Hi Craig,

Well, only a very very small percentage of people NEED actually "freedom of the press" or even "freedom of assembly". Does that make either bogus or worthless?

I think you dismiss the freedom offered by Open Source way too cavalierly. I especially think that you dismiss the converse - MS' ever-tightening noose of the EULA and related - without even a thought.

When the day comes (and it may be here already for all I know) that your Mom buys a PC with Linux and Star Office pre-installed and get to working with it just as she does now, will that automatically make MS' proprietary source the bad guy now?

You are nowhere near alone Craig, as I see far too many people for my liking willingly giving up a little here and a little there without much thought at the whim or request of some vendor (or government agency or whatever). Each seems harmless at the time. Few seem to ask themselves why it might be, if it really is harmless, that they are so interested in getting you to give it up in the first place.

One of the odder ones that rings similarly was the statement that (paraphrasing) 'I can't blame MS for giving little attention to VFP given that they make around $500 per developer and $0.00 per actual user'. That rationale is totally silly but it is out there! With that reasoning a hammer should cost thousands of dollars given that they are used to build houses and big boats and skyscrapers etc!
It's very true that MS has the right to put whatever it wants into its EULAs, just as it can scare the pants off a 17 year old kid named Mike Rowe. But there does come a point where more rational people say enough is enough and start looking elsewhere for what they need.
THAT is reason enough alone to ENCOURAGE Linux and Open Source. Why any of MS' customers would think otherwise for even a nonosecond is way beyond my comprehension.

Jim
>As the Open Source movement is trying to push Linux more mainstream and onto the desktop, this is a very bad marketing ploy. A very small percentage of the potential market (ie all computer users) really want this feature. It's like a car manufacturer shouting that they have the newest widget on their car when only 2-3% of all car buyers really care.
>
>>
>>On the issue of choice, I agree with you that the average computer user will not be modifying and recompiling their kernal, however, the opportunity does exist. Contrast this with Windows. If something about the OS really harshes your groove, you have what options? If you try to reverse engineer, or otherwise try to dig into the inner workings of the offending module(s), you face criminal charges thanks to the EULA and the UCITA.
>>
>>Choice implies potential and doesn't demand to be acted upon.
>>
>>I have been looking into open source software for the choice and freedom to do with the products as I wish without being tied down with such an onerous EULA such as the ones coming out of most software companies. That the solutions may actually have a higher long term cost is rather immaterial due to the flexibility provided.