On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 16:39:46 -0400, DFS wrote:
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> Charging for GNU/Linux is not the answer
>
> LMAO! They're delusional - you can't give that substandard stuff away.
>
> If any Linux vendor wants installed share, they're going to have to pay
> people to use Linux. Exceedingly few users will willingly switch from
> their comfortable, superior Windows apps to a freeware-clone-hack, just
> to save a few $.
You are laughably stupid. Maybe you explain to Novel, Red Hat Mandriva,
Sun, etc, that no one is using OSS. They might be suprised.
>
>
>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>> Another danger of getting into the pricing bun-fight is that it is
>>> clearly Microsoft territory. They would probably love it if free
>>> software started to try and compete on their terms. The scary part of
>>> free software for Microsoft is that it doesn't compete on their terms
>>> - it tells users that those terms are wrong and unfair
>
> But MS terms - no source code, pay for each copy on each computer, no
> copying and no distributing - are not wrong or unfair, except to
> freetards who want everything given to them. Only a true loser and
> lowlife expects MS (or other software houses) to give their work away
> for free.
Really? Volunteer firefighters, hospital personnel, EMS personnel, etc
are all lowlife losers? You might want to tel them that when you see them.
>
>
>
>>> and it
>>> offers an entirely different approach. That approach - giving freedom
>>> to users (and thus preventing them becoming blind-consumers
>
> Another lie that Linux lusers have to tell themselves in their never
> ending list of excuses for Linux failure. It's a variation of the cola
> idiot tactic of labeling consumers "stupid".
Some are stupid. Many are just ignorant and/or misinformed.
>
>
>
>>> - is what scares Microsoft and their compatriots. They can't compete
>>> with it
>
> Yes they can compete with no-cost software, and in fact they usually win
> by offering superior code:
>
> MS Office vs OpenOffice> Outlook vs Evolution
> Visio vs Dia (and Kivio)
> Oracle vs PostgreSQL
> MS Visual Studio vs KDevelop
> MS Visual Basic vs Gambas
> MS Money vs gnucash
> Adobe Photoshop vs Gimp
> Crysis vs Nexuiz
>
> etc
> etc
> etc
Most of those Microsoft offerings are only superior only if you need
specific features. OpenOffice is fine for the overwhelming number of
office suite users. Oracle is not a Microsoft product, and it is
distributed with a Linux based distribution. So, does Ellison and company
fit your lowlife loser description. Gimp is fine for a large number of
people eeding to edit graphics. If they need certain features, however,
yes some will need Photoshop.
etc
etc
etc
>
>
>
>>> --this why all their opposition comes in other forms: patents,
>>> "intellectual property" and good old FUD.
>
> Better that than the flat-out lies of the Linux "community."
.. what about your flatout lies?
>
>
>
>> http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/columns/
>> charging_for_linux_not_the_answer
>>
>> Services. Integration. Not acquisition of licence for use.
>
> See Xandros. See Novell. See RedHat.
What about them? People are paying them. The are Linux related
organizations.
--
Rick
|
|
