Examining Microsoft's recent attack on open source

They consult. They install. They customize. They train. There is money in all of that, especially those who become expert in a product (maybe they wrote some of it).

When I get errors running under Wndows, the message tells me the program failing and instructs me to contact the vendor if the problems continues. 90% of the time, the vendor is Microsoft.

As Linux attracts more corporate users, virii, trojans, etc. will be distributed, unfortunately. You are sure right on here. However, much Linux software is being developed by high stakes companies for profit by excellent programmers. Yes, it's opensourced, but look at what Caldera, for instance, is doing. OpenSource is not necessarily free and products like Volution definately are not.
While I agree that the future won't be determined on low stakes open source, it may yet be on high stakes open source. In fact, I bet there are parts of open source code in Microsoft's current R&D projects and that the amount will keep increasing over time.

Most programmers at MS use Linux to program on . . . how's that for irony?

Here's the bottom line:
Can you imagine your mother or grandmother installing Linux, compiling the kernel, and getting all of her Linux apps to use her new scroll-wheel mouse? Seriously, Linux still can't target the "average-user" without some major useability improvements. The server market is another story...that's why W2K Server sales sucked.

Mmmmm... maybe because it's easier to write for one standard set of hardware, or one application... like a one person business with one computer with one application would be ideal for the coder wanting it perfect....
The more hardware configurations and software features needed, the harder it is to make it work...... IMHO..... oh, and then there are human language differences, the interplay of different software languages, not enough time to make sure that it will co-exist peacefully with every other program ever written.... it goes on and on.....

;>

Todd,

Do yourself a favor... Learn Both. They are both good for different things, and you will enjoy having the right tool for the right job ;>

Sometimes locking up code is good, on a short term profit picture at least.

In the long run, there are many places where the combined symbiosis of the group far outstrips the productivity of any closed shop. When people run with each other's ideas (especially on shared problems to be solved) the benefit as a whole is enormous.

Not every idea can be milked into a profit.

jay

It's true that we humans make errors, and that software, Open Source or Commercial, will have some bugs. "How do you train users [on open source software]? RTFM that DOES come with the program! Ever hear of the help system? It's just as good as MS help systems in many cases. "How do you know the latest fix doesn't have a trojan that sends info back to the company?" You mean like Real Jukebox? How about the NSA backdoor built into Win 2000 for 'national security'? If there weren't people out there searching for the subversion that we pay for, you'd be an unwitting tool every day you use your PC. If it happens anyway, why should I pay for it? If I need tech support, I'll ask the programmers who made the program, as I've always received a solution within 36 hours of asking a good question. I guess M$ would answer my questions too, for $3.95 per minute. They should just use a 976 phone number, so you'd know you're getting screwed before you call... As to a vendor being responsible for the working order of the product because their name's on it? You've obviously never read any of the license agreements that came with your high-priced programs. They ALL say that if the program melts your PC and burns your house down, it's your own fault for using the program.

You claim that making reasonable money in the Open Source arena is just not possible: I think that Mandrake, Red Hat, etc would dissagree. That isn't what worry's me, however. You also state that you won't use any but MS software and that, "If MS produces it, it'll be good."

Blind use/following of any group is bad, be it MS, the Open Source community, or a eye-linner goddess from the "700 Club". Use your mind.

I commend you on your loyalty - not fanaticism - and sincerely hope that 'Office XP' and 'Windows XP' don't disabuse you of your loyalty; MS can make good stuff but, like everybody else, they occasionally forget that they can also screw up magnificently.

I wish you the best, whatever that may be.

I like open source but it is never commercial grade. A lot of inovations spring from the primordial soup of open source but somebody has to make enough money to justify maintaining code and making customers happy. That also is the American way. Not every one likes punk rock either, but that doesn't stop them. Why should we even try to regulate software at all, even Microsoft would lose if it actually happened.

Conceded, It is true that all software ships with bugs. But you have to wait for those service packs and Hotfixes from microsoft. With open source, you not only are able to, but in fact encouraged (if you have the time/skill) to fix bugs when you find them. If you figure it out, post it for everyone else. If it's not the best fix, someone else may use it as a starting point for a better fix. This is how the software evolves and becomes relatively bullet proof. (Try reading some stuff by Eric S. Raymond - the Cathedral and the Bazaar)
As far as security... How do you know that a patch doesn't contain something nasty? you look at the code. you ARE allowed to do that in an open source environment.
Training and Manuals.... You've never seen or used a Man page have you...
and as for making money.... You can sell the apps you develop as closed source if you like, or you can open the source and make money in support, TRAINING and by other means.
Yeah, a lot of coders in open source also have to have "real" jobs. In case you haven't noticed, something you do because you enjoy it is far more likely to put together with quality and care than the things put together under a deadline with a boss type breating down your neck. If you have to meet a marketing generated deadline then the code is a lot more likely to be filled with kludges and shortcuts just to make it work on a few test systems. In open source, the next revision is "released" when it's ready.
Finally, not everyone has the cash to pay extra for the latest and greatest hardware. Personally, I don't have the cash to lay out for most Microsoft products or the hardware it takes to run them, but I still have to get work done. Open source has enabled me to get the tools I need to do my work, and in the process, I am far more skilled at a lot of other things because of the learning experience.

I think you're mistaken and uninformed my friend... I too have been a MS administrator for *well over* 10 years, starting before Windows with MS DOS v.2, and I too appreciate the good points of MS products, BUT this isn't about being in a club, it's about what is best for US, the end users. Should we pay through the nose (and continue to pay yearly, if MS has any success with XP products...) for fairly good, pre-packaged software with its own share of bugs, or use a little innovation, persperation and good 'ol American know-how and use open-source to save our companies thousands (if not millions...) by adapting it to our systems?

