Much of it is true but with a classic Microsoft spin....I don't think it's right of them to be putting out this paper, but I guess it's fair business competition practicee.
<< Much of it is true but with a classic Microsoft spin....I don't think it's right of them to be putting out this paper, but I guess it's fair business competition practicee. >>
Yeah, unfortunately so. But it's kinda shocking when MS actually does compile such things and shakes the non-believers but near to adopters outta the way.
Less Secure
?Open source? means that anyone can get a copy of the source code. Developers can find security weaknesses very easily with Linux. The same is not true with Microsoft Windows.
The seem to be trying to imply that windows is cheaper than linux to operate and maintain. I really find that hard to believe. You would to pay for the same upkeep and tech support, but you don't need all of the EULA's.
<< If I were a Linux fanatic, I'd be gleeful. If Microsoft didn't perceive Linux as a threat, they never would have developed and published the paper. >>
Actually Steve Ballmer openly said that Linux is now their main competitor:
<< Less Secure
?Open source? means that anyone can get a copy of the source code. Developers can find security weaknesses very easily with Linux. The same is not true with Microsoft Windows. >>
WHAT BU!!SH!T
MS is so easily hacked or infected by viruses that it is not even funny
<< Less Secure
?Open source? means that anyone can get a copy of the source code. Developers can find security weaknesses very easily with Linux. The same is not true with Microsoft Windows. >>
WHAT BU!!SH!T
MS is so easily hacked or infected by viruses that it is not even funny >>
Uhh... Perhaps being closed source makes pple wanna look harder into how they can get into the system {G}
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.