What drugs are you on???
I doubt anyone that pays 450 bucks (AU) for their shiny new windows OS (HOME) or $650 for the business version. (pro)or $1500 for XP server, would call it a charity,, would you??? That doesn't fit with my idea of a charity,, It wasn't office that made M$ a huge rich monopoly, it was Windows itself.. and I bet that still makes up the majority of their earnings.. and their power. Remember, alot more people buy Windows then buy office.. some people are happy with the crappy Works or Lotus that came bundled with their PC. As for your comment on it being fine for M$ to use the kernel instead of the API's then you havent been reading the thread on this, there are heaps of reasons why that shouldn't be done. security realiability... etc.. By can you honestly say you can think of a "nice" way for a company to use shortcuts that no-one else has access to? it hasn't happened yet and I really can't see it happening.. If M$ won't let any OEM's sell linux or any other OS dual boot with windows, and you need an OS, then people are not going to have a choise (I am talking about newbies here.) they will get windows, and if what you say is correct, they will use Office, IE, msm messanger, and all the other MS apps that have put their competition out of business or dangerously close to it.. So following your analogy that its alright, then one day you will have windows ZX (or something) Office ZX or something. and .NT ZX or something and it will all fun on the MSI (MicroSoft Internet) Because they have 90% market share on the desktop, and the desktop is mostly what is used to browse the web, send email ect... and .NET ties it all neatly via Passport and such back to their wonderful OS.. So you pay M$ for your lovely copy of windows, then office, and then the big one, you pay to do anything on the internet, because M$ fully plan to charge for everything .NET... they have said this, and they wouldn't do it if their wasn't big bucks to be made from it.. NO competion for apps at all, if MS make it, you use the MS variant because its not possible to make a better one because microsoft won't let you. Not a future I want... what about you? One last point I would bring up, Microsoft got windows to where it is by using the developers, not by any technical merit of the OS itself.. M$ said here is a lovely shiny new OS thats easier to program your apps for then dos, works reasonably well and everyone will be releasing their apps for it soon, so you better as well. and they all jumped on board... not knowing that M$ would use their own software ideas to put them out of business one by one... you want a list? there are hundreds of companies that M$ has settled with after finding out they would lose in court because M$ "allegeadly" stole code. or using unfair practices like they did with DR DOS, and Netscape and many others. The Windows you speak so highly of, NT/2000/XP was based on work by IBM if I remember correctly. they split off, and went their seperate ways and from that single code body immerged OS2 and windows NT.. and nobody in their right mind would testify that NT was the better OS.. just M$ tactics ensured that very few actually got to find that out for themselves.. They have not and will not ever use their position and advantages "fairly" in my humble opinion.. after all, why start now? the current methodologies work so well for them... rgds Frank -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Matt Greer Sent: Friday, 26 October 2001 10:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [newbie] Internet Explorer for Mandrake 7.2? 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
