Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #172989 > unrolled thread

Goldman says 'sell' Microsoft

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy

Contents

  Goldman says 'sell' Microsoft bbgruff <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-04-12 12:10 +0100
    Re: Goldman says 'sell' Microsoft chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2013-04-12 07:20 -0500
    Re: Goldman says 'sell' Microsoft 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> - 2013-04-12 17:33 +0100
      Re: Goldman says 'sell' Microsoft chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2013-04-12 12:14 -0500
        Re: Goldman says 'sell' Microsoft owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2013-04-12 19:36 +0000
        Re: Then why are you still using MS then, instead of Linux? GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2013-04-12 16:39 -0600
          Then why are you still trolling about Linux? 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> - 2013-04-13 00:38 +0100
            Re: Then why are you still trolling about Linux? GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2013-04-12 20:58 -0600
      Re: Goldman says 'sell' Microsoft Homer <usenet@slated.org> - 2013-04-12 18:16 +0100
        Re: Goldman says 'sell' Microsoft Bjørn Steensrud <bjornst@skogkatt.homelinux.org> - 2013-04-13 12:04 +0200
          Re: Goldman says 'sell' Microsoft Homer <usenet@slated.org> - 2013-04-13 13:25 +0100
            Re: Goldman says 'sell' Microsoft owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2013-04-13 16:36 +0000
              Re: Goldman says 'sell' Microsoft Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-13 10:09 -0700
                Re: Goldman says 'sell' Microsoft Tralfaz <directly_above_the_center_of_the_earth@santas_deer_poop_too_much.org> - 2013-04-14 11:55 +0000
                  Re: Goldman says 'sell' Microsoft Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-14 09:17 -0700
              Re: Goldman says 'sell' Microsoft Tralfaz <directly_above_the_center_of_the_earth@santas_deer_poop_too_much.org> - 2013-04-14 11:53 +0000
            Re: Goldman says 'sell' Microsoft GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2013-04-13 10:47 -0600
            Re: Goldman says 'sell' Microsoft chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2013-04-13 15:52 -0500
              Re: Goldman says 'sell' Microsoft GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2013-04-13 15:29 -0600
              Re: Goldman says 'sell' Microsoft Homer <usenet@slated.org> - 2013-04-14 14:21 +0100
            Re: Goldman says 'sell' Microsoft Bjørn Steensrud <bjornst@skogkatt.homelinux.org> - 2013-04-14 17:59 +0200
              Re: Goldman says 'sell' Microsoft "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2013-04-14 14:01 -0400
            Re: Goldman says 'sell' Microsoft Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2013-04-14 11:13 -0700
    Re: Goldman says 'sell' Microsoft Rex Ballard <rex.ballard@gmail.com> - 2013-04-13 20:38 -0700
      Re: Goldman says 'sell' Microsoft Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-13 22:24 -0700
      Re: Goldman says 'sell' Microsoft Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2013-04-14 07:35 +0100
      Rex Ballard - a proven liar "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2013-04-14 09:21 -0400
        Re: Rex Ballard - a proven liar flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2013-04-14 10:45 -0400
      Re: Goldman says 'sell' Microsoft chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2013-04-15 07:49 -0500
        Re: Goldman says 'sell' Microsoft flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2013-04-15 09:38 -0400
          Re: Goldman says 'sell' Microsoft Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2013-04-15 16:11 +0100

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#172989 — Goldman says 'sell' Microsoft

I've seen several adjustments by analysts, but this is the first time I've 
seen a "Sell" recommendation.
To be fair, DFS said it first - "Microsoft is doomed":-

<quote>
Goldman Sachs recommended selling Microsoft today in the wake of brutal 
first quarter PC shipment numbers.

Heather Bellini, an analyst at Goldman Sachs, recommended that investors 
sell the stock -- downgrading it from a neutral rating, according to 
Bloomberg.

"Quarterly results will "gradually deteriorate unless Microsoft successfully 
repositions itself as a more meaningful participant in the new era of 
consumer compute," Bellini wrote in a note to investors. 

