Windows Cheaper When Studied by MSFT Analysts 425
richdun writes "Here is a study done by an independent research firm which claims that under certain circumstances, it is cheaper to develop applications and enterprise solutions for Windows than for Linux. They cite costs from more education, time developing, etc. Of course, the story is quick to state that the whole study was funded and commissioned by our favorite Redmond, WA based software giant. "
You can't beat free! (Score:3, Troll)
Windows will NEVER be cheaper than Linux or FreeBSD.
-uso.
Re:You can't beat free! (Score:4, Insightful)
This study is sponsored by Microsoft, so it's probably biased as hell, but a Linux system is never absolutely free for a corporation.
Re:You can't beat free! (Score:5, Insightful)
No, but most of the "costs" that are assigned to Linux presume an existing greater knowledge of Microsoft Windows; it never includes the money spent training these people to use Windows originally nor does it try to compare costs of complete training: how long does it take to get an admin for *nix and Windows (respectively) to go from 0 to 60?
Despite what people say about the "learning curve" of *nix, I believe most of that is due to breaking bad habits they learned in Windows. I picked up Unix exceptionally quickly, in part because I never knew Windows very well. So, if one were to remove the costs of Linux training that they have ignore WRT Windows training, the cost is significantly less. Realistically, the costs should be counted for both, not discounted for both...
Re:You can't beat free! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You can't beat free! (Score:3, Funny)
Developers should know basic operating system principles and have some knowledge of how to use Unix(Unless the college they went to was brain-dead).
e.g. their cs department was funded by Microsoft.
Re:You can't beat free! (Score:3, Insightful)
Its a simple formula.
1) Find the categories your predetermined winner has advantages.
2) Weight those areas heavily
3) De-emphasize or omit any areas the predetermined loser has strong advantages
4) ???
5) Profit!
Sorry,
4) Release study!
This has the added advantage of creating contreversy, which:
1) Increases visibility
2) ???
3) Profit
Re:You can't beat free! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You can't beat free! (Score:2, Insightful)
You can't beat free!
Sure you can. TCO isn't just a buzzword, time spent making things work is expensive for companies.
E.g., installing Red Hat Linux on a server or a workstation is quick and will only need a small tweaking, while the same is far from truth on Windows, where installing the OS is just the first 5% of the job. This applies to other things... buying something which works can often be a lot cheaper than trying to find an open source project which works.
Re:You can't beat free! (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, I use and like linux like the best slashbotter, but lets be real. Either OS you end up using in a corporate environment is going need a lot of time for tweaking and customizing. I wouldn't let a virgin Windows or Redhat install just rollout to an entire enterprise.
Re:You can't beat free! (Score:2, Troll)
Windows, OTOH, doesn't, unless you buy it preinstalled.
Installation/initial configuration is just a small piece of the picture, of course, but an area in which Linux excels.
Re:You can't beat free! (Score:4, Interesting)
The study was based on interviews with 12 companies, seven of which use Microsoft's
Forrester said that the main difference in cost was not due to price of the basic software, but rather the price of developing the software, including labor costs.
Despite the difference in costs, however, the Forrester report also noted that "many organizations will adopt Linux instead of Microsoft's alternative" because of the expertise they have built up on the Unix platform, Sun's proprietary operating systems used to run computer server networks.
Not that I hold much faith in 'interviews with 12 companies' as a solid foundation for a sweeping generalization on the costs of development, but it's easy, for me, to see how developing for a Java platform would be more expensive for some people than developing for the
That which works (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, going with something that works [zdnet.co.uk] reduces the TCO. That's why there is a market for OS X, QNX, and Netware.
From my past few years, I've found that RedHat and SuSe are much easier to maintain than the MS offerings, and installation seems easier and faster. Debian and OS X still lead on ease of maintenance.
Re:You can't beat free! (Score:5, Insightful)
However, the corporate world is quite often very different. When you have preasures of deadlines and QA, quite often you don't have the time to work with a somewhat less feature-rich, but free, tool. Some tools just make developing certain kinds of applications more efficient, take VisualBasic for example. There's not much else that can compare to the RAD capabilities of VB. Sure, you might argue that there is no long-term viability for a VB app, but long-term viability isn't always needed. Neither is peak performance. Greater development efficiency directly translates into greater profits. Greater profits may quickly overcome any savings that you may have gained from developing your solution on an open source free OS with free tools.
