Sridhar Dhanapalan wrote: > As an aside, it's interesting how you have gone to the trouble > of 'translating' my comments into American ;)
Sorry, I was spell checking my own stuff and must have done some of yours as well. (I still can't get over the fact that mine and everyone else's software is so damn user hostile. Why can't I tell the spell checker to only check what I wrote and ignore what I'm quoting? Why can't my mail client do Reply-To-List?) > Think: IBM. Once the Big Bad Wolf of the IT industry, and champion of > proprietary technologies and closed thinking, they have dramatically altered > their image within a short period of time. Who would've thunk it? My knowledge of the history with IBM is poor, but it is my understanding that IBM modified its behaviour first and then a decade later (1999 or so) got involved with Linux. Microsoft's blatant attempt at subverting the standards process over OOXML took place a mere months ago as did the OLPC/Nigeria episode. There is no sign whatsoever that this 8000 pound leopard has changed its spots. > If we close ourselves off to these possibilities, we will not only be > forsaking our principles, we will also be doing ourselves a major disservice. > > Erik, your thoughts are all very valid, and I'd be stupid not to be thinking > them too. With that said, I do believe strongly in keeping an open door, in > line with what I perceive to be our ethos. I am reminded of this: "Cross me once, shame on you, cross me twice, shame on me" Microsoft has shown so much ill-will towards Linux that I want to see it show some good will before I all that willing to listen. Good will is not coming to a LUG meeting and pushing microsoft's agenda. Good will is doing something that costs Microsoft and benefits Linux and FOSS far more than it benefits Microsoft. Erik -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Erik de Castro Lopo ----------------------------------------------------------------- "Safety versus Expressiveness is a false dichotomy -- you can have both. Compare ObjectiveCaml with CeePlusPlus: OCaml obtains expressiveness without compromising safety, while C++ obtains it by throwing away safety. The latter is just bad design." -- David Hopwood -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
