> "Linux has made great strides," said Marty
> Wesley, product manager at Red Hat
> (www.redhat.com), one of the largest sellers
> of Linux-based software and services. "It's a
> much more graphic environment than it used
> to be. You don't have to worry so much
> about typing in line commands like you used
> to."
Yes I did not see this the first read but did see in the second read.
> Often Linux distributions are free
> for the downloading off the Internet or
> typically cost less than $30.
I still did not see this even on the second read.
It also did say there were user groups, but instead of linking directly to
some it gave a link to a user group listing and that link had the .
included in the link so it did not resolve.
> However, the author obviously does not understand open source as can be
> seen here where he infers a cost is sometime needed to download the code...
Um. That is correct. I think some 'open source' licenses could in fact
restrict you from distributing thus locking you in. In fact didnt
Caldera announce they were trying to do such a thing? However 'free
software' would not allow this.
> Not a BAD article, just very shallow.
The article wasnt bad, but I think there were some statements in the wrong
place, my ultimate gripe isnt really how he covered the story as much as
it was a shame he didnt come to someone like PLUG or LOCAL users of
GNU\Linux. Since this is a 'local' paper.
Derek
(text/plain)