PDA

View Full Version : Sun win over Microsoft



face_master
12-28-2002, 03:53 AM
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/12/26/1040511119568.html

I cant believe this. Far out, i'd never install Java. Doesn't Mirosoft have the right to decide what they do/dont put in their OS?

Shadow12345
12-28-2002, 09:44 AM
not when they are a monopoly

face master is going to end up being sun's top developer, I can already tell. It's almost like those extremely insecure homophobic rednecks in my town that all become homosexual, their opinions negate over time and they become the biggest hypocrites ever.

vasanth
12-28-2002, 09:47 AM
well may be Microsoft is wrong.. But why is that generally people dislike rich companies that are very sucessfully.. is it anger and envy..

Shiro
12-28-2002, 10:04 AM
>But why is that generally people dislike rich companies that are
>very sucessfully.. is it anger and envy..

It is not only with companies, it happens a lot when people are more succesfull in something than others.

Imagine a school, where there is some boy very popular by the girls. A situation which is quite usual at schools. Then you have generally three types of other boys. The first type are those who also want to be popular and are always with the popular boy and behave like him. The second type are those who are feared, angry or something like that and always want to attack him and talk about him in a negative way. And the third type are those who keep distance and who don't care if the popular boy exists or doesn't. They just ignore him.

The second type of people are often the same who say they hate MS. This kind of behaviour is caused by the too dominant behaviour of the popular boy. If someone in a group behaves dominant, than others will behave less dominant or even the opposite of dominant. If someone gets too dominant and then behaves aggressive, then others will try to resist the dominant person and react aggressive.

This example of group dynamics is what happens with MS. MS is dominant and has a quite aggressive way of marketing. Some people like MS, others don't care about it, but the group you hear most is the group reacting aggressively when they hear or read the word Microsoft.

So I think it is just a part of being human.

Shadow12345
12-28-2002, 01:01 PM
well may be Microsoft is wrong.. But why is that generally people dislike rich companies that are very sucessfully.. is it anger and envy..



This example of group dynamics is what happens with MS. MS is dominant and has a quite aggressive way of marketing. Some people like MS, others don't care about it, but the group you hear most is the group reacting aggressively when they hear or read the word Microsoft.


If you had kept on going with the 'ms is dominant and has a quite aggressive way or marketing' you would have been on the right track with that post. Microsoft software is, in short, a monopoly, meaning most of the world's population that owns a computer uses Microsoft software (90% according to the article), we can all agree on that, that isn't a disputed fact. I'm sure you all already know this, but the real problem with MS (note I didn't use the stupid dollar sign) is what they do and don't incorporate into their software that can make or break other businesses. Ideally there should be free enterprise, where companies can freely produce products and they can compete against each other. Microsoft was only including the oldest versions of Java stinting any possible development Sun might have made with their product



Microsoft had repeatedly broken anti-trust laws by undermining Sun's Java technology and Netscape's Web browser, which together could have evolved into a competitor to its Windows monopoly


The above is bad



Microsoft has developed technology known as .Net that competes with Java. Both programs are designed to let programmers write software that runs on many kinds of operating systems and platforms.

Judge Motz wrote that if Microsoft's system was to remain dominant, "it should be because of .Net's superior qualities, not because Microsoft leveraged its PC monopoly to create market conditions in which it is unfairly advantaged."


This is good, and how it should be. Microsoft should not be dominant because they control the release of products from other companies, they should be dominant becuase they produce the best product for the consumer (which I believe they can).

unixOZ
12-29-2002, 01:48 AM
Start using free GNU software guys

Shiro
12-29-2002, 03:50 AM
I'm sure you all already know this, but the real problem with MS (note I didn't use the stupid dollar sign) is what they do and don't incorporate into their software that can make or break other businesses.


