can they really be THAT dumb or is this really about software radios being too flexible that pulling down signals they aren't supposed to is worrying both the Feds and the hardware manufacturers?
What ever the motive, it's a dumb statement to say open software is less secure than proprietary when there are many Fed created/used cypher algorithms which have shown this not to be the case. And let's not forget how secure Microsoft Windows has been for the US government at the state and fed levels.
funny how Microsoft can constantly damage competitors products, say their are sorry, and then take close to a year before the actual fix is pushed out. It reminds me of something I saw years ago. You know how Microsoft hates Java and all it means, well developers love it and Microsoft was refusing to make an JDBC interface to their MS SQL Server database. There were 3rd parties doing it and even an open source version IIRC, and finally Microsoft was pressured by customers to build a JDBC driver for their database. The only problem, they stated it would be released to beta in something like 8 months and release a few months later. I think it took over 12 months before it was actually released.
So remember folks, everything Microsoft does is designed to promote and protect the Windows operating system. IMO.
doesn't this allow them to effectively eliminate all support and product service costs for the next 2 years? They've added 2 years onto the already extended original 90 contract and they claim the Xbox will be one of their first profitable products in 20 years(outside of MS Windows desktopOS/serverOS and MS Office. It was stated, by Microsoft, that they still believe the Xbox will make its first profits in the fiscal year 2008. Not having to pay for service or suppport for two years has got to help boost the likelyhood of this actually happening.
And timing is everything. They announced/enacted this so they could move the future expenses into losses for the fiscal year 2007 which just ended. Nice work shuffling the deck Microsoft. Now we'll see how many you've actually fooled.
also remember that Universal is backing HD-DVD which is also a Microsoft supported video format...
It looks like Universal is a full fledged 'partner' of Microsoft in both music and video and they are drawing the line in the sand with regards to other partners because of their deals with Microsoft.
Boy, it sure sounds like the Microsoft/DOJ settlement did a bad job protecting vendors, businesses, and individuals with using the older version(s) of Windows. IIRC, how Microsoft has forced upgrades in the past was part of the latest DOJ/States vs Microsoft case.
considering that Microsoft has for 20+ years used changing API's and pre-load advantages to slowly kill off each and every competitor it decided it wanted killed, I would say that using a copy of a Microsoft patented technology is asking for trouble. FYI, Microsoft has patents wrapped all around.Net and the reason it goes to the ECMA instead of ISO is because the ECMA allows patented IP in it's 'standards'.
IMO, Miguel is just leading his followers to slaughter. History tells me this is the how Microsoft does business and GNU/Linux along with OSS are targets. And the latest Microsoft payoffs to those GNU/Linux distros who've signed up for their IP patent protection scam are the 2nd phase of the attack. SCO was the 1st. You probably don't understand that either so here goes, Microsoft help fund SCO via direct financial licensing 'deals' and by backroom negotiations to get a large Canadian company( Baystar and a Canadian bank ) to also fund SCO.
So use mono and anything else Miguel puts out AT YOUR OWN RISK. There ARE strings attached. IMO
he tried to work directly for Microsoft but they didn't accept him. Now, with all the MS ass kissing his has/is doing and the intermingling of Microsoft technology in Suse, they'd be fools to hire him now.
great, more following of Microsoft by Miguel de Icaca and fans. Just what Microsoft wants, developers getting hooked on Microsoft controlled API's and we all know how Microsoft likes to lock developers into Microsofts API's to lengthen the life of Windows don't we.
Microsoft software is a poison. If you drink it, you're turned into a zombie destined to roam the landscape Microsoft creates for you. IMO.
I believe Microsoft said they'd support Mac and not Linux. The excuse I remember was something about marketshare. But regardless, do you really think that Microsoft would provide acceptable support and implementation features for non-Windows platforms?
They must keep Windows relevant since it is the only way they've been able to maintain profits. Linux must die is how they operate and Silverlight is actually part of that attack. Remember, Flash is already crossplatform and on almost every PC shipped. Sounds alot like the history of Java and/or Netscape to me.
