Skip to comments.And What About Windows XP Service Pack 3?(microsoft is advertising for linux again)
Posted on 04/07/2007 6:51:09 PM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
click here to read article
So support to you has to be automated and only need to address security holes. Interesting, To me if I recive a patch with simle instructions to install its not really much harder to do that and those two things would be the same.
But I believe CentOS with a seven eyar *free* binary automated support cycle would meet your definition.
Likely incorrect, where's a link?
Yes, that is their various forms of “support”, the longest of which is apparently 7 years. Windows 2000 longest form of support is from 2000 to 2010 (~11 years) and Windows XP is 2001 to 2014, or ~13 years. Not really even close.
CentOS provides you with an upgrade path about every 18 months and Full support 5 years (with 7 years of support for everything but hardware drivers). so by the Time CentOS5 is out of support (2014) I will have the options to upgrade to CentOS 6(2008), 7(2010), 8(2011), 9(2012), and maybe 10(2014).
ROFL! Hilarious, if you dared to apply the same standard on CentOS you put on Windows, CentOS would be "unsupported" from the very beginning. All they are is a rip off of Red Hat anyway, doesn't take much engineering to burn a cd of someone else's work, yet again we see this is what you apparently look up to.
Ill start you off:
Post 43 of this thread “nobody is upset about the length of time XP was supported. Seven years is a fine lifetime for an OS. What people are upset about is that the overlap between the release of the only other desktop option and the end of life for the only existing desktop option is too short.”
Post 43 I have given you the impression I think 7 years is not a nice life-cycle you have gotten the wrong one and I apologize. (notice how gracious you take apologies)
Post 43 "Again its not just about the length of support 5 years to most people is due diligence from a software vendor"
Post 43" if MS continues to sell XP through companies like Dell and off the shelf then I agree with you that this article is bunk." (my God man can you not see right here I am agreeing with you!)
From these quotes you can see I have said, when shown I was incorrect, that MS is doing its due diligence should they carry XP *full*, not extended, support until 2009.
“All they are is a rip off of Red Hat anyway”
The concept of opensource has been explained to you before. Redhat got A Kernel, a ton of apps, and a good deal of documentation for nothing. They packaged it threw in a few of their own improvements and hand it back to the community. It has made them a successful business.
You go back and forth between “Redhat does not sell an os only support” and “redhat has hundreds of developers and gives away American technology” It must be nice to take up any position which suits you on a given day.
When I called you an Ass I was referring to the American heritage dictionary definition which is stupidly aggressive (somewhat like the Animal) in post 43 and later I agree with you, apologize to you for giving the wrong impression of my view, and state very clearly what my position is. You take that and insult me further distort or ignore my real position (up to and including post 86) and act, well, stupidly aggressive when you could have graciously nearly 40 post ago bowed out politely as the person more informed on this particular issue. You chose instead to act like a child.
Both of those statements of mine remain correct. Meanwhile your claims that any Linux vendor (especially a photocopy expert like CentOS) offers equal much less better support than Microsoft remain absurd. Your only counter is to hopelessly claim Windows products like 2000 are currently "unsupported" when security patches are being provided free of charge and will be provided free of charge till 2010. There's no wiggle room, you're still spreading falsehoods, and wasting time and bandwidth arguing with me about it.
So if CentOS is ripping off redhat they are offering the same service RH does, if not what are they ripping off?
Linux vendor (especially a photocopy expert like CentOS) offers equal much less better support than Microsoft remain absurd.
All depends on what the OS needs to do does it not? And the first OS I pointed at as good support was RedHat, you demanded something completely free (given you ignore the inital purchase cost of windows).
Your only counter is to hopelessly claim Windows products like 2000 are currently "unsupported"
This gets to the heart of your inability to have an adult discussion. I have quite clearly stated my position. I would not buy a software package that I absolutely needed if the only support I could get was *only* security patches. I have higher expectations out of my software vendors than you do.
We could discuss the merits of our positions and their implications like adults. We could agree to disagree like adults and let it go. Or you can continue to act like a child, misrepresent my position and attempt to insult me in the process. So far you have opted for the last option, I am still open to one or two if you wish to have an adult position.
There's no wiggle room, you're still spreading falsehoods, and wasting time and bandwidth arguing with me about it.
Its not false to say I consider support to be X, and MS does not offer X. Many others have chimed in agreeing with me so obviously my position is not that far out in left field.
What do you say? Adult conversation, Agree to Disagree, or are you going to continue to insult me and distort my position for fun?
You're the one obviously incapable of having adult discusion. You run around from thread to thread falsely claiming Windows 2000 is "unsupported" then claim you and you alone have some bizarro definition of support that doesn't include security payches. LOL whatever, if you want to keep proving over and over again you don't understand simple terms that's fine with me.
Really I said that? Your apparent lack of reading comprehension does not define my position.
I explained to you before, and no doubt I will have to again, that while security hotfixis are a critical element of support they alone are not the whole of, what I would consider to be, support. Its like a wheel and a car. A car needs wheels to work but If I hand you a wheel and not the rest of the car you would not call it an automobile.
I knew I would have to explain this to you. Giving only one piece of support, no matter how important it is is not supporting me. Giving me one piece of a car no matter how critical is not giving me a car.
Adults can have a conversation about why support shoud be considered x without resorting to insult, can you?
Providing security patches is a type of support, known as “extended support”, no matter how many times you want to claim it is completley “unsupported”. You’ve shown how absurd your claims are by making bizarre statements such as “a hotfix is not an update” and “I didn’t say no support I said unsupported”, but that is fine with me since it proves how laughably incorrect you are on these matters. Thanks.
Gold Eagle Out
and a soap box racer is a kind of car but its not an automobile and inadaquate for most people. If you ran around with a soap box racre most people would say you had no car!
Microsoft is going after royalties for patent infringement. Not surprising. Just chutzpah.
Meanwhile more and more companies open up their software, move closer to OSS.
It’s nothing but FUD from redmond.
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.