Saying "Microsoft = crap" is even more inaccurate than saying "Novell = crap".  
It also puts you at a serious disadvantage when trying to develop Linux 
solutions, because it gives you the illusion that the alternative is "crap", 
and that your application has only to be a bit better than "crap" to succeed.  
I think we've all encountered examples of applications that thought they were 
the ultimate Microsoft killer, when they were actually just a clumsier 
implementation of the same tired ideas.

Microsoft has written some of the best software in the world, and where 
someone else has written better Microsoft has consistently either bought or 
stolen it.  Their weaknesses are in their arrogance and in their attitude 
that generating markets is more important than providing workable, secure 
solutions.  The fact that they offer one product - Windows - that runs 
everything from Grandmaw's web mail to the control systems for nuclear power 
plants is their biggest flaw.

If we're to offer the world realistic alternatives to the WallMart of 
operating systems, we need to look at them realistically.  We need to avoid 
FUD against Microsoft as much as we need to refute FUD against Linux.

We don't need to exaggerate or fabricate problems with Microsoft products to 
do better than they do - the real problems are there, waiting for us to offer 
alternatives.