Open Source Alternatives: Weighing the Pros and Cons

Ah, “be cautious and do a lot of due diligence” – yeah, right. How many of them did that when IE arrived as part of their desktops? While they're doing due diligence, why don't they try exactly the same diligence on their existing software as if it were new? I don't see any hint of that in the article.

Then the old saw, “IE has vulnerabilities that cannot be ignored, but with these vulnerabilities come fixes” – so we should prefer the old unreliable gas-guzzler chevy on which every safety feature is an afterthought over the nice new 100MPG safe-as-houses Peugeot 406D simply because these things can be strapped on as afterthoughts? Earth to Jupiter Research: IE was built as a lock-in ploy, not as a secure, general-purpose Internet tool. You can paint stripes over the spots on a leopard, but you will not make a zebra out of it.

And, well, they quote Gartner authoritatively. The only thing the article has going for it is the absence of the usual individual journo-mercenaries.

Rant in full here: http://linux.org.au/~leonb/articles/Damning_with_faint_prais...

Once again, another article asking us to back a $50 billion company who's goal is to take over the internet. Truly mind boggling.

Where are the articles urging us to take an objective look at Microsoft products before using them in a business? Are they just not out there? Or are they just not showing up on lxer.com?

- greg strockbine west hills, CA

If those kinds of articles are indeed out there, I'm not finding them, nor are any readers submitted them to the site.

Dave