<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Asian Linux distro is ahead of schedule</title>
	<atom:link href="http://linux.quicksurf.com/?feed=rss2&#038;p=1192" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://linux.quicksurf.com/?p=1192</link>
	<description>Separating the Linux and Open Source Signal from The Noise.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Jan 2011 11:22:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Allan Clark</title>
		<link>http://linux.quicksurf.com/?p=1192&#038;cpage=1#comment-1609</link>
		<dc:creator>Allan Clark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:55:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://linux.quicksurf.com/index.php?p=1192#comment-1609</guid>
		<description>your suggestion in your podcast (&quot;just re-sell the exact same thing in place of your own product&quot;) seems only briefly considered.  Thinking longer, you might ask yourself what the business sense of such a deal is.  Why replace your product with someone else&#039;s?  The idea is to share engineering, but still differentiate it as your own product in your own market, even if the differences are as small as default languages.  Also, If you knew Asia, you&#039;d know why Koreans and Chinese will avoid buying Japanese products.  Period.  My final argument is &quot;do not repeat the United Linux flaw of trusting a peer to do the critical work&quot; -- we see how Connectiva, SCO, and Turbo were shafted by SuSE.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>your suggestion in your podcast (&#8220;just re-sell the exact same thing in place of your own product&#8221;) seems only briefly considered.  Thinking longer, you might ask yourself what the business sense of such a deal is.  Why replace your product with someone else&#8217;s?  The idea is to share engineering, but still differentiate it as your own product in your own market, even if the differences are as small as default languages.  Also, If you knew Asia, you&#8217;d know why Koreans and Chinese will avoid buying Japanese products.  Period.  My final argument is &#8220;do not repeat the United Linux flaw of trusting a peer to do the critical work&#8221; &#8212; we see how Connectiva, SCO, and Turbo were shafted by SuSE.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
