Would we be so critical of Microsoft if it was a free system? 5

[Craftor]

Looking at the current posts in the forums - there has been a lot of critisism (rightly or wrongly - I'm not judging) on Microsoft.

I'd like to hear a discussion from people on whether they think MS would get as much critisism if it was a free OS? Is some of our critisism partly based on spite because MS has made millions?

I'm not here to say MS is in the right or in the wrong (personally I'm a Linux fan...) I just think this could be a really interesting topic.

Thoughts, please?

Craftor

 

[cian]

Hi,

Personally, no I don't think it would recieve half the criticism 'twere it free, but that does not mean it gets the criticism because they make millions. It gets criticism because you have to pay for it and it has flaws, basically.

If you get a free car you won't complain. If you buy that car and the doors won't lock, for example, then you will complain! Same thing, in my humble onion!

I don't complain about Microsoft, I complain about Lotus Notes, i #(¤%&()=#"%¤ hate it but have to use it!



::

http://www.endamcg.com

 

[sleipnir214]

My criticism has been pointed at Mi¢ro$oft in two ways: their software engineering and their business practices.

If they gave away their software, I wouldn't have anything to complain about with their business practices.

But if their software engineering was still as excreble as it is now, I would still be criticising.

I have no problem with mi¢ro$oft's making money -- hell, that's why companies exist. But when you have a company producing popular but second-rate software, then using it's marketing and merchandising to kill better but less-well-funded products, now I have a problem. Seems the Federal government of the United States did, too.

The way I look at it, if Mi¢ro$oft's products were as good as their marketing says they are, they wouldn't need the marketing to keep telling us. ______________________________________________________________________

http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

TANSTAAFL!

 

[Kjonnnn]

cian.. not just notes .. i lived thru the SmartSuite era... can you say Lotus WordNOTPro....?

 

[gurner]

Microsoft's products are generally across the board are pretty dire (except Win2kSvr, which i think is actually one of the best OS's, if maybe a bit hungry and expensive)

BUT

So are just about everyone else's as well (again except the Solaris's, Nortels, Cisco's and Nokia's, yes i believe the hardware venders have it spot on)

BUT

A large majority of them are free, so all and sundry sing their praises.

Software is in a pretty poor state (thats rich from someone that couldn't code to save his life)

You know how i justify it?

Microsoft = Vauxhall, GM, Opel (which ever country you are in)
Pay over the odds for an average car with little come back when it goes wrong, better get your toolkit out and ring your mate dave the mechanic!

Always advertised with a multi million pound AD campaign it quite obviously can't live upto!

Linux, UNIX = some anonymous Kit Car manufacturer, cheap as chips, have to build it yourself from a manual printed in German, Customer service! You're joking! you're on your own mate! better go find a kit car club full of like minded enthusiasts (sound like Tek-Tips?)

The rest of the software is split between Jaguars, Aston Martins, Ferraris e.t.c. and Daewoos, Skodas, Ford e.t.c.

Which do you see the most of on our roads?

The first lot you get quality for high cost (SAP? e.t.c.) and you know the rest...

 

[gurner]

Microsoft are on that middle ground.

Overcharging, riping you off with a product that should be priced in a lower price bracket.

Too expensive to justify the quality

And not as expensive as the real top quality

Normally companies like that just don't last long, but Bill Gates is (unfortunatly) an 'Outstanding' Businessman!

And don't think that shiny red car is worth the money on the windscreen, it has probably been priced several grand over its list price

 

[edfair]

I wouldn't be nearly so critical if it was free, but I also wouldn't use it even if it was free, if there was any other alternative.
But for a product that is pretty much the defacto standard that carries a retail price, any complaints they get are deserved. Ed Fair
unixstuff@juno.com
Any advice I give is my best judgement based on my interpretation of the facts you supply. Help increase my knowledge by providing some feedback, good or bad, on any advice I have given.

 

[Tarwn]

Too expensive to justify the quality,
And not as expensive as the real top quality
What do you consider to be top quality and, by implication, more expensive than windows? (out of curiosity)

-Tarwn --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
This space has nothing in it, it's all ni your imagination

 

[craigsboyd]

First allow me to say that I am a WINTEL fan...so those of you that hate microsoft and all it stands for may wish to stop reading now...

