Coffeehouse Thread

111 posts

Please stop funding bogus studies

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    jamie

    Here’s the latest:
    http://news.com.com/Who+really+created+Linux%3F/2100-7344_3-5216651.html?tag=nefd.lede

    Linus didn’t create Linux - sponsored by MS\

    I don’t use linux.. but these studies you BUY make you look so BAD

    the Gartner report as well as all those Win / VS / Linux - where you KNOW ms paid for the results.

    * before you argue - yes you funded - but the results are the companies own.. PUleease..
    I’m sure negative studies don’t see the light of day.. and also it just makes you look defensive and cornered.

    Go find some studies you didn’t pay for - or fund in ANY way and trumpet those please.

    Or better yet , finish longhorn and make the whole comparison thing moot

    jamie - a loyal windows user who thinks Windows rocks
    * NOT funded by MS!

    * spelling fixed Wink

  • User profile image
    PaoloM

    I'm sure there's gotta be some english in your post but... I can't find it!

  • User profile image
    DanTheMan

    jamie wrote:
    Linus didnt create linux - sponsored by MS\


    First point: I gather you have no evidence that MS funded the "study" you linked, otherwise you'd provide some, yes?

    Second point: Studies cost money. If there are no studies comparing the long-term TCO of Windows vs. Linux, it is logical for MS to fund a reputable company to do one. Red Hat or IBM or any other competing vendor are free to fund their own studies. It is interesting to me that they do not.

    Third point: Andy Tanenbaum says in his response to the report:

    "In science it is considered important to credit people for their ideas, and I think Linus has done this far less than he should have. Ken and Dennis are the real heros here."

    So the report says that Linus did not give due credit for Linux and Tanenbaum says that Linus did not give due credit for Linux. The only point of contention seems to be who deserved the credit that Linus didn't give.

  • User profile image
    Manip

    I have to agree on this point. Microsoft needs to grow up and play fair..

    I don't think Microsoft comes up with the ideas for the FUD but instead just sends over some cash and says 'Make Linux look bad'. It is not a great idea picking on Linus either, you damage him/his reputation your just make him a martyr..

    I don't of course point a finger at the channel 9 crew, programmers etc etc. It is the sicko non-geek marketers.

    Thing is that too many morons read and recite the 'Total Cost of ownership' crap all the time. This latest one is not so bad, because firstly nobody cares who made it (Normal people) and secondly it is too ludicrous. 

    I love how in the total cost of ownership studies they said that it would cost more because Microsoft trained network admin's would have to be retrained to use Linux and thus making Linux admin's super-expensive. If you go and read it you notice that it doesn't take lots of current facts into account anyway, such as there ARE Linux admin's in the market today and they only looked at a very limited array of management options.

  • User profile image
    jamie

    DanTheMan wrote:

    First point: I gather you have no evidence that MS funded the "study" you linked, otherwise you'd provide some, yes?




    From the article:

    ""--it immediately drew criticism from open-source advocates who suggested Linux foe Microsoft was behind the report.

    Microsoft indeed has provided funding to the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution for five years, a Microsoft representative said, without disclosing how much has been granted"

  • User profile image
    Manip

    The evidence has been slashdotted.. your have to wait.

    The point of contention is that they are saying Linus STOLE the Linux source and renamed it or something to that effect.

  • User profile image
    DanTheMan

    jamie wrote:
    From the article:

    ""--it immediately drew criticism from open-source advocates who suggested Linux foe Microsoft was behind the report.


    The same people who think that M$ is behind global warming and AIDS.

    jamie wrote:
    Microsoft indeed has provided funding to the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution for five years, a Microsoft representative said, without disclosing how much has been granted"



    That is interesting, and perhaps worth of further investigation, but it is by no means solid evidence of your claim.

  • User profile image
    DanTheMan

    Manip wrote:

    The point of contention is that they are saying Linus STOLE the Linux source and renamed it or something to that effect.


    I don't see anyone claiming that Linus stole the source code to Linux, rather that he based Linux on other bodies of work and did not give credit where credit was due.

  • User profile image
    lars

    Andy writes:

    "Thus, of course, Linus didn't sit down in a vacuum and suddenly type in the Linux source code. He had my book, was running MINIX, and undoubtedly knew the history (since it is in my book). But the code was his. The proof of this is that he messed the design up."

    Further down:

    "My conclusion is that Ken Brown doesn't have a clue what he is talking about. I also have grave questions about his methodology. After he talked to me, he prowled the university halls buttonholing random students and asking them questions. Not exactly primary sources."

    'nuff said.

    /Lars.

  • User profile image
    Manip

    DanTheMan wrote:
    The same people who think that M$ is behind global warming and AIDS.


    You want to see our cards, show us yours.. where do 'open-source advocates'  blame Microsoft for global warming and AIDS?

