|
Microsoft runs Linux Smear Campaign |
|
|
|
|
Page 3 of 4  Late last night I was surfing the web and reading the news on CNN.com, where upon I noticed their search bar at the top of the page. I decided to place the keyword "linux" into the search box; I clicked the search button to see if there was any Linux-related news that I might have missed. What I found in the paid search really shocked me and upset me. In the number one position, it said the following:
"Compare Windows to Linux
www.Microsoft.com Making a Server Platform Decision? Read About Windows Server vs. Linux "
The site in question: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver/compare/default.mspx - I will not hotlink it. (Tired of all the hate? Check out our Linux love connection here.)
Microsoft is actually paying for a Linux smear campaign on the Google syndicated network! I had been to that site a long time ago before it was any where near as developed as it is now. But what surprises me the most is that they are paying people to visit this site; while it does look like a large, thought-out website, there is no substance to it at all. All the points made are flat out lies. For example, "people choose Windows Server for better security than Linux." But when you click on this precarious statement to learn more, it simply states that Windows Server 2008 is the most secure windows server ever; no explanation; no details; no truth; no actual comparison to a Linux-based server. Saying Windows Server 2008 is the most secure version of Windows isn't saying much; it's like having constructed planes without any roof for years, while hundreds of your passengers flew out of the plane, only then in the year 2008 to construct a plane with a tin foil roof and say it's the "best Microsoft plane ever."
What I found interesting also is they try to convince you that reliability is more than just up time. The site states “Organizations define reliability as more than uptime”. Anyone want to guess what is wrong with this statement? Does it assume Linux has better uptime? Sounds that way to me. There is a huge difference between usability and reliability and whomever came up with that line is a flat out idiot. The site also has a large number of case studies, which are pretty much given by computer illiterate executives (not IT people) discussing how Windows Server helped them. I cant help but be infuriated by the fact these people are commenting on issues about which they have no real knowledge or acumen. The whole site just reeks of Nazi era propaganda, and they take the stand that there is no other choice but Windows for a server. Nothing could be further from the truth. A good webserver should be running anything except Windows for reliability!
What are your thoughts about Microsoft's smear campaign?
I think they are doing this out of fear. They know that more and more people are going to Linux for a solution. For example, Google runs its software on Linux; current estimates are that they employ roughly 450,000 Linux servers - making them THE largest company in the world to rely on Linux for speed and security. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_platform
Tell us what you think. Also check out our feature article on classic FUD What's all the FUD about?
 Add as favourites (93) |  Quote this article on your site | Views: 41300
|
