TOM WALKER wrote in a message to ROY J. TELLASON:

RJT> TW> Actualy in the Server markey they are looking over their Shoulder.

RJT>That's funny,  as it seems to assume that m$ has the lead in the
RJT>server market and they don't.  Not by a long shot.

TW> I ASSUME little becauee you know what Felix Unger aid about that.
TW> MicroSoft IS wrooind about the erosion of theri Market share of the
TW> Server market being eroded by the increasing popularity of LINUX.
TW> And the FEAR is Real as with Hewlett Packard and IBM jumping into
TW> the LINUS server market one can see that MS is in trouble.

They don't *have* a lead in the server market,  and haven't,  as far as I know.

RJT>This assumes that the home market as m$ has defined it is where
RJT>it's at, and what should be targeted,  and I'm not so sure that this 
RJT>is the case.

TW> There are one hell of a lot of Home Users out there. Adn most are
TW> Totaly technicaly chalendged as far as Computers go. THAT is one
TW> Attractive Market.

Sure,  in terms of absolute volume,  but this isn't the server market.

TW> WHY do you think MS used soem dirty tricks to drive theri 
TW> competition into non existance. Because it is a BIG money market.

And because that's the way they operate.  Some companies get a lawyer
involved early on.  They had not one,  but *two* lawyers involved from the
very beginning.

TW> Little margin on each individual machine but the Volume more then
TW> makes up for it. OF course Apply shot themselves in the foot by
TW> going with the Maximum Profit on each sale.

There's that market (which some folks seem to think linux ought to pursue, 
I'm not so sure) and then there's the server market,  and others.  The m$
stuff only runs on intel hardware,  linux (and other stuff that's out
there) runs on a whole lot of other machines besides.

One news tidbit that stands out in my memory is a test that IBM or somebody
did,  where they had a mainframe-type machine running native OS and
applications versus the same machine *emulating* linux - several thousand
copies of it.  Emulations are ordinarily pretty slow,  but in that
situation it ran applications _better_ than the native software did. 
Perhaps this has something to do with IBM getting behind linux.

---