suzanne @ Wed, 03/30/2005 - 09:56
| Project: | OSDDP Project |
| Component: | White Paper |
| Category: | revision |
| Priority: | normal |
| Assigned: | kprykhod |
| Status: | active |
| Attachment: | nick_p2_whitepaper.doc (64 KB) |
Description
Attached is a white paper on Microsoft and Open Source. I'll quote the introduction below:
Both Microsoft and Open Source have advantages and disadvantages; this white paper will briefly discuss these and try to provide further understanding into each and how they entice users. Microsoft may very well be a monopoly of sorts, but can it be proven? Open source is new and innovative, but not as user friendly and familiar to some. Furthermore, these concepts and ideas will be displayed by defining a monopoly, questioning Microsoft stance on the monopoly idea, comparing Microsoft and Open Source, and understanding how both Microsoft and Open Source choose to market themselves.
Updates
| #1 submitted by Devin Cunningham on Tue, 09/27/2005 - 21:09 | |||||||||||
| |||||||||||
We are a team of english 420 students at Purdue University that will be currently working on revising this white paper. We will do our best to update the information and add relative information to enhance the papers quality.We can further provide information about both programs, along with more detail on their advantages and disadvantages. We will also attempt to prove whether or not Microsoft is a monopoly or not. | |||||||||||
| #2 submitted by llaub on Fri, 09/30/2005 - 19:46 | |||||||||||
| |||||||||||
This is the analysis of the White paper on Microsoft vs. Open source. | |||||||||||
| #3 submitted by MichelleBalcerak on Wed, 10/05/2005 - 18:54 | |||||||||||
| |||||||||||
This is our revision of "Microsoft and the Open Source Movement." We as a group feel this revision meets the needs of our analysis in many ways. We have further conducted research on whether or not Microsoft is a monopoly and enhanced the advantages and disadvantages of Microsoft. We further proofread the paper for errors and such (compound sentences, choppiness), and included cited sources within the paper, including to the figures. Lastly, we made sure to keep at suitable for the OSDDP audience. We feel that we have greatly enhanced the quality of this paper. | |||||||||||
| #4 submitted by kprykhod on Fri, 09/29/2006 - 17:18 | |||||||||||
| |||||||||||
| #5 submitted by kprykhod on Wed, 10/04/2006 - 17:20 | |||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Attached is a review and Annotated Bibliography of the sources listed in the original submission of the document. | |||||||||||
| #6 submitted by kprykhod on Wed, 10/18/2006 - 02:33 | |||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Annotated Bibliography | |||||||||||
| #7 submitted by kprykhod on Thu, 10/19/2006 - 21:41 | |||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Attached is a White Paper Analysis | |||||||||||
| #8 submitted by kprykhod on Mon, 10/30/2006 - 18:10 | |||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Attached is The Final Revised Version of the document |