Hi All & Anders, Ah! With you now & message received. *BFN* Greek Geek :-) Where's th' DAFFY DUCK EXHIBIT?? Anders Johansson wrote:
On Saturday 21 September 2002 02.40, Haralambos Geortgilakis wrote:
Hi All & Anders,
who typed....
<snip>
That's the first valid concern I've seen in this whole thread. If that's true then I agree, it's a very very bad thing.
<snip>
I take Fred's original post as valid, since AMD do need the Borg, to help Opteron fly. This brings me back to another post on this thread, from me & Keith reposted the url. The heading of the url reads "AMD's Opteron won't reject unlicensed content -Updated, revised (By Paul Hales mailto:paul.hales@theinquirer.net: Friday 20 September 2002, 12:19)" & please note the sub-heading.....
Anders, I am puzzled why you would imply comments from AMD UK are invalid & ignore them?
I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about. I'm not ignoring AMD's comments.
In this thread there was a lot of paranoid nonsense about how we wouldn't be able to run linux, we'd all be forced to run windows, which is clearly wrong as the link you give says.
The Inquirer is not just any site online, talking about Geek stuff, which is why when The Inq posted there first story, implying Opteron would only work in Borg environments, AMD UK contacted the Inq to correct them.
And that was my point from the beginning. If we send irate mail to heads of companies we'd better be sure we have our facts straight. If we send of a lot of mail complaining about "this newfangled thing that will force us all to run windows" we'll just make ourselves look silly. Valid concerns on the other hand, like the one Herman posted, are much more valuable and can potentially change a company's mind.
//Anders