>Doug,
>
>>For me it's just the reality that as a developer I go where the money is. In my thinking process there is no such thing as ascribing moral value to computer software. That is, No one is either a good guy or a bad guy for using or not using any particular manufacturer's software product.
>
>I agree. I go where the $$ is as well - my clients pay me for solutions without regard to the means (tools) to the solution. If expertise is required beyond my capabilities, I'll sub-it-out. For example, I currently have a guy doing a C++ (Borland) DLL for some WinInet stuff.

Sure - because you're convinced it's the best tool for the job. That's the "nut" of my position. Currently, for many reasons I think that MS products are the best answer for my development needs. They may not be for someone else.

>
>>Am I understanding you correctly that you are insinuating that becsue someone like myself uses Microsoft products that I have given up the ability to make rational decisions? *g*
>


>Well, your comments to JVP seem to point in that direction; however, we both know you are much too smart for that - right?

*rof'l*

Right, and don't forget it! *g*

Seriously though, I think you may be reading your own 'take' into my comments.

>
>Don't get me wrong. Microsoft products have met my needs and I will continue to use them until something better comes along. As I said in my response to JVP, I think there will be alternatives down the road and it will be important to be open to them.

I'd be surprised if there were not alternatives down the road. Historically companies have tended to forget that things always change and insist on keeping market share as a result of past performances. Not so kimosabe. I DO think that Bill Gates understands this part of the computer industry and if you examine the internal business structure(s) of Microsoft you will see sheer brilliance (with respect to human nature) in how they've organized themselves to be able to continually compete.

Look at IBM for a contrast - stiff and unresponsive to where they lost an 80%+/- marketshare of the PC hardware market.

Remember, the essential point of the whole Justice Department's case is that MS has been too successful and that they've stepped over the line. Well, I haven't seen any civil or criminal indictments so I have to presume that the evidence ain't so hot. What I have seen is an orchestrated campaign from the envious against the successful, a typical liberal method used to shake those down who have deep pockets. Look at the tobacco industry for example. It's regulated by the feds and they want to sue the industry who's products they (the feds) ok for sale???? It's a simple money grab and a back door tax increase.

If someone has broken a law they should be prosecuted in a court. But I stray..

I honestly think there will be a successful competitor to Word some day - unless Gatets & Company are allowed to keep their competative "fire" by avoiding stupid government oversight.

Another factor folks seem to tend to forget is the latency of any product's life. It typically goes FAR beyond the end of manufacturing. Look at FoxPro for Windows 2.6. So, there's lots of time to respond.

Best,

DD