This has to be one of the best threads I have ever read. It has some pretty strong ideas from both camps. Some a little over zealous, but all in all, a very good read. Hell, it even drew politics into the mix.

I thought about chirpping in my 2 cents on the MS -v- Linux debate, but then decided against it. I am still waiting for OS2 Warp to make a comeback!!! Then we will see who is the REAL King. Until then, my typewriter rules!

If you are a good analyst you get the results that the one who hires you want. This is nothing strange, everybody knows that. Look at the estate tax in the US, nobody objected much as it sounded like something rich people payd when they died. But when some lobbyist renamed it the death tax the public oppinion was all of a sudden against it. I know, and you know,that words are everything

If you ask the right questions to the right people in the right way you can get almost any result you want. If you are an even better analyst you get other people to believe that your findings is somehow related to the truth. If you are really really good, you get people to believe that this truth of yours, have some bearing on their lifes, and organizations. This is why companies like Microsoft, IBM, Red Hat and other orders reports from companies like Yankee Groop as part of their marketing strategy.

To be able to do that, you are greatly helped if you have at least some knowledge of what you are analyzing. E.g. I'm sure that the SCO people was very convicing when they showed you their alledgedly stolen Linux code a year or two ago.

With a little more knowledge you would have been able to see through the SCO scam, at least enough feel motivated to do some legwork and actually check the facts like plenty of people including the US legal system have been doing for quite some time now.

You had the misfortune of being discovered being wrong, and as a result, you were made the model for cluelessness. You even managed having the word didiot, referring to clueless analyst in general called after you. I'm sure that hurt, but complaining about it on the net and in the press is pathetic. People will not believe your stories because they feel sorry for you.

You also have to realize that some of your early statments regarding the SCO case have caused actual financial damage in the early stages of the SCO case when people (including me) still believed there was some ugly secret burried in the Linux code. Consultants may have got less work, companies like Red Had may have experienced less sales. Now wonder they had few kind words to spare for you.

Here is a fine example of how an inaccurate, wrong, or biased report can effect a brand, causing catastrophic losses leading to layoffs or worse.

http://www.local6.com/news/4389056/detail.html

It is absolutely vital that these so-called analysts report accurately using up to date data from the best possible sources, and not necessarily the sources that they are paid to use.

Does anyone recall Ms Didio retracting her claim that SCO showed Linux code stolen from Unix? I don't recall reading about it. Given the volumes published about SCO's "proof" by the people who know the code and where it came from, isn't it about time she admits she's wrong? If she already has recanted her opinion I'd love for someone to prove me wrong.

If it was a quote in a blog by one of those extremist Microsoft nutjobs, then everyone would have ignored it. However, the problem is that she has said what she said under the guise of claiming to be an industry expert. Now that everyone and their cousin has irrefutably proven her statements about as factually wrong as anyone can be on the subject (in other words, a lie), it raises a few possibilities.

1) She lied on purpose. Some people will do some fibbing about things they view unimportant, but normal, honest people won't lie about something major that others know about unless they believe they have a tremendous amount to gain.

2) She lied on accident. The problem here is that she claims to be an industry expert. Having been demonstrated incompetent to evaluate important "facts" about an important event to the industry doesn't say anything positive about her expertise. Who's going to pay someone like that to do any "analysis" for them?

3) Someone forced her to say it. She had no choice. Someone was holding a gun to her head. Her family would be in danger otherwise. So, who would be desperate enough to threaten a reporter to invent bad news about linux? Does anyone believe this is possible? I thought not.

The funny part is that Ms Didio doesn't seem to grasp why what she said was wrong, and that any resonable person would think she's gone crazy or lives in Bill Gates pocket. Figuratively, she stood up in public claiming to be an expert on geography and then pronounced the world flat. It is not surprising that she is the butt of jokes, since she did it to herself.

I may have missed the news completely, other than the nice personal bit on "don't be bias".
I'd like to see some OS news...

According to BetaNews, "The overwhelming majority of the Linux and open source vendors and larger developers are intelligent individuals."

Oh, you mean only people like Linux creator Linux Torvalds knife-ripped into Samba creator Anthony Tridgell for trying to reverse-engineer Bitkeeper? (http://www.theregister.c...rvalds_attacks_tridgell/)

Or maybe you meant how OSS leader Bruce Perens insulted Larry McVoy, calling him an ungraceful fool that needs to "shut the hell up"? (http://www.theregister.c...rvalds_attacks_tridgell/)

Or perhaps you were thinking more along the lines how Perens slammed Linus Torvalds, calling him a devisive idiot.

The Linux and open source software communities are comprised largely of biased, prejudiced Slashdotters that sit there as captain keyboards in the mom's basement, insulting you on the internet while posting anonymously.

It's called "freedom of speech".

You may not like it but a few guys named Jefferson, Franklin et. al. thought it was a pretty good idea.

Take it up with them.

Again, these "inalienable rights" do not include tracking someone down at home, hostile calling, intimidation through writing, or threatening them in anyway. We hold these things to be true!

Not one "Free Linux Extremest" (Changed from Linux fan. I am a fan when it comes to RedHat or SUSE, but they are not free.) has condemned these actions. If this were a writer for the New York Post or LA Times regardless of the article, you would be demanding heads roll. Police would be involved.

Do you condemn the threats and the home phone calls?

Neither the post I was replying to nor my reply talked about threats.

There's more proof of your reading ability. Get back to your cats and your pit bulls.

>> Do you condemn the threats and the home phone calls?

I have several times.

And since YOU bring up threats and I CAN read, I'll reply to that, too.

the person I was replying to was complaining about a debate between Linus Torvalds and Bruce Perens and suggesting a lively debate is the same as calling Didio at home.

>> Not one Linux fan has condemned these actions.

Completely false. All the Linux sites have a consistent and continually repeated editorial policy asking these people not to do it.

I believe I have done so 2 or three times below,

and on many public forums, many times starting all the way back with the Machrone incident.

Now that is deflection (projection for you). The original article and all threads should be based on the original article. If anything I was bringing you back on task. And yes it does mention abuse. And if you use google you can find out about the threats. But, you probably don't need to use google as somehow with a handle of "lyinganalyst" I suspect you are one of the abusers.

Stay on task! Spawning a new thread based on a different subject just adds fluff and leads to the reason why no one is reading your past comments.

Still no condemnation... Still? Search the page, the only time condemn comes up as when people are calling for it condemnation and not once does it appear with someone actually condemning it. Don't site a condemnation on another web site. Condemn it here.

You say you have condemned it twice below. Now that is deflection. You use a shell game without a prize underneath. Where exactly is your condemnation. Where? And, condemn the action by saying you condemn it by using the word.

Regards,

Bubba

such a genius.

Again and again attacking me with zero basis for attack, and again and again being clearly, completely wrong.

Never occured to you to search this page (that's control-F, genius) for "excuse" or "calling" or "home" and other such words.

No, of course not.

You can stop projecting YOUR 300 cats onto me now, bubba.

EDIT - I just searched & found one condemnation, from yesterday. So I was wrong, I thought I'd done it twice.

So here- Here and now I condemn people calling Laura at home. Don't do it.

I have NO PROBLEM doing that. I've done it before & will do it again if needed.

> And, condemn the action by saying you condemn it by using the word.

Let me introduce you to a general concept in searching - search for the most general non-noise words first. If those produce too much volume, go to specialized words. Something I learned before grade 8 while using encyclopedias.

Remedial reading 101 time for you.

I actually did search for "no excuse" but you were obliged to use "no-excuse"? Must be time for you to go back and get that remedial education class you keep speaking of... No dash required. Condemning an action is the speaking out against it. And, I do have to give you points for doing it. So, that brings you back to 200 cats. I still like giving you a cat rating.

You give me too much credit that all I want is to prove you wrong. You do that for me. I don't have time to search for like words. And saying no excuse vs condemning something, well lets just say I don't believe the are synonyms. I actually consider no-excuse as coddling.

I am not sure if you call me Bubba because of your upbringing or because Bubba was your school bully. But, I assure you that their are plenty of fine people in the country that go by Bubba. I assure you there is no reason to "flex" and talk about how tough you are in this string. I believe you already, if that helps.

Regards,

Bubba

After I showed all your BS & bluster for the BS that it is that's the best you can do.

snicker ...

Get back to your cats and pit bulls, bubba.
& finish up that remedial reading class someday. You might find it useful.

"Not one Linux fan has condemned these actions"

uhh, excuse me?!

