On Fri, 26 Oct 2001 11:18:14 -0500, Matt Greer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > on 10/26/01 10:52 AM, Franki at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Yeah, I agree, I just disagree with some of your statements, > > > I think for the most part we agree, we're just arguing the details. > > > particularly the idea that Microsoft would be developing windows > > as a charity if they didn't have hidden tricks to make their > > apps "appear" better and faster. > > Windows is their biggest Cash cow, there is no argueing that..
Where did this "charity" idea come from? The proposal was to have two separate companies: one that made OSs and one that made apps. Both are allowed to sell their wares. > Making an OS is a risky endeavor. Of the hundreds of computer companies out > there, only a handful have ever tried to make an OS. Fewer have attempted > consumer OSes. These OSes are essential for the computer industry to do > anything. So it's not like Apple, Amiga, Microsoft etc attempted these OSes > because they're a bunch of nice people. They did it because they thought > they could get something out of it. Separating MS into an applications > company and an OS company denies them of one (or more) of the advantages > they took the risk to get. Just because their risk really paid off is not a > reason to do this. There needs to be more (and yes, I know there is.) > > > They have been proven to be a money hungry monopoly, there is > > no denying that either.. there is nothing wrong with a company > > being money hungry, but when they use developers to get their > > monopoly (by marketing windows as the platform everyone is > > releasing apps for) and then making those same developers > > make half assed apps by not giving then the same advantages > > that M$ themselves use.. > > > > That is patently unfair, and shouldn't be permitted. > > > But business is like that. Businesses are evil things :) Pretty much every > successful company has done nasty things to get ahead. Whether businesses > should have to play nice is another debate entirely IMO. Most businesses generally play by the rules. The largest ones tend to be the most nasty, but few are as nasty as Microsoft. When things get this bad, and threaten the entire world (not only the US), the law must step in. For example, the entire .NET infrastructure infringes on patents held by Intertrust Corp: http://msnbc.com/news/644698.asp The main MS case is actually in the EU, where Microsoft's actions in the server market are being investigated. Everything seems to point to MS being found guilty, meaning that they can be fined 10% of their revenue, which is US$2-3 BILLION. > > and all of it indicates > > that M$ know that in the end, they can drag things on for ever, and > > just continue with the way they are doing things, and they will > > eventually get away with it.. > > I dunno, there's still hope. Such as Apache trouncing all over IIS. Redhat > gaining ground in the server market, etc. It's very bleak, sure. But I don't > think it's totally over just yet. > > > PS, sorry I said you liked windows, that was uncalled for. :-) > > Heh heh :) That's gotta be one of the worst insults ever! > Matt -- Sridhar Dhanapalan Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
