"Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjarnason@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 21:30:20 +0000, billwg wrote:
>> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>> | That's pure FUD. Of course if you have an IBM contract, IBM is
>>> | take responsibility for making things right.
>> Let's see now: Regarding linux ..."IBM licenses the patches to you
>> 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
>> merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose.
> In short, it reads pretty much *exactly* like a standard MS warranty;
> can pay for it, you can use it, but if something doesn't work or
> don't call us.
> Thing is, that's true of the entire industry; nothing new there.
> however, is not the same as purchasing a support contract, where you
> in fact, paying for *exactly* those things. They're just not included
> 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.