Microsoft trains Best Buy "Linux assassins"

Microsoft trains Best Buy "Linux assassins"

Summary: A whistle-blower over on has posted details of how Best Buy staff are trained to counter buyers' interest in the Linux operating system.


A whistle-blower over on has posted details of how Best Buy staff are trained to counter buyers' interest in the Linux operating system.

A forum member identifying themselves as GodofGrunts posted a series of screenshots from the "Linux vs Windows 7" module of Microsoft's ExpertZone training package.

As I worked my way through the screenshots I was disturbed by the increasing amounts of FUD that was being used under the guise of "information" to discredit Linux.

Next -->

I am left wondering one thing though - just how many people are going to be going into Best Buy asking questions about Linux? Also, why is Microsoft looking at Linux as a greater threat than Mac?

What do you think? FUD or fact?

<< Home >>

Topics: Microsoft, Linux, Open Source, Operating Systems, Software

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • it's about netbook

    ( 2nd slide ) so macos isnt in the equation.

    considering it is commercial material, with no
    pretention of beeing unbiased, i don't see that
    much FUD. But slides this small are hard to read i
    perhaps missed some.

    could you be more specific ?
    • There is unfortunately

      There is a slide boasting that Windows is safer than Linux. For how much I despise the OS, I'll admit that Linux is safer than Windows on it's own. However, Windows can be just a secure if you know what your doing.

      There is also another slide about driver and software compatibility, which I don't see as FUD, there are limited software choices with *Nix compared to Windows. I can't speak for driver compatibility though.
      The one and only, Cylon Centurion
      • Limited software choices?

        I haven't been limited at all. I have many choices in just about every category of software. Now if you mean limited by the fact that it doesn't run Windows software then I'm equally limited on Windows and the Linux software that I use and it doesn't run.
        • Vast difference in magnitude

          Bad comparison. You may have 'choices' in your software on Linux, but few if any offer any functionality beyond what is offered in Windows, and those that try, are at best poor clones. THat point aside, while you may be limited in not running Linux apps in Windows, there are very few of those compared to the vast software library that is available for Windows and not Linux. You CAN say the same for both platforms, but the sheer numbers of one dwarf the other. Thus, we dismiss your comment as pure fanboyism.

          "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."
  • Stop drinking the bong water...

    it has clearly affected your brain. Linux is the same since 1998? How many brain cells did you have to kill off to come up with that? We can both agree that Linux in the server room is, and will probably always be, a better fit than Linux on the desktop. Why? Because that's what it was designed for from the kernel up. But to claim Linux hasn't changed since 1998 only proves one haven't used Linux since 1998. Run along and stick to the Windows articles where you may have something relevant to contribute. You're clearly out of your league here.
    • I wouldn't say linux was designed for the server

      Unix first lived for the workstation market,
      that is the desktop. Linux was designed as a
      unix clone ( so desktop ) for commodity boxes (
      desktop ).

      It has evolved into a server OS because unix
      was more fit for it than it was for desktop,
      especially because unix vendors did not invest
      seriously in GUI past 1995 or so...

      Linux only made important enhancement in its
      desktop experience in the recent past.
      • No such thing as "desktop market"

        When Unix was first written, it was for the minicomputer, from the likes of DEC and Data General - what we would call a "server" today - although I knew of versions for the Sperry Univac 1108 and UYK-7. There weren't desktop computers, although the HP 9845 and similar weren't that many years off, they didn't yet exist. The nearest thing to a desktop computer was probably the Wang multi-station electronic calculator (the geeks delighted in telling the secretaries to keep their hands off their wangs). The Unix workstation came later.

    • Perhaps

      I over exaggerated a little, but my point was Linux offers very little, if any innovation compared with Microsoft and Apple. Personally, I think Microsoft should concentrate on this point rather than fighting FUD with FUD.

      And yes, I agree that Linux is a better fit in the server room than on the desktop.
      The one and only, Cylon Centurion
      • Um, have you actually *USED* it?

        You know, more than just it booting up, moving around the mouse then
        concluding it is deficient? grab a Dell Inspiron laptop and 9/10, all the
        parts will be supported out of the box with the latest kernel (as of, all the components of the Inspiron 1318 are supported
        including sleep and suspend as well).

        What is lacking from Linux is desktop orientated software from big name
        vendors and the existing open source projects to lift their game when it
        comes to making them easier to use. for all its progress
        is till horrible - take a look at the preference dialogue to see what I
    • It fits on our desktops

      We run Ubuntu desktops at our office and get by just fine. Desktop, some laptops. The servers are mostly CentOS.

      And we don't really miss Windows. We have some Windows machines left. Accounting has one, there's a lonely XP workstation in the common area for webinars, most of that software is Windows only. Otherwise, everyone uses Ubuntu and everyone gets their work done.

      I think that person is the next iteration of bit_byte. Then Ye, now that other dude is the resident Microsoft astroturfer. The user name changes every six months or so.
  • you are so right

    Linux cannot match MS its impossible really

    malware ,spyware,crapware, wga, vista and W7

    your right Linux cannot achive what ms is doing
    even if they wanted tooo its impossible your
    • Thats not what I meant

      I guess you missed the part where I mentioned Windows can be just as secure as Linux if you know what you are doing. Knowledge is half the battle. (Hell, it [i]is[/i] the battle.)

      The one and only, Cylon Centurion
      • He knew what you meant

        he is just one of those that believed the FUD on Linux that it cannot be hacked, botnetted, et cetera.
    • close...except you forgot....

      ...MARKET SHARE!

      [i]Linux cannot match MS its impossible really[/i]

      You are sooooo right.

      [i]your right Linux cannot achive what ms is doing even if they wanted tooo its impossible your right [/i]

      Right again. And it applies to one little phrase, which the Linux desktop has never known before, and probably won't know for a loooooooong time.....MARKET SHARE! Can't compare. No how, nowhere.
    • Linux can-not beat MS,

      I can only run any game I want, include F.E.A.R, Call Of Duty 4, Resident Evil, you know, anything. My Dongle Bluetooth work's, my thumb-drive/flash-drive's/pin-drive's, or whatever you prefer work, even my Alp's TouchPad controls on my D500 with a 2.1 Gh/z Dothan, 1.5 GB's of RAM, my HD/DVD/CD +- RW, and my Intel 4965 A,G,N wireless card... gee, the only thing missing is the Malware, Ad-Ware, Spy-Ware, Trojan's, Worm's, Java, and I.E. Exploit's, ;-) And about the whole Lawsuit ordeal, Linux wouldn't be the one's to sue, it would actually be us Linux user's for trying to force MS down our throat's. I use XP Pro MCE for the MCE reason's, I Linux as well because I can alter it to suit my own selfish need's/vendetta's, and Windows 7, which I had working Flawlessly on my D500 which runs on the 82852/82855 GM/GME Intel Chipset! Vista Vista Vista, HAHAHAHA!! That was the largest HOAX in the industry. Exploitable, remote-accessible, wow. I've never seen an OS that was better suited the "Hacker" ;-) Only they would use XP or Linux themselves to use the exploit's, HEHE! Microsoft, " 2.4 Dual Core or better RECOMMENDED! 4 GB of RAM RECOMMENDED! 256 or better Video RECOMMENDED!" Yet it was still a "Stepping" stone for Windows 7 which was in creation BEFORE VISTA? FUD! FUD ON ME, FUD ON YOU, FUD ON THEM! The ONLY reason a PC needed those spec's was to cover up the loose, if ANY parameter's, which made the system UNSTABLE AND VULNERABLE! If it was a "Stepping Stone", then why can I FLAWLESSLY run Windows 7 RTM, NOT RC or BETA, on my Latitude D500? As a matter of fact, it DID run FASTER THAN XP, but I'm sure it was by FAR NOT as SECURE. Ohh, one more thing. Microsoft, if Windows is so much better, why do I need Spy-Bot's TeaTimer, Norton NIS 2009, Symantec System-Work's, Malware-Bytes, AND Spybot S&D to keep my PC clean? Why do I need to run a registry cleaner twice a week after normal use or clean it myself, which means a-lot of time consuming Registry "Patrolling", and Defragment Program to keep it stable, smooth and fast? I don't think I need an answer or explanation, I already got it with all the FUD! Hehe, happy browsing I.E. User's!
  • No one is trying to make you use Linux.

    If you don't like it, fine--don't use it. But there's no apparent need to denigrate those of us who do like it.

    I do agree with you on one point, though. There <i>has</i> been a disturbing trend in Linux lately of apparently trying to become a Windows "Me too," with more emphasis on point-and-grunt and the limited flexibility that offers experienced users.

    I like my Linux straight, not dumbed-down to the lowest-common-denominator level of a grandma-friendly mass-market OS.
    Henry Miller
  • "Linux has been the same thing since 1998"

    Well Sir, I think that statement pretty much disqualifies you. It made me smile.

    Tip: Install some Linux distro on one of your computers and play around with it. I suggest Mint (=Ubuntu on steroids, with all codecs preinstalled). Works like a charm.
  • Just remember who

    started the FUD wars. Get the facts campaign included many colorful claims that while one could say they were true, it was only so in certain scenarios.
    Of course there are truths in marketing. They just make sure its in a colored in their favor. It is "truthful" that Windows is faster than Linux and "truthful" that Linux is faster than Windows, its just that marketers do not include all the variables that define the truth.
    I do agree that Linux does have a ways to go but it is making progress. The fact that it is not there yet does not mean it never will be there. It is far from the truth that Linux brings almost nothing. And as for your comment that Windows can be as secure as Linux if you know what you are doing, isnt that most peoples complaint about Linux is that you have to know what you are doing?
    Viva la crank dodo
    • I have tried various flavors

      Both Ubuntu and Fedora Core, to pretty much no avail. Although once I install Win 7 on my netbook, I want to try and dual boot Fedora, but the last time I tried that, the setup caught me at setting up the file system between ex3 or ex4, which ever one I choose, the setup said I couldn't use it and to switch to the other one. It was an endless fight of futility.
      The one and only, Cylon Centurion
      • Really? You certainly can cook up a better story than that...

        I have a Dell Mini 9 and had both Fedora core 11 and Ubuntu Netbook Remix to install successfully. I never bothered to put Windows 7 on it (at the time I was running the Beta and then RC on my desktop). I didnt see the value and I wanted a small appliance to access the net, not a full on laptop (IE>using a netbook for its intended purpose).