J
jmfbahciv
Sigh! It is April 1.
/BAH
/BAH
C
CBFalconer
Steve Balmer announced today that Microsoft was replacing it's EULA
with the GPL license.
Mr. Balmer attributed this to the fact that Microsoft needs help in
making Vista usable, and have so far not been able to find
competent programmers.
They will compensate their cash-flow by immediately discharging all
employees whose name hashes to an odd value. The hash algorithm is
classified as a trade secret.
The only exception to the GPL policy will be Microsoft's only
original contribution to the software world, known as Bob.
For a full discussion visit:
<http://innovation.microsoft.com>
with the GPL license.
Mr. Balmer attributed this to the fact that Microsoft needs help in
making Vista usable, and have so far not been able to find
competent programmers.
They will compensate their cash-flow by immediately discharging all
employees whose name hashes to an odd value. The hash algorithm is
classified as a trade secret.
The only exception to the GPL policy will be Microsoft's only
original contribution to the software world, known as Bob.
For a full discussion visit:
<http://innovation.microsoft.com>
S
santosh
CBFalconer said:
More importantly, for this group at least, Microsoft have just
announced that their flagship C and C++ compiler is now fully C99
conformant!
C
Chris Hills
CBFalconer said:
What was the date of that press release?
However on a serious note Redhat has been accused of MS style tactics in
controlling it's market.
It seems the only difference between the leading OpenSource companies
and the leading commercial companies is that the Open Source ones don't
pay the primary programmers..... They make money on other peoples
efforts without paying them....
So on that score who is better for programmers? MS or RedHat?
P
Phlip
CBFalconer said:
"Ooooh, intercourse the penguin!" --Graham Chapman
S
Steve O'Hara-Smith
innovation.microsoft.com not found - now why am I not surprised
C
Chris Hills
It probably refers to this........
D
Didi
Steve Balmer announced today that Microsoft was replacing it's EULA
Yes, they also said their stuff was not just good looking, it actually
worked.
Dimiter
Yes, they also said their stuff was not just good looking, it actually
worked
.Dimiter
S
santosh
I know that. It was intended in the same spirit as CBF's post; guess
you didn't get it.
T
Tarkin
ROFTLMAO.
TTFN,
Tarkin
L
larwe
The particularly funny thing about this AFDJ is that Microsoft
announced their "shared-source" nonsense program with almost as much
enthusiasm. It was only once you looked at the slightly smaller font-
size text that you realized the program is of course designed to
stifle innovation, not foster it.
K
Keith Thompson
Steve O'Hara-Smith said:innovation.microsoft.com not found - now why am I not surprised
Of course not; the correct URL is
<HTTP:\\INNOVATION.MICROSOFT.COM>
It's case-sensitive, of course. MSIE 8.0alpha or better required.
W
Willem
Keith wrote:
) Of course not; the correct URL is
)
) <HTTP:\\INNOVATION.MICROSOFT.COM>
)
) It's case-sensitive, of course. MSIE 8.0alpha or better required.
Which, of course, can be downloaded from FTP:\\INNOVATION.MICROSOFT.OM
Right ?
SaSW, Willem
--
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be
drugged or something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT
) Of course not; the correct URL is
)
) <HTTP:\\INNOVATION.MICROSOFT.COM>
)
) It's case-sensitive, of course. MSIE 8.0alpha or better required.
Which, of course, can be downloaded from FTP:\\INNOVATION.MICROSOFT.OM
Right ?
SaSW, Willem
--
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be
drugged or something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT
K
Keith Thompson
Willem said:
Yes, their new download site is in Oman. How did you know?
A
Anthony Irwin
Chris said:What was the date of that press release?
However on a serious note Redhat has been accused of MS style tactics in
controlling it's market.
It seems the only difference between the leading OpenSource companies
and the leading commercial companies is that the Open Source ones don't
pay the primary programmers..... They make money on other peoples
efforts without paying them....
I think you will find that RedHat pay quite a few programmers to write
free software that they contribute back. They have a number of kernel
programmers that I know for sure and probably others as well.
Kind Regards,
Anthony Irwin
J
Joe Pfeiffer
Chris Hills said:
What tactics are you referring to? I haven't seen anything I'd
compare to MS behavior in crushing opposition...
And paying programmers and contributing the results back to the
community.
Until you've got a specific complaint to make about RH, it's hard to
compare.
J
jmfbahciv
Oh, I got it. The comment was necessary.
/BAH
R
Robert M. Riches Jr.
Perhaps Chris was referring to HatRed's "You are allowed to
install on _only_ one computer without paying us extra per
installation" clause in their license agreements. There
have been earlier discussions about this on
comp.os.linux.misc.
I will agree that there is a drastic difference between the
two companies.
R
Robert M. Riches Jr.
Of course, since any version of Firefox is "better" than any
past, present, or future version of IE, Firefox ought to
work fine by that requirements statement.
R
rickman
On Apr 2, 1:27 pm, "Robert M. Riches Jr."
I don't get that. Linux is GPL'd which requires that you charge only
for "distribution" costs. After that isn't it up to the user what
they do with it? How can Redhat even have a license other than the
GPL? Or are they licensing an installer or something that is not part
of Linux?
I don't get that. Linux is GPL'd which requires that you charge only
for "distribution" costs. After that isn't it up to the user what
they do with it? How can Redhat even have a license other than the
GPL? Or are they licensing an installer or something that is not part
of Linux?