Microsoft Axes 'Get The Facts'

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."

Re:Out with the old FUD.

[farkus888]

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Thats good

[garphik]

Its nice to see some competition, that raises the level of the product

If Microsoft says so, it must be true.

[kwabbles]

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?

"Compare" singles out Red Hat

[physicsnick]

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.

I'd like to thank you

[Tribbin]

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.

Re:Out with the old FUD.

[buddyglass]

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.

Site's not too bad; typical marketing stuff

[davide marney]

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.

Re:What Linux!?

[loony]

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:If Microsoft says so, it must be true.

[stubear]

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.

Interoperability?

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft approaches interoperability by design which strives for greater 'out of the box' connectivity for customers and partners.

Interoperability only for other Microsoft products, and not even consistently. Maybe some "competitors" who pay patent royalties can get some interop too.

Interoperability by design entails not only engineering excellence in our products, but also includes collaborating with customers, partners, and competitors; providing access to our technologies through licensing and translation tools; and engaging in standards-setting activities.

They also should be more specific with regards to "standards-setting". If it was up to them, they would love to crush any long-existing, proven standard and replace it with a technically inferior closed up piece of trash that doesn't do the job half as well, just so they can increase market share, at everybody else's expense, including their own customers. Of course, Microsoft didn't put this site up so they could make themselves sound evil and monopolistic. No, that would be bad for their business and self-preservation. Who cares about the customer if they don't have a choice?

Re:Windows Powershell

[flyingfsck]

The nicest Loonix way:
ctrl-alt-esc, click

I really like that skull and cross-bones icon.

No techie will believe this!

[ylikone]

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.

Re:Out with the old FUD.

[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.

Let's Compare!

[BillGatesLoveChild]

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!

Lies, damned lies, and...

[realdodgeman]

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*

Re:Oh boy, it never ends...

[weicco]

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.

Re:If Microsoft says so, it must be true.

[kwabbles]

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:If Microsoft says so, it must be true.

[stubear]

"...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 need only to read Slashdot on a semi-frequent basis to see all the BS written about Windows and Microsoft.

Re:If Microsoft says so, it must be true.

[kwabbles]

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:If Microsoft says so, it must be true.

[JohnBailey]

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 have not put up a site claiming the advantages of Linux over Windows using vague or stretched information that only a PR agency could call fact. And they would have to have a pretty big retainer to commit themselves that far. Microsoft (please note the lack of the traditional "$", so I can't be a zealot for either side) has replaced one misleading web site with another.

Neither OS can be held responsible for the actions or words of it's respective users, but they are responsible for their own actions. Didn't some hardware manufacturer get into trouble over the same practice years ago?

Re:Out with the old FUD.

[TENTH SHOW JAM]

And now we have the truth. Any half decent pr0n filtering system will drop this discussion like a rock for having this comment in it. Think of it as a clever trick by M$ or backers to censor unfavorable discussion on the web about their products.

Or maybe this AC is just a tool.

Re:Let's Compare!

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

1) Linux is free, why would it need anti-piracy measures?

It isn't that they do or don't need 'anti-piracy measures', after all plenty of non-free software have no 'anti-piracy systems' either.
It is about the pain in the ass that 'anti-piracy measures' bring with them.

2) Microsoft does not monitor what you're listening to, unless you choose to allow them.
Played DVDs lately?

Yes, VLC plays them just fine thank you. It's only in the USA where software patents mean anything (ok Japan has software patents too). The rest of the world has no legal issue with DVD playback using Free software. And do you know how terribly hard it is to get VLC in the USA? It's easier than getting official DVD software for MS Windows which costs extra. Just download it from the VLC webpage in France the same way you would download it for MS Windows.

3) The DRM is not intrusive, driver support is the widest available, Windows was built for backward compatibility and Microsoft Update / WUS is leading industry.

DRM, by its very nature is intrusive, it is a restriction after all, isn't it? But DRM's intrusion even goes above and beyond that, or perhaps you missed this recent example [slashdot.org]?

Driver support being the 'widest available' is arguable. Sure, everyone and his brother targets MS windows. But once the product is end-of-lifed, the drivers don't keep up with new versions of windows. They do with linux. So plenty of old hardware won't work on vista but will work with the latest linux kernels.

As for "Microsoft Update" leading the industry? WTF? Leading them to hell perhaps? MS Update reports back all kinds of information about each system that is unnecessary. The various updaters for Ubuntu, Suse and Redhat all do the same job without the same loss of privacy.

