Report Offensive Message
It did?
How did an Open-source vs. proprietary software post turn into a Microsoft bashing article?
Did it? Anything non-factual in there? Is there any particular argument you have against Chad's conclusions or opinions?
I'm not going to bother justifying or argueing the points that have been made against the evil Microsoft Corporation....
So, no facts to the contrary, then. Excellent.
That being said, I don't necessarily agree with the idea that the end user is being ripped off by a company who does not open their source code to the world.
The latter had no bearing on the former in the article.
Part of that problem itself is because so many folks pirate the software, the vendor has to increase prices to cover the shrinkage in profits.
Economic silliness. If one charges far too much for an infinite good, people will infringe on it. If one charges less, say, somewhere near what the product is worth plus a little profit, one will sell far more units, increase profits, and spend less resources worrying about the far fewer infringing users. Besides, MS in particular finds it quite useful to have Windows infringes upon in places where IT is still developing. Hook 'em young.
So now, to the point of open-sourced users who pay more, isn't it defeating the entire point of this article. If folks are willing to pay more to use something non-Microsoft, why is Microsoft still selling like hotcakes?
What and what? I don't see the relation on either count. But the second sentence really reminds me of the canard, if man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys , in form if nothing else.
Sure, their numbers, and PC's in general, may have dipped, (etc.)
I don't think any claim was made about this.
So your point is well made that many users are switching from software that they cannot develop on their own or change to open-source
I really don't think that point was in there.
Most end users I know of want something that is off the shelf ready and can run, not having to have every possible plug in installed or enabled.
Most people are like that. What is your point here?
Lastly, I can align myself with many open-source proponents in that the software market is shifting, violently at times. More and more are popular pieces built by smaller houses than before, and the big guys are trying to both compete, as well as make their quarterly earnings for as long as they can. But remember, even Microsoft, Symantec, and the other big, closed-source companies were small at one time, and basically would've given their stuff away to get it out there.
Are you saying that open source proponents (why them in particular?) are saying that the market is shifting violently? And that you can agree with this? Let me know what I got it wrong, and can you clarify the relationship of this to how the users of the different software business models show a generosity differential in a pay what you want business model available to those platforms?
I won't bother to justify or argue the remaining just-so story-like list of tropes/memes/stereotypes/clichés.
Did it? Anything non-factual in there? Is there any particular argument you have against Chad's conclusions or opinions?
I'm not going to bother justifying or argueing the points that have been made against the evil Microsoft Corporation....
So, no facts to the contrary, then. Excellent.
That being said, I don't necessarily agree with the idea that the end user is being ripped off by a company who does not open their source code to the world.
The latter had no bearing on the former in the article.
Part of that problem itself is because so many folks pirate the software, the vendor has to increase prices to cover the shrinkage in profits.
Economic silliness. If one charges far too much for an infinite good, people will infringe on it. If one charges less, say, somewhere near what the product is worth plus a little profit, one will sell far more units, increase profits, and spend less resources worrying about the far fewer infringing users. Besides, MS in particular finds it quite useful to have Windows infringes upon in places where IT is still developing. Hook 'em young.
So now, to the point of open-sourced users who pay more, isn't it defeating the entire point of this article. If folks are willing to pay more to use something non-Microsoft, why is Microsoft still selling like hotcakes?
What and what? I don't see the relation on either count. But the second sentence really reminds me of the canard, if man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys , in form if nothing else.
Sure, their numbers, and PC's in general, may have dipped, (etc.)
I don't think any claim was made about this.
So your point is well made that many users are switching from software that they cannot develop on their own or change to open-source
I really don't think that point was in there.
Most end users I know of want something that is off the shelf ready and can run, not having to have every possible plug in installed or enabled.
Most people are like that. What is your point here?
Lastly, I can align myself with many open-source proponents in that the software market is shifting, violently at times. More and more are popular pieces built by smaller houses than before, and the big guys are trying to both compete, as well as make their quarterly earnings for as long as they can. But remember, even Microsoft, Symantec, and the other big, closed-source companies were small at one time, and basically would've given their stuff away to get it out there.
Are you saying that open source proponents (why them in particular?) are saying that the market is shifting violently? And that you can agree with this? Let me know what I got it wrong, and can you clarify the relationship of this to how the users of the different software business models show a generosity differential in a pay what you want business model available to those platforms?
I won't bother to justify or argue the remaining just-so story-like list of tropes/memes/stereotypes/clichés.
Posted by seanferd
23rd May 2011
