Absurd.
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Bob_Robertson May 01, 2008 3:38 PM EDT |
This writer seems to think that Microsoft has some integrity somewhere under that gruff exterior. Absurd. Microsoft will mislead, misdirect and missattribute at every opportunity. By using "studies" where no actual use of Linux exists, they give their readers no insight into what F/OSS can actually do. It's in their best interests to make F/OSS seem "out of the question". |
| jdixon May 01, 2008 4:10 PM EDT |
> This writer seems to think that Microsoft has some integrity somewhere under that gruff exterior. You noticed. :) I'd say he's in for a surprise if he thinks Microsoft actually cares whether the studies have any validity at all. All they care about is that it influences customers. |
| vainrveenr May 01, 2008 5:10 PM EDT |
Quoting:Microsoft will mislead, misdirect and missattribute at every opportunity. By using "studies" where no actual use of Linux exists, they give their readers no insight into what F/OSS can actually do.Seems clear from Williams' hard-hitting critique of the MS FUD in relation to the questionable server deployment "studies" analyzed. OTOH, what perhaps may be less clear than Williams' critique of these so-called Get the Facts "studies" are perceptions regarding Linux vs. Windows on desktop systems. Note that the key words here are "perceptions" and "desktop systems". Caitlyn Martin addresses with further detail this desktop perception issue in today's piece 'Linux vs. Windows Metrics -- Nothing Is Quite What It Seems To Be' found at http://www.oreillynet.com/linux/blog/2008/05/ It seems that the greater ambiguity with desktop systems rather than server systems of which OS is truly better - cannot be so easily critiqued; after all, these are perceived and conflicting metrics here rather than cited studies and irrefutable facts - cannot be decided upon (or shot down) so readily; some OS metrics on the Asus EeePC Martin gives as an example here weigh differently than others depending upon subjective need/desire of a particular desktop function --- a point readily and continually expounded upon to date here within LXer. ......and Martin makes it quite clear that she (like Williams) will not stand for any FUD from either OS supporter. As she writes Quoting:In the interest of fairness let me disclose where I am coming from: Yes, I tend to have a pro-Linux bias. I also have a bias against hype and B.S. When it comes to my professional life I’m an IT mercenary. If someone wants me to support Windows systems along with Linux or UNIX systems I will gladly take their money and do the work. I also won’t evangelize on behalf of Linux. Why not? In business everything comes down to a cost vs. benefits analysis and there are situations in the real world where a change of OS is far too costly to justify any perceived benefits. There are many situations where Windows or commercial, proprietary UNIX really and truly is the best fit. |
| tuxchick May 01, 2008 5:14 PM EDT |
Quoting: There are many situations where Windows or commercial, proprietary UNIX really and truly is the best fit. Anymore, it's rare where Unix is going to be worth the price. The only time Windows can even be considered a "best fit" is in a shop where it's already entrenched, and the price of migration is discouragingly high. Which is by design, naturally. |
| gus3 May 01, 2008 8:01 PM EDT |
And it leads to a very simple question: What can Microsoft Windows do, that no free/open Linux-compatible product cannot? Exhibit A: ActiveX (with all its attendant security holes) |
| NoDough May 02, 2008 3:20 AM EDT |
Don't know if it's still around, but an ActiveX plugin for Firefox did exist. Why anyone would use it...??? |
| rijelkentaurus May 02, 2008 8:19 AM EDT |
What exactly does ActiveX accomplish that other technology cannot? (Real question, not rhetorical.) |
| techiem2 May 02, 2008 8:20 AM EDT |
Quoting:Don't know if it's still around, but an ActiveX plugin for Firefox did exist. Why anyone would use it...??? I tried to get one of those working once on Dad's comp so I could get him off of IE (lots of his geneology sites use activex junk), but never got it to work right. |
| purplewizard May 02, 2008 12:25 PM EDT |
ActiveX achieves one thing that many other technologies do not. It locks people to the Windows platform. There might be a hole in that statement if the above is correct about the Firefox ActiveX plugin but was that still limiting you to Firefox on Windows? And that lock in to Windows is certainly not something you can achieve with any technology (that springs to mind) on Linux. (For the slow I'm pointing out that if it's available on Linux it can't lock you into Windows:-) |
| tuxchick May 02, 2008 12:26 PM EDT |
rijelkentaurus, it allows remote executables to operate on your system. So it turns Aieee into a prime malware vector. Sheer genius, that. You need a lot of different ActiveX controls; like one to open a spreadsheet in your browser instead of *gasp, the horror* opening a spreadsheet program, and so on. In classic Microsoft fashion, ActiveX requires unrestricted access to the root filesystem. So like all Microsoft's idiotic "features", your only defense is to disable it. You'll read articles that say "Only accept signed, unscripted ActiveX controls from trusted sites!" But that's hooey. You'll still get pwned. Sooo...I'm ok with the Linux way of opening online documents with actual applications like Gnumeric and Kpdf and Gimp and so forth, rather than trying to turn my Web browser into a magic genie that does everything. |
| rijelkentaurus May 02, 2008 12:45 PM EDT |
Quoting: turn my Web browser into a magic genie that does everything. Konqueror actually does quite well for much of that...not ActiveX of course. So the reality is as I thought: ActiveX is UselessPoop. |
| happyfeet May 02, 2008 1:20 PM EDT |
>Aieee How true... |
| tuxchick May 02, 2008 2:18 PM EDT |
Quoting: ActiveX is UselessPoop. Concise and accurate! |
| tracyanne May 02, 2008 2:25 PM EDT |
Quoting:What exactly does ActiveX accomplish that other technology cannot? It provides you with a Microsoft only solution. It can be coded using VB6. It can be easily installed over the web onto Windows computers from a web page. It can provide Microsoft with a sure and certain way of ensuring that Windows updates are updating to Windows computer, as you can only run ActiveX in IE. It's great for injecting viruses. Didn't see your reply TC. Quoting:trying to turn my Web browser into a magic genie that does everything. That incidentally was the big selling point of ActiveX. Remember how Microsoft's wanted to own the web (well they still do actually, hence Silverlight), well ActiveX was how they envisioned do just that, by making the Browser (read IE) the container for everything. In fact Active desktop with Windows explorer fully inintegrated with the browser (actually Windows explorer and IE were to be the same thing eventually), was to be that vehicle. In Microsoft's vision there was to be no difference between the desktop and the Web, the whole eXPerience was to be seemless. Of course their utter lack of security put paid to that, pretty quick. |
| tuxchick May 02, 2008 2:29 PM EDT |
Quoting: In Microsoft's vision there was to be no difference between the desktop and the Web, the whole eXPerience was to be seemless. Of course their utter lack of security put paid to that, pretty quick. Quite right- that was Chairman Bill's big vision, and he said more than once some weird crap about how users wouldn't need to care where their documents were stored, whether it was locally on their own PCs or at a remote location. I'm still scratching my head over that one. Of course they need to care- even if they were on some magical network that was never down, how TF are they going to find their stuff? Sometimes I think he says idiotic things just to watch his audience lap it up like it's wisdom. |
| jezuch May 02, 2008 2:54 PM EDT |
Quoting:Sometimes I think he says idiotic things just to watch his audience lap it up like it's wisdom. I believe it works like this: he says idiotic things and people think "What a visionary! This may sound stupid, but for sure he knows better!". You know, he's a billionaire, after all. |
| moopst May 02, 2008 10:34 PM EDT |
Some of what he says is almost like Chauncey Gardiner in Being There http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being_There |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!