__/ [ Mark Kent ] on Wednesday 24 January 2007 15:35 \__
> begin oe_protect.scr
> BearItAll <spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>>> The appearance of support
>>>
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>> | You really have to wonder why Novell has to rely on Microsoft's COO to
>>> | sell its software, and why it would possibly entrust its corporate
>>> | future to its biggest competitor. Sure, Novell sees this as an
>>> | expedient way to bump off Red Hat and will deal with Microsoft later.
>>> | Right. Novell's track record of beating Microsoft is...not so good.
>>> | Letting them sell Novell's product on Microsoft's terms is a recipe for
>>> | bankruptcy (as well it should be - Microsoft is doing what it's
>>> | supposed to do: kill competitors).
>>> |
>>> | Eventually, Novell will recognize this. But it will be too late.
>>> | In the meantime, it's nice to see that Microsoft's COO hasn't lost
>>> | his Wal-Mart friends (he was CIO there, of course, before he
>>> | joined Microsoft).
>>> `----
>>>
>>>
>>
http://weblog.infoworld.com/openresource/archives/2007/01/the_appearance.html
>>
>> I wonder what happened with MS's own experiments with Linux, could they
>> have failed to learn the commandline syntax perhaps. If MS want to sell a
>> Linux product, they can pick up a Debian, clag something on top of it and
>> charge a service charge.
>>
>> I actually wanted them to do that at more than one time, put a safe Linux
>> base under a MS Win shell. It would have solved a great many troubles and
>> may well have seen off those pesky Linux chaps.
>>
>
> I've often speculated on why they have not done so. My basic conclusion
> was that really, it was because they didn't need to, and now that we're
> coming to a point where the desktop PC is becoming irrelevant, then there
> won't be much point, either. If they'd been losing significant market
> share to linux in the desktop space, then they might've felt the need
> to compete in a more direct way, but why end the habits of a career?
> Lock-in, FUD, lobbying and marketing have provided them with all the
> success they've needed. Their attacks on Linux and free software have
> been very much of the FUD kind, and the remarks above regarding Wal-Mart
> are not Wal-mart's concern - I don't imagine that they were for one
> moment concerned about legal issues, however, they've agreed to make
> this statement in order to help Microsoft in their FUD campaign as part
> of the deal.
>
> You can tell that the statements were of the marketing FUD variety as
> they do not indicate any particular problem, just a general bit of
> hand-waving. These are the kinds of things which get quoted in
> glossies, they are not "real" in any sense we would recognise.
Yes, see my later items.
One of them suggests that there's a strong Microsoft-Walmart link (managers),
so the statements were no coincidence.
It is amazing that the _Microsoft blog_ bothered to post an item only to
point out a deliberate omission. Novell didn't replace Red Hat. It only
complements many Red Hat machines that are serving Walmart.
3 paragraphs of FUD may be worth 30,000 licenses of SUSE. This news,
including those statements, have gone very far... the most mainstream media
in fact. If you can't fight Linux which is free, then put (force) a price
tag on it. SCO is toasts. Microsoft reconsiders and re-evaluates its
options. As usually, it's nothing but malice and sometimes corruption. The
government will understand and accept, I'm sure. After all, one crook rarely
criticises another.
--
~~ Best wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Othello for free: http://othellomaster.com
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
roy pts/4 Tue Jan 23 23:45 - 23:48 (00:02)
http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine
|
|
