In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Roy Schestowitz
<newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Thu, 10 Aug 2006 02:11:02 +0100
<16071045.15LGIV5gZQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> __/ [ 7 ] on Monday 07 August 2006 20:26 \__
>
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>>> They must be feelin' the pressure!
>>>
>>> Microsoft: Open source is too complex
>>>
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>> | Although open-source software can be customized to meet a company's
>>> | specific needs... [snip puppet FUD /]
>>> |
>>> | [...]
>>> |
>>> | But somewhat contradictory is a study conducted by the Banc of
>>> | America Securities in June this year. The investment bank surveyed 130
>>> | Red Hat partners and found that most were upbeat about their Red Hat
>>> | business, which they expect to grow by more than 31 percent this year.
>>> `----
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/eb76n ( zdnetasia.com)
>>
>>
>> I thought it has been proven by micoshaft's own technology
>> team that their own products suck when it comes to complexity.
>
>
> Let us change the statement:
>
> Open Source: Microsoft is too complex.
>
> Niall Kennedy can confirm this. He said that Microsoft was paralysed by scale
> (and thus complexity).
>
> Open Source is about modularity and integration through layers.
> Therefore, it is less complex. No binary blobs. Interfaces
> and abstractions instead.
Not quite true, mostly because of Java serialization/RMI,
which is binary but very well characterized, if
proprietary. In a pinch one can replace it with other
technologies such as JAXRPC, and AFAIK that's what
many have in fact been doing. One might say this is
the exception that proves the rule... :-)
In Open Source, the seams -- Open Source is *not*
seamless -- are easy to identify for the most part, and
the communications bog standard. Makes life a lot
simpler if one can handle the abstractions (which is an
issue on occasion).
Also, fork() and system(const char *) are slightly easier
to handle than CreateProcess(???). :-)
>
>
>> Far more time and wasted CPU cycles are spent in disparate
>> un-peer reviewed gunk code adding layers of complexity
>> and interoperability failure; so much so that deadlines for
>> shipping their new os is slipped by years!!!
>>
>> I also understand they don't have any documentation for
>> their networking software, relying instead on open source
>> Samba project team members' documention to tell them
>> how windope networking works.
>
>
> That's amazing, that... they definitely have something to hide. Something
> that the Samba project has not yet managed to discover through reversal.
If a word is always constant during network transmissions,
how would code know that it's a version number and subject
to change?
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Roy
>
--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
|
|