Supporting Microsoft in anyway in this regard is just helping them try to pin Linux and OSS into a corner. IMO.
First it was BayStar and The Royal Canadian Bank which helped Microsoft fund SCO in their anti-Linux attack and now we have another Canadian company doing a great job at helping Microsoft attack Linux and OSS. Is this a case of these Canadian companies just being really ignorant of the facts or is Microsoft finding more gullible friends in Canada? That bit about creating and modifying GPL'ed software "without fear of legal repercussions" shows they are either REALLY ignorant on the subject or have malicious intent. IMO.
FYI, I'm not serious about Canadians being more willing to help Microsoft. Microsoft is an equal opportunity FUDster and looks for gullible partners around the world.
one problem, Microsoft has no intention of helping spread Linux and OSS no matter how much they get for licensing fees. I'll say it again, that is not how Microsoft works. They make their money on Windows, by Windows, for Windows and anything else threatens the Windows gravy train. Therefore, there is another motive for what Microsoft is doing and the side-effect of more Linux systems must be looked at as a threat when those systems are tied to Microsoft's false IP claims. It is very likely that those customers will eventually be hammered out of the Linux market by moves Microsoft makes regarding those licenses.
Read up on how Microsoft hammered a good portion of the UNIX workstation application market by licensing Win32 source to a handful of companies and then pulled the rug out from under them all. Hint: 1) Microsoft licensed Win32 to handful of companies 2) Those companies sold libraries to UNIX workstation app developers promising a single source code tree for both UNIX and Windows platforms 3) Many UNIX workstation apps companies bought into the plan and ported their UNIX apps to Win32 APIs and these MS licensed libraries 4) When enough ported, Microsoft quadrupled the licensing fees for the Win32 source and very effectively terminated the ability of the UNIX apps versions to say current. 5) Massive increases in licensing fees also put all but one of the original Win32 licensees out of cross platform application libraries business. Only one survived and that could be attributed to the fact that Microsoft hired that company(MainSoft) to create worthless ports of a couple of Microsoft apps. The trick killed the market but kept a very small player alive to keep the DOJ and anti-trust people off their backs.
So what you THINK is good for Linux and OSS can only be bad for Linux and OSS when Microsoft is involved. After all, there is absolutely no proof that anything has changed at Microsoft. And even if you can make something up to justify the concept of change at Microsoft, the long 20 year history of Microsoft tricks would require a massive amount of proof there is really any real change there. IMO.
yes, it's probably a good move since otherwise, Novell, and the other losers who signed up with Microsoft, would only have been forced to fork their distro packages as they moved to GPLv3. That would have been bad and could very well been one of the expected results Microsoft wanted. They don't want licensing fees, they want Linux out of the picture and splitting the market with truckloads of forks would have soured businesses on Linux and OSS.
So good move by the FSF and I find it comforting that 'the council'( kernel hackers ) are also putting great import on the tricks up Microsoft's sleeves.
If they continue to produce 'new' operating systems every 5 years with only a 25% better bug/vulnerability rate, just how long will it be before Bill Gates' statement of Windows Vista being "the most secure OS available" will actually become a publicly accepted true? I had to state it as "publicly accepted truth" since Microsofts version of the law, contracts, and truth are very different from what the general population understands and accepts as such.
Too bad the severities weren't listed but then again, we already know Microsoft seems to think the fact that an exploit can be spread via network is more important than data corruption/loss. You know, saving face is more important than the customer.
if that is really the case, why are the state AG's still thinking there's a problem? Something is wrong here. Either you are totally simplifying the issue or Google and the state AG's are all idiots. Not to mention that Microsoft is changing SOMETHING and that appears to be so tough to do that they only expect to have a beta ready by the end of the year.
And there is no way in hell Microsoft would do anything to their beloved Windows which would give Google an advantage over Microsoft software. They might back down and level the field but they won't give up an advantage to Google. Balmer would throw chairs around his office before that'd happen.
ah, so they decided to make it work once Google, or was it Apple, made the Desktop Search a useful tool/feature.
