Posted on 11/23/2004 1:10:09 AM PST by Eagle9
Linux operating-system producer Linspire Inc. has found another way to challenge Microsoft: it's offering its OpenOffice.org product suite and the Mozilla Foundation's Firefox browser in a single package in retail channels.
Linspire, formerly called Lindows, positions its OOoFf package to directly compete with Microsoft Office. The OpenOffice.org product enables users to create spreadsheets, presentations, and documents using files in popular formats, including .doc, .xls and .ppt. The Linspire product also enables users to utilize the PDF format.
"Our goal with OOoFf is to help get OpenOffice.org and Firefox into every possible distribution channel," said Linspire CEO Michael Robertson in a statement Monday. "As users grow comfortable with these high-quality open-source products, it makes the migration to desktop Linux a much more practical transition."
The combo OOoFf consists of an installation CD-ROM, documentation materials, and Flash tutorials. The software is compatible with Windows 98 and higher and Mac OS X 10.2 and higher.
Firefox has been downloaded by more than 10 million users, and the browser has taken some market share from Microsoft's Internet Explorer. The Linspire Linux-based operating system has been designed for desktop and laptop computers, and the firm said the new Firefox- OOoFf package should help spur the growth of its Linux operating system.
Uh, no. For an apples to apples comparison, you compare the Microsoft web server being most used to the Apache web server thats being most used.
You can try to play the old sleight of hand game, but it won't wash. IIS 6.x and Apache 2.x haven't been out there very long. IIS 5.x is still supported by Microsoft and installations of 5.x outnumber 6.x by about 10 to 1. Apache 1.3.x is still being supported and outnumbers Apache 2.x installations by about 8 to 1.
You want to pretend that the new version of IIS doesn't exist -- because it doesn't fit in nicely with your ridiculously overhyped and bigoted anti-Microsoft ideology.
It has nothing to do with ideology. It has to do with the facts. IIS 6.x is installed in fewer places than 5.x. Considering the long track record of Microsoft promising the moon and delivering a dead rat, it's not surprising that Windows web server admins are taking it slow in moving to 6.x.
So don't try to pawn off your niche product as a representative sample.
Likewise, Apache 1.3.x is out there in huge numbers, much larger than IIS 5.x and 6.x together, yet has a better security record than either of them, regardless of your attempt to pretend that Apache 1.3.x doesn't exist.
Let's not get away from the myth that's been debunked. A larger installed base does not equal more exploits. The record of Apache 1.3.x easily disproves that.
Besides, based on Microsoft's previous history, we only need to wait a while before IIS 6.x has just as nasty a security record as it's predecessors. IIS 5.x didn't start having serious security problems until after it had been out for several years. That's mainly due to the crackers being perfectly happy to continue to exploit the huge number of IIS 4.x systems that were the majority for years after 5.x had shipped.
But by all means, keep spinning your web of lies.
Fine, loser.
1. There are more IIS 5.x installations than IIS 6.x installations.
2. There are more Apache 1.3.x installations than Apache 2.x installations
3. When you count up the total number of serious exploits for IIS 5.x and 6.x and do the same for Apache 1.3.x and 2.x, the IIS total is more.
4. When you count up the total number of serious exploits for the largest installed base version of IIS (5.x) and the largest installed base version of Apache (1.3.x), the IIS total is more.
Point out which of the above is a lie or shut up and crawl back under Steve's desk.
They've managed to convince a lot of people that a free product can't possibly be as good as an expensive Microsoft product.
Of course, when you point out the Internet Explorer is "free" and most people think that Windows is "free" when you buy a computer, they run and hide.
Two of The IIS Vulnerabilities are still out there as opposed to none of the Apache...
I'm using Firefox right now and have been using it or Mozilla for months. It works great and does block popups smooth and efficiently.
You are such a twit. You just got finished arguing that scale of deployment has nothing to do with vulnerability rates:
"Apache is much more popular, yet IIS is more attacked."
