Slashdot Mirror

Linux will never become fully compatible with Windows and Mac software, just as Windows will never become fully compatible with Mac software, and Mac will never become fully compatible with Windows software. Here are some reasons why:

1. Microsoft and Apple both need to make money. If Linux, being free, were just like them, they would lose market. Therefore, if Linux became just like them, the cheese will move.

2. Linux does not have 100% compatibility as a goal. It's not necessary for Linux's success. And make no mistake, Linux has succeeded. The only significant market where Linux is not a MAJOR player is the desktop. Supercomputers? Check. Servers? Check. Home automation? Check. Telephony? Check.

3. People who try Linux want it to be "better", for various values of "better". This demands that it be DIFFERENT. Read "Linux is NOT Windows", http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm

4. Linux is built on a different worldview. Read "In The Beginning Was The Command Line", http://cristal.inria.fr/~weis/info/commandline.html

forgot to add obligatory link to Linux is not windows

here's why
Not a troll either, it's a very interesting read (and you're demonstrating quite a lot of the misconceptions cleared in that article -- read it.

Real books are nicer in many ways - you can flip through pages easier, which is helpful with tech. manuals etc. And when I buy a book, it's mine for as long as I want it - no paper-DRM.

An ebook is, however, a very convenient way of carrying lots of books around in one go. And if you get your fiction off somewhere like Project Gutenburg, and your tech books from O'Reilly, you have no DRM to worry about.

I have a Kindle and a Nexus 7. I use both for reading e-books. I never have, and never will, buy an ebook from Amazon, because I won't buy an ebook with DRM. But I have dozens of books that I often want to refer to in a device I can slip in a pocket and (when it's the Kindle) go for a two-week holiday with without needing to worry about recharging.

I'd take a print book over an ebook any day of the week. But I'd not be without the option of an ebook. As I illustrated in a blog post on the topic, the sheer number of books my Kindle allows me to take wherever I go makes it invaluable: http://geekblog.oneandoneis2.org/index.php/2012/07/11/books

Sure it is possible, but i can cause problems. So the best thing to do is to first have a partition available. A dedicated HD is even easier.
Then download something lik the openSUSE DVD, boot from that and away you go.

What can be even better is a dedicated machine. If you have a bit older machine (some 3-5 years old) you can use that and not worry about breaking stuff.

But there is a trap. You will be tempted to go back to the other faster machine, so perhaps install Windows on the slower machine and Linux on the fast one.

Also give yourself several months and don't forget linux is not windows

That is exactly how the ext2 filesystem works, my friend. Here is a good reference (from 2006) that explains the exact same idea: http://geekblog.oneandoneis2.org/index.php/2006/08/17/why_doesn_t_linux_need_defragmenting. The more advanced behaviour you suggest, I imagine would have to be taken care of at the application level.

Of course, as soon as any hard disk reaches capacity, it becomes fragmented no matter what.

I'd start by reading this (and if possible, having them read it as well):

http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm

Bottom line is, they *have* to want to change. If, as you say, they will latch onto any differences to decry the fact that Linux is not *exactly* like Windows, then, well, you're screwed and may as well not waste your time, because the fact is, Linux *is* different from Windows (the very reason why e.g. I use it).

One thing I've always found funny is that these same people have possibly gone through many changes in Windows and MS Office, always without complaint, because it was fed to them by Microsoft as "the next step". It will probably be the same once they get Windows 8 on a computer; they may think "this is hard to learn" but they will learn it without complaint. But put them in front of Linux and they'll cry foul and refuse to use it because "it's different". This mentality is very hard to beat; I stopped trying a few years ago and just let them writhe in their malware-infected sewers while I continue being able to work on Linux.

Try a KDE distro, it looks a ton like windows, even has a control panel and a start menu. Also try reading this

And just how do you do "a bit of registry cleanup" on OSX or Linux? Have you ever felt the need to defrag a Linux or OSX machine?

Read this.

Why do people keep thinking that Linux a a cheap, or free or open or whatever replacement of Windows. It isn't.
And you can't copy Windows. That would mean that you have to wait till Windows does something.
http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm

Linux should go its own way and if that takes down Windows, it is a nice plus. Competing with Windows should not be a direction, bceause that will be a fight that you can only loose.

http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm

Linux is NOT Windows. The sooner you stop trying to treat it like a free version of Windows, the more success you will have. To install software on Linux, use your software manager. You don't need to go get tarballs, you just click on an app and click "install". You don't even have to go through the bullshit dialogs and uncheck the boxes to install crapware and so on or worry about viruses from dodgy software distributors.

Read this: http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm and stop complaining that Linux is different. Yes, you need to use the package manager, and only this way is the right and easiest. Don't tell me about singed applications and drivers from "a web site". I trust if it comes from a repository only.

