Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Microsoft Software Linux

Microsoft Axes 'Get The Facts' 241

Posted by CowboyNeal
from the fanning-the-flames dept.
tom66 writes "Seems like a long time coming, as Microsoft today has axed it's Anti-Linux campaign 'Get the Facts', and Microsoft has replaced it with a new campaign, called 'compare'. This article touches up on why they may have done it, and the criticism surrounding Get the Facts."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Axes 'Get The Facts'

Comments Filter:
  • by Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) * <whineymacfanboy@gmail.com> on Thursday August 23, 2007 @10:04PM (#20339463) Homepage Journal
    Out with the old FUD, in with the new FUD.

    I'm not going to bother with a line by line rebuttal, I'll note on the compare Windows to Linux [microsoft.com] page (which actually is about Red Hat, not linux), the last paragraph reads:

    Open Standards != Open Source
    Open Source is a software development and distribution model, which does not equate to how easily the software interoperates with other software or how open or standardized the interfaces are.
    If you look in the corresponding MS section however, it doesn't touch on Open Standards (and MS's disregard for them) at all.

    Typical of the sickening dishonesty we get from this predatory company.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by farkus888 (1103903) *
      hey now, every piece of software that they want to be able to interact with their software gets the full specs on how to do it. which is to say they have access to their own standards, and fuck everybody else.
      • by ScrewMaster (602015) on Thursday August 23, 2007 @10:21PM (#20339623)
        I was reading a while back that Microsoft does have internal communications problems between the operating system and applications divisions. I mean, sometimes the guys working on Office don't even have all the information on the secret APIs the OS folks come up with.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by c (8461)
          > ...sometimes the guys working on Office don't even have all the information
          > on the secret APIs the OS folks come up with.

          Having spent a little time (very little, fortunately) doing Windows app coding, I'd be incredibly surprised if they had all the information on the public APIs. Or the time to find anything.

          I think much of the bloat in Office is because it's faster for the Office developers to re-invent the wheel than to search the Windows API's for things to reuse.

          c.
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by mikael (484)
            I think much of the bloat in Office is because it's faster for the Office developers to re-invent the wheel than to search the Windows API's for things to reuse.

            Or maybe the standard API functions don't provide feedback on progress made. Suppose you want to implement a particular operation such as downloading a file using http. The standard API function call may just do the task and return, or timeout with an error. For a quality user interface you want a progress bar to indicate how far into the download t
    • by Sillygates (967271) on Thursday August 23, 2007 @11:10PM (#20339901) Homepage Journal

      How can "free" be this expensive? Red Hat's business is based on annual subscriptions for OS support--you pay a subscription for every server, every year. And, if you want 24/7 support, you'll pay more.

      Did you know? Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 Advanced costs $2,499 per server per year without add-on features, like an application server and clustering.

      It is a good deal compared to (the lack of) Microsoft support. People who want support comparable to what is offered by Microsoft can download CentOS [centos.org] (fully redhat compatible) or some other completely free distribution.

      Red Hat includes the Yum update tool to help you download packages and software updates, but doesn't address IT professionals' broader needs--managing applications and workloads, like mail and collaboration, database and business applications.

      Thats funny, because I have built rpms for my own applications. and I use custom yum repositories to keep track of, and distribute new versions of this software.
      I hope they are not trying to compare this to the customization built into windows update.
      • by Sillygates (967271) on Thursday August 23, 2007 @11:20PM (#20339951) Homepage Journal

        "Windows Server also supports a standardized, patterned approach to building systems. . .for example, for most of our major applications, we can build and distribute across the entire company a standard disk image without having to set up systems individually." --Adam Vazquez, Senior IT Manager, AMD

        Partner yum with kickstart [redhat.com], and your application server can be built on your watch, without even laying fingers on a keyboard (simple %pre and %post targets allow a system administrator to script non packaged parts of the install). This offers a much less interactive solution than one would get with 3rd party windows products like norton ghost.
        • by batkiwi (137781)
          Kickstart + yum pales in comparison the DDD + RIS.
        • Yum is actually. RedHat's embrasure of Yum is cluttered by their desire to not let clients download the update repository. This traps people into the need for the "yum-rhn-plugin", which ignores all the priority and preferred source settings of other yum repositories and puts the RedHat sourced.

