By all means - rephrase and send it to addres below! (No?)

Post #19,811 by Ashton 11/30/01 3:47:25 PM Reply	By all means - rephrase and send it to addres below! (No?)
Post #19,835 by mmoffitt 11/30/01 8:10:23 PM Reply	Help me. I know I've committed the ultimate Sin: listening to media accounts of the proposal involving the schools, but my impression is that this proposal was to settle the cases not covered by the DOJ case. In my opinion, the proposal suggested by Red Hat could be extended to adequately cover all the complaints: Microsoft agrees to provide (at no charge) all hardware and hardware support and upgrades for K-12 schools in the United States for the next 10 years. Red Hat already has its offer on the table. I could live with that, and I think it would go a long way to undo the damage Microsoft's illegal business practices have caused. Maybe I'm an optimist, but I genuinely believe that if such a thing came to pass, in 10 years, the de facto standard OS would be Linux or its heirs. If you teach them well, they won't accept the excrement from Redmond when they're old enough to make purchasing decisions. Thoughts? (quickly please, and not just Ashton), Thanks, Mikem
Post #19,840 by Another Scott 11/30/01 8:51:02 PM Reply	I don't see how Red Hat's "offer" is genuine. It seems to me to be a bit of publicity-seeking by Red Hat. Red Hat's "offer" of giving software to schools is disingenuous as Red Hat and Linux apps can be downloaded and free support is already available on their web pages. Presumably everyone knows this. Red Hat's suggestion that the MS settlement for the private suits be restricted to MS providing hardware might have some validity (though one might wonder whether PC vendors which are hurting due to slow sales would welcome even fewer sales to schools - since presumably MS would just provide more nearly obsolete PCs rather than purchase new ones). That is well worth considering. But the best solution to this problem (MS overcharging for its OS) seems to me to financial - not MS deciding what hardware it wants to provide. MS should have to pay a substantial fine, IMO. The tobacco companies paid and will pay substantial penalities to the states as a condition for settling the class-action suits. They won't be giving discounts on cigarettes or providing nearly obsolete medical equipment to clinics and hospitals.... The way the Red Hat person explained the offer makes it seem to me that he doesn't expect the court to take it seriously. So I can see some merit in Red Hat's proposal (yes, MS shouldn't be permitted to extend its monopoly power even farther as a "punishment"), but I don't think it's going anywhere. And I don't think it'll be an appropriate settlement for MS's actions. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #19,860 by static 12/1/01 5:20:14 AM Reply	You may be right. Especially when argued like that. On balance, RedHat's offer was probably made to open a few eyes to the fact that not everyone sells software according to the Microsoft business model. For RedHat, it is an entirely affordable and legitimate act of business for them to make this offer. If the offer is taken up, while they may be surprised, I can't see them failing to pull through. You know, I don't think Microsoft dare touch the offer, one way or the other. :-) I don't think they can't afford to acknowledge that a much smaller company can not have financial hardship giving away that much software for nix. Raising the fact that the software is available gratis anyway will just not work. They may, though, try some other angle. Wade. "All around me are nothing but fakes Come with me on the biggest fake of all!"
Post #19,868 by mmoffitt 12/1/01 9:22:51 AM Reply	Call them on it. I'm quite sure this was a publicity seeking offer by Red Hat. However, I take issue with some of your suppositions. "...might have some validity (though one might wonder whether PC vendors which are hurting due to slow sales would welcome even fewer sales to schools - since presumably MS would just provide more nearly obsolete PCs rather than purchase new ones)." Who says it's up to Microsoft to decide what hardware the schools get? I agree that a financial penalty must be a part of the settlement and I do not see why the settlement cannot read that Microsoft will provide X Billion (er, XX Billion - maybe an amount equal to Gate's net worth so that "ill gotten gains" are reduced?) to the schools and let the schools decide what hardware is purchased. Is that not an adequate financial penalty? Yes, I know the software/support is downloadable and free on the Net. However, I'm quite sure that school districts want to be able to "call a company for support". I cannot believe that the K-12 schools in America would "risk" not having a real company to call upon for support. I don't know about the school admins in your area, but around here their salaries are so low that well, typically they get what they pay for, and those people always want to "call some one for support". I also believe that a purely financial settlement is not in the public's best interest. A financial settlement alone will not rekindle competition in the OS market. However, having our kids learn to use PC's with Linux would. That's why I say, "Okay Red Hat, put up or shut up." bcnu, Mikem

Welcome to IWETHEY!