Take for instance a relatively simple GUI application. Say that it takes two weeks to develop the application under a free toolkit like GTK. Now say that it takes only one week to develop that same application under VB. If we use a $60k developer salary (which is only about half of what it actually costs to employ a developer), then we see that one week of time is worth ~$1154. After one month, the license for VB and Windows has quickly paid for itself.
So, for certain kinds of development, yes, you certainly can beat free.
Re: You can't beat free! (Score:3, Interesting)
> Take for instance a relatively simple GUI application. Say that it takes two weeks to develop the application under a free toolkit like GTK. Now say that it takes only one week to develop that same application under VB. If we use a $60k developer salary (which is only about half of what it actually costs to employ a developer), then we see that one week of time is worth ~$1154. After one month, the license for VB and Windows has quickly paid for itself.
In my experience, companies that want more bang
Re:You can't beat free! (Score:3, Insightful)
"Take for instance a relatively simple GUI application. Say that it takes two weeks to develop the application under a free toolkit like GTK. Now say that it takes only one week to develop that same application under VB. If we use a $60k developer salary (which is only about half of what it actually costs to employ a developer), then we see that one week of time is worth approx. $1154. After one month, the license for VB and Windows has quickly paid for itself."
Let's r
Re:You can't beat free! (Score:3, Informative)
Oh yes there is. It's called Delphi. Delphi beats VB in every way: language, speed, price, etc. And Delphi is available for Linux too (Kylix).
Re:You can't beat free! (Score:3, Insightful)
On Windows, yes, an IDE is a crucial, critical tool. I've written code for Win32 in C, with no IDE (in fact I'm doing it now), and it's a nightmare. The same is not true on Linux. You don't have insanities like pixel-based layouts to deal with, you can actually construct your GUIs in code if you so wish. Or, you can use Glade,
One word (Score:2)
(if you don't get it, search Slashdot for it)
Cheaper (price) isn't always the biggest benefit either. However, I think it is safe to say that Windows will never be "more free" than Linux.
Cheaper when... (Score:4, Funny)
Taking aim at the server end. (Score:5, Insightful)
(from the article:)
The study compared applications built to run over the Internet on Microsoft's
That speaks volumes: the study is aiming at J2EE and Sun. Granted these are the "certain circumstances" mentioned but MS is taking direct aim at its diminishing server market share with this. They know the desktop is still pretty much a lock-in for the time being.
Here's a clue: don't trust studies. They are generally paid for by people with agendas.
Re:Taking aim at the server end. (Score:3, Insightful)
Says who?
If they mean favored over
OTOH, maybe Mono and DotGNU can change that - if it is good enough, there isn't much reason to not choose the better proprietry platform apart from kneejerk anti-MS. But that is just between those two - I sincerely hope that none of those are actually going to be the favored one.
Re:Taking aim at the server end. (Score:3, Interesting)
Says who?
Says Microsoft.
MS knows they haven't a chance at swaying anyone with half a clue, but unfortunately most of the people that sign the cheques don't.
Re:Taking aim at the server end. (Score:5, Insightful)
But on the contrary, don't balk at any study just because someone paid to have it done. As odd as it sounds, companies that do studies don't just pull "statistics" out of their ass, they are by and large sizable companies with good reputations doing honest work. The reason why studies seem to agree with the organization funding them is that often, the organization sets the parameters, creating a situation where things would look good for the company that funded the study. Looking at the numbers, I believe that Giga is right; in their subject pool, Windows was cheaper. The study should only be distrusted when the parameters used don't fit a situation you're trying to use it as proof in; for a company similar to the subject pool, this study would seem to be an accurate comparison.
Why is this story 'Windows vs. Linux'? (Score:3, Interesting)
The lack of details makes me suspicions. Did they choose projects based on very expensive application servers and databases, rather than free alternatives, in order to offset the cost of
Re:Bad comparison (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Taking aim at the server end. (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft didn't say, "Make J2EE look bad compared to us", they said "Make us look good in one of these (a, b, c) areas." The company then looked around for a competing product that overlapped one of those and didn't perform as well as the MS product in at least one aspect. That's how these paid-for studies work.
They could be right. (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not absolutely damning that MS paid for the study. After all who else would pay. But of course the study would not have been released if it were not positive for MS. Still neither of these makes neccessarily untrue or biased.
