>Yes they know their stuff and they dont tell everybody else. If the knowledge was available to everybody else then they would not be that big.
>They get their revenue from software sales. Service companies dont. I was speaking in narrow terms. Software selling companies treat software as >property, service companies dont. >Times change and better products and better techniques will always come along. In the software world the high end high cost product is always vulnerable >to the low cost low end product and the giants tend to ignore them. You notice how people laughed at google when they started? MS Word was low end when >>it came out but it eventually replaced word perfect. Now m$ is the high end and everybody have them as a terget. Apple is not safe from that either. >>>>They create user centered software systems but programmers are learning the lessons that apple missed and starting to use it to create even more user >friendly systems. >This is just the beginning. Open source based software developers are very good at adapting new technologies. The internet has changed the software >>>>development landscape and the giants are ignoring it. I can tell you how to make a sprinkler, can you compete with TYCO? Chances are you cant, no one can compete with them. Does this mean they no longer improve their products? They come out with new stuff every year. And this is coming from a company from the old economy. Software sales and industrial sales and food retailing etc follow the same rules of ecomomics as all products. Like you said the internet has changed everything, if the world no longer wants to buy software as a product and software companies cannot adapt then they deserve to close. It's a capitalist economy after all. High end and high cost items vulnerabilty against low cost low end items are not limited to the software world, do not think that the world revloves around software. MS and Apple may fal in the future but its not yet happening now. > The difference of the University of California is that it is a private > company, if it is a public school it is still governed by its charter, > they can do evrything as long as it is under their charter. Including > refusing [snipped...] > is not mandated that they use it etc. In fact if they do not use PC's > you really cant complain as long as the system works for them. They > are not required to use it. Like I said, it's a tool. Do not compare > the government to companies, it is inherently different no matter what way you put it. > > >In a broad sense yes. But thats totally irrelevant. How convenient. >Enough for someone to exist. not allowing them take control of their lives and their future? Not good. It maybe convenient but its true. There is no way you can run a government exactly the same as a company, they are different on many levels. _________________________________________________ Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List [email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