          This kind of DRM based craziness is one of the most compelling reasons to use CentOS, along with CentOS willingness to include NTFS drivers and more up-to-date software in their "centosplus" repositories. It's a sham
          • by donaldm (919619)
            You do realise that CentOS is really a recompilation of Redhat source. In fact if you want you can install an RPM that makes it look like Redhat which Redhat will support. If you put Redhat on your machine you can change your repos which normally point to the Redhat repos or if you want a "satellite server" (this does cost but is great if you have many Linux machines). If you can maintain your own machines then you are still free to do this (change your primary repos) but you do need a license to access Red
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by buddyglass (925859)

      Without having pored over every detail, it seems pretty reasonable to me. I'm not surprised their comparison was limited primarily to Red Hat. It doesn't make sense to compare Windows to "linux", which is essentially the kernel. One has to compare it to one or more distributions. Red Hat is probably their biggest competition in the corporate space. It and SuSE.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      -1 Flamebait but seriously: the whole webpage is one big advertisement. Microsoft isn't even trying to hide it.

      If you go into something like that, Microsoft or no Microsoft, expecting a fair comparison, you don't live on the planet Earth.
    • by Whammy666 (589169) on Thursday August 23, 2007 @11:56PM (#20340157) Homepage
      Under the "reliability" tab, I read the case study for Continental AG. Here's a quote:

      Continental first tested a Linux solution, but the company decided instead on a platform based on Microsoft® Windows Server(TM) 2003 Enterprise Edition and Windows® XP Professional because of the opportunity to lower costs and improve security. The new system architecture has considerably reduced IT costs at Continental AG.

      The way it's worded implies that they replaced Linux with WS2K3 and XP, which saved all this money. But a more careful read shows that the original platform is unidentified (probably NT or such). Further, the discussion seemed to focus on the 24,000 desktops, not the servers, making this case largely irrelevant for comparing servers. An actual server comparison is never presented.

      The bottom line is that this alleged proof of Windows superiority was done by comparing an anonymous and out-dated server platform against a more recent Windows server and then declaring Windows the winner over Linux with no justification given. WTF? Pure FUD indeed.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 23, 2007 @10:05PM (#20339475)
    ... is telling me to Get the Facts...
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 23, 2007 @10:08PM (#20339503)

    Given that the /compare site will provide 3rd party information, Get the Facts will be retired as a destination."
    Destination? It's a web page, not a tropical resort.
  • The facts? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jcr (53032) <jcr.mac@com> on Thursday August 23, 2007 @10:10PM (#20339525) Journal
    I guess too many people actually were getting the facts, and the upshot has been erosion of MS's server market share.

    -jcr

    • ... and the upshot has been erosion of MS's server market share.

      got numbers? It sounds great and everything but... got some numbers for us? (I looked a little but couldn't find much).

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        I think that he was being sarcastic. Windows Server isn't losing market share, quite the contrary.
  • by weak* (1137369) on Thursday August 23, 2007 @10:12PM (#20339545)
    Microsoft Axes 'Get the Facts,' Announces 'Kill the Penguin' - Will commission Metallica to record a song to be played on the site.
  • What Linux!? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by R55 (601001) <ravi@india.SLACKWAREcom minus distro> on Thursday August 23, 2007 @10:15PM (#20339571)
    "Compare Windows to Linux"
    Even in the earlier campaign they just refer to "Linux" in the print advertisements and they never specify which version of softwares on which version of distribution that they have compared (Once they had compared Redhat Linux 7.1 with Windows XP!).
    It is time that responsible people from Linux Mark Institute take a note of this and sue them for libel!
    • Re:What Linux!? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by quanticle (843097) on Thursday August 23, 2007 @10:21PM (#20339625) Homepage

      It seems to be a broad spectrum attack against many different Linux vendors, with most of the emphasis on attacking Red Hat Enterprise Linux. I did find some case studies highlighting people switching away from SuSE, something that I find interesting considering that Novell/SuSE is now a Microsoft partner.

