On 3/10/05 5:17 AM, "Lars D. Nood�n" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Ian Lynch wrote: > [...] >> Again why pay for this and go through the hassle of license admin. and >> threats from the BSA/FAST when you can just use OOo? A client told me >> that they got a threatening contact from someone claiming to have >> information that they had unlicensed software. > [...] > > I like Sterling Ball's way of dealing with extortion: > > "Rockin' on without Microsoft." CNET. 2003-08-20. > http://news.com.com/2008-1082_3-5065859.html?tag=lh Im sure this has been said before, but if he thinks Microsoft owns any part of Apple (beyond just having the leverage to pull MSO from the platform) he obviously didn't do his homework before migrating to Linux. Not that I have a problem with his choice, it just amazes me how these people can make big decisions without even bothering to get basic facts right. > 1999/2000 MS was able to turn marketing over to a loyal servant or two in > each IT dept and then supplement this with BSA/FAST. This enabled them to > get their message through to purchasers from both the top and bottom. It > also enable them to shift some of their core competency from marketing (it > has't been IT since the 80's) to lobbying and, lately, politics. Politics > seems the direction it will pursue: > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01/21/ms_nto/ > > MS hasn't been able to compete on technical merits since the mid 90's so > they have been trying to make it technically and legally imposible for > others to do anything. It depends what you call technical merits. In my mind they have never competed on technical merits, but that's never stopped them. On the other hand, all the "tentaclating" they like to do with their products is definitely a sticking point. Its one thing to be able to read nearly all of their file format, entirely another to be able to replace them from top to bottom, piece by piece, with an OSS solution. So I guess you could call that integration a technical merit, if that's what you are looking for. Unfortunately that integration is a hurdle to overcome (because they make it hard to replace one piece and keep the whole working). That's one great thing about OOo though, especially as time goes on and the ecosystem increases in size and diversity, you will be able to create open integrated solutions instead of closed ones. > Unfortunately, by killing off the competition, they also killed off the > marketing money from the competition and now most computer magazines have > been relegated to fanzines for Bill. Short of trying to outspend Bill in > advertising, projects like OOo Marketing are very important in getting the > word out about great options that people otherwise wouldn't hear about. I don't think Ive seen that - I think people are fairly critical of Microsoft in the tech press. Their software is certainly a lot better than it was in the 90s - even if most of the features aren't ones that will be used by people or aren't particularly innovative. I don't think anyone can deny that Windows XP is a far better OS in a number of ways than Windows 98 was, same goes for Exchange 2003 versus say 5, or Office (it might be a million little changes, but set them side by side sometime and dig in), or just about anything else they make. Too bad for Microsoft they have to charge so much for their product in order to get the required profits - for the 90 percent of the people that don't need MSO feature X OO is just as good or better (as you mentioned, open file formats - probably the most important thing about OO in terms of selling to CIOs), and it costs a whole lot less. Tony --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
