In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED] chemnitz.de>, Joerg Anders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, Bernard Hill wrote: > >> >A short remark about this. Somtimes "open source" is equated with >> >"cost free". But even if I'd produce a Qt-only version, you had >> >to pay a lot. Not to me but to the Qt developer Trolltech and >> >to Microsoft. >> >> So what encourages the developer to develop code if there is no payment >> to the developer? > >That wasn't the message. The message was: "Use Linux and the NoteEdit is >cost free!" >> >> I confess I don't understand the Linux setup *at all*. >> > >Perhaps interesting: Two Microsoft ingeneers, Vinod Valloppillil and >Josh Cohen had the task to answer this question in an internal >Microsoft paper, which was betrayed to the open software foundation. >This paper made history as the so-called "Halloween Document", >see: > > http://www.opensource.org/halloween > >The ingeneers came to some very interesting conclusions: > > "Linux's (...) virtues over Windows NT include: > - Customization - ... > - Availability/Reliability - ... > - Scaleability/Performance - ... > - Interoperability- ... >
All that is as maybe: I am not competent to judge. My question is simple: who pays the NoteEdit developers? Bernard Hill Braeburn Software Author of Music Publisher system Music Software written by musicians for musicians http://www.braeburn.co.uk Selkirk, Scotland To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