As far as programming goes, I don't think ANYONE would program ANYTHING for free very long. Those guys are more than making their share of money for their work, and giving us all a very viable alternative to MS at the same time. I say keep up the good work!!

You must be...since Linux/Unix accounts for over 80% of the web servers on the Internet today... That's a feat MS is VERY jealous of and still can't catch up to... MS is missing out on a LOT of their much advertised licensing revenue because of itand are just now, with Win2K beginning to attack that area...with very ho-hum success...

Linux is to UNIX, as MS-DOS is to CPM/86 (well, except that CPM/86 seemed a lot more stable and DOS was sold, not made available for the betterment of computing).

So, what is the difference between UNIX and Linux?

Has anybody ever considered the fact that whe're all technicians which should all take care of our customers.
Customers are the guys youre boss gets the money from to pay your wages.
This shouldn't be a discussion which os is the best, but what osfits our customers the best.
I do not get into discussions which os is the best, but try to find what knowledge is around in the firm, and try to find a solution which fits them, whether it's Microsoft, Novell (yess the're still out there), Linux, SCO, or otherwise.
Lets all get back to basics, and understand what a customer wants.
This is a really good beginning of a new computer era.

Chad my boy,
Classic trolling here! Were you a part of Usenet's "Golden Age" from around '87 to '95? You have a definite 95 vintage approach here, that reminds me of the AOL baiting from the period.

Wait, you probably don't use Usenet, or theInternet for that matter. These are not from Microsoft, in fact they are not even products!

Well, have fun figuring out the correct adaptor name for PROTOCOL.INI in your boot disk. I've got IPSec tunnels to to build!

--JC

there is a PkZip that's native to Linux. I've got it on my system. Runs pretty well.

... and that my friend, is the beauty of OPEN SOURCE.

If I download a program that is open source, from the author (or a related site) and I discover a bug that I feel is pretty serious, I then send an email to the author, explaining my problem, explaining my system setup.

Couple of days later, I get an update emailed to me by the author, and the author then updates his site with the new bugfixed version.

Not only am I doing this, but a potential 3 Billion other people might well spot a bug (hopefully not 3 Billion bugs!).

See how painless it is, no going to the shop who refuses to give your money back.

'You'll have to take it up with the manufacturer sir, we only sell the product'.
(Thats fantastic product support, you spend $200 on a product and the shop wont help..... would they do the same over a TV?)

No, taking it up with Microsoft and quote 'complain long and hard to the manufacturer'.

You just send a helpful email explaining how the bug happened, what you did to trigger it, and not only will the author send you a copy, he'll probably thank you as well!

So.... what was the point against Open Source again? Am I missing it or are you?

Just a thought (an open source one!)

Comments:
"Are You Out of Your Mind?". Immediately Mr Lowe lets us know that he believes that anyone whose opinion differs from his is obviously crazy. Money is a symbol that stands for work, ideas, and value. These are the pivotal entities upon which civilization is built, not a mere symbol.
He easily forgets that the underpinnings of society were developed by peole who were driven to solve a problem or to explore the unknown. Consider the Wright brothers or Henry Ford who made money but was originally motivated by curiosity and inventiveness. People trying to accomplish solutions to problems faced by all and exploring the unknown is the highest example imho of the definition of humanity and civilization.
Society, like any stable system, requires checks and balances to prosper and continue. Imagine the sort of world we would live in if predatory monopolies ran everything and all systems became rigid and inaccessible. Imagine if Henry Ford had been able to lockdown the right to build, modify, or explore internal combustion powered, wheeled vehicles as a whole. What manner of automobiles would we have today? Governments and economies that have attempted this have all soon failed. The trains did not run on timein Nazi Germany despite the cliche. Control is an illusion that stifles creativity, the source of all so-called intellectual property. Open Source is consistent with the freedom and drive that made this, and all other countries, great. Get real, look around and measure the greatness of any society by whatever standard you like and see how it corresponds in direct ratio to the freedom of it's citizens to explore ideas as they wish in Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Jim

I agree with the basics of what is said. I am not against open source, per se, although it could be easy to abuse in some cases - unless you are a company that can afford legal fees to fight certain things. But, that is probably a small issue. But one thing that is always interesting to me is how people keep touting Netscape as part of this movement and yet, since this open source movement began for Netscape, we have seen the quality drastically plummet.

Open source may be great but it has yet to have a product that captures the market. Netscape has not. Linux, while possibly popular on the server side of things, has still not made it the choice for the vast user market - by far more important if you want a massive paradigm shift in OS usage.

Also, speaking as a quality assurance professional, most of the open source products I have seen (and, granted, I am sure I have seen very few of the total) have poor lifecycle development models behind them. There is a much greater emphasis to do "big bang" approaches or "code-and-fix" methodologies rather than standard software development. I am referring here to software like FreeAMP, Inform, TADS, and various other packages that you can look at on the SourceForge network.

So, again, I am not against Open Source. I definitely think it has its place. But I think there are some cautionary tales that go with it.

You're an idiot.
Just because it's free doesn't make it junk.
Go ahead and continue to "buy" into Microsoft. Most of their products ARE junk.
They have BUGS,BUGS and more BUGS!
Never seen one of his operating systems function properly. BSD, BSD,BSD!!!!!!!!!!!
Don't blame that on cheap hardware cause I've
seen their software fail on the BEST!!!!
Welcome to the real world!!!!!!

