__/ [ Rex Ballard ] on Sunday 25 June 2006 17:13 \__
> nessuno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> Quote:
>> --------------
>> Does it [FUD] work?
>
> Yes. Especially when there is an element of truth to it.
> Microsoft has a whole series of factually accurate references which
> "prove" Windows is superior to Linux and that Microsoft has superior
> track record.
This reminds me of a comment that was once made by OSDL staff. Given a few
good lines and plenty of money to amplify its magnitude, a deceiving message
can be delivered. This is among my motivations for spending time promoting
Linux. I, on the other hand, am not backed by money, so it's more
ideological.
> Omitting some of the more "interesting" information from the reports,
> or having them placed at the bottom of an article referenced by an
> article that's referenced by "Fast Facts" certainly makes finding this
> information more fun.
"fun" = "biased"
>> Apparently Microsoft thinks so, because it's
>> employing it again in the form of comments from chief platform
>> strategist Bill Hilf.
>
>> Hilf said that Linux doesn't really threaten
>> Windows on the desktop; that's fine. Nobody's going to have a problem
>> with that assertion.
>
> The important thing is that Linux has not prevented Microsoft from
> selling hundreds of millions of licenses to OEMs and corporations.
> Most Linux users still want the Windows license so that they can use
> Windows libraries with WINE or use VMs to run Windows as a client.
>
>> But he then went on to claim that Linux as an
>> advanced, integrated server platform is also no challenge to Windows
>
> Again, because most Microsoft server licenses are so incredibly
> expensive, sometimes, as much as $20,000 per processor, customers
> insist on putting the newest, biggest, fastest machines possible in
> those servers. Often, new machines replace old ones, and the old
> machines are converted to Linux.
Not necessarily,speaking from my mere experience. But your point still
stands. If you pay $5,000 for a car stereo, it is unlikely you will put it
in an old Beetle. That by no means is an indication that Linux is vintage.
Many time before, performance of Linux servers was shown to be superior.
There is just not enough financial incentive (and thus funding) to promote
these facts. They are delivered from mouth to ear for the most part.
Microsoft adds noise (or disinformation) in attempts to subvert
comminication among IT managers (not professionals and engineers). Pamphlet
and expensive dinners are among the tools.
>> because "end users don't want to do testing unless they're a developer"
>> and "most open-source code is terribly inferior to commercial software
>> code."
>
> Everything after the because is silly. Fortunately, lying to the press
> is not a crime, so long as the end goal is not to mislead investors or
> creditors.
>
> The statement *might* be true when comparing Linux to UNIX variants
> such as Solaris, AIX, and HP_UX. Even SCO UNIX is losing ground to
> Linux, in fact, SCO Unix almost became Caldera Linux, until some
> holding companies, investing on behalf of, or at the request of
> Microsoft, decided to drop Linux and engage in groundless lawsuits
> intended to intimidate would-be Linux users.
>
>> -----------
>> End quote
>>
>> http://www.serverpipeline.com/blog/archives/2006/06/fud_never_chang.html
>>
>> Regarding the quality of Open Source server code vs Microsoft server
>> code, see:
>>
>>
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=Quality+Apache&num=10&scoring=r&hl=en&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_ugroup=comp.os.linux.advocacy&as_usubject=Quality+Apache+&as_uauthors=nessuno%40wigner.berkeley.edu&lr=&as_drrb=q&as_qdr=m3&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=25&as_maxm=6&as_maxy=2006&safe=off
|
|
