| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Microsoft swings axe at Linux funding | |
|
||
| Time: 08:42 EST/13:42 GMT | News Source: VNUNet | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
Despite its apparent new found love of Linux, Microsoft has joined a lobbying effort aimed at cutting government support for open source software. The Redmond giant has joined the Initiative for Software Choice, which launched quietly in May, and is chaired by the Computing Technology Industry Association (CompTIA). The Software Choice group is acting partly in response to moves by countries like France, Germany and Peru that have passed legislation to make open source mandatory for government use. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 311 Last | Next |
The time now is
6:18:41 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 8/16/2002 10:24:48 AM |
|
Let's see... What do we want for our economy.
Entitlements for software developers to build software which is good enough Or a healthy, vigorous software industry which creates innovation and quality products, and in so doing hires thousands of people Hmm, let me think about that. |
| #2 By 2960 (68.100.19.3) at 8/16/2002 12:23:53 PM |
|
Mooz,
That's a completely different industry in and of it's own that is regulated to the teeth from what I understand. Not sure it could ever apply to normal markets. TL |
| #3 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 8/16/2002 2:16:38 PM |
|
Realist - Ahh, I see you wish to distort the argument, like most Open Source zealots. Why is that?
Point #1 - You have the question wrong. Should Government serve the people or a handful of developers who want software for free? Point #2 - I didn't lie, I didn't imply unemployment. See that word entitlement? That means government funded jobs. The question that just shouts to be answered is where does the money come from to fund these government jobs, and is it really a government priority to create free software when we can't even provide food, clothing and shelter to all of our people? Point #3 - Plenty of commercial companies developing free software? Ok, start naming them. Point #4 - There's nothing wrong with using free equivalents. But that's not what we are talking about here, are we? No we are talking about the government funding developers solely to put companies out of business. We are talking about Redhat lobbying the state of California to outlaw commercial software for government use. Here's your chance to shine Realist by answering the points instead of trying to distort the discussion further away from the facts at hand. |
| #4 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 8/16/2002 2:20:06 PM |
| mOOzilla - Apparently only about 10 people showed up for the march. None of the quotes I saw from these freaks even addressed the legal proposal, they all whined about totally different issues. One wonders if they even know what they want. |
| #5 By 116 (129.116.86.41) at 8/16/2002 3:00:42 PM |
|
Why on earth does the mantra for OSS advocates turn into only our software should be allowed.
Doesn't seem very open to me, and definitely doesn't jive with my definition of freedom... I honestly don't think anyone would be giving any credence to open source software if the economy wasn't in the tank. |
| #6 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 8/16/2002 3:57:19 PM |
|
RedAvenger - I don't think we're seeing more attention paid to Open Source now then we did 4 years ago when the economy was booming. We are simply seeing a different sort of attention paid.
Four years ago the open sourcers were riding high on the dot-com wave claiming you could make loads of money by giving your product away for free and making it up on volume. As we found out, that business model didn't work, and a lot of those companies went under. So now today we are seeing the open sourcers admit that they can't form a business model around their ideas, and charity hasn't been working out very well for them. So now they are demanding that the government fund all software development as some sort of entitlement program. The first step to this goal is to make commercial software illegal, so people can only choose open source. Then when no open source software exists, they have a guaranteed job opportunity to help come in and create it because existing alternatives cannot be used. It's really quite clever, even if it is utterly pathetic. |
| #7 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 8/18/2002 2:06:05 PM |
|
dethonlegs - I used to work for the government to, and understand how it works. First, you can't be fired no matter how incompetent. But you can be laid off if your department is not funded, so you have to justify your existence by creating work for the government to do.
So it's understandable that you would want a law that forced the government to direct all the work towards you, because it would guarantee lifetime employment. However that doesn't mean it's an intelligent law. The cost/benefit analysis would clearly indicate that it is not, despite your inaccurate claims that it costs less for you to develop something than to buy it. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 311 Last | Next |
The time now is
6:18:41 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
