Re: Pay for MS anti-malware service!

Kerry Brown wrote:


> Selling services has been going on a long time. Isn't the Redhat business
> model built on selling services.

Yes, Redhat bases its business model on selling services, the same way that
Mandriva does, SuSE and others. BUT, the big difference is that they aren't
also selling the OS and on top of that charging for services like M$ is
proposing to do.

I can choose to pay a Linux distributor for their services (read support) or
get the OS without paying a thing if I don't require or want to pay for
their support. In the case of M$, to run their OSs, you MUST purchase them.
So I don't think you can make a case that M$ is just doing what others are
doing, like you're suggesting.

It strikes me, as it does many others, that this move by M$ is a conflict of
interest. It is M$ that is ultimately responsible for all the holes and
exploits in its OS model and after charging the outrageous amounts it
charges for its software, to turn around a plug these holes through a paid
subscription is not right. That looks like double dipping to me at the
end-user's expense.


--
-=[ *Usenet FAQ* ]=-
A. Yes it is. It's called "Top Posting" and frowned on by the Usenet
community.
Q. But isn't that backasswards?
A. If their reply comes BEFORE what they are quoting, they probably use
Outlook Express under Windoze.
Q. How can I tell what OS a Usenet poster runs?



.