Another M$ is evil thread.

[Tagrineth]

as for MS being good or bad, I think that the industry really benefited from them...

Aye. MS unifying PC's gave hardware and software vendors specific, common, large-user-base targets to shoot for. That's basically what I'm saying... I don't care how necessary MS is today, but they -greatly- facilitated PC development.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

If they are successfull they get their return on investment ... just dont let companies get too successfull.

Right...because success=evil.

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

If they are successfull they get their return on investment ... just dont let companies get too successfull.

Right...because success=evil.

In todays world? You hit the nail right on the head.

 

[Sage]

If they are successfull they get their return on investment ... just dont let companies get too successfull.

exactly. a large corporation with the resources to back new markets is a really big help, however once the market gets established having that corporation hld a monopoly is a bad thing. As long as they are creating useful products that are competitive then I am happpy to have them participate, but once they begin to stagnate (like with PC's) they either need to come up with something revolutionary (I actually do have hopes for Longhorn being an excellent OS) or stop throwing their weight around to keep smaller, but more useful products out.

 

[MfA]

Right...because success=evil.

Everything can be done to excess ...

It all depends on wether you see the market based economy as a means to a cause or not.

 

[notAFanB]

If they are successfull they get their return on investment ... just dont let companies get too successfull.

Right...because success=evil.

there is no implicit reason why this is so obviously, however experience (and paranoia) tells us differently.

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

Just to let you know guys. If I were in Bill Gates's shoes I would be a lot worse. If someone tells me that I have to comply with anti-competetive laws I would freak, close down the whole business and let the world suffer with beta versions of Windows 98.

Try and put yourself in Gates's shoes.

 

[Sage]

Try and put yourself in Gates's shoes.

gates has no passion for technology, he enjoys being so rich that he could afford to higher George Bush's wife as a whore if he wanted (not that ANYONE would want that...) and he will do anything to keep that status.

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

Try and put yourself in Gates's shoes.

gates has no passion for technology, he enjoys being so rich that he could afford to higher George Bush's wife as a whore if he wanted (not that ANYONE would want that...) and he will do anything to keep that status.

Now tell me that's something you woulnd't like? Of course I still want to program, regardless of how rich I am. Coding is fun.

 

[ByteMe]

Just to let you know guys. If I were in Bill Gates's shoes I would be a lot worse. If someone tells me that I have to comply with anti-competetive laws I would freak, close down the whole business and let the world suffer with beta versions of Windows 98.

Try and put yourself in Gates's shoes.

That would hurt for a year or two. After that the world would be much better off.

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

Writing a fully working OS takes a very large development team and much more than 2 years of work. Just look at how long it had taken Microsoft to get up to Win2K.

 

[ByteMe]

Writing a fully working OS takes a very large development team and much more than 2 years of work. Just look at how long it had taken Microsoft to get up to Win2K.

I am not suggesting a completely new OS would be written. Linux could be pushed forward and polished up a bit for more general use. I see it going to linux someday anyways.

If Linux had maybe 20 Billion a year more pumped into it, what do you think would happen?

 

[notAFanB]

I am not suggesting a completely new OS would be written. Linux could be pushed forward and polished up a bit for more general use. I see it going to linux someday anyways.

it is being pushed forward and further development, via openSource.


if you want a user friendly way of selling it try GNOME/KDE

If Linux had maybe 20 Billion a year more pumped into it, what do you think would happen?

not much unless MS suddenly decides to move Office over to *nix.

 

[ByteMe]

not much unless MS suddenly decides to move Office over to *nix.

What? You don't think 20 Billion would make a fairly large dent into Windows?

Part of my speculation is helped by what China is doing. They are going to be a major driving force for Linux, IMO.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

If Linux had maybe 20 Billion a year more pumped into it, what do you think would happen?

I'd be willing to bet that Linux already has a similar amount (or more) of "man hours" being pumped into it than Windows does.

Now, if you're talking about the money itself...then I'll tell you what would happen...(at least according to all the "success=evil" folks here) the ones pumping in the money, are going to want a reutrn on their investment, and Linux would be "doomed to being another monopolizing force".

 

[MfA]

What they want is irrelevant, Linux is irrevocably a GPL project owned by so many people it is impossible to ever get the latest version under a different license ... and you arent going to build a monopoly on the GPL, no matter how many millions you pump in.

Open source companies live by the grace of customer satisfaction and services. Building on past success by ever increasing customer lock-in with closed source products "good enough" to never justify enough people to jump ship, and retaining defacto standard status of your proprietary standards and formats, is not an option ... which seems not an altogether bad thing.

Personally I find the open standards implicit in open source the most important aspect of it though, not the actual source code ... I dont necessarily want a GPL OS, I just want the potential for competition.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

What they want is irrelevant, Linux is irrevocably a GPL project owned by so many people it is impossible to ever get the latest version under a different license ... and you arent going to build a monopoly on the GPL, no matter how many millions you pump in.

That's my point, actually. the question of "what would happen if billions of dollars was pumped into it" is basically irrelevant. If it "could" be pumped in, Linux would not be what is...

 

[Legion]

What they want is irrelevant, Linux is irrevocably a GPL project owned by so many people it is impossible to ever get the latest version under a different license ... and you arent going to build a monopoly on the GPL, no matter how many millions you pump in.

That's my point, actually. the question of "what would happen if billions of dollars was pumped into it" is basically irrelevant. If it "could" be pumped in, Linux would not be what is...

Of course not. People ignore the hypocrisy of the linux industry.

 

[MfA]

Which would be?

 

[notAFanB]

What? You don't think 20 Billion would make a fairly large dent into Windows?

compared to the global cost of mirgrating from Office/MS tools? not to mention the fact that MS wuoldn;t exactly be resting on their laurels if a threat in this manner actually turned up?

Part of my speculation is helped by what China is doing. They are going to be a major driving force for Linux, IMO.

to be fair this is true, the entrenchment of MS products is reduced which allows them to do this rather well.