Message-ID: <1092756887.1839.36.camel@banshee.mythic.magic>
From: lists at ktabic.co.uk (ktabic)
Subject: lame bitching about xpsp2

On Mon, 2004-08-16 at 19:13 -0400, joe wrote:
> Like I said, they were doing *nix back in 1980. Whether they bought it or
> created it, they had it IF they wanted to use it. I have no doubt in their
> ability to have integrated it with the other stuff they were doing if they
> had chosen to. They didn't choose to. 
> 
> As for where the stack and those tools came from, I have legal access to the
> OS source, I can see where it comes from. You aren't as accurate as you
> would like to think.
> 
Nether are you, apparently.
>From the Windows XP Release notes:
Portions of this product are based in part on the work of the Regents of
the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors.
Of course, this doens't prove that M$ uses it in the TCP/IP stack, but
there is plenty of evidence that they did. Harder to prove now, since
Berkeley dropped the advertising copyright section.
But the existance of that opyright statement points to some of Berkeleys
stuff being in there (as well as MIT's, HP's, University of South
California's, University of Michigan's and others, which just shows that
Windows isn't really written purely by M$...
Of course, most, if not all, or even more, are still in Windows 2003.

> > >Err no, their goal is to maintain a profit and compete 
> > With no competitors ?
> 
> You are free to believe what you will. The investments MS has made in other
> software/computer companies though should help you understand the answer to
> that one.
> 
How will those investments help? Oh, I know they put in some money to
Apple once, but that was because if Apple went, there was no question of
M$ being a monopoly. OTOH I don't remember M$ investing in Linux. Nor do
I remember M$ investing in any other office suite. Sure, they invest in
companies writing software, but only cause it doesn't compete in thier
main market. IMHO the only reason M$ invest the money is to proverbally
fatten the company up, in case M$ wants that software latter.

> Absolutely you can buy machines without Microsoft Software. As for your
> second comment, there probably are cases that this is true but there are
> also laptops you can buy with Linux on them or no OS on them. My last 3
> machines I have purchased have all had no OS on them. You can even buy a
> desktop from Dell with Linux though I understand from my Dell friends they
> don't sell very well. 
> 
But there aren't that many companies that do that. So most people end up
buying MS software even if they don't want it.
And have you tried getting the refund for the cra^H^H^Hunwanted
software?

> >Cause they already don't have a choice now. They get given laptops with 
> >M$ on it at school. Now ...whos trolling here ?
> 
> Schools are giving kids laptops now? Do you mean they are letting kids use
> school laptops? In that case, this is a choice of the school. This isn't MS
> saying it has to be that way. Buy your kid his/her own laptop, don't rely on
> the school and people's tax dollars. Then put whatever the heck you want on
> it. Alternatively, load up vmware on the laptop and run Linux or BSD in the
> virtual machine. 
> 
http://www.portables1.ngfl.gov.uk/shughes2/page2.html
Of course, that was several years ago. It's now been explanded to over
200,000 in just one county, no idea how many around the country
> 
> >Do not even go there. Why do they have it installed at home in the first 
> >place ? So Its a monopoly, and  have to just shut the fsck up, accept 
> >it, keep quiet and pay ? Don't think, we did it for you before with 
> >loads of money invested too, so that surely is a factor of trust. 
> >Criticism is banned. Yeah thats fair.
> 
> I think it is there because MS has done the most to get the computers into
> people's homes. They have done the most to make machine's usable for
> everyone and inexpensive enough for many. The only other company that has
> done anything decent in these areas is Apple and that is in the former, not
> the latter category. Apple gave tons of machine's away in schools to hook
> kids into wanting them and that didn't work out so well because the costs
> were still a bit much for people at home. Now we have a case where the free
> OSes are realizing that the world isn't going to change to use their OS, so
> they change to be as similar as possible to the OS that is on top. I
> actually think this is great, it opens up the choices. However don't expect
> right around the corner Mr. and Mrs. Smith and their 2.3 children will be
> running BSD at home. It isn't there yet and at present, the interface is
> still chasing what MS has, not revolutionizing it. 

Oh, nice choice. Lets go with BSD, rather than Linux. Well done, that
man. Of course BSD's interface isn't as good as Windows. You want to try
GNOME or KDE instead (and yes I know that BSD can have either or both of
those, but you statement, straight up, appears to compare CLI againist
GUI)
> 
> You obviously also do not understand the concept of a monopoly. A monopoly
> is when there is only one supplier of a good or service, there is no choice
> period. This does not describe situation we have. Anyway, it isn't an end to
> monopoly you are looking for. It is an end to MS, if SUSE (or name your fav
> vendor) should all of a sudden become immensely popular and own 99% of the
> desktops you would be singing some religious hymn about it. Not touting how
> bad monopolies are. 

Incorrect. Under UK law a company has a monopoly once:
Market share is over 25%
High Barriers to entry
Abnormal Profits
Can exercise control over price or output

Microsoft has all of those in this country
It has all of those in the US to. And I'm sure if you actually checked
US laws, you would find a similar situation. Monopoly isn't having 100%
market share, but control of the market.
Of course, given M$'s nature and Billy Boys dreams, they have to
maintain a monopoly, since they can't become an oligopoly (and even if
they had the desire, no one would want to)
> 
> Criticism is absolutely not banned, but if you are going to criticize,
> understand what you are talking about. You run around spouting half truths
> and incorrect information intermixed with religious quotes like it means
> something simply because you believe it must be so probably because you have
> heard it from 14 other religious zealots. 
> 
So he is doing exactly the same as you.
> 
> If the level of intelligence and capability of Windows users came up to the
> level of Linux users and especially of BSD users then many issues would
> slide into the background. Unfortunately for Linux, its user's intelligence
> averages are going to go down as they get more penetration of the desktops.
> Watch how Linux gets dumbed down for their use and as issues start to creep
> in more and more. 
> 
Ah, a traditional arguement. The users are stuipid, except I know some
users who as far, far more intelligent than you or I.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists