Is it true that GNU/Linux is to MS Windows as Wikipedia is to MS Encarta? A reporter from Wired Magazine asked me a similar question the other day, except regarding Britannica. (Mav was making a more subtle point here, the reporter was just asking about our competition with traditional proprietary products.) My answer was that unlike an operating system, in which there is a significant learning curve and significant network externalities that prevent people from switching, there is basically no cost for users of Britannica to switch to a GNU-free alternative of equal or better quality. Here I am a total linux and free software geek, and yet, I have two computers on my desk -- one is Linux for actually doing work, and one is Windows because, as a businessman, I'm always getting proposals and contracts in Microsoft .doc format, and people are always asking me to put together spreadsheets in Excel format. None of those kinds of considerations apply to texts. The field of competition is much more level for upstarts, because there are very low costs of switching. Consider our textbook initiative. There's a small cost to professors or teachers to switch from existing proprietary texts to our new texts (which don't exist yet, of course), but it's pretty darn small. In my experience, they already undergo those costs from time to time anyway as department heads or administrators change to the latest new textbooks from a competing publisher. So, unlike the software world where entrenched use is slowing the adoption of free alternatives, there's really nothing standing in our way of "World domination. Fast." --Jimbo

Golly, this GNU thing is a virus. Well, lets not forget that things free and open are also in some ways more vulnerable. Like viruses, though, the OS world will fight back in flexible ways -- but ultimately the basis for the technology that most Open-systems run on is commercial. This means something interesting -- that OS anti-Corporatism tends to challenge long-standing assumptions about how capitalism itself works -- and if trends continue will call to question the means by which the tertiary level societies maintain their status. To completlely undermine -- one after one, the means by which major corporate institutions make their money -- will not go unnoticed, and will have some kind of repercussive effects -- if not by government impositions, then via an increase in active traction -- the issues are a matter of money after all. WP doesnt technically have a lot of "partnerships" -- like eLibrary or LexisNexis do -- to create a unified base for parousing "paid content." So as long as people get paid to deal in information, then access will be limited. WP has always known this, and thus it could never be the intent of 'free materiale' to undermine all of the 'paid materiale' outlets. But the perception that WP is a threat, like with other things in the GNU world -- SCO's suit of IBM over AIX, Microsoft's leaked memos about fighting Linux, etc. -- may take some shape soon. and WP best be prepared to deal with the manifestations of this perception. Civil actions against perceived copyright violations are apparently, as we speak, underway.... --SV __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com