Contributing to the downfall of society? Buggy software?? Microsoft is the definition of buggy software. Linux can run on very little hardware but Microsoft keeps layering their products with patch after patch until their software requires gigs of drive space to install. There's no such thing as software that isn't buggy. There will always be software sold and there will always be open source software. Take a valium!

I've used various MS Products for close to 13 years, and my opinion of a lot of MS products is that they're under tested and overly buggy.

As for open source "being a threat to innovation", you're nuts.

Innovation is not something that is doneby a commitee or by a corporation.

Innovation is often the brainchild of one individual who has ro fight to keep it alive in the face of attacks by standardization junkies.

What MS cannot control, it either buys outright or legally steals.

Do some research before trying to pass off MS doubletalk as facts.

As much as i like the idea of compiling Windows ME for free rather than paying for it does sound nice, but whats the point. Im not gonna waste the next 4 years of my life at Southampton Institute doing a degree in Software Engineering to then give away free source code. Its more profitable being a cleaner. Sorry im not the saint but if i make something: You pay for it! or you dont touch. You cant rip the pages from a book in a shop take it home and glue another cover on it can you?. No thanks mr, i dont want this video, just the data strip in the middle. All those people who think that you can just take things for free, Grow up.

Come on now.... Even though Microsofts OS and Office Suites are riddled with bugs, you can be such their not riddled with viruses.

Sorry when choosing my software (and esspecially my OS) would i choose to use something provided by:

A - A professional paid to convert pseudo code into C++ who gets paid

OR

B - A 16 Hacker whos just been thrown out of college for hacking into the college system, who happens to have found this 'dodgy' code from some sort or Dev-x that shuts your computer down on start up?

I choose to have my software - with someone to blaim. Id rather i had a problem with MS Wnidows and got a refund than installed some sort of linux program that some kid upgraded that does nothing.

Id pay green to be able toword process...and do it safely. when you install a version of linux that you got from 'some download site' and you lose everything you ever did. I TOLD YOU SO! HA HA

The Open Source "movement," surprisingly, hasn't fallen into total anarchy as so many other movements, political situations, and lifestyles which were bases on total freedom have. The reason for this is the scientific "rigeur" needed to develop andmaintain the evolution of something as comples as computer applications and operating systems. Microsoft has so long been the anchor point of computing and internet communications, it seems to have evolved a survival "knee-jerk" reaction to anythingthat doesn't ressemble its erstwhile self. It may be fear.
I wouldn't either bet on a complete Open Source revolution, however I find quite amusing that where stability is concerned, many keep falling back on Unix-based BSD to manage enormous filesand information transfers. Yahoo has used it from the very beginning and so, by the way, has Hotmail. So as far as I can see, the only thing Microsoft has sold from the beginning is "Ease"..., ease of use, if you prefer. The day Linux comes out witha universal "app get" on a floppy that reconfigures your hard disk from scratch from partitioning applications it downloads from the net, installs all necessary Linux files, then dumps the DUN that let you connect in the first place, Microsoft hasn't anything to worry about.

Microsoft must believe in Open Source innovation. If they didn't why would they let Hotmail serve 70,000,000 users with a freely innovated and powerful version of BSD?
Unless......... they're also looking for their equivalent of a freebee(SD). In fact, they're making a lot of money BECAUSE of Open Source.

Anyway, on the personal side, I use MS OS's because of their ease of use. I detest jumping through hoops just to perform some banal operation. At the University, BSD is used because of its ability to easily handle extremely large flows of (genomic) information. Personally I liked Windows 98 because of its (I am really going to say this) configuration flexibility, and I even like Win Me for its stability. I'm not into "painting by the numbers" as some freebee-enamoured geeks would say, I just need something that works for me without making me work for it. When I need to type 200 pages of text without having to type as many commands, Windows is it. All OS's have their place. I just don't want to be an Open Source Slave, condemned to discoverbugs and glitches while losing critical operating time to command typing.

If you do not want to 'work for free', don't. How easy was that?
The question, though, was about Microsoft's response to the Open Source movement and its output. That response was, on the surface, blatently incorrect and misleading and apparently motivated by fear. Your response in no way responds to that question, unless you happen to be a shill for Microsoft: one intent on discouraging contributors by deriding their altruism. But let's say you are not: Open Source is NOT about TAKING things for free, it's about co-operation and PROVIDING things for free. But before you start to focus on the apparent naivite of 'working for free', remember that this work is often a bonus to the coder's resume. You could be building your resume during those next four years at SI by focusing your homework projects in Open Source and getting extra credit all around. How naive is THAT?

I can't speak for Linux as such but I use both BSD and Windows (2000, Me, & 98). Both are indispensable to me at work and at home. After getting over my Unix command headache and my MS error message cramps, I can't see any contradiction in learning and using both. Just the learning curve required to manipulate another OS well has had a positive effect on all operating environments in so far as crashes are concerned. In spite of errors, I haven't experienced a software crash is years. Each tool (and that's all an OS is) is best used for the task for which it was conceived. Excuse me, I've got to go pound a few nails with my drill.....

Years ago I had a similar experience with freeBSD. I thought I could just take a chance and install it flying by the seat of my pants, without navigational equipment. Of course I failes, but the fact that I also almost succeeded made me want to inform myself. I was very hard seeing all the stupid mistakes I made. For someone who has never installed Linux or BSD, I highly recommend studying first, on the net because everything is there.

I promise. It's me.

chown jlwallen From_the_Author

Funny that.

