Microsoft cleared the air July 5 on its obligations to GNU General Public License Version 3 support, declaring it will not provide support or updates for GPLv3 under the deal it penned in November with Novell to administer certificates for the Linux distribution. Microsoft also said July 5 that its agreement with Novell, as well as those with Linux rivals Xandros and Linspire, were unaffected by the release June 29 of GPLv3 by the Free Software Foundation.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-01-06
What about the reviews of the machines?
Tell me something: If nobody buys these machines, how is that to Linux' advantage? I don't care how good the reviews are. Show me the money.
So if (just a for instance) in quarter 10,000 people buy servers and install Linux on it for free, and 300 people buy Windows servers (with paid-for, licenced copies of Windows), that means Windows is doing better than Linux because Windows had more sales?
Except that's not the way it works in the vast majority of cases. Most organizations buying servers purchase hardware, OS, and support at the same time. They don't buy raw hardware.
Member since:2006-04-21
Tell me something: If nobody buys these machines, how is that to Linux' advantage?
It occurs to me that the people doing these reviews might be telling the truth when they say that they are buying the machines they're reviewing.
Just a thought.
I don't care how good the reviews are. Show me the money.
Well, I made no comment on the positivity or otherwise of the reviews. And even though it's pure laziness and wishfulness on your part to believe that Linux sucks compared to Windows and that all the reports of it doing well are lies, how about this quote from SJVN's latest piece?
While Dell has declined to announce any sales figures for its new Linux laptops and desktops, sources indicate that the sales have exceeded expectations.
http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS7159701171.html
Now, I'm sure you'll find some "valid" objection now that I've provided some evidence. Fortunately the universe doesn't seem to take much notice of tomcat when it's deciding what's true or not.
Except that's not the way it works in the vast majority of cases. Most organizations buying servers purchase hardware, OS, and support at the same time. They don't buy raw hardware.
Really? Then how do you explain the fact that Linux got in the door in the first place?
Member since:
2006-04-21
There's no evidence that anybody is actually buying those machines--yet.
What about the reviews of the machines? No, I'm not going to post any, you can post here so you're capable of googling them. And the fact that they have reportedly been taken aback by the amount of demand?
"Nobody buying them"? I'm STILL waiting for them to be sold in the UK; once they are, I will. What's next for you? Quoting some sub-zero percentage of supposed Linux desktop use and predicting its slow demise "year after year after year" a la NotParker?
I know this might come as a shock to you, but in the server market, the only real metric that means anything to the commercial supply chain -- you know, the big Linux contributors such as IBM, HP, etc -- is the sales volume.
So if (just a for instance) in quarter 10,000 people buy servers and install Linux on it for free, and 300 people buy Windows servers (with paid-for, licenced copies of Windows), that means Windows is doing better than Linux because Windows had more sales?
Get real. No, scratch that: Get somewhere a little farther from fantastical.
Seems to me you're one of the last hate-Linux-love-Windows trolls around here. That tell you anything?