Re: For those in need of some amusement.....

[Bruce Smith <bruce@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> >  http://www.microsoft.com/ntserver/nts/news/msnw/LinuxMyths.asp
> 
> I'm guessing any rebuttal anyone has ever thought of is currently up at
> slashdot (http://slashdot.org).  I'm also expecting the (pseudo) official Linux
> mouthpiece/PR Guy, Eric S Raymond, to take a reasonably-well-publicized stab at
> this drivel.

I haven't read the /. comments yet, so sorry if my reactions are duplicates.

> I'm not quite sure what to make of it myself.  On one hand, "We have Arrived".

Agree.  My first impression:  M$ is getting nervous.

> Microsoft is taking a shot at Linux.  On the other, it could easily get under
> my skin (like the -1 posts on /.).  These are FLAT OUT LIES (for the most
> part).  And knowing that some people will recite it as Bill's Truth rubs me the
> wrong way.

It doesn't bother me.  There are two sides to most arguments, and most of what
they say may be technically true, but they are only telling their side of it.

> I'd seriously consider selling any MSFT stock if I were you. 

After my recent experiences with the new Redhat 6.1 install program,
I'm inclined to give the same advice about RHS!  If I had the ambition,
I'd switch everything I have to Mandrake, SuSE, or someone else.  But,
that's a different rant . . .

> And shame on you
> for owning stock in a company you (I would assume) morally disagree with.

I've never owned any.   :{)

> I'm going to put on my Prophet hat:  Two years from now, His Billness won't be
> the richest man in the world any more.

I doubt he'll starve.   :(


Anyway, about the article:

* Myth: Linux performs better than Windows NT ...

Given the right benchmarks and test, I'm sure they can "prove" 
that under the right conditions.

And how about a price/performance comparison!   :{)

* Myth: Linux is more reliable than Windows NT

It may be true that there isn't a lot of data to back that up, but
those who have run both know very well which is more reliable.

* Myth: Linux is Free

Back to the M$ argument that Linux is more difficult.
Maybe, until you have to do something like FIX NT . . .

* Myth: Linux is more secure than Windows NT 

There is a lot of articles on the net that say that
this is not a myth.  Personally, I'm not qualified to
compare since I'm not certified on NT.   :{)

* Myth: Linux can replace Windows on the desktop

Because M$-Office 97/2K isn't available?  Who needs it!?!?
If _you_ need it on Linux, talk to Citrix!   :{)

I love this sentence:  (copy & paste)

*  A report from Forrester Research highlighted the fact that today 
*  93 percent of enterprise ISVs develop applications for Windows NT, 
*  while only 13 percent develop for Linux.

My math may be a little rusty, but >>> 106 <<< percent of ISV's ???
Did they use NT to calculate those results?  :{)

--------------------------------------------
Bruce Smith                bruce@armintl.com
System Administrator / Network Administrator
Armstrong International, Inc.
Three Rivers, Michigan  49093  USA
http://www.armstrong-intl.com/
--------------------------------------------