Okay. I understand. You think that the operating system you choose doesn't matter. That's all. I think it does, you know.
You have a tool (a system) that you can use to get your job done, and I imagine that you got it at no cost or paying a reasonable prize for it. But different people always have different needs, and, depending on what software they are using, could end being dependent on this software. Yes, you can get a tool that "owns" you. And people wants to be free. Call it religion, rights or whatever you want, but I want freedom, and in order to get it, I have to make the right decisions along the way, OS included.
Because people at this site attach exaggerated importance to the choice of one's operating system when it really doesn't matter. Of course it matters. You should know that a big number of users for certain technology surely makes it better, because the efforts of those users to have something reliable.
Not for nothing Windows is the system that covers most of the needs of every computer user, and Google is the best search engine around.
You speak like those Windows zealots who think that currently everything is fine with the IT market. It's not, and many things should change to have it in the way that we the users really want.
We're talking about embracing and extending open source software, that is, software having one of the new licenses from Microsoft. Of course, as you stated, embracing and extending standards with closed software applications is much more negative, but that's not we're discussing here. What are the chances of doing the same with these new licenses?
...any company that had any confidence in itself would simply use that confidence with some backbone and produce a high quality product that people would prefer to use. You are wrong. They don't want a high quality product that people would prefer to use, they want a product that people be forced to use. They don't want a standard that everybody be able to implement in their software. They just want to be the only company having that privilege, just as always were.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay. I understand. You think that the operating system you choose doesn't matter. That's all. I think it does, you know.
You have a tool (a system) that you can use to get your job done, and I imagine that you got it at no cost or paying a reasonable prize for it. But different people always have different needs, and, depending on what software they are using, could end being dependent on this software. Yes, you can get a tool that "owns" you. And people wants to be free. Call it religion, rights or whatever you want, but I want freedom, and in order to get it, I have to make the right decisions along the way, OS included.
Not for nothing Windows is the system that covers most of the needs of every computer user, and Google is the best search engine around.
You speak like those Windows zealots who think that currently everything is fine with the IT market. It's not, and many things should change to have it in the way that we the users really want.
We're talking about embracing and extending open source software, that is, software having one of the new licenses from Microsoft. Of course, as you stated, embracing and extending standards with closed software applications is much more negative, but that's not we're discussing here. What are the chances of doing the same with these new licenses?
...any company that had any confidence in itself would simply use that confidence with some backbone and produce a high quality product that people would prefer to use. You are wrong. They don't want a high quality product that people would prefer to use, they want a product that people be forced to use. They don't want a standard that everybody be able to implement in their software. They just want to be the only company having that privilege, just as always were.Hahaha, I see. But, why everybody shows always the same image?
:)
MakeZine
Engadget
and
Textually
Someone has another archive image? Not better, only different!