Warp wrote:
>   In light of this, it starts sounding less ridiculous Steve Ballmer calling
> Linux "communism".

Viewed economically, isn't that what Linux is, in essence? Why would it be 
ridiculous at all?

(I mean, sure, Ballmer clearly was using the term pejoratively, but why is 
it factually incorrect?)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message