Sound Idea from MSFT: charge a monthly fee for Office. Only $33 amonth {Applause} - Linux

This is a discussion on Sound Idea from MSFT: charge a monthly fee for Office. Only $33 amonth {Applause} - Linux ; It's a proud day to be an American. As a MSFT shareholder, I applaud the below idea. After all, nowadays $33 a month, or a little over a dollar a day, won't even pay for coffee. Further, this way the ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 29

Thread: Sound Idea from MSFT: charge a monthly fee for Office. Only $33 amonth {Applause}

  1. Sound Idea from MSFT: charge a monthly fee for Office. Only $33 amonth {Applause}

    It's a proud day to be an American. As a MSFT shareholder, I applaud
    the below idea. After all, nowadays $33 a month, or a little over a
    dollar a day, won't even pay for coffee. Further, this way the best
    and the brightest programmers at MSFT have a chance to be fairly
    compensated for any bug fixes or enhancements they make to the
    software. A "win-win" all around.

    For those starving students who can't afford even a dollar a day,
    there's an ad-supported version--for cheapskates, who can argue with
    free?

    Bravo Microsoft!

    RL

    Microsoft Mulls Subscriptions, Ads for Office Apps
    New business models could have you paying monthly fees for
    productivity software -- or nothing at all.

    Neil McAllister
    PC World
    Sunday, April 20, 2008; 1:19 PM

    Windows remains the dominant OS in the PC world, but the largest
    portion of Microsoft's income actually comes from its business
    software division, responsible for Office and Microsoft Dynamics. For
    years Microsoft has struggled to maintain its revenue stream from
    these $%; products, however; Office, in particular, presents a
    challenge, since customers are often skeptical of an upgrade when they
    don't use all the features of the current version. Meanwhile,
    Microsoft faces growing challenges from the likes of OpenOffice.org
    and Google Docs.

    Now comes news that Redmond is experimenting with not one, but two new
    business models for its productivity apps, both targeted at low-end
    customers. The idea is that customers won't purchase the software at
    all. Instead, they will subscribe to it -- or, potentially, get it for
    free in an ad-supported model.

    The subscription-based version of Microsoft Office should arrive by
    the end of this year, according to Microsoft reps. It will bundle
    Microsoft Office Home and Student Edition with Windows Live
    applications for e-mail, instant messaging, and photo sharing, plus
    the Office Live Workspace online collaboration service. No pricing has
    been set, but it would need to cost less than $12.50 per month to beat
    the list price of the Home and Student Edition of Office alone, or
    less than $33 per month to remain competitive with Microsoft Office
    Standard Edition.

  2. Re: Sound Idea from MSFT: charge a monthly fee for Office. Only $33 a month {Applause}

    On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 13:41:25 -0700 (PDT), raylopez99 wrote:

    > It's a proud day to be an American. As a MSFT shareholder, I applaud
    > the below idea. After all, nowadays $33 a month, or a little over a
    > dollar a day, won't even pay for coffee. Further, this way the best
    > and the brightest programmers at MSFT have a chance to be fairly
    > compensated for any bug fixes or enhancements they make to the
    > software. A "win-win" all around.
    >
    > For those starving students who can't afford even a dollar a day,
    > there's an ad-supported version--for cheapskates, who can argue with
    > free?
    >
    > Bravo Microsoft!
    >
    > RL
    >
    > Microsoft Mulls Subscriptions, Ads for Office Apps
    > New business models could have you paying monthly fees for
    > productivity software -- or nothing at all.
    >
    > Neil McAllister
    > PC World
    > Sunday, April 20, 2008; 1:19 PM
    >
    > Windows remains the dominant OS in the PC world, but the largest
    > portion of Microsoft's income actually comes from its business
    > software division, responsible for Office and Microsoft Dynamics. For
    > years Microsoft has struggled to maintain its revenue stream from
    > these $%; products, however; Office, in particular, presents a
    > challenge, since customers are often skeptical of an upgrade when they
    > don't use all the features of the current version. Meanwhile,
    > Microsoft faces growing challenges from the likes of OpenOffice.org
    > and Google Docs.
    >
    > Now comes news that Redmond is experimenting with not one, but two new
    > business models for its productivity apps, both targeted at low-end
    > customers. The idea is that customers won't purchase the software at
    > all. Instead, they will subscribe to it -- or, potentially, get it for
    > free in an ad-supported model.
    >
    > The subscription-based version of Microsoft Office should arrive by
    > the end of this year, according to Microsoft reps. It will bundle
    > Microsoft Office Home and Student Edition with Windows Live
    > applications for e-mail, instant messaging, and photo sharing, plus
    > the Office Live Workspace online collaboration service. No pricing has
    > been set, but it would need to cost less than $12.50 per month to beat
    > the list price of the Home and Student Edition of Office alone, or
    > less than $33 per month to remain competitive with Microsoft Office
    > Standard Edition.


