Modify Colors
Posts in FUD
Proprietary Tax Makes Linux $1000 Less Expensive Than Mac, Windows
A new study by the IMTSUF reports that, contrary to opinions by Microsoft and CNBC, Linux is actually the cheapest choice, due to the Proprietary Tax, which adds the following additional expenses on to a standard $700 Windows PC or Mac:
- $50-$100 – Cost of proprietary operating system
- $50 – RAM upgrade for comparable performance
- $200-$300 – Proprietary software to replace free software included with Linux
- $20 – Toaster
- $50 – Anti-virus software
- $400 – Cat litter
Right about now you’re thinking about checking the source, right? I already said it comes the IMTSUF – The I’m Making This S**t Up Foundation. Haven’t you heard of them?
Well, apparently you have, because Microsoft and CNBC (???) are having a battle over the so-called “hidden costs” of owning a Mac or PC. To give you an example, Microsoft claims that an average family will need, in addition to two other computers and many accessories, a Mac Pro, a Mobile Me family pack, (in a few years) an iLife upgrade, and so on , but if you are on the PC side you don’t need any software, since you have older copies. CNBC, on the other hand, apparently believes that Macs come with Photoshop and PCs always require a Geek Squad visit. Sorry, iPhoto != Photoshop.
Those are just the most obvious examples, in 5 minutes of looking at these arguments, you could poke so many holes in each of them you couldn’t tell what they were supposed to say in the first place.
Trying to compare details like what software someone is going to buy is impossible. Is there a person for whom a Windows PC ends up costing $1000 more than a Mac? Probably. Does that person have a clue what they’re doing? Probably not. Does anyone care? Definitely not.
Attempting to do a detailed comparison of one company’s raw hardware versus another company’s is one thing, but making assumptions about what the user is going to do is a waste of everyone’s time. Just remember that next time you buy a Windows PC, you have to pick up 4 tons of cat litter, too. (It’s just in case someone leaves his or her soda in your case. It could happen, but then again that’s according to IMTSUF.)
Realistically Allowing for Numerous Software Preferences in Education
I consider the vast majority of people’s personal random complaints about Linux to be absolutely irrelevant. I really don’t care if one random person wants Linux to work like Windows in a particular way. The recent stories floating around are no exception, either. So far I have seen many, many people taken in by the idea that these stories about someone not understanding Linux actually mean something. They don’t. If you give enough people something other than what they have used their whole life, some of them will not get it. That’s just the way it works.
There does seem to be one interesting story coming out of all this, though. An OSNews article argues that universities should be far more willing to support whatever software the user chooses, rather than requiring a particular piece of software. I can’t say I fully agree, but I think the article is on the right track.
Realistically, asking universities to actually support whatever software their students choose to use is probably too much of a burden on the school. I don’t think that schools should have to provide this amount of support. Rather, I would only say they really need to provide direct support to those who use whatever software the university recommends. The university should, however, always choose formats that are well supported across many different operating systems and pieces of software.
If a student chooses to use software that is outside of the recommended software, the university would have to provide little, if any support, in fixing their problems. They would not, however, discourage the student from using their software of choice and they should try to be helpful in referring students having trouble with non-standard software to other students successfully using the same software.
In this way, students would not be prevented or discouraged from using non-standard software if it is what they prefer. At the same time, though, this approach would not unnessessarily burden the school.
No Control? Actually, You Have Total Control.
In a recent article discussing the possibility of the open-source phone groups collaborating, it was mentioned that some people are nervous about relying on open-source. To quote from the article:
The concern is that open-source initiatives “are a rattly ship, [where] there’s no control over where these platforms are going,” Burden says.
I have to disagree. With a piece of closed-source software, if the developers decide to abandon the project or the supporting company goes out of business or the developers decide to take a different direction, you are stuck. The best thing you can do is find a new solution or stick with the current version for as long as you can. These situations are not just theoretical, they really happen. Plenty of work has been lost into applications that stopped being developed. The work put into those applications could have been continued if the code had been open, but it was not.
With open-source software, on the other hand, you have complete control over what happens to the project. If the developers move on or change direction, the code is right there for you or someone else to pick up. That way, even if one company or group decides that a particular project is not worth pursuing, others who do think the project is worthwhile can continue it.
