Re: M$ attack on Common Sense
From: Mike Byrns (mike.byrns_at_technologist.com)
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2003 04:45:00 GMT
"Bill Unruh" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message
> Connor is off the deep end. discount what he says.
Then tell him yourself. Quash his silliness among your own. Get you own
proponents to kill that which marginalizes them.
> ]The company that owns the contract to maintain the SCO box can't seem to
> ]it to handle more than 14 users, have difficulty setting up VPNs on it
> ]all the other good stuff that appear to be just plug and play with
> Sounds like a) you have an incompetent maintainer, or b) a useless
> version of Unix (I would suspect both.)
What, praytell IS "a useless version of Unix". As all are clones of one
another how is anyone owning a business to choose due to all the use-less
and use-full versions out there. In this case they need to hire maintainers
AKA consultants. So based on these consultant's opinions it's really up to
them what use-full or use-less version to install. It's not UNIX' fault.
It's fragmentation and confusion and giving up your choice to someone else.
Just like most folks do with Windows and Gates.
> ]Large organizations like hospitals and uni's are able to support unix
> ]than small businesses because they use taxpayer money to give the machine
> No. To maintain a Windows box and a Linux box probably takes just as
> much work. Small businesses tend to ignore support, until they get
> bitten by the latest bug or whatever.