On 9 Jul 2006 08:28:41 -0700, "Rex Ballard" <rex.ballard@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> Created As Unix, Perfected As Linux?
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | ...most users have missed out on any real multi-user, multi-tasking
>> | computing experience.
>> |
>> | Linux just doesn't fit their perceived model of a computer.
>> `----
>> http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2006-07-07-009-32-OP-CY
>
>> By the way, LinuxToday got rid of all the Microsoft advertisements and
>> spornsorships last week.
>
>Ironically, this little side-bar may be more relevant than anythnig in
>the article.
>
>I remember back in 1993, November I think, when Walt Mossberg wrote an
>article singing the praises of Linux. About 2 days after the story was
>published, Microsoft cancelled 2 full page ads in the wall street
>journal. Although I didn't hear the actual conversation with
>Microsoft, the managment that WAS on the call made it very clear that
>Microsoft did NOT want us to say anything positive about Linux, OS/2,
>or any other competitor to Microsoft.
>
>The value of those two full page ads was over $250,000. Far more than
>the annual salary of Mossberg, his editor, and his editor's boss put
>together. At the time, salaries were around $50,000-$75,0000.
>
>In 1995, when I was working for McGraw-Hill, Byte magaine, which was
>owned by McGraw-Hill wrote many articles giving glowing reviews of OS/2
>Warp, Solaris for Intel, UnixWare, and Linux. Microsoft tried to
>pressure Byte, and Byte responded by publicly stating, in a letter from
>the editor, that the very purpose of Byte Magazine, since it's first
>issue, had been to explore and evaluate new and emerging technologies,
>not to simply be a publicity rag to sing the praises of the dominant
>technology.
>
>Since Microsoft could not control the editors of Byte, they went after
>the parent company, pulling full page ads from other McGraw-Hill
>publications such as Business Week. Eventually, McGraw-Hill sold off
>Byte to what is now C/Net. After a series of retaliatory actions
>against C/Net, Byte was no longer available in printed form.
>Furthermore, the Byte achives during the McGraw-Hill era were sealed.
>You can find back issues back to 1995, but prior issues are only
>available through University Microforms.
>
>It's not inconceivable that Microsoft may have used similar tactics
>against other publishers, starving them of critical revenue, causing
>chaos with their budgets, and giving them a clear message not to
>publish any articles in which Windows compares unfavorably to
>competitor operating systems such as Linux, OS/2, UnixWare, or Solaris.
Isn't that exactly the same thing that open source companies are
doing to Microsoft? Cutting their revenues in an attempt to change
their way of doing business. Using financial clout to effect some
social, political or corporate change.
>
>With this high-level corporate censorship, it's not really surprising
>that "Linux just doesn't fit their perceived model of a computer.".
Linux does not fit the perceived model of a computer of many
people. It is a cheap shot at capitalism from socialist do-gooders.
While that may work well in the third world countries is flies
in the face of everything that is America.
Go ahead a spew your sour-grapes about unfair business
practices and monopolys but that is the way of the world.
Everyone else is just plain jealous. Green with envy.
It's this envious garbage that has made open-source
what is is today. Not an attempt at improvement but
a snide, hipocritical attempt to cut in on a market that
they can't attain through quality.
|
|
