on 10/26/01 12:13 AM, Franki at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> All I wish to say is that the reason the US Judge wanted to split M$ into > two or > more companies was to split the OS off from the rest of their offerings. > So that the application M$ would be on even ground with everyone else > writing > software so that we continue to have lots of competing software companies > out > there developing software for the windows platform. > But that basically turns it into MS providing Windows as a "charity" to the industry so other companies can compete on it. Why should they do that? Why does MS have the burden of maintaining and developing an OS, just so other companies can come along and compete with them, sans that heavy burden? If MS is in the position of providing the very OS these companies need to create their products, why shouldn't they be given some incentive? Now I don't think MS should be allowed to bolt all these apps into the OS just so other companies don't stand a chance. But when it comes to developing the apps, an insider's perspective on the OS should be perfectly fine, if not used maliciously. I don't like MS, at all. But I also don't think MS should get shafted just because their MS. A monopoly is not necessarily illegal. There are some benefits a monopoly provides that are perfectly legal, and some that are not. In the case of MS, most everyone wants to just say it's all illegal because they hate MS. Matt _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
