|go ahead... be a heretic|
Re: Microsoft is against Perl!?by Malkavian (Friar)
|on Jun 21, 2001 at 20:30 UTC||Need Help??|
An interesting scenario:
Given that Microsoft has funded ActiveState for a while, and now, now ActiveState is popular, the following conditions apply:
Given the above conditions, it's reasonably safe to assume the following:
Now, if Microsoft rocks the boat and states that Perl is not to be installed/finds some way to break the way that Perl operates on Windows in a patch, it is feasible in a good many cases that the following will occur:
As far as I can see it, Microsoft are trying the old trick of 'forcing the issue' and trying to break the competition.
However, in this case, the competition can be tried for free, is already established, and heavily invested in.
So, it's feasible that MS, in their hurry to try and shut away the Open Source phenomenon, they are in fact forcing people to consider it as an alternative.
I'd find it very funny if that's how it worked out. :)
As an aside, in a sense, it's true that Open Source is Viral, not just in the licensing, but in it's development. People who become exposed to it, often embrace it (contract it) to some extent, and it grows on them as they become used to it. They then mention that it works, and introduce others to the concept. Some of these 'infections' produce mutation (new coders adding to the open source, and improving it's fitness)
Microsoft, on the other hand, I think of as a 'Cancerous' development. They take existing methods, and alter them to operate in a way other than they previously did, wreaking havoc in an otherwise established system, often completely breaking it.
There is no 'infection' and rapid mutation to increase fitness of cancer. It just grows, and breaks more that isn't cancerous.
Anyhow, maybe that's a little harsh/dark, but it's how I feel about them these days.