6) Prove they spy on China? And prove that Linux doesnt

Not just China, everyone. See NSAKEY. As for proving that linux doesn't, that's easy enough since anyone who cares has full access to the source code which they can then compile themselves in full confidence. The BEST MS will do is let you look at some, incomplete, source code, under very restrictive NDA licensing and they sure won't let you compile it and use the end result.

What I don't understand is...

[Jugalator]

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.

Re:yes, this is a spelling flame

[Lazy Jones]

Um... sorry, you're wrong. http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_a [purdue.edu] post.html To save anyone having to follow the link, I will reveal the principle and relevant use of the word: 1) to form possessives of nouns Microsoft is the noun, the campaign belongs to it, hence "it's Anti-Linux Campaign" is the correct spelling.

No offense, but that's bullshit. "it" is not a noun, therefore the quoted use of the apostrophe is not valid. "it's" is short for "it is", "its" is the correct possessive form.

http://www.cgl.uwaterloo.ca/~csk/its.html [uwaterloo.ca]

Re:What a stinking pile that site is.

[jb.hl.com]

Because, of course, a comparison between Windows and Linux written by you would be entirely unbiased and would take in the merits and demerits of each equally.

Company says things about competitor to sell product; news at 11.

State of Illnois study bullshit

[mr_mischief]

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. There's a budget solution for you...

The company I worked for also had contracts with Corrections, Courts, State Police, Public Aid, and some other state agencies, so I sometimes went to locations for those as well.

Anyway, Novell wasn't the source of the "desktop productivity solution" when I did desktop support for them. They ran Groupwise (which does email and calendars) at DHS. They also ran Office and in some cases also WordPerfect Suite. They ran Crystal Reports when needed. There is, or was anyway, an entire subdepartment of DHS that handles creating, modifying, warehousing, and distributing paper forms. Those people had additional software for that. There were mainframes in the Harris building (the main DHS office center on South Main St. East) and many users had terminal emulation packages to access that. In no way did they switch everything from Novell to Microsoft on the desktop.

The servers were NT 4, Novell 4 and 5, some NT 3.5, some commercial Unix on Alpha (although that was mostly being replaced with Win2k), and the IBM mainframe stuff. There were contractors running the actual servers in every case. Most of them worked for the same company I did.

CMS is an agency that's supposed to consolidate resources across the state for the other agencies to improve security, decrease waste, and "improve" accountability (although that has never seemed an appropriate goal for the convicted Republican George Ryan nor the current governor Democrat Rod Blagojevich either one). We had to have our badges for DHS buildings issued through CMS, for example. When there was a network outage, DHS had to bother CMS to bother the phone companies. Real efficient and cost effective, that.

The State Police had Avid equipment and such for reconstructing accidents. I'm sure Microsoft Windows Movie Maker hasn't entirely displaced that. They might have replaced some of the serial dumb terminals in the maximum security prisons with Windows PCs, but I'm not sure you'd want something with lots of little voids and such in with the inmates. The schools for the visually impaired and for the deaf already ran Windows PCs for students and teachers, as did the developmental and mental health centers (all part of DHS). The department of the courts had Windows PCs. The local Office of Rehabilitative Services (part of DHS) offices had Windows and OS/2 PCs, and sometimes were not even on the statewide Novell networks for DHS. DCFS (part of DHS) had Windows PCs.

Other than replacing Groupwise server and client with Exchange and Outlook and upgrading the desktops to newer versions of Windows (which was always being done anyway, as any PC more than 3 or 4 years old goes to CMS auction to the public), I'm not sure what they've really done for DHS. They've traded Novell's superior print server, client management (ZenWorks/snapshots anyone?), firewall (Bordermanager worked well), years of employee training, and working with certified consultants familiar with the old network all for Windows printer sharing, Windows remote client management (if they're doing that at all), probably going to Cisco's firewall solutions as Microsoft's suck, having to retrain their workforce, and having to find new contractors (or hire more unionized employees away from consulting companies).

All this is from a state that can't pay Medicaid on time and has run pharmacies out of business. It's a state that uses taxpayer money to pay government employees to campaign for their elected bosses. The federal government is very concer

Re:Out with the old FUD.

[c]

> ...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.

Redhat is not guilty

[tjwhaynes]

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 afaict redhat tries to hide the fact this option exists. Afaict they make the projects rebuild from source and strip out all the identity of the OS. They also make them replace the update mechanism but that is a fairly minor point.

RedHat(TM) is a trademarked name. That is the reason that the CentOS folks must remove the RedHat trademark from the SRPMS before redistributing them. Everything that RedHat has released is GPL or LGPL-licensed - if they were concerned about hiding the source code, that would be a particularly bizarre choice! RedHat can not continue to use the RedHat trademark if they do not protect its use, such being the requirements of trademark law.

Cheers,
Toby Haynes