That is their way of doing bussiness. They have a monopoly, there are more monopolists in the world, and I wonder if it is possible to stop a company from becoming a monopoly by laws.
MS is getting more in the news than other monopolists since they have products which are used by many people. MS is aggressive, but on the other hand one can say: other companies have not the correct answer to MS.

As you already made clear, we all now how MS behaves in this world. It is nice to discuss if MS is bad or not, but in my opinion it would be more usefull to discuss how to answer this behaviour.

I read that the German government and recently also the Dutch government are working on using Linux and software running on this platform. This is only possible if there are good alternatives for MS software.

In my opinion the only way to beat MS is companies creating software which offers the same functionality as MS software does and which can replace MS systems.

A lot of companies keep on using MS software, because their company infrastructure (file systems, communication) is MS based. It is hard to change such infrastructure, if such a change would be easy, then many companies could easily change to different infrastructures.

ammar
12-29-2002, 05:47 AM
Damn, it's Microsoft's OS, how can they make them include Java,...
I agree with shiro in terms of people hating microsoft.

face_master
12-29-2002, 07:20 AM
>> how can they make them include Java,...

Becuase Sun accused them of trying to put then out of business intentionally by not including it. Why do you think c# was made? To replace Java, and to spread their monopoly.

But come on, how can they make you do it? Cant you say "Hrm...there seems to be a bug in Windows that wont let the Java Virtual Machine run properly...we dont have the finances to find and fix this bug. I guess we'll have to leave it. What are they gonna do? Sue then for not fixing a bug in their OS just becuase it affects them. "Its not Microsoft's fault that a bug was found"

tgm
12-29-2002, 10:23 AM
I don't necessarily agree that M$ should be forced to include Sun's Java with their OS; it is their OS after all. *nix doesn't come with Java (or at least you don't have to install it). I do think that Microsoft should be required to allow users to install Sun's Java without adverse effects though (which I believe was also a problem). M$ and Sun go way back, and Sun definitely deserves some compensation for what Microsoft has done to them. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next few years. All of these anti-trust suits, tough economy and the lack of .NET's success could lead to an interesting change in the market.

Why can't we all just get along?

Shadow12345
12-29-2002, 12:00 PM
I don't necessarily agree that M$ should be forced to include Sun's Java with their OS

But the problem is Microsoft DOES include Java, but Microsoft always included the OLDER versions only, even when Sun was releasing newer versions. This translated to a big loss for Sun.



and I wonder if it is possible to stop a company from becoming a monopoly by laws.


Umm in the United States there are laws that stop a company from being a monopoly hence all these anti trust cases and breaking microsoft into smaller companies.

Shiro
12-29-2002, 12:18 PM
Why can't we all just get along?


Well, we can, but those people running MS and Sun are managers, commercial people, their goal is to make money and make their company bigger and bigger. They see their colleagues at other companies not as their brothers and sisters, but as their enemies which they have to defeat.



Sun definitely deserves some compensation for what Microsoft has done to them.


MS will not do that and I wonder if Sun would do if it were Sun who became such an aggressive monopolist.

I wonder if they even understand what software development is. In my work I often meet commercial managers, they want a product at fixed time or fixed price, a lot of them even want both.



Umm in the United States there are laws that stop a company from being a monopoly hence all these anti trust cases and breaking microsoft into smaller companies.


Yes, but that is something different. You can stop a company from being monopolist, but I don't think you can stop a company from becoming a monopolist. The situation with MS could have been avoided by preventing MS become a monopolist, if there would exist laws for such, but I actually don't think such is realistic and possible.

eats only heads
12-29-2002, 02:21 PM
Im not really sure that there is a leagal basis for this but I still think that sun deserves the compensation. I am also glad to hear that only 90% of computers have windows. I wonder what that includes though. Old apple IIs and c64s sitting around in peoples garages.

Terrance11
12-29-2002, 06:32 PM
is microsoft a monopoly?-
technically no, but in a business sense- yes.

