[NTLUG:Discuss] [Fwd: [WTLUG:discuss] Microsoft FUD]

[Jay F. Cox]

oops, as you can see I havent read slashdot today. 
http://slashdot.org/articles/99/10/05/1714254.shtml

Here is the original link if my forward didnt work for you.
http://www.microsoft.com/ntserver/nts/news/msnw/LinuxMyths.asp

And Mandrake's remarks.are apparently at http://mandrake.net 
Here they are for all to see.
------
1.Reality: Linux Makes no Sense at the Desktop. 
      We'll start with this point, since I find it the most amusing one,
personally. I don't think
      they've been paying attention to the world, do you? look at all
the various works that are
      being done by various parties, be it the GNOME camp, the KDE camp,
enlightenment,
      windowmaker, etc. Just because it doesn't act like windows, and it
doesn't look like
      windows, that doesn't mean it's not usable. 
      Maybe they should spend some time investigating how difficult it
is for people to use
      windows before they start harshing on other systems. 
    2.Linux does not provide support for the broad range of hardware in
use today 
      Well, maybe we don't support all the hardware out there, but
because of companies like
      microsoft it becomes increasingly harder to support some hardware
because you make
      people feel they have to hide how everything works. The REALITY of
the situation is that
      linux really DOES support the bulk of hardware out there -
exception maybe being modems,
      since winmodem is about the poorest idea that anyone has come up
with. 
    3.Application support is limited 
      Okay, this is just total crap. Sure, the same applicatiosn aren't
found on linux as are found
      under windwos, but the reverse is also true. I can't use a lot of
the familiar X applications
      under windows, either. So what's your point? You talk about ISV's
supplying software for
      windows (93%) but then you forget about all the rest of us who
don't write software that you
      have to pay money for. Maybe you should investigate this further,
too 
    4.cumbersome nature of existing GUIs 
      Right, you must be talking about windows here. makes sense, it's
difficult to maintain
      windows boxes, so the inverse must be true, eh? ick. 
    5.Linux security model is weak 
      because it's based on the unix security model? that's your
argument? 
    6.a user who needs any administrative capability must be made a full
administrator 
      that's crap and you know it! haven't you ever heard of SUDO? oh, I
forgot, you windows
      people don't really understand permissions delegation if it's not
in a point-and-click gui. 
    7.windows nt security is easy to set up and administer with tools
such as the security
      configuration editor 
      right - this tool is going to keep your box actually safe from
stuff. GIVE ME A BREAK! you
      can't configure all the services that users add onto their system
from it, keeping THEM from
      having buffer overflow problems, etc. PLEASE do some research
people! 
    8.total cost of ownership 
      You never ONCE explain where all these bizarre linux costs came
from. oh, wait, you made
      them up. you didn't bother taking into account all the free help
out there for support, including
      web sites, community, newsgroups, etc. I hate it when people make
up numbers like that to
      make themselves look good. 
    9.Linux needs real world proof rather than anecdotal stories 
      there are LOADS of linux realworld success stories, not just
anecdotes. Feel free to contact
      any of the customers of VA (and now companies like dell, penguin
computing, etc) and talk to
      them for yourselves. don't take MY word for it. 
   10.Windows NT 4.0 outperforms linux on common customer workloads 
      if you don't bother configuring your linux system you're asking
for just as much trouble as if
      you don't bother configuring your windows NT workstation for
testing and benchmarks. I
      would show you benchmarks to prove things the other way, but
microsoft has lots of clauses
      where they don't allow you to publish benchmarks against them,
unlike free software. we're
      not perfect, and we'll admit to it, but we don't try to hide
behind a wall of beaurocracy until
      we have some tailored benchmarks biased against our competitors
before we let some be
      published. 
   11.largest file size is 2gb 
      oh come on - that's a system dependant limit - on a 64 bit system
you don't have this
      problem (and iirc ufs doesn't display this problem als, even if
only read-only ) NOTE: I
      clarify this due to some emails I received. 
   12.swap size limited to 128 mb 
      that's not true with the systems you even tested with (2.1 removed
this limitation iirc) even
      before that you could have multiple swap partitions 

>I'm going to stop here, because I just don't have time to go muhc further than this. I hope that
>microsoft does some more research before they put up more pages like this one. If anyone from
>microsoft is reading this, and wants to explicitly give me the rights to put up benchmarks of their OS,
>fileserving, webserving, SQL server, etc... I'll beat you at your own game. If not, then you're just
>lying chicken behind the same wall of crap you always do. 

>Oh, and to those people owndering why my site is so slow right now, unfortunately I do not a)
>control the bandwidth to my site nor b) can I increase the number of processes that my web site is
>allowed to run at once. if I controlled the machine I would have more luck tuning my server (my
>apologies, I don't get hit from slashdot and linux.com every day). I will likely move my server to my
>current employer thanks to the overwhelming crushing that this article has caused my server to
>take. (nice hideous runon sentance - but I'm no english major, either) 
------

Jay Cox
--
Riches cover a multitude of woes.
		-- Menander