Re: [tlug] Re: Why Vista Sucks (was: linux: it's becoming ubiquitous)

["emiddleton@example.com" <emiddleton@example.com>]

Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> emiddleton@example.com writes:
>  > Attila Kinali wrote:
>  > > On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 04:23:40 +0900
>  > > "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com> wrote: 
>  > >   
>  > >> As Mark Shuttleworth pointed out bluntly at BALUG last week, whatever
>  > >> else you say about Microsoft, there's one thing you can't take away
>  > >> from them: they made software cheap for the masses.  This is not true
>  > >> of open source, not yet, and maybe never.
>  > 
>  > Probably just a slip up and he meant they "made cheap and nasty software 
>  > for the masses" ;)
>
> If there's a difference, I don't know what it is.  The masses have
> that; they do not have our allegedly vastly superior alternative.
>   

Well if you come to Fridays 飲み会 I will shout you a budweizer and we 
can talk about it ;)

If Microsoft has made software cheap for the masses then obviously it is 
cheap and so Linux can make it cheap.

But seriously, Microsoft were the cheapest option before Linux made it 
to the desktop and, for the masses, any change in the status quo is more 
effort then they are motivated to go through.  It is the same problem 
Microsoft now has with Vista, why bother, XP works.

>  > The advantage of the open source model is that they can have
>  > features implement irrespective of your business model.
>  > Customization might not be free, but it is a lot cheaper then
>  > reimplementing everything to add a couple of features.
>
> The only reason anybody would want to reimplement Microsoft Word is to
> remove features.  But that's why it is the most popular, because
> there's something there for everybody (except us, of course).
>   

Do you believe that was the motivation behind star office -> OpenOffice ?

Edward