__/ [ ed ] on Thursday 05 October 2006 12:27 \__
> On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 12:06:22 +0100
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> > Headline:
>> >
>> > Q&A: Microsoft's head of platform strategy denies that open source
>> > is a credible threat to the software giant's empire, and rules out
>> > porting MS Office to Linux
>> >
>> > A: We don't want MS Office.
>> >
>> > Things that are ported in binary format just never last. It's harder
>> > to make them work across platforms, I think that's what LSB was
>> > intending to get options for. But there's just no compensation for
>> > ./configure && make && make install
>>
>> I think that the mentioning of source code and the command line would
>> deter most (new) Linux users. Why not just rely on a repository (a
>> point-and-click on-tickbox-exercise) and portray Linux in a highly
>> positive way? *smile* Linux makes it quicker and simpler to find and
>> centralise software. Other platform require research on the Web, as
>> well as some leg work which could lead to installation of rogue
>> software.
>
> Oh yes that would be nice, but first MS has to provide the application
> in source code for package maintainers to deb/rpm-enise.
>
>> Ubuntu, by the way, only stocks two proprietary (as in not Open
>> Source) packages that I am aware of: that Panda anti-virus package and
>> the Opera Web browser. Still, it's no Debian, but I suppose it's
>> subjected to the same rules/ideaology, which is why the Firefox icon
>> there is a globe rather than the trademark Fox wrapping its body
>> around a glove. I believe that the name is bound to change as well
>> rather soon. Expect Ubuntu to have Firefox with a name shift and a
>> visual makeover.
>
> Ice weasel was the package that Debian wanted to include. FWIW they
> dropped cdrtools because of the licence.
I guess that Schilling's character didn't help either. And speaking of which,
Linus Torvalds is not much better in that respect.
> I recently changed to Ubuntu, but I wouldn't replace debian on the
> servers. Never.
Be careful. *smile*
Seen this morning:
http://linux.inet.hr/ubuntu_vs_debian_this_is_amazing.html
http://www.linuxquestions.org/linux/articles/Advocacy/Why_Is_Debian_So_Political?s=980b57fe6463227620eb0e9fb16ba28f&;
Why Is Debian So Political?
Personally, I am very much in favour of being stubborn and sticking to one's
original principles, not only as it avoids betraying past devs/contributers,
but also as it's the means of avoiding greed from taking over (c/f Red Hat).
Canonical is somewhat of an advanced and liberal Debian these days and it
appeals to those who need a Debian, but care very little for idealogical
values. And people seem to fancy Ubuntu despite the small compromises.
The whole scenario reminds me of the recent GPLv2 vs. GPLv3, GNU/FSF
(Stallman and gang) vs. Kernel Hackers funded by ODSL (commercial industry).
Best wishes,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Linux: does exactly what it says on the tin
http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 136 total, 1 running, 133 sleeping, 0 stopped, 2 zombie
http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine
|
|
