Microsoft FUD Watch, 8-24-07
|
Microsoft really cranked up the FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) marketing this week, with open source being a major target. |
First, some commenters have asked for our definition of FUD. Wikipedia has a nice take on FUD as derivative of "Appeal to Fear," which "is a logical fallacy in which a person attempts to create support for his idea by increasing fear and prejudice toward a competitor."
But that definition doesn't go far enough. Our interpretation of FUD includes context—the context in which the statement was given or the context in which it is to be interpreted. For example, Microsoft is making statements about OOXML (Office Open XML) formats that qualify as FUD in the context of a troublesome standards ratification process.
Because of vacation, there was no FUD Watch last week, so we've got two weeks of verbiage to interpret.
Jeff Jones, Microsoft Chief Security Director
What he said:
"For those Linux server builds, I eliminated everything GUI, X11, Gnome, KDE-related, Firefox and all optional client-type application components and just kept a minimalist server with the ability to server Web pages or act in a few other common server roles. In contrast, the Windows Server build includes every shipping component including Internet Explorer, Media Player and similar stuff. I imagine that a lot of people would have expected a stripped-down Linux server to have, if not fewer total vulnerabilities, then fewer High severity vulnerabilities."
Why is it FUD?
Jones has issued yet another report counting operating system security vulnerabilities. The above statement is FUD, because in his security counting, Jones doesn't appear to take fully into account components like Internet Explorer that necessitated Windows Server patches. A quick search at Department of Homeland Security National Vulnerability Database reveals more Windows Security vulnerabilities than cited by Jones when taking into account other components. His methodology page says other components are included. I disagree, but we used different sources for counting security vulnerabilities.
Actually, Jones' whole post is FUD. Its purpose is to create security fear, uncertainty and doubt about other operating systems. Otherwise, why not just offer up a Windows scorecard rather than doing a comparison?
Security vulnerability counting is pure FUD, because the fundamental premise is flawed: Fewer fixed vulnerabilities means better operating system security. Fewer fixes could be sign of poor security research; more fixes could indicate better uncovering of flaws. It's like the phenomenon where crime rates go up when cities put more cops on the street. More cops mean more crime exposed rather than more crime committed.
Jean Paoli and Tom Robertson, Microsoft interoperability managers
What they said:
"When Office Open XML went through the standardization process at Ecma International, substantial changes were made to the specification over the course of the intense one-year collaborative development cycle. This made sense—the members of the Ecma technical committee that developed the original specification invested valuable time and expertise into the process to ensure that the final specification is a robust, complete roadmap for working with the format..."
"The goal of standardization process, whether with Ecma International or ISO/IEC or another standards body, is to refine a specification to achieve a positive consensus around its formal adoption. As such, changes are commonplace, and reflective of the fact that no specification is perfect. With input received from technical experts around the world, the process is designed to improve and adapt the final resulting standard."
Why is it FUD?
Microsoft released a letter from both men— "The Making of an Open Standard"—on Tuesday. The FUD starts with the title and continues through every paragraph. Context is the major reason.
Microsoft is engaged in a desperate effort to get OOXML through the ISO's (International Organization for Standardization) fast-track standardization. The process isn't going well for Microsoft—and a crucial vote occurs in early September. Microsoft has engaged in an aggressive campaign to get the fast-track votes. The FUD comes from a greater context: The voting process has raised a call for the establishment of a single productivity format standard. ODF (Open-Document Format) has ISO certification. One possible outcome: Rejection of OOXML in favor of a standard derived from ODF or something else altogether.
Paoli and Robertson talk like Microsoft will make concessions—that it will work with ISO and the voting bodies to modify OOXML. Hogwash. The primary Ecma standards certification process had been completed before Microsoft released OOXML. The company is going to modify the format now, just as major customers adopt it? Let's be realistic. If Microsoft were to make changes for ISO, what about the standard adopted by Ecma? Supposedly, the body controls the standard. So, what? Microsoft will make modifications such that there will be two OOXML standards? I don't think so.
But Microsoft claims may have their affect. Yesterday, the U.S. vote, which had been moving against OOXML fast-track, flipped around to yes with comments. Other countries are completing their voting processes now.
Windows Server Compare Website
What it says:
"Initial software costs make up only 7 percent of total cost of ownership...Microsoft products are interoperable by design. They address these requirements by enabling interoperability out-of-the-box with software and hardware from other vendors."
Why is it FUD?
This week, Microsoft replaced its "Get the Facts" Web site with one comparing Windows Server to competing operating systems. While Get the Facts really targeted Linux, the new site goes after Unix and mainframes, too. The Website's purpose is clearly to create fear, uncertainty and doubt about other products. Many of the claims are somewhat misleading, although, using semantics, Microsoft could find an angle for their justification.
The TCO cost statement clearly goes after the concept of free, open-source software. But there is more going on here. Microsoft's integration strategy along the desktop-to-server stack means that many businesses will pay more upfront for Microsoft software. Using business intelligence as an example, to get what Microsoft promises, a customer would need: Office 2007, SharePoint Portal Server 2007, PerformancePoint Server 2007, Windows Server 2008 and SQL Server 2008, plus additional Office server CALs and, ideally, Windows Vista. Microsoft's reason for diminishing upfront acquisition costs is more than Linux license costs—there is the comparison to increased upfront Microsoft software costs.
I find fault with most of TCO (total cost of ownership) comparisons the Web site makes. TCO is easily manipulated, in part, because of cost variances depending on size of business or vertical market. More importantly, I've talked to very few IT managers that make operating system purchase decisions based on TCO. Typically, the application determines the operating system choice. Microsoft knows this, as evidenced by the increased desktop-to-server interdependence of its software.
The "interoperable by design" statement is so much FUD, I'm speechless. Microsoft often uses a very loose definition of interoperability. True interoperability is near or full fidelity, which simply isn't what Microsoft delivers for other operating systems. C`mon, Windows Vista isn't even compatible with all hardware; the drivers aren't there, even now.
I spoke with someone today who recently bought an HP All-In-One printer. He chose one with a "Vista Compatible" sticker. But when he got it home, the printer wouldn't fully work. Apparently, there is only a generic print driver available; nothing yet is available for the other functions.
My point? How can Microsoft claim compatibility with competing products, if there are problems with its partners' gear for Vista? I've talked to enough IT managers doing real world integration work to know Microsoft is making an audacious claim, but an important one. IT surveys I conducted when an analyst clearly showed that, in almost every category, IT managers ranked interoperability as their top priority.
Related Posts:
- Desktop Linux is All About Office, Microsoft Watch, August 9, 2007
- Microsoft's Closed Book on Open Standards, Microsoft Watch, July 2, 2007
- The Pointless Office Converter Delay, Microsoft Watch, May 29, 2007
- Microsoft's Integrated Stack Gets Higher, Microsoft Watch, May 18, 2007
- When Is 'Open' More Open for Microsoft?, Microsoft Watch, May 17, 2007
- Vista Security by the Numbers, Microsoft Watch, March 26, 2007
- Microsoft's Open Debate Is Nothing of the Kind, Microsoft Watch, Feb. 14, 2007
- Understanding OOXML and PDF Standards Approval, Microsoft Watch, Feb. 5, 2007
- Closing Up the Open Format Debate, Microsoft Watch, Feb. 4, 2007
- Document Format Wars Go Public and Get Personal, Microsoft Watch, Dec. 8, 2006
- The Pointless Converter Debate, Microsoft Watch, Dec. 5, 2006
- Microsoft's Interoperability Trust Problem, Microsoft Watch, Nov. 16, 2006
- Interoperability: Is Microsoft All Talk?, Microsoft Watch, Nov. 15, 2006
Comments (37)
"His methodology page says other components are included; I disagree, but we used different sources for counting security vulnerabilities.
Actually, Jones whole post is FUD. It's purpose is to create security fear, uncertainty and doubt about other operating systems. Otherwise, why not just offer up a Windows scorecard rather than doing a comparison? "
Okay, so you disagree with him so his post is FUD. In other words, he disagrees with you, so he thinks your post is FUD about Microsoft. Nice!
And now for a generous serving of Chips!
Posted by reflections | August 24, 2007 6:43 PM
What are you talking about reflections? Joe is not saying the post is FUD simply because he disagrees with him.
Posted by Ryannoyed | August 24, 2007 7:23 PM
@Ryannoyed: "I disagree, but we used different sources for counting security vulnerabilities."
This sounds like:
"My source is better than yours so your talk is FUD."
