"SO you are telling me that you have *never* *ever* said to a friend 'I liked that movie' or 'These shoes are really comfortable'?"
Of course I have. But if my friend said "I didn't like that movie" or "Those shoes aren't comfortable" I would not call them a zealot, communist and then go on a tirade about how great the movie was. DO you see the difference?
"People defend corporations not because they are shills but because their experiences with that corporations products have been positive, and contrary to your belief, not everyone is in it for the money which is why recommendations happen."
See above. You are purposely confusing reccomending products with defending corporations. That's a very clever tactic, one that you are probably trained on. When you can not argue a point you simply make an invalid equavalence and then argue for that instead. There is a VAST difference between reccomending a product and vigorously defending a corporation when somebody says they don't like their products.
"Microsoft or corporations. You say that you wouldnt hang out on a forum and badmouth competitors products based on a purchase you have made, but what gives opensource followers that exact right just because its an ideal?"
Again a very clever and professional attempt at redirection. I never said that I don't hang out at forums and badmouth "competitors products". I simply said I don't hang out at boards and defend corporations. I badmouth corporations all the time. TO me all corporations should be attacked all the time. They are immoral (or amoral at best) creatures driven by nothing but profit. Corporations knowingly kill people in order to make more money. A corporation is an immortal, soul-less psychotic being who is not answerable to God. The fact that you would use a phrase like "competitors product" tells a lot about you by the way. Next time try to speak less like a corporate drone and more like a real person.
"You really need to take a long hard look at your world view, because you are in danger of being pushed to the side as everyone walks past you not caring one little bit. You are an ideologist, and I fear very much that your ideology cannot survive just because you want it to."
Any idealogy will have a lifespan. They are born, they live for a while, they die or they get modified so much they don't even resemble the origins. You once again have sunk to calling me a zealot. IF this is the best you shills can come up with I don't have to worry about my idealogy. Open source is an ideology that is growing every day. Sure you guys try to sink it, try to destroy it, try to make it illegal, try to discourage others from trying it but it's growing nevertheless. Why don't you come back to me after the adoption of linux has gone down for two years in a row and then tell me open source is dying. From all that I have read it seems to be growing by leaps and bounds every year. Maybe the world will push you aside. HAve you thought about that? Look at how long MS stock has been stagnant after decades of growth. Maybe they are about to make a downturn huh? Something to think about. I mean how long can you survive selling products when your competitors are giving their away. MS killed netscape that way and it looks like they will become victims to the same tactic. Why do you think they are desparately trying to enter other markets?
"I dont care if you dont believe me, I just wanted to reply to your 'anyone with anything positive to say about Windows and negative to say about Linux is a shill' post. You do realise that your post pushes the exact same view you are ranting about, but pro Linux instead of pro Microsoft?"
I am glad you don't care because I don't believe you. I find it hard to believe that any person who is normal and sane would go around praising corporations or products without getting paid for it. I like my washing machine but I don't hang out at washing machine boards badmouthing bosch and praising maytag or saying that people who wash their clothed by hand are communists. I like my shoes by I don't hang out at shoe web sites saying that Doc Martins suck and that everybody should wear rockfords.
No sane person would defend a corporation against critisims or call people who don't use or like that products a corporation makes communists or zealots.
Linux is not a product, it's not a corporation. Open source is an ideal, a movement, a philosophy. It's perfectly reasonable for people to advocate for their philosophy (like they do on moveon or free republic) but it's juvenile and irrational to go around praising corporations or their products unless you are profiting from it somehow.
By the way, anybody who praises corporations or products is a shill. Some are paid shills and some are unpaid shills. The paid shills are PR agents, astro turfers, employees etc. Unpaid shills are merely dupes who advertise for a corporation without getting paid for it.
"Yahoo's strategy of late seems to be to look around for new areas where some new or expanding company has found an up and coming IT market, and then drop in beside them with a me-too product."
This brings me back. It takes a rocket scientist to make exchange work properly. In my company two MSCEs could not keep it going. Maybe that's because it was exchange 2000. So maybe we are both right. Maybe exchange 2000 is a worthless pile of heap.
"Well now, there is an over simplistic view. Your average CEO does not know much about IT. But that's allright. Odds are their business is making widgets or providing some kind of service."
THe chairman of GM probably can't put together a car, doesn't hold an automotive engineering degree, and is wholly unfamiliar with the equations that dictate the turbulent airflow around a car. So when it comes to making a decision on what shape a car should have does he listen to an analyst or does he leave that decision to an engineer?
The same thing applies here. If a CIO is unable to understand the complex issues about operating systems does he leave that up to his engineers or does he listen to an analyst? If he listens to an analyst (especially one with no qualifications like DiDio) then he is a retard and a sever danger to shareholder.
"Now if you are an all Windows shop, then surely the conclusion can be reached that an all Microsoft server is the way to go. "
One you have made a decision to be an all windows show you have already made you mistake. You have basically decided that no matter what the task, no matter what your engineers say, no matter how much the market changes, no matter what your competitots are doing, no matter how much your business changes MS is the best and only vendor for all your IT needs. At that point you are retard and a danger to your shareholder. Anybody who thinks that only vendor can and should meet all of their IT needs is a morom.
"btw. I am running ubuntu and have great love for the GNU/Linux (tm) thing."
This seems to be common refrain from MS shills here. Somehow I don't believe you. When somebody says something like this I pile it on heap of "I don't like MS but XP is rock solid and flawless" and "Linux zealots should just shut up" and other cut and paste phrases from the MS astro turfers handbook.
It's an organized effort by Microsoft, MS employees, Consultants and other vendors who sell MS products to spread FUD about open source here on slashdot.
Don't take it too hard though, you should see the kinds of things they say over at gotdotnet. Over here they try the old "I really like linux but it's not ready for your grandma" or "I am not a Microsoft fan but XP never crashes" approaches which are designed to be less confrontational.
Inevitably they will all call you a zealot if you disagree with them though. To them anybody who has a different experience with linux or who does not like windows is a zealot.
God I wish there was a web site where people would publish the names of their companies and the CXOs that make decisions based on what analysts say. That way we could all make sure none of our money was invested in companies run by idiots who can't think for themselves.
"If you can't see past the hazy glass of 'I hate Microsoft' that you're looking though, I don't know what to tell you. Microsoft has some shitty software, and some buggy software, and IE sucks. But Exchange doesn't."
Notice I simply reported my experience and you accuse me of hating MS. This is the problem with you MS cultists. Your zealotry prevents you from perceiving reality. The rality is that me, the 300 other employees of my last company and millions of people all over the world have had aweful experiences with not only exchange but also windows.
All your worshipping at the altar of Bill G isn't going to negate our experience.
The last place I worked had about 300 employees. They had two exchange admins and a sendmail front end to handle the spam. In fact by the time they added virus checking, spam filtering and the sendmail layer it ended up being worse of a mishmash then anything in unix.
What's worse is that even with those two exchange admins and the help desk people they continually had outages, mysterious slowdowns, and dropped mail.
Maybe both of the exchange admins were dummies but they both had MCSEs. I do think it takes a rocket scientist to admin an exchange machine. That's my experience and nothing you have said really changes my experience or my conclusion.
As far as I can tell exchange is a pig and a nice cash cow for MS.
Wow, JWZ does not like groupware. I guess we all have to immediately give up everything we are using. I mean what's the use of doing something jwz does not approve of?
Most of microsoft.com suffers under IE. Certainly the windows update won't work so right there you have a web site which lots of windows users go to that won't work in IE.
" The problem with a lot of the alternatives is that they aren't real easy to configure/integrate with Windows auth,"
Microsoft tries it's best to be incompatible but the open source people are keeping ahead of MS efforts to break this compatibility. Virtually every single one authenticates with LDAP and AD using the LDAP authenticator.
"lot of the cost more when you factor in the price of Outlook extensions that work with them(and unless they have their own client like Groupwise, Outlook support is rather important-despite all its issues, its still probably the best groupware client for Windows)."
Personally if there is a worse groupware client then outlook I don't want to know about it. IT's horrendous interface, it's bloated and slow, it's annoying, it's hard to configure, it's impossible to overlay calenders on top of each other, I could go and on about exactly what a steaming pile of crap outlook is. The only people who like outlook are people who haven't used anything else.
Having said that some of the products have free outlook connectors, and there is an open source outlook connector too.
"When they would cost more than Exchange, probably won't be as quick to set up, and probably won't have a lot of extensions and such from third parties(AV, antispam, backup, etc), there is no real advantage to use them."
Well OK then. Since they don't cost more then exchange, are not harder to install and maintain then exchange and since there are an order of magnitute more third party plug ins, and since they all come out of the box with spam and av products there is no reason to use exchange at all.
It depends on what distro you are using. I don't think anybody installs these things by hand anymore. It's usually a matter of using apt or rpms or ports.
Either way, you can always pay somebody to install it for you and it would still cost less then exchange. Plus you don't have to pay per user.
THe problem with exchange is that it's a headache to maintain and does not include any virus and spam protections. This makes it pretty expensive.
The thing that puzzles me is that you seem to think there are no alternatives to exchange but there clearly are. Openexchange, suse openexchange, citadel the list goes on and on.
There are lots of exchange alternatives and most of them will work with outlook.
"Sure we mobilize the entire country's war machinery so that at the end we negotiate a nice end to the war according to the wishes of the enemy. Any other suggestions?"
You seem to be agreeing with me here. Bombing Hiroshima had nothing to do with ending the war and everything to do with revenge killing. The war could have been ended peacefully by negotiations.
"The battle for Berlin, entirely surrounded and isolated had a death toll of over 70,000 Soviet soldiers and 150,000 German soldiers. And that was just one battle! Imagine how many would have been lost in the battle for Honshu, before reaching Tokyo and then in Tokyo itself"
There was no need to invade Japan. We already had blockaded them. The purpose of war is not to kill people for fun and sadism. It's to defend yourself.
Maybe we just don't believe you. Have you ever thought about that. We are used to being lied to by MS employees that we automatically assume you are lying.
You do see the difference between some anonymous schmuck at/. saying something and Bill Gates saying something right? I'll give you a hint. When one says something it's covered by Time and Newsweek when the other says something maybe a thousand people read it.
When Bill Gates called you a communist the entire world heard that. To them you are a communist and a cancer on society and should be treated as such. Will there be consequences for you in the future? Probably.
Oil for food came after the sanctions, in order to try to mitigate the horrific effects of the sanctions. The sanctions themselves were immoral, cruel and sadistic.
"Second, this is again, limited hindsight. Japan was asked to surrender after the first bomb and they refused under the belief that it was very unlikely the Americans had a second bomb."
Wow, that's a nice fairy tale. They were ready to surrender before the bomb, they just wanted to negotiate.
"It is easy to condemn the bomb drop without all the facts at hand. "
Apparently it's also easy to approve of it without all the facts too.
Slashdot Mirror
"SO you are telling me that you have *never* *ever* said to a friend 'I liked that movie' or 'These shoes are really comfortable'?"
Of course I have. But if my friend said "I didn't like that movie" or "Those shoes aren't comfortable" I would not call them a zealot, communist and then go on a tirade about how great the movie was. DO you see the difference?
"People defend corporations not because they are shills but because their experiences with that corporations products have been positive, and contrary to your belief, not everyone is in it for the money which is why recommendations happen."
See above. You are purposely confusing reccomending products with defending corporations. That's a very clever tactic, one that you are probably trained on. When you can not argue a point you simply make an invalid equavalence and then argue for that instead. There is a VAST difference between reccomending a product and vigorously defending a corporation when somebody says they don't like their products.
"Microsoft or corporations. You say that you wouldnt hang out on a forum and badmouth competitors products based on a purchase you have made, but what gives opensource followers that exact right just because its an ideal?"
Again a very clever and professional attempt at redirection. I never said that I don't hang out at forums and badmouth "competitors products". I simply said I don't hang out at boards and defend corporations. I badmouth corporations all the time. TO me all corporations should be attacked all the time. They are immoral (or amoral at best) creatures driven by nothing but profit. Corporations knowingly kill people in order to make more money. A corporation is an immortal, soul-less psychotic being who is not answerable to God. The fact that you would use a phrase like "competitors product" tells a lot about you by the way. Next time try to speak less like a corporate drone and more like a real person.
"You really need to take a long hard look at your world view, because you are in danger of being pushed to the side as everyone walks past you not caring one little bit. You are an ideologist, and I fear very much that your ideology cannot survive just because you want it to."
Any idealogy will have a lifespan. They are born, they live for a while, they die or they get modified so much they don't even resemble the origins. You once again have sunk to calling me a zealot. IF this is the best you shills can come up with I don't have to worry about my idealogy. Open source is an ideology that is growing every day. Sure you guys try to sink it, try to destroy it, try to make it illegal, try to discourage others from trying it but it's growing nevertheless. Why don't you come back to me after the adoption of linux has gone down for two years in a row and then tell me open source is dying. From all that I have read it seems to be growing by leaps and bounds every year. Maybe the world will push you aside. HAve you thought about that? Look at how long MS stock has been stagnant after decades of growth. Maybe they are about to make a downturn huh? Something to think about. I mean how long can you survive selling products when your competitors are giving their away. MS killed netscape that way and it looks like they will become victims to the same tactic. Why do you think they are desparately trying to enter other markets?
"I dont care if you dont believe me, I just wanted to reply to your 'anyone with anything positive to say about Windows and negative to say about Linux is a shill' post. You do realise that your post pushes the exact same view you are ranting about, but pro Linux instead of pro Microsoft?"
I am glad you don't care because I don't believe you. I find it hard to believe that any person who is normal and sane would go around praising corporations or products without getting paid for it. I like my washing machine but I don't hang out at washing machine boards badmouthing bosch and praising maytag or saying that people who wash their clothed by hand are communists. I like my shoes by I don't hang out at shoe web sites saying that Doc Martins suck and that everybody should wear rockfords.
No sane person would defend a corporation against critisims or call people who don't use or like that products a corporation makes communists or zealots.
Linux is not a product, it's not a corporation. Open source is an ideal, a movement, a philosophy. It's perfectly reasonable for people to advocate for their philosophy (like they do on moveon or free republic) but it's juvenile and irrational to go around praising corporations or their products unless you are profiting from it somehow.
By the way, anybody who praises corporations or products is a shill. Some are paid shills and some are unpaid shills. The paid shills are PR agents, astro turfers, employees etc. Unpaid shills are merely dupes who advertise for a corporation without getting paid for it.
"Yahoo's strategy of late seems to be to look around for new areas where some new or expanding company has found an up and coming IT market, and then drop in beside them with a me-too product."
Are you sure you haven't confused yahoo with MS?
This brings me back. It takes a rocket scientist to make exchange work properly. In my company two MSCEs could not keep it going. Maybe that's because it was exchange 2000. So maybe we are both right. Maybe exchange 2000 is a worthless pile of heap.
"Well now, there is an over simplistic view. Your average CEO does not know much about IT. But that's allright. Odds are their business is making widgets or providing some kind of service."
THe chairman of GM probably can't put together a car, doesn't hold an automotive engineering degree, and is wholly unfamiliar with the equations that dictate the turbulent airflow around a car. So when it comes to making a decision on what shape a car should have does he listen to an analyst or does he leave that decision to an engineer?
The same thing applies here. If a CIO is unable to understand the complex issues about operating systems does he leave that up to his engineers or does he listen to an analyst? If he listens to an analyst (especially one with no qualifications like DiDio) then he is a retard and a sever danger to shareholder.
"Now if you are an all Windows shop, then surely the conclusion can be reached that an all Microsoft server is the way to go. "
One you have made a decision to be an all windows show you have already made you mistake. You have basically decided that no matter what the task, no matter what your engineers say, no matter how much the market changes, no matter what your competitots are doing, no matter how much your business changes MS is the best and only vendor for all your IT needs. At that point you are retard and a danger to your shareholder. Anybody who thinks that only vendor can and should meet all of their IT needs is a morom.
"btw. I am running ubuntu and have great love for the GNU/Linux (tm) thing."
This seems to be common refrain from MS shills here. Somehow I don't believe you. When somebody says something like this I pile it on heap of "I don't like MS but XP is rock solid and flawless" and "Linux zealots should just shut up" and other cut and paste phrases from the MS astro turfers handbook.
It's an organized effort by Microsoft, MS employees, Consultants and other vendors who sell MS products to spread FUD about open source here on slashdot.
Don't take it too hard though, you should see the kinds of things they say over at gotdotnet. Over here they try the old "I really like linux but it's not ready for your grandma" or "I am not a Microsoft fan but XP never crashes" approaches which are designed to be less confrontational.
Inevitably they will all call you a zealot if you disagree with them though. To them anybody who has a different experience with linux or who does not like windows is a zealot.
God I wish there was a web site where people would publish the names of their companies and the CXOs that make decisions based on what analysts say. That way we could all make sure none of our money was invested in companies run by idiots who can't think for themselves.
ubuntu, ubuntu, ubuntu, ubuntu, ubuntu.
OK?
"If you can't see past the hazy glass of 'I hate Microsoft' that you're looking though, I don't know what to tell you. Microsoft has some shitty software, and some buggy software, and IE sucks. But Exchange doesn't."
Notice I simply reported my experience and you accuse me of hating MS. This is the problem with you MS cultists. Your zealotry prevents you from perceiving reality. The rality is that me, the 300 other employees of my last company and millions of people all over the world have had aweful experiences with not only exchange but also windows.
All your worshipping at the altar of Bill G isn't going to negate our experience.
The last place I worked had about 300 employees. They had two exchange admins and a sendmail front end to handle the spam. In fact by the time they added virus checking, spam filtering and the sendmail layer it ended up being worse of a mishmash then anything in unix.
What's worse is that even with those two exchange admins and the help desk people they continually had outages, mysterious slowdowns, and dropped mail.
Maybe both of the exchange admins were dummies but they both had MCSEs. I do think it takes a rocket scientist to admin an exchange machine. That's my experience and nothing you have said really changes my experience or my conclusion.
As far as I can tell exchange is a pig and a nice cash cow for MS.
I think one of the largest hidden cost of exchange is that you need a top notch, pretty much full time admin for it.
Wow, JWZ does not like groupware. I guess we all have to immediately give up everything we are using. I mean what's the use of doing something jwz does not approve of?
From now on when a MS aplogist here tells you that MS will only use patents for defensive purposes they will officially be lying.
Whoo Hoo.
Most of microsoft.com suffers under IE. Certainly the windows update won't work so right there you have a web site which lots of windows users go to that won't work in IE.
How can you like linux but hate communists? According to bill gates every single open source developer is a communist.
More likely they try it, they like it, they lobby their bosses to get one for the office. That's where apple is trying to go, into the office.
" The problem with a lot of the alternatives is that they aren't real easy to configure/integrate with Windows auth,"
Microsoft tries it's best to be incompatible but the open source people are keeping ahead of MS efforts to break this compatibility. Virtually every single one authenticates with LDAP and AD using the LDAP authenticator.
"lot of the cost more when you factor in the price of Outlook extensions that work with them(and unless they have their own client like Groupwise, Outlook support is rather important-despite all its issues, its still probably the best groupware client for Windows)."
Personally if there is a worse groupware client then outlook I don't want to know about it. IT's horrendous interface, it's bloated and slow, it's annoying, it's hard to configure, it's impossible to overlay calenders on top of each other, I could go and on about exactly what a steaming pile of crap outlook is. The only people who like outlook are people who haven't used anything else.
Having said that some of the products have free outlook connectors, and there is an open source outlook connector too.
"When they would cost more than Exchange, probably won't be as quick to set up, and probably won't have a lot of extensions and such from third parties(AV, antispam, backup, etc), there is no real advantage to use them."
Well OK then. Since they don't cost more then exchange, are not harder to install and maintain then exchange and since there are an order of magnitute more third party plug ins, and since they all come out of the box with spam and av products there is no reason to use exchange at all.
It depends on what distro you are using. I don't think anybody installs these things by hand anymore. It's usually a matter of using apt or rpms or ports.
Either way, you can always pay somebody to install it for you and it would still cost less then exchange. Plus you don't have to pay per user.
Suse openexchange was recently open sourced.
THe problem with exchange is that it's a headache to maintain and does not include any virus and spam protections. This makes it pretty expensive.
The thing that puzzles me is that you seem to think there are no alternatives to exchange but there clearly are. Openexchange, suse openexchange, citadel the list goes on and on.
There are lots of exchange alternatives and most of them will work with outlook.
"Sure we mobilize the entire country's war machinery so that at the end we negotiate a nice end to the war according to the wishes of the enemy. Any other suggestions?"
You seem to be agreeing with me here. Bombing Hiroshima had nothing to do with ending the war and everything to do with revenge killing. The war could have been ended peacefully by negotiations.
"The battle for Berlin, entirely surrounded and isolated had a death toll of over 70,000 Soviet soldiers and 150,000 German soldiers. And that was just one battle! Imagine how many would have been lost in the battle for Honshu, before reaching Tokyo and then in Tokyo itself"
There was no need to invade Japan. We already had blockaded them. The purpose of war is not to kill people for fun and sadism. It's to defend yourself.
Maybe we just don't believe you. Have you ever thought about that. We are used to being lied to by MS employees that we automatically assume you are lying.
You do see the difference between some anonymous schmuck at /. saying something and Bill Gates saying something right? I'll give you a hint. When one says something it's covered by Time and Newsweek when the other says something maybe a thousand people read it.
When Bill Gates called you a communist the entire world heard that. To them you are a communist and a cancer on society and should be treated as such. Will there be consequences for you in the future? Probably.
There is no such thing as IE only. Different versions of IE behave differently. Better to use XUL and dictate on firefox. Safer too.
Oil for food came after the sanctions, in order to try to mitigate the horrific effects of the sanctions. The sanctions themselves were immoral, cruel and sadistic.
"Second, this is again, limited hindsight. Japan was asked to surrender after the first bomb and they refused under the belief that it was very unlikely the Americans had a second bomb."
Wow, that's a nice fairy tale. They were ready to surrender before the bomb, they just wanted to negotiate.
"It is easy to condemn the bomb drop without all the facts at hand. "
Apparently it's also easy to approve of it without all the facts too.