Re: Why Longhorn will be Open Source

From: Ed Murphy (emurphy42_at_socal.rr.com)
Date: 11/22/03 

Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 23:07:27 GMT

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 19:36:41 +0000, Lord Gazwad of Grantham wrote:

> || Microsoft practically gives away domestic Windows. Where they make
> || money is on the professional versions, and Office, and the way they
> || achieve it is by incompatibility with non-Microsoft software. This
> || cannot be maintained if the source is open.
> ||
> || Linux would immediately acquire the ability to write to the various
> || NTFS filesystems, and operate not only with SMB but also with the
> || modified Kerberos and LDAP systems that are the backbone of modern
> || Microsoft networking. The only way for Microsoft to maintain its
> || market share is to keep its data interchange and authentication
> || formats secret as far as is possible.

> Clearly you haven't got a fucking clue about anything you're blabbering on
> about.

My goodness, aren't /you/ a polite little soul?
*pats the Microsoftie on his cute widdle head*

The "Linux would immediately require the ability" part is irrefutable
truth: if Microsoft discloses the source code, then Linux programmers
can read that source code and adjust Linux to become compatible.

The "Microsoft would lose significant market share" part is debatable,
but your words do nothing to debate it in any significant fashion.