I've listened to free-source proponents and Big Iron Lovers bash on microsoft for years and though a few of their arguments have merit, i would say that many of the arguments used to foster this belief that microsoft is a money-hungry corporation interested in carrying out the greedy whims of Bill Gates are foundless.

Why is Microsoft on top of the heap...because the Windows OS is the worst out there? Because they stole everything from Xerox and Apple and had the rights to MS DOS? Because the software enhancements and add-ons they have are way worse than the Freeware available for download at ZDNet? Because their products are such security risks that you can't trust them to hold and view your personal information?
Come on!

Microsoft is at the top of the heap because it's giving the consumer what they want...as for the security holes...I submit that there are as many security holes in Microsoft's products as there are in any other...Pick any company that has the broad range and number of products that Microsoft does in this industry and there too will you find security flaws...(though even I flinch at raw sockets and the windows messaging service)...we hear about Microsoft and how bad their security is because it is the most used and therefore the most hacked of all.

So let's give Microsoft a bit of a break, they have indeed made some mistakes, but so have I in software development over the years...they are not any more or less bad than any of the other rich corporations out there vieing for the IT Consumer's buck. I will run and develop for Windows for as long as Windows sits on more of the consumers' desktops/notebooks/servers...and if it was total crap that didn't meet the consumers' needs then I would be running and developing for Linux/Unix maybe and i'd be defending them i suppose...but Windows does work and they definately get more then their fair share of a bad rap...in my humble opinion. Slighthaze = NULL

 

[rycamor]

First off, here's a bit of irony: Microsoft is making their software free in certain cases. (

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/28386.html)

Now, to respond to Slighthaze: I did not move from Windows to Linux to FreeBSD for my webservers because of any personal vendetta against Microsoft. Nor did I do it because it was cheap. (It wasn't cheap: I had to put a lot of time in to really learn how to run FreeBSD, and time == money). I did it precisely for these reasons:

1. frustration with the constant little annoyances and problems I was having with every Microsoft product. With a Linux machine-- and even more so with FreeBSD-- I am in control of every aspect of the system, and am not left in total confusion when something goes wrong (which it almost never does with FreeBSD).

2. Investment in my future. While FreeBSD takes more time to learn, the return value is that you can manage many more servers more quickly and easily than with Windows NT/2000. In fact, the past few years have shown that Microsoft's own staff are quite happy with FreeBSD for many tasks (

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/28226.html).

Essentially, the scope of what one person can accomplish with FreeBSD (and Apache/PHP/PostgreSQL, in my case) is simply mind-blowing, precisely because of the power it places in your hands, instead of in the software maker's hands. Running Windows servers feels like enslavement to me, now.

3. Personal preference. I prefer to work with a system that is "open", as is the whole philosophy and architecture of Unix. There is nothing "hidden away" in there. I have access to the system at any level, up to and including the capability to edit the source and recompile. I understand that the thought of this is like speaking in Martian, to most Win32 users, but you have no idea the power it gives you. And you don't have to be a C/Assembly hacker for this to be useful. There are quite a few settings in the source code that are well-documented and easy for any admin to change, in order to tweak the OS for different situations.

4. Security -- I was sooo tired of constantly living in fear that my Windows system would be hacked in some new way, and I would be powerless to stop it. Yes, Linux has had it's share of security problems, but even then, the problems are never as severe as the Windows show-stoppers, and FreeBSD, which I use, has even less problems by far. I'm sorry, but once you really study the security of systems from the ground up, you will realize that there is a big difference, from the ground up. Microsoft's only solution has been a series of band-aids (because the original OS was never intended for the network), while Unix-type systems were designed from the ground up to be multi-user, networked, and to have the openness and flexibility to adapt to new security threats.

While I agree there have been unsavory things about Microsoft in business, my reasons had nothing to do with Microsoft-bashing. I simply made a practical decision, based upon willingness to sacrifice in the short term, for long-term gain. (What a thought) I feel that Microsoft constantly encourages users to seek instant gratification, in return for eventually being very restricted in choices later.