Bad applications can take down X though, too.
But I wonder even if Linux had 76,000 apps
like Windows does, whether anything near the
same percentage of them, no matter how badly
behaved, could take down X as windows
apps take down Windows. (And of course
I'm sure many windows apps take down
the kernel with the gui, since everything
is so, um, 'integrated' hehehe.)

Linux exists because of money.
People wanted a non-crappy kernel for less
than thousands of dollars. That's multiple
man years in the 3rd world.

Money == value.
Money does not always == little pieces of
paper.
And as I said above, in the 3rd world, there
really isn't much of the paper around!!!

The case is not closed. Linux continues to make inroads on Microsoft turf. We shall see how it all turns out, won't we.

Yes, it's about money. Linux distributors sell distributions. There are commercial programmers in the open source movement. If people want to contribute their own time to Linux, why should you care?

As a manager in my company, I would use Linux but for the retraining of users. That is a money decision. However, I still consider Linux for servers for its stability and lower cost to implement.

Microsoft programs & OS's are known for their lockups. So please don't defend Microsoft on quality software. The reason why Linux is so popular and is gaining is because it will cost less in the long run to use it. Microsoft has the world on an upgrade treadmill and works to find ways to force users of their software to upgrade. If you don't see that, you have your eyes closed.

I don't really care what you use or do and neither should you worry about what anyone else decides to do with Linux. Linux will improve and so will the programs that run on it faster than Microsoft's own programs.

Microsoft's marketing practices and PR has created a software development model that inevitably lowers software quality. They rush products to market and force other companies to do so just to compete. It's all about money. So when Microsoft says that to support open source is akin to being un-American, what they are really saying is their income is threatened. If Microsoft's products were inexpensive to run, then why is Linux so popular & becoming more so?

This conflict is also about choice. Microsoft crowds out as many other software producers as it can by buying up, smothering or whatever it takes to squashing the competition. Then Microsoft can charge what it wants and then raise the frequency of its upgrade scam.

Let's See if I get this right - If Microsoft created a purposeful problem for me, then I could sue them. If I remember my recent history very well, it took a combination of the US treasury and the combined treasuries of 5 or 10 fairly deep pocketed companies to even have a shot at doing something such as you suggest. And they still might not win. Although the combination has made M$ a little more careful with some of its actions.

Are you really trying to make me believe that if M$ did something wrong that it would be possible to get a settlement out of them? Get real and go read one of those stupid lisencing agreements through and then tell me how much you really think I could get.

#1 they dont promise that the software is good for anything

#2 if it messes up and shuts your business down you have already agreed that they are not responsible

#3 if you don't like it - go away(OK so this isn't in the licensing agreement - but very few software vendors will do more than just cursory support) Good support always comes as a contract and that applies to both commercial and open source software.

PS There are several places to pick from if you want support for open source software, including IBM if I am reading things correctly.

Yes, The world does revolve around money - when you can get a budget for it.

The company I work for works on a pretty short budget string - If I need a program to do something, most of the time I either buy it myself, or go find an open source version of it, or write a program to do it myself -just to get the job done.

There may not be very many programmers/system administrators who will admit to being in my place, but considering that most businesses that hire full time computer people are not in the fortune 500 I'd guess there are a few others in my shoes.

What else should I do? go to some warez site that stole someones product and gives it away? I think not. As long as there are companies that have projects to be done without abudget, and as long as there are computer professionals who value their honesty, the open software methods will continue to thrive.

Unfortunately, if you use MS products you agree to a license in which you don't actually own anything and nothing that happens because of it can be held against MS, so who are YOU going to sue?

It will be interesting to see the results of legal challenges to all software vendors selling customers nothing, and if their product crashes they are not liable for anything. Buyer beware vs. fitness of purpose/merchantability. Interesting concept that someone could actually sue MS over anything ifyou believe in the license you accept when you use their product.

You didn't return your copy of Winsloth after reading the license and finding it unacceptable did you?

If I recall correctly, you can eliminate the BSOD on your own, just get one of those utilities that lets you change it to whatever color you want... :P

Regarding support with "closed source" software... there *are* a few companies which offer stellar, free support for their products. Syntrillium, makers of CoolEdit and CoolEditPro provide fabulous support via phone, fax, email and online forum. Even on the forum, answers are provided by Syntrillium within 24 hours, even on the weekend, andoften its quicker than that!

I work for a radio station and depend on this software for our commercial and station audio production and they have never let me down... makes the $400 we paid for Cool Edit Pro worth every penny!

Also thought Iwould throw in my 2-cents on the OS issue... our digital on-air audio delivery system runs on MS-DOS (GASP)! Its stable and almost never crashes.. a vitally important issue considering we operate un-attended overnight.. The company now offers a "fail-proof" system which runs on WinNT/2k and is soon to be releasing a complete system based on Linux. The long and short of it is, use whatever OS provides the features, reliability and price you need and stop acting like its a religious experienceto choose an OS! Its just a freakin' tool!

If everybody would use something like UNIX, imagine how it would be on a, lets say, HELPDESK? The people there would like to shoot you if you managed to run everything on a "real" OS! End- users aren't capable of learning a character-based OS (the most of them.)! Imagine what sort of problems you will get with new users! (What the f. is Mounting??? ;p) They don't want to put months in learning something, while they don't even know what it is!
So Windows isn't that bad... It's perfect for somebody who doesn't even know what an OS is! (Other words: Nice and easy GUI) And it is easy for an IT prof to provide service and support on it! That's why allmost everybody uses Windows.. Not because it's a good OS! But because it's EASY!
But like you said, windows is a JOKE! I must fully agree on that!
J.Knippels

OK, I flubbed up doing a linux install too. So it took me 3 or 4 or 5 times to get it right.