Is Google really just complaining about nothing and all the states AG's haven't had someone look into it to see if there was any truth to the complaint? THAT just sounds too unbelievable and the actual complaint sound more reasonable given Microsofts long long history of doing just these kinds of things.
Even if there is an API to turn off or disable Microsofts stuff, if there is ANY requirement, warning, or other user dialog which makes them believe something extra is happening or something strange is happening or whatever seems unusual, then these are cause for a complaint in my book. Do you remember when Microsoft broke AOL's TCP/IP stack on a Windows patch( or some update of some kind ) and all AOL customers were suddenly offered a nice little dialog to sign up for MSN instead? I wouldn't doubt this is the same kind of game Microsoft is playing.
If this has been in NT since v4, why hasn't Google complained about Windows 2000 or Windows XP? I've only heard mention of Windows Vista. Surely something unique is happening with the new version of NT.
don't be fooled into thinking that the customer's perception is not a tool Microsoft uses to its advantage. So what if both WDS and GDS will run slow once GDS is installed. The fact is that when that happens, it will be blamed on GDS and the perception will be that GDS is bad.
Let me guess, you probably think that Microsoft was within its rights to purchase up all the Netscape contracts and force users to get Navigator via dialup downloading. With your reasoning, the user can still get it and so what if there is already another web browser on the computer. Sorry, monopolies can not play that game and as Microsoft has shown how they constantly leverage their monopoly to push their products/services at customers and push competitors back/under using every trick in the book, and done so for almost 20 years, yes they should build their OS with complete extensibility. They should have been split into three pieces years ago and if that happened, we would not be in this position today.
hopefully someone, as committed, will fill in but the net effect is that a good fighter just moved to another good fight. Good luck and good work Lawrence.
Desktop search is not new, yet Microsoft did not allow for a preferred search facility which disabled their builtin search. That is wrong because Microsoft has a monopoly in the desktop OS market. Had there been no other company doing desktop search they probably could have continued to bury the disable button(s) until someone else wanted access to the system. Again, this is because they have a monopoly and US laws prevent companies with a monopoly from blocking or harming competition. They must all competitors to compete.
The fact that Googles desktop search has been on the market longer than Microsofts and Microsoft just released their "new" OS all means that Microsoft was not playing by the laws governing anti-trust and not following rules set in their settlement for losing the anti-trust case( 2nd(?)).
"Google is doing little more than using the court to proactively hurt competitors" Say WHAT? who else in this desktop search market is hurt by Googles complaint? Are the changes Microsoft agreed to going to benefit Google above all others? To me, it only looks like it's forcing Microsoft to obey anti-trust laws and provide a means for competitors to play in the desktop search market instead of harming others by making it look like the competitors software is massively slowing down the OS by having two indexing systems. The second one being Googles or others.
IMO, Microsoft should be required to take Vista off the market until this is fixed. They are doing exactly what they've done for years in regards to harming competition on the Windows OS monopoly and they are currently still under sanctions from previous illegal anti-trust actions. Letting Microsoft say that they'll provide a beta patch by the end of 2007 is a slap in the face of Google IMO. It might not be until the end of 2008 before they actually fully implement the changes. How many GDS installs are they going to lose because of this foot dragging? IMO.
what pisses me off is that once again, Microsoft designed Windows to damage competing tech/products, they went outside the settlement, the DOJ knew of this before Vista shipped, Vista was allowed to ship, the Bush run DOJ sided with Microsoft, the Bush run DOJ sent out memo's to stage AG's telling them not to bother with Google regarding this, and the settlement of this issue is, Microsft, 'we'll fix it sometime soon'.
Talk about being given the red carpet treatment. This company is given a PASS at every turn of the wheel without any consequences. What a sad joke this continues to be.
regardless of "need", it is a profit stream and Dell is handing that off to Canonical for Ubuntu based systems and refuses to sell businesses these systems.
If anything, the Dell sales rep should have pointed the purchaser to their RedHat systems or, as I stated previously in another thread, Dell should sell to anybody as long as they maintain a diag partition on the system for HARDWARE support. They could also only provide hardware support after an RMA number from Canonical which states it's not a software issue or something like that. There were/are solutions if Dell wanted to sell as many of these PCs as they possible can, but, I believe there are restrictions inplace via Microsoft contracts or threats.
