____/ Peter Kränkwonov on Wednesday 28 November 2007 20:30 : \____
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> ____/ Peter Kränkwonov on Wednesday 28 November 2007 20:02 : \____
>>
>>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, it is not. Linux was doing fine before Microsoft decided that it needs
>>>> to be 'taxed'. It essentially 'bribed' Novell to accept guilt. Novell
>>>> needed the money because it faced NASDAQ delisting at the time (Fargo Bank
>>>> issues). That
>>>
>>> If Novell were doing fine then why did they need money? You don't make a
>>> good business argument here I am afraid.
>>
>> Look for the NASDAQ delisting warnings Novell received in 2006. You can
>> search the Web and find many stories about this. Novell also sacked very
>> many employees in late 2005.
>
> Because they had no money. So I still don't understand how you say they
> were doing well.
>
>>
>>>> was after Microsoft had betrayed Novell with very nasty, anticompetitive
>>>> tricks.
>>>
>>> What tricks. I am unaware of these but would like to learn.
>>
>> See Novell's trials which involve Microsoft (prior to 2006). There's a
>> good
>
>
> What trials? You have links to clear evidence? I can not read legal
> English so well.
>
>> record of this and Microsoft paid to settle on various occasions. Mind
>> things like the E-mail from Microsoft's Jim Allchin which says they "need to
>> slaughter Novell before they get stronger". In other E-mails he spoke
>> about
>
> What is wrong with this?
>
>> needing to copy from Novell (not these exact words)
>>
>
> Important to get words right when slandering I think or it is dangerous.
I don't need the words. I have solid evidence that is publicly available, It
backs all the assertions above perfectly, but again, you're virtually asking
me to do the 'homework'. About the trials, search for 'Microsoft Novell
litigation'. There's /heaps/ on that. About the E-mails, given what you see in
the trials, phrases like "slaughter Novell" strike a nerve. They join other
phrases like "whacking" Dell" and "tilt them into the death spiral" (Lotus).
>>>>>>>> Microsoft's
>>>>>>>> skills at targeting corporate desktops and servers with Novell's
>>>>>>>> knowledge of whats hot and whats not in the Open Source jungle.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Probably it's rather more good news for Microsoft, who are looking
>>>>>>> forward in future to clinging to the coat-tails of Linux as their
>>>>>>> prospects of cornering the world market in computing disappear down the
>>>>>>> tubes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Whether Linux will accept them, of course, is moot, as Microsoft seem
>>>>>>> to have very little to contribute to the future of computing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am confused. What do you mean? Linux has almost no desktop presence
>>>>>> and M$ has nearly it all. M$ and Windoze already cornered the
>>>>>> market. What are you meaning here? Or am I not understanding something
>>>>>> here in the figures you talk about?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That statement falsely assumes you have some approved tool to measure
>>>>> Linux desktop usage.
>>>>
>>>> See this one from yesterday:
>>>>
>>>> Mozilla & Firefox Market Share
>>>>
>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>> | This is a super-long post, so I’ll start with the punchlines:
>>>> |
>>>> | * We think there are at least 125,000,000 Firefox users in the world
>>>> | right now, give or take. That represents a doubling since Firefox 2 was
>>>> | released a little over a year ago, and significant growth in every
>>>> | country.
>>>> `----
>>>>
>>>> http://john.jubjubs.net/2007/11/27/mozilla-firefox-market-share/
>>>
>>> I am not sure I understand your meaning. Surely market share is the
>>> ratio of how many users are being had for Linux compared to how many for
>>> other operatings systemes. No need to be too clever. it makes sense to a
>>> man and his dog I think. But even from my travels I know Linux is still
>>> very minority everywhere but at our Linux stammtisch!
>>
>> Linux plays a key role in many machines that are not connected,
>> e.g. desktops
>
> I know what Linux is as I use it.
>
>> that are used in rendering studios. These are packaged as
>> appliances. Other
>
> What do you mean "as applicances" and how is this different from Windoze
> or Macs in similar situations.
Macs are similar to appliances in the sense that you buy the entire unit and it
is not assembled with plenty of choice available. Windows is just an O/S. The
same goes for GNU/Linux. Increasingly, GNU/Linux requires no preloads /per
se/. Take for example the Asus Eee PC, which comes in only 2-3 forms and the
O/S is an integral part of it. It's a device, essentially, but there's room
for hacking if you really try.
Did you know that many millions of smartphones run Linux? These are small
computers.
>> machines you do not get to see often are quietly appearing in places that
>> migrate to Linux (there's no company to rave about this in the media).
>> Examples include Kerala, with population of almost 30 million and a
>> state-wide migration to Debian.
>
> Yes but this is because it is India with no money there.
No, it was a choice that they made because of the need for freedom,
independence, and innovation. Gates has begun dumping a $3 Office/Windows
bundle, but Kerala has some smart people. It realises that Gates just wants to
get children (to whom this offer applies) 'addicted' and locked in.
--
~~ Best of wishes
An aristocrat's sexual escapades equate to Technocrat's hot RSS feed
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine
|
|
