From:	"Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject:	Re: "Free" Software (was: Euro question) [semi-OT]
Date:	Fri, 1 May 1998 13:57:14 -0400

Lehlan Decker wrote:
>> > ease of use. And it was free. I'm sure there were attempts to
>> > develop something else, but those attempts quickly died at the hands
>> > of this free OS that everyone was using. Why buy something, when what
>> > you can get for free works? This model grew in popularity until even
>>
>> I think this statement needs an analogy.
>>
>> Compare Windows 95 to Linux with X-Windows. =)
>>
>Guys the problem also is that a free product, doesn't have the
>same investments behind it, because there's little to no money

I dunno about that - there are several companies making plenty of
money off of Linux. Caldera and Red Hat to name two obvious ones.

>being made. I love linux (and no my x-windows, doesn't look like Win95:))
>but I still have to have a copy of Win95 for games, and MS Office.

You should try grabbing a copy of StarOffice (well, if you've got
a decently fast connection). It's got the full suite (word processor,
spreadsheet, database etc) all bundled into an easy-to-install
package. The best part is that it's free for Linux users. :-)

Of course, I use HTML for all my word processing needs (vi
forever! :-), so I haven't used the word processor much. I have used
the spreadsheet to draw up graphs of dice combos though... :-)

>Linux has come a long way (although their NFS support still needs some
>work), but its not the same. I haven't seen anyone writing huge mass
>market games for it, etc. Free software is wonderful, and it provides

Well, apart from Doom, Quake, Quake II, Abuse and Golgotha. Yeah,
it's pretty much all id guys, but the situation's improving.

>a challenge to the megas, but it would most likely always be seen
>in the hands of the "intellectuals" who liked to fiddle with their
>OS, didn't mind things breaking, or writing it themselves. The masses
>want somebody to call when it breaks, and to be able to wonder
>down the store and by their programs. I don't see this changing even
>by 2050. This is all IMHO of course.

No, they don't want somebody to *call*, they want somebody to *blame*
when they have to explain to their boss why something broke/isn't
on schedule.

James Ojaste