Comments on: Microsoft: Open source 'not reliable or dependable'

Executive tells BBC it's mainly of interest to community projects, lacks benefits of commercial model.

[ahzzmandius]

who to trust...

You have your choice....

Proprietary vendor:
Writes code for money.
Has deadlines to meet or looses lots of money.
Wants you to buy EVERY version as it comes out.

Open Source:
Day job is typically as a professional coder.
Wrote it to solve their own problem.
Gains work and prestige for good quality code.

You see, it's all in the motivation. You can go with the proprietary vendor whose only interest is getting his hands on your $$$. OR you can go with Open Source whose existance relies completely on being reliable and featurefull.

Proprietary vendors almost never (there are exceptions, rare ones) produce software for their own needs (some end up using their own products), nor for the good of the world. Rarely do they write it to serve their own needs and THEN sell it.

Open Source authors wrote their software because they needed it for their own use. Typically they are either employed full time and love coding or are contractors that rely on their Open Source coding to prove that they are worth hiring. If the software is buggy, or badly designed, then it usually does not get picked up by others.

So be careful in what you believe when reading about who is better. One should always examine motives when deciding things.

[Björn Lundahl]

Proprietary Vendors Must Think of The Quality Too!

?If the software is buggy, or badly designed, then it usually does not get picked up by others?, but that is important too for the one who makes software?s for money profits. Björn Lundahl, Gothenburg, Sweden

[Björn Lundahl]

Reputation is Important for Profits Too!

?If the software is buggy, or badly designed, then it usually does not get picked up by others?, but that is important too for the one who makes software?s for money profits. Björn Lundahl, Gothenburg, Sweden

[FyberOptic]

Biased Reporting

I think Ingrid Marson needs to learn the meaning of using quotes around text, because "other people want the reliability and the dependability that comes from a commercial software model" is not the same as "not reliable or dependable".

And here I thought CNET was a reputable news source. Guess we live and learn.

[scdecade]

Yes, I agree.

That's some cheap tabloid nonsense. Cnet should do a better job.

[freemarket--2008]

Implied meaning

It's quite obviously implied that open source is NOT reliable and dependable. But he was careful not to state it directly, and therefore he can always deny that's what he meant. How do you think he got to be a VP. ;-)

And where in the world did you get the idea this was a reputable news source?

[manawiz]

Open Source is simply a better model

Commercial software companies want you to believe that their software is more reliable and dependable, but this is simply not true. I've been in the commercial software business for over 25 years and have built successful products and companies. The problem with commercial software is that individual companies control it, only their developers fix or enhance it, management frequently prioritizes new features that help the marketing/sales effort rather than users, and you cannot understand how it really works, much less fix it.

The first thing to understand about open software is that there are many projects with substantially different user bases and development communities. There are many small projects with only 1 or a few developers and a tiny user base. These packages are frequently not that reliable, especially for non-developer users. On the other hand, there are many major open source initiatives with large developer communities and enormous user bases. In my experience, these communities produce the most reliable software in the world.

I recently made the transition from the Microsoft Windows world into the pure open source world. I have no Microsoft software in my computers at all, from the operating system (debian linux) to the core productivity applications (Firefox, Thunderbird, OpenOffice) to many advanced software systems. This is the most reliable and productive environment I've ever used. It is a breath of fresh air after all those years with Windows.

From a developer's standpoint, when you use open source libraries and run into problems, you can diagnose and fix them. Developer support from open source communities is far better than any commercial support I've ever experienced. What commercial software companies give you direct access the software developers or let the developers control what changes are made to the software?

Here's a concrete example that just happened in my company last week. We are using xml messages (SOAP) to enable communication between a Microsoft .Net component and a Java component. We've run into some issues in the SOAP libraries both in .Net and in the open source Java library we are using (Apache Axis2). With Axis2, we have the source, have direct access to the developers, and have quickly been able to resolve any issues we've hit. With .Net, we have none of the above and cannot even diagnose the problems, much less fix them. We have been forced into ugly counterintuitive workarounds to .Net bugs. This has been a waste of time and effort.

Give me open source when it comes to dependability, reliability, productivity, innovation, and of course, cost.

[orfeu_niko]

I agree

It's nice to hear that from someone with experience. I usualy talk with marketing and sales people. I hate the consultant job, the tie, the suit ... no one gets fired for selling Microsoft, Oracle, (I like IBM, don't hate me) ...

[ServedUp]

Thats calling the Kettle Black.

I would have to agree with Murray's statement but only to the
degree that in some cases commercial software is more
advanced in some respects counter to what open source has to
offer currently.