Will do. You IQ and the proof of your IQ are all shown in your writings. I still enjoy the "lyinganalyst" greatest hits. And here they are folks:

* Failure rates on semiconductors does not go up... (do would be better than does, but I'm quoting - back to remedial for you. And, see thread below for the facts on that)
* When you use machines to do useful work that the company was about to throw away how is that a bad deal for the company... (so no warranty, how would the effect TCO? Hmmm!)
* Replace your Hard Drive and you'll be good for years... (Again TCO, how much does that hard drive cost, especially if it is vendor specific - even a 4GB hard drive in a hot plug chassis could cost $1000 from a company like www.ambry.com. Or, you can just wait until you can find one available on www.ebay.com. But, that equals downtime while you wait for the part to arrive.)
* Even if the machine has higher failure rates, so what... (That is pure gold on it's own! This is a TCO string!)

These are all comments from someone posting hatred for a concept that "lyinganalyst" just can't grasp, TCO. It is Total Cost of Ownership. And mostly, I have to say you are costing your company a lot. I wish you luck to not be subject to an analysis inside your company. A spotlight will quickly drop to a painful reality, your misunderstanding of technology does cost your organization money!

Good Luck,

Bubba

The "It called Freedom" rule is a good way to condemn actions below, but encourage them above.

Does your freedom give you the right to infringe on the rights of others?

I agree with you partially.But the real truth is that a majority of the Linux community believes in net hooliganism.Only a handful,like execs in top companies and so on who have little contacts with the community except for business are cultured. From the beginning itself the trend in the open source(to gain a space for themselves), was to repeat lies, and that too forcefully, tactfully and very loudly,hoping that this repetition and drum beating would fool ordinary people to finally accept their lies as truth.Actually they have done nothing,innovated nothing,except trying to reinvent the wheel and that too mostly by shamelessly copying or reverse engineering what others have done years ago. No wonder they are against patents.To cover their total failure in everything and everywhere, they simply do,what comes to them naturally and easily and for which they should be given copyright protection:discredit,intimidate, spread canards and lies against other people and products.

Prove that it's only OSS followers that do that, and you may actually have an argument.

You're more proof that it's not just the Linux crowd that has a fringe element.

No innovation?

Where do you think the Internet came from?

Why do you think MS added Skinning to XP, something Linux had (along with thousands of skins) since the 90s?

Why is MS doing their own bas****ized Linux type development with "Shared Source"?

Oh, yeah, the big New York financial houses are complete dumba**es, to fall for ALL THOSE LINUX LIES. (In case you don't know, ALL the big NY financial firms have large and growing Linux installations).

GET A LIFE. IT'S JUST A FREAKIN OS.

Thanks for sharing.

When GOD puts you in charge of controlling what people should or should not feel passionate about, let us know.

Until then I'm glad I live in a world where people care about different things.

And you're wrong. It's not JUST an OS.

Its' a gift. Crafted by some of the most talented developers who ever lived.

And every time biased, prejudiced people like Didio publish their biased, prejudiced reports about it, they tarnish a wonderful thing.

Go out and establish your own Linux Theocracy.

You already have a list of apostles. The creater of Linux, Samba, etc...

Go, go speak the word. They might listen...

Linux theocracy?

Being grateful for getting a gift, and setting the record straight when the gift is slandered means I want to create a theocracy?

Geeeez ... More proof that the anti-Linux folk have just as many name-calling, argumentative, loose nuts as the Linux camp, if not more.

Thanks to you and your comrade for making the point.

And when god appoints you grand overseer of what people are allowed to be passionate about, let us know.

When it happens happens we will all bow down before you, O great and mighty keeper of the one true flame(TM).

>>And you're wrong. It's not JUST an OS.

It is just an OS. It is a very good OS, built on idea from another good OS. Overall, it is a very strong and secure OS. But, it is built by humans, not gods.

You are correct that there are Microheads who are arrogant about Windows. There are also MacHeads who are arrogant about Macs. But, there are plenty of LinuxHeads who are arrogant about Linux. It comes with the territory. There are now three things you do not talk about in a bar while you are drinking: religion, politics and operating systems.

I didn't listen the first time, so my response is going to be...? Ignore them. [sarcasm weight=heavy] My goodness, it's so simple, why didn't I think of that? [/sarcasm]

She thinks it's bad to get some phone calls and e-mails??? I'm pretty sure if she criticized Microsft she'd get calls, too. From their lawyers!

They called them at home. If you think that is acceptible, please post your phone number and email address. And if you want to face the real fanatics, post your address.

Is that a threat?

All that talk about cats was projection, wasn't it?

No, the intent was to get you condem the act of calling them at home. Something you just won't do. So if you are not willing to do it, put your money where you mouth is... Post your number. Sorry to disappoint you, but I would not call you. I have rocks in the back yard that would provide a better conversation.

Projection? Seriously, look up words before you use them.

You guys need a dictionary... Heres one:

www.dictionary.com

I believe the word you were looking for is deflection. I encourage you to use it instead.

Again, debate is a delicate balance of intelligence and control of emotion. You are showing neither.

I would say you just hit your 250 cat limit. And, I would wager that your neighbors are wondering what that smell is... But don't worry, the Channel 5 news is on the way.

Your hatred is such that you got a handle of "lyinganalyst." You shortly followed by insulting anyone that uses the forum and has a nickname of Bubba. I would wager that with the numbers out on this forum, you probalby insulted somebody. But for me, I will take it as a complement and sign all future messages to you as Bubba. Please get your web site up soon. I look forward to visiting. My understanding is it will be located at the url below...

www.thebackofmycerealbox.com

Regards,

Bubba

Yup, projecting.

And plainly, clearly, wrong, as well.

I've written several times on this board condemning the phone calls at home and the threats.

Do something bold... Step out of your basement and into the sun. I would recommend Military Grade SPF 60 or higher sunscreen. It goes on white, but with that basement complection you have been working on since your late teens, it will look just as your skin looks. To avoid the birds from attacking, I strongly recommend shaking off the potato chip crumbs.

Good luck!

Regards,

Bubba

Hrm, this is a personal attack. Note the rules above.

Sorry to break the news to you, but its not JUST a bunch of radical young linux fanatics or whatver your under some delusion that are out to get you...

I work for a fortune 40 company full of 30-50 something IT professionals, and I can get a whole group of them in the office together and take a poll and at least 3/4's of them will know who you are and will know your nickname. I have heard serious work for a living IT pros in their 40's use the term "didiot" as a description for others its become such a common phrase.

The fact is you earned it, and your going to have to live with it.

Any 30-50 year old IT pro that knows whats really going on knows your a joke and that your company is a joke.

But the real fact of the matter here is, that you have ZERO CREDIBILITY with ANYONE in the Linux community. So, you have NO BUSINESS being quoted by any real journalist in any articles about Linux. If any journalist wants any real IT professionals(I assume thats who their marketing too) to take their article seriously then quoting you is going to make us turn away from their publications.

I get publications like computerworld free delivered to my desk at work every week working at a fortune 40, but if ZD, Computerworld etc.. want us IT pros to keep taking them seriously and keep taking the time to read their publications, they need to stop quoting you, otherwise we are just going to think even less of them than we do now.

I've never really read much of anything from ms. Laura DiDo previous to this, so I came into this... "shouting match?"... relatively untainted.

But I have to say that Han Solo seems to have a point, because when I decided (on a impulse) to check out his claim of "DiDiot" being in common use (on the net), besides the usual detritus that gets dug up, I hilariously came upon a Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didiot), which pretty definitively proved his point.

Not to mention when I looked up the reference to her resume, I noticed that she'd worked for the Tribune in the past, and was able to pull up a few of her articles for my own reference. And was able to quickly form my own opinion.

I should also mention that I too get free ZD publications sent to me and also have the same concerns as he does about taking ZD stuff seriously. (And canceling them, whenever they've fallen to the level of spam. Particularly with examples such as this one to prove out my concerns.)

Basically, this whole thing boils down to one issue, and that's - if it looks, smells, and quacks like a duck, perhaps it really is a goll danged duck for pete's sake. Plus, it's pretty obivious (to me at least) that all this article is, is just another churn to keep the home fires going.

I am pro Open Source, and though I try to use reason versus spite, I am willing to believe some/most of your claims are true.

I just want to say to those that use absurd actions to attempt to debate, you will lose. People will either see right through it or they will be left confused. Let's not forget that even Richard Stallman, Free Software Foundation, suggests that you are not free when the only thing you factor in selecting software is wheather or not it is open source.

