Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 17:18:13 -0400 From: "Jason" <kib@poboxes.com> To: <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>, "Brett Glass" <brett@lariat.org> Subject: Re: Why we should support Microsoft. Message-ID: <022b01bd8434$cf24c060$023aa8c0@kib.kib.net>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>At 11:23 AM 5/18/98 -0600, you wrote: > > >This is not what "they" are saying. > >Microsoft is engaging in unscrupulous and monopolistic business practices, >including tying, monopoly maintenance, tortious interference with contract, >breach of contract, and more. These practices are illegal in any industry -- >be it software, steel, coal, railroads, or shoes. That sounds aweful vague....and vague doesn't win in court (well not supposed to anyway :)...What are the specifics here anyhow? >>I belive in economic Darwinism; that is to say, good products flourish and >>poor products wilt away. The consumer ultimately decides what sells and >>what doesn't, and not the providers. If Win98 stinks, I hope it dies and >>forces MS to make better products. But who am I to say what they should or >>should not try to do? > >This is analogous to saying that if a group of gangsters manages to gain control >of a city as its "territory," that you have no say in what it does. After all, >that's "Darwinism;" the strongest gang has won, right? But the software industry is a ligitament business. Gangsters are involved in ileagal businesses like murder and gambling. I think there is a distinct difference here. Now if it is found out that MS is involved in muder and gambling or something else ilegal then there is a case....but unless they can find something like MS forcing OEMs do something like: not allowing them to install something that consumers might want. > >Microsoft could, and should, have removed the browser entirely and made it >optional. Since it did not, it seems reasonable to offer it the option of >disabling it. > Why ...it was never optional before? Every windows 9x I have ever seen has had IE in it. And what does it hurt to make IE part of Windows anyhow? In Win98 I have seen that IExplorer.exe and Explorer.exe are one and the same...so you cant use win98 without IE4. Unfortunately if IE window crashes so does explorer.exe :( But that os not a mojor problem because the OS automatically restarts the shell and all you losy is the systray. Its there but you cant see anything that was there before the crash. >> * If MS does include a browser, they must also provide all >> competing products as well. Can you say horse<dung>? That is >> entirely ludicrous. > >No, it is not. Again, it's merely an expedient compromise. The PROPER thing >to do is not to tie the browser to the OS. However, if Microsoft is going >to do so, one way to ameliorate the negative effects is to allow other companies >to put their browsers on the disk as well. It's not a very GOOD way, since >they wouldn't be able to charge for their browsers that way (and one of the biggest >problems with Microsoft's tying of the browser is that it's effectively "dumping" >it on the market for free). But at least the browser makers could get some revenue >page from "Portal" pages, etc. How would a browser company make money by putting it in win98? unless its a shareware or somethint that requires registration to use. I don't think this is appropriate unless they make Apple, OS/2, FreeBSD and others do the same thing. >> * MS must modify their "Window Manager" so that OEMs and >> competitors can customize their visual. How would all the >> developers of FreeBSD feel if I took a FreeBSD release, changed >> the GUI a bit, and called it AtipaOS? > >Fine. In fact, you're allowed to. Go to it! > And it can be done on windows 95/98 as well. Everything but messing with the source or kernal....those are protected by copyright laws. But the OS has a great many things you can customize. >You seem to be buying Bill Gates' bogus arguments, hook, line, and sinker. >With all due respect, have you been sent to this newsgroup by Microsoft as >part of its "grass roots" campaign? Microsoft has been known to plant >disruptive "advocates" in online forums in the past, so this is by >no means unusual. sounds more like you are buying into the DOJ as much as he is buying into Bill Gates. from what I have seem the DOJ is talking in "vague emotional terms" and Bill Gates is showing the people proof in his recent news conference on CNN. Jason To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?022b01bd8434$cf24c060$023aa8c0>