The latest MS fanboy (very brief rant)

[ancient]

I just read a thread on a .NET-based e-commerce store's forum. I won't post the link at this point to prevent a flame war, but here's the content:

 

First of all, OsCommerce is a sham, unless you like to spend many hours dealing with MySQL and getting it to work on a Windows environment. Another one is Zen Cart. My 2 cents worth, leave the open source crap to the wannabe programming geeks. As much as we all hate to say it, Microsoft has the market. We've got our store set up with {name removed}, and though it does have its weak spots, it beats the snot out of OsCommerce.

 

As for a demo admin, you can download the trial version of {name removed}, install SQL Express, take that bloody MySQL off the hard drive, and do a test run of the {name removed}. We have just a`slightly revised default skin for our store, but for the present time, it will more than do. Now that the Christmas rush is over I plan to refine the skin more.

 

I just want to ask: how narrow-minded can some people be? This guy has no respect for the open-source community. Argh.

 

In any case, if it takes him 'many hours' to get MySQL and osCommerce in general working in a Windows environment, I think he must be in the wrong line of work.

 

Anyway, brief rant over.

 

- Ancient

[Mediajuggle]

typical MS/MS fanboy thinking which is why open source is chipping away at their userbase. They can be worse than the Apple Fanatics (which I'm a proud member of) :D

[kgt]

Anyone who does web programming and actually believes that Microsoft 'has the market' in this area obviously hasn't been around much.

 

That being said, Microsoft has it's strong points. There are advantages and disadvantages to both open source and the MS products. It really depends on your business needs and your financial capabilities. I've found the best thing is to ignore people who act like it's a socio-political debate.

[GraphicsGuy]

Just wait until they need a feature that isn't part of the stock package.

[wheeloftime]

Just wait until they need a feature that isn't part of the stock package.

 

How long can that take :lol:

[Guest]

Just wait until they need a feature that isn't part of the stock package.

 

It really depends Mike, on the level of support and company you're in. You can get comprehensive support for a certain fee obviously. There always advantages and disadvantages on both sides, open source and proprietary s/w. I'm working on both ends. Obviously having an individual criticizing open source projects means nothing really. He probably was never involved with open source projects.

 

Now for the facts the php/mysql combo has far more exposure now than the equivalent asp/sql. And the osc as a web site has more exposure than ms (had to see that to believe it :D ). But this market is very volatile. I still remember netscape. I also remember the attempts from ms to get dominance with seo and promises they made. And despite their resources they are still behind. Now I won't be surprised if they come up with open source solutions to some extend to be able to compete, as the s/w market moves more and more towards web based applications.

[GraphicsGuy]

You can get comprehensive support for a certain fee obviously.

 

I agree with your points in general, there are pros/cons to everything and the only constant in the software market is change. But the key to my point is that if they need added features, it will require substantial additional investment, sometimes significantly more than the base package.

 

I have used a couple proprietary e-com packages before. For added features that have already been created, the rates usually range from as little as $30 or as much as a thousand. Where it really gets expensive is if you need a truly custom feature added. With most proprietary packages, you can't have access to the source code, so you can't do it internally and you can't hire a freelance coder. So you are stuck with paying whatever they charge, if they will do it at all. (that last part was what finally pushed me over the edge to look for an open source solution). Since they have a captive market, their custom developement rates are usually 2-3 times higher than freelancers.

 

Don't get me wrong, I am not one who is opposed to proprietary software in principle. I use it when it benefits me and/or my business. But if it is something that I might need to customize, I wouldn't use anything that wasn't open source.

[mpiscopo]

The flaw with the logic in the quote from original post is that the author is trying to run a website on a Microsoft server. Everyone in the IT field knows that Linux/Unix is far superior to Windows for running a web server.

[swguy]

Say ... was the quoted poster's nickname "BGates" or "SBalmer" by chance? :D

 

Scott

[mark27uk3]

Ok, as this thread has been resurected from the vault I will ask this question:

 

If Linux/Unix is so much better why has Microsoft never taken that extra step to beat it?

 

Lets face it they have the staff, the skill and the financial backing to blow Linux out of the water but never have done so, why not?

 

Alright that was 2 questions hehe

 

Mark

[Jan Zonjee]

If Linux/Unix is so much better why has Microsoft never taken that extra step to beat it?

 

Lets face it they have the staff, the skill and the financial backing to blow Linux out of the water but never have done so, why not?

And that is why they hired outside people (read the October 31 news) to get PHP working better on IIS servers. So they try to catch-up.

[Guest]

And that is why they hired outside people (read the October 31 news) to get PHP working better on IIS servers. So they try to catch-up.

 

 

I don't know what the numbers would look like today, but some time back I read some fancy number crunching and it indicated that, on the basis of output of quality code, MSFT was actually out-staffed by Linux. I think it was based on an analysis of KLOC with some sort of scrutiny as to the errors found. On that basis alone, Linux was more valuable in the $$$ sense.

 

Hate to flog a dead horse (messy), but there is an arrogance at MSFT that is costing them dearly. Their refusal to port the MSFT stable of application software, most especially their leading money maker, MS-Word, means that they don't fit in well in a heterogeneous shop. Certainly not as well as Open Office. There is a window of opportunity about to slam shut on their fingers.

 

Oh, well

[b101aa2]

LOL. All my systems run on apache servers and all mysql. I do all my editting via windows just because of the idiot factor. Apache is a whole lot superior than windows software and that's coming from an mcse. Only reason ms has a strogn market base is because it is meant for those whole know little to nothing about anything. But if someone can play a video game ok, they can do ok with anything apache has to offer. And osCommerce is not difficult. MS commerce systems are hard as heck to get right if you want anything outside of the default layout. Plus, asp, aspx, and .net frameworks are slow as heck. Not to mention it takes a lot of work to make it halfway secure, which it will never be very secure anyways.

[Victor Wise]

I like Microsoft products, but I don’t have faith in them to be bug free. A shopping cart is a very delicate thing, one small bug can cost you a large percentage of your income. Anyone who relies on Microsoft for a seamless shopping cart is naïve. The only thing more foolish would be if paramedics used defibrillator’s that are programmed with Microsoft – millions would die.

 

Open source is the way to go with shopping carts and is the future for lots of software I believe. Time magazine agrees with this – that’s how they chose the

person of the year for 2006.