Perhaps I could express the user argument in slightly different terms. I use an 8 year old operating system myself and will soon be migrating to Ubuntu. The customer systems I am constructing next week will also be Linux based. This I do because I do not appreciate being held hostage by companies that I do business with. It is a matter of principle. The endless upgrade treadmill is a faux pas method of deceitfully extracting customer income by force and is a business model that is soon destined to come to it's long awaited demise.
Folks who write good code that is meant to last and be fairly unbreakable, while operating within the user hostile environment that Microsoft platforms represent, find that they have to write a few more of their own API's. I also still use 10 to 14 year old programs that I paid good money for, that still do what I need them to, because they were programmed in such an ethical fashion. If I were working for Google I would embrace the open source community far more openly than fickle partners like Microsoft. To help Chrome begin to work expediently on Windows 2000 would only take a single expression of cooperative intent towards the open source community. Yes, we are thankful that the source is openly available, but a spirit of cooperation would go much farther than the antagonistic attitude seen to date. The open source community will do the rest for you. Patiently and kindly and also for free. That's what they do. sfrahm --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-dev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
