Linux software analyst report stirs hornets nest
Linux software analyst report stirs hornets nest
Yankee Group software analyst Laura DiDio put out a report last week
daring to suggest, based on extensive research, that Microsoft Windows
Server 2003 may be as good as, if not in some respects better than,
Linux in terms of quality, performance and reliability.
A virtual techie "fatwa" seems to have been the result. Her views have
been repeatedly savaged by Linux apologists, accusing her of bias in
favour of Microsoft. DiDio has hit back denying any such leanings, but
the self-appointed Ayatollahs of open source have paid no heed.
Instead DiDio has had to put up with being branded DiDiot on open
source forums, and has even been telephoned at home after 11pm by
people she has described as 'nut jobs' and "an extremist fringe of
Linux loonies".
DiDio says the Yankee Group end user study her analysis was based on
is strictly independent, and not something she has any personal
influence over.
This is not the first evidence suggesting a strong streak of
unreasonable insanity in the Linux community. Last year security
analyst firm Mi2g claimed Linux was getting hacked more frequently
than Windows, the resulting brouhaha leading it to declare on its web
site that "any empirical evidence pointing to a high level of online
Linux breaches is immediately shot down by religious zealots as if a
church had been desecrated".
Let's hope the BBC doesn't televise an opera about it, or we're all in
trouble.
