Re: M$ attack on Common Sense

From: Mike Byrns (mike.byrns_at_technologist.com)
Date: 09/09/03


Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2003 04:45:00 GMT


"Bill Unruh" <unruh@string.physics.ubc.ca> wrote in message
news:bjj5u8$gam$1@string.physics.ubc.ca...
> 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
get
> ]it to handle more than 14 users, have difficulty setting up VPNs on it
and
> ]all the other good stuff that appear to be just plug and play with
> ]microsoft.
>
> 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
more
> ]than small businesses because they use taxpayer money to give the machine
a
>
> 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.

Agreed.