Richard Tobin wrote:
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The GPL and Linux keeps Micro$oft out of hot water with the Antitrust
Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. Empowering Micro$oft to
maintain its hegemony in the U.S. software market without D.O.J.
interference is certainly triumphant evidence that the GPL works.
"The number of proprietary operating systems is growing, not shrinking,
so competition in this market continues quite apart from the fact that
the GPL ensures the future availability of Linux and other Unix
offshoots." Wallace v. IBM et al. (No. 06-2454)(7th Cir. 2006)
So what's your theory? That we shouldn't have alternative operating
systems, so that we can better claim that Microsoft is a monopoly?
In other news: "rjack" cuts his nose of to spite his face.
-- Richard
Let's state the irony of the situation in plainer terms. The so-called
"success" of the GPL that Free Software advocates like to claim is
actually the quickest path to defeat under Microsoft's rule.
The socialist "Free Software" dream of eliminating proprietary software
(think Microsoft) is an utter, abject failure. Despite a constant
drumbeat extolling the success of the GPL by Free Software advocates for
the past FIFTEEN YEARS, Microsoft happily rolls on to the tune of $5.9
billion net income last quarter.
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/071025/aqth132.html?.v=17
The FSFE preaches the glorious Linux-GPL sermon, all the while whining
about Microsoft and begging the EU Antitrust Commission to save their
sorry asses. When are these socialist folks going to wake-up and smell
the coffee? Remember the phrase "It's the economy stupid" during the
Bill Clinton campaign?
Well it's not the software stupid -- it's the business model.
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
