Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> __/ [ Rick ] on Saturday 18 March 2006 12:23 \__
>
> > A Linux Today editorial questions a story about why a Malaysian retail
> > shoe company supposedly dumps Open Office for MS Office.
> >
> > <http://www.linuxtoday.com/it_management/2006031701826OPMR>
> >
> > The Microsoft article itself:
> >
> <http://www.MOPAGERANKmicrosoft.com/malaysia/business/casestudies/linkpage4212.asp>
> >
> > Interesting showing of MS's .... 'facts'.
>
> After the "Get the Facts" campaign had begun, OSDL learned their lesson. When
> a benchmark was proposed, which would compare Linux and Windows
> head-to-head, OSDL backed off. The head of OSDL said that Microsoft could
> find 1 line in a 100-page report and invest many millions in voicing that
> sentence. Same scanrio above.
>
I must be missing something Roy. I read both links. What is it exactly
that makes the report in "Linux Today" more credible than the report
from Microsoft?
Spare me the "Microsoft is a lying monopolist" response. (Not
necessarily you but it's inevidible from someone.) What I see here are
two organizations each of which has a vested interest and bias in
reporting their side of the story. If one was a neutral party then I
would be more likely to believe that source. But neither one is neutral
so why is Linux Today completely credible and 100% accurate?
|
|