And its not unreasonable to believe it could be true. MS does make good development tools. And even just a few days ago there was a slashdot post lamenting the sad state of Java. It really cou
Re:They could be right. (Score:3, Funny)
Wow. I guess ignorant, inconsiderate jerks are on both sides though.
Re:They could be right. (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, but this is irrelevant in Java. Also, Java suffers from history hangover. It had some growing pains but most of those have long since been corrected. Also, MS seems to have a penchant for comparing unoptimized Java code with highly optimized C# code, hardly unbiased. Finally, with Java 1.5 due out in early 2004, current comparisons between
Re:Taking aim at the server end. (Score:2)
Where did you get that from? The quotes you produced suggest that over time, the advantage for .NET will actually increase. Nowhere does it say that eventually the Linux/Sun-J2EE TCO will fall below that of .NET.
Re:J2EE? (Score:3, Interesting)
That's what Microsoft says, but any musician will tell you that a sharp sign has upright verticals and slanted horizontals - a pound sign has slanted verticals and level horizontals. There's a separate unicode and HTML character for sharp, but Microsoft uses pound.
As an aside, why do some people say "pound" to refer to "#"?
It's a grocer's pound, not a pound-stirling, as in
banannas 5 #
oranges 2 #
I guess it was faster than writing 'lbs' - never been a gro
Wait a minute... (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh wait, i forgot...this is slashdot.
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:5, Insightful)
Mmm...Funding (Score:2)
Privately-funded research comes from those who have something at stake. It can taint a paper, but it can also be groundbreaking. Wait until a major discovered paid for by an involved party has been verified by someone else before you
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:3, Insightful)
Where's the post calling this a big conspiracy? A research firm finding results that its sponsor will like is not a big conspiracy. Where's the article where nobody criticizes an IBM or RedHat study as biased?
Insightful my foot. Imaginative, maybe.
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:2)
I have - quite a bit - and they are much easier to use, offer better integration and cross-language development (even without using the .NET Framework), and provide a much better help system than anything I've ever used on *nix (all the way from gcc/make to kdevelop). But what do you expect when Microsoft uses COM throughout every facit of their programming when *nix is a hodge-podge of proprietary APIs (besides the standard POSIX stuff) written by people who are bored and have nothing better to do than wri
gotta love this... (Score:4, Insightful)
So, they compared
"favored by the Linux community"? Last time I checked,
Re:gotta love this... (Score:2)
No they refered to Windows and Linux based applications. They also state the primary conclusion is that MS is cheaper as a developer platform, not a cheaper OS.
Re:gotta love this... (Score:2)
Re:gotta love this... (Score:5, Funny)
I'm Mono.
The Open Source
I will now beat you with a cluestick
I was almost convinced until... (Score:2, Troll)
"Last December, Microsoft released a study that showed that Windows-based servers were cheaper to run than those on Linux in four out of five common server tasks."
You just got to love studies funded by non-biased companies!
some quotes (Score:5, Interesting)
and
"Last December, Microsoft released a study that showed that Windows-based servers were cheaper to run than those on Linux in four out of five common server tasks."
how can anyone trust crap like this? WHAT TYPE OF APPLICATIONS? WHAT SERVER TASKS?
Re:some quotes (Score:5, Funny)
server: mirc-slave, open mail relay
platform independence and scope (Score:2)
Re:some quotes (Score:4, Funny)
They are Solitaire (which is pretty good compared to the Open Source versions), Minesweeper, Pinball, and Freecell.
Lets break it down:
1. There are not as many decks in the windows version of Solataire to choose from, so that would definitely speed things up. ADVANTAGE: Microsoft
2. Minsweeper is small. You can't even resize the window. That's got to cut down on the number of CPU cycles that it uses. Of course you know they only tested it on the easy levels. My suspicion is that it would have only performed better on 3 out of 5 if they cranked Minesweeper up to Expert. ADVANTAGE: Microsoft (despite possible performance rigging).
3. Pinball. That's just unfair. There isn't a version in linux that has the same kicking music. (easy) ADVANTAGE: Microsoft
4. Freecell. Need I say more. That game screams. After all, they've had 10 years to perfect it. (another easy) ADVANTAGE: Microsoft.
I don't know what you guys are whining about... the evidence is there.
Re:some quotes (Score:3, Interesting)
Much nicer. Still unbalanced, still gi
In other news ... (Score:2, Funny)
How can it be cheaper? (Score:2)
Perhaps the questions are answered if I were to RTFA...
