Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||
Analysis of 'Microsoft Windows or Linux?' pamphlet
Con Zymaris takes
a look at a pamphlet prepared by Microsoft and aimed at corporate and
government Information Technology executives, as part of the company's
anti-Linux campaign.
(Log in to post comments)
This sort of advert is counterproductive... Posted Aug 21, 2003 22:06 UTC (Thu) by ctg (subscriber, #3459) [Link] ...It simply says "We take Linux seriously, so should you".Nobody really believes this sort of advert. You look at each point and think - well, the truth must be different...
Analysis of 'Microsoft Windows or Linux?' pamphlet Posted Aug 22, 2003 0:54 UTC (Fri) by maguska (guest, #14290) [Link] Better Security??
What do you mean by security?
- defense against virus attacks? Can you remember that LOVE-LETTER-FOR-YOU virus in 1999? It was based on a security bug in Outlook. There were so much examples, so I've renamed "Email viruses" to "Outlook viruses", because every of them attacks only Outlook users. Now, after they (MS) had to precede Blaster in doing something with windowsupdate.com, I can declare that they aren'n on top of the job. There are only some viruses can infect Linux, and they're almost harmless if you avoid running them as root. Installing from only source code, it is absolutely evitable.
- stability? According to my experiences, I had to reboot linux 2 times for stability reasons: first, when I damaged /etc/fstab, second, when I left bug in my self-made program, allocated to much memory without freeing it, and I decided not to wait for swapper to allocate memory for a new terminal in which I can kill it. (Both were my mistakes..) But in windows.. huh.. :)
Maguska ps: sorry for grammatical mistakes Windows is a trademark of Microsoft (and I think www.windowsupdate.com also..)
Analysis of 'Microsoft Windows or Linux?' pamphlet Posted Aug 22, 2003 9:35 UTC (Fri) by jeroen (subscriber, #12372) [Link] "Windows" isn't a trademark of Microsoft, it's just an ordinary word. They only have a trademark on "MS Windows." There also isn't any legel requirement for trademark acknowledgements.
Analysis of 'Microsoft Windows or Linux?' pamphlet Posted Aug 22, 2003 4:31 UTC (Fri) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link] Advertisied comparisons in a nutshellOur product is better Example: 1. Put one bottle of ketchup in a refrigerator, and the other in an oven (not too hot or too cold to crack the glass.) Make sure your product is in the refrigerator. 2. Dump the bottles out in front of a camera. While you do, talk about how runny the competitor's product is. 3. Don't tell your customers about step 1.
Analysis of 'Microsoft Windows or Linux?' pamphlet Posted Aug 22, 2003 11:21 UTC (Fri) by mormop (guest, #13775) [Link] At the moment, my broadband connection is timing on 90% of the pages I visit because,in the words of my ISP: Broadband customers may be experiencing authentication failures and slow connectivity. This is due to the recent worm virus outbreak. Customers should read our recent announcement at www.demon.net/helpdesk/announce and take appropriate action. Please note that even if you have patched your system the additional unwanted traffic generated by other broadband users is causing a degradation of service across the entire broadband network. So I feel a bit pissed that Microsoft seems to think it is superiour when their own poorly executed coding is screwing it up for me regardless of the fact that I'm not stupid enough to run their crappy desktop. In the meantime, will all Windows users switch off their machines so the rest of us don't have to put up with it.
Insulting to its audience Posted Aug 22, 2003 14:14 UTC (Fri) by etwilson (guest, #8459) [Link] This sort of propaganda seems doomed to backfire on MS. Anyone in a corporate IT department, who this seems aimed at, would see these "facts" as lies and/or exagerations. Since most IT departments have spent the last week patching and patching their Windows boxes to protect them from the latest worm or virus, I don't think that you are going to convince them of Windows security or reliability. And the last point about having to write your own drivers is just bizare; any modern Linux distribution has just as good or better hardware support than Windows. I've installed various versions of Windows over fifty times and have always had to find and install third party drivers to get the thing work.I could go on but my point is that marketing attempts like this are insulting to the people that they are aimed at. It just seems to me that insulting the intelligence of professionals who are in the position to make multi-million dollar purchasing desisions about your product seems pretty dumb.
Insulting to its audience Posted Aug 22, 2003 14:35 UTC (Fri) by cpm (subscriber, #3554) [Link] I don't think it will "backfire" at all.It's a simple statement by Microsoft. They've said it all before, they This is the sort of thing that folks who sell and administer Microsoft The analysis points to relative cost. The only thing that amazes me is Someone who has only used 95/98 in a small office network will be just as The way these so-called costs are weighted are imho pretty meaningless.
Missing the last line? Posted Aug 22, 2003 14:36 UTC (Fri) by Liefting (subscriber, #8466) [Link] I seem to be missing an additional line at the end of this analysis. They should haveadded: Furthermore, Linux incorporates the drivers of these 400 hardware manufacturers in the kernel itself, which means that after a basic installation, all your hardware is automatically detected and configured. In contrast, a Microsoft Operating System typically requires you to feed a number of hardware driver CDs, or spend over an hour browsing the internet to collect these drivers in absence of the CDs, after the basic installation. Because of this, a Linux installation is actually considered *easier* than a Windows installation. - Wouter.
|
|||||||||||