Christoph Reuss wrote:
>
> Brad McCormick wrote:
> > I think that Microsoft should be required to disclose all their
> > APIs and make the source code and all internal documentation
> > available to all interested parties before it reached alpha
> > test stage and that the information should be kept up
> > to date in real time.
>
> This concept is also known as Open Source. Unfortunately, M$ has
> declared Open Source to be evil communism, and strictly rejects this
> concept for M$ software. (That's understandable, because this would
> be the end of M$.)
No, that is not what I am saying.
I am saying that Microsoft
should be required to make public its code. But it could
still *sell* its products! I happen to not be highly
impressed with "Open Source". I do not think it is "bad".
I just think it is not always the best way to go for
highly complex, "mission critical" software. I think that
there are good reasons to pay for software even if you
can get the software for free: the operative word here
is *support*. So maybe Microsoft should give away their
software for free, not because a court mandates it,
but because then they might "hook" even more
people into purchasing service contracts. But that
would be, as one say, a "business decision".
Where I work, we use Java ("SE") and the support from Sun is
not too much better than what we pay for it: $0.00.
I think Java is a pretty good computer programming
language, but I would sure like to see my employer
pay for it if that would result in our getting
the kind of service support I remember from IBM back in the
1970s.
[snip]
"Yours in discourse...."
\brad mccormick
--
Let your light so shine before men,
that they may see your good works.... (Matt 5:16)
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21)
<![%THINK;[SGML+APL]]> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Visit my website ==> http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
