| 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 |
 |
Research Under Fire in Microsoft/Linux Debate | |
|
||
| Time: 16:33 EST/21:33 GMT | News Source: Internet News | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Supporters of the popular open source operating system kernel cried foul this week when Microsoft rolled out research reports that it commissioned from research firms IDC, Giga Research and the META Group that questioned total cost of ownership (TCO) of the open source operating system. <%=GetPoll(84)%> | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 160 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:49:25 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 6859 (206.156.242.36) at 1/9/2004 12:37:33 PM |
| TCO is darn near impossible to fully account for, that's the problem. |
| #2 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 1/9/2004 2:04:21 PM |
|
The headline should read: NEWS FLASH! Dog barks at postman delivering mail to home. |
| #3 By 19992 (164.214.4.61) at 1/9/2004 3:00:02 PM |
|
#2
I wouldn't put much faith in anything Ms. Didio has to say about Linux, she's got a chip on her shoulder about the Linux people right now. After all, IBM has subpoened (sic?) her because of her viewing the SCO code and proclaiming that SCO would win the case based on what she saw. If this "truly independent" review was coming from anyone other than Didio (except Rob Enderle) I might pay more attention to it. This article will be the equivalent of Bruce Perens or Richard Stallman putting out a side by side comparison of Windows vs. Linux (i.e heavily biased and slanted to reflect the authors personal views). |
| #4 By 3339 (64.160.58.135) at 1/9/2004 3:00:58 PM |
|
parker, Didio is also the moron who came out and said she thinks SCO has a great case without knowing how to program... hell, without asking the questions: did SCO actually create and do they own this code, was this code ever open sourced, is this copyrightable, etc....
She's a great big honking moron of an analyst. And of course she wasn't sponsored then either, she was just the only one to say what she had out of four or more analysts, all of whom conceded that they could not make any judgement from what SCO was willing to show them/tell them. |
| #5 By 3339 (64.160.58.135) at 1/9/2004 5:53:46 PM |
|
Parker, we aren't attacking the messenger (well... I am) but what I am attacking is the inanity and idiocy of her analysis, her complete lack of credibility.
I could care less who she is, but everything she says is completely unfounded twaddle... It's much like listening to you. |
| #6 By 19992 (68.69.127.171) at 1/9/2004 7:02:49 PM |
|
Parker,
I'm attacking the messenger since I don't trust her judgement on anything related to technology. She's shown herself to be a fairly incompetent analyst. I wouldn't trust her if the report was favorable to Linux. For me this is not a matter of the reports contents (even if they are skewed), but rather their source. |
| #7 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 1/10/2004 5:23:21 PM |
|
If you want to talk about security exploits and remote vs. local, etc, just look at SecurityFocus.com's archives.
In December alone there were like 22-24 Linux and Linux-related exploits, the majority of which were remotely exploitable. OTOH, there were 4-6 Windows and Windows-related product vulnerabilities (and I'm being VERY generous because 2 of those were Yahoo messenger related). The fact is, vulnerabilities have mostly slowed for Windows (yeah, I know that MS stopped releasing alerts part-way through December, but they haven't released any since because there were no more) whereas vulnerabilities have increased dramatically in Linux. Is MS software getting more secure and reliable? Yes. Is Linux software getting less secure and less reliable? No, it was always that way, it's just that no one was looking at it until recently. |
| #8 By 12461 (66.112.122.56) at 1/10/2004 6:41:25 PM |
|
Why didn't you put the option of voting " Neither "
Cause that is closer to the truth than trying to say one lies less than the other |
| #9 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at 1/11/2004 7:48:01 PM |
|
halcyon, all polls that have ever been reflect what people think. That doesn't make them irrelevant, silly, or useless. It simply means they are a reflection of the thoughts of those who participate. As for skewed results, if you define your domain as the visitors to this web site, then the results aren't skewed, within the specified domain. Of course, with this poll, the sample isn't exactly random nor even gauranteed to be unique, but I think everyone visiting the site is well aware of this already.
As for getting an ulcer, you're the one who brought up the argument. I still don't see why you went to the trouble of even bringing up the poll. |
| #10 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at 1/12/2004 12:14:24 AM |
|
halcyon, it's just like a political poll. It's an FYI to those who come to this site, what the opinions of the site visitors are. Just like saying to all the visitors - so, who do you think will win the presidency in November? It doesn't tell us who will win, but it says what the opinions of the visitors of the site are.
