Ryan wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 16:58:42 -0500
> Mike McCarty <mike.mccarty@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>>I'd prefer that Linux flourish and not die just because
>>MS is willing to do more of what is necessary to make life easier on
>>customers than some other organization which supports Linux is
>>willing to do.
>
>
> Its apples and oranges. MS can afford to do whatever their customers
> want since Windows, Office, and all their other software is *theirs*
> (or licensed for their use).
When was the last time that MS fixed a but that you reported? I doubt
anyone can even report a bug to MS. A few years back there was a
problem with the wininet api docs on the MSDN website. I reported a
problem via their web page and a few days later I got an email back
saying that I must be mistaken because nothing can go wrong with MSDN.
The pages were still broken and after a few more emails, they actually
checked the pages and saw that they were broken. The problem then went
away without any acknowledgment.
I still can't get Word 2003 do display bitmaps. This is a long standing
bug and in my book, a showstopper. MS don't give a shit because they
already got their money. I am not the one paying so I can't vote with
my feet. Sure, I can use Linux instead but then we are paying for MS
products we don't use.
If something with linux is wrong, anyone can fix it. Linus, RedHat, me,
anyone I pay to do it for me. If linux was blue screening (sounds like
windows to me) then they should do a crashdump, find the bug and fix it.
Still cheaper and easier than windows.
Good luck solving a windows problem by looking at a stop screen.
I'd also like to know how windows autoupdate is better than any redhat
up2date style tool. Do SAP say "You can put any MS shit on here that
you like but if you run Linux you need to have a proper test procedure"?
I don't think so.
John.
>
> Given enough financial incentive (a big enough customer base
> requesting feature x) MS can do whatever they want with their code to
> sell feature x to more customers.
>
> Red Hat doesn't *own* Linux. While they can aid in development, and
> help point it in a certain direction, there are numerous things about
> Linux they have no control over and never will.
>
>
>
>>So...
>>certainly RH is operating at a disadvantage with respect to MS.
>
> ....
>
>>But RH was accepting money and being paid to do something about
>>it.
>
>
> So long as they provide good service for a certain (high) % of their
> customers, they will do fine. A certain % will walk away unsatisfied. I
> think Red Hat does great given their challenges.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
>
>
--
John Newbigin
Computer Systems Officer
Faculty of Information and Communication Technologies
Swinburne University of Technology
Melbourne, Australia
http://www.ict.swin.edu.au/staff/jnewbigin