This critique comes after a report from IDC Wednesday showed PC shipments 
sinking 14 percent worldwide in the first quarter, the worst quarter ever 
reported by IDC. The market researcher blamed it mostly on the tepid 
reception by consumers of Windows 8.

Other analysts issued downgrades too, according to Bloomberg. Rick Sherlund, 
an analyst at Nomura Holdings, and Stephen Turner at Hilliard Lyons 
downgraded the stock to Neutral from Buy.

But Raymond James' Michael Turits was more sanguine about the stock. He 
reiterated "outperform" with a price target of $34, according to Barrons.

Turits said Microsoft and Intel are striving to cut costs on touch devices. 
</quote>

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-57579242-75/goldman-says-sell-microsoft-
others-downgrade-stock/
http://tinyurl.com/buh8hfd

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#173003

><quote>
>Goldman Sachs recommended selling Microsoft today in the wake of brutal 
>first quarter PC shipment numbers.
>
>Heather Bellini, an analyst at Goldman Sachs, recommended that investors 
>sell the stock -- downgrading it from a neutral rating, according to 
>Bloomberg.
></quote>

Funny how these high-powered analysts don't make these recommendations
until the have the sales numbers rubbed into their faces.  Wasn't it
pretty obvious that this was coming?  It's certainly not news that
Win8 wasn't going to save the day for M$.

-- 
"Most of us are sensible and experienced enough to know that all SW
has errors. But according to the COLA faithful.,  errors and bugs and
vulnerabilities are the domain of closed source SW"  -  Hadron Quark,
lying shamelessly

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#173041

bbgruff wrote:

> I've seen several adjustments by analysts, but this is the first time I've
> seen a "Sell" recommendation.
> To be fair, DFS said it first - "Microsoft is doomed":-

He's doing time for that now.
It was either a long stretch away from it all
or some chair massage from uncle fester using real chairs.


> <quote>
> Goldman Sachs recommended selling Microsoft today in the wake of brutal
> first quarter PC shipment numbers.

Its going to be a 20% drop in revenue over the course of the year
and accelerate year in year out.

 
> Heather Bellini, an analyst at Goldman Sachs, recommended that investors
> sell the stock -- downgrading it from a neutral rating, according to
> Bloomberg.

It should be negative outlook. They may get sued if they mislead
investors.


> "Quarterly results will "gradually deteriorate unless Microsoft
> successfully repositions itself as a more meaningful participant in the
> new era of consumer compute," Bellini wrote in a note to investors.


I bet they can't reposition. They burned too many bridges to have any traction
in the software and hardware markets today.
They are far too subversive to have any meaningful dialogue with.

Just recently I heard NAS device makers with microshaft crap
can't release their NAS without dishing out money for the number
windopws (l)users logging in and downloading from that box.
I mean WTF? That would be the equivalent
of levy of license fee for how many users are allowed
to log into a web site. Naturally Linux NAS box customers have no user limits
other than practical limits.
 
Linux NAS boxes are faster and support numerous protocols which
microshaft don't know how to support.

As with the scroogle campaigns against google, micorshaft
only knows how to move their operations into terminal
decline by using whining and mobilizing whino trolls who support them, as a business tool,
and loose in the NAS markets, like the way they lost on the search market.


> This critique comes after a report from IDC Wednesday showed PC shipments
> sinking 14 percent worldwide in the first quarter, the worst quarter ever
> reported by IDC. The market researcher blamed it mostly on the tepid
> reception by consumers of Windows 8.
> 
> Other analysts issued downgrades too, according to Bloomberg. Rick
> Sherlund, an analyst at Nomura Holdings, and Stephen Turner at Hilliard
> Lyons downgraded the stock to Neutral from Buy.