FSF is community driven rather than business driven. People helping others for a satisfaction greater than wealth and greed. Receiving optional payments to further development - allowing others to enjoy his/her contributed help/work, rather than being customer drivin.

Welcome and educate all, and be open to others' teachings, don't egg those that disagree - you both don't learn anything that way. That goes for either side. What works for one doesn't always work for another, but if you help others know that decent alternative exists, including how to use the alternatives then they have an appreciaction and a choice. Currently, I like having both linux and windows, I am free to choose which is the best tool for each task.

something to ponder: I'm proud to say I have a legal copy of Linux, and Windows. How many of those OS extremists can say that their copy is legal? I've talked to a number of people with pirated copies of windows.

Great points. Although I think the FSF and Stallman are practically on the fringe themselves sometimes. We had an interview with a top FSF official who refused to speak to us unless Linux was prefaced with "GNU/".

I'm sorry, that is rediculous. They need to grow up.

It might seem rediculous, but they just want credit too... GNU is half of and Linux is half, people are referring to Linux as the whole, which is wrong. I personally wouldn't mind a whole name change combining the two, something simple like GNux or GNix to give both credit. Keep in mind, Linux is just the name of the Kernel, other people have just adopted the name for the whole system.

And this exactly what I was referring to: why call it rediculous and say things such as "they need to grow up." These statements are likely to cause someone come back at you with a meaningless attacks back at you, just cause they disagree. Please understand where I'm coming from.

Let them attack, do you think it would be the first time I've fended one off? You haven't been around that long if you think so. ;-)

The GNU toolchain is very useful, but it's not 1/2 the OS. If you really want to go there, then it should be GNU/KDE/GNOME/QT/GTK/TK/BSD/GPL/Linux

Sounds stupid right? Then you get my point. ;-)

I get your point, I'm thinking maybe I don't know enough to piece it all together find a solution. Maybe a complete name change, one separate that referes to the collection of an OS and GUI and tools, which again. I am under the impression people use the term Linux to refere to all of these when Linux in fact is not. I think I may have hit it on the head now, that there is a lacking term.

Here's how I call it.

Ubuntu Linux is Ubuntu

Peanut Linux is Peanut

RedHat Linux is Redhat

etc.

This gives the distributor credit, and when there is confusion I explain it further so it's understood.

I don't care how much you like or dislike an operating system or an opinion, don't call the person writing or stating the comment. Most people in this forum do not understand TCO /RoIT and should never say that the net cost is $0. All costs are considered, hardware, software, support (based on measurement of average support calls), and people costs (including you, your boss, your insurance, your families insurance, your pension, and the amount of work your aren't doing that costs that organization money. And for those of you using free software and incur downtime because of something working incorrectly and no place to go for support beyond a web site and a search engine, well time (especially cost of downtime) counts against your TCO /RoIT.

I mean there is a guy in the posts who claims using a Pentium II. Really, don't post your comments in regards to TCO if you can't figure out a hardware failure you are bound to have is going to cost you downtime and probably puts you way out of bounds of the study when your technology is your total cost. The states they used free Linux, which again is going to cause downtime. The code for the Kernel is posted to the web, and the Viruses that do exist on Linux or most prevalent on the free versions.

Before you pick up the phone and call a writer of a story at home, get you facts in check. Reality hurts, and your failure to discover all aspects of TCO are not that persons fault.

And before you pick up the phone and call a writer of a story at home, put down the phone and think about what you are doing. You are practicing a Theocracy with an Operating System as a point of Worship. That means you worship an operating system and are willing to destroy anyone that start peeling away your onion to expose reality. Please be honest and label your strategy as "The Crusades." The reality is that your coming off like the "Cat Lady" everyone has heard of that keeps 250 cats in her home while gladly sifting through a nice mix of food, urine, and more. I heard she made phone calls to the people in her neighborhood when they pointed out to officials that the shell of her house was covering something nobody discovered until they dug deeper.

>> I mean there is a guy in the posts who claims
>> using a Pentium II. Really, don't post your
>> comments in regards to TCO if you can't figure
>> out a hardware failure

Umm.... you do know, don't you, that new hardware has higher failure rates?

No, didn't think so.

And what I posted was that in a job some time back I got a bunch of PIIs, not that I'm using them now.

You can't read very well, can you?

No, didn't think so.

You must be a high ranking member in the Linux Theocracy if you feel I should have a full history of everything you have written. And even a higher member if you feel I should take what your write as fact.

I work in hardware and the MTBF is much, much lower on older units. Come on. You can do better than older hardware has less failures. Seriously, thats your argument?

Dude, once you get past 50 cats... Well, lets just say your a news story waiting to happen.

And your "?Facts?" about older hardware, state your references. Here are mine:

www.gartner.com
www.idc.com

Please make sure to use something other than:

www.thebackofmycerealbox.com

All the companies that have been hit by MS worms can certainly tell you about flooded email systems & cracked SQL Servers.

>> The code for the Kernel is posted to the web,
>> and
>> the Viruses that do exist on Linux or most
>> prevalent on the free versions.

Care to post a link to a website listing all the Linux viruses and worms?

Dude, your grasp of Linux is better than Didio's.

hehehehehehe .....

Failure on semiconductors does not go up.

Replace the HD & you're good to go for years.

Even if the machines do have a higher failure rate, so what?

When you use machines to do useful work that the company was about to throw away how is that a bad deal for the company?

Oh, next you'll claim you have an MBA & you know it's a bad deal, just because you say so.

OK, now you are at 150 cats. And, that laughing you are hearing in your head is actually laughing.

Failure rates on semiconductors...
Replace a hard drive...

Let’s go for a lesson in electrical resistance and how most devices that provide resistance fail. I will give you a simple example - the light bulb. Do you really want to go there? And how would an MBA help. I mean I am willing to give credit to anyone who goes to that level and beyond in their education. But again, I will point out you probably meant a Master in Engineering and not a Masters in Business Administration. But then again, based on your posts you probably did mean MBA.

There is a big difference in our writings. You hate the fact I point out these things. I enjoy the opportunity to have you help prove my point and help me to set the record straight.

I suggest removing your comments.

Anyway, don't you have some phone calls to make?

>> You hate the fact I point out these things

you know what I hate, huh?

That's called a "delusion". Look it up, bubba.

But back to the main point which you've refused to answer repeatedly, namely TCO.

When you use machines to do useful work that the company was about to throw away how is that a bad deal for the company?

Don't you have some pit bulls to train for your next fight, bubba?

the "discussion" (if you can cool off long enough to calmly have a discussion) was TCO of older machines.

TCO == financial calculation
do you think maybe an MBA might help with that?

duh..... it just might, bubba.

Put a pot on top of your skull. After all the waters's boiled out of it put some ice on it.

To answer your first question, "How is that a bad deal?" Again I refer you to:

www.gartner.com
www.idc.com

You spend all this time and effort on complaining about the outcome of a TCO/RoIT study and its outcome. If you go to either of the two above mentioned web sites and get the answer to your question. And the reality is that you answer you question in your question. They were about to throw them out. Remember this whole string is about a TCO/RoIT Study. There is a reason why warranties to uplift a machine out of warranty for three years cost more than a machine with a three year warranty. If you are running your business on these computers, you need a warranty. See web sites above if you want references. You need to get a membership to one or both above. Again, I am trying to help you.

Still with the MBA... Masters in Engineering is what you are looking for and not a Masters in Business Administration. I have neither.

Pit Bull? That is the best you can do?

And, Bubba? I am starting to get embarrassed for you.

Debate is a delicate balance of intelligence and controll of emotion.

Let's see, would guess you are at about 200 cats. Careful, the news is slow and you could easily work your way to the top story.

As you post your reply's with a red face and contempt when you click send, you point is probably not coming across as you intended. I am trying to help you here. Deep Breath, Count to Ten, cross your fingers, and think twice. Maybe even try thinking three times.

Good Luck.

Regards,

Bubba

PS - Sorry to disappoint, no Pit Bulls.

Seriously. Trying to help you out here. At minimum, it's keeping you from making the phone calls mentioned in the article from which this string falls. I realize that most people can type and talk on the phone at the same time, but I would like to warn you that the stress you are feeling could cause you to forget to block you number before you dial. Just a friendly reminder. Or better yet, don't call at all. But, I doubt that is possible based off of the email string and the anger you show.

The best you can do is post links that have no direct info on anything being discussed,

The best you can do is repeat advice I gave you 3 posts ago

And you feel sorry for me?

BWHAHAHAHA !!!!!!!

PS - how's that search going, for a page listing all those Linux virii?

The one link I asked for & it's still not there ... 2 useless links instead.

Constantly referring someone to IDC's or Gartner's main page is the height of rudeness.

Not only are you asking your opponent to spend hours trolling the advertisement-laden sites, you've completely overlooked the comprehensive debunkings of several of their reports. Those reports are worse than useless, and by implication many of the other reports on those sites will be too.

You are not providing answers, you are providing handwaving. You're also calling in straw men and practicing ad hominem - and if you don't know what those terms mean, it's time you got an education. Your "argument" goes no further than bluster and cheap tricks, convincing nobody but those already convinced.

Have the real costs of, for example, viruses and botched updates been factored into those reports? Didn't think so. Does it make a difference? Yup, a big one. And what else have they missed?

For the record, there is a Dual Pentium Pro 200 machine sitting among all of the multi-gigahertz wonders in this room, with a princely hundred and ninety two megabytes of RAM in it (8 Fast Page SIMMs), still running Linux 24x7 after Lord knows how many years. Its TCO is effectively *negative* since it's automatically updated and replaces a more expensive machine and the setup costs associated therewith. My children and nephews play games on it, too. GCompris, especially.

Shows that you never use them. They both require a subscription and both have a considerable cost. Again, all in the TCO equation. I am sure you can find free TCO reports out there, but they probably don't make the cut. It is impossible to do a free TCO analysis. Think about it... And, you will need to find what that is closely alligned to your business and business model. Our company does TCO analysis for companies, and I will tell you it is expensive. You have to get an understanding of every aspect of the business.

I recommend that you learn how to do a web site search. Here is a link to a specific TCO analysis. Notice you will need to logon. Nothing is free:

http://www.gartner.com/D...=g_search&id=391580

And if anyone were to post such a hardware analysis document, I hope they would be booted from this user group. It's content is equally as large as any three strings on this web site.

I personally think the guy calling me Bubba has one up on you! He at least did the search and found out that everything has a cost.

And, I have to claim that your 24X7 claim is a little odd. You are missing a number: 24X7X4, 24X7X2. How long are you down if you have a hardware failure? That is what the last number means. Many by standard NBD on new equipment, but if you are in a bet your business environment the last number equates to how quikly the hardware vendor will get the hardware back up and running in the event of failure. And seriously, if you are claiming the holy grail of 99.999 uptime, that starts at your incoming and out going environment and your incoming power. Hopefully you are using Liebert for that end of your business reinforced by a power generator with at least 72 hours of capacity. And, I work with Linux to and I can admit the positives with the negitives. You only focus on the positives. How many patches did you apply last year? How many required a reboot of either your machine or you Virtual Machine. And yes, because I do use the product, I know that many of your updates require reboots.

I encourage you to learn CTO and RoIT. And Google RoIT if you don't know it. RoIT is the next TCO.

Did he claim he was running mission critical apps on that?

>> And seriously, if you are claiming the holy
>> grail of 99.999 uptime, that starts at your
>> incoming and out going environment and your
>> incoming power. Hopefully you are using
>> Liebert for that end of your business
>> reinforced by a power generator with at least
>> 72 hours of

For file and print ? (this comes back to your reading ability, the post you originally criticized for using PentiumIIs talked about file and print)

BACKUP GENERATORS?
?????
for file and print?

my estimate of your IQ just took a serious hit.

WoW there actually is a URL to a page with Linux Viri... Just because you haven't seen one on your machine doesn't mean there not out there...
http://www.viruslist.com...e=virus&words=linux

You don't think that organations have mission criticle for file and print? And, you probably don't count email or your database. Mission criticle is just that, any part of your business that has to be up and running for business to function and not loose $ or for it's executives to stay out of trouble.

For a hosptial, yes HIPPA for a reason why documents have to be available to five nines. For Telco, lets use Sarbanes-Oxley compliance to keep them the executives out of jail.

And you talk about my IQ dropping. Only when it dips down to your level will you see my concern.

You see, I don't hate Linux and I do know that some of the best systems run on Redhat, but it's not free.

200 cats for you.

Regards,

Bubba

Mission Critical is something you brought into the discussion long after it started. No one was talking about hosting mission critical on PentiumIIs.

Try again (in vain again) win your points by trying (in vain) to introduce non-sequiturs which do not follow logically from what was being discussed before.

And,
Linux is free.

Power is not. Internet time for download is not. Computers are not. Administration is not.

Linux is. Completely.

>> Nothing is free:

Nice philosophy of life.

How much did your mother charge you for her love?

Keep trying. If you repeat yourself again and again, someone will believe you. Linux is free, right? Well, not to the companies concerned about TCO (the heart of this thread). You insist it is free. Database vendors usually support only two flavors (Redhat and SCO). Good thing too, you need support should you run across a problem. Does your database require five nines, well it is probably running or Windows, Redhat, or SCO. I encourage you to check the upgrade paths for each of those products, none is simple enought to click upgrade and walk away, but one is easiest and has the most support behind it.

Keep trying to prove me wrong & prove yourself wrong instead. How many times can you stick your foot in your mouth, then shoot your foot?

You did not write "Linux TCO is not free."

You wrote "Linux is not free"

This is the N-th time you try to change your story ex post facto.

It seems to be the only way you can score points.

Last post for me. Anyone who comes across this, I challenge you to count the number of times this poster switched stories midway, introduced ridiculous new claims unrelated to previous discussion to score points, and so on.

I didn't realize the number was that high. It looks like there is a lot of duplication in that list though.

You sound like an analyst, you sure know how to run in circles.

You say I wrote "Linux TCO is not free?" That is your arguement. You use quotes around something I didn't even write. Dude, you need to stop working for the IT staff for a fish food company and step into the real world.

Lets review for you - TCO. T is for Total, and therefore their would be no just Linux (software only) or just Windows (software only) analysis. Unless you want to buy (or download) the software and place it in your drawer. For you T is for Think before you post a comment. C is for Cost, and there is a cost with every version of Linux that non fish food companies run. For yor, C should be a search for Clarity in your posted comments. Stop eating the free samples from the fish food company, they are not samples. O is for Ownership, with your free version there is no such thing. You don't own it, have a number to call if it breaks, and you and I both know that the free support documents are plaqued with mis-information (probably from people like you). For you O is for obvious, and you intenion in your posted comments is to offend people with hostility and your obviously need to get a job outside the fish food plant.

The story is on track. And TCO / RoIT (Return on Information Technology - I know you have been dying) is calculated by whether or not a company needs five nines, four nines, or three nines.

Pentium Pro equals IT Rookie. Names someone in Forbes that runs free Linux. Your fish food company does not count.

In your last, you wrote "This is my last post." At least it said that before you will eventually go and edit so you don't look even more like a fool.

Regards,

Bubba

>> and you intenion in your posted comments is to
>> offend people with hostility

One guy below called me a liar. Since I could tell he was not a BS slinging blowhard I answered him civil-ly.

The only people I've been hostile toward were hostile first, and in some cases repeatedly, before my hostility came out.

You, on the other hand, began the name-calling and hostility immediately (the pit bull appelation symbolizes red-neck aggression). Isn't it interesting that you accused me of anger a full day after I pointed to your obvious anger?

This again shows you're quite good at projection. That goes hand in hand with not being able to see in yourself what you've projected.

You made provably false accusations, repeatedly, that a 2 second search would have proven were untrue. And yes, when you make accusations, it's up to you to do a little legwork.

Again, I invite anyone who has the stomach to read this entire exchange to go through it and count the number of misdirections, issue-ducking, non-sequiturs (which includes posting of useless links that add no new information) and name-calling.

from both sides & reach your own conclusions.

Perhaps this is Didio posting as Bubba.

...Woe betide the individual or organization that dares to suggest that Linux or open source is less than perfect.... Some are not content to castigate or ridicule the objects of their ire in the online forums. They launch letter writing campaigns and frequently e-mail their superiors asking them to fire the reporters or analysts in question.

The behavior she speaks to is seen everyday in forums everywhere. Post any [honest, not troll] criticism in a software forum like WordPerfect or OpenOffice or Firefox and watch the flames explode. I've been banned from Fileforum three times because these same type people wrote in and complained about a low scored review I gave an OS or freeware app. Didio is right — these psychos will follow you around the web and trash you endlessly and try to get you banned from every blog and forum you post to. It's pathetic. The reason this happens is because conservatives cannot tolerate disagreement, and OS should not be reduced to a "movement," but it is a wonderful thing. Too bad some have to treat it like religion.

Something microsoft gave up on as in Dos? Perhaps you are talking about the graphical interface. I wish people that have never used a piece of software, such as Linux, would not make comments that are pointless. I've never used OS/2.. so you know what? I don't give my opinion of it. I use Linux daily and I also use Microsoft products daily. I run a server that has 2003 Server x64 edition. It is a file server and cost lots of money. I also run a server(Pentium II I think) that has Linux on it. It runs VPN, Samba Domain Controller, and is a file server. Total cost in software for that one? $0. Linux also encourages younger people to start learning about advanced networking software. If they were to try and learn with Microsoft products it would cost them a large amount of money or they would probably have to do it illegally. With Linux they can setup VPN, clusters, Domains, dial-up servers, printer/file servers. etc. This all open-source to where they can't get in trouble. If you know how to compile a kernel you can make a server that will be more stable and effective for a longer amount of time with Linux. Anyhow. Love seeing people get fired up about all this.
Brian

Hey Laura, if you go back to Amityville & listen closely you'll hear all about reason & civility.

From Val Kriedel.

For all your talk of reason & civility, I hope you also have a conscience.

Linux Sucks. It feels like something Microsoft gave up on everytime I see it in action.

And the issue isn't who is more secure or if it would cost a lot to retrain users and admins if you decided to switch to Linux.
Microsoft has stolen over a trillion dollars from the people of the world. Someone who is that kind of a criminal, you don't discuss if they have a nice haircut or not, you execute them immediately.
In a world where a decade ago the government forced microsoft to give away free open source windows, the cost of low end computers would be a fraction of what is is now, improving the quality of life of the poor all over the world. And every business would be more profitable because they wouldn't have a trillion-dollar parasite sucking from them every year. You can't just steal a trillion dollars from the world without harming a lot of people. Every present and former high level employee or board member of Microsoft should be arrested or worse and have their wealth distributed to the poor or the national debts of the countries of the world.

Your post is the most absurd thing I've read this week, and I've read an awful lot of stupid things this week.

First of all, it's not stealing when customers are willing participants in a capitalist-market economy. I say willing participants, because consumers CHOOSE to purchase a computer and run Windows on it. Maybe they choose it because it's what everyone else runs, and they're just "sheep in the flock." Maybe it's because they simply LIKE it, because it gets the job (people such as myself). Maybe it's because they are too lazy to research or learn alternatives. And maybe it's just because they don't like Linux. But bottom line, they choose to use it until they see a reason not to, and then they choose an alternative.

Second, although I really really hate blatant ignorance and genuinely believe that a lot of people are better off wherever their post-life destination is... your statement that Microsoft and criminals like them should be executed is just plain ignorant, foolish, and could be constituted as a threat. By your own logic, and since making threats constitutes a crime in some parts of the world, you would be among those executed. That being said, perhaps you would like to more carefully think about your comments before you post again.

1. I said "someone who is that kind of a criminal" (i.e. has stolen a trillion dollars) should be executed. I haven't stolen any trillion dollars. I am being consistent here. I am not making threats about what I would do, I am just saying what the government should have done long ago.
2. It is stealing. What have their customers received? A few cds worth a few pennies. What have they spent? Over a trillion dollars. In a fair world, people could run a computer and be compatible with games and files from all of their friends without making some thief rich.

A few CDs? How about the time, effort, and brain power of many in order to provide a personal computing system that even my grandmother can use. Just because CDs are cheap it doesn't mean what is on them doesn't cost money. There is a term called "intellectual property" which those CDs contain.

And back to my argument in previous discussions, if someone shouldn't make money for their efforts then whatever you do for a living, you should not earn a salary. As the previous user said, this is a CAPITALIST country where people CHOOSE to run Windows and buy Windows machines. They could buy a Mac (which aren't any cheaper than a Windows machine) or they could build their own and run Linux. Problem is that 98% of users, including some "saavvy" users, do not understand how to install/run Linux. It is a fact of computing. Windows is easy to use/install for anyone (i.e. my grandmother).

People choose the computer. The Operating System comes preinstalled and as per Microsoft, you'd better not try to offer an Alternative:

Read what happened to BeOS and Hitachi when they tried to offer users a choice:

http://www.theregister.c...0/be_inc_sues_microsoft/

So before you start making statements like "stupid" and "ignorance", educate yourself.

Do you really think there wouldn't be any software if copyrights and software patents didn't exist? Plenty of people would still make software. Over the decades of the existence of computers, if Microsoft did not exist, someone would have made an o/s that was easy even for grandparents to use. Dell would have probably done it, so they could sell more computers to those grandparents!

Yes, there is a "term" called "intellectual property," but that is all it is, a term. It is basically a synonym for extortion. All IP is is the right to send the government after someone for doing something you don't like with what is supposedly "your" information.

People should make money for their efforts if they deserve it, not because the government is helping them carry out their extortion against people who would like to copy their information. I am sure that many programmers could find a way to make money even if all copyrights and software patents were void- they could work for a company that needed a type of software written, could be sponsored by government grants, could work in return for donations, and could be sponsored by companies like Coke and Pepsi. It would be great publicity for Coke to have people know that it sponsored the best software so it could easily justify paying a few programmers. Also, there is great inefficiency for programmers to have to keep independently writing the same software over and over because someone else has a copyright on it. An efficient economy would need less programmers because they wouldn't be duplicating each others work as much, each one could make far more product because of having an infinite resource of code and techniques to use. There would be absolutely no shortage of software.
And, every job you make by forcing people to pay for information, you take away from someone else by taking that money away from the person who should have been paid it for a legitimate service or good. Writing software is a perfectly sensible job to be paid for, in the ways I mentioned above. Owning information and taking money from people in return for not suing them for "copyright violation" is not a legitimate job.

>2. It is stealing. What have their customers
>received? A few cds worth a few pennies. What
>have they spent? Over a trillion dollars. In a
>fair world, people could run a computer and be
>compatible with games and files from all of
>their friends without making some thief rich.

What you are in essence saying here is the value of the plastic is what something should be sold for. In other words, intellectual property bears no value. If this attitude were rampant, there would be no reason, other than personal satisfaction, to be a developer. Currently, I get paid rather well to work on systems, primarily because I spent years honing my skills. But, the skills are knowledge based, not hardware. In the world you envision, my years of learning my craft are worthless because I ultimately burn the results on a 5 cent piece of plastic.

I am not sure where you are actually going with this thought process, as stating programmers are worth nothing as the end product is only worth 5 cents is pure lunacy. Knowledge is worth a lot and a person with a lot of knowledge has intrensic value to society.

Let's take this world to the nth. All development companies are told they can only sell their software for the cost of the material they burn it on, plus the packaging (maybe you are being generous and allow them a couple of bucks on top of this). So, software now costs $5 a pop, with $2.50 to the company. End result: software companies go out of business. Why? They pay developers a pretty penny to develop for them ($65k/year is a good mid-level here, with up to $100k/year for senior devs). At a buck or two profit, there is not enough to pay the developers.

Solutions:

1. Go offshore. This only works well if you have really firm specs. There is a communication and time problem, as well. Most offshored software that is not well specked out ends up inferior. Inferior software cannot fetch a good price, so the company is still out of business.

2. Move completely to open source. This is a pipe dream, as ultimately developers still want to get paid. There are cases where open source devs have been paid well, but a completely open source world leads to a situation where computer illiterates have to learn more to use their computer. As they learn more, they find that a great majority of the open source material can be burned for free. As more and more go to free software, the amount sold goes down, as well.

The truth of the matter is we need commercial software as well as open source. And, Microsoft should not automatically be considered "ripping people off" as long as there is a market for what they sell. I will agree with you that Microsoft has price fixed, as that is common knowledge, but to state that any profit over the cost of the material is a ripoff is a rather ignorant statement.

To state that all software should only be worth the material it is stamped into sounds more like a justification for ripping software than a sound argument.

What's the difference between a software product, and a book? Sure there is value beyond it's packaging but not as much as software outfits rape us for.

yeah, good point.

James
http://www.du818.com

Microsoft is a company... LINUX is a movement, kinda' like the 70's thing against the war in Vietnam.

Let us not forget the difference between business and a sort of religion.

I have a LAN with WIN XP, WIN SE, WIN ME and SuSe 9.1 PRO. I spend most of my time on LINUX... But the other machines are here for the rest of the family.

The "D" woman is simply a hack - and complaining about the movement making her look stupid just makes her look more stupid, which is how things should be, no?

She wasn't complaining about them making her look stupid. She was complaining about fanantics making abusive and threating phone calls and making tirades about things they never bothered to read in the first place. The stupid one here seems to be you for totally missing the point of her article.

People who harrass her by calling her home should be reported to the police. There's no excuse for that.

AND, I request, please, that you learn the history a little bit and read between the lines.

This whole episode started with her support for SCOG. She wrote articles that contained outright lies (at first they were mistakes. When she refused to correct them they became lies). And extremely bad advice (good for SCOG, bad for anyone other than SCOG).

When informed of the errors she did NOT retract.

Read the part above where she claims to take "extreme care to get things right".

She doesn't. Nowhere close. She does NOT take criticism well. does not, In fact, accept criticism at all.

I'm personally very interested by this article because I believe it's an attempt at "self-indemnification", an attempt to head off criticism, get people to lay off valid criticism by harping on the extreme fringe.

And there's no new information here. All of this this has been very well known, well documented numerous times from the first bad example, the Machrone incidents.

It looked for a time that Rob Enderle was going to make a career out of baiting the fringe with name-calling & inflamatory rhetoric, then crying victim.

Somehow, I believe the whole cousin Mary the art teacher story is a total fabrication. She cannot even come out and say straight off the bat that she's had it up to here with all the negative feedback she's received from just about every detractor. Bringing up the fringe elements of the open source community is a smokescreen for not having to answer to anyone who finds anything contrary in her reports. And her suggestion about the possibility she may suffer criminal transgressions from one of these fringe elements (ah, a journalistic matyr in the OS wars) is about as believable as her cousin Mary lead-in. Who is she trying to fool? Herself? The business community? Why does she keep shooting herself in the foot? I can't belive she wrote this, it comes off as another paranoid delusional press release from Darl McBride. Ah, a connection perhaps?

Too bad such is not the case with "analysts" producing biased research.

An "analyst" who states her prejudice and bias

"ashram"
"hookah"

then claims her "reports" should be treated as unbiased, claims that she's engaged in a reasoned and civil debate

IS NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY.

An "analyst" who has used every opportunity available to her in the last 2 years to try to smear Linux, and PARTICIPATES IN ADVERTISING FOR MICROSFT thinks people should treat her as part of a reasoned & civil debate?

Please put down the hookah, Laura.

Given that I've seen the twits in the peanut gallery (as I refer to that oh-so-vocal subset of the Open Source community) interminably sounding off on the immensely incredible virtues of Linux, Open source, Anything Not Micro$oft and what-have-you in the way of juvenile drivel to the exclusion of All Else, I can well understand how the stereotype was created.

And you know something?

It's well rooted in fact.

While I'll be the first one to say that not all Open Source enthusiasts are like that, an inordinate number of them seriously need to GROW UP.

One has only to look at the incredible anti-MS sentiment gushed on SlashDot (that BillyBorg icon is so Grade-7-schoolyard-with-bubblegum) and here on Betanews daily to see the proof.

I for one will use any tool I so choose if it fits the bill. I'm not psychotically on some insane quest to rid the world of all things MS or stupid enough to limit my choices to ONLY Open Source software. I might miss out on something that really fits my needs or provide me with entertainment. That's why I *DON'T* use Linux but *DO* use a fair amount of free Open Source software - it suits me to.

I'm also not stupid enough to believe that Open Source is the One True Path To The Shining Light in terms of a software developement model. People still like to get paid and money drives ALL on this planet - Period. I mean, just try eating without it.

Maybe it's the whole "I'm a rebel and down with the establishment, maaaaaan" BS all over again but it's REALLY silly, especially when coming from people born in the 80s. Maybe it's sheer lealousy of anything successful - some folks just love to champion the underdog and mindlessly bash the success stories because they feel it's trendy or makes them feel like they're doing their bit to bring peace in our time. Maybe it's some idealistic Pollyanna view of the universe that decries the business world as being too indecent and unfair when it reality it's been that way since the first day that business was conducted (we're talking several millennia here). Free software for everyone - welcome to Utopia. Maybe it's the mob mentality. Maybe it's simply stupid prejudice.

Who knows.

It's all about choice. Open Source is just another one. It's a pity that so many embracing it don't recognise that and cut the foolishness.

And no, you don't tell folks like that to shut up. It's far better (and less energy intensive on one's part) to enjoy the amusement they provide.

After all, sooner or later they'll need to stop the shrill yelling and breathe. :)

just a couple of examples...

here's the head of one of the files from the linux kernel...

/*
* linux/kernel/fork.c
*
* Copyright (C) 1991, 1992 Linus Torvalds
*/

or how about the kernel driver for my network card...

/* b44.c: Broadcom 4400 device driver.
*
* Copyright (C) 2002 David S. Miller (davem@redhat.com)
* Fixed by Pekka Pietikainen (pp@ee.oulu.fi)
*/

"That's silly," Mary countered, "why would anyone hate an operating system?"

Nobody. It's Microsoft they hate. And I always believe that there is a reason behind everything. There also is a reason behind this hate, be it as marginal as it is. Even if they [i.e. haters] are very often over the edge, oen cannot easily dismiss the whole issue saying they are entirely wrong. There are bits of truth in the - sane - arguments against MS, if you can take all the gluttering junk away and see the essence.

Thing is, too much care is taken. I mean, Microsoft and Microsoft-close people and parties tend to spend too much tmie and money on "investigations" which should be intended to prove Microsoft's operating system's and applications' superiority to everything else, but especially Linux. And in vain, since the majority of these is crap as it can get.

That alone is enough to justify many - sometimes insane - offences.

Still, some of us do not like MS because of their businness practices. But the same some-of-us also can't easily stand beside bad attitute among Linux fans either.

We - as always - have to find the path between the angry crowds and, while using the energies developed by both of these parties, find a way to get the most out of the situation: watch them close and try to objectively select what is best for you.

I strongly and firmly believe that if you have to will and ability to see behind the mass of artificially angry sixpackjoe linuxfanboy teenage crowd, you can really find a pretty amazing world of opensource and free as in beer and as in speech operating system and application stack that can really make your life easier.

As referring directly to Ms. DiDio's case: I couldn't care less, she asked for it. First writes in a way that she probably knew that can lead to such anger among the audience, but she still did follow this style, then she writes again crying about what happened. This all could really easily be foreseen and foretold.

[Insane speculative consiracy theory begins here] Knowing this, there is only one possible cause: she allegedly did this to be able to start the same old linux-zealots-are-insane offensive at the end. [Insane speculative consiracy theory ends here.]

I'm a Linux fan myself, but I really think that these flamefests are:
> REALLY uncalled for: Don't people have better things to do than to call people up at night and flaming them for their opinion? Get a life, people.
> They can tear the community apart: This kind of response could discourage people from researching about Linux.

If you truly want to give Linux a good image, then stay in your forums and chat rooms and stuff, and then when someone asks a question, pounce on it with a solution other than RTFM or PEBKAC.

Folks, emotion and logic exist in an equilibrium. If you are going to state your case, use both wisely. If someone won't listen to you, count it as their loss.

I feel sorry for Laura and all the other people... I really do.

She honestly thinks she's doing the right thing? That's impressive. It's not bad enough that they report half-truths and lies, or that they as independent analysts pick sides, but that they actually believe what they spew. I'll bet O'Gara feels the same way.

I'll agree that the "fringe" they talk about goes above and beyond, but on the same hand someone really needs to shut these people up.

part and parcel of being unable to admit mistakes.

http://www.microsoft.com.../videos/didio_video.wvx

This speaks volumes.

more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_DiDio

Your Wikipedia link is exactly the example of fanaticism Laura cited in her column above. Who do you think wrote that Wikipedia entry? The same open source fans who are attacking her personally.

It even has an entry for DiDiot. Is that really necessary for an encyclopedia?

If the shoe fits? ;-)

It's not fanatical, calling her at home is fanatical that to me is a problem. Calling her out, and making it known that she is not very good at what she does is something most of us have to deal with every day in life. She just has more space to air her problems.

No sympathy here. She should call the cops next time someone calls her at home, posting it here just looks like whining and more anti-Linux fodder to be used against her later.

