I cannot believe you would make the claim that UNIX is the parent of LINUX. Have you not been following the multi-year lawsuit of SCO vs IBM? IBM has pretty much buried ( under MILLIONS of lines of evidence ) the notion that the two were ever related let only UNIX being the "parent" of LINUX. Please, do not demean LINUX with such inaccurate statements.

It's shocking, but I think MS does see the writing on the wall. As a bit of an early adopter, I've been running a duel boot system with Windows XP and Simply Mepis (linux distro) for about four years. I recently switched to the Virtual Machine version of Simply Mepis, so now I have two operating systems that I can access at the same time. I love it. I always use the virtual machine for anything where security or privacy is a concern (e.g.internet surfing and e-mail). Yet, I can still take full advantage of any Windows based programs. Since Apple can now run a virtualized version of Windows on its Intel systems, I think a lot people are beginning to see the advantages of a multiple OS setup and virtualization. I think it's a revolution.

Linux, BSD, Solaris, they are all UNIX derivatives. His point is entirely valid. What IBM has buried is the notion that the Linux kernel in its current incarnation has identical code to the SCO UNIX kernel.

Scenario no 4 (elephant in the room): osrm's report was accurate. linux infringes 288 patents of several third-parties including ms. novell wants to go legit to get a step up. ms wants to recoup value for its r&d and patent portfolio and let the world know that it has ip in oss. ms does not want to sue (like ibm sued amazon) so ms licenses its ip. deal comes together. real question then is who else has patents in oss and when they come fwd what will they do (license or sue)?

I think it was because of the Oracle deal.

None of you are being cynical enough. Always remember, a "Microsoft partner" is just a rival they haven't stabbed in the back yet.

Lets say you're trying to bring Linux into your company but are meeting resistance from the purchasing people over issues of support. They give you the go-ahead, but only if you use the MS/Novell solution.

But what if the integration isn't quite as seamless as MS have lead you (and Novell) to believe? Your project falters, costs go up, deadlines are missed. And the purchasing people confirm their opinion that Linux isn't ready for the enterprise yet.

I don'te know if it was the Oracle deal. If you take Ballmer at his word, this has been in the works since last May. The Oracle, unless they knew about it was more recent.
Ephraim

Maybe they are doing a little Plan B thinking, in case Vista turns out to be a colossal flop.

Maybe they are doing a little Plan B thinking, in case Vista turns out to be a colossal flop.

The only direction to go after a spaghetti OS, is a unix based OS, ie. Linux.

It's nice to see you pick up on the cynicism. :-) It looks like the difference between your version -- Then, says the Microsoft salesperson, "You are already running Windows. Why don't you use Windows up and down the stack? It works better anyway." -- and mine above is who is making the decisions. I assumed the technical person was being over-ruled by the bean counters. Your version assumes the technical person isn't completely committed to the switch. Microsoft's gambit works in either case.