> http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-57579242-75/goldman-says-sell-microsoft-others-downgrade-stock/
> http://tinyurl.com/buh8hfd

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#173050

President 7 wrote:

>I bet they can't reposition. They burned too many bridges to have any traction
>in the software and hardware markets today.
>They are far too subversive to have any meaningful dialogue with.
>
>Just recently I heard NAS device makers with microshaft crap
>can't release their NAS without dishing out money for the number
>windopws (l)users logging in and downloading from that box.
>I mean WTF? That would be the equivalent
>of levy of license fee for how many users are allowed
>to log into a web site. Naturally Linux NAS box customers have no user limits
>other than practical limits.

Yeah, a lot of bullshit just disappears when you dump Micro$oft's
crapware and go to Free software, from the purchasing department to
the shop floor.
 
>Linux NAS boxes are faster and support numerous protocols which
>microshaft don't know how to support.

Linux is far more open and flexible, obviously.  It's better-suited to
our interconnected world.  

Micro$oft's dream of having Windows dominating the computing world,
with only a few niche exceptions, has crashed and burned.

-- 
"OSS is far more likely to break standards because of the lack of
formal acceptance tests"  -  "True Linux advocate" Hadron Quark

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#173068

chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>  
> Linux is far more open and flexible, obviously.  It's better-suited to
> our interconnected world.  

Yeah, you should try it sometime.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#173092 — Re: Then why are you still using MS then, instead of Linux?

On 4/12/2013 11:14 AM, chrisv wrote:
> President 7 wrote:
>
>> I bet they can't reposition. They burned too many bridges to have any traction
>> in the software and hardware markets today.
>> They are far too subversive to have any meaningful dialogue with.
>>
>> Just recently I heard NAS device makers with microshaft crap
>> can't release their NAS without dishing out money for the number
>> windopws (l)users logging in and downloading from that box.
>> I mean WTF? That would be the equivalent
>> of levy of license fee for how many users are allowed
>> to log into a web site. Naturally Linux NAS box customers have no user limits
>> other than practical limits.
>
> Yeah, a lot of bullshit just disappears when you dump Micro$oft's
> crapware and go to Free software, from the purchasing department to
> the shop floor.
>
>> Linux NAS boxes are faster and support numerous protocols which
>> microshaft don't know how to support.
>
> Linux is far more open and flexible, obviously.  It's better-suited to
> our interconnected world.
>
> Micro$oft's dream of having Windows dominating the computing world,
> with only a few niche exceptions, has crashed and burned.
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#173106 — Then why are you still trolling about Linux?

DFS wrote:

> O

Is that you "DFS"? 

You sound as though you had a sex change and came back as a gurl.

How come?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#173136 — Re: Then why are you still trolling about Linux?

On 4/12/2013 5:38 PM, 7 wrote:
> DFS wrote:
>
>> O
>
Cap back on the glue, gluehead.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#173051

Verily I say unto thee that President 7 spake thusly:
>
> Just recently I heard NAS device makers with microshaft crap
> can't release their NAS without dishing out money for the number
> windopws (l)users logging in and downloading from that box.
> I mean WTF?

That would be Client Access Licenses, although I'm surprised they apply
to commodity hardware like NASs.

Mostly I'm surprised that anyone would be stupid enough to run Windows
on a NAS at all, or that Windows is even capable of such a thing.

-- 
K.                           | "You see? You cannot kill me. There is no flesh
http://slated.org            |  and blood within this cloak to kill. There is
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on šky   |  only an idea. And ideas are bulletproof."
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 150 days |    ~ V for Vendetta.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#173174

Homer wrote:

> Verily I say unto thee that President 7 spake thusly:
>>
>> Just recently I heard NAS device makers with microshaft crap
>> can't release their NAS without dishing out money for the number
>> windopws (l)users logging in and downloading from that box.
>> I mean WTF?
> 
> That would be Client Access Licenses, although I'm surprised they apply
> to commodity hardware like NASs.
 
The software isn't a commodity, I guess. Also notice that one CAL per CLIENT 
is required, no matter what kind of client is used. I'm sure they would have 
charged OSX and Linux clients more - or shut them out - if they could tell 
the difference at the server :-)  Oh wait - speed and stability. 

