Open Source is 'Not Reliable or Dependable'

Exter-C writes "News.com is reporting that Jonathan Murray, the vice president and chief technology officer of Microsoft Europe has made claims that 'some people want to use community-based software, and they get value out of sharing with other people in the community. Other people want the reliability and the dependability that comes from a commercial software model.'"

Not dependable?

[DaveM753]

I would have replied to this sooner, but Windows keeps crashing.

Re:*boggle*

[Dr. Evil]

We can rely that there will be security updates and we can depend upon them utterly.

So it's a reliable and dependable model.

MicroJerk!

[digitaldc]

First Microsoft flirts with Open Source [slashdot.org] saying it's 'maturing and more commercial,' and now they say it is not 'reliable or dependable.'

I think they are just badmouthing them because Open Source won't let Microsoft go all the way on the first date.

Would have posted on this thread earlier

[monopole]

But our windows based server went down in flames crippling the office for two days. Fixed everything with Knoppix.

Thank god for reliable, dependable commercial software!

Re:*boggle*

[theNetImp]

We can also rely on there being security holes that will allow all kinds of nasty worms and viruses into my system. So in that sense M$ is quite reliable. ;-)

Microsoft made unreliable systems once

[nurhussein]

Way back in the day... of Windows 95/98/Me, when you had to reboot your box at least once a day/week, when it would lockup for no reason...remember back then when Windows was an unreliable and undependable POS (note to MS apologists : yes, I know Windows doesn't crash that much nowadays etc., but do remember those ancient times when it did).

You know why that was? That's right. It's because Windows was open source back then. It had to be. Because there's NO WAY it could be otherwise if they used a "commercial software model".

That's Funny

[Goo.cc]

Because after reading the EULA for Windows XP, I would say that Microsoft software is reliable or dependable either.

Re:SourceSafe vs CVS

[hyfe]

Comparing SourceSafe with CVS is like comparing MS Office with Emacs ...

.. it's inheretly flawed because anybody remotely sane will recognize that SVN and VIM are superiour products.

Re:*boggle*

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah yes, Microsoft - the Republican party of the software world.

Re:*boggle*

[ahodgson]

But the article says open source is not reliable. Ergo, no firefox.

Re:*boggle*

[Reverend528]

Boggle?

m a l y
e v e p
r g a w
j d p i

Re:*boggle*

[jabelson]

Are not the brunt of internet "virus" attacks against indivdual desktops? Are you saying that Windows boxes are atacked because it's easy to do so?

It is reliable and dependable!

[Usekh]

Windows is reliable. You can rely on it having problems Windows is dependable. You can depend on it having problems So he is really right.

Re:Oh, come on!

[geobeck]

Your sig line makes your response even more amusing. :D