| |||||||||||
MS and Indemnification (Groklaw)MS and Indemnification (Groklaw)Posted Nov 15, 2004 9:18 UTC (Mon) by ekj (subscriber, #1524)In reply to: MS and Indemnification (Groklaw) by rknop Parent article: MS and Indemnification (Groklaw) You hear that kinda often, but it's one of those things that make less sense the more you think about it. There's nothing communistic about wanting freedom. Indeed lots of Americans would say freedom is one of the most fundamental things worth figthing for, and they won't feel particularily communist while saying it... There's also nothing communist about wanting a market place on a level playing-field with lots of healthy competition. Infact that is quite the oposite, Adam Smith would agree to that a lot more readily than Marx would. If you go with MS you have one supplier to choose from. One company can fix (or not) the problems you experience. One company can provide (or not) real tech-support (the sort where you get to speak with someone who can look into what is *actually* going wrong in your software, not the sort that consists of handholding.) One company can dictate it all. If you go with a Linux (or Free Sofware in general) solution then you have multiple suppliers to choose from for every bit of your infrastructure. You can go to IBM and get help, real help, of the sort where "This is ok, but program X needs to sort by order-size rather than by date" can actually be fixed when you need it, rather than "thank you for your feedback, we'll consider that for our next version, due out in 18 months." And if you don't like the answer you get from IBM, there's a dozen larger and hundreds of smaller firms you can turn to with the same request. They'll have to *compete* for your bussiness. They'll have to make you actually *competitive* offers where the services they bring stand in a fair relation to the price they demand. What a UNAMERICAN COMMUNIST concept !
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||