Eric S. Raymond wrote:
Andy Green <andy(a)warmcat.com>:
>> I don't have the money or the lawyers to pull it off. This sort of thing
>> is why we have commercial partners with office buidings.
> If you look a bit further in that direction you'll see you're asking
> RHAT shareholders to take risks you aren't willing to take yourself.
Yes, I am. It's a business decision. Do they want significant desktop market
share? If so, they have to do this thing.
$THIS_THING is a moving target. Shortly movie download stores with
encrypted HDTV files that require a signed Windows driver stack backed
by TPM will set the bar for you if you define what is needed as
"whatever Windows can do". And then if you go there you'll find patent
attacks and various ugly laws paid for by the movie studios to really
cream you.
Then there's this:
http://www.no-lobbyists-as-such.com/florian-mueller-blog/ballmer-linux/
For Ballmer Linux is synonymous with RHAT and NOVL. I think what to do
about these proprietary and encumbered formats is indeed a 'business
decision' for RHAT and they seem to be on top of it.
-Andy