      • Re:What Linux!? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by loony (37622) on Thursday August 23, 2007 @11:33PM (#20340027)
        it actually makes sense - SuSE and others are already occupied territory. So why bother emphasizing an attack on them? RedHat said they will not partner with M$, so of course the attack is focused on them...

        As for them using SuSE switchers as example - the selection of examples is pretty limited. They had to take whatever they could get.

        Peter.
    • Re:What Linux!? (Score:5, Informative)

      by EvanED (569694) <evaned@ g m ail.com> on Thursday August 23, 2007 @10:33PM (#20339689)
      (Once they had compared Redhat Linux 7.1 with Windows XP!).

      Depending on when this comparison was done, and with what service packs and stuff for XP, this may have been a fairly reasonable comparison. If they were comparing XP sans-service packs, RedHat 7.2 would have been the most apples-to-apples comparison. Both were released in October of 2001. It's even quite possible XP was out before 7.2, which would have made 7.1 an even more reasonable choice (though 7.2 would still have been better).

      Of course, if this is XP+SP2 for instance, then that's totally off-base.
    • Then why not play along by creating an alternative "Get The Facts" site which compares "Linux" to "Windows..." The Windows in question being Windows 3.1 and Linux being only features of the current version of the kernel.

      I'm only saying ;)
  • by kwabbles (259554) on Thursday August 23, 2007 @10:17PM (#20339583)
    The guy at the Ford dealership told me that Fords are more reliable, safe, and powerful than Chevys. He showed me a bunch of charts he made, and that made me feel better. He also had a nice suit and really nice white teeth, and smiled alot. Nice guy. What reason did I have to check out the Chevy dealership?
    • I will tell you of an another great lie, a lie that has existed for decades and continues to be swallowed whole. It is not related but it shows how people lack common sense.

      In holland you got a consumer watch agency (consumentenbond) that does (unbiased) comparetive reviews, payed by people who subscribe to them. Pretty good BUT and honest in general as far as I know BUT one of their reviews is one big lie.

      It compares the prices in supermarkets and comes with a list of supermarkets by price. You can imagi

      • by Zironic (1112127)
        Europshopper isn't crap, their water is the only thing I bother to drink. Their other products are also fairly decent.

        Anyhow when it comes to store comparisons you have to pick a product everyone have (ie: brand). You could propably do a second round of tests where you compare each stores own product (everyone has one nowadays). It's mainly up to the consumer to test for quality anyhow since taste is very subjective.

        When it comes to OS's everything is also very individual specific and I don't think there ex
      • ...comment sense isn't.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by stubear (130454)
      Yeah, and OSS proponents are extremely honest when it comes to comparing OSes and applications such as Windows and Linux or Office 2007 and OpenOffice.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by kwabbles (259554)
        No, they're usually not. But one thing I'll say for OSS proponents - you usually don't see them using a bunch of vague assertions, flashy buzzwords, unsubstantiated "facts", biased/self-sponsored technological reviews, and snotty PR campaigns.

        The Linux community has nothing to prove. Microsoft does.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by stubear (130454)
          "...vague assertions...unsubstantiated "facts"...biased/self-sponsored technological reviews..."

          Please tell me you were being sarcastic there. I have read enough unsubatantiated "facts" and vague assertions about Windows on Slashdot alone to make your head spin. For instace, how about all the recent bullshit about DRM and HD playback on Vista, all perpeturaed by some paper written by a guy who states that he has never even used Vista and the readers should check the facts for him? I could go on but one n
          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by kwabbles (259554)
            True, there must be upwards of a billion unsubstantiated facts and vague assertions about Linux on Slashdot. Some of them were probably typed by me. :) Slashdot is simply a mass of nerds chatting on a forum about the latest "geek scoop" - hardly a mainstream marketing/news outlet. You usually don't see your friendly neighborhood MBA getting on Slashdot to find out whether to use Microsoft or Linux for their new business.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by JohnBailey (1092697)

            Please tell me you were being sarcastic there. I have read enough unsubatantiated "facts" and vague assertions about Windows on Slashdot alone to make your head spin. For instace, how about all the recent bullshit about DRM and HD playback on Vista, all perpeturaed by some paper written by a guy who states that he has never even used Vista and the readers should check the facts for him? I could go on but one need only to read Slashdot on a semi-frequent basis to see all the BS written about Windows and Microsoft.

            And unless slashdot releases a Linux distro, your point is irrelevant. If you went to a Windows board or read the Windows fanboy posts, then the same applies. the two factions cancel each other out. Both sides have unrealistic cheerleaders. the Linux fanboys that expect corporate customers to use WINE to run their Windows apps, and the Windows fanboys who challenge every possible criticism about vista with " have you tried Vista yet". One is as bad as the other.

            However, Red Hat, Canonical and others hav

      • Well, for a start, they get no money from any choice you make.

        Those people have a reason why they chosed FOSS. And have a reason why they are advocating it. You may not agree with their reasons, but they at least aren't on it for your money.

  • New Focus (Score:5, Funny)

    by rlp (11898) on Thursday August 23, 2007 @10:26PM (#20339645)
    They are no doubt focusing all their PR efforts on their forthcoming new product [youtube.com].
    • OK, OK, the broken email client, camera, and music player were obviously funny, but I'd love to have the rotary interface. I actually thought that one would be fun. In fact, I'd love to have a phone like that again just to bring back the good 'ol days...
    • And here's another [youtube.com] starring the Monkey himself. Apple would be proud! :)
  • Although I do think someone should tell the to get the FUD out of here.
  • >why they may have done it

    Not to disrespect all the victims, but I imagine it's similar in feel to OJ's "If I did it"
  • by Eric Damron (553630) on Thursday August 23, 2007 @10:53PM (#20339819)
    "Customers want to consume this information in a variety of formats..."

    ODF for me please!

    Seriously this is just a new FUD campaign. Example:

    How can "free" be this expensive?
    Red Hat's business is based on annual subscriptions for OS support--you pay a subscription for every server, every year. And, if you want 24/7 support, you'll pay more.

    Okay Microsoft, we've been telling you for years but you don't want to get it. Linux is "free as in speech" not "free as in beer." That means that the users get a whole lot of rights that you wouldn't give in your worse nightmare. The freedom to redistribute. The freedome to modify. etc, etc, etc.

    Stop with the FUD websites until you know what you're talking about please. Oh, I forgot. You already know all of this but are just misleading your prospective users. Yeah, that's the kind of company with which I would want to do business. NOT!
    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 23, 2007 @11:24PM (#20339971)
      Microsoft's fud site claims that the most expensive Red Hat Enterprise Linux version costs $2,499 per server per year for 24/7 premium phone and web support, unlimited users, no license restrictions, unlimited software upgrades, etc.

      So how about we compare that to Windows Server 2003?
      - $3,999/server for the enterprise version of Windows Server 2003 R2
      - have to repurchase it every ~5 years when a new version is made available
      - maximum of 25 users/workstations ($40 per extra user per Windows version)
      ...and wait for it...
      - *NO SUPPORT WHATSOEVER!*

      And we're not even getting into the real savings such as comparing MS SQL Server with an equivalent Red Hat offer, desktop Linux cost comparisons (including Office/Productivity applications), scaling costs up to 5000 users...etc

      Red Hat Enterprise Linux (the product) is free. That is why CentOS exists. The only cost to using CentOS is having employees who can set it up and keep it running. But you have this exact same cost when using Windows Server as well! You pay Red Hat to provide support services to you - not for the actual product itself. If you go down the Microsoft path, you have to pay for the product AND the service (which Microsoft has conveniently ignored on their new fud website).

      Their new website is self-damaging. If I was a potential Microsoft customer who was looking at the comparison between Linux and Windows, I'd instantly note Microsoft spreading fud and lies to make up for deficiencies in their offer. It is hardly reassuring that Microsoft is running scared at companies like Red Hat and feels the need to launch a big anti-Linux PR campaign based on lies and fud. The question I'd be asking myself is, "if Windows Server is so great, why can't Microsoft sell it to me based on features and facts?".
      • The target market is, and always has been, the sort of IT manager who bases their decisions on what they read in magazines and sales literature.

        Many commercial software products, you buy them (often for a surprisingly low price) but you HAVE to get support and that's expensive. But you have someone to call if things go wrong - and if you're lucky, they're somewhat more intelligent than the telephone handset they're speaking into.