Incidentally, using Joe's definition, Apple's entire marketing is the very definition of FUD. Moreover, badvista.org etc. spread more FUD than anyone at MS. Of course, knowing Joe, it's not surprising that he hasn't mentioned all that.
Posted by reflections | August 24, 2007 7:29 PM
I see what you mean but I still disagree with your interpretation. Jones claims that he included other components while Joe says he doubts it, based on his sources. He's simply challenging Jones' claim; it has little to do with:
"My source is better than yours so your talk is FUD."
Joe clearly says that the post is FUD because it purposefully a makes the other OSes look insecure.
"Incidentally, using Joe's definition, Apple's entire marketing is the very definition of FUD."
Seriously, what is the real definition of FUD exactly? The word is being used so often by everyone that it's losing it's meaning. However, it would be hypocrite to think that Apple doesn't use it too.
"Moreover, badvista.org etc. spread more FUD than anyone at MS."
Again, what is FUD? Here, I seriously think that a distinction must be made between FUD and fanboyism.
Posted by Ryannoyed | August 24, 2007 8:51 PM
"Seriously, what is the real definition of FUD exactly?"
I don't know, but seeing the context in which it's being used by Joe, I'd say, any form of advertising that makes a direct or indirect reference towards a competitor is FUD. AT&T's "network with the fewest dropped calls" is FUD according to Joe's logic because it gives the appearance that other networks have more dropped calls. Apple's contention that Safari is the "world's fastest browser" is FUD. Hyundai's car ads that mention BMW are FUD too and so are Alltel ads that show other networks in poor light. Obviously Microsoft will use a report that shows it in good light. Everybody does it. In my opinion, while Microsoft's patent threats against Linux were FUD, I don't think anything else classifies as FUD.
Posted by reflections | August 24, 2007 9:03 PM
I agree with Reflections - you can't pick up a linux magazine or read a website without some editor pissing all over Windows for security issues. The Linux community has been practicing their own FUD for years. Just because they aren't getting paid to market Linux, doesn't mean its any less FUD or "evil."
Posted by Dave | August 24, 2007 9:23 PM
"Just because they aren't getting paid to market Linux,..."
Lots of people are getting paid to market Linux. Last time I checked, Linux magazines in bookstores are for sale, not for free. And it appears we don't read the same magazines you and I because in those I read (Linux Mag., Linux Pro, Linux Format, Linux Journal, Linux +) there's no "Windows pissing" to be found.
And as I said before, I think a distinction must be made between FUD and fanboyism.
Posted by Ryannoyed | August 24, 2007 10:45 PM
FUD doesn't hit us - free sw hackers - or our programs because they -the programs - and with them we are free.
FUD cannot damage us or our programs because they and we are free.
FUD cannot stop us or our programs because they and we are free.
With free I mean as in speach and as in beer:
Because even when most people(99% of all those who are using free sw now) just stop using free sw because of the FUD then there will be some who will use and develop these software further.
We don't need all this "market share" to make free sw reality.
Because even when most businesses just stop supporting free sw then there will be some guy (or gal) who will like and use and develop free sw further.
We don't need all this "market share" to make free sw reality.
Free Software is not going away.
But think of $$M$$$ : If they close their shop tomorrow - I know very, very well that this is only a Gedankenexperiment - then Winblows, Office, Sql Shit and other "suites" will be just disappear in this minute.
So, Joe, don't waste your time with hunting FUD from $$M$ because we are immune to this forever.
But if you, Joe, are just hunting their FUD because yo know that in the long run it come back and hit them critically then go on.
Posted by free sw hacker | August 25, 2007 1:12 AM
Article titled; "Yahoo and MSN agree to censor China blogs"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/24/wblog124.xml
Posted by Chips | August 25, 2007 2:18 AM
Is Vista less secure than XP ?
Link is titled; "Kaspersky: Vista less secure than XP"
http://www.lockergnome.com/nexus/usrbingeek/2007/03/21/kaspersky-vista-less-secure-than-xp/
Posted by Chips | August 25, 2007 2:22 AM
Chips
There you yet again.
The article is stating an opinion NOT a FACT !!
And even then it was stated by the person doing the "opinion" that it (Vista) was only less secure with the UAC "disabled".
As Ryannnoyed said chips "I understand that every piece of bad news about MS makes you happy but try to show some restraint."
Posted by Neil | August 25, 2007 7:24 AM
Joe , I always want to remind you that you have been using Microsoft Vista since February 2006 and you have no intention to switch to other OS.
Please correct me if my statement is wrong !
Posted by June | August 25, 2007 7:47 AM
Well now the anti ms people can go kill themselves, after reading this article from betanews.
http://www.betanews.com/article/Microsoft_Endorses_Product_That_Turns_Off_Vista_UAC_Nags/1187970563
No more worries regarding the UAC.
Posted by Neil | August 25, 2007 8:07 AM
Chips and the FSF
You had better take a valium after you read the article at betanews, or maybe even before maybe even better !!
Posted by Neil | August 25, 2007 8:30 AM
For those people wishing to download this program http://www.beyondtrust.com/products/PrivilegeManager.aspx
Posted by Neil | August 25, 2007 8:58 AM
Now no one has to turn off the UAC and so now no one needs to pay any attention to Kaspersky and everyone who was using the UAC as an issue against Vista can ...eat my shorts !!
Posted by Neil | August 25, 2007 9:08 AM
Brazil Says NO to OOXML [and India Says NO As Well]
http://avi.alkalay.net/2007/08/ooxml-brazil-says-no.html
Posted by Chips | August 25, 2007 11:44 AM
Brazil Says NO to OOXML [and India Says NO As Well]
http://avi.alkalay.net/2007/08/ooxml-brazil-says-no.html
Posted by Chips | August 25, 2007 11:46 AM
Now oddly enough this link that Neil used;
betanews.com/article/Microsoft_Endorses_Product_That_Turns_Off_Vista_UAC_Nags/1187970563
Looks more like a link that I would have used. Let me cite some QUOTES from the link above;
“Since that time, surprisingly, some of Microsoft's own spokespeople have actually been visibly candid about their impressions of UAC, perhaps partly to help appear sympathetic to the customer, but also because they don't believe themselves that UAC and its "over-the-shoulder" (OTS) prompting method is the best solution to the account privileges problem.”
AND;
“Last June, Microsoft key security engineer Mark Russinovich wrote for TechNet magazine, "Even though elevation dialogs appear on a separate secure desktop, users have no way by default of verifying that they are viewing a legitimate dialog and not one presented by malware. That isn't an issue for [administrator account mode] because malware can't gain administrative rights with a faked Consent dialog, but malware could wait for a standard user's OTS elevation, intercept it, and use a Trojan horse dialog to capture administrator credentials. With those credentials they can gain access to the administrator's account and infect it. For this reason, OTS elevations are strongly discouraged in corporate environments."
So over the passing months, the concept has gone from nice idea (which I myself bought into) to "not the best solution" to something that admins may actually have to find a way to work around.”
AND;
“This leads us back to last week's press release from BeyondTrust, which paints a picture of the OTS prompting system as a security hole in itself: "Distributing administrator passwords to standard users is not a secure solution," BeyondTrust writes. "It places the security decision of which applications to elevate in the hands of the user instead of a network administrator. Additionally, these credentials can enable users to circumvent security policies, make ill-advised system changes, and run or install applications as an administrator."
----------------------------------------------------
Now the Beyond Trust link and download might actually be a decent link, as it might actually do some good. However, what the program actually appears to do is to try and setup the user accounts to work the same way as XP. Why not just run XP?
Posted by Chips | August 25, 2007 2:11 PM
Chips, please take the time to do some research before you comment. BeyondTrust's solution does not turn off UAC with Vista. It only reduces the number of UAC prompts for a standard user. From their webpage: "Privilege Manager 3.5 provides users with elevated privileges when required, enabling a Least Privilege security environment without unnecessary UAC dialogue boxes." The system administrator decides when the user needs elevated privileges. The program does not "try and setup user accounts to work the same way as [in] XP." You can turn UAC off in Vista, BTW.
Posted by reflections | August 25, 2007 3:33 PM
Nope, it'll cost you USD$20 to replace your scatched FIRST PARTY XBox360 disks, as per this link;
http://kotaku.com/gaming/xbox-360/microsoft-offering-replacements-for-busted-discs-249113.php
Quote from the link;
"The "information below" basically says if you own a first-party 360 game that's been damaged, "for any reason", you can send it in and get a new copy sent out to you in 4-6 weeks. "Any reason". Right. Kids, this is as much of an admission as you're going to get from MS that their games and/or system updates are borking your discs.
