Kill MS, again, but sideways

[Jamie Lawrence]

> Interfaces, APIs, and standards are WAY too important to be let
> exclusively in the hands of the manufacturers. Besides, there is no point
> in proprietariness of technology as if the vendors want to keep
> exclusivity for manufacturing of their designs, they already have the
> infrastructure of (*spit*) patents.

It is so important that people should be forced to sell things that
adhere to a mandaded system? Should I be forced to write code in a
spcific way? This isn't academic - I'm about to push code to CPAN. 
I'm going to do so because I think there's a commercial advantage it
releasing the code. Are you proposing that I be forced to write to some
spec (that doesn't exist)? 

(I must say that I'm not defending Microsoft. I think they're killing
innovation everywhere they can. Typical monopoly behaviour - it isn't
interesting. Transforming them into a public utility is not the way to
call them to task. Making them an AT&T is.)
 
> I am pretty militant in this issue. No compromises.

I largely agree that it is aweful that IT is so stagnent.I'm personally
doing OK, if not great, selling change. I sell open source agressively.
Sometimes, I sell closed source. Best tool, best job. Trade is about
what works. I do have a personal preference, but that does not interfere
with what I tell clients, because I fell I have a duty to tell then facts.


-- 
Jamie Lawrence                                        jal at jal.org
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier... just as long 
as I'm the dictator...."  
   - GW bush, http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0012/18/nd.01.html