🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 04:08:20 GMT, amorgado@my-deja.com <amorgado@my-deja.com> wrote:
>I> Perhaps you've misunderstood me; it's not that I think Orifice for
>> Linux would be a useful tool for the likes of us; just that, once the
>> apps are widely ported, there won't be the same pressure to use
>> Windows; and once other software vendors can write just as
>> effectively for Windows, there won't be the same pressure to use the
>> Microsoft apps; if that happens, they've lost the stranglehold on the
>> market, and that's good.
>
>I'm afraid this makes no sense. It's as though you think Microsoft is
>the only company that writes Windows software. They're not. MS could
>port its entire portfolio of software, and it _still_ wouldn't make the
>other software vendors port their software to the other platforms. They
>just won't invest unless they think they can make more money porting
>than not porting.

	Actually, this makes no sense.

	MS doesn't just make the applications. They also make the developer
	tools. Any work they would put into porting their own applications
	could easily be exploited by all the other Vendors. MS would likely
	even make a nice profit from providing those tools.

[deletia]

	Once the tools are in place, and there is a good degree of devtool
	level compatibility, the problem of porting is much less difficult.
	This is why Unix applications have a great tendency to creep onto
	other Unix platforms.

-- 

	It is not the advocates of free love and software
	that are the communists here , but rather those that        |||
	advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using         / | \
	one option among many, like in some regime where
	product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
	
			              Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.