LOL the art of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) hasn't been forgotten...
Maybe someone should explain the difference between a pro analyst and an anonymous shill on a message board.
"Shares of Microsoft (MSFT) continue to trade down on that lower-than-expected forecast for this quarter’s results from the company yesterday afternoon.
"As I mentioned earlier, the stock has gotten at least four downgrades from the Street this morning, and some price target cuts.
"The stock is down $4.77, over 10%, at $42.24, the worst S&P 500 performer today. It is the largest one-day percent decline in the shares since July 19th of 2013, when the company missed Q4 expectations, according to Dow Jones & Co. data.
"Among the cuts in ratings is Rick Sherlund of Nomura Equity Research, who lowers the stock to Neutral from Buy, and trimmed his price target to $50 from $56.
"Sherlund, like Bernstein Research’s Mark Moerdler, writes that cloud is proving to be a tough transition..."
I've just been reading about Leonardo of Pisa, better known now as Fibonacci (I'm guessing that may be a quasi-patronymic after his father Guglielmo Bonacci). He is best known for having packaged and popularized the Hindu-Arabic system of calculation in his book "Liber abaci". The system, known to him as "modus indorum", the metnod of the Indians, is better known to us now as the Arabic numerals.
Leonardo is perhaps most widely known now for the so-called "Fibonacci numbers" or "Fibonacci sequence" which he also didn't invent. It had been devised much earlier by Oriental mathematicians, and was included in his book merely as an example of the use the modus indorum. It may doubted that he had any idea of the scientific significance we now attribute to it.
The book I've been reading compares Fibonacci to today's well known figures such as Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, who also became well known, not to mention wealthy, for packaging and popularizing something they didn't invent. I think it's an apt comparison. Bill Gates didn't even invent Microsoft, the credit for that goes to Paul Allen. But the association is by now firmly embedded in the "public mind" and will be difficult to expunge.
A very quotable article, but I'm content to let people follow the link.
But indeed why not RHEL? My guess is that Red Hat is too strong a company, and too committed to Linux, to allow itself to be browbeaten into the sort of agreement some others have with Microsoft.
"In the blog post, Microsoft wrote it has been involved in several recent open source projects, like Hive, YARN, REEF and the Apache Hadoop community."
"Microsoft announced on Friday it will be acquiring Silicon Valley-based Revolution Analytics, the company behind the popular open source programming language called R, according to a company blog post.
"Open source projects like this stand in contrast to the more traditional build models major tech giants like Microsoft have been using for decades. Even Revolution Analytics Chief Community Officer David Smith called his new parent company a "strange bedfellow" in his own blog post.
"In open source development, anyone has free access to the back end of the software. Instead of one company controlling and building improvements for the language, R has a community of coders all around the world making contributions for free.
"Revolution Analytics fosters this community and sells its own suite of services built on the R language."
Microsoft probably forgot long ago that the wallybot even exists.
And, face it, this forum is much less important than it used to be. Nowadays there are, no doubt, swarms of shillbots cranking out Tweets carrying the Microsoft party line. Not to mention Facebook pages. And Reddit posts. Etc.
Spin, spin, spin. You still pretend the "desktop" is the world of computing.
Microsoft has only the sort of advantage in the desktop market that Android has in mobile computing, i.e. the "first-mover" advantage. Getting there first with PC OEM's, Microsoft concocted an agreement that effectively locked them into selling only PC's running Microsoft OS's. That turned out to be an effective moat against entry by any other OS.
Microsoft attempted to repeat that performance in mobile computing, but it didn't work. Google and Apple charged into that market and quickly saturated it. Microsoft belatedly tried to re-enter the market but found nearly everyone willing to buy such devices had already chosen a vendor. Also Microsoft found that its reputation had preceded it, and carriers wanted nothing to do with Microsoft or its products, and actively discouraged end users from buying them.
The result is that Linux now has an installed base of mobile users comparable to that of Windows on the desktop, and Microsoft has little hope of ever making much headway in that market.
Good show. Those are guys who know what a computer is for. Unlike a lot of the klutzes who congratulate themselves on using MS Word or Outlook.
No. Microsoft is not going 100% open source, but they have open sourced .NET, for example. Don't believe it?: -- google the following:
"Microsoft Open Sources .NET, Saying It Will Run on Linux and Mac"
But of course device drivers, like all other sorfware, should be distributed as open source, not binaries, so you're asking for a solution to Microsoft's problem, not Linux's problem.
--forgetting (or ignoring) that there are a wealth of applications available for Linux. Microsoft makes the mistake of competing with its own suppliers, by adding to its operating system functionality that properly belongs in applications. That's why Ballmer once had to go around, hat in hand, begging developers to develop applications for Windows. Microsoft had actively destroyed their motivation to do so.