- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Open-source Apps Losing Desktop battle with Microsoft Corp.
|
|
|
Comments (13)
I have a problem with voting here
I vote "no". :)
Chris, This is a Linux site so I think it is appropriate to vote No for articles that are mostly Anti-linux FUD.
If the article has something new to say incl. anti-linux then I think I would vote Yes.
New in the sense of a different angle or something that the Linux community needs to be aware of.
Lastly, maybe it's OK to have a not too precise criteria for voting. An article that has mix of yes and no's might entice people to look what the hub-bub is about. This message was edited Jun 28, 2004 4:39 PM
Lastly, maybe it's OK to have a not too precise criteria for voting. An article that has mix of yes and no's might entice people to look what the hub-bub is about. This message was edited Jun 28, 2004 4:39 PM
Then maybe the label "worth reading" should be changed to "FUD-o-meter" if that's what it's really measuring.
You all have it correct. It's a vote as to whether this was a worthy read or not (not whether you agreed with it, or liked the information within).
If it was a good story, vote it good. If it was lame (poor facts, useless information, worthless topic) then vote is bad.
The votes have a pretty significant impact on future stories posting (they are weighted by my bayesian story posting filter), so vote carefully. :)
dave
If it was a good story, vote it good. If it was lame (poor facts, useless information, worthless topic) then vote is bad.
The votes have a pretty significant impact on future stories posting (they are weighted by my bayesian story posting filter), so vote carefully. :)
dave
So if we keep voting 'no' to FUD pieces, we'll never have to look at them again. And we can stick our heads in the sand and be totally oblivious to all the anti-linux PR that is being published. Nothing like singing to, living with, and being immersed in, the choir, right?
I don't mind being immersed in "the choir" personally. In fact that's why I came here in the first place. I can't find any place around where I *can* actually get "immersed in the choir", including here. It does nothing more than get my blood pressure up when I read FUD and I don't have that many days left on this earth to be spending any of them with high blood pressure. So I don't mind not seeing the FUD pieces. If I want to see them Microsoft has them nicely collected under their "get the facts" pages.
I think in some way having anti-Linux FUD on a pro-Linux site could be used against us by the FUDsters. I can just see it now in the Brown Book talking about how "linuxnews.com" "agrees" that Linux has a higher TCO than SCO OpenServer and Windows.
I personally don't even go read the articles that I *know* are going to be FUD pieces from known FUDsters, and I don't even vote on them. On the others I vote according to whether they get their facts right or not. Of course that would mean I would vote no on the FUD pieces if I would actually read them. To me, if the information in the article is not factual then the article should get a negative vote. I would vote an article as "not worth reading" for non-factual FUD before I would vote it "not worth reading" for grammar errors.
But that's just me, an overly zealous Linux advocate. This message was edited Jun 28, 2004 5:56 PM
I think in some way having anti-Linux FUD on a pro-Linux site could be used against us by the FUDsters. I can just see it now in the Brown Book talking about how "linuxnews.com" "agrees" that Linux has a higher TCO than SCO OpenServer and Windows.
I personally don't even go read the articles that I *know* are going to be FUD pieces from known FUDsters, and I don't even vote on them. On the others I vote according to whether they get their facts right or not. Of course that would mean I would vote no on the FUD pieces if I would actually read them. To me, if the information in the article is not factual then the article should get a negative vote. I would vote an article as "not worth reading" for non-factual FUD before I would vote it "not worth reading" for grammar errors.
But that's just me, an overly zealous Linux advocate. This message was edited Jun 28, 2004 5:56 PM
void_main,
I understand what you are saying about the inclusion of FUD pieces on the site being used against us. The pure FUD items, like this one, could certainly do with:
1. An LXer editorial comment right up front.
2. Solid, intelligent, refutations in the talkbacks.
3. Voting that does not seem "rigged".
-Steve
P.S. Lisinopril has worked well for my hypertension. ;-)
P.P.S Dave, could you tell us more about the bayesian story filter and its function at LXer? Sounds like a story in its own right. :-) This message was edited Jun 28, 2004 6:25 PM
I understand what you are saying about the inclusion of FUD pieces on the site being used against us. The pure FUD items, like this one, could certainly do with:
1. An LXer editorial comment right up front.
2. Solid, intelligent, refutations in the talkbacks.
3. Voting that does not seem "rigged".
-Steve
P.S. Lisinopril has worked well for my hypertension. ;-)
P.P.S Dave, could you tell us more about the bayesian story filter and its function at LXer? Sounds like a story in its own right. :-) This message was edited Jun 28, 2004 6:25 PM
Hey, this Lisinopril sounds good. I might have to look into it. :)
sbergman27, I brought up the original idea in April.
http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/11783/index.html
I've implemented it and it works fairly well, but has a tremendous amount of room for improvement.
Dave
http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/11783/index.html
I've implemented it and it works fairly well, but has a tremendous amount of room for improvement.
Dave
Chris,
I voted no too. These FUD articles are mostly (still) clueless in their assessment of FLOSS. Indeed, they do get the BP going and in that sense may make FLOSS advocates fight back 'that much harder'.
