>Your argument is also needlessly weakened by a couple >of statements of >dubious validity. For example, you say "It seems to be >easier to get >Microsoft FrontPage working well when the Web server it >uploads files to is >running Microsoft Internet Information Sever rather than >when it is running >open-source Apache." I don't think this is true....(posted 8750 days ago)I had thought that the server extensions were the key: that they worked *well* on IIS and were very buggy elsewhere...
>Another shaky statement is the assertion that "Software >for minicomputers >stagnated in the 1980s because each brand's version of >the Unix operating >system was incompatible with the others." I've used >many of those different >"flavors" of Unix. While the differences are a nightmare >from a system >administrator's point of view, the differences are really >quite minor from >the user's perspective.
But not from the viewpoint of the software producer... Phil Greenspun, for example, strongly recommends Suns because Oracle develops on Suns, and then tackles other dialects of Unix...
But since I beat up on Charles Ferguson in the _Harvard Business Review_ for ignoring open source, it's only fair that I get some of the same medicine.