Roy Schestowitz wrote:
__/ [ [H]omer ] on Friday 09 February 2007 08:00 \__
Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
[snip huge list of Microsoft's underhand lobbying]
You know, for an OS with such a supposedly tiny market share, Microsoft
sure does spend an awful lot of time and money in vein trying to
discredit Linux.
This one is recent.
Understanding Open Source technology
,----[ Quote ]
| Already industrial watchers are pointing to a serious showdown,
| which in the meantime, the Chief Executive of Microsoft Corporation,
| Steve Ballmer did not rule out in a recent interview in which he
| also explained why Microsoft announced a sweeping reorganisation
| of its Windows division.
|
| "We have to outrun this phenomenon" he was quoted as saying, and "
| ...if we let up for a minute... then that other stuff will gain"
| attraction.
`----
http://www.thetidenews.com/article.aspx?qrDate=01/31/2007&qrTitle=Understanding%20Open%20Source%20technology&qrColumn=ISSUES
They still try to play whack-a-mole.
The greatest problem I have with this type of mentality is that it is
trying to adapt the market to its products, instead of adapting its
products to the market or buyer's needs.
Perhaps if they were to adapt their product to the buying public's needs
and focus on service, we might see a different company 10 years from
now, albeit one that is not just surviving, but thriving.
The world is a dynamic place. The current proprietary software model,
which met certain needs 20 years ago, no longer meets those needs.
Perhaps with the continuance of this mentality, the behemoth will go the
way of aerospace companies like McDonnell Douglas.
Management there did not see fit for Douglas Aircraft to develop newer
airframes, to meet transportation infrastructure needs. Models never
grew beyond the drawing board stage. Instead, their management took
existing airframes and continued to modify them by stretching fuselage
lengths, minor adjustments to wing and tail areas, new cockpit
instrumentation, etcetera.
However, the aeroplane basically remained the same aeroplane as it was
in the 1960's. The only way they could compete was offer their
aeroplanes for less money than the competition, which they could not do.
Boeing engineers continued developing newer airframes with newer
manufacturing technologies, major airframe changes (like going from 4
engine large body to 2 engine large body), and etcetera.
McDonnell Douglas became uncompetitive. Boeing bought the corporation
for a song in the early 1990's. When I passed through Long Beach,
California during late summer 2005, I passed by Douglas Aircraft Company
Headquarters at 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, CA 90846 at the
Long Beach Airport.
Lo and behold, there were only smouldering piles of demolished debris
with a construction fence around the perimeter. Douglas Aircraft is no
more.
Boeing Linux, anyone? :-)
--
Cheers, Rafael
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/
http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killfile/anti_troll_faq.htm
|
|
