Sigh so true <br>i read somewhere that there not going just let them have it they have to buy it for a couple thousand<br>they also can not spread FUD about Linux about patients there<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">
On 10/22/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Steve Langasek</b> <<a href="mailto:vorlon@dodds.net">vorlon@dodds.net</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 08:11:28PM -0500, DMichael Burns wrote:<br>> Interesting article. One point in the article that caught my eye is:<br><br>> "Under Monday's settlement, Microsoft said it would allow open-source
<br>> software developers access to inter-operability information for work-group<br>> servers used by businesses and other large organisations."<br><br>There have been any number of rulings over the years requiring Microsoft to
<br>allow interoperability, and yet the only real interopability has come from<br>the independent reverse engineering work of the Samba Team...<br><br>--<br>Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
<br>Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.<br><a href="mailto:vorlon@debian.org">vorlon@debian.org</a> <a href="http://www.debian.org/">http://www.debian.org/
</a><br>_______________________________________________<br>QCLUG mailing list<br><a href="mailto:QCLUG@qclug.org">QCLUG@qclug.org</a><br><a href="http://qclug.org/mailman/listinfo/qclug">http://qclug.org/mailman/listinfo/qclug
</a><br></blockquote></div><br>