DJA wrote:
The presumption seemed to be that Office was already in hand, as was
Windows, and that there was a desire/need to use Linux as a functional
replacement for Windows - for whatever reason.
I don't recall that presumption at all. The question was simply what
can Windows do that Linux cannot.
Furthermore, this presumption is particularly bad in places where it
matters most--at the high and low ends.
At the high end, a corporation *must* be compliant or a visit from the
BSA Gestapo will be very expensive. If I cannot dump Windows
completely, there is probably very little incentive to dump it at all
for most corporations.
At the low end, let's choose public schools. These folks cannot afford
even the OEM version as it would have to be upgraded repeatedly.
Consequently, they cannot have Windows in system. This means that
schools cannot view WMV3 media content--a format which is becoming the
de facto standard.
Why must everything be couched in competitive terms. Everything is *not*
like a war. And in case you don't get out to many sporting events, there
are indeed prizes given for second place. And even third place.
Because Microsoft sees this in *very* stark competitive terms?
The *only* victory condition is to finally move Microsoft to a position
that it is not the dominant OS. Until then, Microsoft sets the de facto
standards and can perpetuate itself.
-a
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
