Replies

As your comments show this is more related to a tech turnaround than any particular advantage Linux provides. IMO open source software like Linux gives U.S. trade secrets away by exposing it's code and allowing free duplication, and we would be much better served selling them closed source software for a higher profit. Further development and growth of Windows, Unix, Apple, any of those would be preferrable to us continuing to squander our technological advantage by investing further into the Finnish virus.

Linux is the end of the software and computer industries in the US. It will all be chinese made hardware and open source software dominated by Indian programmers.

As your comments show this is more related to a tech turnaround than any particular advantage Linux provides. IMO open source software like Linux gives U.S. trade secrets away by exposing it's code and allowing free duplication, and we would be much better served selling them closed source software for a higher profit. Further development and growth of Windows, Unix, Apple, any of those would be preferrable to us continuing to squander our technological advantage by investing further into the Finnish virus.

We are 25% of the world economy. The #2 economy in the world is China. Sticking with closed, proprietary software is pissing upwind. We would end up a backwater, with higher costs.

Further development and growth of Windows, Unix, Apple, any of those would be preferrable to us continuing to squander our technological advantage by investing further into the Finnish virus.

Ignorance is not bliss for those of us listening to it.

First, it appears that it isn't the "Finnish virus" you hate, but the idea of open source software, of which Linux is only one example. The idea of open source software, and the GPL license that governs much of it, is wholly an American invention, espousing those very American traditions of volunteerism and free intellectual discourse.

Second, you would prefer Apple to be sold? Okay, because the basis of their entire operating system is open source software.

IMO open source software like Linux gives U.S. trade secrets away by ....

WHOSE trade secrets? One of your main arguments against Linux was that is was written and controlled by FOREIGN nationals.

You really oughta get a consistant viewpoint and stick with it.

Railing against Linux is pointless, in our Free Market people and organizations are allowed to buy and sell (or give away) legal goods and services.

You seem to think that my clients (small businesses) that are the backbone of the economy are worse off purchasing hardware and utilizing open source software. I just cannot see it that way. If I can decrease the cost of a project by 20% using a mix of open source and MS my clients have money to invest in more of my services, or buy better hardware or buy a new office chair. The point is that those savings in software will be spent in other areas of the economy, just not with MS. No big deal.

BTW - Open Source does not mean "free" exclusively. You will find that as the market grows more and more open soucre will be sold at 50% or more of current falling MS products - because while the "community" touts free exchange or ideas, they all need to eat and buy cars and so on.

Further - I am writing this from a W2K box, I own more than one W2K license. I also have a Fedora box and Open Office, which I personally do not like for a home PC much. They have a lot of work to do before Linux is as easy and intuitive as XP or W2K. People will pay for connivance, the only question is how high that price is, as MS is finding out.

No worries, the Market works.

we would be much better served selling them closed source software for a higher profit.

If you weren't such a Microsoft butt-boy you would be able to see this article from HP's point of view, which is that not having to pay Microsoft for a Windows license means that HP gets to sell all that stuff and keep the money for itself, instead of sending a big chunk of it off to Microsoft. That looks like "higher profit" to them. It's just lower profit for Microsoft. But why should HP care about Microsoft? HP is in business to make money for HP's shareholders... not Microsoft's.

Capitalism is not about making Microsoft better off. It's about allocating scarce resources to their highest-valued uses. Apparently operating systems are no longer one of the highest-valued uses for programming talent. That doesn't mean we've run out of problems to solve; it just means that the thing that made Microsoft rich is turning into a commodity. So they need to learn a new trick. Big deal. It happens to everybody sooner or later. IBM was probably pissed when the bottom fell out of the punched-card tabulation machine business. They at least got off their duffs and learned a new trick. Microsoft should do the same. Nothing lasts forever. The Windowed GUI is 20 years old now. How long did they think that was gonna hold up as a "leading edge" high-profit item?