There's enough computers in this world- 10%, carrying an o.s. other than windows, which constitutes MS as NOT having a monopoly. That's why they haven't gotten broken up... yet???

Anyways, the same % of computers carry an intel pentium processor, if not more (90-95%).

Intel is more of a monopoly than microsoft, although microsoft is using their dominance in the o.s. market to try to take over other fields of the computer industry. Microsoft is disliked, and resort to very unethical business practices making it very difficult for other companies to succeed (like they could).

But not many companies are ethical as a whole. I'm very business oriented, and grew up in a business family (my fathers the ceo of his company). I have a broad understanding of business, from working several years in the field. Don't be fooled, Sun and other companies resort to the same tactics, but since they don't have the business weight that ms has- it doesn't get announced to the public like it would with ms.

MS is a very strategic business company. I would hate to see how the world would be right now if ms never released windows. It would basically be a two way fight between apple(which has no business sense) and IBM (which would be the dominant force in the computer industry had windows never been released.

TravisS
12-30-2002, 12:28 AM
Microsoft != monopoly.

The big part of a monopoly prevention is to protect the users. If we as users only have one choice, we must continue along with whatever the creator of that product does. If they charge $100 for a candy bar because they are the only makers of candy bars, then that is a monopoly that must be broken up to protect the consumer.

The thing here is this: there is a choice. Are you going to deny that? Are you going to say MS and Windows is the ONLY possibility? No. Apple, *nix, etc... Windows and MS became what it is because of the consumer. Would you sit your 80 year old grandpa down in front of a Linux machine and try to teach him how to use it? Well, good luck. Now, how about a windows machine? It will still take some time, but I'm willing to be he'll catch on much faster. Windows and MS became a "monopoly" because the consumer prefered it's software.

Now, as for Sun. Why should MS include Sun's software? I think it's nice enough that even Java 1.x is included (kinda). What is stopping the user who needs the updated java from going to Sun's website and downloading for free the new Java virtual machine? Nothing... In fact, right now I am using version 1.4.1_01 that I downloaded. Once again for free.
It's not Microsofts fault that Sun is losing profits, it's Sun's fault. Should MS be forced to include a copy of Linux with every version of Windows just to keep it "fair"? Think about that.

zahid
12-30-2002, 01:03 AM
Originally posted by Shiro
>
It is not only with companies, it happens a lot when people are more succesfull in something than others.

Imagine a school, where there is some boy very popular by the girls. A situation which is quite usual at schools. Then you have generally three types of other boys. The first type are those who also want to be popular and are always with the popular boy and behave like him. The second type are those who are feared, angry or something like that and always want to attack him and talk about him in a negative way. And the third type are those who keep distance and who don't care if the popular boy exists or doesn't. They just ignore him.

The second type of people are often the same who say they hate MS. This kind of behaviour is caused by the too dominant behaviour of the popular boy. If someone in a group behaves dominant, than others will behave less dominant or even the opposite of dominant. If someone gets too dominant and then behaves aggressive, then others will try to resist the dominant person and react aggressive.

This example of group dynamics is what happens with MS. MS is dominant and has a quite aggressive way of marketing. Some people like MS, others don't care about it, but the group you hear most is the group reacting aggressively when they hear or read the word Microsoft.

So I think it is just a part of being human.

Nice analysis with example.. made it easy to understand.

ammar
12-30-2002, 08:40 AM
So....
Why don't they force other companies to include the .NET framework in there operating systems...

Terrance11
12-30-2002, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by TravisS
Microsoft != monopoly.

The big part of a monopoly prevention is to protect the users. If we as users only have one choice, we must continue along with whatever the creator of that product does. If they charge $100 for a candy bar because they are the only makers of candy bars, then that is a monopoly that must be broken up to protect the consumer.

