"Thufir Hawat" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:20:07 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
Are you aware that (old versions) of Windows source are out there?
Your wish is just pie-in-the sky. This whole thing goes back to
visicalc, I believe.
That is more handwaving, I think. Can you point to a site that actually
contains Windows source from some old version?
I believe that the source was leaked years ago, of course it would be
piracy to have it, which is the point. So, no, you can't find a site to
download it. A dedicated warez type could find it, I'm sure.
This is now the point of contention?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_2000_source_leak
So there is no verifiable source then. Even so, suppose there was. Do you
think that anyone would want to use an ersatz verison of Win2k in lieu of a
more modern version? My point is that the bulk of commercial use is focused
on the new stuff and without the brand and without the latest bells and
whistles, there is very little interest in the old stuff at any price. I
presume you yourself are among the COLA advocates who insist that Ubuntu is
superion to XP or Vista or both? Why isn't the world using it then?
Answer: Because the world does not believe that to be the case and very few
are becoming convinced. There is quite a bit more to success than just
having a better mousetrap and Linux has not even established that much to
the satisfaction of those who know about such things.
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
