Bush demanded the proof too, and I gave it to him. Then he ran off on a tangent since his bet had been called.
The best that I can tell is that Microsoft bid ~27M euros and the unnamed Linux competitor bid ~30M euros. That doesn't sound like Microsoft offered up anything at a loss.
Microsoft's bid was originally much higher until they dipped into the slush fund and made unprecedented licensing compensation to beat Linux. You haven't been reading, have you? Question: If you can beat a free software bid, and licensing for your software normally costs millions, wouldn't you say they offered at a loss?
Unfortunately for you, I have been reading... And I haven't seen your evidence of a "slush fund". (and no, repeating "slush fund" over and over isn't evidence.)
Question: If you can beat a free software bid, and licensing for your software normally costs millions, wouldn't you say they offered at a loss?
I ask for proof... And it sounds like you want me to prove it for you? LOL!
MS's bid was 27M euros; and the unnamed OSS bidder was ~30M euros. Yet with no knowledge of the details, you claim that MS's offer was at a loss. That's why I'm not taking you seriously.
If you're trying to make the case that MS isn't allowed to give their software away for free and make their profits from services, go for it. It might be mildly entertaining to watch you try this route.