> way I haven't thought of before - or not as clearly. Again, thank you.
That
> being said, I disagee. Not with the statement, but with the application of
> it upon MS. Could we not say that the stagnation of one OS could be fixed
by
> users simply deciding to switch OS? If people don't want to change, if
they
> want to stay with MS, who are we (as a minority) to say that we know
better.
> It is like saying, Linux is better for you, so I demand you use it instead
> of Windows. Well, Linux _is_ better, but you can't force people to use it.
>
> -rc
I think the crux of it is exactly that MS does not yet have that total lock
on the market. The antitrust laws are being applied to ensure that remains
the case. It would be kind of silly to wait until it was too late, wouldn't
it?
The real trick I think is determining when a company is teetering on that
edge of complete dominance. I don't know if MS is there or not. I've been
studiously trying to avoid opining about the MS situation because I'm not
legally and economically versed enough to make an informed opinion. I'm just
trying to point out the justifications for the existence of antitrust laws.
Personally, I prefer to use WinXP. I also prefer to use iTunes for listening
to music.
-Kevin
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