    You must admit, that although Microsoft are not responsible for global warming or AIDs, they do make both worse. I mean with sales people travelling from country to country getting up to 'stuff' some of they are bound to have court the disease and what about all those Windows 95 disks, when they where being produced they did cause the global climate to rise slightly...

  • User profile image
    lars

    DanTheMan wrote:

    The same people who think that M$ is behind global warming and AIDS.



    Well, now we know where you are coming from. Futher discussion is pointless.

    /Lars.

  • User profile image
    jamie

    he wrote it or he didnt.


    still, convenient headlines like:

    News.com  "Who really created Linux?"

    you can't buy that kind of press..  oh wait!...

  • User profile image
    Jeremy W

    So, MS funds a research body. That research body makes a study. The author of the study is relatively balanced. The newspapers sensationalize it.

    And we're blaming Microsoft for the sensationalizing? I don't get it. That's 3 degrees of separation.

    Someone mentioned this earlier: every study has to be funded by someone. And, generally, when the person funding the study doesn't get the result they want, they pull it.

    That's why nearly all studies that are published are by the people who support the results. It isn't because of any malfeasance on the part of the sponsors. It isn't even on the part of those who pull studies. It's just how things are done.

    There are a small number of firms who do studies without bias, and sell the results. By and large, though, the studies you hear about from Gartner, etc, have to be commissioned.

    That doesn't skew the results. It doesn't make the study worthless. It merely gives people who don't want to believe it some sub-intelligent reason to dismiss the study.

    The only time a study can be dismissed as biased (in my opinion) is:

    1. When a study is based on false pretenses, evidence or methodologies
    2. When the sponsoring company has direct input into the contents of the study
    3. Whe the sponsoring company refuses payment if a study doesn't go according to plan

    Since none of these can be proven in most studies, the response most people have to them irks me.

    Say you disagree with the findings. Say you don't agree with the methodologies. Say the researcher is biased.

    Feel free to say all of those things. But, if the worst someone can come up with is "Microsoft paid for it bleeeeeehhhhh" it really doesn't increase my respect for that individual.

  • User profile image
    DanTheMan

    lars wrote:
    DanTheMan wrote:

    The same people who think that M$ is behind global warming and AIDS.



    Well, now we know where you are coming from. Futher discussion is pointless.

    /Lars.



    Explain this comment, if you please. Is it simply meant to be incendiary? I don't know how you can know where I'm coming from on the basis of what is obviously a tongue-in-cheek comment.

  • User profile image
    jamie

    Jeremy i agree with your whole post.

    but you gotta admit, all this adds up to a bigger thing - and that's "cripple Linux adoption".  From baystar, to funded studies, to restictive new patents, to avalon/aero (win only) - MS play on a bigger chessboard than isolated incidents..  the whole is greater than the sum 

  • User profile image
    Jeremy W

    Come on, let's be honest. Do you actually feel there's a big conspiracy going on here? Or are you just pointing these out for kicks?

    BayStar we've argued over before (and it's been covered in the press). Funded studies I've addressed. Patents are part of doing business (HP holds more than 110,000). Making things only for your OS isn't anti-Linux...

    I could easily say that the sum of MS's pro-Linux stuff is greater than the sum of it's parts: Linux Services, several new open source apps, releasing .NET for BSD... The list isn't as long as yours could be, but I just don't buy that MS is out to do anything evil.

    Growth is one thing. Protectionism is another. Evil is something entirely different. I haven't really seen anything that's actually designed to do any serious damage to Linux in quite some time.

    Besides, in your earlier thread you mentioned how bad MS pricing was. Maybe they're doing more for Linux than you think? Wink

  • User profile image
    lars

    Jeremy W. wrote:
    And we're blaming Microsoft for the sensationalizing? I don't get it. That's 3 degrees of separation.
    [...]
    when the person funding the study doesn't get the result they want, they pull it.


    Well, maybe this was one of those that should have been pulled. Does it really matter how many degrees of separation there is if Microsoft is the one ending up with the blame?
    Come to think of it, if Microsoft wants to shoot themselves in the foot, it's their right to do so... The whole thing is always good for a laugh.

    "Is it simply meant to be incendiary?"

    Quite the opposite.

    /Lars.

  • User profile image
    Jeremy W

    Btw, the above wasn't meant as a slam. I know you know and respect Microsoft, and I do know where you're coming from. The perception that there's something evil going on is easy to understand. Completely understandable even.

    Just sometimes I see you (jamie) playing the 'devil's advocate' (does this translate into your language?) and it seems a bit weak.

    I know a lot of people slam you for not understanding where you're coming from, but generally I do, and I respect your opinions a lot.

    So, again, my comment above wasn't meant as a slam at all, quite the opposite in fact. Just trying to figure out where you're coming from Smiley

Comments closed

Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums, or Contact Us and let us know.