> Mostly I'm surprised that anyone would be stupid enough to run Windows
> on a NAS at all, or that Windows is even capable of such a thing.

Linus said early on that Linux systems were found in server rooms - or 
rather, not discovered, because they were stable and didn't cause any 
trouble. Some were discovered because a manager wondered  why that 
particular service was suddenly available all the time ... 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#173181

Verily I say unto thee that Bjørn Steensrud spake thusly:
> Homer wrote:
>> Verily I say unto thee that President 7 spake thusly:
>>>
>>> Just recently I heard NAS device makers with microshaft crap can't
>>> release their NAS without dishing out money for the number windopws
>>> (l)users logging in and downloading from that box.  I mean WTF?
>> 
>> That would be Client Access Licenses, although I'm surprised they
>> apply to commodity hardware like NASs.
>  
> The software isn't a commodity, I guess.

I just don't get the justification for CALs at all.

The OS costs the vendor the same amount of money to produce regardless
of whether its accessed by 10 clients or 10 million, and it also costs
technical support the same amount of money to diagnose and fix issues
with the server being accessed, as there's only one server no matter how
many clients it has, so how can the OS vendor possibly justify charging
a per-client access fee?

The only correlation between the number of clients and cost is the
amount of hardware required to physically sustain the load. That has
nothing to do with the OS vendor whatsoever.

It's a purely arbitrary, synthetic and fraudulent fee - an utter scam.
It seems to be one of those "we do it because we can" situations that
Windows victims just blindly accept without question. It's quite
bizarre.

A NAS is just a glorified hard drive, it barely needs any OS at all, and
whatever it does need should only have to be paid for once, if at all,
just like the hardware itself. The idea that a NAS should require repeat
fees for OS upgrades is bad enough, but to charge for each and every
client accessing it is nothing less than surreal.

Imagine if consumer-grade modem-routers ran Windows? Every time you
bought another Internet-capable gadget you'd have to pay Microsoft an
"access fee" just to be "allowed" to use your own damned property.

> Linus said early on that Linux systems were found in server rooms

The funniest bit is when Ballmer scratches his head and wonders why
Windows is losing to GNU/Linux in the server room.

-- 
K.                           | "You see? You cannot kill me. There is no flesh
http://slated.org            |  and blood within this cloak to kill. There is
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on šky   |  only an idea. And ideas are bulletproof."
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 150 days |    ~ V for Vendetta.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#173219

Homer <usenet@slated.org> wrote:
> Verily I say unto thee that Bjørn Steensrud spake thusly:
> > Homer wrote:
> >> Verily I say unto thee that President 7 spake thusly:
> >>>
> >>> Just recently I heard NAS device makers with microshaft crap can't
> >>> release their NAS without dishing out money for the number windopws
> >>> (l)users logging in and downloading from that box.  I mean WTF?
> >> 
> >> That would be Client Access Licenses, although I'm surprised they
> >> apply to commodity hardware like NASs.
> >  
> > The software isn't a commodity, I guess.

> I just don't get the justification for CALs at all.

Nobody has to justify anything to you.

> The OS costs the vendor the same amount of money to produce regardless
> of whether its accessed by 10 clients or 10 million, and it also costs
> technical support the same amount of money to diagnose and fix issues
> with the server being accessed, as there's only one server no matter how
> many clients it has, so how can the OS vendor possibly justify charging
> a per-client access fee?

Nobody has to justify anything to you.

> The only correlation between the number of clients and cost is the
> amount of hardware required to physically sustain the load. That has
> nothing to do with the OS vendor whatsoever.

That same retarded reasoning could be used for any software for which
even just a single copy was ever sold.  The original customer could
just image it and put it up for free download to everyone in the world.
Stop whining about what licensing terms others use for *their* products.
If you don't want to use it, don't use it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#173249

On 4/13/13 9:36 AM, in article ebvu99a.x3@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
<owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

> Homer <usenet@slated.org> wrote:
>> Verily I say unto thee that Bjørn Steensrud spake thusly:
>>> Homer wrote:
>>>> Verily I say unto thee that President 7 spake thusly:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Just recently I heard NAS device makers with microshaft crap can't
>>>>> release their NAS without dishing out money for the number windopws
>>>>> (l)users logging in and downloading from that box.  I mean WTF?
>>>> 
>>>> That would be Client Access Licenses, although I'm surprised they
>>>> apply to commodity hardware like NASs.
>>>  
>>> The software isn't a commodity, I guess.
> 
>> I just don't get the justification for CALs at all.
> 
> Nobody has to justify anything to you.

Exactly. Homer thinks everyone has to justify their choices to *him*. He is
amazingly anti-choice. Nobody should be able to chose a software license
that he does not approve of. Nobody should be able to sell a product in a
way he does not approve of. Nobody should be able to maintain ownership
rights of their own property in ways he does not approve of.

He is massively anti-choice and anti-freedom.

>> The OS costs the vendor the same amount of money to produce regardless
>> of whether its accessed by 10 clients or 10 million, and it also costs
>> technical support the same amount of money to diagnose and fix issues
>> with the server being accessed, as there's only one server no matter how
>> many clients it has, so how can the OS vendor possibly justify charging
>> a per-client access fee?
> 
> Nobody has to justify anything to you.

Exactly. The price is based on the services rendered... and if you do not
think the price is a fair one then do not pay it and use another service.
Welcome to a free market.

>> The only correlation between the number of clients and cost is the
>> amount of hardware required to physically sustain the load. That has
>> nothing to do with the OS vendor whatsoever.
> 
> That same retarded reasoning could be used for any software for which
> even just a single copy was ever sold.  The original customer could
> just image it and put it up for free download to everyone in the world.
> Stop whining about what licensing terms others use for *their* products.
> If you don't want to use it, don't use it.

Homer is against IP rights for software. He wants to push all software into
communal hands... in this area he supports Communist ideals.


-- 

    Brad cc Wiggins proves he is an ID forging pathological liar
    <http://goo.gl/eC1qa>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#173428

On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 10:09:11 -0700, Snit drooled all over himself 
thinking about the blowjob he was going to give owl later in the evening 
and wrote:

> My head hurts all the time!

  Stupidity is *supposed* to hurt, you moron.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#173454

On 4/14/13 4:55 AM, in article GOwat.6571$iT2.4765@newsfe01.iad, "Tralfaz"
<directly_above_the_center_of_the_earth@santas_deer_poop_too_much.org>
wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 10:09:11 -0700, Snit drooled all over himself
> thinking about the blowjob he was going to give owl later in the evening
> and wrote:
> 
>> My head hurts all the time!
> 
>   Stupidity is *supposed* to hurt, you moron.

So do something about it!


-- 
"There are 'extremists' in the free software world, but that's one major
reason why I don't call what I do 'free software' any more. I don't want to
be associated with the people for whom it's about exclusion and hatred."
-- Linus Torvalds

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#173427

On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 16:36:33 +0000, owl babbled inanely about:

> Someone forgot to water me this week. My IQ dropped from a 12 to an 11!

  In the world where things matter at all, this doesn't...normal for you 
though.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#173231

On 4/13/2013 6:25 AM, Homer wrote:
> Verily I say unto thee that Bjørn Steensrud spake thusly:
>> Homer wrote:
>>> Verily I say unto thee that President 7 spake thusly:
>>>>
>>>> Just recently I heard NAS device makers with microshaft crap can't
>>>> release their NAS without dishing out money for the number windopws
>>>> (l)users logging in and downloading from that box.  I mean WTF?
>>>
>>> That would be Client Access Licenses, although I'm surprised they
>>> apply to commodity hardware like NASs.
>>
>> The software isn't a commodity, I guess.
>
> I just don't get the justification for CALs at all.
>

Read the history of IBM.  The answer is there.

> The OS costs the vendor the same amount of money to produce regardless
> of whether its accessed by 10 clients or 10 million, and it also costs
> technical support the same amount of money to diagnose and fix issues
> with the server being accessed, as there's only one server no matter how
> many clients it has, so how can the OS vendor possibly justify charging
> a per-client access fee?
>
> The only correlation between the number of clients and cost is the
> amount of hardware required to physically sustain the load. That has
> nothing to do with the OS vendor whatsoever.
>
> It's a purely arbitrary, synthetic and fraudulent fee - an utter scam.
> It seems to be one of those "we do it because we can" situations that
> Windows victims just blindly accept without question. It's quite
> bizarre.
>
> A NAS is just a glorified hard drive, it barely needs any OS at all, and
> whatever it does need should only have to be paid for once, if at all,
> just like the hardware itself. The idea that a NAS should require repeat
> fees for OS upgrades is bad enough, but to charge for each and every
> client accessing it is nothing less than surreal.
>
> Imagine if consumer-grade modem-routers ran Windows? Every time you
> bought another Internet-capable gadget you'd have to pay Microsoft an
> "access fee" just to be "allowed" to use your own damned property.
>
>> Linus said early on that Linux systems were found in server rooms
>
> The funniest bit is when Ballmer scratches his head and wonders why
> Windows is losing to GNU/Linux in the server room.
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#173324

Homer wrote:

> Bjørn Steensrud spake thusly:
>> Homer wrote:
>>> Verily I say unto thee that President 7 spake thusly:
>>>>
>>>> Just recently I heard NAS device makers with microshaft crap can't
>>>> release their NAS without dishing out money for the number windopws
>>>> (l)users logging in and downloading from that box.  I mean WTF?
>>> 
>>> That would be Client Access Licenses, although I'm surprised they
>>> apply to commodity hardware like NASs.
>>  
>> The software isn't a commodity, I guess.
>
>I just don't get the justification for CALs at all.

Well, you wouldn't.   8)

It's nothing more than a semi-fair way to extract money from
customers, rooted in the old days when proprietary software was the
norm.

Of course, in the coming FOSS era, such things will be like charging
money for air.

-- 
"Firstly they think people should give their work away."  -  "True
Linux advocate" Hadron Quark, attacking FOSS advocates with lies

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#173346

On 4/13/2013 2:52 PM, chrisv wrote:
> Homer wrote:
>
>> Bjørn Steensrud spake thusly:
>>> Homer wrote:
>>>> Verily I say unto thee that President 7 spake thusly:
>>>>>
>>>>> Just recently I heard NAS device makers with microshaft crap can't
>>>>> release their NAS without dishing out money for the number windopws
>>>>> (l)users logging in and downloading from that box.  I mean WTF?
>>>>
>>>> That would be Client Access Licenses, although I'm surprised they
>>>> apply to commodity hardware like NASs.
>>>
>>> The software isn't a commodity, I guess.
>>
>> I just don't get the justification for CALs at all.
>
> Well, you wouldn't.   8)
>
> It's nothing more than a semi-fair way to extract money from
> customers, rooted in the old days when proprietary software was the
> norm.
>
> Of course, in the coming FOSS era, such things will be like charging
> money for air.
>

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!  They already are charging you for air. 
You pay taxes to support the EPA.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#173435

Verily I say unto thee that chrisv spake thusly:
> Homer wrote:
>> 
>> I just don't get the justification for CALs at all.
>
> Well, you wouldn't.   8)
>
> It's nothing more than a semi-fair way to extract money from
> customers, rooted in the old days when proprietary software was the
> norm.

Oh I understand why companies would want to extort money for nothing,
I just don't see what's fair about it.

> Of course, in the coming FOSS era, such things will be like charging
> money for air.

-- 
K.                           | "You see? You cannot kill me. There is no flesh
http://slated.org            |  and blood within this cloak to kill. There is
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on šky   |  only an idea. And ideas are bulletproof."
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 150 days |    ~ V for Vendetta.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy

csiph-web