Re: [tlug] Microsoft adver-FUD on SourceForge

[Edward Middleton <edwardmiddleton@example.com>]

On Mon, 2006-02-06 at 19:23 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> >>>>> "Edward" == Edward Middleton <edward@example.com> writes:
> 
>     >> Think about it.  Steve Smith is right.  It helps pay the bills
>     >> for Sourceforge[2], and these look very much like actual facts,
> 
>     Edward> They always do until you check the details.
> 
> Well, if you've done so, please let us know what they are.  The
> Microsoft case studies I've read clearly involve information that is
> highly proprietary to the client, so the details cannot easily be
> checked in a useful way.
That is my point, Unverifiable data from untrustworthy sources is not
useful information to draw conclusions from.

> The most important claim (that the company used to use Linux and now
> used Embedded XP) is hardly likely to be faked.
Unfortunately that is all that can be said.

>     >> You should also remember that every time Microsoft is forced to
>     >> mention Linux, it validates Linux as serious competition.  Any
>     >> decent businessman realizes that any product that deserves his
>     >> vendor's negative advertising also deserves his serious
>     >> consideration.

>     Edward> Yes and if you bang you head into a brick wall enough you
>     Edward> will probably strengthen your skull but that doesn't make
>     Edward> it a desirable path to follow.

> Speaking of FUD ... don't you recognize a non sequitor when you post one?

Translation for Stephen, Just because it does damage to Microsoft does
not mean it isn't painful for whoever has to deal with it.

Edward