On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 13:02:41 -0500 (EST), Sid Dabster sid_dabster@yahoo.ca wrote:
See the rest of my email.
[Snip rest of previous email about MS]
OK, I agree with you there. To be honest I am a little sceptical about the claim that 2 libraries shut purely because of MS licencing fees, but I also hate to see public money being pumped into Microsofts bank account when there are real alternatives. The NHS/MS contract recently for example
What about Solaris on SPARC? That is a non-free OS. Are you also campaigning against Sun?
Sun Microsystems support open systems and claim to be making a lot of Solaris Open Source soon.
Oooh, I don't know about that. I think Suns involvement with Open Source is out of necessity rather than anything else.
IT trends over the past few years have been big on migration, but interestingly not so much on the Windows vs other OS front. There apparently seem to be roughly the same percentage of Windows vs non-Windows OS's out there.
But what is happening is that organisations are migrating to Intel away from other architectures. This really hurts Sun.
Given the choice I think Sun would prefer to go back to the good old days of them selling Solaris by the truckload and maybe they wish Linux wasn't around
With this anti-MS sentiment in this thread don't forget both the FSF and Linux were evolved from frustration about the lack of freedom in traditional UNIX systems, not Windows.
That why I suggested a Free Software Party originally, called the Linux Party, perhaps Free Software Party would be better even if less catchy.
I agree that *something* needs to be done, and I'm glad that you are motivated enough to do it, honestly.
However I just think that a political party is energy exerted in the wrong direction.
Anyway, thanks
~sm