| From: | Alex Satrapa <alex(at)lintelsys(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Postgresql Advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Will Open Source be forced to go Proprietary |
| Date: | 2004-01-08 22:20:44 |
| Message-ID: | 3FFDD7BC.9040009@lintelsys.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
Rod Taylor wrote:
> Discussion about OpenSource projects moving to support Windows.
[link]
This article was WOFTAM (Waste of Time And Money).
The article asks if open source projects will be "forced to go
proprietary" without describing what "proprietary" means. I'm not sure
the author really understands the software "industry".
One of the telling comments is that the author confuses "published" with
"open" - Microsoft has indeed "published" the XML schema for it's new
range of Microsoft Office products, but the patent it has applied for
implies that the schema is not "open". Software can be "proprietary"
without being "closed".
It seems to me that someone was writing for a deadline, not an audience.
However, one single grain of truth emerged: "Most people don't care
about helping out Windows". Why would we? We already support the stable
and trustworthy computing platforms.
Regards
Alex Satrapa
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2004-01-08 22:30:09 | Re: A cohesive sales message |
| Previous Message | Rob Napier | 2004-01-08 22:16:10 | Re: A cohesive sales message |