has grown up on proprietary software and hence won't share code or release anything to the community for the sake of the common good.
I agree with you 100%. Selling a *pure* linux environ to a small business is going to be a very difficult thing. Can it be done? Sure. Would I do it if it were my small business? Yes. But only because I am comfy w/ it and have the resources and knowledge to cover myself.
The usability tide is turning though. I wanted to do my part to make sure that that was known. I'm sorry if my sarcasm toward the end of the post seemed condescending to anyone.
You bring up an interesting point w/ custom apps. And I have to agree, simply saying "WINE" doesn't address those. (Especially since many custom apps use custom hardware, and specific interfaces to said hardware.)
I've had different experience with windows users and windows boxes in the virus dept. than you have, however. Particularly the viruses of the past year. Many companies I had contacts at got hit by them, and many home users (myself included) got hit by them as well.
Desktop sell is def. more difficult. Server sale is extremely easy until you run into the MCSE's at said company who feel threatened by it.
And yeah, I agree. Hetrogenous networks are going to be seen more and more as the market becomes more and more competitive.
very kewl. not art. but keeeeeeewllll
GNOME offers standard cut and paste across the board. Not all app developers take advantage. Just like windows. This is not a desktop issue. It's an app issue.
The hourglass not rotating is a usability issue?
That's insane.
Even if it was...you are again talking about an app. not the desktop environment.
So to be consistant with your line of reasoning...I now refer you to the 1000's of custom windows apps that use non standard active X controls and icons and button sizes and fonts. And I'll go ahead and blame microsoft for all of it.
okay. you are actively ignoring anything that is posted in reply to your posts, and you think that this is a fight/court case rather than a discussion. in short: you are a troll. now i feel dumb for responding to your other two posts.
wow. another misinformed post from you. clearly you have an agenda and not much regard for getting any facts.
visit http://www.gnome.org. read. these guys care about usability. they eat sleep and dream it.
and novell agrees enough to bet on it.
oh and btw... i wouldn't reccomend windows to a small business w/o tech support either.
there's no air of superiority here. i'm as much an end-user as the next guy.
but when i see errors in fact posted in a public forum...yes I am going to correct it. if they are premise of the author being "in the know" especially so.
it's not good for the uninformed reader to be given information that isn't true.
so i replied. and demonstrated that "yes" it is just as easy as windows...and in many cases exactly the same as doing it in windows.
you seem to imply that i jumped up and said a bunch of complicated things that "would seem easy to me and you...but not joe schmoe." if joe schmoe can understand windows (which is assumed by both you and previous poster) then he can understand how to do what i demonstrated. i didn't tell you "drop to command line...edit config files etc." I gave you steps that are extremely similar if not *identical* to how they are done in windows. i also offered a section of help files that are in as nice if not nicer format than the windows help files.
now, if I can correct and comment on some of your statements without you immediately labeling me as a condescending linux zealot...
i'd wager that at least 90% of consumer hardware runs fine on linux. i'd add that regardless of your choice of OS, you must check compatibility (though it sure is nice that the windows/mac stuff tends to be on the box.)
two of my three USB devices run on linux, but *not* on windows XP.
1) Acer External CD Burner
2) Kensington WebCam
they work on 98 fine. but nothing after 98. as you said, the os isn't to blame. it's the lack of support from the hardware manufacturer. kensington i believe went out of business.
they work in linux, because in many cases with linux you don't necessarily need the support of the hardware vendor.
for your needs to read/write ms-office documents, I suggest you take a look at Open Office, regardless of your platform. It's free and will allow you to open and create ms-office documents.
now...why is osx on more desktops than linux?
because apple has a reputation with the public going way back. and apple has a *huge* marketing campaign to sell macs and promote their use in schools. linux...not so huge (yet.) it has a lot less to do w/ usability than it does with marketing and brand recognition.
the "winblows" comment and the entire superiority/zealot spin were brought into this argument by you. i never said anything even against windows. i simply demonstrated that particularly in the examples given...linux is just as easy if not easier to use.
you assumed the linux zealot angle...and without any cause other than presumably: "this is slashdot...he's saying nice things about linux...he must be one of those zealots! get him!"
and that...
well that is why you are a w1nd0z3 l4m3r!! RTFM n00b!! 1 c4n cr45h j00 fr0m h3r3!
it is stupid. it's like calling eli whitney the inventor of the cotton gin.
i mean...cotton was around years before he was born.
here's some help for joe blow (on fedora core 1...most modern distros have similar functionality):
Setting up that printer:
"Foot Menu" -> System Setting -> Printing
Click the button that says "New"
Follow the wizard.
Installing OpenOffice.
"Foot Menu" -> System Setting -> Add/Remove Packages
Check Office/Productivity checkbox.
Click "Details" if you want to specify further
Click "Finish"
Office is now in "Foot Menu"
Learning even more neat h4x0r tricks
"Foot Menu" -> Help
So I guess the big "learning curve" issues would be:
1) Menu is a foot. Doesn't say "Start" on it.
2) Printer setup took one less click on linux. Confusing not having to click that extra time.
3) Step to go out and buy CD, put CD in drive and enter serial number not there for open office. Very Confusing not having to drive around and pay money.
and you claim to be a geek. windows aside...i dont know anyone geek that takes that attitude :)
at any rate, you used one distro...had a bad experience and wrote off anything related. i think geek, i generally think of someone with a curious/investigative mind. at the very least in the realm of computers/technology. but that's me.
but windows huh? i don't like it. it doesn't do what i need it to, it's way too complicated and half of my hardware won't work with it. but i guess if that works for ya man, more power to you. i don't care if other ppl use linux or not. i only care that i've found something better. other ppl acknowledging it and using it doesn't really make it "feel" better.
wtf...did slashdot stop controlling what was posted as an article? who gives a damn about some kid trying to find a pretty laptop bag? forfuxsake...
yeah. linux should use easier to remember names. for example...if windows users have to register a new ActiveX control they have only to type this easy to use and sensible command:
regsvr32
not only easier to remember than "yum" but easier to type.
I must say...it's a bit disappointing that you persist in excluding it from your list of "real" RDBMS systems even after being confronted with the *fact* that mysql is being used in some very large, important, and time sensitive environments. Clearly, you stopped actually reading my responses and acknowledging facts put in front of you a long time ago. I'm sorry that you think that this is an OSS thing. I'm sorry that you didn't bother to see the facts that were put in front of you. maybe you missed out. You seem to prefer a fat database that will protect you from yourself and do all the work for you while you write a little code to connect it all. I guess at the very least it gives you someone to point fingers at when the problems come. I prefer a light-weight high performance database that will give me precise and deliberate control over the data that I am working with. I don't need the database protecting itself from me. Sooooo back to the original point. MS offers a lot of tools. I don't need any of them since I already have alternatives that I prefer. since you seem to have strayed way off topic and turned this into retorting rather than discussing...i am done with this thread.
I will grant you that VS.NET does come with a lot of tools beyond it's IDE. These tools are generally either something that an OSS developer wouldn't need, or already has (and with a much more established and better reputation.) But your point is correct. Boa itself is not a good comparison against Microsoft's "architect" toybox. I guess I take a lot of my other development tools on linux for granted since I don't have to pay through the nose for them or keep up my "subscription." Most of them came with my distro and are just there when I need them.
As for MySQL being enterprise:
You sir, are terribly misinformed. Go here
http://www.mysql.com
Read.
There are quite a few tiny little enterprises out there using MySQL, all giving it glowing reports:
NASA, Avery Dennison, Sabre Holdings, The U.S. Census Bureau, etc.
It's quite a bit more than the toy you seem to believe it to be.
There are some features found in other RDBMS products that you won't find in mysql. This is the way it is between any 2 db servers. IE: There are a lot of features in mysql that you won't find in SQL Server. Personally, I haven't found mysql lacking. Apparently, neither has NASA or the US Census Bureau.
