[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

re: Good Times Ahead for "Sharecroppers"? (Was: [OT] Tim Bray on Slashdo

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: re: Good Times Ahead for "Sharecroppers"? (Was: [OT] Tim Bray on Slashdot)
• From: David Megginson <david@m...>
• Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 12:33:42 -0400
• In-reply-to: <163.23394563.2c43fb85@a...>
• References: <163.23394563.2c43fb85@a...>

AndrewWatt2000@a... writes:

> It seems to me that Tim misses an important point that Microsoft,
> and other proprietary vendors **need** what Tim refers to as
> sharecroppers.

They need sharecroppers in general, but they don't need any
sharecropper in particular, especially not the uppity ones who get too
much attention.

I do think that Tim overstated the case, but not in an obvious way.  I
wouldn't object to building a software product specifically for a
closed-source platform, but I would do so only if I could reasonably
hope to amortize the development costs over, say, 18 months or less of
sales.  Past that point, the risks that Tim describes become more and
more significant.


All the best,


David

-- 
David Megginson, david@m..., http://www.megginson.com/

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: re: Good Times Ahead for "Sharecroppers"? (Was: [OT] TimBray on Slashdot)
    • From: Didier PH Martin <martind@n...>

• References:
  • Good Times Ahead for "Sharecroppers"? (Was: [OT] Tim Bray on Slashdot)
    • From: AndrewWatt2000@a...

• Prev by Date: Re: Good Times Ahead for "Sharecroppers"? (Was: [OT] TimBray on Slashdot)
• Next by Date: RE: re: Good Times Ahead for "Sharecroppers"? (Was: [OT] Tim Bray on Slashdot)
• Previous by thread: Re: Good Times Ahead for "Sharecroppers"? (Was: [OT] TimBray on Slashdot)
• Next by thread: RE: re: Good Times Ahead for "Sharecroppers"? (Was: [OT] TimBray on Slashdot)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread