Lets clear up some misconceptions

[DCT Jared]

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 13:32:53 -0600, Jonathan Hutchins wrote:
>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.

This is a rare and beautiful angle within the Linux community, and I
am grateful to see it written so clearly. I have yet to see a Linux distro
which can match Windows 2000 Professional for internal coherence,
and I think 2000 stability is really high. I use it every day as a developer,
and where I used to bluescreen its predecessors quite often, I now see a
blue screen once every six months. I will never use XP because it was
with that version that Microsoft's marketing strategies began to overwhelm
its technological ability, but I hold firm to the fact that BOTH Linux and
Windows have a long ways to go. To say that Linux is superior in all
respects is fanaticism, not an objective evaluation. It's not only fanaticism,
but it is FUD, and that is one thing we ought to avoid within Linux
advocacy.

Open Source is a much better way to develop software, but that does
not mean that all proprietary software is bad. PhotoShop, Quark Xpress,
these applications are as-yet-unmatched in the open source world,
though GIMP and Scribus will someday match them...

If you are going to slam Microsoft, do it in a competent fashion, not
throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but recognizing their merits.

Be balanced in your advocacy. Give your enemy what is rightfully theirs,
and you will find your position is stronger because clear-headed
generousity is compelling of its own merit. Bruce Perens does this
better than any open source advocate I know. He does not have to say
that Microsoft is BAD in order to say that Linux is GOOD.

-Jared