FYI, I was quite disbelieving of Dell selling any desktop based PC with any version of Linux installed and the Ubuntu deal had me wondering what was up. Now it's becoming clearer that they are restricting the market to consumers and therefore seriously limiting their sales of these systems. IMO.
IIRC Dell is recommending support contracts with Canonical and don't offer it themselves. Therefore, Dell is not interested in profits from support. What has me interested in this is that BECAUSE they are handing off support to Canonical, they should be selling to businesses and spec that they will only support the hardware provided a diagnostics partition is maintained so they can use the same hardware support people for Ubuntu machines as they use for MS Windows machines.
But, as we all know, Microsoft has already contacted all their OEM resellers and instructed them on how to "handle" Linux and Dell must have been contacted. I have little doubt that Microsoft has been closely involved in what Dell was doing with these Ubuntu machines even if it was just instructing them on what was going to be acceptable and what was not. As we are seeing with the fake IP licensing threats/partnerships, Microsoft is attempting to block Linux use in businesses. Trust me, these deals are about stopping Linux. So, here is the 2nd largest PC OEM and they'll sell Ubuntu based systems only to home users. Ubuntu hasn't/won't sign an agreement with Microsoft. Sounds right in line with Microsofts plans. Now didn't we also hear that Dell has a deal with Novell for business PCs running SUSE Linux? Again, goes with Microsofts plans. IMO.
Slashdot Mirror
can they really be THAT dumb or is this really about software radios being too flexible that pulling down signals they aren't supposed to is worrying both the Feds and the hardware manufacturers?
What ever the motive, it's a dumb statement to say open software is less secure than proprietary when there are many Fed created/used cypher algorithms which have shown this not to be the case. And let's not forget how secure Microsoft Windows has been for the US government at the state and fed levels.
LoB
funny how Microsoft can constantly damage competitors products, say their are sorry, and then take close to a year before the actual fix is pushed out. It reminds me of something I saw years ago. You know how Microsoft hates Java and all it means, well developers love it and Microsoft was refusing to make an JDBC interface to their MS SQL Server database. There were 3rd parties doing it and even an open source version IIRC, and finally Microsoft was pressured by customers to build a JDBC driver for their database. The only problem, they stated it would be released to beta in something like 8 months and release a few months later. I think it took over 12 months before it was actually released.
So remember folks, everything Microsoft does is designed to promote and protect the Windows operating system. IMO.
LoB
doesn't this allow them to effectively eliminate all support and product service costs for the next 2 years? They've added 2 years onto the already extended original 90 contract and they claim the Xbox will be one of their first profitable products in 20 years(outside of MS Windows desktopOS/serverOS and MS Office. It was stated, by Microsoft, that they still believe the Xbox will make its first profits in the fiscal year 2008. Not having to pay for service or suppport for two years has got to help boost the likelyhood of this actually happening.
And timing is everything. They announced/enacted this so they could move the future expenses into losses for the fiscal year 2007 which just ended. Nice work shuffling the deck Microsoft. Now we'll see how many you've actually fooled.
LoB
also remember that Universal is backing HD-DVD which is also a Microsoft supported video format...
It looks like Universal is a full fledged 'partner' of Microsoft in both music and video and they are drawing the line in the sand with regards to other partners because of their deals with Microsoft.
LoB
Boy, it sure sounds like the Microsoft/DOJ settlement did a bad job protecting vendors, businesses, and individuals with using the older version(s) of Windows. IIRC, how Microsoft has forced upgrades in the past was part of the latest DOJ/States vs Microsoft case.
Nice work Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly.
LoB
it's no big deal if you're worried about that. And if you're worried about security.... WTF are you doing on Windows to begin with? ;-)
I can see the lemmings falling over themselves to jump off this cliff already.
