<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://blogs.technet.com/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>Linux-Watch: get the facts</title><link>http://blogs.technet.com/windowsserver/archive/2006/10/05/Linux_2D00_Watch_3A00_-get-the-facts.aspx</link><description>Every now and again I use this blog to correct inaccuracies in the public domain. Mostly errors at media outlets. And usually I wouldn't comment on opinion pieces at Linux-Watch because the rhetorical debate would be fruitless. But one of our pals at</description><dc:language>en-US</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2.1 SP1 (Build: 61025.2)</generator><item><title>Virtualization and Windows vs Linux review of current licensing policies</title><link>http://blogs.technet.com/windowsserver/archive/2006/10/05/Linux_2D00_Watch_3A00_-get-the-facts.aspx#462786</link><pubDate>Fri, 06 Oct 2006 03:02:43 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">d5e57398-b9ef-4490-9955-07cbb4e4a80d:462786</guid><dc:creator>Dugie's Pensieve</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;Virtualization and Windows licensing has been a pain point for a long time. There has been hints...&lt;/p&gt;
</description></item></channel></rss>