discuss: getting sponsorship and marketing LDP
Subject:
Re: getting sponsorship and marketing LDP
From:
Stein Gjoen ####@####.####
Date:
21 Dec 2003 22:51:55 -0000
Message-Id: <3FE0D60B.7020209@mail.nyx.net>
rahul wrote:
> Hi
>
>> It might very well be old but software is still usable even so.
>> It is not that many years ago when I used a CP/M machine. Also,
>> keep in mind that the WordPerfect company was one of the first
>> commercial companies to support Linux with their software,
>> something I feel they should have, and keep, credit for.
>
> How many people would choose wordperfect on linux now?. Thats the
> relevant question.
I have absolutely no idea on how many users there might be.
Still I do not believe that is the only relevant question: do
keep in mind that it shows evidence of companies having found
Linux relevant for many years. When it comes to advocacy I
believe this is an important document.
>> I am not convinced.
>>
>> If the documents do not mention the programs are commercial they
>> should, if only to prevent accidental piracy. Otherwise I will
>> assume that our readers have the necessary intelligence to make
>> their own choices amongst the alternatives.
>
> If the documents are not organised as it should be then suggest
> something that can make it better. Ok. So do you want to add a note on
Of course. If you check out my prototyping page you will
indeed find I am subscribing to the idea of "show me the code"
and in that spirit I have made two suggestions currently being
hammered out on the staff list (meaning it is still
early days and the ideas are a bit rough):
1: a better, more informative index that I prototyped here:
http://www.nyx.net/~sgjoen/doc_index.html
2: a suggestion trying to involve the experts on
organising information.
If you wish to see all the prototyping going on you are
welcome to visit and comment on it:
http://www.nyx.net/~sgjoen/tarpl.html
> top of every document?. Intelligence has nothing to do with realising
> which program is proprietary and which one is free. You are making the
> classic mistake of relating knowledge about something with intelligence
Please read again: I am not confusing intelligence with knowledge,
my comment on intelligence is related to people making their choices
given the knowledge of the alternatives there are. Avoiding this
possible source of confusion was the very reason I added the part
"... amongst the alternatives."
Regards,
Stein Gjoen