    I have to respectfully disagree with this model.
    First off, people like owning things which is why subscription based models
    are somewhat dying.
    Even with video and DVD you can buy a slightly used copy on ebay for the
    same price as a standard rental and a lot of people do that.
    Second the student edition is less than $100 in most places because the
    college subsidizes the cost. It's not upgradeable though except for bug
    fixes. Students who buy their laptops through the school (almost always a
    smart thing) have Office already on the machines in most places.

    Secondly $30 per month is way too much.
    It even sounds expensive...

    Microsoft has to realize they must entice users who are used to holding the
    software in their hands and even though they don't really *own* anything,
    just the right to use it, the perception is still there.

    Maybe I am out to lunch on this but,I predict this is going to be a massive
    failure.

    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  3. Re: Sound Idea from MSFT: charge a monthly fee for Office. Only $33 a month {Applause}

    raylopez99 wrote:

    > It's a proud day to be an American. *As a MSFT shareholder, I applaud
    > the below idea. *After all, nowadays $33 a month, or a little over a
    > dollar a day, won't even pay for coffee. *Further, this way the best
    > and the brightest programmers at MSFT have a chance to be fairly
    > compensated for any bug fixes or enhancements they make to the
    > software. *A "win-win" all around.


    Poor souls, they don't make a cent when they sell an Office package for 100,
    200, 300 or 400 dollars! And people actually have the gall to use this
    *same* package for years without shelling out another 100-400 dollars! How
    cruel! What else can, poor starving Micro$haft do, but find a way to charge
    even more? (Or is that the real problem, to maintain their Office monopoly
    status, Micro$haft basically "gives" away OEM copies of Office? Nah, not a
    product so much in demand!)

    > For those starving students who can't afford even a dollar a day,
    > there's an ad-supported version--for cheapskates, who can argue with
    > free?


    When it comes to Micro$haft Office, if you *paid* me to use it, I might be
    able gag down a few hours of unproductive work on it.

    --
    RonB
    "There's a story there...somewhere"

  4. Re: Sound Idea from MSFT: charge a monthly fee for Office. Only $33 a month {Applause}

    On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 16:49:53 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

    > I have to respectfully disagree with this model.
    > First off, people like owning things which is why subscription based models
    > are somewhat dying.


    While i don't particularly like it either, I can understand that some
    people might find it attractive. Particularly if you only need the service
    for 1 month, or maybe you can't afford to plop down a few hundred at one
    time. I think $33 a month is a bit steep though.

    > Even with video and DVD you can buy a slightly used copy on ebay for the
    > same price as a standard rental and a lot of people do that.


    Netflix seems to be very popular. There are cases where people would
    rather rent than own.

    > Secondly $30 per month is way too much.
    > It even sounds expensive...


    I agree. That's $400 a year. I think $100 a year would be pushing it,
    over 3 years it would equate to about the same as buying if you upgrade
    every 3 years.

    > Microsoft has to realize they must entice users who are used to holding the
    > software in their hands and even though they don't really *own* anything,
    > just the right to use it, the perception is still there.


    I agree, it has to be REALLY attractive, financially, to convince people
    it's worth it.

  5. Re: Sound Idea from MSFT: charge a monthly fee for Office. Only $33 a month {Applause}

    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > I agree, it has to be REALLY attractive, financially, to convince people
    > it's worth it.


    Let Micro$haft do it. Great opportunity for OpenOffice.

    --
    RonB
    "There's a story there...somewhere"

  6. Re: Sound Idea from MSFT: charge a monthly fee for Office. Only $33 a month {Applause}

    Erik Funkenbusch writes:

    > On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 16:49:53 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
    >
    >> I have to respectfully disagree with this model.
    >> First off, people like owning things which is why subscription based models
    >> are somewhat dying.

