On 2008-11-26, Sandeep Kumar <deep8391720122@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 22:05:37 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>> On 2008-11-25, Sandeep Kumar <deep8391720122@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 18:28:36 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Sandeep Kumar belched out
>>>> this bit o' wisdom:
>>>>> On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 12:38:14 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>> lame.Notice that the top tier Linux applications are the ones which have
>>> Windows versions as well although in my experience the Linux versions seem
>>> to work better such as openoffice for example.
>> Free Software can percolate into anywhere even including VMS and Atari.
>> It's pretty obvious that good Free Software is going to be available
>> pretty much universally since anyone interested in it can port it.
> My objection is to the poorly veiled attempts at associating free software
> like firefox, and it's success with Linux when in fact the success of
> firefox is directy related to not only it's superiority to IE but in fact
> the Windows platform.IOW without Windows firefox would be no place.
Without conquering the Windows platform, it would certainly be
less useful. In this respect, Windows is as much a barrier as any
Free Software is inherently multi-platform. Increased dominance
of Free Software means that the lock in of Windows is diminished.
Firefox in particular was the result of Netscape Corp being
convinced to do things more like Linux. Firefox is infact the
OSS poster boy.
Linux: because everyone should get to drink the beer of their |||
choice and not merely be limited to pretensious imports or hard cider. / | \
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services