> Another point, I would like to express is that, in my previous > correspondence. I said that "commercial software competes" with open > source software. The subject of that sentence was "commercial software". I > did not imply otherwise. It is a true statement if you look at the > efforts in the past to make OSS less successful. I am a true believer > about turning in and doing as best as you can.
I understood your point, my argument was that while commercial software competes on their own terms with OS software, OS software is often (not always, thanks Craig) pursuing different goals than sucess as measured by market share, and is not strictly competing. Craig also made the important point that OS software is increasing being used in commercial products, and companies such as my own make our business work through the competitive margins provided by the use of OS software over our competitors who use expensive licensed software to deliver the same results, OS is not seperate from commercial IT, just different. The loose association of people who make up the Open Source phenomenon couldn't change the world, there isn't enough organisation and there would never be agreement. A commercial enterprise can pay people to change the world (or to try to). The best OS can do is to influence individual people, one at a time. d. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
