An analysis of Linux TCO and MS's "get the facts campaign....

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by thing2, Feb 13, 2006.

  1. thing2

    thing2 Guest

    thing2, Feb 13, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. thing2

    Fred Dagg Guest

    On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 09:14:18 +1300, thing2 <>
    exclaimed:

    >Of course we trust the boys in Redmond to tell us the whole truth and
    >nothing but the truth....yeah right....
    >
    >http://www.levanta.com/linuxstudy/EMA_Levanta-Linux_RR.pdf


    Wow, that Levanta-sponsored report doesn't even stand up to the most
    basic critical evaluation.

    It is not even slightly balanced, and contains pro-Linux statements
    throughout, rather than a balanced analysis and presentation of
    results.

    If you believe this hired-gun one sided report over the numerous
    independent reports by recognised impartial industry leaders, then you
    deserve your Linux environment, complete with associated costs and
    nightmares.
     
    Fred Dagg, Feb 13, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. thing2

    Fred Dagg Guest

    On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 09:14:18 +1300, thing2 <>
    exclaimed:

    >Of course we trust the boys in Redmond to tell us the whole truth and
    >nothing but the truth....yeah right....
    >
    >http://www.levanta.com/linuxstudy/EMA_Levanta-Linux_RR.pdf


    LOL!!! Want to see an example of the "facts" on display in this
    Levanta-sponsored FUD report?

    Take a look at the table on Page 11. If you can't spot at least 4
    (most likely deliberate) major blunders, you should do a little
    research into what these products are, their necessity, their
    necessity in the supposed environment discussed, and their suitability
    to the project.

    I'm a little disappointed, thing. I really do like analysing reports
    on both sides, but, IMO, this is quite honestly the most one-sided and
    blatantly biased one I've seen yet.
     
    Fred Dagg, Feb 13, 2006
    #3
  4. On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:01:27 +1300, Fred Dagg wrote:

    > On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 09:14:18 +1300, thing2 <>
    > exclaimed:
    >
    >>Of course we trust the boys in Redmond to tell us the whole truth and
    >>nothing but the truth....yeah right....
    >>

    http://www.levanta.com/linuxstudy/EMA_Levanta-Linux_RR.pdf
    >
    > Wow, that Levanta-sponsored report doesn't even stand up to the most
    > basic critical evaluation.
    >
    >


    Could you quote the statements in the report that have failed to "even
    stand up to the most basic critical evaluation (or are you just a gutless
    prat)?
     
    David Mohring, Feb 13, 2006
    #4
  5. On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:10:13 +1300, Fred Dagg wrote:

    > On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 09:14:18 +1300, thing2 <>
    > exclaimed:
    >
    >>Of course we trust the boys in Redmond to tell us the whole truth and
    >>nothing but the truth....yeah right....
    >>
    >>http://www.levanta.com/linuxstudy/EMA_Levanta-Linux_RR.pdf

    >
    > LOL!!! Want to see an example of the "facts" on display in this
    > Levanta-sponsored FUD report?
    >
    > Take a look at the table on Page 11. If you can't spot at least 4 (most
    > likely deliberate) major blunders, you should do a little research into
    > what these products are, their necessity, their necessity in the supposed
    > environment discussed, and their suitability to the project.
    >


    Could you quote the *actual* statements in the report that have failed to
    "even stand up to the most basic critical evaluation (or are you just a
    gutless prat)?
     
    David Mohring, Feb 13, 2006
    #5
  6. thing2

    Fred Dagg Guest

    On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:15:50 +1300, David Mohring
    <> exclaimed:

    >On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:01:27 +1300, Fred Dagg wrote:
    >
    >> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 09:14:18 +1300, thing2 <>
    >> exclaimed:
    >>
    >>>Of course we trust the boys in Redmond to tell us the whole truth and
    >>>nothing but the truth....yeah right....
    >>>

    >http://www.levanta.com/linuxstudy/EMA_Levanta-Linux_RR.pdf
    >>
    >> Wow, that Levanta-sponsored report doesn't even stand up to the most
    >> basic critical evaluation.
    >>

    >Could you quote the statements in the report that have failed to "even
    >stand up to the most basic critical evaluation (or are you just a gutless
    >prat)?


