HA! Microsoft is at record profits, as usual, while IBM is selling off divisions. For the last year, what is that, about a 20% gap that formed? Yep.
Posted on 03/08/2006 5:49:56 AM PST by Halfmanhalfamazing
Michael Dell, chairman of Dell Inc. believes in offering Linux on the desktop, server, and workstation. What he doesn't believe in, for now, is giving Linux full support on the desktop. In an exclusive interview, Dell explained his company's Linux desktop strategy to DesktopLinux.com's Steven J. Vaughan Nichols.
"People are always asking us to support Linux on the desktop, but the question is: 'Which Linux are you talking about?'," Dell asked.
(Excerpt) Read more at desktoplinux.com ...
Why do all of you want to literally give stuff to China for free is the obvious question, since we already have such a huge trade deficit. Yet all we ever get is vague references about how we are all human, and it would be good for the communists, oops I mean community, or other worthless tripe.
Yep, GE, it's one big conspiracy - and if only you would increase the number and volume of your posts - you could probably prevent it from taking hold. You're going to have to seriously up your output, though, since what you've done so far is obviously not working.
More BS from you guys. What do you mean it's not working? Since IBM started investing heavily in open source their income and stock price has plummeted, their CEO is taking pay cuts, and now they're arguing about their future strategy in the papers! Their whole operation is crumbling, yet you guys paint them as an example of open source success. Hilarious!
It's not like Dell didn't try a Linux desktop, Dell added. The Austin, Texas-based company "tried that with Red Hat on the OptiPlex and Dimension lines, but we had too many people not buying and saying we picked the wrong one." By 2001, Dell was no longer offering a Linux desktop to its usual retail customers.
So when you claim that Dell didn't sell machines with Linux preinstalled, what are we to make of such statements? Kinda sounds like what one would expect of a zealot, doncha think?
Have you considered a switch to decaf?
I didn't claim anything, I simply showed up on the thread where one of the linux fanbois posted this article claiming Dell was announcing they were going to sell Linux on home desktop computers, and expressed my belief it was just another load of bunk, like we are so used to seeing from that crowd. I even referenced a second article from that same author, admitting it was a all a lie, and that he was ashamed he couldn't get the Linux desktops like he had promised would be available. Yet here is yet ANOTHER thread on the whole fiasco, with Dell not even giving a timetable, but rather, asking the impossible of the fanbois - give us a single, reliable, legal version of Linux, or forget it. In fact, I think that's how most of us feel.
No it isn't. The software is free. Whether China takes advantage of that is incidental.
Since Apple started investing heavily in open source their income and stock price have risen astronomically, not just due to the iPod, their computer sales are up dramatically, far more than any other PC OEM.
What a tub of lard. Not when 3 (~33%) of the 10 wealthiest Americans made their fortunes on software. Free software is dangerous to the U.S. economy AND security. How could it not be, since it perfectly represents a U.N. viewpoint on the future of the world, so much so they have created entire new divisions of the U.N. to promote open source software around the world.
Unfortunately, however ironic it may be, is how open source has damaged IBM, SCO, SGI, Sun, any U.S. company who has attempted to embrace it. We've instead seen the emergence of Debian, Mandriva, Red Flag, Asianux, a trend that is likely to continue, costing the U.S. billions.
Ha, Apple is more likely to sue open sourcers than anyone, get real.
Your post is the reason why I didn't grace a response. Not everybody is as good as selectively reading as GE is.
^^^^^^^^^^^In context^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Context? Surely you're asking too much.
:-P
^^^^^^^^^^^^He's over there debating against the zealots, and yet you call him a zealot. Pretty low, but expected from a zealot such as you.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And the funny thing is that most of my posts(that are in a similar fashion) get great ratings. The one GE seemed to have a problem with had a 4 rating.
But whatever. It's one thing to pick and prod someone's posting and is often times rather fun but personal destruction I have zero interest in. Now I feel like I'm dealing with the NY Times here.
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That all depends on what GE's definition of "is" is.
Since Red Hat started investing heavily in open source their income and stock price have risen astronomically as well.
:-P
And what about Sun?
And the others made their money with something else. I wonder how much richer they'd be if they hadn't been shipping millions of dollars to software companies.
open source has damaged IBM, SCO, SGI, Sun
If you compare, IBM isn't doing much worse than Microsoft.
SCO was a poorly managed company from its Caldera beginning, performing worse than other Linux companies. Their UNIX business purchase was an effort to get distribution channels for Linux. Their real downfall was becoming a lawsuit mill instead of concentrating on producing goods and services.
Sun wasn't killed by Linux. It was killed because it was mostly supported by the dotcom bubble (and crashed with it) and cheap x86 hardware was surpassing SPARC in performance giving people no reason to blow five figures on their hardware anymore.
Great post!
After they bottomed out in 2002, they're doing better with the strategy shift to open source and well above where they were before Linux.
I've told you before, yet it didn't stick. I'll try it again.
The "community" is the authors of the software. Their charge for licensing the code is a return of any contributions to that code. They get paid in code (a "valuable consideration" in business contract speak) instead of cash (another form of valuable consideration). Reciprocal open source licenses are, by their very nature, capitalist.
HA! Microsoft is at record profits, as usual, while IBM is selling off divisions. For the last year, what is that, about a 20% gap that formed? Yep.
They get closer and farther, and were ahead and even in points after thier Linux strategy began.
Of course, we can throw another company in there that heavily relies on open source (especially in their server software):
Whoa! Of course, if you take a short term look between Apple and Microsoft like you like to do, it looks like Apple is doing worse than Microsoft:
Apple OSX is not an open source product, else you losers would be cheering when China took a free copy of it and resold it as "Red Star" or something similar like they do with Linux. And of course, Apple's stock is blowing IBM out of the water the last year too, just like Microsoft has.
Again ignoring and misdirection when your point was shown false.
OS X (as a client) has a completely open source base with proprietary software on top. OS X Server has the same, but the tools and utilities that ship with it, and what comprise most the fact that it is the Server version, are open source.
Apple bet the farm on these technologies, and it has paid off.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.