Now, you're arguing that it isn't fair to compare IIS 6.0 with Apache 2.0 because the deployment scales aren't equivalent:
"Uh, no. For an apples to apples comparison, you compare the Microsoft web server being most used to the Apache web server thats being most used."
---Actually, his first point is about product-wide scale of deployment, his second point is about version-based scale of deployment.
By that do you mean highlighting a section of an article or something like that, and only revealing the source for that small section instead of having to hunt through hundreds of lines of source to get what you want?
Doesn't eliminate his circular argument.
No, I'm saying that the deployment times aren't equivalent. Please read for comprehension. A product that has just been put on the market will have fewer attacks than a product that has been on the market for years. The actual number of copies on the market is still irrelevant.
The lie is your blanket assertion that open source products are more secure than closed source.
A "lie" that has been proven true again and again, no matter how much you might wish it to be untrue.
And then you have the audacity to lump it in with previous versions of IIS, despite the fact that IIS 6.0 is a complete rewrite from the ground up.
And here's where we get into the big difference.
Prove it.
Prove that IIS 6.x is a complete rewrite. Now, Apache 2.x is a complete rewrite and I can show you. I can produce the source code for both 2.x and 1.3.x and you can see the differences. With IIS, we have only Microsoft's word that it's not just another rehash of their same old dreck.
I noticed that you could not disprove any of my statements from my last post. I challenged you to prove any one of my four points as a lie, and since you can't you can only sling abuse.
Too bad for you. You're simply trying to help Bill and Steve from having to watch Microsoft slide down into the pit of failed software concepts. And it's far too late for that.
Proprietary, closed-source software is on it's way out. Oracle gets it. Sun gets it. IBM gets it. SGI, HP, Intel, Novell and the US Government all get it.
But then all of those organizations have alternative revenue streams. They can sell something other than overpriced, underperforming, broken software. And that's all Microsoft has ever had to offer.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
In your dreams, maybe. Too bad all of the facts out in the real world disagree with your ludicrous delusions.
You really should get out from under Steve's desk once in a while.
How about not being broken at its core, not being the main conduit for spyware because of the architecture, and properly rendering CSS? The problem is that most people think the mediocrity that is Internet Explorer is state-of-the-art in Web browsing.
Just did it. What popups? BTW, does Drudge have ads too? I didn't see any (thanks, AdBlock!).
FYI, I develop on VS.NET at an enterprise scale for a living.
The CSS on IE is so incredibly broken that VS puts out lots of IE-specific workarounds to make IE render properly. It is because of these non-standard constructs that pages may not render properly to Firefox, which understands complex CSS just fine.
On the other side, I developed a nice, long, standards-compliant style sheet for our site, only to find it broke in IE/VS. The workarounds to make it work were nerve-wracking and resulted in a not so streamlined implementation that required more work at production time.
On the plus side, C# is a pretty good language, with the extensive .NET libraries providing most of what I need right out of the box.
That brings up a good question. I wonder what IBM used to develop its hundreds of thousands of lines of Linux code.
I'd just make a Photoshop droplet and drag the images onto it. I have one I commonly use that loads, resizes, crops, does various image adjustments, puts on a logo, and finally resaves to a different format.
OSS gets a lot of corporate support with full-time programmers. And well-developed OSS projects such as Linux don't let amateurs contribute. They can submit, but their submissions don't have a chance in hell of getting into the production code.
go with something like 'lindows' that has to change it name every few months or years?
Microsoft had a trademark infringement suit against Lindows (sounds too much like "Windows") that was going very badly for Microsoft. Lindows changed their name because Microsoft paid them off rather than lose the case.
The problem is that "real usage" for most people is the old computer just as they got it -- no patches, no software to make up for IE's shortcomings.
I downloaded 3rd party software to make Windows browsing better -- Firefox! A lot easier than downloading three or four separate IE patches.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.