But I still believe Open Source has a great future ahead of it. And
contrary to what Murray believes that Open Source is not reliable
or dependable is an absolute ridiculous statement to make as a
Microsoft Executive for which his company for years, in my belief
have stifled innovation. You only need to look no further than
their own backyard to see what Microsoft has accomplished in
the last two years which hasn't been much but broken
promises.. and unwarranted marketing..

Windows Vista the main culprit definitely needs a deadline.
Customers and computer vendors have been waiting years for
this product. Microsoft created the buzz but are unwilling to
give a release date. They really haven't been accountable for
their own deadlines or mistakes. Only relying on their own
monopolistic empire to keep them ahead because it isn't their
software that is.

In my view they are struggling internally and still won't admit
what they can't accomplish. Instead they extend a deadline that
had already been set. God only knows the internal mess
happening within the confines of Redmond these days.

So I wouldn't call the Kettle black if I was him.

But of course, for Microsoft if it isn't a Microsoft product or
branded product. Its an enemy.

[ServedUp]

Calling the Kettle Black.

I would have to agree with Murray's statement but only to the
degree that in some cases commercial software is more
advanced in some respects counter to what open source has to
offer currently.

But I still believe Open Source has a great future ahead of it. And
contrary to what Murray believes that Open Source is not reliable
or dependable is an absolute ridiculous statement to make as a
Microsoft Executive for which his company for years, in my belief
have stifled innovation. You only need to look no further than
their own backyard to see what Microsoft has accomplished in
the last two years which hasn't been much but broken
promises.. and unwarranted marketing..

Windows Vista the main culprit definitely needs a deadline.
Customers and computer vendors have been waiting years for
this product. Microsoft created the buzz but are unwilling to
give a release date. They really haven't been accountable for
their own deadlines or mistakes. Only relying on their own
monopolistic empire to keep them ahead because it isn't their
software that is.

In my view they are struggling internally and still won't admit
what they can't accomplish. Instead they extend a deadline that
had already been set. God only knows the internal mess
happening within the confines of Redmond these days.

So I wouldn't call the Kettle black if I was him.

But of course, for Microsoft if it isn't a Microsoft product or
branded product. Its an enemy.

[texxlakota]

Uh Huh.... Like he isn't biased

He, and everyone else using Microsoft, needs to get a grip. Just because it isn't making them money doesn't mean that:

1. It isn't a quality software package.
2. It isn't secure.
3. It isn't stable.

If you want to use Microsoft, use it. If you want to use Macintosh, use it. I personally don't care to pay the "Microsoft tax" on everything, and I would be glad to match up my Linux machine, and open source software, against anything Microsoft can put out.

FYI, I spend my working hours fixing computers. 99.99% of all of the repairs are done on machines running Microsoft products. I agree that this is partly because of their market share, but is equally because of the stability of their products.

Maybe, instead of stealing other people's ideas, and incorporating them into your products, or buying out the competition, you should recruit the users, have them assist in development of the product, and make something worth while.

Until then, please just sit back, be quiet, and take your medicine.

Just my thoughts.

[Webacco CEO]

For Gods Sake People...

Do you expect him to say Open Source is much more dependable and reliable? It's in Microsofts best interest to have paole think that OS is unreliable.

[BenRussoUSA]

Ha

What a joke.

[microsoft slayer]

jboss makes $60 million on commercial

open source...idiot microsoft.

[Captain_Spock]

When Will The World...

... really get a "break" from Microsoft's bashers and from Open Source critics like Microsoft folks and a chance to celebrate the impact of "micro-computing" as we have come to know it today.

If one wishes to recall the great late English Statesman Sir Winston Churchill said in one of his remarks "Never in the field of human history was so much owed by so many to so few". Are we to understand that what ever are posted in these posts have that much merit. If Open Source Software products are that good and easily obtained then how come the US Government has deployed so much resources on its border with Mexico when the Mexicans among others around the world can easily set up their own GOOGLES, eBAYs, PAYPALs, AMAZONs et cetera, et cetera rather than risking imprisonment or death in attempting to cross over the US border. Not forgetting that both WINDOWS and LINUX most certainly carry OS/2 DNA.

"FYI (because it mentions OS/2)"

RE: From the regdeveloper.co.uk article "The future starts here...or does it?

http://www.regdeveloper.co.uk/2006/05/18/microsoft_future_starts_here/

Why not let market forces decide which products are best? The "Bottom line" is: Open Source is not free!

[Barona42]

Captain_Spock is Wrong

Your attempt to use Churchill's remark to support your argument doesn't make you right nor is he right because he is Churchill.

500 hundred years ago, there were Kings and royalty and the like. They OWNED EVERYTHING. The peasants OWNED NOTHING.

The wonderful invention call Democracy and the wonderful invention called the United States of America (1776) dramatically changed this.

