On Wed, 2003-08-06 at 13:27, Philip Charles wrote: > On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Zane Gilmore wrote: > > > The only speaker that was really negative about OSS was... guess ;-/ > > But even he wouldn't all out slag it off because then he would have lost > > credibility. > > > > ComputerWorld has more or less accused us of wimping out and not really > > "hooking into" the M$ guy. > > http://computerworld.co.nz/webhome.nsf/UNID/4EFB6A2E16B720DCCC256D7800828E4A!opendocument > > I don't think that would have achieved much. It would have probably just > > alienated the suits that we want to like us. :-) > > ComputerWorld lost a story. The standard advice in these situations is to > ignore such a person. If you do this then your adversary has no reason to > reply and is forced to stay silent. >
I'm sorry Phil, I don't understand. Do you think we should have leapt in boots and all or try to quietly subvert him? The big problem with going at it "hammer and tongs" as a couple of people tried to do was they just looked like they were impertinent young boys or ponderous twits. As they chose some of the wrong points like browser-OS bundling which IMO is not much of an issue anymore. (at least compared to "shared source" or SCO) Their hearts were in the right place but they needed to choose their issues a little more carefully. The reporters completely ignored them obviously. -- ---------------------------------------------------- Regards, Zane Gilmore (Linux nerd since 1998) ____________________________________________________ Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.:- A.C.Clark ____________________________________________________
