The basic premise of the article is that the point of having a closed source vendor stand behind you pointless, since only that vendor can provide support for their system. This is, of course, completely unlike the FOSS world where everyone and anyone can provide support for anything. As an example from the article, see:
This leaves people using microsoft products at the mercy of microsofts whims and whether their problem will be fixed or not is all dependent on microsoft. Sure there are plenty of companies that advertise their support services. These companies can only deal with configuration problems. Real bugs in the programs can only be “fixed” by microsoft and no other. Most of the time this fix, unless you have a lot of money to throw around, will, at best, be released in the next months update cycle. Probably the fix will wait until the next version release or maybe even not at all.
Microsoft supports its corporate customers sufficiently, otherwise, they would lose said customers. The argument has been made that the reason for Microsoft’s stagnation in the consumer markets lately has been its singleminded focus on the corporate world.
Contrast this to the magic tree-dwelling elves that all come out of the woodwork to support Linux.
Open source is a completely different story. There are several companies which support open source. These companies provide the same sort of support which microsoft does and more. Generally the support the company provides is focused on their own released Linux distributions. However, one companies support for one particular distribution has the butterfly effect of helping to improve all other Linux distributions too.
I’m sure in a corporate setting people are going to install random fixes from random companies other than their vendor. If you run RHEL your stuck relying on RHEL for fixes otherwise its likely you’ll void the support contract on whatever fancy proprietary application you are running on top of RHEL. Its not like you can get fixes for RHEL from Novell. Still, the other seems to think that’s how it works as evidence by
Before Canonical there was and still is the big daddy of open source companies, RedHat. Their focus is on the enterprise and supporting their version of Linux. There is also SUSE which have been bought out by Novell, not a small name in computing circles, which provide, you guessed it, enterprise level support.
So just right there, off the top of my head, is three, not one but three, companies which provide support services for Linux similar to microsoft.
As a random aside, note that Linux advocates apparently have an aversion to spelling Microsoft correctly. Even in this semi-legitimate posting, he can’t capitalize Microsoft even though all of the other vendors are.
But back to the point at hand, Microsoft certainly doesn’t provide less support than Linux vendors since the cross-polination of support fixes that stands are the center of this articles argument makes no sense. This is obvious when one realizes that the great truth of Linux is that it is not a single entity when it is convenient and it is an uniform environment when it is.