I spent 2 years installing windows every weekend and running scandisk and defrag nearly every evening(before I began to work professionally with computers). I think I got to spend 5 or 6 evenings actually getting to use notepad. I don't care how hard it is too learn, if it doesn't take itself apart it's easy. If I could have gotten windows to work, I would never have even considered anything else.

It is pretty obvious that open source software is here to stay, and there isn't much that Microsoft or anyone else is going to do to change that. Inspite of the fact that Linux is free companies like Red Hat exist and make money. They created a business model that exploits a need (organization and support of Linux software).

Not all software is open source, and not everyone feels comfortable using it. But, it does represent a choice. Is there some reason we owe all our operating system dollars to MS? Do we all have to use Windows?

Can you honestly claim that all Micrsoft products crash due to inexperienced users and crappy hardware. I have worked and managed production environements for twenty years. Micosofts philosophy is to get a clean compile and then let the user debug. I know of no administrator who will load Microsofts products prior to a SP1 release into a production environment. If they do they deserve the problems they get because Micosoft has shown this pattern since it's existence. Another Microsoft bigot shows his colors and closed opinions.

I use Linux, I'm not stupid. I use the same hardware for Linux and win95/98/2k, yet Linux works fine, windoze is a piece of shit.

I've never paid for a MS product, and I still want a refund. I actually purchased my copy of Linux from a distributor. I doubt they made much money, but there woulda been a few dollars going their way.

There is nothing wrong with free software. It just means the writers weren't capitalist bastards. I also dont have a problem paying for software, just not hundreds of dollars. windoze is worth about $50 at most, for dummy users that can only point and click.

Being that you say free software is bad, and all MS products are great, and no negotiation entered into, then I'de have to say that your IQ is prettyclose to that of a cold glass of urine.
case closed (thats right, I think I have total control over the 'case' too)

You sure your not from MS

My, my, my. You do sound like a MS groupie. You are doing what MS would do themselves, spread Fear, Uncertainty & doubt. Actually, you must mightily fear that Linux and open source will become mainstream for you to argue so hard. Go back to Windoze, keep your head down and let other people make their own decisions.

Yet another Bank of Redmond depositor.

Who in TR proposed or sponsored this article is appealing to the emotions and not the reality of the IT world.

Can you imagine these conversations occurring in clasical forum fashion at a seminar? Like a bunch of children screming at each other becasue the teacher is out of the room.

Does anyone disagree that MSN is the top dog and continues to dominate the software, PC and Internet scene? Linux today at 10% takes no market from MSN and in fact is a bigger threat to Sun than anyone else.

The truth of the matter is that MSN has been, is and will continue to define the IT market. To disagree with what is going on as if it is wrong is like arguing about what you can afford when you have no money.

Just like M$ Red Hat publishes a Hardware Compatability list, listing all the hardware which is supported for the current release. It's available at http://hardware.redhat.com/

Was your high quality hardware listed? If not, did you ask if support was being considered?

Given that so many other people here, and elsewhere, are able and willing to use Linux & other Open Source products, did it occur to you to ask for help? Most support sites have discussion groups where a polite, clear requst for help will elicit dozens of pointers to help you fix your problem.

It's generally hard to get support for anything if one chooses to begin the process by venting that the product is cheap sh*t. Try sreaming and cursing the gate agent at an airport and then asking for an upgrade to First class for an immediate demonstration of why that attitude dooms the user to failure.

Michael.

I have been using MS software since DOS 1.0 and have yet to see a stable operating system. I current have an ASUS motherboard running Kingston memory, an Intel PIII 800EB,IBM 20Meg drive and Plextor CD-RW. All top of the line equipment. I have had to re-install several times, the thing will NEVER shut down correctly. I have constant problems with both the operating system and their MS Office Pro suite.

MS doesn't innovate, it dumps product. Anyone who believes MS has quality products and seeks to keep customers statisfied hasn't tried anything else and is not paying attention to MS's tactics over the past 7 years.

They are nothing short of criminals. In fact, they were convicted by the appeals court! Reality strikes again!

Nathaniel

I have done exactly what you say you don't want to! We have purcheased the source code to another operating system and modified it to our needs, quite extensively.

A qualified programmer or analyst (as myself) can grep their way through code fairly quickly. It's not that big of a deal!

If it were so difficult to find these security breaches with source code in hand, how is it that they are found so quickly and easily when they are buried deep and no source code is provided?

Sorry, I remember the days of the late 70's and early 80's when programmers were part of a community and shared their toys. If you don't want to play with us, no problem. But we have all the REALLY GOOD toys!

Check out grc.com.

It's not that I don't agree with you but actually the discussion was about statements made by MS representatives indicating that the GPL was dangerous, evil, communist and so on.

Sounds like a death rattle to me!

I get a chuckle when Microsoft claims open source stifles inovation.

I can recall when the last time Microsoft added something inovative to their product. Unless you want to count aquiring it from another company.

You know what? I'm sick to death of this garbage fighting over open source and people picking on Microsoft with the ever present chant "they just want more money" MY question is what else is there worth working for, and don't give me that SH@T that money isn't important because it is and it always will be. We're all one big happy family after all but what it seems to me is that the open source crowd wants to completely over take the IT industry. I've got all the respect in the world for open source (more power to the people) and I think it's here to stay. But people pleae let this go and move on to your next abomination for debate. I've got a topic for you: Alien Abductees and the farm animals that love them. Have a great weekend.

