Makes me sick.
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| zacharym Jan 02, 2008 6:29 AM EDT |
This makes perfect sense. I agree to the fact that they are going to be doing good regardless of whether or not they sell copies of SLES. What I don't get is why all these Linux distributions are becoming Microshaft's personal slaves. I guess they want to avoid patent suits. The whole point in standards is so there's a common agreement amongst software makers so the software can communicate with each other and freely exchange information. If these standards Microsoft is creating are locked to one platform they aren't a standard at all. |
| dinotrac Jan 02, 2008 8:12 AM EDT |
>What I don't get is why all these Linux distributions are becoming Microshaft's personal slaves. Why would you make such a comment? I'm not aware of a single distribution that fits that description. I can certainly understand companies who are in financial distress making business arrangements that may help to save the company, which is how I categorize Novell's deal. Apple did the same thing in 1999 when it struck a $150,000,000 deal with Microsoft. They have since recovered and no longer need any Redmond money. Please note that the Apple-Microsoft deal did involve a certain amount of cooperation between the two companies, but it did not keep Apple from competing. If anything, the cash influx let the company stagger to its feet so that it actually could compete. The time to judge the Novell deal and others like it is not now, but in five years. That presumes, of course, that companies don't start ignoring licenses, infesting distros with DRM, or some yet unknown curse. If, on the other hand, Microsoft wants to pay Novell $300 million to develop OOXML support, hey, who am I to complain if some developers get paid? |
| gus3 Jan 02, 2008 8:29 AM EDT |
> Apple did the same thing in 1999 when it struck a $150,000,000 deal with Microsoft. They have since recovered and no longer need any Redmond money. But the contractual obligations still stand, and I'm sure if Redmond decided they didn't like the actions of Apple or Novell, they could "find" some breach of contract. With Microsoft's fingers on your purse-strings, they are also holding the carpet under your feet. |
| dinotrac Jan 02, 2008 9:32 AM EDT |
>But the contractual obligations still stand Which is ok if the obligations are not obnoxious. |
| gus3 Jan 02, 2008 11:10 PM EDT |
> Which is ok if the obligations are not obnoxious. The obligations per se aren't the point. It's more like Don Microsoft Corleone making you an offer you can't refuse. If you try to refuse, you could suddenly find yourself accused of "breach of contract" (whether you really are or not) and having to either: (a) defend yourself against their well-heeled lawyers, or (b) getting back in the Microsoft line because you can't afford (a). |
| dinotrac Jan 03, 2008 2:09 AM EDT |
> It's more like Don Microsoft Corleone making you an offer you can't refuse No, it isn't. Contracts are multiply bounded. Obligations are spelled out and time frames are limited. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!