DJA wrote:
Andrew Lentvorski wrote:
Because Microsoft sees this in *very* stark competitive terms?
I see it more as a historically recent national obsession. It seems to
have started approximately at the start of the War on Drugs(tm).
That may be true, but it does not make Microsoft any less agressive.
But how do you remove Microsoft from a position of dominance without
moving other options in to fill that space? I thought that's what we
were talking about!
"Linux can be used as a Windows replacement on the desktop."
"But we can't because we need some of these Windows apps."
"They'll run on Linux."
Close: "They'll run on Linux, but we need a Windows license."
"Then we might as well use Windows."
"I thought we wanted an alternative to Windows!"
"We do."
"Linux is an alternative."
You were fine to here ...
"But no one will use it because Windows is the dominant player on the
desktop."
Close: "But Linux doesn't let me run *that* without Windows."
"Then Windows must be dethroned. We'll do it with Linux."
"But we can't because we need some of these Windows apps."
Yes, you summed it up pretty nicely.
This circular dependency is *exactly* why Microsoft is fighting so hard
against OpenDocument in Massachusetts. Once Microsoft has to adhere to
OpenDocument, vendors can claim "100% compliance" with Microsoft rather
than just "99.9%" compliance. Then, the customer can migrate gradually
rather than having to flip the switch all at once.
-a
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