    >
    > While i don't particularly like it either, I can understand that some
    > people might find it attractive. Particularly if you only need the service
    > for 1 month, or maybe you can't afford to plop down a few hundred at one
    > time. I think $33 a month is a bit steep though.
    >
    >> Even with video and DVD you can buy a slightly used copy on ebay for the
    >> same price as a standard rental and a lot of people do that.

    >
    > Netflix seems to be very popular. There are cases where people would
    > rather rent than own.



    Now, if the COLA goons were to leverage this to promote OO as opposed to
    whine about MS we might see OSS get somewhere. But lets not hold our
    breath.

  7. Re: Sound Idea from MSFT: charge a monthly fee for Office. Only $33 amonth {Applause}

    On Apr 20, 4:58*pm, RonB wrote:

    > Poor souls, they don't make a cent when they sell an Office package for 100,
    > 200, 300 or 400 dollars!


    Yes, I agree RonB. That Office package ends up, unless it has DRM,
    being reused by 30 or more people, making the effective sale price
    400/30 = $13 a copy.

    RL

  8. Re: Sound Idea from MSFT: charge a monthly fee for Office. Only $33 a month {Applause}

    raylopez99 wrote:

    > On Apr 20, 4:58*pm, RonB wrote:
    >
    >> Poor souls, they don't make a cent when they sell an Office package for
    >> 100, 200, 300 or 400 dollars!

    >
    > Yes, I agree RonB. That Office package ends up, unless it has DRM,
    > being reused by 30 or more people, making the effective sale price
    > 400/30 = $13 a copy.


    So people are used to getting M$ Office almost free? If that's the case,
    what makes you think a subscription scheme would work?

    I say, let M$ do it. Great opportunity to break apart the monopoly.

    --
    RonB
    "There's a story there...somewhere"

  9. Re: Sound Idea from MSFT: charge a monthly fee for Office. Only $33 a month {Applause}

    Micoshaft Fraudster raylopez99 wrote on behalf of half wits from Micoshaft
    Crocporation:

    > It's a proud day to be an American. As a MSFT shareholder, I applaud
    > the below idea. After all, nowadays $33 a month, or a little over a
    > dollar a day, won't even pay for coffee.



    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!

    You outdated micoshaft bum boyee!



    Pay nothing and get superior technology with source code here...
    http://www.openoffice.org

    You can always donate or buy the supported versions from
    third parties.



  10. Re: Sound Idea from MSFT: charge a monthly fee for Office. Only $33 a month {Applause}

    On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 23:04:57 +0200, Hadron wrote:

    > Erik Funkenbusch writes:
    >
    >> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 16:49:53 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
    >>
    >>> I have to respectfully disagree with this model.
    >>> First off, people like owning things which is why subscription based models
    >>> are somewhat dying.

    >>
    >> While i don't particularly like it either, I can understand that some
    >> people might find it attractive. Particularly if you only need the service
    >> for 1 month, or maybe you can't afford to plop down a few hundred at one
    >> time. I think $33 a month is a bit steep though.
    >>
    >>> Even with video and DVD you can buy a slightly used copy on ebay for the
    >>> same price as a standard rental and a lot of people do that.

    >>
    >> Netflix seems to be very popular. There are cases where people would
    >> rather rent than own.

    >
    > Now, if the COLA goons were to leverage this to promote OO as opposed to
    > whine about MS we might see OSS get somewhere. But lets not hold our
    > breath.


    It's not going to replace purchased licenses, it's in addition to purchased
    licenses. It's an option.

    If they were to ever drop purchased licenses, then they'd have a revolt on
    their hands.

  11. Re: Sound Idea from MSFT: charge a monthly fee for Office. Only $33 a month {Applause}

    On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 23:04:57 +0200, Hadron wrote:

    > Erik Funkenbusch writes:
    >
    >> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 16:49:53 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
    >>
    >>> I have to respectfully disagree with this model.
    >>> First off, people like owning things which is why subscription based models
    >>> are somewhat dying.

    >>
    >> While i don't particularly like it either, I can understand that some
    >> people might find it attractive. Particularly if you only need the service
    >> for 1 month, or maybe you can't afford to plop down a few hundred at one
    >> time. I think $33 a month is a bit steep though.
    >>
    >>> Even with video and DVD you can buy a slightly used copy on ebay for the
    >>> same price as a standard rental and a lot of people do that.

    >>
    >> Netflix seems to be very popular. There are cases where people would
    >> rather rent than own.

