Mark Kent wrote:
> Jim Richardson <warlock@xxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 08:49:46 +0000,
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> ____/ Jim Richardson on Sunday 28 October 2007 04:54 : \____
>>>
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 01:24:10 +0000,
>>>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> ____/ Jim Richardson on Saturday 27 October 2007 20:55 : \____
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 10:10:50 +0100,
>>>>>> Mark Kent <mark.kent@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>>>>>> UK schools advised to avoid Microsoft
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>>>>>>| "In the interim, Becta's advice to schools considering moving to
>>>>>>>>| Microsoft's School Agreement subscription licensing model is that
>>>>>>>>| they should not do so," says the organisation.
>>>>>>>> `----
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/133436/uk-schools-advised-to-avoid-microsoft.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mind the fact that they talk about licences, not Windows. They
>>>>>>>> still can't think outside the Microsoft mindset.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is a truly common misconception, and some I've been dealing
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> a lot with our procurement people. Red Hat are not helping at all
>>>>>>> by claiming that Red Hat's software is not covered by the GPL and
>>>>>>> cannot be replicated - their position is often internally quoted,
>>>>>>> and it does huge damage.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where does RH claim that their software isn't covered by the GPL?
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe he was referring to their treatment of source code in a similar
>>>>> fashion to MySQL?
>>>>
>>>> So are saying that RH doesn't claim that their code isn't covered by
>>>> the GPL? that Mark was telling a porky?
>>>
>>> I'm not defending Mark's remark. In fact, I'd be curious enough to wait
>>> for an answer and find out what he meant.
>>>
>>
>> I suspect Mark doesn't have an answer, he's just slagging RH
>>
>
> I don't know what's wrong with you, sometimes, Jim.
Well, he is curious about your claim.
For example what RH software you are talking about.
Makes him "Real wrong (tm)"
> Red Hat's *salesmen* are telling our *buyers* this, during negotiations.
> This is being quoted internally, and is doing all kinds of damage to
> flexibility in open-source.
>
> I'm merely reporting what I'm being told by *our own people*, Jim.
Yes. Certainly. You are reporting "hearsay"
Makes it real easy to substantiate that claim
Tell you a big secret: My "own people" tell me the world is made of swiss
cheese. This may naturally disappoint those who thought it was made of
cheddar
> I'm not dishonest, I do not lie, and I do not have anything particularly
> against Red Hat, although I'm irritated by the position they've taken on
> Carrier Grade Linux certification, which also doesn't help them or me
> one bit.
So you are "irritated" by a "position" you have /heard/ from other people.
Without knowledge if those people have reported the real circumstances
> Why are you so closed-minded?
>
Thats hilarious, coming from you
--
Most projects start out slowly -- and then sort of taper off.
-- Norman Augustine
|
|