        The perception amongst such management is that the same is true of Windows. Y
    • Okay Microsoft, we've been telling you for years but you don't want to get it. Linux is "free as in speech" not "free as in beer." That means that the users get a whole lot of rights that you wouldn't give in your worse nightmare. The freedom to redistribute. The freedome to modify. etc, etc, etc.

      Actually, "free as in beer" is one of the main advantages mentioned by most of the linux advocates I know. Certainly that's many peoples' perception. So it doesn't seem odd for Microsoft to address that misconce

    • by weicco (645927) on Thursday August 23, 2007 @11:57PM (#20340163)

      You are partly right. Linux is free. Support is not. Now if you read it again like this:

      Red Hat's business is based on annual subscriptions for OS support--you pay a subscription for every server, every year. And, if you want 24/7 support, you'll pay more.

  • by physicsnick (1031656) on Thursday August 23, 2007 @11:03PM (#20339861)

    Although there is a "Compare Windows to Linux" tab on the new Compare site, nearly all the material there is targeted specifically at Red Hat -- one of the Linux distributors that is continuing to refuse to sign a patent-protection agreement with Microsoft.
    Ah, so only the non-blessed distributions are inferior to Windows Server? As if Get The Facts wasn't bad enough; they've started to play real dirty. I don't see a page on redhat.com bashing Windows.

    I'm very glad Red Hat is standing up to Microsoft and their shit. I hope people can see through this campaign the same as they did with Get The Facts.
  • now i know where i can go to find out how to configure linux services the RedHat and SuSE approved way. Thank you microsoft for those VERY handy videos.
  • by Tribbin (565963) on Thursday August 23, 2007 @11:10PM (#20339903) Homepage
    2010:

    I'd like to thank Mr. Microsoft for his contribution by sending bug-reports and wishlist items for linux in the form of a comparison back in 2007. Without your help we would not have surpassed the geek-approach of software.
  • by Capricous (847089) on Thursday August 23, 2007 @11:18PM (#20339941)
    because if you use loonix and you want to kill a process you have to use
    ps xu | grep konqueror | grep -v grep | awk '{ print $2 }' | xargs kill -9
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by physicsnick (1031656)
      Or just "killall -9 konqueror"...
    • by JoshJ (1009085)
      Maybe if you use loonix you have to do it that way, but "killall konqueror" works just fine. It's the Solaris people who have difficulty with that one.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by flyingfsck (986395)
      The nicest Loonix way:
      ctrl-alt-esc, click

      I really like that skull and cross-bones icon.
    • I disagree. First of all, it's rather rude to send SIGKILL to processes that are still responding. Second, if you're invoking AWK you might as well use it.

      ps xu | awk '$11 ~ /kcalc/ { print $2 }' | xargs kill -15

      C'mon, I'm sure I missed something - let's get this optimized!
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by pyrrhonist (701154)

        C'mon, I'm sure I missed something - let's get this optimized!

        Optimized for former Windows users:

        # reboot
  • huh...gimme a break (Score:3, Interesting)

    by b1ufox (987621) on Thursday August 23, 2007 @11:25PM (#20339977) Homepage Journal
    thanks for the linke whineymacfanboy :)

    A little down the road you ll find

    "Red Hat includes the Yum update tool to help you download packages and software updates, but doesn't address IT professionals' broader needs--managing applications and workloads, like mail and collaboration, database and business applications."

    Give me a break. Is the guy who wrote this nuts?
    What blatant lie.
    Enough with FUD, i am going to format my windows partition at work machine too.

  • From a technology standpoint, the /compare site isn't that bad. It's clearly not intended for technical people, but for business executives. It tries to put Windows in the best possible light while scaring the beeswax out of you for even thinking of trying Red Hat. The usual Marketing stuff.

