Addressing some of the typical arguments we hear from the "Microsoft fanboy" crowd.
One can debate until you turn blue in the face. It never fails that *some* concepts and facts just fly right over the heads of *some* people. But when the person doing the arguing is supposedly well-educated and has 15 plus years of programming experience, you would think he'd have better arguments than these. Feel free to add your own favorite "stupidities" to the list.
1. Claim that Buffer Overflows do not exist.
I start with the funniest one because when a Microsoft fanboy claims he "never read any reports from MS about 'buffer overflow' problems" you *know* that he is entirely clueless -- and probably entirely helpless too. Believe it or not, I have even been accused of "trying to sound technical" on this one. In this age of extensive media coverage and the ability to just "Google" a subject, one wonders why a programmer would deny the existence of "buffer overflows" when the subject is such a central component of the information security sector. One possibility is that the fanboy primarily programs in .NET (and other "managed code" environments) so he never needs to learn about or deal with "pointers" -- he is wrapped-up and laying in a baby crib. The other possibility is that to acknowledge the existence of "buffer overflows" entails admitting to a host of security issues involved with using Microsoft operating systems and software [just research the exploit holes used by virus, worm, spyware and other malware writers]. So, to claim that you admire Microsoft products means that you must choose between two facts that can be said about you as a person: A) You are extremely dumb. Or... B) You are a bold-faced liar.
2. Believe that Microsoft follows industry standards.
This is so laughable and the joke is so ingrained in the IT industry that I don't even need to say much about this one. Just ask the Web development people about it -- they will tell you enough horror stories to fill a library. Look, I am not claiming that Microsoft is "evil" because of its "vendor lock-in" tactics. But you will find plenty of evidence in the trade journals that this strategy is working against Redmond. Just look at the "call-center" and other sectors where the 'seats' run into the thousands -- these folk choose either to stay with obsolete OS and business applications (can't justify upgrade costs) or they transition to free alternatives.
3. Believe that binary OS image files are scalable.
Source code. This is one of those things that one would *expect* a so-called "professional programmer" would understand. It is common practice in the Open Source community to download the source code for the GNU/Linux kernel so you can compile it to run on specific hardware. With the entire source in hand, one is free to "tune" the OS for performance enhancements available via hardware -- that can mean adjustments for an increased cache; allowances for the lack of/presence of FPU features, 64-bit, multi-processors, multi-core, etc. If one purchases a 64-bit version of Microsoft Windows and they want to run it on an older 32-bit machine, guess what? They are out of luck! They MUST, MUST purchase a 32-bit version of Windows -- they have *absolutely* no other choice! I truly do not understand why Microsoft fanboys fail to comprehend this fact when talking about the "scalability" of a Operating System. Again, this is either an IQ problem or the Microsoft admirers enjoy spreading lies. Which is it?
[[ To Be Continued... ]]