Re: [tlug] Microsoft adver-FUD on SourceForge

[Edward Middleton <edward@example.com>]

Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>>>>>> "Josh" == Josh Glover <jmglov@example.com> writes:
>>>>>>             
>  

> Think about it.  Steve Smith is right.  It helps pay the bills for
> Sourceforge[2], and these look very much like actual facts,
They always do until you check the details.
> not the "GPL gives your profits jock itch" FUD of the Halloween papers period.
> If they're not, they'll come back to haunt Microsoft as their lies
> have done in the past.  Assuming they're true, it does FLOSS no good
> to ignore those facts, and may very well do it good to have its nose
> rubbed in it.
>   
The point is that anyone in the cooperate world has to address this sort
of rubbish as though it was real research for people who are more likely
to be confused by the explanation then to understand the difference.
> You should also remember that every time Microsoft is forced to
> mention Linux, it validates Linux as serious competition.  Any decent
> businessman realizes that any product that deserves his vendor's
> negative advertising also deserves his serious consideration.  
Yes and if you bang you head into a brick wall enough you will probably
strengthen your skull but that doesn't make it a desirable path to follow.
> And have you read any of Microsoft's whitepapers?
Unfortunately, which is why they are greeted with such relish.

Edward