Seemed a reasonable article to me, although I must admit to scanning rather than reading, a couple of things stood out:
>>Yes, Linux is powering more and more corporate servers, but so is Microsoft's server software.
All the numbers I've seen tend to show, that yes, MS are increasing their numbers in the server market, but only really taking them from Unix. Linux on the other hand is increasing its server presence, by taking numbers from Unix AND MS too.
>>Microsoft executives, meanwhile, are trying their best to diss open source software, with its volunteer developers and 'general public license' copyright.
Such software, Bill Gates tells customers, might not be "interoperable" and could be more expensive to run than Windows "if you look at the entire software stack".
Firstly, sincce when does the BBC use the word "diss" in an article
Secondly, with this quote from Bill, is he actively promoting vendor lockin?
>>And "do you really want to have your security issues discussed by the Linux developer community on a public bulletin board," queries Alistair Baker of Microsoft UK.
C'mon guys, security through obscurity has been proven not to work, and secondly are you seriously suggesting that people DONT talk about MS security flaws on public forums?
Also, a public forum may increase the speed at which something gets solved due to increased pressure, or increased exposure to others who do know who to fix something.
>>>With the likes of IBM backing Linux, such assertions may be questionable.
Good on you BBC