As for "...not much to show for it..." as the blurb/intro for the article ends, here's a quick one: I overhear my wife talking to her sister yesterday over the phone and I hear the word 'Mozilla' mentioned (I'm 22 yrs. as a elect/tech/PC hacker, 10yrs. IS/IT/SysAdmin where I work, and major FLOSS user and supporter since '94). Of course, my ears perked up and my wife gestures to me and says: "It's Mary (NHRN)...she wants to know what Mozilla is, how to get it, and how to use it...someone at work told her to stop using MS IE...". Of course, I responded with the restrained glee that any NON-overly-zealous FLOSS user who's willing to share their knowledge should have and quickly gave clear concise directions on the how,what,wheres of getting and using Mozilla... "Oh, yeah, you'll LOVE tabbed browsing too.", I mention.... ;) "Tabbed browsing ?, what's that ?", she said.
'Tabbed browsing ?', she said... ;)
Now when the likes of "push the button and make it go" PC users like my wife and sister-on-law are discussing Mozilla in normal 'life' conversation, I sense that critical mass (for alternatives, be them windows app. alts. or FLOSS in general) is either here or fast approaching. Also, I'm witnessing that (here at work, especially this year) windows malware/virii have been forcing a higher-than-normal number of "not for work, but for home" questions from co-workers and their eyes light up with hope when I begin on the usual Mozilla/Firefox/Thunderbird demos at my workstation. People even ask me, seriously, about wholesale switches to Linux. My sense: users (ones I've been in contact with recently) are feeling desperate to protect their PCs. I've never, ever thought of PC users as 'lusers' or clueless. Avg. PC users are more willing to learn (then even I give them credit for at times) and DO get excited and interested when alternatives to MS are discussed.
Keep on, Chris...lxer rocks...my first news stop on the web, always...
I voted no too. These FUD articles are mostly (still) clueless in their assessment of FLOSS. Indeed, they do get the BP going and in that sense may make FLOSS advocates fight back 'that much harder'.
As for "...not much to show for it..." as the blurb/intro for the article ends, here's a quick one: I overhear my wife talking to her sister yesterday over the phone and I hear the word 'Mozilla' mentioned (I'm 22 yrs. as a elect/tech/PC hacker, 10yrs. IS/IT/SysAdmin where I work, and major FLOSS user and supporter since '94). Of course, my ears perked up and my wife gestures to me and says: "It's Mary (NHRN)...she wants to know what Mozilla is, how to get it, and how to use it...someone at work told her to stop using MS IE...". Of course, I responded with the restrained glee that any NON-overly-zealous FLOSS user who's willing to share their knowledge should have and quickly gave clear concise directions on the how,what,wheres of getting and using Mozilla... "Oh, yeah, you'll LOVE tabbed browsing too.", I mention.... ;) "Tabbed browsing ?, what's that ?", she said.
'Tabbed browsing ?', she said... ;)
Now when the likes of "push the button and make it go" PC users like my wife and sister-on-law are discussing Mozilla in normal 'life' conversation, I sense that critical mass (for alternatives, be them windows app. alts. or FLOSS in general) is either here or fast approaching. Also, I'm witnessing that (here at work, especially this year) windows malware/virii have been forcing a higher-than-normal number of "not for work, but for home" questions from co-workers and their eyes light up with hope when I begin on the usual Mozilla/Firefox/Thunderbird demos at my workstation. People even ask me, seriously, about wholesale switches to Linux. My sense: users (ones I've been in contact with recently) are feeling desperate to protect their PCs. I've never, ever thought of PC users as 'lusers' or clueless. Avg. PC users are more willing to learn (then even I give them credit for at times) and DO get excited and interested when alternatives to MS are discussed.
Keep on, Chris...lxer rocks...my first news stop on the web, always...
sorry - I meant keep on _Dave_, at the bottom of my last post...
Arguments in the article
"We ourselves position Office as having the lowest TCO on the market." Switching to open-source productivity tools would cost you plenty in new deployment fees, user training, file conversion and more."
1) open-source deployment fees? Excuse me, but what "deployment fees" are they talking about? Is Microsoft really trying to say that open source fees--whatever those are--are in excess of Microsoft licensing fees?
2) user training? As if MS products do not incur training costs...
3) file conversion? Ah, they admit that their tactics of vendor lock-in cost the customers dearly, and use that as a reason for people to continue being abused by MS. Ironic. Pay--ONCE--the cost of converting your files into a non-proprietary format, or pay Microsoft forever the cost to upgrade the OS and the application needed to read them.
4) More? Of course, the list never ends
1) open-source deployment fees? Excuse me, but what "deployment fees" are they talking about? Is Microsoft really trying to say that open source fees--whatever those are--are in excess of Microsoft licensing fees?
2) user training? As if MS products do not incur training costs...
3) file conversion? Ah, they admit that their tactics of vendor lock-in cost the customers dearly, and use that as a reason for people to continue being abused by MS. Ironic. Pay--ONCE--the cost of converting your files into a non-proprietary format, or pay Microsoft forever the cost to upgrade the OS and the application needed to read them.
4) More? Of course, the list never ends
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
I vote "no" when it really is such a bad article that one wastes their time on it, not when I dislike the topic or the message. Isn't that the intent?