    This says it all:

    "As a 37 year old CEO of Enterprise Management Associates (a OEM for
    server, workstations, etc that does NOT do MS-WINDOWS) I can say that
    many of us contribute much to the Linux community. The profit of my
    company that pays my salary has to be able to provide for my family
    and put my four kids through college. I bet the entire thing on Linux
    as I see it as a winner."

    - Nicholas Donovan
    CEO Enterprise Management Associates

    http://akakom.ac.id/~yudhi/1044225.html


    Still think this "report" is even slightly unbiased?
     
    Fred Dagg, Feb 13, 2006
    #6
  7. thing2

    Fred Dagg Guest

    On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:19:21 +1300, David Mohring
    <> exclaimed:

    >On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:10:13 +1300, Fred Dagg wrote:
    >
    >> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 09:14:18 +1300, thing2 <>
    >> exclaimed:
    >>
    >>>Of course we trust the boys in Redmond to tell us the whole truth and
    >>>nothing but the truth....yeah right....
    >>>
    >>>http://www.levanta.com/linuxstudy/EMA_Levanta-Linux_RR.pdf

    >>
    >> LOL!!! Want to see an example of the "facts" on display in this
    >> Levanta-sponsored FUD report?
    >>
    >> Take a look at the table on Page 11. If you can't spot at least 4 (most
    >> likely deliberate) major blunders, you should do a little research into
    >> what these products are, their necessity, their necessity in the supposed
    >> environment discussed, and their suitability to the project.
    >>

    >
    >Could you quote the *actual* statements in the report that have failed to
    >"even stand up to the most basic critical evaluation (or are you just a
    >gutless prat)?


    I'm not going to go through and analyse the "report", as I simply
    don't have time, and I'm sure plenty of others are busy laughing at it
    at the moment.

    Honestly, if anyone can look at this and believe it is a legitimate,
    objective and/or credible report, they are either fooling themselves,
    or particularly easily led. Could those people please contact me, as I
    have a very nice bridge for sale up in Auckland.


    However, here are some overall points to get you started:

    1. The report was made up from surveys given out to only those that
    administer Linux boxes. Some were contacted via phone, and a great
    many were self-selecting web surveys amongst the Linux community.

    2. There was no analysis of the actual TCO of Linux versus Windows,
    only Linux users' opinions. However, the report implies that these
    self-selecting Linux users' opinions are actually researched facts.

    3. Legitimate studies look at both sides, compare the two objectively,
    then present their results and conclusions. This entire report takes
    the position of Linux, stating how it is better in each area without
    providing any objectivity whatsoever.

    4. The authors are a self-professed "OEM...that does NOT do
    MS-WINDOWS" who "contribute much to the Linux community", rely on
    Linux to "provide for [their] families and put [their] kids through
    college", and have "bet [the house] on Linux". Sound objective?


    This "report" lacks even the most basic credibility or objectivity. Is
    this really the best the Linux community can come up with? This sort
    of FUD and non-objective nonsense does more harm ot the cause than
    good.
     
    Fred Dagg, Feb 13, 2006
    #7
  8. thing2

    Fred Dagg Guest

    On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 11:00:16 +1300, Fred Dagg <>
    exclaimed:
    >>
    >>Could you quote the *actual* statements in the report that have failed to
    >>"even stand up to the most basic critical evaluation (or are you just a
    >>gutless prat)?

    >
    >I'm not going to go through and analyse the "report", as I simply
    >don't have time, and I'm sure plenty of others are busy laughing at it
    >at the moment.
    >
    >Honestly, if anyone can look at this and believe it is a legitimate,
    >objective and/or credible report, they are either fooling themselves,
    >or particularly easily led. Could those people please contact me, as I
    >have a very nice bridge for sale up in Auckland.
    >
    >
    >However, here are some overall points to get you started:
    >
    >1. The report was made up from surveys given out to only those that
    >administer Linux boxes. Some were contacted via phone, and a great
    >many were self-selecting web surveys amongst the Linux community.
    >
    >2. There was no analysis of the actual TCO of Linux versus Windows,
    >only Linux users' opinions. However, the report implies that these
    >self-selecting Linux users' opinions are actually researched facts.
    >
    >3. Legitimate studies look at both sides, compare the two objectively,
    >then present their results and conclusions. This entire report takes
    >the position of Linux, stating how it is better in each area without
    >providing any objectivity whatsoever.
    >
    >4. The authors are a self-professed "OEM...that does NOT do
    >MS-WINDOWS" who "contribute much to the Linux community", rely on
    >Linux to "provide for [their] families and put [their] kids through
    >college", and have "bet [the house] on Linux". Sound objective?
    >
    >This "report" lacks even the most basic credibility or objectivity. Is
    >this really the best the Linux community can come up with? This sort
    >of FUD and non-objective nonsense does more harm ot the cause than
    >good.


    Well, 4 hours since I posted comments explaining how the very basis of
    the "study" is subjective, biased to start with, and seemingly lacking
    in all credibility, and no reply from you. Do you have a counter,
    would you like to admit you were wrong, or are you just a gutless
    prat?
     
    Fred Dagg, Feb 14, 2006
    #8
  9. thing2

    Fred Dagg Guest

    On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 15:28:16 +1200, (Don
    Hills) exclaimed:

    >In article <>,
    >Fred Dagg <> wrote:
    >>
    >>Well, 4 hours since I posted comments explaining how the very basis of
    >>the "study" is subjective, biased to start with, and seemingly lacking
    >>in all credibility, and no reply from you. Do you have a counter,
    >>would you like to admit you were wrong, or are you just a gutless
    >>prat?

    >
    >Only 4 hours? This is Usenet. It's most likely that he has
    >real things to do right now, such as work.


    Considering it took him 9 minutes last time, I doubt it...
     
    Fred Dagg, Feb 14, 2006
    #9
  10. thing2

    Don Hills Guest

    In article <>,
    Fred Dagg <> wrote:
    >
    >Well, 4 hours since I posted comments explaining how the very basis of
    >the "study" is subjective, biased to start with, and seemingly lacking
    >in all credibility, and no reply from you. Do you have a counter,
    >would you like to admit you were wrong, or are you just a gutless
    >prat?


    Only 4 hours? This is Usenet. It's most likely that he has
    real things to do right now, such as work.

    --
    Don Hills (dmhills at attglobaldotnet) Wellington, New Zealand
    "Nobody cares about threats over the internet. Don't try to act hardcore
    with the keyboard. Fighting online is like racing in the Special Olympics;
    even if you win, you're still retarded." - ~Jade Souls~
     
    Don Hills, Feb 14, 2006
    #10
  11. thing2

    thing2 Guest

    Fred Dagg wrote:
    > On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:15:50 +1300, David Mohring
    > <> exclaimed:
    >
    >
    >>On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:01:27 +1300, Fred Dagg wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 09:14:18 +1300, thing2 <>
    >>>exclaimed:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Of course we trust the boys in Redmond to tell us the whole truth and
    >>>>nothing but the truth....yeah right....
    >>>>

    >>
    >>http://www.levanta.com/linuxstudy/EMA_Levanta-Linux_RR.pdf
    >>
    >>>Wow, that Levanta-sponsored report doesn't even stand up to the most
    >>>basic critical evaluation.
    >>>

    >>
    >>Could you quote the statements in the report that have failed to "even
    >>stand up to the most basic critical evaluation (or are you just a gutless
    >>prat)?

