Re: Guardian on Microsoft Linux conference

[Paul Jarc]

Dave <dave.cooper@mygaff0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/story/0,3605,1239958,00.html
>> You can understand why Microsoft wants to debunk Linux, but why bother?
>> The IT industry is full of cranks doing "advocacy", and fanaticism is
>> always a bad idea: common sense, courtesy and common human decency fly
>> out the door. So do potential customers.
>
> You're just fudding here. You've just called Linux advocates fanatics
> and then retracted it by having the  'why bother' bit at the front.
> Translation: Why bother debunking Linux when Open Source is full of cranks.

I think you're misreading the article.  He seems to be saying that
*Microsoft* is doing the debunking/advocacy/fanatacism, and that it
isn't even in their own best interests.

>> The reason so many companies use Linux to host websites has nothing to
>> do with "advocacy" and everything to do with the fact that there's a
>> pretty standard software stack (including the Apache web server) that
>> does the job well on cheap Intel hardware.
>
> Payload delivered: Linux only good enough for that cheap web server.

He never said "cheap", and he never said this was the only use.  It is
one of the more popular uses, so it seems entirely reasonable to use
it as an example.  I think the author is closer to your viewpoint than
you think.

> As a side issue here's Phil comparing TCO between W2K and Unix.
>
> "As the whole W2K suite of products matures, the total cost of ownership
> (TCO) will be more in line with those of Unix", Philip Dawson, Dec 2000
> - unquote -
>
> Wait a minute what about all those recent studies that showed that
> Windows had actually *lower* TCO than Linux. And Linux *is* a Unix like
> system. So how can this be.

Even so, many people use "Unix" and "Linux" with disjoint meanings.
Some even go as far as thinking "Unix"==<the single Unix flavor
they're most familiar with>, unfortunately.


paul