"(...)at microsoft, you know you are protected(...)"
this is what she states in the wmp video...
MS is full of exploits and stuff and you call that protected?
a normal pc user who do not have internet knowledge at all would end up with full of probs within 1 month!

lets get real. either u protect yourself with other progs such as av, firewalls, spyware tools, or ur doomed.

anyways, cant expect much by defending MS...

now prove me wrong!

What you say is just plain ignorant... She’s talking about indemnification not being secure from hacking... God it would be nice if just once some of the Linux or M$ fan would speak out with some fact instead of evangelism and ignorance...

The GP is right for the wrong reasons.

If you're a big company, you don't need the indemnification, your normal insurance covers it. If you're a little company or an individual, nobody will bother suing you, 'coz you're not worth enough.

If you use Linux, you have presumption of innocence on your side, you can check stuff yourself (pretty much on the spot and often even if you're not a programmer), and you're usually not on a supplier's discoverable customer list. These things are worth a lot more in practical terms than an indemnification fan-dance.

...remember to follow the links and read them.

The Edit link is right there, and she apparently has a BA in communications.

Go ahead, fix it up yourself. Open Source zealots, my fundament.

Since when was it the obligation in science or technology to prove someone wrong. This sounds more like the pseudo-science of the Bermuda Triangle and Sasquatch crowd. It is your obligation to prove yourself right.

I've run a linux box since RedHat 5.2 and I'm currently running Mandrake 10.1, but there's no way I would recommend linux to the average e-mail and search user. The learning curve is probably about 6 months. How many people working 10 to 14 hours a day are going to dedicate that much of their leisure time to any OS?

Fine, I'll recommend Linspire 5.0 for that group.

In fact, I'm willing to wager that wiki entry was the genesis for this whole article. She couldn't very well say she herself found that entry on herself on the internet and was insulted, no, she decided to create the character of cousin Mary, the Art teacher, who was clueless about why would anyone want to attack her cousin Laura.
If she is really that unhappy about the wiki entry, she CAN change the entry so it is more 'balanced' in her favor, instead of going boo-hoo, us poor journalists who defend SCO and Microsoft get trashed with no justification by all these heathen programmers and users have nothing to defend ourselves, boo-hoo, so we won't talk to any of these eman critics anymore, boo-hoo, in a published public forum. She starts coming off like Darl McBride

Sorry for the repeat. Looks like Betanews doesn't like one of the words.

This is really over the top
>> As someone who has worked as both a reporter
>> and an analyst, I take this as a given and
>> strive to "get it right the first time" to

More than a year ago you advised people to "call sco and have a discussion about your Linux use".

And you were rightly raked over the coals.

You suggested companies call a company (Calderra/SCO) that scores NUMBER ONE on a Google search for "litigious ....."

You suggested companies tell sco about their IT infrastructure. Turn over private information, YOU TOLD PEOPLE, that the police could not get without a search warrant, to a bunch of litigious .....

Did you EVER print a retraction?

Just another instance of your being unable to admit a mistake.

"get it right the first time"
laughable.
Laura, Laura, Laura ...........

This is really over the top
>> As someone who has worked as both a reporter
>> and an analyst, I take this as a given and
>> strive to "get it right the first time" to

More than a year ago you advised people to "call sco and have a discussion about your Linux use".

And you were rightly raked over the coals.

You suggested companies call a company (Calderra/SCO) that scores NUMBER ONE on a Google search for "litigious bas****s".

You suggested companies tell sco about their IT infrastructure. Turn over private information, YOU TOLD PEOPLE, that the police could not get without a search warrant, to a bunch of litigious bas****s

Did you EVER print a retraction?

"get it right the first time"

Laura, Laura, Laura ...........

or don't you remember what you wrote and said?
"SCO has a strong case". Where is your response to what the judge wrote, Laura? You know, where the judge wrote

"it is astonishing that SCO has produced no competent evidence ..."

In addition to all your other shortcomings you also have a very, VERY bad case of being unable to admit you're wrong.

But who are you lashing out at? The people who took advantage of you & made you a laughingstock or The people who told you you're wrong.

And yes, you do hate Linux. Your words may say otherwise but I look at your actions.

Remember the "hookah" quote?

And you have, of course, latched on to anything you could find in the last 2 years to attack Linux. SCO. Indemnification. "independent analyses" that just happen to have been conducted by companies with a vested interest in continued Microsoft domination.

I personally think SCO is a sorry excuse for a company, trying to survive with a bunch of lawsuits, however there is one major point you are missing:

SCO is still around and in business, as is their lawsuit. If SCO had no case, it would have been thrown out ages ago, but unfortunately it keeps going. So if SCO's case was weak, what does that say about IBM and the Linux community's case?

"if SCO had no case it would have been thrown out long ago".

What section of the FRCP would allow SCOG's case to be thrown out?

None.

IBM's motions for dismissal based on lack of evidence?

There was no motion for dismissal.

It was a motion for summary judgement on some issues, and the Judge wrote that he was sorely tempted to grant the motion because SCO had PRODUCED NOTHING.

SCO, in other words, HAS NO CASE. That's what the judge said. "asonishing that SCO has produced no competent evidence".

But as several lawyers said, the judge rightly thought a SJ before discovery was complete would be grounds for appeal.

"In court documents filed Friday, IBM has asked for dismissal of a second major component of the lawsuit filed against the company by SCO. IBM is arguing that SCO's breach of contract allegations should be removed from the lawsuit. The current motion is in addition to the request for a summary judgment IBM has been seeking since early July."

http://www.macnewsworld.com/story/35883.html

"We asked for dismissal because we think SCO has failed to allege the facts sufficient to support slander of title," Novell spokesman Bruce Lowry told internetnews.com.

http://www.internetnews....ews/article.php/3311761

Now, remind me who's the liar again?

instead of quoting reporters and PR people please link to the court filings where IBM requested a dismissal.

And please point to the section of the FRCP that allows for requestiong "dismissal based on lack of evidence", especially before discovery is done.

Before you call out "liar," it pays to make sure your own sources are accurate.

Addressing your first quote, it was definitely NOT a motion for dismissal. It was a motion for summary judgment. I know because I read the publicly-available filings, which you can get from sco.tuxrocks.com (or from PACER itself if you're afraid of getting a forged court document). The reporter you got your precious quote from got it wrong.

AIUI, in a civil case, getting a dismissal for lack of evidence generally doesn't happen. Plaintiffs are allowed to come to court with some pretty bare suspicions and no hard evidence at all, then try to gather that evidence during discovery.

So the fact that SCO's lawsuit against IBM is still in play doesn't mean much. Civil procedure doesn't really favor the defendant like criminal procedure, so a frivolous lawsuit can take a LONG time to actually die.

SCO's problem is, they already talked big about having "mountains" of hard evidence before even going into discovery, then failed to produce said evidence to the court even under very explicit court order. i.e. SCO definitely did some baldface lying to some audience, almost certainly to the public/shareholders and maybe to the court as well. Judge Kimball has already noticed but apparently wants to see how it all plays out anyways.

As for your second quote, that was in regards to the Novell case, not the IBM case. And FYI, that case WAS dismissed once already (without prejudice) due to some basic defects in SCO's complaint that had nothing to do with evidence. SCO simply adjusted the defects and refiled the complaint, and a fresh dismissal motion has been fully briefed and pending for months (neither granted nor denied). That should give you some idea how a frivolous lawsuit can stay on court dockets for so long.

Perhaps because analysts have not exactly held true to their predictions, and therefore their credibility, the only thing these people are supposed to have, is lost. They are a joke. Need I link CNET articles of Laura's and other predictions throughout the dotcom boom? after? They are laughable and saved for prosperity.

People say a lot of things that are applicable at the time, which may or may not turn out in the end. Analysts analyze with what they know at the moment. EVERYONE said a lot of things during the dot-com boom that never panned out.

Hell, Bill Gates once said 640k is enough and now he's the richest man in the world. Obviously people didn't hold it against him.

640k, and Gates claims (of course) that he never said it.

http://www.wired.com/new...int/0,1294,1484,00.html

The point is that it doesn't matter! Business is a game of prospect, and sometimes companies are wrong, sometimes they are right. I was promised a lot during the .com boom and I didn't get rich. Move on.

