David Demland said:
> All these ideas are reasons. The one thing missing is that when it comes
> to changing over from Microshaft products there is no strong business
> case that can be made to move to an OS that where there are not as many
> business options for systems and the barrier to entry is still high
> enough that many software development companies are reluctant to commit
> to that OS.
Total Cost of Ownership is a pretty large business reason. Keeping your
data secure is pretty darn good business reason. Complying with
legislation like HIPPA and SEC law is good business reason. Respecting
privacy is good business reason. Having your privacy respected is good
business reason. Avoiding mono culture suspectibility and vendor lockin
are good business reasons. I can go on and on and on, but will spare you.
> Remember the only reason that Microshaft is being hit with all the major
> security problems is because it is the largest target. Before they
> became the major security target it was Bind that was the target.
> Anytime there is just one large target all the other targets will be
> overlooked. It is when all the targets are close to the same size that
> it would be much harder for any of the targets to be singled out. This
> is the point that needs to be realized before the barrier to entry will
> be lowered enough that the consumer will benefit.
Thus is vastly hog sh!t. Last time I checked. Apache had a much large
market share than IIS. Why is that IIS is littered with problems and
Apache is not? Why does Gartner (a Microsoft Whore) even tell businesses
to avoid IIS like the plague? Last I checked Oracle and DB2 were both
larger than MSSQL Server. Why is that they have far fewer security
problems than MSSQL Server? Based on your assumption Apache and DB2 would
be shoddy products as they are market share leaders.
BTW: The consumer almost ALWAYS benefits from _choice_.
-Derek
(text/plain)