The thing here is this: there is a choice. Are you going to deny that? Are you going to say MS and Windows is the ONLY possibility? No. Apple, *nix, etc... Windows and MS became what it is because of the consumer. Would you sit your 80 year old grandpa down in front of a Linux machine and try to teach him how to use it? Well, good luck. Now, how about a windows machine? It will still take some time, but I'm willing to be he'll catch on much faster. Windows and MS became a "monopoly" because the consumer prefered it's software.

Now, as for Sun. Why should MS include Sun's software? I think it's nice enough that even Java 1.x is included (kinda). What is stopping the user who needs the updated java from going to Sun's website and downloading for free the new Java virtual machine? Nothing... In fact, right now I am using version 1.4.1_01 that I downloaded. Once again for free.
It's not Microsofts fault that Sun is losing profits, it's Sun's fault. Should MS be forced to include a copy of Linux with every version of Windows just to keep it "fair"? Think about that.


TravisS, I don't by any means disagree with you, but you seem to have more of a text book understanding of what a "monopoly" is! Like I said earlier, technically MS doesn't have a monopoly, but in a business sense they do!

The big part of monopoly prevention is to allow fair practices in the business industy AND to protect the users.

Judges and courts see the "Microsoft Monopoly" the same way you see it. Because users do have the choice of turning to macs and *nix operating systems, legally they can't shut down MS.

But again, in a "business sense" MS does have a monopoly. MS uses extremely unfair business practices that allows them to corner the market. Until something is done, and MS is partially broken up, very few computer companies have the ability to succeed in the industry like they should.

Is it fair that companies like Oracle and Sun can release a product, then have the idea stolen from MS, and watch MS take over that sector of the market??? It really isn't, and that's why so many companies are going so far to break up MS.

Intel technically has more of monopoly than MS, but they trying to take over the computer industry like MS is.

MS is using their dominance in the o.s. market to try to take over the computer industry, so in a "business sense" they pretty much are a monopoly.

I just wanted to clear up on my earlier post.

Terrance11
12-30-2002, 09:19 AM
Originally posted by Terrance11


Intel technically has more of monopoly than MS, but they trying to take over the computer industry like MS is.




Intel technically has more of monopoly than MS, but they aren't trying to take over the computer industry like MS is.


can't edit the post as a guest.

nvoigt
12-30-2002, 11:37 AM
Microsoft probably is a monopoly. I still don't understand why they have to integrate Java. Any user can get Java if s/he needs it so badly for free. No restrictions.

If my next program requires QuarkMood XL 3.7 preinstalled, why the heck should Microsoft be forced to include it in their operating system ? Because they are a monopoly ? Because I would like their product to be this way ? Ridiculous. At the moment, Microsoft's own product isn't even part of the installation procedure. Why include a competitor ?

Java is not essential for an operating system.

TravisS
12-31-2002, 12:32 AM
Not only is it not essential for an OS, it's not even essential for a web browser. I downloaded Opera as a Java free browser, and have had no issues as of yet. In fact I went for probably a solid month with the java-free version of internet exlorer provided with XP before the little pop-up box came asking me if I wanted to install the java virual machine.



Oh, and yes, my example does outline the "textbook" version of a monopoly. In the business world, MS definately holds a monopoly. To be a software devolper, even a major one such as Sun and Oracle, if very tough. The outcoming product must be VERY good for the people to take it over the more common MS brand. Same with goes with processors. Most people will buy Intel because of their massives of advertisements etc... over AMD despite the cheaper costs and more power-per-cycle Athlons. It's just the way people do things :rolleyes:

Shiro
12-31-2002, 04:42 AM
>MS uses extremely unfair business practices that allows them to
>corner the market.

Yes, but maybe this is the way to be succesfull in bussiness in the modern world.

>Is it fair that companies like Oracle and Sun can release a
>product, then have the idea stolen from MS, and watch MS take
>over that sector of the market???

