Ill start you off:
Post 43 of this thread “nobody is upset about the length of time XP was supported. Seven years is a fine lifetime for an OS. What people are upset about is that the overlap between the release of the only other desktop option and the end of life for the only existing desktop option is too short.”
Post 43 I have given you the impression I think 7 years is not a nice life-cycle you have gotten the wrong one and I apologize. (notice how gracious you take apologies)
Post 43 "Again its not just about the length of support 5 years to most people is due diligence from a software vendor"
Post 43" if MS continues to sell XP through companies like Dell and off the shelf then I agree with you that this article is bunk." (my God man can you not see right here I am agreeing with you!)
From these quotes you can see I have said, when shown I was incorrect, that MS is doing its due diligence should they carry XP *full*, not extended, support until 2009.
“All they are is a rip off of Red Hat anyway”
The concept of opensource has been explained to you before. Redhat got A Kernel, a ton of apps, and a good deal of documentation for nothing. They packaged it threw in a few of their own improvements and hand it back to the community. It has made them a successful business.
You go back and forth between “Redhat does not sell an os only support” and “redhat has hundreds of developers and gives away American technology” It must be nice to take up any position which suits you on a given day.
When I called you an Ass I was referring to the American heritage dictionary definition which is stupidly aggressive (somewhat like the Animal) in post 43 and later I agree with you, apologize to you for giving the wrong impression of my view, and state very clearly what my position is. You take that and insult me further distort or ignore my real position (up to and including post 86) and act, well, stupidly aggressive when you could have graciously nearly 40 post ago bowed out politely as the person more informed on this particular issue. You chose instead to act like a child.
Both of those statements of mine remain correct. Meanwhile your claims that any Linux vendor (especially a photocopy expert like CentOS) offers equal much less better support than Microsoft remain absurd. Your only counter is to hopelessly claim Windows products like 2000 are currently "unsupported" when security patches are being provided free of charge and will be provided free of charge till 2010. There's no wiggle room, you're still spreading falsehoods, and wasting time and bandwidth arguing with me about it.