In agreement with W. Canedigh - the way to overturn a monopoly is by
providing workable alternatives.
While I don't think that Microsoft or any computer company has a monopoly
in the sense that they're widely seen as having one (coercive), I think
the greatest thing about demonstrating operating systems other than those
chosen by default is that they open the mind the possibility that obvious
things aren't the only things. Further, that which is is not all that
could be.
If autos were sold by hundreds of companies but the engines were all made
by Rolls-Royce (or Fiat), with other components all wrapped torturously
around an engine that would in many cases be a poor choice for the rest of
the vehicle, hopefully folks would think it strange -- and see the profit
in a more robust market.
When it comes to computer OSes (not a perfect analog to a car's engine,
but this is rough-copy thought) seems like helplessness and apathy have
given us fiat engines in everything from mopeds to 18-wheelers. "But what
will be do without MS Word (or whatever application)?" is probably the
biggest stumbling block to acceptance of Free OSes, when the better
question that hard-nosed customers ought to be asking is "Why is this
software so limited that it won't run on the OS of my choice?"
Rephrasing question like that I think is one of the challenges for
advocates of Free OSes, but the answers *are* there.
Tim
"Both ogliarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them
of arms." --Aristotle [[ [EMAIL PROTECTED] / www.monkey.org/~timothy ]]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
This message was automatically sent by the Linux Demo Days mailing list
To remove yourself from this list, email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with the "unsubcribe" in your message body.
