Home
| Calendar
| Mail Lists
| List Archives
| Desktop SIG
| Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU |
I can understand not wanting to put more $$ into a 'dead end' product unless there was something that can be gained over the expenses. In my opinion, doing an 'as is' license for two generations back of product (would that be '95, ME, or 2000 at this point?) with 'open licensing' could be of some advantage to MS, but that is my opinion, and theirs is the only one that really counts. On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 12:58 PM, James Kramer <kramerjm-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org> wrote: > I have read that the reason that Microsoft doesn't go opensource is > because of the poor coding. > Jay > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss-mNDKBlG2WHs at public.gmane.org > http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups | |
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities. |