I agree, it isn't fair, but on the other hand, maybe Oracle and Sun should have protected their products better. Also, if Oracle and Sun release a product and MS copies it and takes over that market, then one could wonder how they do this. Is it because of their more aggressive marketing, their product being better? :)

Anyway, I think if Oracle and Sun had the bussiness people of MS, they would have kept their market. So I wonder why those bussiness people don't behave like MS bussiness people do, maybe that would be the way to get parts of MS its markets. It will probably bad for their reputation, but it seems they have to choose. Being aggressive and succesfull or not aggressive and not successfull.

Terrance11
12-31-2002, 09:51 AM
Originally posted by Shiro
>MS uses extremely unfair business practices that allows them to
>corner the market.

Yes, but maybe this is the way to be succesfull in bussiness in the modern world.

>Is it fair that companies like Oracle and Sun can release a
>product, then have the idea stolen from MS, and watch MS take
>over that sector of the market???

I agree, it isn't fair, but on the other hand, maybe Oracle and Sun should have protected their products better. Also, if Oracle and Sun release a product and MS copies it and takes over that market, then one could wonder how they do this. Is it because of their more aggressive marketing, their product being better? :)

Anyway, I think if Oracle and Sun had the bussiness people of MS, they would have kept their market. So I wonder why those bussiness people don't behave like MS bussiness people do, maybe that would be the way to get parts of MS its markets. It will probably bad for their reputation, but it seems they have to choose. Being aggressive and succesfull or not aggressive and not successfull.


Originally posted by Shiro
>I agree, it isn't fair, but on the other hand, maybe Oracle and Sun should have protected their products better. Also, if Oracle and Sun release a product and MS copies it and takes over that market, then one could wonder how they do this. Is it because of their more aggressive marketing, their product being better? :)

So when Sun released Java, they should have protected it better?

Microsoft originally released j++ as a java compatible compiler exclusively for the windows o.s.

Sun sued, lost, and MS got angry and released c#, as well as their future product j#. MS's attempt to rid java on their o.s. was another attempt for one of their own products to swipe the market.

Having dominance in the o.s. market can allow you to do such things, which is unfair, but not necessarily illegal.

Oracle was the largest database software company in the world. Oracle works off of sql, I don't know much about sql, but I'm pretty sure that Oracle didn't invent, nor does it own sql.

Microsoft had Access, a poor database system, but then it released sql server to compete with Oracle. SQL server and oracle are now neck and neck at the top, maybe sql server owns more of the market. I'm not familiar with the business of databases.

How could oracle protect themselves better???

As far as releasing better products, that's exactly what MS does. They have more money, they can hire better developers. MS plays by the rules legally, but they're business practices are unfair, and make it though for other companies to compete with them.




Originally posted by Shiro
>Anyway, I think if Oracle and Sun had the bussiness people of MS, they would have kept their market. So I wonder why those bussiness people don't behave like MS bussiness people do, maybe that would be the way to get parts of MS its markets. It will probably bad for their reputation, but it seems they have to choose. Being aggressive and succesfull or not aggressive and not successfull.

Because Oracle and Sun don't have the money that MS does. Remember the borland masters??? Microsoft hired them to develop MFC, so they could take over the c++ compiler market.

MS doesn't necessarily have better business people, they have more money to invest in their employers, and their employers ideas.

So... there's no way of saying that other companies should just try harder, or think differently. MS has in every sense "a business monopoly."

That's why so many computer companies and people are trying to break MS up. They're trying to take over the computer industry, and have the money to succeed!

Again, I'm not disagreeing with you Shiro. MS is at the top because they're the strongest and smartest tech company in the world.

But they're using their dominance to create a monopoly. MS is so powerful, it's difficult for any other company to survive, let alone compete.

It's not just about thinking differently, or working harder. If it was that easy, MS wouldn't be at the top right now.

Shiro
12-31-2002, 10:31 AM
>So when Sun released Java, they should have protected it
>better?

You were talking about stealing. If Sun didn't want MS to be able to steal their product, the Java language and Java environment, then you should have made it private or something so that other companies can not make environments for the Java language. This would make Sun monopolist, they didn't.

I think it is good they released Java the way they did. Also MS has not taken over the Java market, MS is trying to create alternatives to Sun's Java language and environment, which in my opinion is fine. That is competition, the situation as it should be.

>(..) but then it released sql server to compete with Oracle. (..)
>How could oracle protect themselves better???

I also don't know a lot of the database market, but if I read what you write, then you say that MS won the competition with Oracle. In my opinion this is not stealing. It would be stealing if Oracle alone had the rights to develop SQL products and MS created a SQL product. In that situation Oracle would be monopolist.

So in my opinion this, the situation of MS, is a consequence of the free market where companies have to compete with eachother and some are more succesfull in the competition than others.

>MS doesn't necessarily have better business people, they have
>more money to invest in their employers, and their employers
>ideas.

I partly agree. I agree that MS doesn't have necessarily better bussiness people, but I don't think MS does invest more mony in their employees. I think they can invest more money in marketing and probably because of their position they can allow themselves to be more aggressive then other companies.

>It's not just about thinking differently, or working harder. If it
>was that easy, MS wouldn't be at the top right now.

Yes, that is true, it isn't easy.

Terrance11
12-31-2002, 10:57 AM
When I said steal, I meant stealing ideas. And I know sql isn't an idea of Oracle, but they MS does steal ideas on a regular basis, look at how they got so big- windows- a stolen idea :)

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with MS does, but they are creating a business monopoly. Shiro, you're seeing the MS situation in a different light than I am.

Part of the reason of monopoly prevention is to allow for fair practices in the business industry. MS (technically) doesn't have a monopoly. But their dominance allows for unfair business practices, as well as the ability to create a monopoly.

When people say "the microsoft monopoly" they're reffering to their dominance, and their attempt to take over the market. They don't have a "real monopoly."

But look at it like this, when you play the board game monopoly, and your competitor owns hotels on almost all of the real estate, is that a monopoly in your opinion??? In my opinion it's a monopoly, even if you own Boardwalk :)

Anyways, MS's practices isn't allowing other companies to compete like they should, which is unfair business practices.

The reason why other companies are trying to break MS, rather than Intel (which is more of a monopoly in a technical sense), is because MS is actually trying to create a monopoly, whereas Intel isn't.

Almost every aspects of computers, even video games, MS is trying to take over the market.

And it isn't fair due to MS's power, but it is legal (the way they're doing it). And that's why they haven't gotten broken up (yet).

Shiro
01-01-2003, 05:04 AM
>When I said steal, I meant stealing ideas. And I know sql isn't
>an idea of Oracle, but they MS does steal ideas on a regular
>basis, look at how they got so big- windows- a stolen idea

Ideas can be protected using copyrights, patents and that kind of things, but if you do this and your idea is succesfull, then you also have a monopoly. It is also possible to make a few modifications to an idea, or even improve it, so that the new idea differs from the original idea. So protecting ideas is very hard.

In my opinion it is important to make ideas free instead of protecting them, just look at Bluetooth, if Ericsson kept it by its own, it wouldn't be as succesfull as it currently is. Now it is supported by so many companies, also MS. If ideas and technology is free, then it has the chance to become a widely accepted standard.

I think most companies use ideas of others to create new ideas.

>The reason why other companies are trying to break MS, rather
>than Intel (which is more of a monopoly in a technical sense), is
>because MS is actually trying to create a monopoly, whereas
>Intel isn't.

But doesn't every company want to become a monpolist? I see a lot of companies going together by fusions or working together in associations. Just take a look for example at the automotive bussiness. Volkswagen currently owns Seat, Skoda and a lot more car brands and it is still growing. The same counts for Ford and probably other larger companies.

And also the company I'm working for is trying to get parts of several markets, just to be able to survive. So taking over markets is in my opinion a way of surviving of companies. And I actually don't mind, as long as my company can survive, I have a job, and I also want to survive.

