Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 7th Jun 2012 01:59 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 521111
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Wait... am I understanding this correctly?
by Nelson on Thu 7th Jun 2012 04:11
in reply to "RE[2]: Wait... am I understanding this correctly?"
RE[4]: Wait... am I understanding this correctly?
by Morgan on Thu 7th Jun 2012 05:09
in reply to "RE[3]: Wait... am I understanding this correctly?"
They're hosting the fucking infrastructure, providing up time guarantees, keeping the machines patched and up to date, and allowing you to scale out as needed.
I'm curious how much, if any, money they gave to the companies behind the GNU/Linux distributions they offer. I understand that GPL licensed software can be -- and often is -- sold or otherwise used to generate income, despite the fact that it is a free/Free commodity. I just wonder if Microsoft is maximizing their profits by leeching off of other tech giants. It certainly wouldn't be the first time.
I also wonder if they are following the Almighty and Holy GPL to the letter. It would be a shame if they were leveraging Free software by violating its license agreement, while strongly enforcing their own EULAs as usual.
RE[3]: Wait... am I understanding this correctly?
by sithlord2 on Thu 7th Jun 2012 09:56
in reply to "RE[2]: Wait... am I understanding this correctly?"
RE[3]: Wait... am I understanding this correctly?
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Thu 7th Jun 2012 12:37
in reply to "RE[2]: Wait... am I understanding this correctly?"
Supporting Linux on their cloud computing is not related to their repeated abuses of monopolistic behavior. At least not yet.
Now if IE could only connect to websites that were hosted by azure, then that would be an abuse and your comment would have made sense.
If they were sending bills to every company that ran linux installs in the cloud, that would be an abuse.
RE[3]: Wait... am I understanding this correctly?
by lucas_maximus on Thu 7th Jun 2012 19:39
in reply to "RE[2]: Wait... am I understanding this correctly?"





Member since:
2006-12-05
Maybe you don't agree or understand the basics of why companies exist, but making more money is pretty high on the list of things to do. "
Jump at conclusions enough? Know a thing about reading comprehension?
Nice job at taking the very first part of what I said, automatically assume I don't know what I'm talking about based on just that, and go on as if I don't know how companies operate and why they exist in the first place.
How about you read the rest of what I said, make an attempt to comprehend it without jumping to conclusions, and then respond?
In case you still can't figure it out, I am slamming Microsoft's monopolistic and abusive business tactics and their sleazy ways of making money for things that THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH, often under empty "patent" threats. Next thing you know, they're going to want you to pay them to buy something that doesn't even run Microsoft software. Oh, wait... [get the point?]
Edited 2012-06-07 03:46 UTC