LoB
considering that Microsoft has for 20+ years used changing API's and pre-load advantages to slowly kill off each and every competitor it decided it wanted killed, I would say that using a copy of a Microsoft patented technology is asking for trouble. FYI, Microsoft has patents wrapped all around .Net and the reason it goes to the ECMA instead of ISO is because the ECMA allows patented IP in it's 'standards'.
IMO, Miguel is just leading his followers to slaughter. History tells me this is the how Microsoft does business and GNU/Linux along with OSS are targets. And the latest Microsoft payoffs to those GNU/Linux distros who've signed up for their IP patent protection scam are the 2nd phase of the attack. SCO was the 1st. You probably don't understand that either so here goes, Microsoft help fund SCO via direct financial licensing 'deals' and by backroom negotiations to get a large Canadian company( Baystar and a Canadian bank ) to also fund SCO.
So use mono and anything else Miguel puts out AT YOUR OWN RISK. There ARE strings attached. IMO
LoB
he tried to work directly for Microsoft but they didn't accept him. Now, with all the MS ass kissing his has/is doing and the intermingling of Microsoft technology in Suse, they'd be fools to hire him now.
LoB
great, more following of Microsoft by Miguel de Icaca and fans. Just what Microsoft wants, developers getting hooked on Microsoft controlled API's and we all know how Microsoft likes to lock developers into Microsofts API's to lengthen the life of Windows don't we.
Microsoft software is a poison. If you drink it, you're turned into a zombie destined to roam the landscape Microsoft creates for you. IMO.
LoB
I believe Microsoft said they'd support Mac and not Linux. The excuse I remember was something about marketshare. But regardless, do you really think that Microsoft would provide acceptable support and implementation features for non-Windows platforms?
They must keep Windows relevant since it is the only way they've been able to maintain profits. Linux must die is how they operate and Silverlight is actually part of that attack. Remember, Flash is already crossplatform and on almost every PC shipped. Sounds alot like the history of Java and/or Netscape to me.
Supporting Microsoft in anyway in this regard is just helping them try to pin Linux and OSS into a corner. IMO.
LoB
First it was BayStar and The Royal Canadian Bank which helped Microsoft fund SCO in their anti-Linux attack and now we have another Canadian company doing a great job at helping Microsoft attack Linux and OSS. Is this a case of these Canadian companies just being really ignorant of the facts or is Microsoft finding more gullible friends in Canada? That bit about creating and modifying GPL'ed software "without fear of legal repercussions" shows they are either REALLY ignorant on the subject or have malicious intent. IMO.
FYI, I'm not serious about Canadians being more willing to help Microsoft. Microsoft is an equal opportunity FUDster and looks for gullible partners around the world.
LoB
http://www.google.com/search?q=Bristol+Microsoft+c ourt
LoB
one problem, Microsoft has no intention of helping spread Linux and OSS no matter how much they get for licensing fees. I'll say it again, that is not how Microsoft works. They make their money on Windows, by Windows, for Windows and anything else threatens the Windows gravy train. Therefore, there is another motive for what Microsoft is doing and the side-effect of more Linux systems must be looked at as a threat when those systems are tied to Microsoft's false IP claims. It is very likely that those customers will eventually be hammered out of the Linux market by moves Microsoft makes regarding those licenses.
Read up on how Microsoft hammered a good portion of the UNIX workstation application market by licensing Win32 source to a handful of companies and then pulled the rug out from under them all. Hint:
1) Microsoft licensed Win32 to handful of companies
2) Those companies sold libraries to UNIX workstation app developers promising a single source code tree for both UNIX and Windows platforms
3) Many UNIX workstation apps companies bought into the plan and ported their UNIX apps to Win32 APIs and these MS licensed libraries
4) When enough ported, Microsoft quadrupled the licensing fees for the Win32 source and very effectively terminated the ability of the UNIX apps versions to say current.
5) Massive increases in licensing fees also put all but one of the original Win32 licensees out of cross platform application libraries business. Only one survived and that could be attributed to the fact that Microsoft hired that company(MainSoft) to create worthless ports of a couple of Microsoft apps. The trick killed the market but kept a very small player alive to keep the DOJ and anti-trust people off their backs.
