>>>More misleading text at http://www.mi2g.com/cgi/mi2g/press/021104.php
>>>claiming to be "intelligent", and as dubious as its source !
>>>
>>
>> OK, I now understand the significance of both articles - they're
>>definitely FUD commissioned by Micros~1
>
>
> After reading the referenced text (instead of the article at Yahoo
> technology that refers to this report), I'll retract the claim that
this
> FUD originated at Micros~1. It's misinformation, regardless of where it
> originated, nevertheless.
>
> The thing to note is that this is a for-profit entity, that has links
> on the page where you can order the report, so it's in their
interest to
> drum up sales by creating controversy. There's not enough information
> on their methodology and metrics to be able to refute it without
actually
> buying the report, and that's not something I'd recommend.
I wonder who would *buy* such reports. We are hard pressed for
volunteers, and the people who file these reports could instead study
code, and point out specific bugs if any, that could enable evolution
of more robust code.
This may not have originated from Micros~1 (whatever that is :)