    >
    >
    > This says it all:
    >
    > "As a 37 year old CEO of Enterprise Management Associates (a OEM for
    > server, workstations, etc that does NOT do MS-WINDOWS) I can say that
    > many of us contribute much to the Linux community. The profit of my
    > company that pays my salary has to be able to provide for my family
    > and put my four kids through college. I bet the entire thing on Linux
    > as I see it as a winner."
    >
    > - Nicholas Donovan
    > CEO Enterprise Management Associates
    >
    > http://akakom.ac.id/~yudhi/1044225.html
    >
    >
    > Still think this "report" is even slightly unbiased?



    This is not the report....

    They did some phone surveys and got data which they presented, looks way
    less biased than MS's "studies".

    regards

    Thing
     
    thing2, Feb 14, 2006
    #11
  12. thing2

    thing2 Guest

    Fred Dagg wrote:
    > On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 09:14:18 +1300, thing2 <>
    > exclaimed:
    >
    >
    >>Of course we trust the boys in Redmond to tell us the whole truth and
    >>nothing but the truth....yeah right....
    >>
    >>http://www.levanta.com/linuxstudy/EMA_Levanta-Linux_RR.pdf

    >
    >
    > LOL!!! Want to see an example of the "facts" on display in this
    > Levanta-sponsored FUD report?
    >
    > Take a look at the table on Page 11. If you can't spot at least 4
    > (most likely deliberate) major blunders, you should do a little
    > research into what these products are, their necessity, their
    > necessity in the supposed environment discussed, and their suitability
    > to the project.
    >
    > I'm a little disappointed, thing. I really do like analysing reports
    > on both sides, but, IMO, this is quite honestly the most one-sided and
    > blatantly biased one I've seen yet.



    My page 11 shows salary comparisons........so I cannot quite see your point.

    regards

    Thing
     
    thing2, Feb 14, 2006
    #12
  13. thing2

    thing2 Guest

    Fred Dagg wrote:
    > On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 11:00:16 +1300, Fred Dagg <>
    > exclaimed:
    >
    >>>Could you quote the *actual* statements in the report that have failed to
    >>>"even stand up to the most basic critical evaluation (or are you just a
    >>>gutless prat)?

    >>
    >>I'm not going to go through and analyse the "report", as I simply
    >>don't have time, and I'm sure plenty of others are busy laughing at it
    >>at the moment.
    >>
    >>Honestly, if anyone can look at this and believe it is a legitimate,
    >>objective and/or credible report, they are either fooling themselves,
    >>or particularly easily led. Could those people please contact me, as I
    >>have a very nice bridge for sale up in Auckland.
    >>
    >>
    >>However, here are some overall points to get you started:
    >>
    >>1. The report was made up from surveys given out to only those that
    >>administer Linux boxes. Some were contacted via phone, and a great
    >>many were self-selecting web surveys amongst the Linux community.
    >>
    >>2. There was no analysis of the actual TCO of Linux versus Windows,
    >>only Linux users' opinions. However, the report implies that these
    >>self-selecting Linux users' opinions are actually researched facts.
    >>
    >>3. Legitimate studies look at both sides, compare the two objectively,
    >>then present their results and conclusions. This entire report takes
    >>the position of Linux, stating how it is better in each area without
    >>providing any objectivity whatsoever.
    >>
    >>4. The authors are a self-professed "OEM...that does NOT do
    >>MS-WINDOWS" who "contribute much to the Linux community", rely on
    >>Linux to "provide for [their] families and put [their] kids through
    >>college", and have "bet [the house] on Linux". Sound objective?
    >>
    >>This "report" lacks even the most basic credibility or objectivity. Is
    >>this really the best the Linux community can come up with? This sort
    >>of FUD and non-objective nonsense does more harm ot the cause than
    >>good.

