Amazing FUD
-
Comments posted to this topic are about the content posted at http://www.sqlservercentral.com/columnists/sjones/amazingfud.asp
-
I can see the next generation of zealots coming over the hill. They're currently conducting the PS2/XBOX debate.
I seem to remember that there was a film about Steve Jobs and Bill Gates that ends with Jobs saying "our platform is a much better technical platform than yours" and Gates saying "you don't get it do you, none of that matters".
I couldn't care less if it runs on AIX, OS/2, Windows xxxx, linux, HP-UX, whatever it was that used to look after a Fairlight CMI, it really is totally irrelevant.
A business has a need. Does the technical solution provide for that need within acceptable financial parameters?
This doesn't just apply to computing. I know an ex-RAF engineer who kept a ancient Phillipsburg junk mail machine going using (I kid you not) gaffer tape and a 1/2" paint brush (a 1/4" was too small and a 3/4" too big). Yes there were "better" solutions but it worked.
With a business head on I look at windows and see
- An OS I can buy in any electrical store.
- An OS that comes with my PC and therefore is familiar in my business environment (I can skinflint on training).
- No shortage of potential employees to look after the OS (the contractor market is flat so employees are cheap)
- 90% of the desktop market is Windows and 90% can't be wrong can it?
- It is relatively easy to use
This is the way that the guy who signs the cheques thinks.
The guy who does the actual technical stuff is regarded with occassional annoyed indulgence providing he keeps things working, but is unlikely to make much impact on the business thoughts above.
-
Without getting into the philosophical question of which OS is "better", I think the number of sites dedicated to criticising Windows compared to those knocking Linux is indicative of the very different approaches and mindsets of the people who use the two operating systems. Any rational person who has used Windows, Linux (or any other OS) for a while acknowledges it has faults, and can identify areas where things could be done better by the vendor.
What amazes me is the almost religious zeal with which Linux fans seem to throw themselves into attacking Windows. It would be interesting to know how many of them have contributed any of the code base to Linux, or understand how complex it is to write even a simple operating system. I guess the people who do the hard work on Linux don't have time or inclination to waste their lives attacking others work, as they appreciate the effort involved. The zealot guys obviously have a lot of time on their hands, so why not use it making Linux better instead of wasting it unproductively? (Draw your own conclusions - those that can do, those that can't just write about it. Apologies to anyone who can do both...)
Curiously, very few Linux bashing sites seem to exist. Is it because people who use Windows tend to be more business orientated than many Linux supporters, and are more interested in simply getting the job done than examining how it's done or on what platform? After all, an OS is a means to an end, not an end in itself for most people who use it. They don't even want to notice it for the most part and don't care what it is so long as it lets them achieve their objectives.
If Linux is as good as Windows, it will stand on it's own feet and triumph spectacularly over Microsoft. And that would be a good thing for all of us, as it would up the bar for Microsoft to make their products easier to use, faster, and more reliable. So we would have two, genuine choices of excellent operating systems which do everything equally well. Sadly, the reality appears to be that most places where it is being adopted do seem to be replacing Unix with Linux - witness SCO's problems - as the port is much simpler than moving Windows to Linux (or vice versa). And you don't have to re-train or rip out your staff and replace them with Unix people. When Linux justifies through productivity gains the cost of upgrading from Windows, businesses will adopt it, just as they did in voluntarily taking on Windows 3.0 instead of DOS. But they have no financial justification in adopting Linux, as they have made massive investment in training, skills, OS, hardware and software that works on Windows.
Linux promoters need to understand that "Free" does not end at the base cost of the OS. They seem to miss this point. No sane business can just dump one OS for another without a solid business case for doing so. And that comes down to one thing : ROI. At present, except in a very few specialised sectors, Linux simply does not provide that.
Jon Reade
Jon -
One reason you see little Linux-bashing is unfortunately simple; Most Microsoft-bashers in the Linux community are literally kids. High school students (and college students too) gladly flame the world for any reason, and they love to flame Windows users. Typical is the ages-old problem of asking in a forum for help with a Windows problem and getting the torrent of "L0ser, you should be running Linux" responses. Which are neither helpful nor on topic...
But, FUD isn't a new problem, and the currnet Linux v. Windows FUD is not isolated. I'm a long-time Novell user, tech, and supporter. Novell lost the FUD battle with Windows, where the outright lies by Microsoft sowed enough of the 'D' to get their toe in the door. The rest is history.
'We' used to have a saying. When the T-Shirts get a free copy, and the Suits read the FUD in the Wall Street Journal, something bad is going to happen.
The bad is choosing products based on FUD presented as fact.
It afflicts all platforms, channels, and industries.
Good article though. We must keep our guard up!
-
...read the article Steve mentioned, and think that everyone's free to speak one's mind.
....and everyone's free not to listen to.
Well, one interesting thing I've read somewhere is that, while Linux is attracting more and more people, hacking attacks and viruses for this OS are growing in number. And there are also bugs and holes in Linux.
On the other side attacks on Windows Server have begun to decline, because of increased awareness of the admins.
When I come across that link, I'll post it here. Was really worth reading
Frank
Soryy, not to cause confusion !!!
Edited by - Frank Kalis on 11/06/2003 06:30:16 AM
--
Frank Kalis
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Webmaster: http://www.insidesql.org/blogs
My blog: http://www.insidesql.org/blogs/frankkalis/[/url] -
Interesting comments. I follow the debate and ran Linux at .7 myself. It's nice, but it's a tool to me and for years, I haven't had the need for the "tool". Windows works for me. I have a laptop (spare) running Red Hat 7, but I don't really have a need for it. Everything I need works on Windows.
I will admit I use Mozilla for mail because of the (current) lack of viruses, but if Outlook was more secure, I'd use that. It just works better. At work we switched to Notes (look for a rant soon) and I hate it because the "tool" doesn't work well.
I just became a manager of a DBA team and I know support Oracle and DB2 with SQL, but I really don't care and see all 3 platforms as equally good at what they do and fairly interchangable. Each has it's strengths and weaknesses.
As far as Linux is concerned, most of the comments above, I think they are true. I do think that *nix is more stable than Windows and the uptimes are "generally" longer, but not always. It's mostly just more mature, most of the patches have already come out and there are fewer new ones. For most companies, however, it comes down to the free "beer" not the "free speech". MS licensing is a real cost. Not necessarily significant compare to other costs, but it's an added cost and for a company like mine, US$3B, 12k employees, it's millions per year, which makes a difference on the bottom line.
Steve Jones
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/columnists/sjones
The Best of SQL Server Central.com 2002 - http://www.sqlservercentral.com/bestof/
-
I work with Windows and we're always bitching and moaning about its shortcomings. But a college professor I know uses Macs in his home office, and whenever I'm there, he curses at his computers as liberally as I.
What I think is always missed in the Windows/Anti-Windows debate is the large scale political and economic issues that will ultimately dictate the direction of future IT infrastructure. In the end, no government will allow the type of control that Microsoft would gain if it were able to extend its monopoly into servers and datacenters and push that monopoly into emerging markets such as China. I have to believe the recent announcement by China to base its IT future on Linux is as much because it doesn't want an American company having its fingers so deeply imbedded in its technological future as it has to do with the dollars spent.
The truth is that when a entity becomes too powerful, other entities rise up and tear it down. How this plays out over the next 25 years I can't begin to guess. But ultimately Windows will be supplanted, or commoditized and regulated like utilities. Not because of techical reasons, but because Microsoft will not be allowed to stay king of the hill forever.
Bob
SuccessWare Software
Bob
SuccessWare Software -
Hey, wasn't there not a similar case. That a big company was split by law? into several smaller pieces. Can't remember the name. Was it AT&T?
Frank
--
Frank Kalis
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Webmaster: http://www.insidesql.org/blogs
My blog: http://www.insidesql.org/blogs/frankkalis/[/url] -
quote:
What I think is always missed in the Windows/Anti-Windows debate is the large scale political and economic issues...recent announcement by China to base its IT future on Linux is as much because it doesn't want an American company having its fingers so deeply imbedded in its technological futureThere is a hell of a lot of truth in this.
You can add it onto the myriad BS reasons why a particular solution is not adopted.
The BS factor applies to all walks of life, not just IT. For example the British Government decided to abandon an aircraft called TSR2, which was a flying prototype in the late stages of development in order to adopt the General Dynamics F111, even though the latter was only a concept.
Fortunately a lot of the technology from TSR2 found its way into Concorde, which in a typically British act of stupidity we've just got rid of.
-
Hey, I saw the Concorde out here at the Museum of Flight in Seattle. Looks pretty cool. Not economical, but everyhting can't be about money. Lots of pride in that there Concorde!
Steve Jones
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/columnists/sjones
The Best of SQL Server Central.com 2002 - http://www.sqlservercentral.com/bestof/
-
Many a time we can see the different groups copies ideas from others,Like Microsoft’s ODBC Standard is copied by Sun as like there on invention JDBC. But in some other cases its bit different if Microsoft is proposing a standard then so called fathers of open source (if there is no other go to combat MS) will go back and will go for a totally different standard.
I will describe here two examples
VML – Micosoft proposed VML standards and all other players disappeared from the seen ,don’t worry no one in this world uses their browsers
Delegates and Event handling
Sun even sued MS for using delegates concept in VJ++ ,but Java 2 event handling is more or less same only
And numerous examples like this .
Mightiness of many Non Microsoft products lies on their, non availability, limited access and the ego of some developers and technocrats that if we are using something human are using then what is the fun in that
regards
john
Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply