Talk:Studies related to Microsoft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This was created totally biased toward Microsoft. It basically talked of only 1 study, the one Microsoft funded and basically the most controversial one. I tried to NPOV it a bit by adding a criticism section and a second study which (like most studies which were actually done) found the exact opposite of the one mentioned. Need more work tho, although personally, I would just delete this since its not encyclopedic and is just waiting to be edit war. Elfguy 01:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Not really. I created this article to be expanded, please go ahead and add whatever you need. I'm thinking that the Halloween documents would be good to include. I might also ask for you to asume good faith. I'm no Microsoft fan! If you think this should not exist on Wikipedia, I do encourage you to list it on WP:AFD, though I'll vote keep. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Disputed tag 2 Register article 3 IBM study 4 Merge undone 5 Removal of "Get the Facts 6 Merge again

[edit] Disputed tag

I believe that the {{NPOV}} tag was the one that was meant to be on this page, so I've taken the liberty of swapping it over from the old {{disputed}} one. If there are specific objections relating to factual accuracy, may I suggest that each one be listed on this talk page and the tag {{totallydisputed}} be used instead of {{npov}}? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Register article

Can we at least have a summary of what they stated? I'd also like to point out that the The Register is not exactly the most reliable source... - Ta bu shi da yu 14:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] IBM study

Perhaps we should also document this IBM study? Got it from the Register article. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merge undone

I see no talk about the merge. Reverted. If this in not NPOV, fix it or take it to AFD if you really don't like it. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It was at [1] which the merge tag referred to. The merge tag was up for nearly a month, and no one objected so I guess someone else merged it besides me. I think it can be better maintained there (at Criticism of Microsoft) and have more context. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 19:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

But why? Documents relating to Microsoft may not necessarily be about criticism! Why limit our scope to this? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we are - criticism does not imply just criticism, it also implies defence of said criticisms. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 18:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I was doing the merge to Comparison of Windows and Linux, as the original tag suggested (added by Bob A). The whole entry mainly focuses on 2 studies about TCO as far as I can tell. I think it really should be merged or seriously worked on. I'd not like to see it properly deleted, as there is at lease some good text there. Merging to Criticism of Microsoft would be a good idea, as it could probably find a home there more easily than in Windows vs Linux. --H2g2bob 23:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Just looked at the edit history, and noticed theres also been a previous merge which Ta bu shi da yu has undone.

I'd like to address a specific point raised in your edit history: "this doesn't handle documents that DON'T deal with Linux. What about a SCO vs Windows or Solaris vs Windows study?" - in fact Windows vs Linux does deal with SCO (but only a very little) and the introduction says that "Linux" is used in a loose sense, so can be extended to cover other relevent areas.

I'd like to apologise for not shoving anything on the talk page here about the merge, and not checking the edit history, as that was pretty sloppy of me. In case you're wondering, I'm nothing to do with Bob A (despite the similar name). I know it might seem like an army of angry Bobs trying to destroy the page, but it's not like that, honest :-)

This is a tricky one, as Criticism of Microsoft is already quite long, but I really feel it should be housed there, or at least worked on here for a bit to make it better and more rounded (ie, not just about TCO or *nix comparisons; or really in depth about TCO and renamed or something). H2g2bob 23:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

And MSDN and the Microsoft Knowledge Base? Are these criticisms of Microsoft? As for Solaris being in Microsoft vs. Linux... bizarre considering Solaris isn't Linux no matter which way you slice it. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Er, I can't see anything to do with MSDN/MSKB or SCO in the article, only TCO/Get the Facts stuff. If the article has more of that sort of stuff in it (ie, a greater scope), I'd be for keeping it as a seperate article. --H2g2bob 15:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I've had a think about this, and there appears to be a need for a proper article on Get the Facts. Perhaps this article could be renamed and expanded in this direction? --H2g2bob 19:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of "Get the Facts

Removed this section because (a) it does not back up its sources; (b) contains original research; and (c) is not NPOV (I quote: "Often, the compaign is criticized as being overly slanted towards Windows." — who says this? "Often" - weasel word). Iolakana|^T 20:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

That is very troubling - we need SOMETHING on Get the Facts. I'll try to clean it up - someone merged it here from its own article and it lost a lot of context. RN 20:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge again

OK, this article really needs to be merged (again). Basically there are two options:

1. Comparison of Windows and Linux
   • The objection here is that it could be for other operating systems, however there has not for a while been a comparison to anything other then linux
2. Criticism of Microsoft
   • This option is someone thinks the windows vs. linux article is a bad choice. The objection here was that there could be positive studies about Microsoft, but criticism doesn't just include bad stuff, it also includes good stuff to counteract the bad stuff

RN 20:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)