On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Peter Neves wrote: > So, are you're saying that since they have so many shareholders, > institutional and individual alike, that these shareholders need to > convice the organizations they work for to stick with their proprietary > MS software, even if it is not in the best interests of the organization > itself, merely to keep the stock price 'propped up'?
I think that was Micro$haft's intent, with the warning in their SEC filing. It sounds a bit sado-masochistic to me. Fred > Fred Ramsing wrote: > > On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Ryan Finnie wrote: > > > >>The whole "Government Security Program" is a laugh though... they're > >>scared because of the penetration of linux in government, and are adopting > >>a "sure, they give away souce and are free, but we'll let you look at some > >>of our source and we're a big company, so we're better!" stance. > > > > > > That's not the half of it. Micro$haft is warning all investors that if > > open source software succeed, tech revenues and stocks will plummet > > starting with Micro$haft. Therefore, according to their warning (or > > threat), it is in the best interests of investors to stick with > > proprietary, platform-dependent, and backwards technology. Kind of like > > saying that if you owned stock in typewriter companies in the 1970's and > > 1980's that you shouldn't have purchased PC's when they came out. > > > > Given their share as a Fortune500, I consider Micro$haft's statement to be > > a deliberate threat. > > > > My $0.02. > > > > > > Fred > > > > _______________________________________________ > > RLUG mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://www.rlug.org/mailman/listinfo/rlug > > > > > > _______________________________________________ RLUG mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.rlug.org/mailman/listinfo/rlug
