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.