e foot References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]= org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dus-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-listar-version: Listar v0.121a Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Errors-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-original-sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-il Referring to this http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2224863,00.html "MS porting Office to Linux?" There is a quote like, "I can tell you that I would be able to move my main workstation to Linux if I had office for it". I think there is a large group of companies that could use Linux as a better workstation solution that Windows, since the installation and friendlyness issues are not felt when working in a corporation where the network maintenence and support is dealt my the corporation itself. A corporation can use Linux to run word-processors on a network server and use old 486 to slow pentiums as X-terminals, relying on the server's processor power. That is something Windows can offer only with solutions li= ke Hydra which is only an extention to the operating system, rather that using the OS itself. I'm surprised that Mr. Gates chose that angle to attack Linux, while Linux eats Microsoft's server market share signifficanly. Could it be that he said that becuase is knew is was lying?