    >
    >
    > Now, if the COLA goons were to leverage this to promote OO as opposed to
    > whine about MS we might see OSS get somewhere. But lets not hold our
    > breath.


    You know, I was going to say the exact same thing.....

    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  12. Re: Sound Idea from MSFT: charge a monthly fee for Office. Only $33 a month {Applause}

    Quoting RonB who, on Sun, 20 Apr 2008 16:02:43 -0500, posted:

    > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >
    >> I agree, it has to be REALLY attractive, financially, to convince people
    >> it's worth it.

    >
    > Let Micro$haft do it. Great opportunity for OpenOffice.


    Yes, indeed!

    --
    This message was sent from a
    computer which is guaranteed
    100% free of the M$ Windoze virus.
    -- 64bit Mandriva 2008.1 --

  13. Re: Sound Idea from MSFT: charge a monthly fee for Office. Only $33 a month {Applause}

    On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 23:37:10 +0100, William Poaster wrote:

    > Quoting RonB who, on Sun, 20 Apr 2008 16:02:43 -0500, posted:
    >
    >> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>
    >>> I agree, it has to be REALLY attractive, financially, to convince people
    >>> it's worth it.

    >>
    >> Let Micro$haft do it. Great opportunity for OpenOffice.

    >
    > Yes, indeed!


    Linux *had* a great opportunity with Windows ME.
    Linux *had* a great opportunity with XP being more or less stagnant for
    many years.
    Linux *has a great opportunity with all the bad press Vista is getting.

    So, why is Linux still languishing at 0.6 percent of desktop market?
    Why is OpenOffice, despite being cross platform rarely seen in the wild.

    How come Firefox managed to take away a good chunk of IE market share while
    Linux and Open Office can't even get out of 1st gear?

    Maybe people just don't like Linux and Open Office.
    Maybe you should face reality that even with 500+ Linux distributions and
    the fact that Linux is free, you still can't get people to use Linux.

    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  14. Re: Sound Idea from MSFT: charge a monthly fee for Office. Only $33 a month {Applause}

    * Erik Funkenbusch peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > Netflix seems to be very popular. There are cases where people would
    > rather rent than own.


    Unfortunately, all you own then is the right to insert the disk and view
    it on your own private machines.

    I /hate/ that phrase: "Own it today!"

    Playing to one's desire for "ownanism"?

    --
    If GM had kept up with technology like the computer industry has, we would
    all be driving $25 cars that got 1000 MPG.
    -- Bill Gates

  15. Re: Sound Idea from MSFT: charge a monthly fee for Office. Only$33 a month {Applause}

    raylopez99 wrote:
    > It's a proud day to be an American. As a MSFT shareholder, I applaud
    > the below idea. After all, nowadays $33 a month, or a little over a
    > dollar a day, won't even pay for coffee. Further, this way the best
    > and the brightest programmers at MSFT have a chance to be fairly
    > compensated for any bug fixes or enhancements they make to the
    > software. A "win-win" all around.



    This has been Bill Gates' wet dream for years now and will be the final
    nail in the coffin of m$. Oh it'll take a few years whilst they sue
    everyone and everything over patents but this will be the end of their
    monopoly. People don't like subscription software. Billgatus used to
    realise this.

  16. Re: Sound Idea from MSFT: charge a monthly fee for Office. Only $33 a month {Applause}

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, raylopez99

    wrote
    on Sun, 20 Apr 2008 13:41:25 -0700 (PDT)
    <791ad158-a56b-4878-9f9c-96b4bc236fed@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>:
    > It's a proud day to be an American. As a MSFT shareholder, I applaud
    > the below idea. After all, nowadays $33 a month, or a little over a
    > dollar a day, won't even pay for coffee.


    Gods...who recycyled *this* old idea? Microsoft was
    talking software rental back in the late 80's! In fact,
    Googling the term coughed up this hoary chestnut:

    http://www.copyright.gov/reports/software_ren.html

    which refers to President Bush *Senior*, and the "Computer
    Software Rental Amendments Act", passed 1990-12-01.
    This is still enshrined in the law today, as far as I can
    tell (as Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 109):

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...9----000-.html

    > Further, this way the best
    > and the brightest programmers at MSFT have a chance to be fairly
    > compensated for any bug fixes or enhancements they make to the
    > software. A "win-win" all around.


    Except maybe for the consumer, but it's an interesting problem
    all around.

