Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (50102)	1/27/2002 12:43:42 AM
From: BirdDog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

In my mind, there's a big difference between offering a competing OS and offering support for a competing OS. To begin with. I followed the line of thought in the discussion that "Red Hat" is not an OS offering. It is only "support for an already free OS". In reality, RH being a business is offering motivation to programmers to develop it. So, in reality, wouldn't you agree that Red Hat can be viewed as a competing OS offering? Even though it is only "support" for a developed version of Linux? I hope you'd agree with me? If so, then the argument is actually for a competing OS. But the choice for the OS will be based on internet access. If AOL were to buy Red Hat. I can easily imagine them developing it into being much closer to Windows than it now is. It is already packaged with Netscape. I could see AOL selling it for internet access other than AOL...but definitely not MSN internet access. Basically a strong alternative competitive product to Windows. A very nice stable operating system. And control of many PC desktops robbed from the "Wicked Witch(Gorilla) of the West". People are getting tired of MSFT's games. I offer this evidenced by Apple's claim that 40% of their computers sold last quarter were to people who had never owned an Apple. BirdDog@OhHomeOnTheRange.com