__/ [ nessuno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ] on Monday 10 July 2006 08:40 \__
> Why would the community want to work on a stripped down version of
> Windows? I wouldn't. The guy is right about the benefits (to Windows)
> if the open source community would work on it, but this would only be a
> part of an otherwise closed, proprietary world. One of the main
> motivations of working on open source is to make a permanent
> contribution to a free and completely open world. This would be a
> small island of light in a sea of darkness. If people were paid to
> work on it, it would be different, but for just altruistic reasons, I'd
> rather work on Linux. Besides, isn't there the "poison" factor, if you
> ever look at Microsoft code you will always be subject to accusations
> that you stole ideas in your later work?
I have thought about this slightly further. Made me ponder for while
yesterday... how would Microsoft outsell Linux by imitating something which
is already free, more secure (experts' eyes have watched the code for over a
decade), more stable, and Freer (as in to modify, redistribute, etc.)? There
is a real dilemma here, for Microsoft. Not only will Microsoft find itself
unable to charge for Windows (a lower price has already been fixed), but it
would also kill anything it has stood for and already deployed.
Best wishes,
Roy
PS - I posted this to COLA yesterday, before sending it to PJ. It has reached
big sites since then (Slashdot, Digg). I wonder if the author might suffer
from friction, much like the anonymous blogger of the controversial Mini
Microsoft.
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | chmod a-r *.mbox
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE GNU/Linux ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
8:45am up 73 days 13:48, 12 users, load average: 1.05, 0.82, 0.70
http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine
|
|
