- MICROSOFT OFFICE COMMUNICATOR 2007 R2 FOR MAC UPGRADE
- MICROSOFT OFFICE COMMUNICATOR 2007 R2 FOR MAC SOFTWARE
- MICROSOFT OFFICE COMMUNICATOR 2007 R2 FOR MAC CODE
- MICROSOFT OFFICE COMMUNICATOR 2007 R2 FOR MAC FREE
Somehow I can’t really find a suitable comment to your remark. Copyleft has nothing to do with freedom.” (And as far as I know you can still buy support for RedHat Linux 9)
MICROSOFT OFFICE COMMUNICATOR 2007 R2 FOR MAC CODE
On the other hand, when RedHat stopped supporting RedHat Linux 9 (back in 2004), a large number of willing third parties took the code and continued releasing security updates.
MICROSOFT OFFICE COMMUNICATOR 2007 R2 FOR MAC UPGRADE
When Microsoft drops the ball on Windows 2000, you are being forced to upgrade Nobody but Microsoft can release security patches and OS updates. RHEL v2.1 is still supported.) and because you have access to their code.
MICROSOFT OFFICE COMMUNICATOR 2007 R2 FOR MAC FREE
Free (as in speech) OS’ tend to care less about legacy support even if they generate a lot of income (RedHat, Novel) simply because they don’t force-upgrade-you (E.g. Having no/limited backward compatibility has nothing to do with free (as in beer) OS’ with shoestring budget. “… Backwards compatibility might NOT be an issue for freeware operating systems with…” I can only assume that you the initial comments was supposed to be: But if you pay for it, you kind of expect basic things, like backwards compatability…”
MICROSOFT OFFICE COMMUNICATOR 2007 R2 FOR MAC SOFTWARE
“No, I meant freeware - i.e., software that does not generate income. “Why would they do that? Backwards compatibility might be an issue for freeware operating systems with shoestring budgets, but it shouldn’t be for something that actually generates income…” (I’ve loaded some other stuff on it, like tcpdump and other networking diag tools, else it wouldn’t be using more than 2.8MB of the flash. It needs no swap, is running an ssh server, a web server, a dhcp server, a forwarding/caching nameserver, and maintaining an openvpn connection to my office… and excluding disk cache, is only using 8MB of RAM and 3.5MB of the flash for the whole OS and and associated applications.
My Linksys WRT54GL router with 4MB of flash and 16 MB of total virtual space (all in the form of RAM), is a *lot* more functional than what he was showing off. Far from a great technical accomplishment, it’s actually pretty sad. And that is the fact that rather than a minimal version of Windows running in 39MB with 7MB free, it’s really running a naked kernel with a web server built in, on 76MB of virtual memory and using 61MB of it. Well, there is one slightly less than salient factor which has dampened my enthusiasm. I just know that people always have radical dreams of what’s to come from events like this, feed off of the inaccuracies NET, etc.), but is not an all new code base, there will be disappointment and blame from those expecting otherwise.
When Seven is indeed revealed to be an evolution of technologies in Vista (and of course, the advancements from SQL. I just know that people always have radical dreams of what’s to come from events like this, feed off of the inaccuracies and suppositions on the net, then blame all their misconceptions on MS. Believe the (non-Microsoft generated) hype or believe the docs. But it isn’t new, and it isn’t a signal that Seven is a new code base. If you still believe it’s new to Seven, so be it. You can read about MinWin directly from MS’ website. He mistakenly thinks that it’s not being used anywhere yet. Since he made a couple of minor errors regarding an obsolete MS product from 22 years ago, it’s obvious that Microsoft’s Director of Kernel and VM Development just doesn’t know that a major project which he and his team are currently working on is already being used as the basis of the company’s flagship product. In either case, it’s an incorrect assumption. You can even choose to believe that Seven won’t be based on Vista. Also explain Microsoft documents on their website stating that MinWin is part of the parent partition above the hypervisor in Server 2008.
If MinWin did not exist at that time, explain the existance of Paul’s articles.
If you actually read the links at the bottom of that blog post, you’d see that the comments on MinWin were sourced from Microsoft and documented during “Longhorn’s” development. He hasn’t always been part of the kernel team. It’s not as if he couldn’t have also screwed up the history of MinWin as well. Traut got facts about Windows history wrong. Yes, he is wrong on occasion, but not in this case. It’s Paul Thurrot, not just any old blogger. The problem is that his (and hence your) claims don’t align at all with what Eric Traut of Microsoft, the man who actually knows (as opposed to guessing and blogging about it), said about MinWin. Bloggers are *always* going on about where think they guessed something right in a previous blog entry.
0 kommentar(er)
