| 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 |
 |
Lies, Damned Lies and Research Projects: Microsoft & Linux | |
|
||
| Time: 13:42 EST/18:42 GMT | News Source: eWeek | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
People love winners. That's why we love research reports: They give us winners. Moreover, that's why companies will lie, cheat and steal to win in research reports. And when they can't do that, they'll hire someone to write reports in which they win. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 299 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:33:29 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 20 (205.238.131.241) at 10/9/2003 2:11:28 PM |
| Of course, MS is the only company that does this, so they are evil, Evil, EVIL! |
| #2 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 10/9/2003 2:51:55 PM |
| Though the article was badly written, it didn't say that, daz. |
| #3 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 10/9/2003 3:00:30 PM |
| Hmm, I wonder exactly how many bucks were paid. Perhaps they weren't so big. Perhaps the research isn't flawed. Perhaps it's a simple matter of, if the results are positive, Microsoft allows it to be released, otherwise they treat it as a bug report go back to work on improving their products. |
| #4 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 10/9/2003 3:32:27 PM |
|
Wait a minute. This was that Steven Vaughan fella who wrote this. The guy who did a comparison of Apache and IIS back in around 1998 and only put 64 Megs of RAM in the box. Then tuned the load for Apache, but did nothing with IIS.
Talk about putting your thumb on the scale. |
| #5 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 10/9/2003 3:50:16 PM |
|
Windows is not VMS, you think those that post news on this site understand the articles they post? I'm not sure there is data to support that conclusion.
Also, perhaps rather than looking at the posting habbits of a few hobbyists, that's right the AW staff aren't paid employees, you should look for something a bit more professional. Like, perhaps, the IDC report that showed Microsoft desktop and server market share grew last year and is predicted to continue through at least 2007. Guess all those MCSEs will be needed for many years to come. With UNIX market share falling more than 8% and Netware more than 12%, I think those admins are the ones who should be worried. BTW, do you consider this article pro-Microsoft? I don't. Funny that a pro-Microsoft site, as you call this one, would post anti-Microsoft articles. |
| #6 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 10/9/2003 4:23:22 PM |
|
"Judging by the large number of Windows vs. Linux articles lately on this site I have to wonder why a pro-MS site like this is so concerned."
I like to stay informed on a variety of issues. If more Linux advocates were informed about Windows, we'd have fewer of these articles to have to debunk. :( |
| #7 By 6859 (206.156.242.36) at 10/9/2003 5:52:22 PM |
|
My favorite line from the article: "SBS 2003 may indeed be easier for a new administrator ... so long as there's no trouble. If there are problems (and which new programs don't have problems?), there's a lot more support already available for the Linux/open-source products. "
What kind of drug is this dude on? MS has, has always had, and probably always will have better documentation and support than Red Hat (or any OSS solution) ever could! This alone discredits the author. Then he goes on to complain that SBS2003 doesn't come with source code... Um, sorry, but how many small businesses (less than 50 people--the size at which SBS is targetted at) are going to need or want the code anyways? Unless they're a programming shop and not the "mom and pop" shop that SBS is targett toward this is so much a non-issue as to be silly. The Anything But Microsoft crowd can't formulate a coherent and logical argument if their lives depended on it, I swear... |
| #8 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 10/9/2003 8:09:00 PM |
|
"In fact, I've heard that if you simply take a Linux CD and place it on the floor (or near a window for good sunlight), it can run without electricity or even a computer."
lmao! |
| #9 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 10/10/2003 12:45:43 AM |
|
#2: It basically did.
Right off the bat, 2nd paragraph, he starts: Who would have thought that a report paid for by Microsoft would say anything else? Not until the 6th paragraph, about half-way through the article does he admit that other companies do it. Classic example of bias. You start out with this fantastical conspiracy about how MS is bullying all these research firms and buying off objectivity, etc. Most intelligent people know this is BS and so he tries to redeem himself with a little off-hand, in parenthetical comment about how everyone else does it -- but nevermind that, let's go back to bashing MS... The assumption you're left with, after reading only that article is that MS is this is evil entity hellbent on breaking down objectivity and competition in a fair marketplace which is BS and completely bias. |
| #10 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 10/10/2003 1:23:03 AM |
| Your problem is that you are reading the article with your bias. Like I said, it was badly written, but it didn't say what you said it said. It said you should expect that of any company, not just Microsoft. That's not anti-Microsoft bias, that an explanation of business. |
| #11 By 135 (208.186.90.91) at 10/11/2003 1:41:17 PM |
| Fourth Question: Why Linux? Why FreeBSD? Why not Solaris or HP-UX? Commercial Unix is more mature, scales better and has fewer problems than Linux or these other free OSes. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 299 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:33:29 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