I agree with the person that posted before me. That maybe you shouldn't be installing Linux or even posting about it if you can't comprehend it. Red Hat is the closest version of Linux to Windows. I'm sure it's just as resource intensive. That couldbe why the system crashed. I myself run SuSE 7.1 professional and love it.

Rusty,
Capitalism, and people doing things for personal gain, is why this country is so far ahead of the rest of the world, and why we have such a high standard of living, and why you have the luxury of debating open source, instead of waiting in line in Russia for a loaf of bread, or wondering if your last statement was going to be reported to the "Cultural" police in China, who will then throw you in jail for saying something that wasn't politically correct. Parts of the world ARE run "the same way", and YOU wouldn't want to live there...

Socialism has caused the deaths of more innocent people than any other form of government (20 million in soviet union under Stalin alone...), why people continue to espouse and endorse it, I have no idea...

Sorry, dont mean to turn this into a political ramble, but it bothers me to see people endorse something they don't understand, and harms lots of people throughout the world...

The "Worker's Paradise" the marxists have been pining forexists right under their noses, here in America, where the poorest of the poor still have a TV and VCR....

"Most of the best software I've used, and found to be bug-free, was written by a single programmer, who was on top of the whole program and knew what each bit expected of the other."

Big program then was it? Still not buggy once thousands of want-to-be programmers had gotten access to the source code? Sorry, did you forget we were talking open-source. I think you've just given a good reason not to disclose source-code to parties not fully aware of the whole picture.

As far as I'm concerned, open-source has it's place. Generally in building the base of an app or OS to a level where demand requires somebody to become accountable, and the app to be truly sustainable in a commercial environment.

I know the default (perceived) attitude of guys out there is to see MS as the devil-incarnate, but note they are probably responsible (good or bad) for most of your jobs.

Realism-check:

I operate in mixed environments. I have to deal with multiple configurations. I'm happy to accept what they have and then work to enhance it. If you own your own environment and hate Microsoft, so be it. Go open-source, maybe you have the time to devote to it. If not, then deal with it.

Closed and Open Source has it's place. Stop being pratts and realise it.

"If Microsoft produces it, it'll be good" are YOU out of your mind or do you work for M$?

While I agree that hardware and poor drivers can mess up a system, I cannot give all the fault for BSODs to them as you did.

Windows of any version is buggy by itself. Plus it is quite the secure OS, noting the number of security patches and warnings in just the last month.

Yes, I do use MS software for quite a lot of my work. But I am not blinded to the faults of this software or any other manufacturers.

To summarize what you are saying is MS is good for any ailment, pain, or injury? Sorry if this is a bit harse but it sounds like a line used by snake oil salesmen to me.

What kind of assinign response is that?!?!?! Ever hear of Red Hat or Caldera?!?!?! MS IT, Please!!! I've used their OS for the last 10 yrs as well, on top of the line equipment and it doesn't matter it still crashes!!! MS is on top because of the licensing they did early on and they were at that time the only real alternative, thats changed, and THANK GOD!!!

Where do you people come from, Mars?!?!?!? I used to work for MS until I got a clue, now I'm independant and doing better thanI ever was while I was there. MS has stolen everything they've ever done, show me one thing they've written themselves....thought so!!!

Open Source is going show MS the way to the door!!!

First of all I encourage the use of Open Source. I admit I do use MS products some of them are fairly decent. Despite the occasional lockup and freezes.
Hey maybe your that needle in a haystack who has never had a problem with any ms products. But I assure you. Ask anyone else of the people in this site and they can confirm my statement that Microsoft doesn?t play well with others especially with some of ITS OWN products.
And another thing, people who program open source material does it for the fun of programming. Are you a programmer? Also don't insinuate that open source programmers waste their company's time to do other things then work.
More money doesn't mean more quality. Ever heard of Star Office by Sun Microsystems? It?s agreat alternative to MS Office. Guess what. Its FREE. I don't know about you but I'm tried of upgrading a piece of software from Microsoft and paying for bugs they should have fixed prior to the release of the software.
Next time don't criticize something until you try it.

And if you're not, then yours is the most simple-minded and childish view of the IT industry today, that I have ever had the disappointment to read. What an idiot.

Stop sucking your thumb, drop your teddy-bear, and get into the real world.

Sorry to burst your little bubble, but Microsoft is not the be-all and end-all of computing software.

M$ has created an OS that worked for some time now, but if they 'Opened' the code to the public, many of the loopholes, backdoors, security glitches and bugs would have been seen and closed/fixed by now.

As for "tight code", why are there so manyEaster Eggs in the code? Has the 'cream of the crop' nothing better to than add hidden extras rather than fix its bugs?

Also the Linux has a community feel to it that M$ could well learn from. If you have a problem either with the code or your knowhow, many people are EAGER to help you in various forums.

(I must admit my favoured OS is Solaris, another Open product.)

Blaming Microsoft?s bugs on crappy hardware is pretty stupid. Sure there is crappy hardware, and bad drivers... but ALL problems are NOT related to HARDWARE. That is just being plain ignorant and naive.

FOR EXAMPLE, Microsoft?s IIS is FULL of security bugs sure Microsoft releases security updates and "service packs".

This is UNDERSTANDABLE; it simply comes down to MANPOWER... Open source software has more people going through the source to the software than a CLOSE SOURCE software solution ever will. Hence bugs are found more rapidly.

Saying If "Microsoft" produces it will be good is the biggest crock of #$%#, I have ever heard ? not to mention completely blind product loyalty.

