Comments within:

> Jared Anderson said:
>> On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 05:15:23 -0700, Kevin writes:
>>>"I'm helping Microsoft to understand Open Source and community-based
>>> projects."
>>
>>
>> I find it hard to believe that Microsoft's intentions are to
>> "understand" - conquer, squash, or demolish seems the more appropriate
>> verb in that sentence.

A requirement to EFFECTIVELY conquer, squash or demolish is to first
thoroughly understand.

> I don't know about that.  What company wouldn't want the ability to
> harness a community as an unpaid labor force?
Not really as if you are unpaid you must have other motivation factors. 
In the Free Software world the biggest motivating factor is control.  For
example at work I am forced to do it the way the boss wants it done even
if I disagree with it.  In the Free Software world I get to do it the way
I wan't to do it and the community/user decides whether it is valid.

Microsoft will never be willing to allow volunteer developers to drive
design/development decisions.

>  I expect, as some point, MS
> will take the Sun approach and make an "open source" license that only
> allows code sharing with MS products.  Then they will open IE or some such
> product, wanting to harness a community to continue it's development.
No.  They want the community to harness it's SUPPORT.  That is what is
costly to them.  They would love to see support transferred to unpaid
worker bees.

> They then:
>  - Get to *appear* open.
To many "shared source" gave that illusion.  To many others they don't get
the value.

>  - Get publicity.
What is the phrase, "No such thing as bad press".

>  - Get no cost development work on something that is not a revenue source
> anyway.
Substitute development with support and I will agree with you.

> I'd expect something like that to happen in the next few years as MS is
> pressured to look more open.

As they lose more and more business they will be required to change.

> I don't think they will ever be Free, however.

Because of their stock valuation and share holders they will never be able
to be even remotely open.  They have to increase revenue streams by nearly
10% every year just to meet expectations.  They built their empire on
deceit and by screwing the customer.  There is no way for them to reverse
their ways and still keep the revenue flowing in.

To be fair.  Don't single out Microsoft.  The problem is picking on
Microsoft makes it sound like the problem is Microsoft.  When in reality
all proprietary software vendors have similar problems.  Oracle and Sun
for example are equally as bad as Microsoft when it comes to restricting
Freedom and gouging customers.  If we want to change the landscape we need
to educate consumers that they have rights and deserve to be treated
appropriately.  They need to use their wallets to regain control.

They need to stop giving money to proprietary software companies and start
supporting companies/organizations that promote and provide Free Software.
 We have to get off the notion that Free Software has anything to do with
price.  For any veterans that have served in a war to protect this country
can tell you.  FREEDOM IS EXPENSIVE.  We do a great disservice trying to
get people to drop proprietary software because it costs money. ;)

My two cent rant for the day..

-Derek


-Derek
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change  you mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss