🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <slrn8elfi4.g18.jedidiah@localhost.localdomain>,
  jedidiah@dementia.mishnet (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
> 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.
>

But that's a bad assumption. Their applications are not currently coded
with portability in mind. And you haven't addressed the expense of
ramping up to the number of ports the law would require. What about
support?

> >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?
>

I was asking which applications you want the law to require them to
port to which platforms. Not that there's anything more horrible about
Solaris than any other proprietary UNIX.

> >
> >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...

How many customers do you have? Millions? Different game. Do your
customers pay money or are you talking about Open Source?


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.