Linked by Neeraj Singh on Mon 23rd Apr 2007 19:02 UTC
Windows If you shout something loud enough and many people are saying it, does it become true? Some groups of people (include tech journalists and Linux advocates, such as Steven J. Vaughn-Nichols) have a psychological need to find Vista lacking. Mr. V-N has predicted that Vista will have all manner of problems, so his clear interest is to point out everything that is wrong with the OS. Who cares if he has to even make some stuff up?
Thread beginning with comment 233181
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
SJVN rants nothing compared to MS FUD
by JeffS on Mon 23rd Apr 2007 19:44 UTC
JeffS
Member since:
2005-07-12

SJVN writes some good, well thought out articles. But with others, they come off as anti MS FUD, for which he deserves to be called on.

But I just chuckle when someone complains about anti-MS FUD, when the FUD going the other way is much larger, by orders of magnitude.

When you take into account the MS "Get the facts" campaign, Steve Ballmer's suggestion of Linux IP violation, the hordes of "Analysts", who are on MS payroll (either directly or indirectly), who constantly bash Linux, and then all the "Windows Fanboys" who flame against Linux at any opportunity, and the "sue by proxy" (read SCO) by MS, and I can go and and on, the ranting articles by the likes of SJVN are a mere drop in the ocean in comparison.

Reply Score: 5

tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

But I just chuckle when someone complains about anti-MS FUD, when the FUD going the other way is much larger, by orders of magnitude.

I'd say it's about even, given all of the rumor-mongering, FUD, paranoia, and conspiracy theory that I see being spewed from people that should really know better...

Reply Parent Score: 2

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

When you take into account the MS "Get the facts" campaign


I read the 'get the facts' campaign, and I certainly don't see anything wrong with it; sure, like *any* companies product analysis, there are going to be assumptions based on 'best case scenario' but if you were to make a decision involving large amounts of money, you'd look at a number of sources for analysis.

Steve Ballmer's suggestion of Linux IP violation


Nice to see you complain about FUD and yet take the interview with Balmer completely out of context as to what the point of the interview.

The interview was relating to software patents; the issue was relatign to patents and how it affects Microsofts software.

He pointed out in the interview that Microsoft does its best to make sure that the software they write do no infringe on others patents, but its not an easy thing to do.

It then goes on to talk about others that might violate Microsoft's patents, to which Balmer quotes another source, completely unrelated to Microsoft, who said that Linux violated a number of licences. One only assumes that its based on 'well, Linux does this, Windows does this, so therefore patent violation (compatibility doesn't necessarily mean violation as there are many ways to implement a given thing).

Interesting how you completely ignore the summery at the end; that is, Balmer stating that this was an *industry* problem that needed to be resolved through a combination of patent reform *and* cross patent licencing - hence the cross patent licencing agreements between Microsoft, Novell, Sun and Samsung.

The hordes of "Analysts", who are on MS payroll (either directly or indirectly), who constantly bash Linux


Interesting, you talk about these 'analysts' on Microsofts payroll indirectly or directly, and yet, you ignore the fact that these are disclosed. You also ignore the fact that IBM, Novell, Sun, HP and OSL all either pay for or conduct their own 'analysis' of the products they sell.

I certainly don't attack them when they do it; what I do say, like I say about those conducted by Microsoft - look at all the information that is out there on the given product, both positive and negative.

and then all the "Windows Fanboys" who flame against Linux at any opportunity


Who? who flame against Linux? I certainly don't; I simply point out the reasons why *I* don't run Linux. For any well adjusted individual, the reasons for me not running Linux shouldn't impact on their reason for running Linux.

My reason for choosing not to run Linux should require a tonne of replies to posts on my blog completely missing the point of the article let alone failing to read the replies I make to those replies.

I would say the greatest problem I find with Linux 'zealots' are their inability to read all the article, read all the replies, and the replies I made, and coming up with a constructive reply that challenges me rather than demanding me copy and paste the same reply I make to others who make the same statements.

and the "sue by proxy" (read SCO) by MS, and I can go and and on, the ranting articles by the likes of SJVN are a mere drop in the ocean in comparison.


And what did SCO pay for? thats right, Microsoft paid for SCO intellectual property (patents and source code) - so I guess since Linux hates code, its all ok to start stealing code off SCO? nice attempt to grab the moral high ground.

Reply Parent Score: 3