A kinder, gentler Microsoft?

As Mary Jo Foley reports, Microsoft has pulled down its "Get the (wrong) Facts" website and replaced it with a "Compare" website.

Consider this the kinder, gentler version of getting the "facts." Unless, of course, you're Red Hat. The site doesn't talk about Novell or other Linux distributions. But it spares no criticism of Red Hat, the one vendor that hasn't bowed down to savor its toejam.

When you visit the site, it's bathed in a warm glue, with a very helpful-looking man just itching to help you:

(Credit: Microsoft)

Its purpose is laudable, as Mary Jo notes below, if not super-credible (coming from any particular vendor, and not necessarily Microsoft: Microsoft has hardly cornered the market on deceit):

The goal of the site is to offer more in-depth information and customer-to-customer opinions about many of the issues IT administrators face, a company spokeswoman said. "It turns out people wanted 3rd party validation in addition to people's experiences making OS purchasing decisions so in addition to customer case studies, research reports that compare platforms the site will also offer guidance around best practices, web casts, etc."

What better way to get neutral, third-party information than from...Microsoft's site? I know that when I want to make a decision as to which CRM system to buy, I go straight to Salesforce.com's site to see what customers are saying about SugarCRM....

Open source offers a better way. Try before you buy and then, once you're leaning in a given direction (say, Red Hat), ask Red Hat for references. True, you'll get the glowing references that love Red Hat, but if the code has already inclined you toward the company's products, you're looking for confirmation, not direction.

Microsoft's site would be much more useful if its products were open source. Then the site would be a great ending point. As it is, it's too biased to be credible at all as a good starting point.

[reya276]

WOW so now is "A kinder, gentler Microsoft?"

Matt are they really paying you that much to write this nonsense; I mean come on you know that everything on that site is a lie and you know that all they are doing is spreading more FUD so why do you keep putting yourself out there, is it because you want attention. Also the whole issue with the OSI, why would you want them to grant M$ a license, do you know the damage that would do to ODF, OSI and the FOSS or you are no longer a true open source guy. Yes I agree bills need to be paid god only knows but not like this Matt you are wrong.

[tristanbob]

Did you read the article?

reya276,

I have no idea why you are giving Matt a hard time; did you even read this article? He is letting us know about another effort by Microsoft to spread FUD to consumers. Consider these tidbits:

"Get the [wrong] Facts"
"What better way to get neutral, third-party information than from...Microsoft's site?"
"Open source offers a better way."
"As it is, it's too biased to be credible at all as a good starting point."

[Matt Asay]

I think only Tristan actually read the post

@reya: Tristan is right. You can't possibly have read my post. If Microsoft were paying me to write anti-Microsoft posts, that's money I'd happily take, as it wouldn't affect my ethics to get paid to write what I feel, which is usually not very supportive of Microsoft.

[mondegreen]

"Bathed in warm glue..."

is one heck of a nice turn of phrase.