From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Nov 16 15:16:35 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mail.enteract.com (mail.enteract.com [207.229.143.33]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D93F214D06 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 15:16:33 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dscheidt@enteract.com) Received: from shell-2.enteract.com (dscheidt@shell-2.enteract.com [207.229.143.41]) by mail.enteract.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA90768; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 17:15:08 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from dscheidt@enteract.com) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 17:15:08 -0600 (CST) From: David Scheidt To: David Schwartz Cc: Jonathon McKitrick , Erick White , freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" In-Reply-To: <000401bf3074$e4c4de30$021d85d1@youwant.to> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, David Schwartz wrote: > > On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, David Schwartz wrote: > > No, it only proves that market power won't necessarily "lock us into > > inferior technologies" not that it can't. There is a very important > > difference. > > Actually, it proves much more than that. It proves that people are so It doesn't. Turning a single example into a universal truth is not good logic. > desperate to find examples of lock in that they will just make them up > without ever even bothering to look at the facts. Can you present a single > clear-cut case of such lock in? Sure. POTS. No monopoly telephone company has an incentive to install anything better. It is only when telephone companies face competition that they make alternatives available. Bell Atlantic would charge me several hundred dolalrs a month for ISDN, and has no plans to offer any sort of high speed data services in this area. Other places -- with much the same population density -- which have competititon from other telecos, or from cable companies, have lower ISDN prices, and BA are rolling out xDSL in these areas. > > Do you realize what Microsoft had to do to make a Windows 3.1 version of > IE? Do you relalize the effort expended to produce WIN32s? All of these > things were done precisely so that people would _not_ have to upgrade. I don't care about IE on win3.1. I care that I have a machine which has an original version of Windows95 on it, and on which I cannot install office 2000. Why? because office installs different versions of .dlls, and *breaks* *third-party* applications, which are coded in conformance with Microsoft's *published* APIs! Oddly, MS stuff continues to work. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message