Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 26th Aug 2009 22:23 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source When Windows Vista was launched, the Free Software Foundation started its BadVista campaign, which was aimed at informing users about what the FSF considered user-restrictive features in Vista. Luckily for the FSF, Vista didn't really need a bad-mouthing campaign to fail. Now that Windows 7 is receiving a lot of positive press, the FSF dusted off the BadVista drum, and gave it a fresh coat of paint.
Thread beginning with comment 381010
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Meh.
by boldingd on Thu 27th Aug 2009 19:01 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Meh."
Member since:

We've got a number-crunching cluster at work. It's using the now-really-old-and-feature-poor Red Hat Enterprise 4. We've had a RHEL5 site-license for a long time. Why haven't we installed it yet? We're busy, we can't afford the cluster down-time, and nobody will pay for the man-hours to perform the update. It is kinda ridiculous on our part, but it isn't completely for no reason. Updates take time, cost money and carry risks: corporations don't suffer them gladly, in general. I think, anyway. So far as I know.

So... yeah. Companies expect OS's that they can get a few years out of. They do not like OS's that make major architectural changes every six months. Or maybe even every year or two years.

Reply Parent Score: 1