__/ [ John A. Bailo ] on Monday 15 May 2006 17:32 \__
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | The changes will help Windows Server catch up to functions already
>> | available in the open source Apache Web server, which runs on Linux.
>> | The combo has proven popular for hosting Web pages. "There's a reason
>> | why it's dominated--there are product advantages to Apache and Linux
>> | over Windows," Muglia admits.
>> Wow, Bob! Are you sure you want people to hear this? Steve could throw a
>> chair at you right now...
> My guess is that they are at the *Acceptance* phase.
In relateion to this, as well as:
__/ [ John A. Bailo ] on Monday 15 May 2006 17:36 \__
> Well, maybe Steve is thinking about releasing Microsoft Linux.
> I mean, why not.
> Microsoft has always been a better fix up and market it organization
> than a developer. Linux would be perfect for them. They could put it
> in a pretty box, set up OEM arrangements and so on.
> And, they wouldn't have to pay squat for developers.
> Seems to me Linux would fit them beautifully.
Strikes a nerve. Disruptive! *chokes on coffee*
This bugs (pun) me a great deal. They have their Open Source Laboratory
with that traitor we have come to know as Hilf. He takes the role of that
gentle figure, which makes Microsoft seem like Open Source's best friend.
They also set up an Open Source facet to the world, known as port 25. The
amount of abuse that this Web site has received since it had gone public
helped it make the news. Whether Microsoft will learn to take advantage
and exploit Open Source, we are yet to find out. They could go
head-to-head with Red Hat and Novell a few years down the line. As you
say, they have good marketeers and they can propare some nice packages.
Mediums? Morals? Last time I checked, the only "M" word is their
dictionary is Microsoft. They don't give a f*ck as long as money comes in,
from within the States or from the outside (offshoring is part of the