    [rest snipped]

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    "Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of
    elderberries!" - Monty Python and the Holy Grail

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  17. Re: Sound Idea from MSFT: charge a monthly fee for Office. Only $33 a month {Applause}

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Moshe Goldfarb

    wrote
    on Sun, 20 Apr 2008 18:48:29 -0400
    <779ugfz31gcu.19afwfkeqmzl4.dlg@40tude.net>:
    > On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 23:37:10 +0100, William Poaster wrote:
    >
    >> Quoting RonB who, on Sun, 20 Apr 2008 16:02:43 -0500, posted:
    >>
    >>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I agree, it has to be REALLY attractive, financially, to convince people
    >>>> it's worth it.
    >>>
    >>> Let Micro$haft do it. Great opportunity for OpenOffice.

    >>
    >> Yes, indeed!

    >
    > Linux *had* a great opportunity with Windows ME.


    Nope. WinME was buggy crap, but it was known buggy crap.
    Everyone knows Microsoft. Everyone does not know Linux.

    > Linux *had* a great opportunity with XP being more or less
    > stagnant for many years.


    Stagnation = stability. Nope. XP was the OS everyone knew, and
    could depend on. It's a stable platform.[*] It continues to
    be a stable platform.

    Linux is *not* a stable platform in this context (though
    it can run for years without doing something strange,
    on sufficiently good equipment). Linux distros appear
    to mutate about once every 6 months, with Linux itself
    changing about once every 18 or so in a major fashion.

    > Linux *has a great opportunity with all the bad press Vista is getting.


    What bad press? Remember, bad press = press, and Microsoft
    gets free advertising with every patch they send out.
    They are *doing* something. Linux? Well, if we're lucky
    the cognoscenti might be able to ascertain that something
    positive is going on (and certain there's some interesting
    developments in various areas), but Joe Layman is not going
    to understand the ins and outs of software development any
    more than he can understand that the car has more moving
    parts than the bit one puts the fuel in and the bits that
    touch the road...

    >
    > So, why is Linux still languishing at 0.6 percent of desktop market?


    Because no one wants it, of course. The reasons are complex, but
    marketing beats technical every time.

    How does one market Linux? An interesting question.
    IBM tried, without that much success -- I think that
    "peace, love, Linux" program confused things.

    > Why is OpenOffice, despite being cross platform rarely seen in the wild.


    Because it doesn't meet my needs, for starters. (I don't
    use MSOffice either.) Neither one does all that good a
    job at documentation.

    Some will probably call this heresy, but here's a thought
    for all of you.

    XML.

    XSL.

    document().

    There, I've said it. From one model (the XML data file)
    I can construct many views (XSL, using document() inclusion
    and additional stub XMLs that simply link together the
    XML data file with the requisite style sheet). I can even
    extract SVG from that master dataset. If necessary, the
    stub files can bring in additional data, linking it all
    together with XInclude and XLink semantics.

    With the addition of CSS a further portion of the problem
    splits off, though CSS isn't all that good at

    positioning (it tries hard, though), but it's excellent
    at border specification, coloration, fonts, and other
    such miscellany.

    And I will briefly mention RDF, which I'd have to study,
    but I think of that as a data retrieval system for
    arbitrary XML documents (as opposed to SQL, which is a
    data retrieval system for arbitrary data records).

    Does OO support any of this? MS Office?
    Not even close, though OO can read plain HTML files.

    HTML/HTTP itself is a major bodgeup. First, HTTP was
    a nice little stateless protocol; fetch a doc, get
    the results back. Then images got involved -- all right,
    another server transaction. Now we have cookies, plugins,
    and Javascript. It's a nice big mess.

    I can't even get inline SVG to work reliably in IE,
    that's how bad it is, and heaven help those who want to
    save about 40 bytes of headers and some processing time
    by including binary pictures in that initial fetch (as
    opposed to initiating another fetch, as HTTP requires now).

    At least with Microsoft Word all of the crap is contained
    within one, count 'em ONE, document. It would be nice
    if we could get responses such as

    HTTP/1.1 200 OK
    Content-Type: multipart/alternate; charset=UTF-8
    Content-Encoding: gzip

    and have browsers and word processors process them reliably.

    I'm not all that hopeful.

    >
    > How come Firefox managed to take away a good chunk
    > of IE market share while Linux and Open Office can't
    > even get out of 1st gear?


    Because IE needs to get fixed, but it runs on a stable
    platform, namely, Windows XP.

    >
    > Maybe people just don't like Linux and Open Office.


