So ignoring our constitution and surrendering our sovereignty to an international bureaucracy would be smart? Dude, you need to get off of the anti-american bandwagon and think for yourself for a change.
I'm not going to the play the comparison game. SI is not as independant as Microsoft wants you to believe, and who they choose as lab technicians is in question. Ignoring that Microsoft paid for the study, those two alone should be enough to question the validity of the study's conclusions.
It only involves MS in so that they are the ones choosing who to pay to do this research. They're much more likely to choose someone who has a track record for pro-MS conclusions.
As for my ignorance of how research is done--you might be right. My research experience is in criminalogy, not computer technology. But my bitch still is valid...you simply cannot trust the objectivity of this study. You seem to be arguing that this is simply how research is done, ergo, its not something to be complained about. I disagree.
Again...the problem is that we have to take the researcher's word for it in a lot of cases. For example, how do we know the Linux techs were not just people like me, who had many years of Linux and SuSE experience (10 with Linux, 6 with SUSE), but still didn't know very much about what was being done here.
This wasn't the first study the good Dr. did for Microsoft. Guess how many times the good Dr. found Linux to be the right tool for the job? You would be correct if you guessed zero.
I'm sure you meant Novell, and not Red Hat. Either way, I would have a problem with the study. Security Innovation has never released a study showing Linux to be superior to Windows in anything. If I were choosing a company to do a study on something like this, I do not think I would choose a company that has 100% consistently reported Microsoft products as being superior...unless I was Microsoft.
I have 6 years of general experience in SuSE administration (my primary speciality is in Cisco networking and security), and would not consider myself experienced enough to perform the tasks that this study found to be necessary. Quality of experience has as much (if not more) importance to qualification as quantity of experience.
Perhaps the Windows admins choosen were highly qualified MCSEs, and the Linux admins were people like me, who had used SuSE for a few years but never really had to do anything difficult with it.
This wouldn't be the first time that Security Innovation did something idiotic that skewed the results. For example, recently they compared the security of MySQL to MS SQL 2000, and used the QUANTITY of vulnerability reports as the basis for determining which was more secure.
I'm not saying he is lying because I have not repeated the experiment. He could be right. I think this study is highly suspect because Security Innovation seems to be Microsoft-biased. Inallthree reports that Security Innovation has performed for Microsoft, they have concluded "Microsoft SQL Server 2000 on Windows Server 2003 had fewer security vulnerabilities and fewer days of risk compared to the MySQL and Oracle solutions[...]", or something similiar.
So, let's not pretend that SI is some independant company that was called on to do this study one day by Microsoft. They had delivered before for Microsoft.
So companies are not donating to this exhibit, but it is not due to religous extremism?
Read back carefully. Professor was basically saying that the decision not to donate was tantamount to religious extremism. I took that as playing the religion card unnecessarily. And rightfully so, IMHO.
Excuse me, but if the professor had made the argument that the religious right is what made these companies uncomfortable about donating funds...he would only be half-right. Instead, he said that the refusal to donate was tantamount to religious extremism. That is bullshit.
Software incompatibility is not a technical reason? Then what is it, political? How is the fact that you can not play most PC games on Linux FUD? Do you even know what FUD stands for?
As for your blather about giving OSS projects bad press...shame on you. Your zealotry harms OSS more than anything I have ever done. I would wager that I have been using OSS a lot longer than you have. And as evidenced by the immature comments you make on here, I would also wager I am a bit older than you.
My god. Learn some humility and come back when you can discuss things without resorting to retarded flame.
Only a bioscience professor could spin the abscence of donations into religious extremism. I am tired of that term being used for everything that is not athiest. Lets reserve it for things like 9/11 and the crusades, and keep the sensationism to Fox News and CNN.
You're totally off the mark, man. I understand these government employees are still citizens, but if the government did not use Blackberries one bit, would they have still chimed in on this lawsuit? I don't think so.
Is it just me, or do the screenshots not really show anything new? I mean Ubuntu is cool and all, but these are just screenshots of Ubuntu, and does not even include the new enterprise management stuff.
The thing that bothers me is that the government which is supposed to be "of, by, and for the people" is not chiming into this lawsuit because of the effect it may have on its CITIZENs, but rather the effect it may have on its EMPLOYEEs.
When I can go to microsoft.com and search about the problem I'm having with Exchange and get better results than by searching google.com using site:microsoft.com, THEN Microsoft can tell me how great their search engine is.
Slashdot Mirror
So ignoring our constitution and surrendering our sovereignty to an international bureaucracy would be smart? Dude, you need to get off of the anti-american bandwagon and think for yourself for a change.
I'm not going to the play the comparison game. SI is not as independant as Microsoft wants you to believe, and who they choose as lab technicians is in question. Ignoring that Microsoft paid for the study, those two alone should be enough to question the validity of the study's conclusions.
Pray tell, what new knowledge did this study find?
