Ok, the only response I have to the story you presented is to say that it’s simply two different types of business practices. Microsoft’s business aim thus far has proved to be extremely successful.
Looking a Microsoft’s tech stocks today, I would say not as much.
Let’s make something very clear–you don’t make money by giving stuff away for free. On the other hand, you don’t get to be successful by making customers resentful, so I think there’s a happy medium between the two.
I think Sun makes their money by suing the pants off of Microsoft. :)
The part I can’t understand is when you say you would’ve had to pay a yearly fee just to use the software. I completely agree with making your school buy software for each and every computer, but I think you’re off when you say a yearly fee. Are you referring to Microsoft’s new licensing program? If so, that’s simply to get the most recent software…but it’s only favorable if you are the type who consistently buys the most current software. This licensing program is not mandatory.
It seemed so to us. :-?
In this scenario I might agree with you that using an open-source solution to software has it’s advantages. An institution like a school is on limited income, and therefore doesn’t always have the funds to pour into their technology department.
Heh, it seems like Microsoft isn’t intent on releasing their source code, yet are thinking of doing so with the rise in computer programing using Java and Linux in the UC system.
Can you please explain what you’re referring to when you say that Microsoft told your school to pay a yearly fee? I thought I was an expert in this field, but I’ve never heard of this before.
I ask my teacher on it. :wink: