On Sunday 24 September 2006 14:30 Hadron Quark wrote:
(huge snip)
>> I'm still trying to understand why you consider Roy/linux to be just
>> as bad.
> Because its using "free" to tempt people away from something they are
> familiar : not particularly evil IMO, and I'm a Linux user myself, but
> no worse than MS giving coupons. Despite being cheaper/free, if someone
> installs free Linux and then uses from OSS specific apps then they are
> kind of tied in too - there just aren't that many "platform defining"
> apps for Linux as there are for MS.
>> Are you under the impression perhaps that "linux is free now, but someday
>> they'll charge you for it"?
> Yes. For support. And for real applications. Sorry : they already do.
(OK me snipping there? No context lost, only history?)
Ah - still not sure of the logic, and I certainly don't agree with you, but
now at least I see what you are saying! In response:-
1. Advocating something which is gratis is very different from giving the
first one gratis to get you started, and then charging from there on out.
2. Your comments re. support and proprietary applications applies to both,
though less so to linux. I'll grant that one could still become
"locked-in" to a supplier when using linux, if one used a proprietary
application. e.g. MS Office, Photoshop, etc.
Being "locked-in" to linux itself is a bit of a strange concept, given that
it is completely open, and available for so many platforms.
3. In general, the advice that we here would most likely give is to try to
use (or move towards over a period of time) only those applications which
use open standards. That way, you don't get locked in to anything.
|
|