It took them 6 service packs just to get NT4 right. You are talking about a company that is out there to make money, that gets pressure by various companies, etc to release it's software As SOON as possible - this causes them to rush.

I think we all understand the universal truth, that if you rush something.. the quality is not as good as if you take your time. This is just commonsense.

To be honest I am a software whore, I use what ever does the job BEST, and for the least amount of money - this is the REAL driving force of the economy.

Why would I use an Open Source Software solution, say an Office suite, when all my staff is use to Microsoft Office. I wouldn't. It would cost more in training and learning time than just to purchase MS Office - it is the cheaper solution.Why would I use Microsoft?s IIS when it costs a lot of money, PLUS I have to update it all the time because of SECURITY BUGS? When I can use IDENTICAL HARDWARE, use a free O/S, and free WEB SERVER; that does a better job, is more secure and saves meMONEY - it is the cheaper solution to the same problem.

Open your mind people - be a software whore like me - do whatever does the job best OVERALL!

You are just displaying the common ignorance that surrounds open source software. There is nothing that says you must program open source stuff for FREE.

You can create open source software and charge $2000 for it per customer if you like, as long as it INCLUDES the source so people may modify it, or adapt it to there needs.

A lot of people have difficulty with the term "FREE" used in open source software agreements. FREE is for FREEdom, to modify or adapt the source to your needs and provide this FREEdom to other people.

It does *NOT* mean your product has to be FREEware.

If any thing, OPEN SOURCE software is CONTRIBUTING to the exchange of ideas - and in return the development and evolution of society, by the rapid development of new ideas.

For example - I make a new innovative product partially based on open source software - say for example - i use an embedded web server for use in maintenance of some system - which is based on a full blown OPEN SOURCE web server, which I give credit to - and are required to provide the source to under the OPEN SOURCE Software agreement.

Right there, i have just saved not only my company money - by reducing the development of the embedded web server, but more importantlyTIME - allowing my company to adapt faster in the market place - making my company more competitive.

Now, the rest of the system may be proprietary (eg the management system). Yet I am still free to sell my system as a whole for however much I like as well as add services etc, as well as retain IP for the management system.

- o0 (Continuted in part TWO)

Now this company, makes enhancements to the web server - because it is needed in there use of the embedded web server - and choose to send me a copy of there enhancements - because they would like to easy maintenance between the original version, and there modified version of the embedded web server - once again, saving them time and money.

I like these enhancements, and decided to update the original embedded web server to include it, and also use it in my product (the management system) -in effect increasing my products value, which I resell to other companies.

Now the company that used my embedded web server - is not only benefiting from using the embedded web server in there product - they have also improved a product they are receiving from me - which in effect is reducing there "maintenance costs" for an unrelated part of there business - saving them more money and time.

Then the cycle repeats it's self... Both companies can STILL feed their families; have rapidly IMPROVED both products by (as a side effect) working together (something which is usually impossible for closed source software).

IBM's web sphere suite of products is a good example of the GOOD use of this system (there web server is based on the open source software web server apache).

When will people learn, than in-between black and white - There is this HUGE area called "grey". This is where most of the good stuff is.

It is not as simple as "you pay MONEY for this, you get that". Money may drive the world. But the dollar is not the only currency in which payments can be made.

- o0 (YAY!! the end ! :)

Haha, I have to agree with you here. If a user started using any O/S other than a microsoft one they from a clean SLATE is that most other O/S creators conform to a thing called "standards" that are used in the real world. This is why they MAKE SENSE logically.

Microsoft have a history of creating there own standards that conflict with real world standards. This is probabbly why most MS people have trouble adapting to other O/S's.

I have heard many a WIN32 programmer refering to the WIN32API as the ultimate adventure game with many puzzles to solve. :)

(these little quirks are bugs - they have got stuck there for compatibility reasons)

- o0

I have been using Microsoft software for over 10 years also and wish there was an alternative that businesses would use. You are obviously brainwashed by Microsucks! Microsoft is not out to help anyone but themselves. Yes they employ lots of people but they also work the average employee to death, unless you are one of the chosen few, you are disposable. They write bad code with an enormous amount of bugs, most companies would either be embarrassed or go out of business if they wrote the crap that comes out of there. They come out with new releases not to make life easier for the user but to make more money for themselves. Now I make a living supporting Microsucks products, but would happily find something else to do if they would either cleanup their act or let some else who could do the job right do it. Microsoft may have started out as an innovator, but now they just steal or buy new technology from someone who is still in the inventive frame of mind.

That last line is true enough but the rest of that was utter rubbish.

Just because its new doesn't mean its better, and it being corporately developed only means it comes in a glossy package and you were probably 'persuaded' to buy it after nothaving asked for it.

The most stable/reliable PCs you can get nowadays are old 486s running Linux. The least stable/reliable PC you can get is a PIV/Athlon running Win2K. Guaranteed! One costs ten times as much as the other. Can you guess which?

The simple evidence is that any application for microprocessors and their OSs in an environment where the system controls life protecting equipment (such as in aircraft, spacecraft, hospitals, all military systems, utility control systems etc.) will not use any technology developed in the last ten years. Nothing of any significant importance whatsoever should ever use any M$ software.

Lord help us of the NATO EWS ran on Windows (and especially Win2K). We wouldn't be here now if it was.Progress for progress' sake! Insane! There are a lot of very gullible people out there and you, NathanieIL, are one of them. M$ are lying to you because there in it for the money and no other reason. Linux developers are in it for the love of it. Inmy experience, money can't buy you the care and attention to detail, the pride in their work, that 'amatuers' have.

I bet you've never used Linux.