It only involves MS in so that they are the ones choosing who to pay to do this research. They're much more likely to choose someone who has a track record for pro-MS conclusions.
As for my ignorance of how research is done--you might be right. My research experience is in criminalogy, not computer technology. But my bitch still is valid...you simply cannot trust the objectivity of this study. You seem to be arguing that this is simply how research is done, ergo, its not something to be complained about. I disagree.
Again...the problem is that we have to take the researcher's word for it in a lot of cases. For example, how do we know the Linux techs were not just people like me, who had many years of Linux and SuSE experience (10 with Linux, 6 with SUSE), but still didn't know very much about what was being done here.
This wasn't the first study the good Dr. did for Microsoft. Guess how many times the good Dr. found Linux to be the right tool for the job? You would be correct if you guessed zero.
I'm sure you meant Novell, and not Red Hat. Either way, I would have a problem with the study. Security Innovation has never released a study showing Linux to be superior to Windows in anything. If I were choosing a company to do a study on something like this, I do not think I would choose a company that has 100% consistently reported Microsoft products as being superior...unless I was Microsoft.
I have 6 years of general experience in SuSE administration (my primary speciality is in Cisco networking and security), and would not consider myself experienced enough to perform the tasks that this study found to be necessary. Quality of experience has as much (if not more) importance to qualification as quantity of experience.
Perhaps the Windows admins choosen were highly qualified MCSEs, and the Linux admins were people like me, who had used SuSE for a few years but never really had to do anything difficult with it.
This wouldn't be the first time that Security Innovation did something idiotic that skewed the results. For example, recently they compared the security of MySQL to MS SQL 2000, and used the QUANTITY of vulnerability reports as the basis for determining which was more secure.
I'm not saying he is lying because I have not repeated the experiment. He could be right. I think this study is highly suspect because Security Innovation seems to be Microsoft-biased. In all three reports that Security Innovation has performed for Microsoft, they have concluded "Microsoft SQL Server 2000 on Windows Server 2003 had fewer security vulnerabilities and fewer days of risk compared to the MySQL and Oracle solutions[...]", or something similiar.
So, let's not pretend that SI is some independant company that was called on to do this study one day by Microsoft. They had delivered before for Microsoft.
Just because he says he's not a shill does not mean he is not.
I wonder if we would get the same results if we repeated the experiment, and not have it funded by Microsoft.
Dude, do you have a license plate that says D-Fense?
Well, we know what happened the last time a few experts were taken at face value...No WMDs.
"Scientific" studies are supposed to be criticised, repeated, disproven...and then when all else fails...accepted.
There is nothing wrong with that sentence. The model engine is powered by an electrical motor.
So companies are not donating to this exhibit, but it is not due to religous extremism?
Read back carefully. Professor was basically saying that the decision not to donate was tantamount to religious extremism. I took that as playing the religion card unnecessarily. And rightfully so, IMHO.
Excuse me, but if the professor had made the argument that the religious right is what made these companies uncomfortable about donating funds...he would only be half-right. Instead, he said that the refusal to donate was tantamount to religious extremism. That is bullshit.
Software incompatibility is not a technical reason? Then what is it, political? How is the fact that you can not play most PC games on Linux FUD? Do you even know what FUD stands for?
As for your blather about giving OSS projects bad press...shame on you. Your zealotry harms OSS more than anything I have ever done. I would wager that I have been using OSS a lot longer than you have. And as evidenced by the immature comments you make on here, I would also wager I am a bit older than you.
My god. Learn some humility and come back when you can discuss things without resorting to retarded flame.
Only a bioscience professor could spin the abscence of donations into religious extremism. I am tired of that term being used for everything that is not athiest. Lets reserve it for things like 9/11 and the crusades, and keep the sensationism to Fox News and CNN.
Name one thing you can do on a windows desktop that you can't [for technical reasons] do on a Linux powered one?
Play most computer games released for personal computers?
You're totally off the mark, man. I understand these government employees are still citizens, but if the government did not use Blackberries one bit, would they have still chimed in on this lawsuit? I don't think so.
DUDE!!! Did you not hear the man?
His solution fixed the problem without all of this crap. This crap is exactly what he was preaching against.
Is it just me, or do the screenshots not really show anything new? I mean Ubuntu is cool and all, but these are just screenshots of Ubuntu, and does not even include the new enterprise management stuff.
The thing that bothers me is that the government which is supposed to be "of, by, and for the people" is not chiming into this lawsuit because of the effect it may have on its CITIZENs, but rather the effect it may have on its EMPLOYEEs.
Newspapers are okay, but magazines are horrible for splitting stories up with advertisements.
And the FBI is tracking its present location using the onboard satellite telephone.
When I can go to microsoft.com and search about the problem I'm having with Exchange and get better results than by searching google.com using site:microsoft.com, THEN Microsoft can tell me how great their search engine is.
Until that happens, its all FUD.