<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Hi Andrew, nice to see you again!<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> It's statements like this that undermine Open Source.<br>
<br>
</div>*cough* I think you mean "Free Software", needless to say... *cough* :-)<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> It sounds<br>
> bitter, and derogatory. Windows is just as innovative as any linux<br>
> system.<br>
<br>
</div>*cough* I believe you mean "GNU/Linux", likewise... :)<br>
<br>
On a more serious note, I think Microsoft does know how to be<br>
innovative, but only when there's money to be made or an agenda to be<br>
pushed. Unfortunately, said "innovation" isn't always meant for the<br>
benefit of the users: see OS-integrated DRMs for instance.<br><br></blockquote><div> <br>Trying to argue Free vs. nonfree software based on stability, innovation, or almost any other metric is always going to end up in "he says, she says" arguements and pointless flameage.<br>
<br>Windows 7 is a damn nice operating system. I had a play with it and it compares pretty well with the current incarnation of Ubuntu. In some areas I may even say it's better. But other than a brief play to see what it's like it will never be the operating system I use because it is still non-free. I try to keep my use of non-free software to a minimum, all the software I use can be freely shared at the least and very little of it is not completely Free (FSF definition)<br>
<br>There is only one metric that they really can't argue about; Freedom. When it comes down to having the Freedom to run the software for any purpose, to share, to adapt or modify the software and share those changes then there is no arguement. Free software has it, non-free software does not, and to some people that matters. The rest can keep running Windows for all I care.<br>
<br></div></div>