Because it's more typically a substandard product being promoted as equivalent if not superior. I hear open source fanatics claim all the time that Linux is superior to Apple OSX and Windows, which is hilarious when examined as fact. Or when they claim Open Office is better than MS Office, there's just really no basis in fact for statements like that, yet we hear them all the time.
Microsoft's hurting--both fiscally and in PR.
There you go, more ficticious statements. Microsoft has set record profit numbers for several years straight now, to claim they are somehow hurting is ridiculous.
OSS has proven through usage that overall it is more reliable, and somewhat less prone to problems.
Proven? How? On what scale? All the reports I've seen from US Cert and the National Vulnerability Database - official government statistics - show Windows with less flaws, which equals better reliability. I guess you somehow missed these.
I don't really care how Google performs on Wall Street.
I'm not surprised.
I consider OpenOffice superior to Microsoft Office for what I use it for. The beauty of OSS is that its purpose is to make software more adaptable, reliable, and usable to the everyday person. Now, we may be far from that goal, but we in the Open-Source movemen still strive toward such a lofty goal.
We don't claim that Linux is inherently superior to OSX and Windows--we try to coexist with Apple and Microsoft. Yes, we recognize that Linux isn't for everybody and for every situation--there's where OSX and Windows fit in. But most of us who advocate open-source development do so not so much as to eradicate MS and Apple, but that we see the value in the development of software--much in part because we understand the beneficial value OSS carries on everyone who uses technology--from the innovators to the producers to the end-user.
There you go, more ficticious statements. Microsoft has set record profit numbers for several years straight now, to claim they are somehow hurting is ridiculous.
Microsoft's rated at a recommendation of 2.48 out of 5 by Standard and Poor's (arguably the most trusted recommendation) with one being a strong buy and five being a strong sell. If they were having record profits, S&P would be at a 1.5 or lower--effectively making everyone and their dog saying Strong Buy. Meaning, they might have had a good year or two, but evidently, the wiseguys in the offices know otherwise.
The oil industry is making record profits--everyone's buying oil stock for the short term. Right now, they're rated at around a one to one and a half.
You are correct when you say they're doing good--but this is for the past fiscal year. Overall, they've only reached the overperform ratings for bonds--and this was three months ago. Though this overperform was downgraded to neutral. As I've said, if MS is doing as wonderful as you claim, why aren't the benchmark financial institutions on the bandwagon?
When I look at a company, I don't just look at the estimate in stock price and the latest fiscal report--I look at specific items--including bond ratings, volume, and average recommendations by financial firms such as S&P.
They're still struggling with distrust among the public, and among governments. Though, most of the governmental obfuscations have come from more socialist leanings such as China and the EU.
My MS analysis thus stands.
Proven? How? On what scale? All the reports I've seen from US Cert and the National Vulnerability Database - official government statistics - show Windows with less flaws, which equals better reliability. I guess you somehow missed these.
I guess I have. I don't have any reason to read Microsoft's "Get the Facts" propaganda and slick marketing campaigns--this is exactly where this baloney comes from.
I'm not surprised
I din't expect you to be. After all, I for some reason have the hunch you're a MS spokesman.