The feautres ppl pick on mysql for not implementing:
1) Views
coming next version
2) Stored Procedures
Also...next version. Personally, I don't like sprocs anyway. In the MS environment, they are especially ridiculous. Why use a crippled language (TransactSQL) to write your data access when you could do it on a seperate teir with a full featured language at your hands. The performance gained by precompiled sprocs generally isn't worth it. Sprocs are too often a band-aid for a poorly designed database.
3) Foreign key enforcement
Already there. (Don't know why people always throw this one up.)
Your link to mysql's "problems" was funny. So...much...spin. The page was really just a page about features that you will find in SQL Server that you won't find in mysql. These are not bugs. These are not showstoppers. These are generally not even inconveniences.
Would I trust a financial institution that chose mysql (as much as any other db?) Answer: A lot sooner than I'd trust one that ran SQL Server. Even putting performance aside...I trust the OSS culture a lot more than the MS Lemming culture. That aside...thing that you seem to not understand here is that using a *relational* database in that industry is pretty damn rare.
The factor that you seem to ignore when contemplating what slashdot's "mysql" errors are caused by, is the middle tier. Read the actual error messages before shooting your mouth off.
Without getting into a db religion war, I fail to see how comparing mysql to sql server is "ludicrous." Both are enterprise level databases that have been used to some degree of success for large projects. I will confess that VS.NET is a *lot* better than Boa as an IDE. Not for any of the reasons you listed, however. VS.NET is better because the graphical designer is a bit more mature and less buggy. That's really about all I can think of. Other than that, the debugging tools, editor features, etc. can all be found in Boa. VS.NET does not *really* support multiple languages. It supports the same language with minor syntax differences. The feature set of VB.NET and C#, as well as the entire runtime and underlying library are identical. VB.NET is closer to C# than it is to VB. And C# is closer to VB.NET than it is to C++ or Java. No matter how much MS tries to say otherwise, there's no difference between choosing VB.NET or C#. Since there's no difference...it's arbitrary and there's no real need to have both languages. The "VB programmers will have an easier time adapting to VB.NET line doesn't convince me. It's BS. VB.NET requires so much new learning from VB that the curve is about the same as going to C#. None of your code is going to port anyway. Methinks Bill Gates is still proud of that first BASIC compiler that he "wrote." and just doesn't have it in his heart to let BASIC die the way it should have a long time ago. I think that the multiple language thing would have been a lot more impressive if MS didn't have to invent the supported languages when they invented the multiple language support.
whoops. curse that html formatting...
I work in a place that is pretty much completely an MS shop. It's interesting just how vendor-locked a lot of people are simply because they've never explored or been exposed to other things. The other developers there get all excited when they get their MSDN subscription in and sometimes it's really hard not to scream as I see the disks they are rifling through and grinning because they got them "free" (development use only.) He's rifling through WinXP, Visual Studio .NET "architect", SQL Server, MS Office...etc. And all that's going through my mind is "Wow. I already have Boa Constructor, MySQL and Open Office etc..."
But sometimes it seems there's no point in getting into it over alternatives with people that have already invested years of their career to being locked to one vendor.
It reminds me of when Chuck Whitlocks from 20/20 went to one of those pyramid scams and stood up and told all of the stock holders there that it was a scam. Rather than appreciating his advice, they were practically screeching at him to shut up and leave. He was right, but they had already invested so much, and the only way that they could keep *some* of what they invested was if other people bought into it and invested.
A lot of microsofties I know are a lot like the pyramid scam investors. They don't want to hear anything that hints that they made a mistake when they invested their entire career and education in one set of technologies developed by one company.
They don't want to hear anything that might imply that from the very core of their business, Microsoft's products are simply not the only, nor even the best choice out there.
They really don't want to believe that the tide is turning and that maybe someday that MCSE isn't going to be worth the paper it's written on.
They've invested too much to acknowledge that. Acknowledging that means having to be wrong...and having to start back at being a newbie.