| 10:49 pm on Apr 2, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Ha, ha - tabloid journalism (the original article not
Why not post the comparisons that the advertisements are making between Windows and Unix?
That's where the story is. Product comparisons are certainly a fair way to market something.
Who cares what machine an HTML page is running on?
If they comparisons are valid and meaningful, then perhaps Unix sites might want to begin migration plans.
I expect that Microsoft has any number of people and machines running Unix. I think the one you are alluding to is running FreeBSD. Running on that machine does demonstrate that Microsoft knows Unix well enough to use it and perhaps enough to do a comparisons.
| 11:20 pm on Apr 2, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Perhaps this e-mail will cover it all...
<sorry Rob - can't copy in email - no matter the source>
(edited by: Brett_Tabke)
| 1:48 am on Apr 3, 2002 (gmt 0)|
hehehe, the emperor has been running around without any clothes again.
| 5:17 am on Apr 3, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Hey guys this story is now shouting 'VERIFY EVERYTHING'.
It certainly isnít a hard news story. Microsoft is going to advertise the merits of Windows by comparing it to Unix. Honestly is that NEWS.
If it isnít news then why is the story being published?
If someone is working on a concept on a HTML page. Is it news when it turns out to be on UNIX system. C'mon this doesn't make sense.
We get told that a hardware vendor Unisys that has a long history of running Unix on its hardware will jointly advertise for its customers to switch to Windows.
The texts of the ads are not part of the news story and no one in Unisys is quoted to confirm this marketing shift.
The URL reported to contain these ads is shown in a later post to this forum as www.wehavethewayout.com Register.com says this URL belongs to Unisys Corp and that the domain servers are
When I try the URL I am told I am not authorized, so I still don't see the ads.
A copy of an email posted here seems to be a ha ha letter from a person at an ISP saying that the URL is an account on one of their machines. I have no way of knowing if this letter is real or not or the intentions of the author.
Generally it is poor business for any business to publicly ridicule a customer. I trust the ISP will handle the situation properly if it turns out to be real correspondence.
| 4:56 pm on Apr 3, 2002 (gmt 0)|
This looks like turning into a VERY expensive marketing embaressment for Microsoft. The site has been consistently down since they switched over to IIS (it currently brings up the error message "No web site is configured at this address"). Considering one of the selling points they are using for Windows over Linux is the ease of use of the Windows server environment the fact that after 24 hours they are STIL unable to get the site working speaks volumes...
Personally I'm absolutely gobsmacked that they haven't got the site working yet - from what I've read there's over 25 million dollars being invested in this campaign, so I would have thought highly visible mistake of this magnitude would become a number one priority.
There's already qutie a bit of coverage oout on the net - check these stories:
| 6:02 pm on Apr 3, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I think that the task of moving some html pages and images between a Unix server and an IIS is trivial.
If I am to believe the email posted, it seems that they are moving the site off the ISP whose staff person was writing the ha ha letter to an in-house machine. This may be taking some extra time.
The news then is that Unisys a traditionally UNIX vendor is foresaking UNIX for the Windows Operating System.
It does not surprise me that Unisys having been solidly in the UNIX camp has a bunch of UNIX systems around.
Why aren't the headlines trumpeting 'Unisys Deserts Unix for the Superior Windows OS'? Why isn't anyone interviewing the Unisys management to find out why they are taking this major action?
That would be both news and interesting but that Microsoft is advertising why it is better than UNIX just isn't news.
| 6:28 pm on Apr 3, 2002 (gmt 0)|
"I think that the task of moving some html pages and images between a Unix server and an IIS is trivial."
So do I. The question is, why haven't they done it yet? With the amount of publicity that site has had in the past few days (and the amount of hard cash they are investing in it) it's pretty ridiulous that they've not fixed the site yet - what kind of an impression are they trying to make on the industry at large?
It's not like they are even suffering from DNS problems (which could take 24 to 48 hours to fix) - the server is evidently "there" and connected to the net as it is handing out that error message. The question remains - what on earth are they doing that is taking so long just to get the site operational again?
| 6:31 pm on Apr 3, 2002 (gmt 0)|
They will explain it's because they had to hire expensive specialists to fix it. :)
I guess they put the whole site on hold while they study the gaffe.
| 7:26 pm on Apr 3, 2002 (gmt 0)|
The story is being played that Micrsoft didn't have its shoes shined when the real story is that Microsoft kicked UNIX's butt again.
Someone (perhaps a Network Analyst at an ISP, if it is a true story) leaked the site name where Unisys may or may not have been developing a yet to be release marketing effort.
It is a security breach not something for people to be giggling about.
| 8:12 pm on Apr 3, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I don't buy that at all - the campaign was announced on various news sites along side quotes from MS / Unisys bigshots. At any rate, It's looking pretty funny from where I'm standing :)
| 10:01 pm on Apr 4, 2002 (gmt 0)|
There's already a rebuttal site -- [Wehavethewayin.com...]
To summarize an e-mail that I received (sorry Brett, missed that detail in the rules) -- some verio.net web jockeys were amused that the site was running on one of Verio's webfarm machines (freebsd systems running apache). After the bruhaha, the site was promptly moved to a 'doze box where it has yet to be stable.
There are some good case studies about companies that have aborted UNIX or UNIX-like operating systems to embrace the Power of Bill and have not turned a profit ever since. One that comes to my mind is Intergraph (I used to work for a former disgruntled employee of Intergraph).