"Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjarnason@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.03.27.21.53.30.885036@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> [snips]
>
> On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 21:30:20 +0000, billwg wrote:
>
>> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:e097tf$70j$2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>> |
>>> | That's pure FUD. Of course if you have an IBM contract, IBM is
>>> going
>>> to
>>> | take responsibility for making things right.
>>
>> Let's see now: Regarding linux ..."IBM licenses the patches to you
>> on
>> an "as is" basis, without warranty of any kind. IBM hereby expressly
>> disclaims all warranties or conditions, either express or implied,
>> including, but not limited to, the implied warranties or conditions
>> of
>> merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose.
>
> In short, it reads pretty much *exactly* like a standard MS warranty;
> you
> can pay for it, you can use it, but if something doesn't work or
> breaks,
> don't call us.
>
> Thing is, that's true of the entire industry; nothing new there.
> This,
> however, is not the same as purchasing a support contract, where you
> are,
> in fact, paying for *exactly* those things. They're just not included
> in
> the base price of the product.
>
> Sorry, did you have a point?
>
>
Yes. Roy's silly statement: "That's pure FUD. Of course if you have an
IBM contract, IBM is going to take responsibility for making things
right." is a lie.
|
|