Now, very few own NOTHING.
Most own something.
and yes, few own a lot.
and yes, many owe a lot to a few.
But before, many owed EVERYTHING to the few
because you we not allowed to own large things
(like real property)

Today is a FAR BETTER reality in this matter
than hundreds of years ago and going backward
timewise.

Do not be fooled. The gap between rich and poor
has been closing since the inception of the USA
and the concept of FREEDOM around the world.

Right now, in the countries around the world where
there is severe poverty, it is a result of people
in power suppressing FREEDOM. Eventually these
goverments will fall and FREEDOM will prevail.

This is the same with FREEDOM in software.
It will prevail. As long as someone can write
software, it will be written.

Besides, the US/Mexico border has nothing to do
with this topic...but the reason people try, with
great hazard, to enter the USA is to LIVE FREE.
Please recognize that these people are just
striving to LIVE. You do that naturally every
day without thinking...they don't have the time
and energy to spend on something that is 'less-important' that obtaining FREEDOM.

Open Source is not free ??? Well, let us look at
it from two views:

Free?? YES. Obtain it for free. Use it for free.
There is NO COST money-wise.

Free?? NO. Somebody spent their time at their
cost to partake in its creation.

Free?? NO. It COSTS the MONOPOLIES dearly.
A true FREE society allows monopolies to FALL
as society dictates. There was a time when the
people of the USA decided NOT to pay taxes just
to live to the King of England. They said ENOUGH!
Now, people are saying to the software monopolies ENOUGH! If it can be free then IT WILL BE FREE.
People shop at Walmart because it is faily inexpensive. Well, Open Source is the most inexpensive of all - and people eventually rush
through the front door for cheap when they find
out about it.

Humans want FREEDOM.
Some will pay for it.
Some will steal for it.
Some will die for it.
Some will provide it for others.
Some will get it for nothing.

How much shall something that is FREE cost?

There is no other destiny.

[Ted Miller]

Blah

Blah Blah Yawn... Blah Blah Blah

[MikeeeC]

Open-Source in the Enterprise

Comparing open-source software to generic drugs is a specious analogy. When I go to the pharmacist to buy a generic drug to replace a name-brand prescription, I do not have to replace all of the other drugs in my medicine cabinet, much less run all over town looking for them; nor do I have to relearn dosage, side effects, and contraindications. Open-source software has a niche, in which it is very useful, and it has a number of benefits; however, in the real world, open-source software is simply not supportable on a large scale.

While this last statement will definitely meet with some resistance, particularly from the ABM crowd, let me clarify. The biggest reason that Microsoft, and previously Novell, made such large inroads into the enterprise market is the consistency of their products. When I bring up a Windows 2003 server, or a Netware 6.5 server, I do not have to concern myself with who has recompiled the kernel to optimize performance, removing capabilities that are critical to my environment. Similarly, I do not have to concern myself with whether my accounting or my ERP software will work with brand X or brand Y?s distribution of Windows or NetWare ? or worse yet, maybe there is no distribution that works with the software I need to run, and I have to modify the kernel myself.

Speaking from experience, I can state that these are real concerns in an enterprise environment, and they are some of the reasons why proprietary software is the vehicle of choice. To the open-source movement?s credit, there are viable enterprise products based on open-source software ? RedHat Linux is one of the most notable examples. However, in developing their distributions, RedHat has turned their product into proprietary software; their licensing agreement is even longer than Microsoft?s, with restrictions equally onerous. Over the course of the software?s lifecycle, the cost of RedHat Enterprise Linux is almost identical in terms of licensing, maintenance, and support.

For self-supported systems (those that do not rely on corporate IS for support), or to replace proprietary Unix systems, Linux is an excellent choice. In the enterprise, however, proprietary software is the way to go, and complaints and wishful thinking will not change that fact.

[manawiz]

Enterprises with their heads in the sand

Non-technical companies fear open source because they don't know any better. On the other hand, companies that do understand the technology, or at least delegate technical decisions to people who do, get incredible results out of open source.

Consider Google, which is based on linux. Anybody think Google is not reliable? And since this is the CNET site, how about the fact that CNET's search is based on Apache Lucene. In fact, to their credit, CNET recently contributed their Lucene search application to Apache (see http://incubator.apache.org/solr/). Many large Internet sites and commercial software products that include search are based on Lucene.

Contrast that with enterprises, who frequently have policies like requiring all databases be Microsoft or Oracle. These enterprises spend a lot of money for generally poor results.

The only thing holding open source back in enterprises is lack of knowledge about the realities of technology. In time, this will change. Open source fundamentally provides higher quality software due to more people looking at the code, reporting and fixing bugs, adding useful features.

