🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6vakpb$j1h$1@m1.cs.man.ac.uk>
           fellowsd@cs.man.ac.uk "Donal K. Fellows" writes:
> In article <F0CBvu.oE@a2e.de>, PILCH Hartmut <phm@a2e.de> wrote:
> > Therefore even those people who want to buy a computer without any open
> > source software on it already have profited from the existence of an open
> > source software code base.  Paying 1% would (although needn't) be justified
> > in every single case.
> 
> While I agree with most of what you have said, I must admit that I
> failed to see how this last paragraph quite followed from the others.
> Not that a 1% charge towards supporting unencumbered software is a bad
> thing necessarily, but I just don't exactly understand how much people
> who have a 100% M$ system have benefitted from an open source software
> base.  Sure, they *could* (and I would advise them to) but how are
> they actually benefitting right now in practical terms[*]?  Inquiring
> minds want to know...
> 
> Donal.
> [* For the sake of argument, say they don't have any kind of internet
>    connection - this is definitely the case still for many people, and
>    I *am* aware of how involved free software is with the internet. ]

Well, the internet is the most important example. But even if people
don't use the Internet itself, they do use goods and services which
have been provided with the aid of the Internet -- consider how
many billion business emails are sent every year, and how much this
saves companies compered to using the post or phone.

Also there is plenty of Open Source software that doesn't need the 
Internet to run.

-- 
@@--Phil Hunt-----------------------------Don't fear the penguins(*)--@@ 
@@  [*] Disclaimer: this is FREE ADVICE, and is distributed in the    @@
@@  hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; note also  @@
@@  that this advice may not apply if your name is Gates or Ballmer.  @@