Re: [discuss] "Reason's Why" Part-1 (of 3)

2005-12-12 Thread M. Fioretti
On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 00:31:26 AM +0900, Roger Markus ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On 12/12/05, Lars D. Noodén <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > It would be interesting to set up an invite-only wiki and document > > as many useful facts as possible for a few months and then polish > > it down into

Re: [discuss] "Reason's Why" Part-1 (of 3)

2005-12-12 Thread Roger Markus
On 12/12/05, Lars D. Noodén <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sat, 10 Dec 2005, Ian Lynch wrote: > > ... Countering a $360m a year propaganda machine for MSO is not that > > simple with no marketing budget. [snip] > > ...Undermine confidence in the opposition, boost confidence in your > > product

Re: [discuss] "Reason's Why" Part-1 (of 3)

2005-12-12 Thread Lars D . Noodén
The weasel word there is "can". It does seem that the "plea bargain" is used to roust competing software from the targeted company and replace it with only MS apps and systems, regardless of the original mix whether closed or open source. Novell's been hit hard by that. That problem is also

Re: [discuss] "Reason's Why" Part-1 (of 3)

2005-12-12 Thread Lars D . Noodén
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005, Ian Lynch wrote: ... Countering a $360m a year propaganda machine for MSO is not that simple with no marketing budget. Its not a matter of despising anyone and use of evidence in such a way so as not to appear to be particularly emotive is often the best way to do things.

Re: [discuss] "Reason's Why" Part-1 (of 3)

2005-12-10 Thread Cor Nouws
Ian Lynch wrote: On Sat, 2005-12-10 at 10:38 +, CPHennessy wrote: Now is there some question about OpenOffice.org is this discussion ? The main issue is simply that there is a lot of evidence about that can be used in the promotion of OpenOffice.org. It has to be used carefully but it i

Re: [discuss] "Reason's Why" Part-1 (of 3)

2005-12-10 Thread Chad Smith
On 12/10/05, CPHennessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sat December 10 2005 09:25, Roger Markus wrote: > > In 1995 Antel, the national telephone company of Uruguay, was > caught > > pirating $100,000 worth of unlicensed software programs from Microsoft, > > Novell, and Symantec. > > Any com

Re: [discuss] "Reason's Why" Part-1 (of 3)

2005-12-10 Thread Wesley Parish
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 00:30, Ian Lynch wrote: > On Sat, 2005-12-10 at 10:38 +, CPHennessy wrote: > > On Sat December 10 2005 09:25, Roger Markus wrote: > > > In 1995 Antel, the national telephone company of Uruguay, was > > > caught pirating $100,000 worth of unlicensed software programs fro

Re: [discuss] "Reason's Why" Part-1 (of 3)

2005-12-10 Thread Ian Lynch
On Sat, 2005-12-10 at 10:38 +, CPHennessy wrote: > On Sat December 10 2005 09:25, Roger Markus wrote: > > In 1995 Antel, the national telephone company of Uruguay, was caught > > pirating $100,000 worth of unlicensed software programs from Microsoft, > > Novell, and Symantec. > > Any com

Re: [discuss] "Reason's Why" Part-1 (of 3)

2005-12-10 Thread CPHennessy
On Sat December 10 2005 09:25, Roger Markus wrote: > In 1995 Antel, the national telephone company of Uruguay, was caught > pirating $100,000 worth of unlicensed software programs from Microsoft, > Novell, and Symantec. Any company using pirated software can be brought to court. they can al

[discuss] "Reason's Why" Part-1 (of 3)

2005-12-10 Thread Roger Markus
"Reason's Why" There have been some requests for information regarding the illegal nature of Microsoft's nefarious operations. Just providing links isn't enough - these sources of information are sometimes shut down for one reason or another, so it's important to quote the relevant bits before th