[Am-info] Re: adopting alternative OSes

[Erick Andrews]

On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 20:54:15 -0400, felmon davis wrote:

>On Monday 28 April 2003 19:38, Erick Andrews wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 18:03:08 -0400, John J. Urbaniak wrote:
>> >madodel@ptdprolog.net wrote:
>> >> I think what you keep missing is that a company like Apple or
>> >> Microsoft has pretty much one direction to follow.  Can you
>> >> imagine a Marketing VP at Apple telling a 10,000+ seat client
>> >> that they would be better off buying PCs instead of Apples, or
>> >> someone at Microsoft suggesting that OpenOffice would be a
>> >> better idea then m$Office?  But that is what happened/happens in
>> >> IBM.
>> >
>> >Behavior like this is what convinces me that someone high at IBM
>> > took a bribe to promote MS products over his own company's.  It's
>> > absolutely unbelievable in any other context.
>> >
>> >John
>>
>> If I had the time and the resources to so some focussed "data
>> mining", I think your proposition would be strongly accepted, or
>> proved, even if only circumstantial.
>>
>> After all these years about this "conspiracy theory" I have never
>> heard a believable argument to the contrary.  Yes, I know it's
>> difficult to prove a negative, but not impracticable.  Conspiracy
>> theories have become a no-no, politically-incorrect, but
>> conspiracies happen.  Anyone who adamantly diss's such should be
>> suspect of being in denial, or maybe worked for Kenneth Lay?
>
>I don't reject conspiracy theories. they are sometimes quite true.
>
>but about this theory, wouldn't the decision, even if prompted by a 
>bribe, have to make some kind of business sense?
>
>F.

But I think it does.  And that would be part of the "conspiracy".

IBM, I believe to this day, has made more money on Windows
software and services, than say, OS/2.  I also think that IBM 
believes their service revenue will grow with their new Linux 
offerings, even if AIX gets scuppered.

-- 
Erick Andrews