Re:How can it be cheaper? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:How can it be cheaper? (Score:2)
If it does cost more to develop custom applications on linux than windows, then we as the linux comunity have to get better at building the kinds o
Problems... (Score:2)
study based on interviews (Score:2)
.NET on linux (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:.NET on linux (Score:4, Insightful)
Because
Conversely, there are full-blown fully-sanctioned-and-supported J2EE implementations for Linux distributions. In fact, there are several full-blown J2EE implementations available. From different and competing vendors.
Funny how proprietary lock-in isn't a criteria in these "studies".
Misfit Analysts? (Score:2, Funny)
What could I say? When you're right, you're right!
;-)
Time Spent (Score:5, Insightful)
With the current development tools available for Windows, as well as all third-party utilities/db drivers/etc, development on Windows goes by much quicker.
I'm not talking about little apps that could be banged out as a perl script in a few minutes, but more robust applications that companies need internally.
However, this is just for the present. If/when more people adopt Linux as desktops then more people will learn how to develop for it and more/better tools will become available. Say what you will about Visual Studio, but the recent incarnations work exceptionally well, and they have a large user base. If we could see 1 or 2 similar development IDE's for linux that are HIGHLY ADOPTED (I know there are some nice ones out there, but the use-rate is still rather low), then things could change.
Re:Time Spent (Score:2)
Re:Time Spent (Score:2)
It also occurred to me (Score:2)
Re:Time Spent (Score:2)
That is not true. With any large project the benefit of a development tools will be drawfed by requirement gathering, analysis and design. The development process used will actually drive the cost factor. The technology and tools will not be a real factor.
If you apply the same development process to develop an application for J2EE to developing an ap
Re:Time Spent (Score:2, Interesting)
I have to disagree strongly. I currently work in a shoop that develops applications in .NET and J2EE and we are always comparing and contrasting.
The real conclusion that we find is that Eclipse, ANT, XDoclet and JBoss make a much more usable and more powerful deveopment environment than anything available for Windows.
Our J2EE applications usually have a shorter time to market and a much happier customer when they don't feel like they have been taken avantage of in licensing fees.
However this holds true
Full text of the Giga Group report? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't find it unbelievable that some tasks are less expensive to produce under MS products than under Linux, but unless the report indicates other reasons, I'm inclined to believe the difference is due to the trained user-base.
The article does say they interviewed twelve firms (hardly a statistically significant amount), seven of which use Windows & five of which use *nix. I'd be curious to know the sizes of the firms involved and the level of training of the personnel in each of them.
In other words, my question is: Is all else equal? I suspect not.
Re:Full text of the Giga Group report? (Score:4, Funny)
A survey was conducted with 6 people, 5 Windows users and 1 Linux user, who only knew how to play blackjack. The MS users won more games, all totaled. Proof of MS credibility.
Long term costs of windows (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Long term costs of windows (Score:3, Funny)
> When analysing the cost differences of Windows and Linux, the main advantage to windows always seems to be that little to no training is required
> while on the other hand, Linux requires lots of training, with Expensive Admins.
Do you include the price of cleaning up SoBig.[FGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ] in that expense?
Possibly true, if they are comparing RAD (Score:2, Informative)
There needs to be an organization that establishes a set of standards about how these kinds of comparisons are made with a detailed l
maybe it is cheaper to develop M$ apps (Score:3)
a. they don't switch interfaces and so on a routine basis, linux evolves but largely keeps its backward compability, whereas microsoft sometimes changed their interfaces at will and even dropped support for them
and
b. it is better to understand the whole foundation you build on (or the part of the foundation) instead of blindly trusting foreign interfaces.
isn't that the main reason so many security bugs are found in windows applications? how can i program a secure app when i don't know what the underlying classes do (i don't get to see their source). What do you think of that?
Apples to Oranges But It is a real fact (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Apples to Oranges But It is a real fact (Score:3, Insightful)
Duh, did all the PHP fanboys just moderate the parent up to +4 Insightful? Get a life...
Re:Apples to Oranges But It is a real fact (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Apples to Oranges But It is a real fact (Score:3, Informative)
However, what both J2EE and
what were the projects? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd like to know what the 12 projects were that were being compared to
see if the comparisons make sense.
