Subject: Vendor canonization [was: Linux market projections?]
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 10:05:08 +0900 (JST)

>>>>> "Brian" == Brian Bartholomew <> writes:

    >> A number of commercial SW companies who've elected to support
    >> Linux have published their rationales (or at least what they
    >> _want_ you to think they think).

    Brian> Ooohhh!  Vendor certification.  What would serve as
    Brian> objective evidence that a vendor was strongly committed to
    Brian> charity, poverty, good value, libre, or at least
    Brian> non-Microsoft business practices?

Brain Bartholomew and/or Richard Stallman accuses them of
"backsliding" (or worse).

Not proof positive, but (a) strong evidence that the vendor in
question is open source and (b) some evidence that the vendor is
pragmatic enough to be viable.  :-)

BTW:  (unless the report I saw recently was a hoax) Microsoft (or
Bill Gates, anyway) is committed to charity on a grand scale, by
market reaction MS products provide good value (much better value can
be achieved, of course) and Microsoft claims commitment to good value,
so Microsoft is clearly committed to non-Microsoft business practice.

In the spirit of recent Japanese educational reforms, I will venture
that three out of five ain't bad.  ;-)

University of Tsukuba                Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences       Tel/fax: +81 (298) 53-5091
What are those two straight lines for?  "Free software rules."