Regarding this poll, I'm a bit surprised that the non-Microsoft folks have so many votes. Personally, I suspect a bit of cookie tampering. |
| #11 By 135 (208.186.90.91) at 1/12/2004 12:18:39 AM |
|
Halcyon - I've been doing this a long time. I've done this on Linux as well as Windows.
"A certain API might even be broken or backwards compatibility may be scrapped or inaccurate in a future generation of closed software. You could re-write your software, but if it wasn't broke why fix it? With OSS you don't have to worry about such things." This statement is unfortunately just so much BS. The only way this will never happen with OSS is if you never upgrade. So you're basically falling into the trap of believing that commercial software forces you to upgrade. No such situation exists in this world. |
| #12 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at 1/12/2004 2:48:20 AM |
| It sounds to me, Mr. Halcyon, that either you aren't a developer or you're one of the best developers out there. Your explanation of open and closed source software is preposterous, since very few developers have the ability to code OS level functions. So, either you're without a clue, or you're one of the few who can write an OS. Most of us, and most companies, can't do that and/or can't afford to do that. It is, of course, for this reason that people pay RedHat (or whomever) for support. |
| #13 By 19992 (164.214.4.61) at 1/12/2004 10:13:19 AM |
|
Most all of these arguements are fairly pointless (except that Didio is an idiot). And seem to make alot of assumptions. Here are the basic facts.
RHEL (any version) will cost more than Windows (on Open License 6.0 - to keep the costs/coverage in line w/ each other) over a period extending beyond one year. SUSE professional is cheaper than RedHat but still costs more for software than Windows. Many Linux distros are free to aquire and MS will never beat them on costs. These Linux distros are viable for use in a business environment. Any corporation that deploys a server (any OS) without having support staff (this includes support contracts w/ other companies) who knows how to configure and troubleshoot the software is doomed. Depending on an organizations needs Linux can be the right way to go, or Windows can be the right way to go. Each OS (potentially) has it's place in an organization. This post was edited by happyguy on Monday, January 12, 2004 at 10:22. |
| #14 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 1/12/2004 11:08:05 AM |
|
Halcyon - "I don't believe you are forced to upgrade, however I do believe that if you don't upgrade then you have limited options when something goes wrong with the underlying system. If it can't be modified, you can't fix a vulnerability or compatibility problem. You have to work around it. "
The same is true with Open Source. Try to take a patch from version 2.0 of fvwm and apply it to version 1.0. You won't get a patch for version 1.0, because the developers have all moved onto 2.0, and well 1.0 is no longer cool and you should upgrade. But anyway, things changed dramatically, so you're doing this patch manually. That is, you're trying to figure out exactly what they changed and then how do you apply it to the code base you're using. Of course at this point, you've now committed development resources in house to supporting something your company did not write. Now instead of being a finance shop, you're a software development shop. With the closed source software, at least you have an option. Most companies like Oracle, Microsoft, etc. support their versions for around 5 years. As such, if it's critical, you will get a patch from them. If it's over 5 years, you may have to pay them, but it will still be cheaper than keeping a development staff in-house to support third party software. "This is basically what "DLL hell" is about"" Depends on the problem. The one you are describing, it'd be cheaper to go out and buy a second computer than to try to fix this problem. The fact also is that the situation you speak of hardly ever occurs. "Ok put it this way. If you're using OSS and you can't or don't want to depend on anyone else for support, you can still support yourself. If you're using closed software then you have to depend on others to support you forever, you're tied to them. You can always depend on yourself, but you can't say the same for others. " Well That's an efficient use of resources... NOT "Sure, MS may be around forever, but we also see that even MS is not supporting all of their products forever, and they're still hiding a lot of info on their APIs, or charging for others, or even hiding certain other APIs/functions. " Ok, so now that your basic argument is failing you resort to making stuff up... "The company I work for is still trying to run DOS apps on Windows 98 as the critical application for most of their employees. " Ok, let me get this straight. Your company wrote an app in DOS, and they looked into what it would take to port it to Windows NT and decided it was too costly. But you think it's going to be cheaper to maintain all this Open Source software on your own, because well... uhh I guess developers will work for free? You're not making any sense. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 160 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:49:25 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
