Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
> Open Source and Microsoft Free
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | For companies with huge budgets it might make sense to continue down the
> | Microsoft path.
Why?
Just because one can afford to buy something expensive, that doesn't
necessarily mean that "thing" is worth buying.
I'm sick of this prevailing attitude that something *must* be better
simply because it costs more. It's a simplistic and distorted view.
Most commodities are priced according to marketing data analysis that
suggests how much consumers are willing to pay, and is influenced by the
current market rate, *not* according to any inherent value. After the
recovery of investment capital and overheads, everything else is just
profit (or taxes), so consumers pay over the odds for products that
could literally be given away after a certain point.
Of course some companies start with loss leaders to kill the
competition, with the intention of making up losses at a later stage.
Such commodities may be "bargains" for the consumer, but think about the
ethics of the company you're supporting by buying such products. IMHO
such tactics are immoral.
Rarely is the price of a commodity a true reflection of it's inherent
value, and Microsoft products are surely the most typical example of
this, since IMHO they are worth zero ... less than that, in fact, since
Microsoft would have to pay *me* to use them ... and I'd still refuse.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "Computer games don’t affect kids, I mean if Pac man affected us as
| kids, we’d all be running around in darkened rooms, munching pills
| and listening to repetitive music." - Kristian Wilson, Nintendo
`----
Fedora release 7 (Moonshine) on sky, running kernel 2.6.21-1.3194.fc7
11:12:07 up 1 day, 10:06, 2 users, load average: 0.41, 0.34, 0.36
|
|
