Tim Smith wrote:
High Plains Thumper wrote:
Let's look at the RedHat deployments:
http://www.linuxwins.com/category/redhat/
"Cases where companies or governments successfully switch
from Windows to Linux or open source software"
Following are my observations from Jim Kern's web page:
1. Sep 25, 2007 - "US Department of Energy Installing
Redhat Linux"
Referenced article:
http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2007/09/24/daily12.html
Regards a 5 year, $45 million US contract to DLT Solutions,
Herndon VA, to provide Linux products and services from
RedHat.
<SNIP>
Linux has become competitive with new markets opening,
because of increased proprietary (you know who and what)
software.
Here is something interesting about RedHat as of 4 years
ago, which still holds true today:
http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/02/12/HNrhat_1.html
[quote] Red Hat gains government certification Advanced
Server approved by DOD By Grant Gross, IDG News Service
February 12, 2003
The U.S. Department of Defense Information Systems Agency
has certified Linux distributor Red Hat's Advanced Server
operating system as a "Common Operating Environment,"
meaning the server product meets the agency's software
security and interoperability specification. [/quote]
So RedHat quality is not good? Our FUDbois can say all they
want, but what they say holds little water.
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/
"7.6 Trespasser Disinformation Tactics"
Key examples of troll tactics:
I see Doug did some creative snipping. Let's restore the
parts he snipped, so as to see my complete statement, shall
we?
Such as?????
"17. Don't substantiate your claims. Refuse to present evidence
to support your invalid claims. Repeat your invalid claims and
have your anti-Linux propagandist comrades do the same. Do the
same for any invalid claims that you have notice your anti-Linux
propagandists comrades make."
I recently read this in another forum:
They really ought to learn from Red Hat's model, but that
said, Red Hat has, at some stage, made deliberate errors to
earn money from support.
If that's true, and Red Hat has deliberately released buggy
software to earn support money, is RHEL-quality something to
strive for? (I suspect that the comment is wrong, and Red Hat
has never purposefully released bad software to earn support
money, but if that's what people are saying, then comparing
something to RHEL-quality might not be good).
Note that I suspect the claim against Red Hat was wrong.
This is an example of:
"43. Citing vapor postings. Cite the statements that you had
"intended" to include but never actual written into your past
posting. Gamble on the possibility that nobody will remember what
you posted and that nobody will do the research to determine what
you have posted. If you loose that bet, use another
disinformation tactic to deflect the results of your using this
tactic."
As for FUDbois, the person I was quoting was Roy Schestowitz.
He's the one who said Red Hat made deliberate errors to earn
money from support:
http://www.digg.com/linux_unix/rPath_on_Red_Hat_s_appliance_strategy_Some_assembly_required
Glad to see you've finally come around, HPT, and recognized
Roy as a FUDboi.
This is an example of:
"[6.] When your tactics are turned on you, call you opponents
trolls. Do not accept the fact that by calling someone using
your tactics a troll that makes you the real troll."
I see from your selective snippage, trollboi, that you changed
the context of Roy's intentions.
http://schestowitz.com/Weblog/
[quote]
Case of point: The “assembly required” business model is among
those that make open source software quite repellent and fuels
FUD against it. Examples include quite a few popular packages
(maybe even Asterisk). They really ought to learn from Red Hat’s
model, but that said, Red Hat has, at some stage, made deliberate
errors to earn money from support. It was a long time ago and
it’s possibly just a rumour.
[/quote]
Not only that, but you completely sidestepped my comments to
continue your charade.
This is an example of:
"20. Narrow the scope of threads so that you can handle it.
Narrow the scope of the issues that are being addressed in a
thread to details you feel that you can refute, ridicule, or
dismiss leaving the main issues unaddressed."
--
HPT
|
|
