Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 30th Nov 2006 22:51 UTC
Novell and Ximian Novell on Nov. 30 announced its latest NetWare upgrade operating system, the Linux-powered Novell Open Enterprise Server 2. OES, which will be based on Novell's SLES 10, is designed to be a drop-in replacement for Novell NetWare servers, and a direct competitor to Microsoft's Server 2003.
Thread beginning with comment 187235
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
tomcat
Member since:
2006-01-06

There's also no evidence to the contrary, is your own position then not subjective too? In any case, I don't profess that some people are wrong, however throwing insults at them isn't any better. If you have evidence that Microsoft is not predatory, please present it to us...

Try to remember that absence of evidence isn't proof of anything.

It was not parody, it was exaggeration inserted into an enumeration of other points in order to insinuate that those who disagree with you make irrational claims. Do you see me using any such dishonest rhetorical tricks?

Some people like to think that they have a sense of humor. But they don't. Clearly, you fall into that category. It was parody. Deal with it. Francis.

I'm sure you can point us towards several example of such studies by non-biased sources?

Sure, read these sources as a starting point... (But I will predict in advance that your side will immediately go into hit-and-run-attack mode in trying to hang the "Microsoft shill" canard around the necks of each of these authors).

http://www.ehealthinformation.com/booklets/roi/Open_Source.htm

"The main conclusion is that open source reviews are, at best, not much better than the peer reviews that one would expect to see in a commercial setting."


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/02/12/open_and_closed_security/

"Open and closed approaches to security are basically equivalent, with opening a system up to inspection helping attackers and defenders alike."


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0ISJ/is_2_44/ai_n15399770/pg...

"Which is more secure: closed or open-source software? Unfortunately the answer is not that clear. In general, both FOSS and proprietary systems are roughly equivalent in terms of security and reliability. Neither is inherently more secure or reliable than the other. Analytical arguments made in favor of either approach are not conclusive."

http://www.stevemcconnell.com/ieeesoftware/eic06.htm

"The emphasis on code-level peer review gives the typical open-source project a leg up on the average closed-source project, which uses little or no review. But considering how ineffective the average project is, comparing open-source projects to the "average" closed-source project sets a pointless standard of comparison. Leading-edge organizations use a combination of practices that produce better quality, shorter schedules, and lower development costs than average, and software development effectiveness at that level makes a more useful comparison.

One of the bedrock realities of software development is that requirements and design defects cost far more to correct at coding or system testing time than they cost to correct upstream. The software industry has collected reams of data on this phenomenon: generally you can expect to spend from 10 to 100 times as much to correct an upstream defect downstream as you would spend to fix the same defect upstream.

Considering open source’s focus on downstream defect correction with significantly redundant peer reviews, for now the approach looks more like a shell game than a better mousetrap. It is appealing at first glance because so many people contribute effort that is free or unaccounted for. The results of this effort are much more visible than the effort itself. But when you add up the total effort contributed—both seen and unseen—open source’s use of labor looks awfully inefficient."

In other words, you admit that you cannot indulge in rational debate, and will continue to insult people you disagree with. Interesting.

Those are your words, not mine, and I would appreciate if you wouldn't try to cram them down my throat. Let's just put it this way: I have no hidden hopes or desires of converting bigots to my way of thinking. I'm merely expressing my point of view.

Once again, insults instead of arguments. Allow me to theorize that they are much more likely to be put off by your aggressive, uncivil manners and lack of rational arguments than by my calm, poised tone and carefully-constructed counter-arguments...

Hardly. I think that many people might conclude that BOTH of us are zealots, to one degree or another. You may not like that term, but it fits you: You believe passionately in your point of view, you're intractable in your opinions (a reading of your posts bears this out), and you seem to care intently about converting others to your way of thinking; in fact, you revealed this most intently when you wrote, "Don't you want to convince people that you're right?" in your previous post.

Reply Parent Score: 1

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Try to remember that absence of evidence isn't proof of anything.

Is the absence of evidence that, say, the MS/Novell deal is bad, isn't proof that it's not bad? You basically contradicted your previous claim right here and now.

Are taking a page out of NotParker's book, destroying your own positions? Thanks, but really, I don't need the help.

Some people like to think that they have a sense of humor. But they don't. Clearly, you fall into that category. It was parody. Deal with it. Francis.

I do have a sense of humor, it's just that you weren't funny. Deal with that, Betty.

Sure, read these sources as a starting point... (But I will predict in advance that your side will immediately go into hit-and-run-attack mode in trying to hang the "Microsoft shill" canard around the necks of each of these authors).

Listen, Betty: I don't have a "side." I produce proprietary software for a living. So get that right out of your head right now.

As for the studies, some make interesting points, however none of them are conclusive one way or the other (and two don't even deal with bugs at all, but with security issues - stay on topic, Betty).

I myself have no opinion on this. I merely stated that the case could be argued for open-source, one could just as easily argue the other side. However, calling people "cultists" and claiming that anyone who disagrees with you is a "zealot" is not making a rational argument.

Those are your words, not mine, and I would appreciate if you wouldn't try to cram them down my throat. Let's just put it this way: I have no hidden hopes or desires of converting bigots to my way of thinking. I'm merely expressing my point of view.

Who's talking about bigots? We're talking about people who are undecided - and believe me, you make such a poor case representing your "side" that you're most probably driving those undecided away from your point of view.

Hardly. I think that many people might conclude that BOTH of us are zealots, to one degree or another. You may not like that term, but it fits you:

I don't think it does, and I also object to the use of the term in that context. To me, zealots do not base their arguments on reason, but on faith.

You believe passionately in your point of view,

Meh, not really. I'm passionate about a lot of things, but free vs. commercial software isn't one of them. I do like it when people discuss things rationally, without resorting to insults or trying to misrepresent what the other side is saying.

you're intractable in your opinions (a reading of your posts bears this out),

A common mistake: I am not intractable (and in fact I have admitted to being wrong before), it's simply that I choose my arguments wisely. I don't like starting a debate when I'm not certain of my position. In this case, it's quite easy: strawman arguments and ad hominem attacks should not be part of rational debate.

and you seem to care intently about converting others to your way of thinking;

I try to defend what I believe to be true. There's nothing zealotous about that. "Convincing" people is not the same as "converting" - again, you use religious imagery in an effort to discredit those you disagree with. Are you even capable of formulating an argument without resorting to such weasel words? I'm starting to doubt it.

in fact, you revealed this most intently when you wrote, "Don't you want to convince people that you're right?" in your previous post.

Yes, note the word: "convince."

Well, don't you want to convince people that you're right? Or do you simply want to provoke people into reacting emotionally by making inflammatory declarations? Because you know what *that* means...

Reply Parent Score: 1