Sound easy? Nothing is easy when we're talking 360 customer support. Nope, it'll cost you USD$20. For real. [sigh]"
Posted by Chips | August 25, 2007 3:48 PM
The title of the link below is "Windows Genuine Advantage suffers worldwide outage, problems galore"
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070825-windows-genuine-advantage-suffers-worldwide-outage-problems-galore.html
Quote from the above link;
"Late last night we started receiving reports from readers experiencing problems with Windows Genuine Advantage authentication. Users of both Windows XP and Windows Vista were writing to say that they could not validate their installations using WGA, and one user even said that his installation was invalidated by the service."
And from Micro$oft forum themselfs, the link titled; "Validation issues - Microsoft is having WGA server problems."
forums.microsoft.com/Genuine/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=2053834&SiteID=25
A quote from a forum member who recieved support from M$;
Quote; "After several email excahnges with Microsoft on validation problems, I just received this:
Thank you for your response.
I’m sorry to inform you that the Windows Genuine server might be down for few days. I have escalate the issue to our Genuine team, kindly try to validate again on Tuesday 28 Aug 2007.
Thank you for contacting Microsoft Technical Support."
----------------------------------------------------
Wonder if they were using Windows server software on the validation site? Hacked or virus, your guess?
Posted by chips | August 25, 2007 5:49 PM
My favorite feature of IIS is the way it enables secure e-commerce for common people. A good example is the auto-fill "feature" that preloads fields in order forms with the previous customer's credit card and address information. Here at the lock up, we're big fans of that one. Stores running on those damn Linux servers never make it that easy for us!
Posted by Kevin | August 25, 2007 7:36 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/23/business/worldbusiness/23gamble.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&ref=technology
Quotes from the above link;
"Antigua is seeking the right under international law to violate American intellectual property laws."
"But not complying with the (WTO)decision presents big problems of its own for Washington. That’s because Mr. Mendel, who is claiming $3.4 billion in damages on behalf of Antigua, has asked the trade organization to grant a rare form of compensation if the American government refuses to accept the ruling: permission for Antiguans to violate intellectual property laws by allowing them to distribute copies of American music, movie and software products, among others."
"Only once has the trade organization done so, with Ecuador, though Ecuador never actually took advantage of that power. It was used instead as a cudgel to force Ecuador’s opponents to back down."
"“This is all new territory,” said Simon Lester, who worked in the appeals unit of the W.T.O. before helping to found WorldTradeLaw.net, which provides legal analysis of trade law disputes.
Mr. Lester expects Hollywood, the music industry and software makers like Microsoft to press Washington to work things out with Antigua."
--------------------------------------------------
Microsoft and their buddies in Hollywood could have legal competition in the World from Antigua selling their products.
Posted by chips | August 25, 2007 9:10 PM
Just wondering. Do y'all like any company/group that's seen to be anti-Microsoft? Because, it's very interesting if it's true. A nice black and white world where they're either evil (Microsoft and its partners) or not evil (Google, IBM, Canonical, Red Hat, ...). Awwww. That's so cute.
Posted by reflections | August 25, 2007 10:41 PM
Chips
You know the one thing that really stands out from you ... if you lose an arguement ... it's on with the NEXT one, and nothing said any more about the previous.
Nothing stops you does it, you just won't admit it will you !
Posted by Neil | August 25, 2007 10:57 PM
Chips
As far as my links posted, two can play at that game ! !
But at least with my links you get the FULL story, not just bias against microsoft like yours are !!
Posted by Neil | August 25, 2007 11:00 PM
http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/94869
Link above titled;
"Gabe Newell: DirectX 10 for Vista was a mistake"
Quote from the link;
"According to an online survey by Valve Software, only one in fifty players who access download service Steam has a DirectX 10-compatible graphics card and Windows Vista installed. In an interview with heise online, Gabe Newell, president of Valve Software, said that Microsoft made a terrible mistake releasing DirectX 10 for Vista only and excluding Windows XP. He said this decision affected the whole industry as so far only a very small percentage of players can use DirectX 10."
Posted by chips | August 26, 2007 2:14 AM
Chips
XBox 360, WGA, Antigua what next.
Oh ! DirectX 10 this time ... Well ...
