In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Moshe Goldfarb.
<brick_n_straw@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Wed, 11 Jun 2008 21:19:40 -0400
<1rtdz479y4f6c.wmasdg8btwvi$.dlg@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 19:14:53 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>
>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9965682-7.html
>>
>> -------
>> So Red Hat got protection for their commercial offering and for upstream
>> developers as long as their work shows up in a Red Hat product but not
>> other commercial products? Isn't this what Novell and Microsoft did?
>> Didn't Red Hat spend extraordinary effort to paint Novell as the most
>> evil thing ever to happen to Open Source for having done so? Am I
>> missing something or, despite carefully crafted words to create the
>> illusion otherwise, has Red Hat just become a giant hypocrite?
>> -------
>>
>> See also
>>
>> http://www.press.redhat.com/2008/06/11/red-hat-puts-patent-issue-to-rest/
>>
>> Interestingly enough, "comments are closed" on that Red Hat's news blog
>> entry. Hmmm.
>>
>> regards,
>> alexander.
>
> It's all about money.
> The Linux loons can't seem to understand that.
>
A pity, for Microsoft Marketing will grind Linux deep
underground, if we're not very careful. After all,
a large segment of the public actually *bought* the TCO
argument (and the Microsoft Servers lowering it), though
many fortunately did not.
I do wonder how much of the public also thinks that
MS SQL Server can be inserted into a toy robot, radio,
laptop, or other such battery powered device. (It's
not impossible; Android, a Linux-based solution for
mobile phones, apparently contains SQL-Lite as well.)
--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Linux sucks efficiently, but Windows just blows around
a lot of hot air and vapor.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
|
|