Is there any chance at all that this is an actual apples to apples
comparison?
Devil's advocate. (Score:3, Insightful)
This isn't totally off base (Score:3, Insightful)
You have intellesense statement completion, automatic code formatting and highlighting, and intelligent help that will pull full documentation on any statement you are typing with one click.
You also benefit from languages like VB.NET and C#, which are very high level and make it easy to write conceptually clear and error-free code.
It makes it possible to become comfortable with a new object model without having to flip though documentation or constantly search the web. You'd be surprised how fast and simple it is to create relatively sophisticated apps that perform pretty darn well.
Re:This isn't totally off base (Score:4, Informative)
You have intellesense statement completion, automatic code formatting and highlighting, and intelligent help that will pull full documentation on any statement you are typing with one click.
You have the same thing with Java IDE such as Eclipse (free) or WSAD ($$$) or JBuilder ($$$). The Java IDE that cost $$$ will have the additional benefit of having wizards and views that speed up the creation and configuration of EJBs and other J2EE stuff (Eclipse has some of these too, but they still have a some way to go).
Re:This isn't totally off base (Score:3, Funny)
So?
EMACS has all these things too, plus it will make coffee for you!
Eclipse does all this (Score:3, Informative)
It's J2EE, not Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's J2EE, not Linux (Score:2, Informative)
A better test would be .Net vs J2EE/JDO.
Re:It's J2EE, not Linux (Score:3, Interesting)
I can't find the post now, but on a recent thread on Slashdot someone made a pretty convincing argument that the oft repeated claim that Amazon have built their site on Perl/PHP is a misunderstanding based on someone seeing that Amazon were looking for Perl programmers. A
My study shows (Score:2, Insightful)
Thank you Microsoft: for security reasons it was determined here that at NO TIME will _any_ operating system gain 100% penetration to the desktops. The datacenter already runs a mix of Linux, BSD, and Netware...
Since the changes started we've rolled Linux out to some people and OS X to others (OS X is my preferred GUI of choice
The catch! (Score:2, Interesting)
I had to go back and read this. What do you suppose are the certain cirucumstances? Is it when you have a room full of developers all clinging onto their copy of Visual Studio and sitting in front of a linux box?
I wish they had elaborated on this somewhat. I've been seriously trying to figure out for the last few min
Not hard for me to believe. (Score:4, Interesting)
My initial instinct was that this was a combination of "absurd" and "special case so specific it's mostly useless". But then I started to think of a Slashdot thread from just a few weeks ago about the big worms that started recently...
The thread discussed how much cheaper it was to hire just any person and have [him|her] maintain the "Windows Server". Of course, an affordable admin in many small business cases would be unable to keep such a server patched well enough to fend off all the attacks and the machine would be compromised. The thread continued to say that if you compare a competant Windows admin with a competant *nix admin, not only are the costs similar but so is the security-- but you could have a Windows box up, running and making money with an incompetant admin.
No offense is intended, by the way, in calling such a person an incompetant admin, just that many small businesses can afford neither a service contract nor a full time "real admin", so someone who does not specialize in such tasks part-times it. This is a rare situation with *nix, where the barrier to entry of a steep learning curve usually causes entry admins to be better than Windows (I have no real evidence to back up this assertion, only personal observation). The theory is that a small business can't afford to keep 100% uptime, but can afford to go down for 12-24 hours.
This makes me wonder about programming on Windows in a general case. I can understand how someone can develop a Visual Basic program for cheaper than a C (or whatever) equivalent on Linux. Instead of comparing .NET to J2EE, as the article does, I'd be interested in seeing a problem solved by a beginning application developer in Windows (would (s)he choose Visual Basic?), another in Linux (C/C++ plus GTK or similar?), and then someone experienced on the two platforms solve the same problem and find out where the added costs present benefits. Can we tell the difference in benefits between the two skilled solutions or the two unskilled solutions? What benefits are gained by keeping one platform but redeveloping with a skilled developer?
Cost of _developing_ applications (Score:5, Insightful)
First, RTFA. It talks about _developing_ applications. It wouldn't really suprise me if it were cheaper to develop applications on Windows.
Visual Studio
Say what you will about the quality of MS, and how buggy/bloated their software is. It seems to work well enough for a bunch of people out there. Their developer programs are excelent (maybe they need to be to cover up their crappy underpinnings).