    >
    >
    > Well, 4 hours since I posted comments explaining how the very basis of
    > the "study" is subjective, biased to start with, and seemingly lacking
    > in all credibility, and no reply from you. Do you have a counter,
    > would you like to admit you were wrong, or are you just a gutless
    > prat?


    Actually I have been working......

    First pages, companies surveyed showing thier revenue.....some are
    $10Billion...so not small fry.....

    Now this is not a TCO of Windows v Linux study....which you seem to
    think it is.....it is a look at management tools What I found
    interesting was they are just as available for linux as Windows (what it
    didnt mention is whether such tools are cost effective)

    It does touch on some interesting points, salaries for admins seem to
    not differ significantly compared to what previous "reports"
    claimed....are you challanging this asertion?

    Linux is reliable.....uptimes compare to windows or exceed, not it may
    well be that this is a comment by Linux users, at worst it shows that a
    properly run Linux box matches a properly setup Windows one.

    Linux is quick to provision, I agree, no slower than Windows.

    I can do a kickstarted RH box in 45mins from bare metal to fully patched
    and working....most of that delay is downloading the updates from
    Redhat, when I get a local patch proxy server going and hold them
    locally I suspect it will be under 10 minutes. This easily matches
    Windows deployment...

    If you bother to look at the report it shows not that Windows is bad, &
    Linux good but that Microsoft dissing of Linux is unfounded,
    unsustainable and based on no firm footing, ie do it properly and a
    Linux deployment can match a Windows one, this then leaves Licencing
    costs which Windows looses....

    regards

    Thing
     
    thing2, Feb 14, 2006
    #13
  14. thing2

    Fred Dagg Guest

    On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 16:34:47 +1300, thing2 <>
    exclaimed:

    >Fred Dagg wrote:
    >> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 09:14:18 +1300, thing2 <>
    >> exclaimed:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Of course we trust the boys in Redmond to tell us the whole truth and
    >>>nothing but the truth....yeah right....
    >>>
    >>>http://www.levanta.com/linuxstudy/EMA_Levanta-Linux_RR.pdf

    >>
    >>
    >> LOL!!! Want to see an example of the "facts" on display in this
    >> Levanta-sponsored FUD report?
    >>
    >> Take a look at the table on Page 11. If you can't spot at least 4
    >> (most likely deliberate) major blunders, you should do a little
    >> research into what these products are, their necessity, their
    >> necessity in the supposed environment discussed, and their suitability
    >> to the project.
    >>
    >> I'm a little disappointed, thing. I really do like analysing reports
    >> on both sides, but, IMO, this is quite honestly the most one-sided and
    >> blatantly biased one I've seen yet.

    >
    >
    >My page 11 shows salary comparisons........so I cannot quite see your point.
    >

    Huh?

    It's the table showing, apparently, licensing costs.

    I don't know too many people who run ISA as a web server, for
    instance...

    Right after the hardware comparison, where it says that they'd run Red
    Hat Enterprise Server on a P-100 with 256MB RAM...


    Do you, in all honesty, believe this "report" has credibility?
     
    Fred Dagg, Feb 14, 2006
    #14
  15. thing2

    thingy Guest

    Fred Dagg wrote:
    > On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 16:34:47 +1300, thing2 <>
    > exclaimed:
    >
    >
    >>Fred Dagg wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 09:14:18 +1300, thing2 <>
    >>>exclaimed:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Of course we trust the boys in Redmond to tell us the whole truth and
    >>>>nothing but the truth....yeah right....
    >>>>
    >>>>http://www.levanta.com/linuxstudy/EMA_Levanta-Linux_RR.pdf
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>LOL!!! Want to see an example of the "facts" on display in this
    >>>Levanta-sponsored FUD report?
    >>>
    >>>Take a look at the table on Page 11. If you can't spot at least 4
    >>>(most likely deliberate) major blunders, you should do a little
    >>>research into what these products are, their necessity, their
    >>>necessity in the supposed environment discussed, and their suitability
    >>>to the project.
    >>>
    >>>I'm a little disappointed, thing. I really do like analysing reports
    >>>on both sides, but, IMO, this is quite honestly the most one-sided and
    >>>blatantly biased one I've seen yet.

