To some, it may be more than just speculation. With IBM moving more jobs to India, why should they pay MS for desktops. To me, this is more of an internal (with some exceptions) move. The internal use of Notes within IBM is huge. If they were to eliminate the need for Windows, imagine the money they would save.
There was once a product called PGPFone that would do VOIP with PGP encryption. I have not seen anythign about this is wuite a while. Is the project still around?
null routing to sco?
on
SCO Offline
·
· Score: 3, Informative
From a list that I am on, there was consideration that routes to SCO may be dropped due to the expected traffic to SCO. The plans were to null route the traffic at the edge of individual AS's.
If IBM were serious about addressing the real problems with Linux, it would offer full customer indemnification and move away from the GPL license.
This would be a valid statement about indemnification IF IBM was the producer of the distro in question. The situation is that IBM is more of a reseller of the distro as a solution. Doesn't the producer of the distro have the authority to provide indemnification and not the reseller?
Slashdot Mirror
To some, it may be more than just speculation. With IBM moving more jobs to India, why should they pay MS for desktops. To me, this is more of an internal (with some exceptions) move. The internal use of Notes within IBM is huge. If they were to eliminate the need for Windows, imagine the money they would save.
There was once a product called PGPFone that would do VOIP with PGP encryption. I have not seen anythign about this is wuite a while. Is the project still around?
From a list that I am on, there was consideration that routes to SCO may be dropped due to the expected traffic to SCO. The plans were to null route the traffic at the edge of individual AS's.
This is only the begining! Bun-Bun is coming!
If IBM were serious about addressing the real problems with Linux, it would offer full customer indemnification and move away from the GPL license. This would be a valid statement about indemnification IF IBM was the producer of the distro in question. The situation is that IBM is more of a reseller of the distro as a solution. Doesn't the producer of the distro have the authority to provide indemnification and not the reseller?