When you hit a problem integrating a software package, having its source is invaluable. This can save considerable diagnosis time and lead to a speedy resolution. Contrast that with wasting your time on the first two levels of incompetent people manning most large enterprise software support organizations.

The only real issue with Open Source is its long term economic viability. Someone needs to pay all the talented people who create it. If end-user enterprises were smart, they would form open source funding consortiums. They would end up spending less money and getter better software that truly meeets their needs, with source code for everything they depend on.

FOSS empowering developing economies

One of the main messages that the documentary aims to highlight i.e. FOSS can empower developing and poor economies and bring about ICT development does not come across at all. It did not press home forcefully enough this message with the case studies shown and more air-time should have been given to these case studies.

[Roman12]

what a joke

Open source products are no less reliable then Microsoft software, only difference is that the microsoft software is overpriced.
______________________________
R.K.
http://www.Remove-All-Spyware.com

[qwerty75]

Pathetic

Open source apps are used in mission critical situations far more then anything in MS. That speaks volumes.

The only dependable thing in Windows is the endless, anatuerish flaws that takes months to get fixed, if they ever do.

[fakespam]

Microsoft not reliable nor dependable!

Oh, sure, so there's no money to be made from open source. Okay,
but how come my PCs run better on Linux, FreeBSD and Mac OS X
than on Windows XP?

Geez, I thought it was I get what I paid for.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/7505/

[qwerty75]

No money in open source?

Tell that to all the companies(of all sizes) investing millions and billions in it.

Many people have gotten rich in open source. And they didn't have to step on people, lie, cheat, scam, use illegal tactics, sell their soul like an un-named incompetant lout who got where he is through completely illegitimate means.

[netlux]

Oh My God! He's so right!!

I just can't understand why Linux runs 300+ of the worlds top 500 supercomputers and Windows runs 1.

The embedded market also seems to be more interested in using Linux then Windows.

Maybe its the licensing issues? Licensing could have something to do with Microsofts weakness in outside the desktop realm, but it would not the only reason.

The reality is that Microsoft has little experience building a secure operating system. Linux on the other hand, was build from its inception to be secure.

A big factor that plays in to malware infections and system compromise is the vulnerability of the system. According to CERT, there were twenty two Technical Cyber Security Alerts were issued in 2005 and eleven of them were for Windows and none for Linux. In 2006 there have been sixteen alerts issued so far and of that six are for Windows.

The Open Source has more vulnerabilities argument doesn't work either. Open source just faithfully reports them and fixes them just as fast. Microsoft just hopes nobody ever finds them and then takes a long to fix them unless there is a "full disclosure" forcing them to correct the problem a little faster then they would like to.

[heystoopid]

Choices!

Choices!, in this particular case the users have expressed their choices in regard to OS's

But then again, with open source, at least you have a complete documented source code available. Go ask M$ for any source code, to fix dependencies, and see what happens!

Sadly of late, several MS$ security bug fixes, are now breaking non related software!

So it is all about choices, this spokesperson because he is paid by M$ must faithfully and loyally follow the company's line of misinformation, no matter how silly that be!

He reminds me of one of the principal characters from a Hollywood 1994 movie "Dumb & Dumber"!!!!

[Keitherjames]

open office clone of office

Hey im not a MS licker but i feel i should point out that open office is an exact copy of MS office. Therefore even the reporters heading is incorrect.

[MaTao]

You are certaily wrong.

Hi, to be frank, you are certainly wrong. From the aspect of user interface, they are similar. but the core is quite different. You can take firefox and ie as an example.

[Barona42]

Clone?? Wrong!

Clone would imply the following:
It works like Office.
It feels like Office.
It performs like Office.
(and etc)

I have extensively use BOTH.

Yet, I use Open Office to fix Office DOC's that
Office screws up...then the DOC's are okay.
(until the next Office generated problem)

Office dies more often.
Open Office less often - actually never!

And I can go on...

A clone? - NOT EVEN CLOSE - get a life.

[Maelstorm]

I wonder...

I wonder how hard it was for the Microsoft rep who said this to keep a straight face when he said this. I run FreeBSD on my network, runs just fine. I also run SeaMonkey, it runs just fine. I think that Microsoft is grasping for straws here.

[vivekanandan_m]

Open source is open an dependable wherelse properiatary softwares r junk!

Hello ,
In the case of open source, you know the quality of code written by developers and you have the full freedom to customise things according to your taske. Wherelse in the case of properiatary softwares, you dont know what kind of junk guy would have developed a buggy/junk code! Why people should pay for junk codes? Software is an art and it is really displayed in the case of open source and people can appreciate that, which cannot be true for properiatary sources!!