So what you THINK is good for Linux and OSS can only be bad for Linux and OSS when Microsoft is involved. After all, there is absolutely no proof that anything has changed at Microsoft. And even if you can make something up to justify the concept of change at Microsoft, the long 20 year history of Microsoft tricks would require a massive amount of proof there is really any real change there. IMO.
LoB
yes, it's probably a good move since otherwise, Novell, and the other losers who signed up with Microsoft, would only have been forced to fork their distro packages as they moved to GPLv3. That would have been bad and could very well been one of the expected results Microsoft wanted. They don't want licensing fees, they want Linux out of the picture and splitting the market with truckloads of forks would have soured businesses on Linux and OSS.
So good move by the FSF and I find it comforting that 'the council'( kernel hackers ) are also putting great import on the tricks up Microsoft's sleeves.
LoB
If they continue to produce 'new' operating systems every 5 years with only a 25% better bug/vulnerability rate, just how long will it be before Bill Gates' statement of Windows Vista being "the most secure OS available" will actually become a publicly accepted true? I had to state it as "publicly accepted truth" since Microsofts version of the law, contracts, and truth are very different from what the general population understands and accepts as such.
Too bad the severities weren't listed but then again, we already know Microsoft seems to think the fact that an exploit can be spread via network is more important than data corruption/loss. You know, saving face is more important than the customer.
LoB
if that is really the case, why are the state AG's still thinking there's a problem? Something is wrong here. Either you are totally simplifying the issue or Google and the state AG's are all idiots. Not to mention that Microsoft is changing SOMETHING and that appears to be so tough to do that they only expect to have a beta ready by the end of the year.
And there is no way in hell Microsoft would do anything to their beloved Windows which would give Google an advantage over Microsoft software. They might back down and level the field but they won't give up an advantage to Google. Balmer would throw chairs around his office before that'd happen.
LoB
ah, so they decided to make it work once Google, or was it Apple, made the Desktop Search a useful tool/feature.
Is Google really just complaining about nothing and all the states AG's haven't had someone look into it to see if there was any truth to the complaint? THAT just sounds too unbelievable and the actual complaint sound more reasonable given Microsofts long long history of doing just these kinds of things.
Even if there is an API to turn off or disable Microsofts stuff, if there is ANY requirement, warning, or other user dialog which makes them believe something extra is happening or something strange is happening or whatever seems unusual, then these are cause for a complaint in my book. Do you remember when Microsoft broke AOL's TCP/IP stack on a Windows patch( or some update of some kind ) and all AOL customers were suddenly offered a nice little dialog to sign up for MSN instead? I wouldn't doubt this is the same kind of game Microsoft is playing.
If this has been in NT since v4, why hasn't Google complained about Windows 2000 or Windows XP? I've only heard mention of Windows Vista. Surely something unique is happening with the new version of NT.
LoB
don't be fooled into thinking that the customer's perception is not a tool Microsoft uses to its advantage. So what if both WDS and GDS will run slow once GDS is installed. The fact is that when that happens, it will be blamed on GDS and the perception will be that GDS is bad.
Let me guess, you probably think that Microsoft was within its rights to purchase up all the Netscape contracts and force users to get Navigator via dialup downloading. With your reasoning, the user can still get it and so what if there is already another web browser on the computer. Sorry, monopolies can not play that game and as Microsoft has shown how they constantly leverage their monopoly to push their products/services at customers and push competitors back/under using every trick in the book, and done so for almost 20 years, yes they should build their OS with complete extensibility. They should have been split into three pieces years ago and if that happened, we would not be in this position today.
LoB
hopefully someone, as committed, will fill in but the net effect is that a good fighter just moved to another good fight. Good luck and good work Lawrence.
LoB
That's just YFO. ;-)
LoB
Desktop search is not new, yet Microsoft did not allow for a preferred search facility which disabled their builtin search. That is wrong because Microsoft has a monopoly in the desktop OS market. Had there been no other company doing desktop search they probably could have continued to bury the disable button(s) until someone else wanted access to the system. Again, this is because they have a monopoly and US laws prevent companies with a monopoly from blocking or harming competition. They must all competitors to compete.
