[ILUG] Interesting piece on Linux adoption from /.

[Niall O Broin]

On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 02:12:38PM +0000, Padraig Brady wrote:

> > http://www.forbes.com/home/2002/03/27/0327linux.html
> > It's a little short on details but interesting all the same.

But as is usual, it also has some glaring booboos like this 


Also, contrary to popular belief, Linux is not really "free." How are
large-scale licensing agreements to be worked out?


This is of course exactly wrong and is one of the reasons why people are now
starting to look seriously at Linux desktop deployments. Ford are rumored to
be looking at deploying 30000 Linux desktops and despite what Forbes say
there, they are lookin at exactly $0 in desktop OS licensing cost. IN all
likeliehood Ford have already paid for a 'doze license for each of those
boxes (though I suppose if you're Ford and you call Dell and you say 'I want
30000 XYZZY boxes and I don't want ANY software on them' you might have a
slightly better chance of being listened to than your or I have) BUT like
many big companies, they are leery of Microsoft's new proposals to give them
direct debit authorisation on their bank accounts AKA their new licensing
policy. 

Journalists like this guy seem to not be able to get their heads around the
fact that there is NO "large-scale licensing agreement" nor is there a small
one. Yes, of course I know about the GPL but what I mean is that there is
nobody with whom you must sign an agreement to 'buy' X number of RTU for the
software and that many "technology" journalists can't get their heads around
that. Of course you can sign an agreement with RH to pay for support for X
number of desktops, if you're that way inclined, but a support contract is
an entirely different thing from a license agreement.



Niall