| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Ballmer: No sleep lost over Linux | |
|
||
| Time: 07:14 EST/12:14 GMT | News Source: CNET | Posted By: Bill Roach | ||
|
Steve Ballmer had the stage to himself Thursday in San Francisco as he introduced Windows Server 2003, a new version of the company's server operating system that Microsoft's CEO described as "the right product" to help companies stretch their IT budgets. Just how long fence-sitting CIOs will take to heed that message and upgrade their existing servers is the big wild card. Clearly, Windows Server 2003 is the most ambitious version of the company's server operating system. Microsoft, keen on gaining a stronger foothold in corporate data centers, plans to spend as much as $250 million to promote the product. Taking four different names and four release dates to get here, Windows Server 2003, Ballmer says, offers a heap of new features designed to appeal to security-conscious corporate buyers. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 335 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:23:55 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 7797 (63.76.44.252) at 4/25/2003 1:28:14 PM |
| lol @ Neb Okla - keep on living in your bubble. I hope it doesn't burst one day. |
| #2 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 4/25/2003 2:49:09 PM |
|
tgnb - Linux will never be gone, and it's fine if it holds the niche that it does now. But the claims of the open source zealots have largely come unfulfilled, and you see this in the lack of attention paid to Linux today by corporations than say a few years ago.
It just really isn't a threat to Microsoft, as long as MS continues to adapt to meet the needs of their customers. Just for review, let's go over the Open Source claims... Linux is faster... Not true Linux is more stable... Not true Linux is more secure... Not true Open Source development is faster.... Not true OSS development is cheaper... partly true, but since it's unreliable and slower you position yourself with a competitive disadvantage. Make no mistake, the competition has been good for Microsoft, but the mistake the Open Source world has made is in thinking Microsoft would stay stagnant and maintain only what they had back in '94 without advancing forward. The large problem is really that most open source zealots do not have any understanding of the computer world. They're largely sheltered by their experiences, without broad perspective. I saw a claim today, for example, on slashbot that it was impossible for small companies to adapt commercial software in a Value-Add sense, that it was only possible with open source. Obviously completely unaware that this has been going on for a dozen years or more already. The lesson is, never overstate your position. It's good to have audacious goals, but you better be prepared to meet them. |
| #3 By 143 (199.35.36.124) at 4/25/2003 3:30:38 PM |
|
An Optional OS will keep MS and others on the push forward and that's good for us…
;-) |
| #4 By 7797 (63.76.44.252) at 4/25/2003 3:43:14 PM |
|
sodablue:
first of all let me quote from another post of yours: "..Linux which is motivated entirely from hatred of Microsoft products" You constantly talk about "open source zealots" but fail to realize that by making a statement such as the one above you make it plainly obvious to posters here that YOU are a MS sheep. "the lack of attention paid to Linux today by corporations than say a few years ago" In my opinion this is not true. please provide specific facts and example to back your claim. It is NOT widely known. Actually even MS mentions Linux more often these days than lets say a few years ago. "Linux is faster... Not true" I'm not claiming that it IS faster. But YOU are claiming that it ISN'T faster. Do you have benchmarks? proof? What part of Linux isnt faster? SMP? Memory Management? "Linux is more stable... Not true" Same thing. Please provide us with some study showing that Linux IS NOT more stable. Again, I am not claiming that it is. YOU are claiming that it ISN'T. "Linux is more secure... Not true" Please see the above! "Open Source development is faster.... Not true" Again, please see the above! "OSS development is cheaper... partly true, but since it's unreliable and slower you position yourself with a competitive disadvantage." OSS development is unreliable? Hmm another quote showing you're just a MS sheep and cannot have an educated discussion. "but the mistake the Open Source world has made is in thinking Microsoft would stay stagnant" Oh since when are you the spokesperson for Open Source? I never knew that this was what the open source has been thinking. You seem to be a bit disconnected from reality. "The large problem is really that most open source zealots do not have any understanding of the computer world." Ok this is the best one yet. I'm not even going to respond to such a Bull$ht claim. "The lesson is, never overstate your position." Well then i suggest you DON'T! |
| #5 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 4/25/2003 4:52:04 PM |
|
tgnb - Over the years I have analyzed the problems, and the solutions in the market place, and then choose to develop skills which leveraged available solutions to the problems in the most technically preferable solution at the time. It just so happens that since 1997 I have come to realize that Microsoft is addressing the problems in the manner which I prefer, however the 15 years of experience I have prior to that was largely not with Microsoft products.
