🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 02:28:49 GMT, amorgado@my-deja.com <amorgado@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <ubA*f4Noo@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
>  damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
>> If their applications division is separate from their OS division,
>> they no longer have the same interest in having their applications
>> only run on Windows; they can maximise their profit by porting them
>> everywhere.
>
>David,
>
>You are assuming that it is possible to make more money by selling and
>supporting MS's Application software on multiple platforms than by

	Assuming that they coded their applications with portability
	in mind then deploying X other versions won't be that much
	more expensive. Plus, breaking it on a wider variety of systems
	will help expose problems with the reference codebase.

>selling and supporting it only on Windows. I believe this to be a false
>assumption.
>
>First, which applications are you referring to? MS makes a lot more
>than just Office. Must they port them all? Surely MS Works need not be
>ported to Solaris?

	If it's portable: why not?

>
>Second, do you have any idea how much money it costs to support
>multiple platforms? They have to train staff in multiple platforms,

	Some of us even have working experience in such things...

[deletia]

-- 

	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.