My other main annoyance with Microsoft is their tendency to try and do everything, and accomplish a mediocre job of it, rather than concentrate on what they do best and do it right. As was shown in recent SEC filings, Microsoft makes far more money from Office and Windows (desktop, not server) than anything else. In fact, Microsoft operates at a loss in almost every other area. If they just were willing to put some of that R&D money into making the top products work better, and stop wasting everyone's time in other areas, I would be very happy. I don't mind Windows as a desktop (although Unix graphic environments can be a lot more fun sometimes ;-)). -------------------------------------------

Big Brother: "War is Peace" -- Big Business: "Suspicion is Trust"
(

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html)

 

[ST0RMCHASER]

Microsoft may of had the lead ahead of the rest, but their practices of stopping the little guys from having a piece of the pie is a outrage. They pushed their product upon us, along with their flaws with security. Their ways of trying to control the OS world are appalling, and downright wrong. It's one thing to be a good business, and another to be a poor excuse for a OS, and throw outright prices for a product that is not worth the money they ask for. People ask for, and get what they want if you want to call it that. But in the process they get a bunch of crap they don't want, or care for. You have no control over Microsoft products. The computer only is yours, the Microsoft software inside is not in your control. I know wonder people are turning to Linux, you can't trust Microsoft anymore. From what I have seen from a few other post, you never have been able to trust Microsoft. Furthermore... Stealing is not good business. I hear all the time that Microsoft stole. If this is true, then please explain to me how in the hell they did this, and got away with it?

 

[sleipnir214]

slighthaze:

Mi¢ro$oft has earned every bit of its bad publicity.

And all I really want is for Mi¢ro$oft to live up to its own marketing hype. I'm expected to back up my own bullshit -- why can't they?

They say that they produce the best software available. Then why must they resort to monopolistic business practices and protectionist software engineering practices to maintain their market share?

They say they innovate. What product has Mi¢ro$oft ever published that was truly innovative?

And was it impossible to give the public what they want while also producing software that was even moderately bug-free and secure? You have posited that the reason Mi¢ro$oft's software is the most hacked because it is the most available, and that it has no more security holes than any other OS. Currently, some 99% of all the computer viruses in the wild infect Mi¢ro$oft's software. Last time I checked, they didn't have a 99% market share. From those two facts, I can only infer that Mi¢ro$oft's software has a greater incidence of virus-exploitable security holes than other operating systems.

Want the best answers? Ask the best questions:

http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

TANSTAAFL!

 

[Tarwn]

Stormchaser:
They pushed their product upon us
Yes, and so does every business in it's right mind

another to be a poor excuse for a OS
This is your opinion, there are a lot of people out there that like Windows

throw outright prices for a product that is not worth the money they ask for
Again, business. Charge what people will pay. If they don't pay your charging to much. I don't like their prices either.

You have no control over Microsoft products
Who said you were supposed to? How much control do you have over the composition of that cheese burger you just bought? Or the wiring they use in your TV? Etc.

I hear all the time that Microsoft stole
I love it. I guarantee that over half the people you heard this from also wondered why they stole, but continued to tell people it was true.

Sleipner:
Concerning the market share calculation: Just because MS doesn't have that large a market share, who has a bigger share of the market when it somes to ignorant users running factory settings? This is another major reason that Windows is so frequently hacked.

-Tarwn --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

 

[ST0RMCHASER]

Tarwn: "Who said you were supposed to? How much control do you have over the composition of that cheese burger you just bought? Or the wiring they use in your TV? Etc."

Poor reason considering when you get your cheese burger, you don't have to get it with onions, and pickles if you don't want too. Also when you go to the stores to buy electronics, each of the manufacturers use their own components. You get to choose from the different componenents what you want by the brand you purchase. In other words you have variety.


Craftor: "on whether they think MS would get as much criticism if it was a free OS? Is some of our criticism partly based on spite because MS has made millions?"

I believe that if Microsoft had of made the OS open source
A lot of the security flaws would of been fixed by now by the wonderful programmers/Hackers out their that love a challenge. Microsoft could of made software for the OS, and concentrated on that perhaps they would of done a better job, and service for all concerned. I have no spite for a company who has made millions. Everyone should make millions. I think we all should be as filthy rich as Bill Gates.