    >>
    >>
    >>My page 11 shows salary comparisons........so I cannot quite see your point.
    >>

    >
    > Huh?
    >
    > It's the table showing, apparently, licensing costs.


    OK, saw that, there is already a better and very detailed TCO on this
    point. Certainly the CALS is what kills MS licencing really dead.

    We often use MS for the simple reason as an educational establishment we
    usually dont need to by CALS plus we get a 50% discount off the MS OS,
    so for us RH v MS licencing is the same-ish...In a few areas we use
    Linux or 3rd party GPL software because MS says we have to buy CALS eg
    for students and 20,000 CALs is serious money....

    > I don't know too many people who run ISA as a web server, for
    > instance...
    >
    > Right after the hardware comparison, where it says that they'd run Red
    > Hat Enterprise Server on a P-100 with 256MB RAM...
    >
    >
    > Do you, in all honesty, believe this "report" has credibility?


    Points inside it show how the claims that Linux is more expensive
    dubious in certain areas, so MS's claim that these were offsetting
    licencing costs dodgy, eg admin Salary.

    Otherwise the hardware comparison is probably its weakest point, however
    it highlights how Linux will still run on meager hardware, unlike
    win2k3........Though in reality we just buy a basic spec'd server eg
    Dell 1850 with 2 cpus, 4 gig of Ram, 2 x 73 gig disks for either
    platform......so I dont think it is a biggee.

    So does it have credibility? yes in areas most definately it certainly
    agrees with our experiences running both....

    regards

    Thing
     
    thingy, Feb 14, 2006
    #15
  16. Hi there,

    Fred Dagg wrote:
    > On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 09:14:18 +1300, thing2 <>
    > exclaimed:
    >
    >
    >>Of course we trust the boys in Redmond to tell us the whole truth and
    >>nothing but the truth....yeah right....
    >>
    >>http://www.levanta.com/linuxstudy/EMA_Levanta-Linux_RR.pdf

    >
    > Wow, that Levanta-sponsored report doesn't even stand up to the most
    > basic critical evaluation.


    'Critical evaluation' huh? Is that your evaluation, or the evaluation
    of someone worth a pinch?

    > It is not even slightly balanced, and contains pro-Linux statements
    > throughout, rather than a balanced analysis and presentation of
    > results.


    So, does that make it any different from the 'get the facts' site?

    > If you believe this hired-gun one sided report over the numerous
    > independent reports by recognised impartial industry leaders, then you
    > deserve your Linux environment, complete with associated costs and
    > nightmares.


    Yes he does deserve his Linux environment. I deserve mine too, as
    do the vast majority of Linux users. Why? Because it works for us
    and costs less to manage...just get over it, troll.

    --
    Kind regards,

    Chris Wilkinson, Brisbane, Australia.
    Anyone wishing to email me directly can remove the obvious
    spamblocker, and replace it with t p g <dot> c o m <dot> a u
     
    Chris Wilkinson, Feb 14, 2006
    #16
  17. Hi there,

    Fred Dagg wrote:
    > On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:19:21 +1300, David Mohring
    > <> exclaimed:
    >
    >
    >>On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:10:13 +1300, Fred Dagg wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 09:14:18 +1300, thing2 <>
    >>>exclaimed:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Of course we trust the boys in Redmond to tell us the whole truth and
    >>>>nothing but the truth....yeah right....
    >>>>
    >>>>http://www.levanta.com/linuxstudy/EMA_Levanta-Linux_RR.pdf
    >>>
    >>>LOL!!! Want to see an example of the "facts" on display in this
    >>>Levanta-sponsored FUD report?
    >>>
    >>>Take a look at the table on Page 11. If you can't spot at least 4 (most
    >>>likely deliberate) major blunders, you should do a little research into
    >>>what these products are, their necessity, their necessity in the supposed
    >>>environment discussed, and their suitability to the project.
    >>>

    >>
    >>Could you quote the *actual* statements in the report that have failed to
    >>"even stand up to the most basic critical evaluation (or are you just a
    >>gutless prat)?

