On Friday 27 January 2006 18:16, Bryce Harrington wrote: > You could imagine a table with several columns, with "Windows/Closed" on > the left, "100% open source" on the right, and the columns in between > showing the in-between options, perhaps with some sort of color code to > indicate risk levels for options that aren't considered to be "good > enough" alternatives.
Too complicated. This strongly implies to anyone who can be bothered to read it, or even knows it exists, that the alternatives are not good enough. If you are promoting desktop Linux it is up to *you* to make sure the alternatives are good enough, not users, ISVs or businesses. *Do not* use the word 'risk'. If you are confident then that will transmit to potential users, and many companies promoting desktop Linux fail because of this. In many cases their caginess over desktop Linux is justified unfortunately. You also need to look at the issues of moving people to these applications, the most important being the accurate conversion of proprietary formats. Converting back is a non-issue, and you're on to a loser anyway technologically speaking with closed proprietary formats. David
_______________________________________________ Desktop_architects mailing list [email protected] https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop_architects