I was a very early adopter of Linux dating back to summer of 1992, so it's not as though I have not looked at alternatives. http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=sheldon.711727109%40pv141b.vincent.iastate.edu&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain Now by taking this position that I am some sort of MS sheep because of technical decisions I have made, you are discrediting your own argument. As to your other points... I've never claimed that Windows is faster, more stable, more secure, etc. However, it has been well established that the opposite claim(which actually is promoted by the OSS camp) is in fact not true. So I've taken the tactic of disproving claims, which is interesting when you consider the responsibility of proving claims should largely be upon those making them. Unfortunately the OSS community uses a tactic which I call the "Common Knowledge" attack. That is they just keep stating things over and over again, with no discussion or argument to support the claims, and then simply follow through with "It's Common Knowledge that _____ is the case." This "Common Knowledge" way of arguing has, unfortunately, become quite common in our society. It was not invented by the OSS community, who are largely incapable of such innovations, but it has been greatly abused by them. As far as my claims regarding OSS development practices being slower and unreliable. This is based on anecdotal evidence, personal experience, as well as watching the way projects have progressed over the past 15 years or so. This is largely due to the lack of responsibility, as imposed through the seller/customer relationship. |
| #6 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 4/25/2003 4:55:07 PM |
|
Halcyon - "One day Linux is a threat, and then it's not, and then it is again, but then it's not again..."
Linux was a threat back in 1998/1999 time frame. That threat has largely been neutralized due to the inability of the OSS community to meet claims they were making, as well as the agility of the Microsoft development model in changing priorities. Is the Soviet Union still a threat to the United States to the degree that it was in the 1950's? I think the answer would be No. Does that discredit documents suggesting the USSR was a threat? Again, the answer would be No. |
| #7 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/25/2003 5:44:08 PM |
|
And what if we claimed the USSR was the biggest threat to us TWO MONTHS ago would that have meant we were lying? were idiots? that we're lying now when we say they aren't? (I think George knows they don't exist anymore)
Or does it mean that Microsoft will always speak out of both sides of its @ss, giving whatever story is convenient to the crowd at the moment? Oh, that's right, your analogy ignores the fact that throughout 98, 99, MS claimed it wasn't a threat and has only been acknowledging it as such in the last 8 months. |
| #8 By 7797 (63.76.44.252) at 4/25/2003 7:01:02 PM |
|
sodablue:
"Now by taking this position that I am some sort of MS sheep because of technical decisions I have made, you are discrediting your own argument." I never said that. I gave a VERY different reason why you are a MS sheep. Please re-read my post. Your technical decisions have NOTHING to do with it. I believe i was pretty clear in my language. If you didn't understand then oh well. "As to your other points... I've never claimed that Windows is faster, more stable, more secure, etc." Yes you did. Look here: "Linux is faster... Not true Linux is more stable... Not true Linux is more secure... Not true Open Source development is faster.... Not true" If you claim that it is NOT true that Linux is faster, more stable and more secure then you are by definition claiming that Windows is faster more stable and more secure or at least exactly equally fast, stable and secure. "However, it has been well established that the opposite claim(which actually is promoted by the OSS camp) is in fact not true." If it is so well established you should have NO problem providing us with some evidence. "So I've taken the tactic of disproving claims" You have so far not proven ANYTHING. As a matter of fact. I have pleaded for you to provide proof and all you say in response is "its well established". "the responsibility of proving claims should largely be upon those making them" Correct. See YOUR claim above and prove them. "Unfortunately the OSS community uses a tactic which I call the "Common Knowledge" attack. That is they just keep stating things over and over again, with no discussion or argument to support the claims, and then simply follow through with "It's Common Knowledge that _____ is the case."" Wait a minute.. wasn't it YOU who just used the "its well established" (aka common knowledge) excuse? "This "Common Knowledge" way of arguing has, unfortunately, become quite common in our society." So common that YOU yourself cant stop doing it. "As