Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (2348 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse] World-largest Linux Migration Project
  • From: Sam Clemens <clemens.sam1@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 02:40:07 -0400
  • Message-id: <47F5CD47.4060207@xxxxxxxxx>
Roger Oberholtzer wrote:
On Thu, 2008-04-03 at 12:05 +0200, Neil wrote:
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 8:14 AM, Roger Oberholtzer <roger@xxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 2008-04-02 at 20:31 -0400, Sam Clemens wrote:

> That's mostly due to M$ bundling Word with new machines
> to drive WP out of the market (making Word *appear* to
> be free, whereas WP would cost extra.)
> The whole purpose of this, of course, was to eliminate
> a very popular cross-platform application, thereby
> driving everyone into Windows whether they wanted to
> be there or not.

Devil's advocate here:

I wonder what a pay-for-it software company thinks of Linux distros
including 'free' apps automatically? It must do to them what MS did to
WP and others. If MS was smart, they would make a Linux version of Word
that must be purchased just so they could take Linux distros to court
for including things like OO. Make Linux distros stop including all this
free software that is locking folk into Linux. :)

Roger Oberholtzer

OPQ Systems / Ramböll RST

Ramböll Sverige AB
Kapellgränd 7
P.O. Box 4205
SE-102 65 Stockholm, Sweden

Office: Int +46 8-615 60 20
Mobile: Int +46 70-815 1696
True, the fact that Linux distro's install a lot of usefull programs
by default could be seen as such. However: it is not feasible to offer
an OS that doesn't offer things as browsing and text processing out of
the box. The default browsers and text processsors are, however,
platform independant, and do not lock you to Linux.
Also the target is not to suppress the other browsers and text
processors: If Seamonkey is found superiour to Firefox by enough users
they will switch, or a distro wil emerge having SeaMonkey as default.
Micro$oft will not change their defaults, whether the users think
another program is better or not. They will continue enforcing their
software. That's the major difference

I was making a point - and not one I really believe. But I think is can
be made. As to the motivation on the part of Linux distros for including
these things, well, that is what the court case would be to decide. I do
think MS could put itself in a position to ask a court to question if
the Linux motivation is different from the MS motivation as seen by the
courts in, say, the Netscape decision. The courts did not like/believe
MS' defense. MS could argue that Linux distros are now doing the same

They could.
But the DOJ Attornies would just reply, "Et tu, Brute'?"
and laugh in their faces as they realize the poetic justice
that has been served.

Strangely enough, former industry racketeering leader, who
STILL sells proprietary operating systems and software for
every line of equipment they make, actively promotes the
use of Linux on their machines.

Why is that?

1: IBM has learned to compete on quality, not avarice

2: Bill and his pals are the most prominent bunch of
psychopaths the world has ever seen.

I'm just glad they never decided to go into politics,
because the death toll would rival that of Mao Tse Tung
and Stalin.

Or at least that the effect to MS is the same as it was to
Netscape, no matter what the stated motivation of Linux distros is. So,
if MS ever starts making Linux software no one really wants, there may
be more than one reason. I think the Netscape decision was based on the
economy of the user (why pay for it when you have one free) and not
technically that one was better than the other.

Netscape was giving away the browser, too (you could buy it
in the store, or you could ftp it from their site for free).
The purpose was to generate demand for Netscape's webserver

But enough of this useless banter, no?

What needs to be done with Microsoft is what was done with
IBM -- a very HARD wall with no-backchannel communication
between the operating systems and applications groups, so
that IBM's application group no longer has a privileged
position, and all software vendors writing for a platform
have the same access to information. Basically, IBM is
strictly prohibited from publishing "internal specs."
If an OS group publishes a spec, EVERYONE gets to have
access to it, not just the IBM applications groups.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >