Microsoft Greed

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: gathermewool
Originally Posted By: Eddie
...So you naysayers, read the complete article and stop trying to kill the messenger and get your facts correctedf...


You did not post a link to any article.
 
Originally Posted By: Y_K
Enterprise Linux is much more


Which one? Most are free. Red Hat's isn't; but if you do not need the (paid subscription for) support you can get the exact same OS - CentOS - at no cost. Ubuntu and Debian are free. Slackware is free. And of course the actual kernel is free so you can roll your own OS for free as well.
 
Bill Gates said You will be assimilated or else....
02.gif



You will obey.....
crazy2.gif
crazy2.gif
lol.gif
lol.gif
crackmeup2.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Wait so, MS should provide all their software free?

And if they actually charge for the software, it's "greed".

Wow. Just wow.


Sure they should, and it's a great deal for MS!

BTW - MS doesn't rely on software sales to generate the bulk of their income, just like Twitter sells nothing and Google never needed sales, Facebook doesn't sell anything either, but they're all ultra-valuable businesses for another reason, can you guess what it is?
 
Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more
Originally Posted By: Y_K
Enterprise Linux is much more


Which one? Most are free. Red Hat's isn't; but if you do not need the (paid subscription for) support you can get the exact same OS - CentOS - at no cost. Ubuntu and Debian are free. Slackware is free. And of course the actual kernel is free so you can roll your own OS for free as well.


When I was in the large corporate space you "payed" for enterprise linux and you were a fool if you did not. Were not talking about some guy with a server in their closet and centos is not going to help you if you have a production issue that is costing thousands of dollars an hour.
 
Originally Posted By: badtlc
enterprise folks don't pay for linux. they pay for support.


That is splitting hairs, but I agree. The reason I say it's splitting hairs is because with rhel and others you pay upfront.
 
Originally Posted By: BeerCan
Originally Posted By: badtlc
enterprise folks don't pay for linux. they pay for support.


That is splitting hairs, but I agree. The reason I say it's splitting hairs is because with rhel and others you pay upfront.


I know that support contracts with Red Hat and even Canonical can get pricey to the point where Windows doesn't seem all that expensive. And I certainly agree that if and when a mission-critical confronts you, hitting the ol' CentOS support forums is not entirely practical.
 
Technically, Linux is free and so is Mac OS X. In practice you pay for them either in your own work or when you buy a machine.

Today if Microsoft charges an arm and a leg on the Windows OS, people would just switch to something cheaper. Linux and Chrome OS is good enough, and free, and even a $400 tablet is overkill for what most people do at work on their computer anyways. Microsoft will be committing suicide if it is trying to charge $100 per consumer these days when a PC is typically $300-700, rather than $2000 back in early 90s.

Steve Balmer was fired because he was milking consumers via anti-piracy rather than developing new income sources. Windows CE / Mobile failed, MS cloud is ok, XBOX is doing well, Surface is not doing as well as it could have been. Steve Balmer should have been fired 10 years ago and windows should have been free since then, but charges consumer app store and in app purchase instead (or add netflix style services to it).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top