    >
    >
    > I'm not going to go through and analyse the "report", as I simply
    > don't have time, and I'm sure plenty of others are busy laughing at it
    > at the moment.


    So, you haven't really given it any 'critical evaluation'? Methinks
    you be full o' shit Kemosabe...

    --
    Kind regards,

    Chris Wilkinson, Brisbane, Australia.
    Anyone wishing to email me directly can remove the obvious
    spamblocker, and replace it with t p g <dot> c o m <dot> a u
     
    Chris Wilkinson, Feb 14, 2006
    #17
  18. thing2

    Fred Dagg Guest

    On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 18:14:06 +1000, Chris Wilkinson
    <> exclaimed:

    >> It is not even slightly balanced, and contains pro-Linux statements
    >> throughout, rather than a balanced analysis and presentation of
    >> results.

    >
    >So, does that make it any different from the 'get the facts' site?


    Whilst MS's advocacy is obviously pro-MS, it is a heck of a lot more
    objective than this "report". It does more harm than good to "the
    cause".

    The Linux advocacy crowd just lost their moral high ground, throwing
    this sort of crap around.

    <rest of abuse snipped>
     
    Fred Dagg, Feb 14, 2006
    #18
  19. On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 11:00:16 +1300, Fred Dagg wrote:

    >>Could you quote the *actual* statements in the report that have failed to
    >>"even stand up to the most basic critical evaluation (or are you just a
    >>gutless prat)?

    >
    > I'm not going to go through and analyse the "report", as I simply don't
    > have time, and I'm sure plenty of others are busy laughing at it at the
    > moment.


    If Scooter hasn't analysed the report then he cannot be in any position to
    offer any informed comment on the report.


    A Nice Cup of Tea

    --
    A: because it messes up threading
    Q: why should I not reply by top-posting?
    A: No.
    Q: Should I include quotations after my reply?
     
    A Nice Cup of Tea, Feb 14, 2006
    #19
  20. thing2

    Fred Dagg Guest

    On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 00:42:12 +1300, A Nice Cup of Tea <>
    exclaimed:

    >On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 11:00:16 +1300, Fred Dagg wrote:
    >
    >>>Could you quote the *actual* statements in the report that have failed to
    >>>"even stand up to the most basic critical evaluation (or are you just a
    >>>gutless prat)?

    >>
    >> I'm not going to go through and analyse the "report", as I simply don't
    >> have time, and I'm sure plenty of others are busy laughing at it at the
    >> moment.

    >
    >If Scooter hasn't analysed the report then he cannot be in any position to
    >offer any informed comment on the report.


    You're the second person who's jumped on the comment that I'm not
    going to do a page-by-page analysis of the report, yet snipped the 4
    very compelling overall points.

    Care to comment on them, or are you just going to stick your fingers
    in your ears?
     
    Fred Dagg, Feb 14, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Tejas57Fan

    campaign to get degrassi on dvd

    Tejas57Fan, Oct 21, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    540
    The dog from that film you saw
    Oct 21, 2003
  2. thing

    FUD: Get the facts Windows v Linux

    thing, Oct 31, 2004, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    128
    Views:
    2,136
    Patrick Dunford
    Nov 7, 2004
  3. Aquilegia Alyssum

    Micro$oft - twist the facts campaign.

    Aquilegia Alyssum, Dec 4, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    25
    Views:
    684
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Dec 8, 2006
  4. peterwn
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    529
    thingy
    Sep 24, 2007
  5. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    464
Loading...

Share This Page