 

[Tarwn]

Poor reason considering when you get your cheese burger, you don't have to get it with onions, and pickles if you don't want too. Also when you go to the stores to buy electronics, each of the manufacturers use their own components. You get to choose from the different componenents what you want by the brand you purchase. In other words you have variety.

Whether or not a piece of equipment has certain parts or a burger has certain ingrediants has nothing to do with the composition of those parts. Did they buy bargain basement boards or wiring? Did they buy the onions off the side of the road, or from a strange cult run onion farm?

Sure the components are name brand, but you don't have any control over what parts they use to build the components (and subsequebtly force you to use).
-Tarwn --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

 

[cdogg]

sleipnir214,

There is one point you made that I'm not sure I agree with:
"You have posited that the reason Mi¢ro$oft's software is the most hacked because it is the most available, and that it has no more security holes than any other OS. Currently, some 99% of all the computer viruses in the wild infect Mi¢ro$oft's software. Last time I checked, they didn't have a 99% market share"

Though it may be true that 99% of the viruses out there exploit security holes in Mi¢ro$oft's software, what does that imply about the market share or vice versa? I don't see why this must be true:
% of viruses = % of market share

For instance, let's suppose Mi¢ro$oft's software has 80% of the market share, but 95% of all viruses infect it. One could conclude that more "hackers" are targeting Mi¢ro$oft, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's less secure. To keep it simple, let's also suppose that Linux makes up 10% of the market share, but only 1% of the viruses. Does that necessarily mean it is 94% more secure than Mi¢ro$oft's products? Do you really think that would be the case if things had been the other way around? I seriously doubt it - we might be here talking about Linux instead.

Now, we can all agree that Linux having been built loosely upon Unix, is more secure than Windows. However, just because 90% more viruses out there apply to Mi¢ro$oft doesn't mean that it is 90% less secure. The logic here should be that the creaters of viruses, trojans, and such are targeting Mi¢ro$oft more frequently because it controls the majority of the market share. Although your analogy makes sense, I don't think you can draw that conclusion irrefutablely.



~cdogg

"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."
- A. Einstein

 

[sleipnir214]

cdogg:

I will admit that the fact that Win32 predominates in the desktop market, and that a majority of Win32 virii enter the system through user action (opening an email, clicking a link), that it would skew the numbers higher toward Win32.

Mi¢ro$oft's historical unwillingness to even admit there is a problem, much less fix it, adds to the problem.

So does the fact that Mi¢ro$oft did little more than pay lip-service to security for the first 10 years of its operation.

And further, the the fact that some Win32 subsystems (Windows Messaging as an example) are so badly engineered from a security standpoint that they may be unfixable, really makes things ugly.

Code complexity is another factor. The more complex an application, the harder it is to get the bugs out. And the debugging function isn't linear -- a piece of code twice as complex is more than twice as hard to debug fully.

And all of these would bother me, even if there were few virii, in relation to market share, available to infect Win32 systems.

But 60,000 (counting variants) on Win32 versus 120 on Mac, BSD, and Linux combined (counting variants) tells me something. Very strongly.

The fact that Apache has never had an equivalent to IIS's Nimda or CodeRed, even though Apache has a majority market share, tells me something, too.
Want the best answers? Ask the best questions:

http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

TANSTAAFL!

 

[cdogg]

OK, that clears it up! Thanks!!

Apache is definitely a good example of how market share has no effect on "skewing" the numbers. I didn't think of that one!!


~cdogg

"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."
- A. Einstein

 

[LesleyW]

LOL at your footer cdogg!

 

[sleipnir214]

cdogg:

I'm going to have to amend my last post.

Please remove the paragraph which reads:

So does the fact that Mi¢ro$oft did little more than pay lip-service to security for the first 10 years of its operation.

And replace it with the following paragraph:

[/i]So does the fact that to date, Mi¢ro$oft does not take security seriously enough, as you can see from this example link:

http://www.computerworld.com/securitytopics/security/story/0,10801,76529,00.html

[/i] Want the best answers? Ask the best questions:

http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

TANSTAAFL!