On Sunday 23 February 2003 05:28, James Mohr wrote:
On Friday 21 February 2003 22:58, Fred A. Miller wrote:
http://yahoo.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_09/b3822601_tc102.htm
Now that was definately a fun read.
I laughed when I read this article. It contains some of the most inaccurate Linux reporting I've seen in a long time. Some examples: "Second, Intel Corp., the dominant maker of processors for PCs, loosened its tight links with Microsoft and started making chips for Linux." Where can I get one of these "Linux chips"? Linux was made for Intel chips, not the other way around. One could argue that Intel has never made chips for Linux or that Intel has always made chips for Linux. Actually, both are true. "Before using open-source software, tech companies must sign a license in which they promise to give away innovations they build on top of it." Not even close. I can't image where the author got this idea. "The biggest risks are intellectual-property issues. SCO Group, holder of the original patents for Unix software upon which Linux is based, has announced plans to form a licensing division and hire superlawyer David Boies to press its claims against sellers of Linux." SCO's IP in this case is nothing more than a couple of compatability libraries for running Unix programs on Linux. One more: "It ultimately is a question about whether societies are going to value intellectual property or not," Given the explosive growth of P2P file sharing, I think this question has already been answered with a resounding "Not!" Shamefully inaccurate reporting, all in all. Sadly, this is the kind of FUD about Linux that is being fed to the mainstream business people. Cheers, Mark -- Powered by SuSE Linux Just Say No To Windows