What is the point then? I mean they have been 180 degrees, 100% wrong on analysis. WHat is the point? It's not like Bill gate's statement changed the industry, and even if that quote is mangled over time it doesn't have the same impact. Gates isn't an analyst, he's a CTO. We're not paying him for his vision, we're paying him for his tools.

These analysts don't have vision and they certainly don't have tools.

And yet people pay them, and hundreds of analyst firms make a living doing it. In fact, CEOs hire consultants just to do their jobs in the first place.

You think Steve Ballmer makes all the decisions himself? You think Ed Zander decides how to run Motorola on his own? You think Hurd is going to run HP without hiring a consulting firm to help him? If so, you are sorely mistaken.

Sure, they are wrong sometimes, but analysts are an important part of business and their reports and opinions do matter in the marketplace.

You better believe CTOs of major companies talk extensively to research firms and consultants during their daily business routine.

Congratulations, you just pointed out why analysts should be held up to a higher standard when it comes to making predictions.

Laura DiDio doesn't pass muster as a competent analyst any more than Bill Gates would. The fact that she gets paid while not passing muster simply means that there are a lot of gullible people in the world. It doesn't mean she deserves these alleged threatening phonecalls at night, but some degree of public ridicule is quite appropriate.

"So this analyst will strive to take the high road and ignore them unless or until the transgressions become criminal."

Promise?

Endlessly writing/posting about your abuse isn't an action that indicates you are ignoring them.

I have been flamed and ridiculed by Windows users, so I am personally aware that stooping to insults isn't limited solely to the open source side.

It is also my belief that analysts who have been more insulting and dismissive of open source ("Pass the hookah") tend to get the most aggressive insults in return.

So, keep it civil, or wear a cup.

People that feel this passionate about either piece of software, need to seek a hobby. Criticism, whether constructive or not is good. Some just tend to take it too hard. But it needs to be criticism, not attacks on the person giving the criticism.

Read the line above the boxes before you post.

"Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated."

All should be taken in stride. Learn from it!

Being flamed and ridiculed is much different than someone calling your house and your boss to try to get you fired when your work is based on the facts that you have gathered/presented. I've been flamed many times but you bet if someone called my house and threatened me or tried to get me fired, I'd be a lot more upset than posting a comment on this article.

"based on the facts"

What facts? These analysts are proven wrong almost every single time. What in the world are they analyzing? They start with bad incomplete or slanted data and then paint the picture they are paid to paint.

I'm sorry that's not scientific fact, it's a legalized scam.

In any major group of users you're going to get a few stupid ones, doesn't matter what the product is.

You want mindless zealots, try talking to a few Apple users. Some of them preach it like it's their religion.

Actually thats what it is exactly, nothing more than "my deity can beat up your deity" B.S. that has been plauging the planet since man could carve drawings in the wall of his cave.

Mommy those mean Linux geeks called me a DiDiot!

Yay another article about some group whining about another group treating them unfairly and calling them names. This isn't 6th grade folks, nor is this Slashdot. This is the real world, and these people are adults, granted they aren't acting like it.

I commend Laura for attempting to"take the high road" but in reality by even posting this article, she's sunk down to their level.

Most real world Network admins/analysts/consultants/etc will tell you that each operating system has it's strengths and weakness' and the OS should be chosen based on the task the server/workstation will be used for. I have nothing against Linux, nor Windows, or OSX.. They all have their applications.

couldn't agree more with this reply.

What she is doing is exploring the social aspect of the OS wars, or whatever you want to call them. Her article is merely pointing out that fanatical users are very agressive at times and that to carry that mentally and act in that manor is simply ridiculous over an operating system. The whole point is to use what you want and not judge others for what they use. It doesn't harm you if I use Windows, and it doesn't harm me if you use Linux. What do I care?

Here's some interesting data:

http://www.google.com/se...2+linux&btnG=Search

http://www.google.com/se...crosoft&btnG=Search

Personal attacks, and hostility is uncalled for, but you can't tell me that it's just Linux people. Publish a report against Microsoft and you will see the very same thing.

I'm sorry but article is as slanted as your reports are.

Look at your front page: http://www.yankeegroup.com/

Where did you get your data that proves Windows servers recover faster? Did you contact Windows guys that run Linux servers?

unbelievable

"Publish a report on Microsoft and you'll see the very same thing."

Going to have to disagre with you there, fewt. Microsoft zealots will complain in blogs and forums, not call your house and work to get you fired - especially without reading the report. Slashdot comments are 90% comprised of people who never read the article linked.

You should actually read the PDF report above, its not actually negative to Linux. In fact, it even points out that Linux tends to fail less, even if it says Linux takes longer to recover than Windows.

They should put in there. "Due to the fact that the Microsoft server administrators have to recover from crashes weekly, they are much faster that the Linux server admins who have a hard time remembering what to do after long vacations due to lack of administration needed." hehe

Microsoft zealots are the guys that release nimda slammer blaster melissa iloveyou etc, I find it hard to believe that one of them wouldn't stoop so low as to harass anyone. I did also say that it was wrong. ;-)

Usually virus writers are just lonley men with nothing better to do to get attention. The Blaster writer was 19 year old kid who probably had no social life or friends. I don't think he was an anti-Microsoft zealot.

Do you think that he wouldn't stoop to threatening someone? You just made my point for me. ;-)

Exactly, I don't think he was CAPABLE of threatening anyone. Virus writers are bad, they should go to jail, but that's a completely different topic - they aren't usually zealots fighting for an OS.

Same mindset though IMHO, one just has a backbone (scary actually) and the other doesn't (the virus writer also scary on another level).

And I would bet that the majority of the crackpots who would harass someone over a Linux article are also just lonely men with nothing better to do to get attention. The abusive Linux zealots in this case are probably also 19 year old kids who probably have no social life or friends.

The same goes for religion, politics, you name it. Some people are just fruitcakes, and any strongly held belief will attract some nuts.

Why on earth would anyone need to write a script to get a tape drive working? Plug drive in, drive appears as a soft-link at /dev/mt0 to the real device at /dev/st0 or /dev/ht0 or wherever, end of story. Backups are now one easy command away (type or click, your choice).

So what bizarre task did these maniacs set their Linux admins, and how long did it take them to select a task which would look so bad in the results? This is not Real Life, folks, this is an artificial environment being reported as if it was real life.

Yankee-my-chain group strikes again, and for some reason Laura thinks of the report as meaningful.

Why do you think so many Windows admins are installing CygWin?

"Publish a report on Microsoft and you'll see the very same thing."

"Going to have to disagre with you there, fewt. Microsoft zealots will complain in blogs and forums, not call your house and work to get you fired - ..."
Is there any real empirical evidence of any Linux or Apple or MSFT zealot ringing up an editor and trying to get a reportet or columist fired because they disagreed with what the person wrote? Nasty e-mails or even snail mails, I can believe, but please. BTW, editors and publishers AND reporters LOVE hate mail. Another reason this whole article stinks. She's never been threatened a day in her life. She just wants attention.

By acting out they only hurt the cause that they wish to strengthen. The press will one day just drop it all and not speak of Linux, just to avoid the fight and it will cause less publicity and the downfall of Linux and open source.

OpenSource will not be hurt by some crazy people. It have own advantages - and programmers, users and corporations KNOWS thease advantages.
The same i can tell about Linux.

Less publicity will not reduce Linux uptake because there's been no Linux adoption because of press.

Most Linux adoption is because someone installs it to do a job that MS products cannot do.

(file and print on a 100 MHz Celeron using Win2k?

hahahahaha .....

This is also the reason that CIOs and CEOs can say with a straight face "there's no Linux at my company", when, in reality, there are hundreds of PCs.

A favorite trick is, when someone quits, grab the machine on their last day, put Linux on it & stuff it in a closet.

I did that several times on one job. I ended up with 4 PCs stacked up on my desk. Once a month IT asked what I was doing, I showed them the services running on each machine & they went away.

Almost everyone in my group & people scattered throughout the large company were using the services. but I bet that when asked, the CEO/CIO would have said "we have no Linux here".

No, I'm not trying for a record for marked-down posts. See "display negative messages" to see what I mean.

No is the simple answer. Extremism an to much time on your hands might do though!.
I love open source and i love non open source software. Both have advantages. I know a lot of Linux lovers who slag off windows but have no linux pcs at home. They just like the idea of linux, but find it impossible to use as an every day OS. I know alot who use nothing but Linux.
Horses for courses.
It is not important in the general scheme of things, is it? Is it worth threatening people at home over their opinions on open source? I think not. Get a grip and get some perspective!!