Most bugs in Windows apps are cause by Windows itself. (Have you ever used Netscape on Linux?)

Why do you insist on believing that M$ are alright really. They are, to put it bluntly, fascist megalomaniacs trying to secure world domination (and doing a pretty good job of it too).

Their current reactionary approach to the 'threat' of Linux (threat to their huge pile of money and saviour of the rest of us) of enticing people into their upgrade licensing scheme, leasing their software over the internet and making third party software unusable (unless M$ like the company that made it) will force people like you to smell the coffee.

It would be amusing to think of you wasting thousands of $s over the next few years over something that will only give you grief and then have nothing to show for it unless you renew your license to access your own data, if only it wasn't indicitive of the system that is allowing M$ to push the software market into stagnation and influence world politics.

I dispair

You won't bet your meagre bank account on Linux but you are in Windows. What part of free don't you understand?

And it is the very fact that this is going on around us now. That there is this war between corporate greed and idealogical freedom. It is imperitive for everbodies sake (including our great great grandchildren) that Microsoft don't win.

Fight the good fight. It won't cost you your bank account. Just sign the petition and add your voice to those demanding something better from software developers.

Maybe Linux won't win (maybe it will be BeOS or MacOS or even Windows) but it will force Microsoft into producing better software. If they don't, they'll lose! (And it looks like Microsoft may well to oblige me here.)

First off, most of the computing done world wide is not on Microsoft OS's nor on Intel platforms. The world still runs on IBM big blue Big irons and other mainframes, and for the forseeable future still will. Wether Intel or Microsoft are replaced by Linux and AMD doesn't matter 1 iota.
Also for those of you new to computing (since 1980) Unix has been around a lot longer then that and Linux is a Unix clone not a Dos/Windows Clone. (So is the mac for that matter...)
Xwindows was here a long time before windows and believe me an Xwindows session on a Unix server beats anything on an Intel box. Try a ral computer sometime (SGI, Sun, ...) and they all do the internet way better then anything windows.

At home I have a unix machine as wellas Intel games boxes and Mac graphics, publishing and educational machines for my kids. If you want to do real work people get a real computer, if you want to play games get something that runs windows.

MEE

Amen bother, finually someone with some commonsence.

Imagine a scenario where some capitalistic programmers develop a program suite using open source and sell it direct to the customer for $25 a copy.

If open source allows them to keep development costs down low enough AND they are able to promote it so they sell 20,000 copies in a year, they gross half a million.

This wouldn't be much if you had a huge team that spent years on the project. But if it was five people working six months and selling through word of mouth, you could make a comfortable living, especially if they do it again each year.

It wouldn't be Microsoft millionaire type stuff. But for some it would be more than enough, especially considering that it only took six months of development work.

Now, can open source help people achieve this type of result?

If the washer only lasted ten years before needing lots of repairs, I'd buy a new one that WASN'T the same brand as the old one.

If my commuter car, which is paid for, couldn't manage the 300 mile trip but could manage the daily commute without aproblem, I'd keep it for commuting and use the newer vehicle with the larger capacity for the trip. I might also consider renting a vehicle for the cost of a single month's car payment.

And as a matter of fact I do have a 15 year old IBM PC equivalent that I still use to run those programs that can't run on the newer machines. It isn't fired up as often as it was, but it is still used. Nostalgia and variety help.

Of course, to keep up with certain sets of programs, I have gotten newer hardware. The OS and hardware upgrades have severely impacted some programs, forcing me to either buy new software or do without. That type of 'customer service' is extremely frustrating.

Furthermore, given the size of the current hard disks andthe newness of the software I have purchased, I EXPECT to be able to load lots of stuff on the machine and have it function relatively trouble free. Having a two year old software package fail because the OS is slightly different is also frustrating.

Even worse, if you want to keep supporting your old software but are forced to a new machine, you can't get what you need. The hardware and OS upgrade then forces you to upgrade everything else or do without. If you do upgrade, you can face conversion and learning curve problems as well as find that your favorite feature is obsolete.

Call it a different set of philosophies. If it works, and it is paid for, why should I be forced to stay on the 'newer is better' treadmill?

Note that this applies to Microsoft, Linux, hardware manufacturers and any organization that wants me to buy the 'latest and greatest' product. If buying the product has too many auxiliary

> If some piece of Open-Source software
> has a trojan, who is responsible? Who
> are you going to sue?

God forbid people should have to take responsibility for their own actions! There simply MUST be someone to point the finger at eh?

> If MS lets trojans out with their
> software, they open the door to
> being sued.

Exactly how would one go about proving the existence of said trojan(s) in court anyhow?

z_wilsondm@titan.sfasu.edu

Sometimes what is obvious to one set of people isn't obvious to the rest of the population. When you see that happening, you have to state the 'obvious' in order to get people to think about things.

I wouldn't write Linux off completely though.While numbers don't lie, they also don't consider future conditions.

One future condition would be Microsoft making a huge mistake in their marketing. While unlikely, it isn't impossible.

Another future condition would be improving Linux so that it is as user friendly as various MS products. That, I believe, is inevitable and can eliminate one of the perceived weaknesses of Linux.

A third future condition that can skew things is IBM's support of both Open Source and Linux. While IBMdoesn't have the power it used to have, it can still turn heads as far as the IT world is concerned.

A fourth future condition is the increasing use of Linux in the academic environment. As future IT workers learn about yet another OS, they increase the odds that the OS will have support. And if they have a choice between a 'free' OS and one that costs money, they might choose the free one. (They may also pirate the other OS unless there are real risks of trouble due to privacy.)