On Friday 01 June 2007 14:28, Praveen A wrote:

2007/6/1, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org:

...

this is pure BS. No one migrates to foss/linux because of freedom. They migrate because it works. The guys who are mouthing off about freedom have been struggling for 20 years to build a kernel

While the observation from the "effect" side is true AND a view from the technical side is also true the fact is that technical "superiority" lasts for a tiny fraction of the lifetime of a software package and is at best a very limited view of reality. The fact is that technical superiority is the result of freedom to collaborate, which is completely lacking in closed software. This inspite of closed software having vastly larger numbers and resources for both users and developers. Infact the entire edifice of closed software based on actively restricting collaboration and is so shaky it's a wonder it has managed to survive so long. The irony is that most of the apps bringing in revenue are the one trying to enable chargeable collaboration in every sphere. Further the technical superiority argument is a red herring and the "failure" of hurd and thousands of other open software are because of innumerable factors that has nothing to do with freedom. The visibility of failure is also due to the openeness of development. Has any body counted the number of failed efforts of closed companies?. In the oganisations i have seen in the past the ratio was 1 success for 5 failures. And by FOSS standards these successes would at best been labeled alpha software. Like all things free, it's value is realised when someone else has to pick the tab for the cleanup - be it air, water or freedom. Let's not mixup cause and effect. While one is fully justified in using some arbitary dfinition of success / tech superiority etc in ones metrics One cannot subvert freedom as a result of these measurements so that the stats look good.