__/ [ Mark Kent ] on Monday 15 May 2006 08:33 \__
> begin oe_protect.scr
> Roy Culley <rgc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> begin risky.vbs
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>> __/ [ Larry Qualig ] on Sunday 14 May 2006 15:50 \__
>>>> How does this even remotely have anything to do with Linux?
>>>> How come you keep posting this Off Topic crap?
>>> It should be crystal clear if you think laterally. Think about the
>>> "Why OpenOffice" campaign. Among the keys to GNU/Linux and OSS
>>> adoption is the enforcement of licenses and battles against piracy.
>>> Take Office and Photoshop from Joe Average (or, contrariwise, charge
>>> him for it) and see what happens.
>>> Now, Larry, if you don't like the [news]-tagged items, then kill me,
>>> or kill them. That's what the killfile is for. If you incentives for
>>> presence in this group are adverse to Linux advocacy (positivy or
>>> negatively approached), then you are in the wrong place. This is
>>> definitely on topic, having re-iterated the point which revolves
>>> around /cost/ of S/W. It is no longer very bendable.
>> Very well said. As I wrote in another post it was trolls and MS who
>> made anti-MS posts on topic wrt to the COLA charter. Keep up the great
>> work Roy.
> I support this position. Larry posts mainly off-topic, your news items
> are not remotely off-topic. Such as open office is essential to Linux,
> and thus right in the cross-hairs of our charter.
Thanks, Mark. I hope that everything posted serves as somewhat of an
indication of milstones, paving the way to a future where 95% (Microsoft
would strongly insist it is 90%) of all computers exclusively run FOSS.