The fact that Googles desktop search has been on the market longer than Microsofts and Microsoft just released their "new" OS all means that Microsoft was not playing by the laws governing anti-trust and not following rules set in their settlement for losing the anti-trust case( 2nd(?)).
"Google is doing little more than using the court to proactively hurt competitors" Say WHAT? who else in this desktop search market is hurt by Googles complaint? Are the changes Microsoft agreed to going to benefit Google above all others? To me, it only looks like it's forcing Microsoft to obey anti-trust laws and provide a means for competitors to play in the desktop search market instead of harming others by making it look like the competitors software is massively slowing down the OS by having two indexing systems. The second one being Googles or others.
IMO, Microsoft should be required to take Vista off the market until this is fixed. They are doing exactly what they've done for years in regards to harming competition on the Windows OS monopoly and they are currently still under sanctions from previous illegal anti-trust actions. Letting Microsoft say that they'll provide a beta patch by the end of 2007 is a slap in the face of Google IMO. It might not be until the end of 2008 before they actually fully implement the changes. How many GDS installs are they going to lose because of this foot dragging? IMO.
LoB
what pisses me off is that once again, Microsoft designed Windows to damage competing tech/products, they went outside the settlement, the DOJ knew of this before Vista shipped, Vista was allowed to ship, the Bush run DOJ sided with Microsoft, the Bush run DOJ sent out memo's to stage AG's telling them not to bother with Google regarding this, and the settlement of this issue is, Microsft, 'we'll fix it sometime soon'.
Talk about being given the red carpet treatment. This company is given a PASS at every turn of the wheel without any consequences. What a sad joke this continues to be.
LoB
regardless of "need", it is a profit stream and Dell is handing that off to Canonical for Ubuntu based systems and refuses to sell businesses these systems.
s /2007/05/07/dell_plan_aids_novell_effort_with_micr osoft/
BTW, Dell supports RedHat on certain servers and just added plans for Suse Linux. See link below:
http://www.boston.com/business/technology/article
If anything, the Dell sales rep should have pointed the purchaser to their RedHat systems or, as I stated previously in another thread, Dell should sell to anybody as long as they maintain a diag partition on the system for HARDWARE support. They could also only provide hardware support after an RMA number from Canonical which states it's not a software issue or something like that. There were/are solutions if Dell wanted to sell as many of these PCs as they possible can, but, I believe there are restrictions inplace via Microsoft contracts or threats.
FYI, I was quite disbelieving of Dell selling any desktop based PC with any version of Linux installed and the Ubuntu deal had me wondering what was up. Now it's becoming clearer that they are restricting the market to consumers and therefore seriously limiting their sales of these systems. IMO.
LoB
but this server might have been purchased with MS Windows on it and not RedHat from Dell. I'm just guessing that this could have been the issue.
LoB
IIRC Dell is recommending support contracts with Canonical and don't offer it themselves. Therefore, Dell is not interested in profits from support. What has me interested in this is that BECAUSE they are handing off support to Canonical, they should be selling to businesses and spec that they will only support the hardware provided a diagnostics partition is maintained so they can use the same hardware support people for Ubuntu machines as they use for MS Windows machines.
But, as we all know, Microsoft has already contacted all their OEM resellers and instructed them on how to "handle" Linux and Dell must have been contacted. I have little doubt that Microsoft has been closely involved in what Dell was doing with these Ubuntu machines even if it was just instructing them on what was going to be acceptable and what was not. As we are seeing with the fake IP licensing threats/partnerships, Microsoft is attempting to block Linux use in businesses. Trust me, these deals are about stopping Linux. So, here is the 2nd largest PC OEM and they'll sell Ubuntu based systems only to home users. Ubuntu hasn't/won't sign an agreement with Microsoft. Sounds right in line with Microsofts plans. Now didn't we also hear that Dell has a deal with Novell for business PCs running SUSE Linux? Again, goes with Microsofts plans. IMO.
LoB