Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: Linux Does to Microsoft What IE Did (Illegally) to Netscape

  • Subject: Re: Linux Does to Microsoft What IE Did (Illegally) to Netscape
  • From: "Dean G." <dguttadauro@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: 20 Apr 2007 09:21:58 -0700
  • Complaints-to: groups-abuse@google.com
  • In-reply-to: <4628db66$0$24775$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com>
  • Injection-info: b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.161.156.147; posting-account=Y8QMYw0AAACOAGD5m3KhdtC8MmuOyefM
  • Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • Organization: http://groups.google.com
  • References: <1284646.DK8PuTgtpa@schestowitz.com> <4628db66$0$24775$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com>
  • User-agent: G2/1.0
  • Xref: ellandroad.demon.co.uk comp.os.linux.advocacy:516204
On Apr 20, 11:26 am, "amicus_curious" <A...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>
> news:1284646.DK8PuTgtpa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> > Software Minimills Eat Margins
>
> > ,----[ Quote ]
> > | The rule of minimills applies beyond F/OSS projects edging out
> > | proprietary competitors; consider how bundled IE took over for
> > | Netscape Navigator and Communicator. If you were on the Internet
> > | in those days, did you ever actually pay for Netscape?
> > `----
>
> >http://www.oreillynet.com/linux/blog/2007/04/software_minimills_eat_m...
>
> Where the OSS bunch always seems to make their error in thinking is that
> they do not look to the uses that people have for products.  For example,
> Open Office is rarely a truly fungible product vis-a-vis MS Office because
> it doesn't support the extensions that customers have made using VBA or COM
> Interop objects that connect .NET to MS Office features.

The same is true of any custom software built around any application,
and has little to do with Open Office v. MS Office. Open Office also
supports various kinds of scripting, so one could just as easily say
the say thing about the MS people : MS Office is rarely fungible with
Open Office because it doesn't support all of the extensions people
can make with Open Office.

But it goes beyond that. Open Source software has been far better in
working with other formats than MS has. So the argument you are making
is actually an argument against MS, not OSS.

Moreover, because OSS is not so prissy about giving their complete
APIs to others, you can do more with Open Office than you can with MS
Office. You can change the entire application if you like, because the
source code is available. If you want, you can use BASIC, or Python,
or C++, or Java, Perl, Ruby, et al. And no one has more complete
access to the API than you do. You will never have to worry about MS
"embracing" your technology and abusing their monopoly to force you
out of the marketplace.

Simply put, OSS allows a user to do more.
> You can call it
> lock-in or you can call it "innovative use of applications by customers",

OSS offers more options for innovative use of applications since you
have the source. MS is way behind OSS in offering customers the
ability to do whatever they want with their software. GPL software,
for example, make no restriction what so ever on you useage of the
software, while MS software's EULA includes all kinds of usage
limitations. Indeed, what you are talking about is only vendor lock-
in. It is only an issue because the extensions in question (such as
VBA) are proprietary, not because OSS is unable to do the same things.

> but in any case the user has to weigh the cost of replacing those methods
> that have become thoroughly spread throughout the enterprise during more
> than a decade of usage.  It is not just Microsoft at work either.  Intuit,
> Symantec, and even IBM have contributed a lot to this issue.  That isn't
> going to change just because some amateurs, with an appalling lack of
> experience, think that they have a replacement product.

It is only your analysis that is amateur, as many people find the Open
Office is a viable replacement as long as they haven't invested too
deeply in the MS money pit. The psychology of throwing good money
after bad is a well known phenomenon.

Dean G.




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index