    The section on interoperability is somewhat humorous, in a dark sort of way, given Microsoft's reputation as the baddest of the bad when it comes to following anyone's standards but their own.
  • by ingo23 (848315)
    1. Get the facts
    2. Compare
    3. Oops!
  • by ylikone (589264) on Thursday August 23, 2007 @11:41PM (#20340075) Homepage
    But I guess that's the problem... techies know the truth, but they have to battle against the ignorant manager who believes the shit MS writes.
    • by Gazzonyx (982402)

      But I guess that's the problem... techies know the truth, but they have to battle against the ignorant manager who believes the shit MS writes.
      I think I might see where you're going with this... If you suggest we start writing Linux White Papers, I'll kill you. Twice.
  • by SamP2 (1097897)
    Apparently telling people to "get the -facts-" has proved counterproductive for MS, so the plan B is "compare [what we tell you about us to what we tell you about them]". And unlike our last campaign, we won't let facts to get in our way this time!
  • Let's Compare! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by BillGatesLoveChild (1046184) on Thursday August 23, 2007 @11:49PM (#20340125) Journal
    Windows: Pain in the ass activation system
    Linux: Not

    Windows: Media Player monitors what you are watching/listening to and logs it with Microsoft.
    Linux: None

    Windows: Intrusive DRM, Scarce Driver Support, Many incompatabilities, Huge Security Holes
    Linux: None

    Windows: Parent company breaks anti-trust laws, slap on wrist by Justice Department, continues to flaunt law without penalty
    Linux: None

    Windows: Threatens small competitors with a flood of patent lawsuits
    Linux: None

    Windows: Includes code to spy on China
    Linux: None

    Hey, Microsoft is right! Linux can't do anything!
  • Interoperability by design
    Microsoft approaches interoperability by design which strives for greater 'out of the box' connectivity for customers and partners.

    Yeah...
    *cough* OOXML,MS OFFICE,VISTA,NETWORKING,THERESTOFTHEIRPRODUCTS *cough*
  • No big deal (Score:5, Informative)

    by steveoc (2661) on Friday August 24, 2007 @12:17AM (#20340269)
    If you care to dive into the article, download and read the .doc format 'case studies', you will see there is nothing much to crow about.

    If you are looking for hard empirical stats on a real comparison of Linux vs Windows, then these case studies are not for you. If you are looking for fuzzy feel-good buzzword-laden coffee table anecdotes, then its worth the download.

    In the comparison cases presented, the reasoning is basically as follows :

    "I went out with a Blonde once, and she was cool, except she had no job, and was stuck at home with 3 noisy kids - so we rarely got out together. Then I met this independent Brunette chick with a rich Dad and no ties, and we had a ball together. Therefore, based on my extensive experience with such a broad variety of women, I must conclude that in 100% of cases Brunettes make better girlfriends than Blondes'.

    SwissAir's initial problem was that their existing Java/Oracle web site was less than optimal, and the code mixed presentation with business logic at all levels of the spaghetti triangle. So they went for a ground-up rebuild using their newly aquirred experience in how not to build a system. The operating systems hosting the bad-build / good-build of their web site are not even relevant to the study, but they happen to be Linux the first time around, and Windows the second time around.

    Its a good article if you are interested in the subject of system development lifecycles .. but its hard to build a case for operating systems around it. You could just as easily say that the original Java/Oracle first cut (which ran on HP proliants) was replaced with a .NET rebuild (running on Dell), and therefore Dell is a better choice than HP.

    The State of Illinois story is no better. Their initial problem is an aging hulk of a Groupwise messaging system running on Novell Netware. They chose to go to an unspecified line of Microsoft products, the prime deciding motivation being 'Because of Microsoft's position in the market'. The IT director even goes so far as to admit that 'We are not a science outfit - we just need something to get the job done', and they forgot to edit out the comment that 'For us, security was not a driving issue'. In other words, here is an organisation that is flat out doing whatever it does, and it just wants to outsource all of it's IT problems to a big outside company, and get on with the business of .. whatever it is that it does. Linux doesnt even come into the discussion - they never used it at all, so its hardly even a comparison. Very lame choice of stories to include in the 'Comparison' site I would have thought.
    • by Almahtar (991773)

      If you are looking for hard empirical stats on a real comparison of Linux vs Windows, then these case studies are not for you.


      SAY IT AINT SO!
    • The State of Illinois case study is bullshit. I worked as a contractor for the Department of Human Services in Springfield for a year just a few years back. My wife's stepdad worked for Department of Public Aid as a contractor for years. He's now DPA staff because the AFSCME union strongarmed the state into getting rid of knowledgeable contractors and giving the work to state employees. They couldn't do it with state employees, so he became one to continue doing his old job for additional pay plus benefits.
  • by Cyko_01 (1092499) on Friday August 24, 2007 @12:44AM (#20340401) Homepage
    if you want to get the facts from people who know what they are talking about then check wikipedia. this is the ONLY way to get unbiased results. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Windows _and_Linux [wikipedia.org]
    • by petrus4 (213815) on Friday August 24, 2007 @01:45AM (#20340649) Homepage Journal
      *Experiences sudden violent fit of coughing*

      Yes...because as we all know, Wikipedia is a source of information that is totally neutral, unbiased, and objective, and is not subject to any form of inappropriate manipulation or interference whatsoever.

      Their policy says so.
    • by cheros (223479)
      You mean, until MS changes it?
    • by o'reor (581921)
      I would have happily added a few more mod points but you were already at +5, funny.

      Oh and btw, I checked out the discussion tab on that Wikipedia page and it says :

      This article was previously nominated for deletion.
      Hmmm, this article must really be relevant and full of insight... :-)
  • by Jugalator (259273) on Friday August 24, 2007 @01:26AM (#20340577) Journal
    Why would anyone go to Microsoft for opinions on things like Windows Server 2003? Why? They can't possibly list any scenario with major disadvantages, because they sell the OS. Sure, it's not easy to find decent third party sources (you can obviously not ask on Linux-oriented sites either), but I'm pretty sure that the effort would be worth it.
    • You can always go to 'independent' sites, which are in fact funded by Microsoft.
      Microsoft just supplies the PR material so they could link in or use the M$ stuff as a template.
  • by Lazy Jones (8403) on Friday August 24, 2007 @02:38AM (#20340905) Homepage Journal
    It's written its Anti-Linux campaign (not "it's"). By not proofreading even the abstracts of your stories, you are adversely affecting the spelling abilities of your readers, leading to more badly written submissions ...

  • Like the windows only internet monitoring software the US government makes me use!
    Sorry, Linux doesn't cut it...

  • "You can build it, design it, and it will work great. The trouble begins when you want to add things to it, add some services and things like that. Because of the brittle nature of the platform [zdnet.com], when you do that, other things break", Martin Taylor July 2005

    "A number of studies by IDC and Gartner have proved our platform has a lower TCO [computing.co.uk] than open source because there are no hidden costs."

    '[Nick Barley] refuted allegations that MS security was lax, saying .. "We've spent a lot of time recently trying t
  • Get a d6 and a large group of Amish farmers (where the number is NX6) divide them into 6 groups at random then give them a Computer , Network connection and a Geek
    (just to be fair lets use a single network type and a group of dell cheapo boxes) the Groups

    1 Windows XP Pro (with all current patches but NO THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE i will give a Push for MSO)
    2 Windows Vista Ultimate (same setup)
    3 Redhat WS (whichever is the current with all patches only direct Redhat repos)
    4 SUSE SLED 10.1? (same setup )
    5 Mandriva
  • by HermMunster (972336) on Friday August 24, 2007 @12:55PM (#20346135)
    Enough said. Microsoft is just being silly. In the long term they cannot compete. I do find it quite amazing that Linux on the desktop doubled in the past year. I would expect even greater growth now that the nasty DRM nightmare called Vista is out and is showing its true colors. 47 programs that spy on you, WGA/WGN accusing you of stealing and then searching your home (your computer is an extension of your home after all). With performance issues relating to the implementation of the hardware requirements dictated to the hardware manufacturers, etc.

    I think this is just a silly mess that Microsoft has created for itself. They forgot one important thing. Serve the customer. You don't go violating everyone privacy because you want a few extra billion dollars--billions more than the billions you already have. Just pathetic. They have markets greater than you can imagine in the world and they are violating our privacy, invading our homes, manipulating the police authorities into stupid raids on xbox modchip makers. Just pathetic.

    Now they are saying they like open source but it must be Microsoft Windows only code? That's not open source. And then they have the gall to try to win a comparison war? I think FOSS wins, hands down.

Statistics are no substitute for judgement. -- Henry Clay

Working...