far as my claims regarding OSS development practices being slower and unreliable. This is based on anecdotal evidence, personal experience, as well as watching the way projects have progressed over the past 15 years or so. This is largely due to the lack of responsibility, as imposed through the seller/customer relationship." You know if you would have said its "less" reliable i wouldnt even have taken any issue. But your claim that its unreliable is obvioulsy not true. If it were then Linux and the rest of the OS software wouldnt be where it is today. Have you used Gentoo lately? Anyway, I can't help a blind man see. Obviously you enjoy not wanting to understand. Ignorance is bliss i guess. You know the funny thing is that I actually use and support MS software and think they have become much better over the years. At the same time however I am openminded about open source. Each side has its uses. Each side has things that are better than the other. Its sad that people like you have nothing better to do than to constantly blindly attack the other side. MS sheep like you are JUST as bad as OSS zealots. ====================================== The sodablue Hall of Shame: "Linux which is motivated entirely from hatred of Microsoft products" "OSS development is cheaper... partly true, but since it's unreliable and slower you position yourself with a competitive disadvantage." "The large problem is really that most open source zealots do not have any understanding of the computer world." |
| #9 By 7797 (64.105.197.82) at 4/25/2003 8:31:45 PM |
|
JaggedFlame:
LOL you are completely disregarding the context of the rest of the posts. You can't possibly be seriously saying that sodablue is claiming that Windows and Linux is EXACTLY equally fast stable and secure? That claim itself would be even more ridiculous as ANYONE knows both OS's have their weaknesses and strenghts and can't possibly be exactly equal in speed, stability and security. By supporting this silliness and ignoring the rest of the post you are pooving to be just another blind man unwilling to see. This post was edited by tgnb on Friday, April 25, 2003 at 20:34. |
| #10 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 4/25/2003 11:08:20 PM |
|
tgnb - "If you claim that it is NOT true that Linux is faster, more stable and more secure then you are by definition claiming that Windows is faster more stable and more secure or at least exactly equally fast, stable and secure. "
LOL! You are too funny. Do you not understand the logic of what you are saying? "Have you used Gentoo lately? " Ok, you obviously don't understand the definition of unreliable when discussing a development methodology. "The sodablue Hall of Shame: " Oh no, now you are turning into sodajerk. rhordjr - Don't have a very strong argument, eh? |
| #11 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 4/25/2003 11:09:29 PM |
|
tgnb - "By supporting this silliness and ignoring the rest of the post you are pooving to be just another blind man unwilling to see."
See what? Your lies? Your deceit? I see everything, that's the problem you have with your arguments... If you can't support your claims, don't make them. JaggedFlame - "Yeah, I'm unwilling to see, right? See what? That OSS is "better"? Generalizing like that is retarded. " That's the core of the argument which escapes tgnb. This post was edited by sodablue on Friday, April 25, 2003 at 23:10. |
| #12 By 7797 (64.105.197.82) at 4/26/2003 12:10:51 AM |
|
lol.. i have no more comment :)
Your Honor... I rest my case! This post was edited by tgnb on Saturday, April 26, 2003 at 00:11. |
| #13 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 4/27/2003 1:16:52 AM |
|
brotherscrim over on /. will help you tgnb!
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=61981&cid=5809658 "I'll bet that a Linux server can beat a Windows server (all else being equal) on speed, stability, security, and efficiency any day." |
| #14 By 7797 (64.105.197.82) at 4/27/2003 10:41:20 AM |
|
sigh!
SomeDork "tgnb: Take the argument yourself -- prove Linux is faster, more stable, more secure... " Why should i prove a claim i never made? I asked sodablue to prove HIS claim! "Linux is faster... Not true Linux is more stable... Not true Linux is more secure... Not true Open Source development is faster.... Not true" Thats his claim. NOT MINE. Now he should prove it. |
| #15 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 4/27/2003 1:00:43 PM |
|
tgnb - Once again... I refer you to people such as brotherscrim over at /.. His claim is not unique, it's the common claim amongst the Linux zealotry.
I simply point out that it's not true. Largely because nobody has proven it to be true, and all the various bits of evidence over time do not suggest it is. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 335 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:23:55 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
