Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> High Plains Thumper on Sunday_
>
>> What is the most likely explanation? IMHO, there are
>> powerful people who own stock in proprietary solutions,
>> who see any such news a threat to stock prices. It's all
>> about money.
>>
>> IMHO, it also explains some of the troll responses I see
>> here, "pony up the bucks", "Linux is a toy operating
>> system with font problems, poorly design GUI, crash
>> problems, lacks drivers for most peripherals, command line
>> only interface for patch installation, Linux is finally
>> approaching Windows but still has a long way to go, ad
>> nauseum." Who is trying to kid who?
>
> With CNN, being sort of private and all, I can see why
> there's place for bias. With the BBC, on the other hand, to
> public pays (tax) money in order to be deceived. No mention
> of the danger of even touching Vista before Service Packs;
> nothing about DRM; nothing truthful about hardware
> requirements. Basically, it's like a Microsoft
> pamphlet/brochure whose dissemination costs are covered by
> public money.
OTOH, occasionally BBC does come through with an interesting
article, like:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3600724.stm
| Microsoft's Linux ad 'misleading'
|
| Microsoft has been reprimanded over misleading advertising
| by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).
|
| The UK watchdog upheld complaints about a magazine advert
| which claimed that the open-source operating system Linux
| was more expensive than Windows.
|
| Referring to research, it read: "Linux was found to be over
| 10 times more expensive than Windows Server 2003".
|
| The ASA concluded that the comparison was misleading
| because the operating systems ran on different hardware.
|
| Hardware differences
|
| Microsoft had said the Get the Facts ad campaign was
| intended to compare competing file-serving set-ups that met
| the same needs and were intended for the same purposes.
|
| According to the software giant, a field test by
| independent analysts showed that Linux could be 10 times
| more expensive than Windows.
|
| A graph used in the advert compared the cost in US dollars
| per megabit per second of a Linux image running on two z900
| mainframe CPUs, with a Windows Server 2003 image running on
| two 900 MHz Intel Xeon CPUs.
|
| But the ASA ruling said the hardware chosen for Linux was
| more expensive than it needed to be and could have
| influenced the outcome of the analysis.
These type comparisons show that one must do their own
comparisons, rather than rely on Microsoft's misleading
information. Microsoft's established a history of
questionable ethical practises has IMHO, more company CIO's
doing their own homework, rather than rely on its "factual"
publications.
--
HPT
|
|