One survey does not the world make !!
I myself have a DX10 graphics card (8600 GTS) and I made sure that both my kids had the same, just because one survey in Germany had very little doesn't mean the whole world doesn't.
Talk about drawing a long bow !
Typical of you Chips any survey will so long as it's anti microsoft.
Commiserations for Chips as far as the UAC is concerned, that one less thing that you stir up trouble on.
And by the way it has come to my attention that Linux has a similar thing, why are you never carrying on about that ... Oh ! silly me it's Linux therefore that alright.
One day someone will write about what wrong with Linux and why Vista has the "edge" over it, and that is guys like Chips are constantly looking for things to try and bag Vista (and Microsoft in general) with.
It is very sad indeed that in order to try and make Linux look good, that you find it necesary to go out of your way to bag Vista, talk about an inferiority complex !!
Posted by Neil | August 26, 2007 7:27 AM
This FUD subject is apt for you Chips as YOU are the greatest spreader of FUD that I have ever seen, since I started coming to "Micrsoft Watch" in September last year.
That in itself is a rather large feat not easily topled, but I am not really worried, as you occassionally get caught, the lastest time being the Skype Me episode.
The D part of FUD you seem very good at, deceit/lying, that probably why Mr. Linus told Linux people not to do what you are doing, it's a bad thing that taints other Linux users as deceitful people which they are not, but zealots like you make it seem that way.
Posted by Neil | August 26, 2007 7:35 AM
Although its true that the intelligent conversation and argumentation went to hell, thanks to the shills here present (and it in itself is sad.) Really this is very funny to observe their despairing efforts to silence the opinions against MS.
Chips, you nailed it!
When you place quotations or links that direct to any news or comments adverse to MS (without delivering names) you will be able to bring shills out of the shadows, they will give themselves away, because the principal role of a MS' mercenary is the defence of MS. I mean, they are trying to disguise their irregular behaviour through what might seem an issue between two people but if you avoid to either name them or point them out, they will have no excuse and will be found out. (Although I realise sometimes it is necessary to do so.)
Now I find fewer stimuli in issuing my opinions. So I will begin to paste links or short reviews without having the duty to give an answer. And thus, the objectives will be achieves at the same time: To expose MS and uncover its Shills
Posted by Marco | August 26, 2007 3:25 PM
Marco,
And still you and I reserve the right to respond to something when and if you want to. Many times if I choose to respond, I do it without naming anyone.
Posted by chips | August 26, 2007 4:53 PM
Marco
At least my alter ego name is not "Chips" like yours is ! Or is it Chips middle name is marco.
Because you two are like "peas in a pod".
Posted by Neil | August 26, 2007 7:27 PM
I ran across this blog for you some of you that use Linux on this site.
http://www.newstatesman.com/200708230041
Posted by Repugnant | August 27, 2007 12:28 AM
"When you place quotations or links that direct to any news or comments adverse to MS (without delivering names) you will be able to bring shills out of the shadows, they will give themselves away, because the principal role of a MS' mercenary is the defence of MS."
AAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA. League of Investigative Commenters!!! Microsoft Shill Watch 2007!!
"...but if you avoid to either name them or point them out, they will have no excuse and will be found out. (Although I realise sometimes it is necessary to do so.)"
Ahhh. Sounds interesting. The shills must be shivering in their pants out there.
Posted by reflections | August 27, 2007 6:53 AM
hysteria? Yes...(he,he)
"To think of it another way, if Windows were a department store, it would be one that insisted on periodically rifling through the possessions of every paying customer on their way into and out of the store, and which, through its own incompetence, accused a small but meaningful percentage of them of being thieves on a regular basis. Would you want to give that store your money if there were other viable options?"
http://blogs.pcworld.com/techlog/archives/005256.html
Posted by Marco | August 27, 2007 9:42 AM
"No surprise, really. I mean, Microsoft and FUD go together like stink and... Ahem. Anyway, if you want the real facts about Windows Server 2003 versus Red Hat Enterprise Linux, why not try Linux out yourself? After all, business server Linuxes are never more than a download away."
http://linux-watch.com/news/NS5294337662.html
-------------
Quote..."And thus, the objectives will be achieves at the same time: To expose MS and uncover its Shills (when they respond desperately)"
Posted by Marco | August 27, 2007 10:31 AM