OK then around a year ago just befor i started using linux i found out a way to get all M$ software for free and legal through the M$ partnership program, about a week ago i recieved an e-mail off them to renew my subscription as it was about over. i thought i would have a look at the questions to see if they had changed and they hadnt. the questions was like do you use M$ windows and how may copies, how inportand M$ OS's are in my company and how important BSD,Linux are and questions like that so i did what most other people would do on hear and but Linux and BSD as most important and anything to do with M$ in the why the hell would i want that catagory.

now that was more or less telling M$ that ther stuff sux and i dont want anything to do with them, (i had to register for another year to tell them that but hey its free)

this morning i recieved a parcel from M$ promothing XP, win 2003, and how good OS liesensing is and how bad OSS is!!!!!!!!!!!!! i cant F*cking believe it that M$ are starting to send crap out to people who dont like or want to use there OS telling them that anything els is crap or you could be braking the law in some way.

well i have put it all back in the box and am going to write a snotty letter telling them why i dont like/use windows and put a suse and a slackware CD in the box and send it back to them.

what is worse is the fact i ticked the box on the M$ subscription page telling them not to contact me!!!!!

if i remember i will put a copy of the letter on hear when i have wrote it

OK then i think i have finished ranting

berrance

LOL...

That is classic!!! Of course, what else would you expect from them. They can't afford to lose a wonderful partner like you.

Microsoft is waging a war against the OSS community for obvious reasons. I fear that it is a stupid war on all parts. In many ways the open source movement and the proprietary source movement are symbiotic. We live off of each other and the lack of one would be a detriment to the other (look at all the energy the OSS community puts into trying to provide something to compete with Windows and ask yourself if that effort would be necessary if there was no Microsoft).

Anyway, I am off on my own tangent. I was at a school before where there was a bitter divide between the *nix users and the Windows-heads. Hint: The same school just put out a report (in part) about how Windows 2003 pro, or whatever they call it, was better than RHEL 3.0... I'll bet you 200:1 that it was the Comp. Sci. Department and not the Comp. Eng. which played a role in that report (and I didn't recognize the name on it either).

Not computer related but I had a similar situation. I purchased new glasses and they were extremely expensive including the prescription. So about a week later I received a poll from the company and I realy let them have it, explaining that this is last time I buy from them, well a few days later I received a 30 dollar off next purchase coupon in the mail. Companies just want to make people happy if they find they are dissatisfied.

more like they want to keep you a customer .....

... ahh, don't you just love m$, emailing you when you said not to, and are unable to grasp the concept of protection, well, on the bright side, your business can be run on their time table
/me looks at the clock
"3 minutes to the next crash everyone, get your work saved"

nope, thats not the way to develop software (well, its m$'s way .... minus the "devel" part), OSS doesn't need to compete, pretty much ever since OSS was around, its been for developers solving there problem/adding functionality. In this way things are done a little at a time, and eventually produce software that has meaning, or looks good (eye candy stuff), or was only meant for teaching purpose (but can be used elsewhere). Read the ''Cathedral and the Bazaar''. m$ is more to produce software because they were told to do so, who would do the better job, someone who wants to do it, or someone who only does it because they were told?

hey berrance, add on the Slack CD "Fear the power" for me will ya?

There are several reasons that OSS and proprietary software have a symbiotic relationship... I felt the concept of competition was the most easily understood but it does not, in any way, represent the only factor at play.

I am very familiar with the Cathedral and the Bazaar. The simple fact of the matter is that I disagree with some of its more subtle points. And that is that all software development eventually needs to move the the Bazaar method -- you'll note that even e.s.r. recognizes that software projects do not get started in the bazaar method.
There are just some areas where the size and complexity of a software project precludes its arising outside of a direct reimbursement model. I don't see paid software as evil. I don't even see closed source software as evil. Personally, I wish software was less like a "writing" and more like a "design" legally. Which would mean set limits of time where a commercial product was able to jealously guard its software before it became open to the world. The limits of a typical patent model are completely flawed for this, but with some major reworking it could have been something wonderful. But that time is past us now... and both software models are here to stay.

Closed software benefits from OSS. OSS benefits from closed source software. The person who develops code for pay during the day has a job which pays his bills so he can develop code for the community at night. The proprietary developers benefit from OSS (which has a license that allows inclusion in a commercial product).

Anyway, I recognize that it is an unpopular position to have around the OSS community but I stand by the belief that each model has its benefits and both thrive on the others existence.