For some reason, it appears that a support.microsoft.com URL was "censored" and did not reach Tim. Here it is again (repeated 3x):
1. http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=http://support.microsoft.com:80/support/kb/articles/Q306/8/19.ASP 2. http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=http://support.microsoft.com:80/support/kb/articles/Q306/8/19.ASP 3. http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=http://support.microsoft.com:80/support/kb/articles/Q306/8/19.ASP On Mon, 23 Feb 2004, Andrew Ho wrote: > On Mon, 24 Feb 2004, Tim Churches wrote: > ... > > matter of pure practicality - in order to undertake really complex > > projects, you need a team of people who can immerse themselves in the > > project, > ... > > Tim, > There is no debate that people are needed. However, how the team come > together and operate are quite different between free and non-free > projects. > > ... > > > For example, both IBM and Microsoft are already open-source software > > > providers. > > > > Microsoft? > > Microsoft provides open-source software through Windows XP, for example: > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=http://support.microsoft.com:80/support/kb/articles/Q306/8/19.ASP > > ... > > > There is no permanent division between "they" and "us". We are all trying > > > to solve real world problems. Alliances and relationships will change over > > > time. If Oracle employees know better how to deal with certain tasks, then > > > they should do that part of the project. > > > > Quite so, and that's why implementations of an open source hospital > > system may still costs a substantial slice of that $450 million, because > > those Oracle people generally don't work on a volunteer basis. > > Most of us do not work substantially on a volunteer (= not financially > compensated) basis either. > > This confusion between free/open-source methodology and "volunteerism" is > quite misleading and counter-productive. Unfortunately, many free software > developers are reluctant to refute this error. It is rather difficult to > expend effort insisting that you are not making a "donation" when you > contribute code to a free software project. > > Free/open-source solutions offer lower "Total Cost of Ownership" _NOT_ > because free software developers perform work for no pay. Instead, free > (as in speech) solutions are less costly because > 1) less need for lawyers > 2) better communication between developers and users > 3) more code re-use > 4) easier to support and maintain > 5) potentially larger market penetration > > Best regards, > > Andrew > --- > Andrew P. Ho, M.D. > OIO: Open Infrastructure for Outcomes > www.TxOutcome.Org >
