[Knitebane]

Since you're slow, I'll use small words...

This guy decided to do a Windows vs. Linux test.

His department takes Microsoft's money. No matter how much you spin, you can't deny that fact.

Now, he could have avoided the appearance of impropriety by getting someone from the Unix department to do the Linux part of the test, but he didn't.

And he can't claim that it didn't occur to him that there might be an appearance of impropriety, since he's been publicly called on it (and responded to it) before.

Very simply, the test may or may not be accurate (we don't know because the only thing published thus far are the results, not the methodology or testing criteria) but it's tainted by his connection to Microsoft dollars.

The only reason to go ahead and run his test would be to make the grant givers at Microsoft sit up and take notice of him.

Well, that and to give you shills some another tainted report to crow about.

[Bush2000]

I'll use small words...

Not difficult -- you don't know any other kind...

This guy decided to do a Windows vs. Linux test. His department takes Microsoft's money. No matter how much you spin, you can't deny that fact.

I don't need to deny anything. His department takes money from a wide variety of industry sources, including IBM, Cisco, and others. And here's where your ignorance of university funding really becomes apparent: Grants aren't provided by IBM, Cisco, and Microsoft in a blanket fashion. They're targeted at specific research projects, usually carried out through a combination of faculty and graduate students. The faculty is comprised of a number of individuals, each of which is likely working on completely independent projects. You seem to think that Microsoft backs up a truck filled with money to the building and all of the professors start filling their pockets. Which is ridiculous. Ford says that Microsoft didn't fund the study. I have no reason to disbelieve anything that he's saying -- and you haven't offered any proof to the contrary, either. You've simply made a lame assertion that because MS funded a research project (not Ford's) in the past, that he's tainted.

Nice try. But that's affectionately known as defective, non-rigorous logic.

Now, he could have avoided the appearance of impropriety by getting someone from the Unix department to do the Linux part of the test, but he didn't.

Wrong. Ford doesn't take money from Microsoft. Hence, no conflict of interest. Game over. You lose.

And he can't claim that it didn't occur to him that there might be an appearance of impropriety, since he's been publicly called on it (and responded to it) before.

It's simple: You're wrong. Ford never took money from Microsoft. He's not taking money from Microsoft now. Try a new angle.

Very simply, the test may or may not be accurate (we don't know because the only thing published thus far are the results, not the methodology or testing criteria) but it's tainted by his connection to Microsoft dollars.

Again, he has no connection to Microsoft dollars.

The only reason to go ahead and run his test would be to make the grant givers at Microsoft sit up and take notice of him.

Uh, nooooo. The reason to run this test is because there are legitimate concerns over whether Linux security meets the sniff test.