MS has a lot of power, I'm really wondering how long they can keep their dominance.

Terrance11
01-01-2003, 11:12 AM
Shiro,
Companies don't want to become a monopoly, because "real" monopolies are illegal, and will get a company broken up/shut down.

Microsoft is in a "business sense" a monopoly because their dominance allows for unfair business practices and are allowing them to control the computer industry.

My analogy of the actual board game monopoly is very similar to what microsoft has. It's like microsoft owns a hotel on virtually every piece of real estate on the board, and every other company is just tyring to roll the dice as carefully as they possibly can, just to survive.

A few years back when Apple was in danger of going bankrupt, Gates actually funded Apple so they could survive, and so Microsoft wouldn't become a "real monopoly." Back then Apple owned virtually the rest of the o.s. market. Now with linux being such a big player in the o.s. market, it's unlikely that MS will ever become a "real monopoly."

But Microsoft's power allows them to control and dictate the industry.

Part of the reason of monopoly prevention is to disallow a particular company to control and dictate a certain business industry.

MS has the power to take other companies ideas and swipe up the market. Like with Java, they didn't want java to survive, so they originally wanted to make Java incompatible with the Windows o.s. That's part of the reason why the courts decided to have Java included with every windows o.s., which was to disallow this unfair practice. I know that there's no reason why windows should have to have java, but it was more to prevent unfair practices, as well as the fact that the court who made this ruling probably knows nothing about the computer industry as a whole(so they couldn't judge on their own why java should/shouldn't be included with windows o.s. and made the decision based on whatever the lawyers of the case told them... but I'll leave that topic to be discussed elsewhere).

Anyways, copyrighting an idea isn't as easy as you may think. And Sun could have disallowed any company to release a similar product to java simply by having the language standardized (which they were planning on doing), but MS released C# before Sun was able to get Java standardized, and now C# itself actually got standardized before Java (funny huh?).

Anyways, there's also certain ideas that you can't copyright. Microsoft plays by the rules legally, and they know what ideas they can and can't steal. Then they go off and steal the ideas that they are allowed to steal.

Anyways, this type of dictatorship by a single company is why a lot of people refer to Microsoft as a "monopoly" (even though they technically aren't a monopoly). And MS's attempt to take over the computer industry is why so many companies are trying to get MS broken up.

frenchfry164
01-01-2003, 11:27 AM
MS isn't holding anyone back to making an OS. If someone else wants to make an OS better than windows, they can make it. Just because MS has the best commercial OS doesn't mean they have a monopoly. A lot of people like it, that's it. If a company wanted to put linux or something else on their comps, they can, nobody's stopping them. MS isn't holding a gun to anyone's head saying "Use windows or die"

Terrance11
01-01-2003, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by frenchfry164
MS isn't holding anyone back to making an OS. If someone else wants to make an OS better than windows, they can make it. Just because MS has the best commercial OS doesn't mean they have a monopoly. A lot of people like it, that's it. If a company wanted to put linux or something else on their comps, they can, nobody's stopping them. MS isn't holding a gun to anyone's head saying "Use windows or die"

Frenchfry, and that's why MS is "technically not a monopoly."

The business world doesn't work the way you think it works. I'm sorry, but I can't explain myself any further, you just have to see both sides of the coin...

Terrance11
01-01-2003, 12:32 PM
One last note, MS hates linux, and many companies are switching over to linux.

Anyways, you're not understanding how MS's dominance is dictating the tech business industry.

Please just trust me on this one :)

anyways, here's what Ballmer thinks of linux:

http://www.windows1984.com/topics/ms/cancer.htm

Terrance11
01-01-2003, 12:41 PM
And don't listen to some of the things on that link. It's a windows affiliated site, and a lot of the articles are by MS employees.

But the link does show how aggressive MS is to get rid of linux users.