Re: [ubuntu-uk] Microsoft Releases Linux Device Drivers as GPL
Rob Beard wrote: > Still, sounds good that they are releasing something under the GPL, > funny how they didn't release it under GPL 3. > > Because that would mean it couldn't go into Linux? James -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Sir Alan Sugar: "it's too late" for Linux
alan c wrote: > can be made easily. The foss rising tide will mean this may not be > with computing. > Should there be any such 'rising tide', and it become entirely clear that there is no money to be made in software R&D (only in supporting 'innovation ... elsewhere') then where is the investment money going to come from? Do you really want software to be controlled by the hardware vendors again? I can remember when we all had sparcstations on our desks, and there were Open Systems. Open Wallet Systems, we used to call them. I bought a licence for Sun C++. It came with a really crap GUI builder from Imperial and not much else. Shortly afterwards, a new version came out, but I wasn't entitled to it without paying the full support wack. For slightly less money, I got MSDN Universal, with updates all year, several development tools, databases, office systems, operating systems, and a lot more documentation. Microsoft earned their market share. They might have screwed me over on OS/2 and Windows Libraries for OS/2 and all the rest, but you can't really blame them for IBM's failure to 'fess up that you didn't need a PS/2 and Compaq's failure to market it *at all*. I don't. James -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.org/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Ubuntu Commercial Support
Chris Rowson wrote: > If I had 10 servers I wouldn't pay $27,500 for email/telephone support > covering only the operating system. > I suspect that if you knew what the inside of a datacentre looked like, you'd feel differently The sad fact of the matter is that Windows is not an expensive system by the time its supported, and Linux is not the cheapest if you buy from a vendor that's likely to stay in business (or that isn't just the guy down the road hoping he's dealing with someone that needs a bit of admin help and no more).. 20 years ago or so (when anyone gave a monkeys about SGI, Sequent, Data General etc) the joke was - and still is - Open (Wallet) Standards. These days things HAVE changed - if you want an 'enterprise' OS with cheap support, you buy from Sun. Whether ANY of these companies have a support offering that is worth the money is a different matter, but if you're going to get uppity about paying a market rate for support, then just remember that the alternative is straightforward - you pay in cash for the software up front. -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.org/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Ubuntu Commercial Support
Sean Miller wrote: > So I'd be amazed if Canonical have built a support model whereby if > you have 10 servers only one is supported if you pay them £1,500 or > whatever it works out at in UK terms... if you have an issue on one > server then chances are it's also an issue on the other nine... so > it's only actually one issue, regardless of the size of your deployment. I think you'll find this is a very naive view. If Canonical want to *have* a business and not rely on donations from rich sponsors, then they really have to get a lot more money from MegaBankInternational than from LittleShopOfHorrors, and I suspect that if you read the small print then being supported requires that you are honest about how many servers you have. What would be interesting is to see if its how many Ubuntu servers, or how many Linux servers. In any case, in what way was this price on the web site unclear?: Server support (per server) $750 (USD)* $2750 (USD)* -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.org/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] 'The One': new low-priced laptop with linux inside
Daniel Lamb wrote: > No but seriously how can anyone have anything again linux? I really > struggle with that. > Hmm. I've been using Linux since Yggdrassil was the new kid on the block and I could get an SLS subscription on 3.5" floppies. And I definitely have things against Linux. Take off the rose tinted specs. The biggest problem with schools IT is training - not just for the teachers but also for the external support staff that have to help out. We gave serious consideration to trying to help improve our children's lower school facilities by reusing old systems, but in all honesty it woulf have become an albatross for the school as soon as the kids moved on and our interest in voluntary work to support that school died. James -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Who writes this stuff
Chris Rowson wrote: >> Who wrote this? I've not read anything as poorly thought out and badly >> researched as this in a long time! >> > > Actually I found out exactly who writes this pro MS anti Linux stuff... > > It's the chairman of the FSB IT committee, who coincidentally develops > software using - you guessed it - Microsoft based development > software... > > How on earth can that be an impartial article. As it's linked to from > the main bloomin' page, thousands of small businesses are seeing > pro-microsoft propaganda from a certified Microsoft developer > > Something needs to be done about that! > > Mr Scargill's personal site is here http://www.scargill.net > His business site here > http://www.willowdesign.info/data/default.asp?id=3&loc=willow > > The article that you linked to didn't seem particularly 'anti-linux' to me, unless you are going to *require* that all articles hype-up Linux like a rabid fanboi's idiot rantings. Is it not acceptable to point out that OOo is not a match for Office - but is probably adequate for the many people who use only a small fraction of Office's capabilities? It is, after all, true. Do you really thinkthat supporting Linux is easy for the non-technical? Which bits of the article do you think are 'badly researched'? I use MS dev tools. And I like them. I use them by choice, because they're 'comfy'. Does that mean *I* can't have an unbiased view either? I've been developing professionally on Solaris for nearly 20 years and my use of Linux predates Yggdrassil (which I should probably research how to spell, but WTF). I'm happy to choose which platform I use, for what, and when. Does my choice of Microsoft products for some tasks make me an idiot? Does having written Windows 1 programs (hmm, and OS/2 programs) disqualify me? I really disliked the tone of your message. I couldn't see obvious self-propaganda or personal gain - what do you mean, precisely? James (And if anyone has any use for an original retail Red Hat Linux 5.1 box with the CD still in cellophane, let me know. The carboard isn't pristine since its been knocking around on assorted shelves and through several moves, but it was never used. Can't remember why I bought it!) -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