    Correct. Mostly because they don't *know* it -- and even
    you don't know it; Linux is the *kernel*, and just that.
    Most people would probably get introduced to Linux via
    Ubuntu, which could just as easily build itself around
    HURD or FreeBSD, were Canonical willing to put sufficient
    engineering time around the matter (and HURD sufficiently
    functional; FreeBSD to its credit probably can support
    almost everything Gnome and KDE require).

    > Maybe you should face reality that even with 500+ Linux distributions and
    > the fact that Linux is free, you still can't get people to use Linux.


    People don't use Linux. They get work done (or try to,
    in some cases).

    *I* might write code such as the following:

    -----8< >8-----

    #include

    ..globl _start
    ..text

    _start:
    pushl %ebp
    movl %esp,%ebp

    movl $datas,%edx /* len */
    lea data,%ecx /* buf */
    movl $1,%ebx /* fid 1 -- STDOUT */
    movl $__NR_write,%eax
    int $0x80

    movl $0,%ebx
    movl $__NR_exit,%eax
    int $0x80

    data: .ascii "Hello, world!"
    .byte 10
    datae:
    datas=datae-data

    ..end

    -----8< >8-----

    (Yes, that's right, another "hello world" variant. There's
    so many of them.)

    Not many others would. That's as close to bare metal as
    Linux allows, and the INT 80H (represented here in [g]as
    syntax as int $0x80), is where the app program meets the
    kernel interface.

    Most people prefer to type in commands such as 'ls'
    (if they're old school) or point and click.
    [*] in the sense that it never mutated. Linux now has at least
    *three* audio systems (OSS, ALSA, and now PulseAudio), which
    is almost as bad as Windows' internal drivers -- but no one
    ever sees the drivers. To their credit, they do work reasonably
    well together.

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    "Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of
    elderberries!" - Monty Python and the Holy Grail

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  18. Re: Sound Idea from MSFT: charge a monthly fee for Office. Only $33 amonth {Applause}

    On Apr 25, 12:54*pm, The Ghost In The Machine
    wrote:

    > > Maybe people just don't like Linux and Open Office.

    >
    > Correct. *Mostly because they don't *know* it -- and even
    > you don't know it; Linux is the *kernel*, and just that.


    We want more than just a kernel, Colonel, else we would all program in
    Assembly Language.


    > > Maybe you should face reality that even with 500+ Linux distributions and
    > > the fact that Linux is free, *you still can't get people to use Linux.

    >
    > People don't use Linux. *They get work done (or try to,
    > in some cases).
    >


    No work = unemployed = Linux "power" user, who impresses gullible
    friends with "Hello, World!" programs.


    > *I* might write code such as the following:
    >
    > -----8< >8-----
    >
    > #include
    >



    Case in point...

    >
    > Most people prefer to type in commands such as 'ls'
    > (if they're old school) or point and click.


    Right.

    >
    >[*] in the sense that it never mutated. *Linux now has at least
    > *three* audio systems (OSS, ALSA, and now PulseAudio), which
    > is almost as bad as Windows' internal drivers -- but no one
    > ever sees the drivers. *To their credit, they do work reasonably
    > well together.
    >


    Only you and five other people in the 0.6% PC market share world would
    know it.

    RL

  19. Re: Sound Idea from MSFT: charge a monthly fee for Office. Only $33 a month {Applause}

    raylopez99 wrote:

    > Only you and five other people in the 0.6% PC market share world would
    > know it.


    And then there's the 20% of the world's population who COLA 24/7. Of course
    it's not like they're cognizant of their surroundings. Isn't that right,
    Ray old boy?

    (Never mind answering, I don't want you to hurt yourself.)

    --
    RonB
    "There's a story there...somewhere"

  20. Re: Sound Idea from MSFT: charge a monthly fee for Office. Only $33 amonth {Applause}

    On Apr 20, 9:41 pm, raylopez99 wrote:
    > It's a proud day to be an American. As a MSFT shareholder, I applaud
    > the below idea. After all, nowadays $33 a month, or a little over a
    > dollar a day, won't even pay for coffee. Further, this way the best
    > and the brightest programmers at MSFT have a chance to be fairly
    > compensated for any bug fixes or enhancements they make to the
    > software. A "win-win" all around.
    >



    Thank but no thanks. I'll stick with my no-adware, free-as-in-beer,
    standards-compliant, OpenOffice.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast