Here's a great article on Steve Ballmer's latest anti-Linux rant:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031022014413296 (or
http://tinyurl.com/ryhe). I particularly liked this part:
'There is no road map for Linux, nobody who has his rear end on the
line. We think it's an advantage a commercial company can bring--we
provide a road map, indemnify customers. They know where to send
e-mail. None of that is true in the other world. So far, I think our
model works pretty well,' Ballmer said.
Rear end on the line? Indemnify its customers? Doesn't sound like any
of the license agreements I've ever read from Microsoft. The ones that
I have read go on at great length to specifically take their "rear end"
out of the picture, and to indemnify *Microsoft*, not me.
I wonder why, if their software is so superior and "trustworthy", that
they don't back it up by putting their own finances at risk, instead of
paying a team of lawyers bundles of cash to close every potential
loophole that might make them liable for their mistakes?
___/
/
__/
/
____/
Ed Leafe
http://leafe.com/
http://opentech.leafe.com
©2003 Ed Leafe |
