Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> ____/ 7 on Friday 04 April 2008 21:45 : \____
>
>> Micoshaft isn't shifting boxes, vendors and Intel now seek out Linux.
>>
>> http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9910794-7.html
>>
>> Linux is helping Ausus, eSys and a whole host of other
>> companies shift shift massive amounts of chips and systems.
>>
>> So the big vendors and Intel are seeking out open source and Linux.
>>
>> A third of all electronics shipping on the shop floor
>> is running Linux.
>>
>> eTailers and retailers for their part should identify
>> this profit center formally and should be clamouring to invest in Linux
>> companies. There is potential for at least some 400 billion
>> to 600 billion dollar market expansion of Linux in the next three years.
>>
>> But these markets are for only those that take it.
>>
>> If you get side tracked by micoshaftees
>> and their fraudsters and asstroturfers
>> you will get wasted and left by the way side with nothing to show
>> for it.
>
> Intel (INTC) was declining when it published its last report, unlike Red
> Hat for example. It must adapt to low-cost PCs or VIA et al will steal the
> show.
>
> Intel's honeymoon with Redmond, where you could sell hardware for $1000
> apiece, may be over, but Intel fought for it along with Microsoft, notably
> by dumping hardware to assault OLPC. Intel later offered Asus some help
> with EeePC, partly in order to further sabotage OLPC.
If I had shares in Intel$, I would have sacked the lot of them
and told them to concentrate on making more chips and stop
being a charity killer and micoshaft asslicker. That is all
unathorized mission creep and harms the company
and the core business. If some executives felt it was right
for them be asslickers for micoshaft, then I would have sacked
them and told them to go work elsewhere because that is still mission
creep and they may as well creep off elsewhere before they bring
harm to the core business.
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | "The Eee PC's success wasn't possible without Intel's support. The chip
> | maker was initially hesitant to embrace Asustek's push into low-cost
> | laptops for fear it would drive down margins for its mobile processors
> | if users opted to buy low-cost laptops instead of more powerful -- and
> | more expensive -- models. But Intel eventually decided that the
> | opportunity to expand the size of the overall laptop market outweighed
> | the risks of lower profit margins, and gave its backing to the little
> | laptops."
> |
> | [PJ: I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so. All you folks who
> | [flamed
> | me for saying Intel was involved with Asus can now send me emails of
> | apology. Chocolate would be nice too. It would show sincerity, don't you
> | think?]
> `----
>
> http://www.tamilstar.com/news/publish/article_7340.shtml
> http://www.groklaw.net/newsitems.php
>
> Intel is still an inherently evil company because it's motivated only by
> shareholders, i.e. greed and aggressive action at all costs. Like
> Microsoft, rather than thriving in a good image, it chose to be a bully.
> Its many bribes receive too little press coverage.
>
|
|
