No convincing required, except where it still is...

No convincing required, except where it still is...

Yes, I mean't "doesn't force", and the reason that I wrote (or at least meant to write) what I did was
that I've recently attended a presentation given by a .NET evangelist (not a Microsoft employee) who
was implying that the risks of offering your product on Linux was that you'd be forced to open-
source your intellectual property, thus destroying your competitive advantage.

Several people at the seminar took him to task on this, but he wouldn't back down, and some of the
"suits" at the presentation remained convinced of the correctness of his assertions. The
misconception is still out there, being promulgated by people who have a vested interest in keeping
the MS monopoly in place.

I believe that, unless there are radical changes in the way MS does things, their own software will be
their downfall, not pressure from Linux or other open source alternatives. I was just pointing out
that I feel that the article doesn't take into account the mindshare shift as the weight of MS Vista
and upcoming versions of MS applications obsoletes systems that will continue to run Linux very
well for many years into the future. I got off onto a tangent about commercial applications...