In the open source area you might be able to download some open source code, and cobble a system together to do what you want... But I think I remember reading a statistic that said something like 85% of all software written is custom, internal, business software. So you might have a tough time finding something that solves your problem exactly... But since it's open source you can modify it to fit - sometimes; sometimes it's more trouble than it's worth.
With things like Eclipse for Java development in the open source arena the gap should close up in that area too (dev tools) - but don't kid yourself; we've still got a long ways to go.
Well, I can believe that. (Score:2)
Forrester said that the main difference in cost was not due to price of the basic software, but rather the price of developing the software, including labor costs.
I don't know much about
This just in... (Score:2)
Hmmm... (Score:2)
So UNIX belongs to Sun now? Hmmm... I think Darl's gonna have something to say about this...
Could be true... (Score:2)
.NET vs J2EE, not Win vs. Linux (Score:4, Redundant)
One could also say that it compares native Windows and J2EE, but Java is by no means a native system to Linux, which is to say that this is like comparing apples with oranges.
Having supported a largish J2EE application, I can tell that the it's equally awful platform, whether it runs on Windows or UNIX. I'd suggest that if one compared J2EE on Windows to J2EE on UNIX, UNIX would probably win.
develop, maybe (Score:2)
you've got to pay real money for the end server software, the SQL-server and all the really big latest fancy hardware to run it on a cluster (ok so the hardware might not need to be bleeding edge anymore).
You need lots of admins who need to pass their little exams and of course a company car for the remote admin
When you can all this for 1/2 the people costs with a *nix, never mind the s/w costs if you go for a free-nix.
Of course should you wish to goto big iron (SUN/IBM/H
Linux cheaper when studied by Slashdot drones (Score:3, Interesting)
The Netcraft Study (Score:3, Redundant)
Of course the Netcraft study shows that
only Microsoft can afford the more EXPENSIVE
Linux based server caching (Akamai)
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=www.mic
independent? (Score:5, Funny)
You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means...
Windows programming cheaper (Score:3, Informative)
Seriously, I developed programs under many Unix flavors, and enjoyed developing solutions with Linux. But, when we needed to interface our software with Word for mail merges, or Excel for spreadsheet drop-ins, then (at least at the time) Windows programming was a necessary evil. Development of databases was done on Unix for stability, web applications using PostgreSQL and Perl, but front ends were usually Access or some VB application.
There was also a problem hiring programmers. Salaries asked for by experienced programmers were much higher (IMHO rightfully so) than salaries demanded by Windows programmers. While the Windows programmers in general were less flexable to learn new languages or stray from mainstream programming, they were quite efficient. And, the tools they were using allowed them to create and alter code quicker than us Unix-folk. That having been said, we never had to cuss-out our monitors because of a blue screen...
If I were a shop doing custom programming, it would be a mix of Windows and Unix, and Windows programmers would be about 2/3 or 3/4 of the programming population in the office. It is simply good business to sell a comfortable solution, and businesses are comfortable with Microsoft. Now, you don't have to disclose that MS-SQL will not be on the back end of that Access application...
No Doubt (Score:3, Interesting)
We need stricter rules! This is how businesses succeed, and it's awful! I hate the SCO lawsh^Huit, I hate the RIAA lawsh^Hit, I can't stand these false studies and it's just infuriating.
Any reference to this study down the line should be required BY LAW to be labeled as "funded by Microsoft." Then there would be no manufactured doubt, and the study wouldn't happen in the first place, and businesses would have all these extra resources to spend on things like research and development, instead of things like fake false lying lies that confuse people and make it impossible to know what's really real and gee while they're scratching their heads let's just reach over and take the money out of their pockets. Monsters.
Let's get rid of the "D" and just tell businesses like Microsoft, "F U."
Monsters.
Refine the Questions (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Refresh my memory (Score:2)
It's almost like thay are trying to prove something...
Re:Refresh my memory (Score:2)
You mad me realize something...
Should read made...sorry
Re:This has to be (Score:2, Funny)
Actually, this is the worst news ever.
10.3 Beats 10.2 In Head To Head Competition [macslash.org]Re:Ohh (Score:2)
In fact, according to the site, they said
Gary Krakow of MSNBC Loves Desktop/LX
A glowing review of the Lycoris OS "...that's as
mindless to install as Microsoft's Windows."
Runs more stable, and cheaper. Linux that a MS user can use. Now that's amazing!