The Biggest OEMs or Vendors of GNU/Linux Stopped Competing With Microsoft (Which Pays Them to Promote Windows, Too)
Microsoft's Vista 10 will soon be a sort of extortionware (or ransomware with annual subscription). Users will be forced to pay money for security patches, even if those patches suck (they introduce new bugs and can damage the machine once installed). And "unless you pay $30" again and again, they'll tell you that you're on your own and a risk to everyone.
GNU/Linux does not have this kind of issue, even if RHEL and Ubuntu "Pro" mimic that idea. In fact, "IBM and Canonical go out of their way not to capitalize on this upcoming event," a reader told us, citing the above and adding Version2's article in Danish ("Ingen er fyret for at købe Microsoft...")
It jokes about how "No one has been fired for buying Microsoft..." (a slant on an old IBM joke)
Morten Kjærsgaard, the author, said (an automated translation): "This is completely ritualistic. It happens 1-2 times a year that IT managers and managers in the public sector complain about how expensive it has become to buy solutions from the tech giants. It also happened last November. And as upset as they are about the prices, they are just as certain that there is simply no alternative to continuing to pay exorbitant sums to the global suppliers. But there it is. This is shown, for example, by the Germans in these years."
The biggest OEMs of GNU/Linux stopped taking advantage of Microsoft/Windows TCO to market GNU/Linux. Instead they brag about Microsoft partnerships and bag money from Microsoft to more or less quit competing, instead cooperating and occasionally promoting Windows, .NET, Azure etc. Where are the competition authorities (or regulators for that matter)? █