Getting back to the quote, if the exact same thing had been said about closed-source software, it would have been completely true. With open-source software, though, it is simply not the case.
What Do Microsoft Patent Deal Mean for Linux UMPCs? Nothing.
A recent iTWire article suggests that when Xandros’s patent deal with Microsoft runs out in 2011, Microsoft will attempt to use their patent FUD to stop Linux’s adoption on UMPCs.
Quite a while ago, a number of companies, including Novell, Xandros, and many others, signed patent deals with Microsoft. These deals supposedly protect the company in question and its customers from being sued by Microsoft, which Microsoft claims they can do because Linux supposedly violates many of their patents. Largely due to Microsoft not revealing what those patents are, other companies, such as Red Hat, refused to sign patent deals. At the time, companies that did sign patent deals were viewed very poorly by the Linux community, since they were simply submitting to Microsoft FUD. Gradually, however, this issue has become less of a focal point and there is a lot less coverage of it.
In 2011, though, as pointed out by the iTWire article, this issue is likely to resurface, since Xandros’s patent deal will expire. Since the Linux used on the Eee PC will no longer be “protected,” the article also suggests that Microsoft will use this FUD opportunity to try to harm Linux on UMPCs. They may try, but I don’t think they will succeed.
As I see it, when the patent deal issue resurfaces, there will, of course, be a huge uproar from the Linux community and lots of pressure for companies not to sign the deals. In this situation, one of two things will probably happen:
- Microsoft will give up trying to push their FUD around patents onto companies.
- Some more patent deals will be signed or renewed and everything will move on again.
Though the later may not be preferable, neither option would seriously hurt Linux’s chances on UMPCs or Linux’s chances in general.
Is Microsoft Worried About the OOXML Appeal?
When I saw the headline “Brazil Appeals OOXML Too! Asks Approval Be Reconsidered” on LXer today (the full article is on Groklaw) and then saw that India had joined the appeal, too, the question in my mind (other than the “I guess when you bypass the process and essentially cheat you don’t win, Microsoft” one) was what is Microsoft thinking right now? Unfortunately, I don’t know and the few who do know what Microsoft is thinking will probably never tell anymore than the PR lines, but, luckily, there may be some clues.
Going back to before even South Africa appealed OOXML’s ISO approval, Microsoft announced that they would be supporting ODF natively in Office. Most of the speculation I saw suggested that the move was made due to pressures from the EU and from governments wanting ODF support for their own reasons. However, with the recent appeals from three countries, I suspect there may be a different reason.
Microsoft must have known from the second reports of foul play around OOXML approval appeared that there would be many who would fight against OOXML approval. Again, I come back to the question “what is Microsoft thinking right now?”
Suppose the people inside Microsoft decided that Microsoft had to seriously worry about OOXML losing ISO approval. What would Microsoft do? First, downplay ISO approval in the press and, second, prepare for a graceful transition if OOXML fails. What does the second part mean, well, since creating a new standard is out of the question short-term, they would have to adopt another ISO approved standard, for example ODF. See where I am going?
Perhaps Microsoft’s adoption of ODF did not, at least completely, come from outside pressure. Perhaps it came from people inside Microsoft worried about a graceful transition to another format if OOXML did not get ISO approval and was unable to catch on without it. And if Microsoft was worried even before any countries actually appealed the approval, they must be worried now. If they are, that might be the best indication of OOXML’s future, which is not looking good.
Of course, this is all speculation and there are many assumptions here, but it is worth keeping in mind that Microsoft may know more about the appeals that are coming in than we do, so it is worth watching their moves to try and predict the future of OOXML. In my opinion, it would be just fine if OOXML died as a standard and Microsoft adopted ODF. Then we get one universal, truly open format that everyone can use. This would help to break up the Microsoft monopoly without destroying the company and it would spark more competition.
If OOXML looses ISO approval, it looks like Microsoft may adopt ODF, and if Microsoft adopts ODF, everyone wins.
And South Africans Are Going to Contribute To Windows?
Recently, Jason Matusow, a Microsoft employee, made the comment that “Deep dev of the core OS is not likely to happen in South Africa today on any large scale. Students at the university still grappling with coding skills are not going to dive into the inner-working of Linux.” Of course, as has already been pointed out, the statement holds no credibility due to South Africa being the birth place of someone named Mark Shuttleworth who happens to be the founder of Ubuntu.
If that is not, however, reason enough for you to discount Jason’s statements, consider this: a person from a company who is located primarily in the US and has basically all of their top management in the US is saying that South Africans will never be able to get involved with Linux, an open-source effort which has developers, leaders, art people, marketers, etc, etc everywhere in the world.
Microsoft, making fun of you is getting too easy.
Eee PC + MS Office: More Than Just Amusing
Yesterday Register Hardware reported that a company called BT was offering a bundle that combined an Eee PC running Linux with a copy of Microsoft Office Home and Student Edition. (This appears to have now been corrected.) While this is quite amusing (especially since you only save £1.76), there is another side to mistakes like this: they damage Linux’s reputation unfairly.
Without the bundle, most non-techie users would probably not even wonder if they needed Office. By seeing that bundle, though, potential Eee PC buyers are misled into assuming that they need Office and that it will run on the Eee PC. If those users were tech-savvy, when they realized that Office would not install, they would blame it on BT — but, of course, if those users really were tech-savvy, they would not have bought the bundle in the first place. The point is that the kind of user who might fall for this bundle is likely to blame Asus or Linux for the mistake, not BT, who is truly at fault.
I am glad BT has fixed the problem and I hope it does not happen again. I am tired of Linux FUD being spread due to mistakes like this.
I am sure that almost anyone following the Linux news for any length of time has gotten completely used to the FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) that comes out of Redmond over and over. Sometimes it is outrageous, sometimes it is just annoying, but I have never seen something as blatantly uninformed as this.
Yesterday, Wired reported this: (he is Bill Gates)
“There’s free software and then there’s open source,” he suggested, noting that Microsoft gives away its software in developing countries. With open source software, on the other hand, “there is this thing called the GPL, which we disagree with.”
Open source, he said, creates a license “so that nobody can ever improve the software,” he claimed
What?
Bill Gates is saying that GPL makes it “so that nobody can ever improve the software.” Apparently he does not understand what “open-source” means. With open-source software, GPL in this case, you have the right to modify and redistribute the program. How on earth does that make is “so that nobody can ever improve the software.” Is this supposed to be FUD or ignorance?
Can anyone give a logical explanation for how this could possibly be at all true?
Microsoft's Security Claims Don't Stand Up to Scrutiny
One of the things that annoys me the most about Microsoft is their love of FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt.) I have no problem with companies marketing their products to customers, but I do object to false conclusions that cannot be backed by real, relevant facts. One argument that bothers me in particular goes like this: our product has fewer security vulnerabilities than yours so it is better. This argument works great for headlines, but when you really look at it, it falls apart. Below are two examples of these claims:
- Jeff Jones, a security expert for Microsoft, claims Vista is more secure than Ubuntu 6.06 LTS
- Windows Server is more secure than Red Hat Enterprise Linux, according to a Microsoft FUD site
As I said, these claims are full of issues. Here are the problems with the arguments: (not every such argument suffers from all these flaws, but all of them suffer from one or more of them)
- The severity of the vulnerabilities is not included. Security vulnerabilities are ranked by what kind of a threat they pose. If this data is not included, a product with 100 minor glitches of almost no consequence would be considered less secure than a product with 75 major glitches. (The kind of thing where a hacker can take control of your computer.)
- There is no consideration of the status of a vulnerability. If a vulnerability is quickely fixed it is counted the same as if it has been weeks or months and is still unfixed.
- Not all companies admit to all the bugs that exist. In an open-source project like Ubuntu, if a bug is found and can be duplicated, it is known and reported, but not all companies act this way.
When you fill in the missing data, you get a very different conclusion from what Microsoft would like you to believe. I will only go through the data pertaining to Microsoft’s FUD site claim, but you can do the same thing for Jeff Jones’s claim.
(All of the below data is from Secunia, solving the problem of companies not reporting all the bugs that exist.)
Starting with the severity of the vulnerabilities, here is the data:
As you can see, Ubuntu has less critical vulnerabilities. The data is even more impressive for fixed and unfixed vulnerabilities:
Here Ubuntu has a perfect record, having fixed all of the flaws.
In conclusion, Microsoft’s argument is flawed and their conclusion is incorrect. This will not be news to many of you, but hopefully you will appreciate seeing real numbers behind it.