| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Microsoft asks Linux users, "How can we get your business?' | |
|
||
| Time: 00:00 EST/05:00 GMT | News Source: E-Mail | Posted By: Todd Richardson | ||
|
Microsoft has started distributing two online surveys to Linux User Groups and Linux users in general, one asking primarily about home computer use, the other about business use. They apparently don't plan to release the results of their surveys, so we and other people in the open source community are asking you to look at them and post your answers and comments here and on other appropriate sites where, in open source style, everyone can see them. Read on for more information and links, and please help spread the word about these surveys; as far as we know, this is the first time Microsoft has asked Linux users why we use Linux instead of their products, and the more results, the merrier. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 26 through 50 of 334 Prev | Last | Next |
The time now is
8:50:44 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #26 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at 12/24/2003 12:13:01 AM |
|
happy, sorry, I jumped the gun.
Regarding, 64 bit Windows, there are 64-bit versions of Windows 2000 (IIRC), Windows XP, and Windows Server 2003. Windows XP and Server 2003, 64 bit, are both currently available to MSDN subscribers. They are separate products from the 32 versions, that is, you don't by Windows XP/Server 2003 and have both versions on the disk. |
| #27 By 135 (208.186.90.91) at 12/24/2003 2:07:57 AM |
|
kabuki - That's not the source code for the entire distro, it's for the GPLed components within the distro.
If Redhat Enterprise Linux is available in an Open Source form, I ought to be able to download the ISO from anybody. Not just Redhat, but anybody. Freely Redistributable, that's what OSI says... binary or source, doesn't matter. But I can't find that, and I can't find anybody willing to take the legal risk of breaching Redhat's license to do it. I think it's clear that you either aren't listening or are just pretending to be stupid, because I've made this argument before and you still give the same wrong answer. |
| #28 By 12071 (203.217.70.212) at 12/24/2003 8:12:07 AM |
|
#45 "That's not the source code for the entire distro, it's for the GPLed components within the distro."
And you talk to me about nit picking? correct, that's the source code to all the GPL'ed components (which RedHate have to provide as per the GPL). No you cannot download the proprietary components which RedHat have chosen to include in the package, nor can you download the source code for those proprietary components because guess what.... RedHat have no right (and most likely no requirement based on the propretary license) to make those pieces available. Additionally there are items in the distro like the RedHat logo which are trademarked and therefore don't have to be made available to you. So if you can't live without the proprietary components, purchase them and you will have a absolute perfect copy (minus logo's etc which you may be able to license from RedHat if you really want) although by this stage I think if might be cheaper for you to just purchase it from RedHat. So now RedHat Enterprise isn't Open Source because it violates the "spirit" of the definiton set out by the OSI? "I think it's clear that you either aren't listening or are just pretending to be stupid, because I've made this argument before and you still give the same wrong answer." I am listening and I've never had this "argument" with you else I wouldn't have bothered pointing out the fact you have limited understanding of the GPL (which is where this "argument" started - it later moved to "RedHat violated the spirit of Open Source). Have a good Christmas break! |
| #29 By 19992 (164.214.4.61) at 12/24/2003 9:40:57 AM |
|
I guess it depends on what you consider a reasonable user load.
I'll arbitrarily go with 100 users, a fairly small organization. No CAL's are necessary to run Win2K3 as a Webserver for external users. Some form of a CAL is required unless you plan on maintaining the machine from the local console. Granted, this does not require alot of CALs (5 pack should do), but they would still be required. As far as retail costs go, you are absolutely correct, we are discussing the highest common denominator. Of course this is about the only way to get a firm price out of Microsoft on their product offerings as the price does vary depending on the license scheme you choose and the size (and type) of your organization. Keep in mind, RHEL is not necessary or required for all business functions. If you are just setting up a webserver for external use you would be just fine using any number of the 'free' Linux offerings available. In fact the only two reasons I can see for even purchasing RHEL are to run these apps which require a validated Linux distro, or if you absolutely require support from the vendor. Basically, use whatever works best for the organization, in some cases (may be few and far between) RHEL can be cheaper than Windows is to deploy and maintain. In many others Windows will be the champ. As long as you don't use SCO it's all good :) |
| #30 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 12/24/2003 10:56:15 AM |
|
kabuki - "No you cannot download the proprietary components which RedHat have chosen to include in the package, nor can you download the source code for those proprietary components because guess what...."
AH HA! You finally admit to the truth. Finally, after days and days of your nonsensical position, you finally admit to the truth. X - "I'm not saying I agree with all that FSF or OS says. You brought up the 'Freedom' part and I wanted to show were your understanding isn't correct." I know the FSF and OS positions very well. If you want to talk about facts, please do so, but don't give me stupid spin. The Open Source Definition quite clearly states that the software must be freely redistributable, the GPL quite clearly states that the software must be freely redistributable. It is this provision, and this provision alone which prevents a commercial entity from making money from the creation and sale of software. Yep, you can make money of GPLed software if you bundle it with hardware, as does HP/IBM. You can make money off GPLed software if you bundle it with proprietary software as does Redhat. You can make money off GPLed software if you sell support. But you can't make money by writing software, releasing it under a GPL license and then try to sell it. The FSF rhetoric sounds to me very much like the Republican party rhetoric. It says one thing, but the purpose is quite another. I don't trust people who can't just be forthright and honest with me about their intentions. Merry Christmas! Happy New Year! |
| #31 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at 12/24/2003 3:56:41 PM |
| happy, actually, IIRC, your granted a few admin TSCALs, so, no, you wouldn't have to purchase any to do remote admin'ing of a Server 2003 Web Server edition box. |
| #32 By 899255 (216.152.251.66) at 3/28/2013 4:12:31 AM |
| Of course, these bonuses are splendid for anyone who is new to online gambling solitary all Unitedly and precisely journey to your traditional casino where you Experience they are permission and regulated. http://www.onlinecasinotaste.co.uk/ - online casino <a href="http://www.onlinecasinotaste.co.uk/">http://www.onlinecasinotaste.co.uk/</a> Now you would like to draw back casinos include promised land 8, Palace of chance and Davincis atomic number 79. http://www.onlinecasinoburger.co.uk/ |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 26 through 50 of 334 Prev | Last | Next |
The time now is
8:50:44 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
