How do you know which products are profitable and which are not? I didn't say I know.
three sections are profitable: Client, Server, and Information Worker
That's true, but it isn't in a contradiction to what I said. Please reread what I wrote and do your math. Thank you.
Then, if you define overwhelming majority of Microsoft products as about 50-60 percent of them...then you are right. And that's based on the "Alphabetical list of product names" form the URL.
And I won't argue about the would be profitable if arguments.
the partitioning of divisions functionally is not indicative of relative stature.
How do you know that?
How do you know which products are profitable and which are not?
From the segment informations (Q2 2002 report) it is quite obvious: take away the client division (mainly Windows licenses) and the "Information Worker" division (mainly Office software) and Microsoft is not even profitable.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that they are losing money on every product other than Office and Windows. But they are definitely not that successful either.
I've a strange feeling that even if no one cares about the revolutionary or improved Longhorn , you have to post a complain about the anti-Microsoft zealots.
But you, Sir should do that first! Since MS is not going to supply their source code, then they obviously dont want to be legally bound to do so, do they?
That's right. But you said that it is a good reason for banning use linux in m$ and that's obviously wrong. read before you post...
MS does have a valid point in banning Linux use within the company- if any GPL'd code is used in an MS product, then, legally, MS cannot charge for that product, and has to make the source available.
This sentence is completely wrong and it only confirms that the M$ FUD does work. You should read the GPL before you post. First, using (or not using) Linux and/or any GLP'd software has nothing to do with the license you choose for your product. You can use an open source environment to produce a commercial application.
The other point is that nothing forbids you from charging for yours GPL'd product. It is legal as long as you provide the sources to the buyer.
Slashdot Mirror
How do you know which products are profitable and which are not?
...then you are right. And that's based on the "Alphabetical list of product names" form the URL.
I didn't say I know.
three sections are profitable: Client, Server, and Information Worker
That's true, but it isn't in a contradiction to what I said. Please reread what I wrote and do your math. Thank you.
Then, if you define overwhelming majority of Microsoft products as about 50-60 percent of
them
And I won't argue about the would be profitable if arguments.
You are trolling, aren't you?
That's bullshit.
the partitioning of divisions functionally is not indicative of relative stature.
How do you know that?
How do you know which products are profitable and which are not?
From the segment informations (Q2 2002 report) it is quite obvious: take away the client division (mainly Windows licenses) and the "Information Worker" division (mainly Office software) and Microsoft is not even profitable.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that they are losing money on every product other than Office and Windows.
But they are definitely not that successful either.
it should be Microso-sosoft.
To be precise: except XBox, MSN, Bussiness Software division and CE/Mobility devision they make money on virtualy every product. :-)
And that basically means that they make profits only on the clients and the server platforms.
You can check it here
Are you paid for that?
You obviously cannot see that m$ could have a responsible policy on using GPL'd software without banning it, can you?
I could ask you to continue this discussion with your Cocker Spaniel, but I don't think he is
such a m$ zealot as you are.
Anyway, I'm not going to waste my time on this discussion any longer.
try going back and rereading what I wrote.
But you, Sir should do that first!
Since MS is not going to supply their source code, then they obviously dont want to be legally bound to do so, do they?
That's right. But you said that it is a good reason for banning use linux in m$ and that's obviously wrong.
read before you post...
that's my advice.
MS does have a valid point in banning Linux use within the company- if any GPL'd code is used in an MS product, then, legally, MS cannot charge for that product, and has to make the source available.
This sentence is completely wrong and it only confirms that the M$ FUD does work.
You should read the GPL before you post.
First, using (or not using) Linux and/or any GLP'd software has nothing to do with the license you choose for your product. You can use an open source environment to produce a commercial application.
The other point is that nothing forbids you from charging for yours GPL'd product. It is legal as long as you provide the sources to the buyer.