Defragging a Linux hard drive is only necessary under certain conditions. One is if you shrink a partition by a fair amount. Another is if you run your partitions at more than 80% full. The last one I know of is related to very odd file usage in which you regularly replace thousands of small files with very large files, something that doesn't happen very often in real life usage. That said, in 7 years of running Linux I've never found it necessary to defrag a hard drive.

Quite the opposite was true for NTFS drives under Windows. Even though fragmentation wasn't anywhere nearly as bad as it was under FAT, it still needed to be done occasionally, even with partitions with plenty of extra capacity.

Here's a good explanation of why Linux drives don't need to be defragged regularly. It's a little dated and is an overview, not a technical explanation, but it makes the subject understandable.

http://geekblog.oneandoneis2.org/index.php/2006/08/17/why_doesn_t_linux_need_defragmenting

Oh yea, and don't use Windows to host it, use just about anything else. I'd prefer Linux, and here's one reason why:

http://geekblog.oneandoneis2.org/index.php/2006/08/17/why_doesn_t_linux_need_defragmenting

Go to the website and grab the installer (kdewin-installer-gui-latest.exe). Should download in seconds, then you can run it to start the REAL downloading and installation process.

Stick with all the default unless you have good reason not to. Apart from anything else, most servers don't seem to have the "unstable 4.2.95" package. I got mine from ftp-stud.fht-esslingen.de

Skip all the language packs unless you really need them, install the rest. Let it get on with it. When it finishes, check the "run system settings after exit" box and finish.

It has some slightly odd choices for the defaults, so I went through and set everything to "Oxygen" to make it consistent & easy. But the main reason to run this thing is just to check that the QT apps work on your machine before you try and run the full KDE environment.

Assuming it works, try a few of the other KDE apps that will have appeared in your Start menu. It has games! :o)

To get KDE itself running, you need to run something which is, for some reason, not in the options in the KDE submenu in the Start menu. Go figure. Why would they want to make it easy to run KDE on Windows after you've downloaded KDE for Windows..?

To get the actual desktop environment, you need to run plasma-desktop.exe, which in a default install will be in C:\Program Files\KDE\bin

That should launch your KDE experience, and you can have a play from there. So far, it's a little unstable (Should be better once 4.3-proper is available) but otherwise performing fairly well.

Sounds like you meant to link "Linux is NOT Windows".

I found a great article all about that, I tend to point new Linux users to it to read before they consider using Linux. Because as it turns out, Linux is not Windows, apparently.

It's not snobbery. The problem is that Linux is not Windows. People switching to Linux and expecting it to be "like Windows, but free!" tend to get very frustrated. They expect Linux to act like Windows, and it doesn't except for using a mouse and a window-based GUI.

It's the same as a Linux zealot ranting on about BSOD's. Most of the "criticism" of Linux is from people who "just didn't check XYZ, because that would have solved his issue". Because they don't know, because they try to treat Linux like Windows. And your instructor was quite likely expecting Windows to work somewhat like Linux, and he got frustrated when it didn't.

You're obviously a Windows user with a persecution complex. Perhaps you ought to look into your own "snobbery" before calling others such?

It sounds like you're trying to treat Linux like it was Windows, but free. The people that have the most problems switching to Linux are those that are Windows power-users. Linux is not Windows.

Remember, you're a newbie when you go to Linux, and there are a lot of people (like me) who use it as their only OS, where Windows is relegated to the "toy" system. It is possible. Just gotta change the way you think.

There's a great article that I point people to every time we discuss Linux and windows: http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm

The point is that Linux is NOT Windows, and people going to Linux with the wrong expectations is the single largest problem that exists with migrating users.

See, in most distros you don't have to download a file and click on it to install it any more. That's how you do things in Windows, where each app has it's own updater to make sure it keeps current, or you have to manually go download each new version, and so on.

In every un-tweaked current default Linux desktop install I've seen (mostly in Ubuntu), you just start up the Package Manager, find software to install, and click "install". It finds everything, adds the software to your menu, and... that's it. All that software stays updated.

I never really did understand why you people keep saying this stuff... "Linux sucks because I can't do things like I do in Windows!" Guess what? Linux is NOT Windows. And that's a good thing.

It happens less on linux, but it still happens. Read fighting fragmentation on linux by the same author for a clearer picture. His solution there is to defrag the drive by copying to a backup and copying back over the original data. So not only does fragmentation happen, you can defrag without fancy tools. GP is 100% correct.

Nice try dude, but you fell into the trap of not researching what you're talking about..

Why linux doesn't need defragging

I know you're trying to make Windows look better then it actually is, but you got to look at yourself and what you're doing.

The configuration files are not a problem and never have been. They're actually much better than the registry which is a monolithic badly documented binary hierarchical database. The writer mentions as a "bad configuration file" the poster child of how not to do it, namely sendmail. I'm sorry, but sendmail is not meant to be configured by an end-user, this is administrator stuff and should be done with an editor at the command line without a graphical interface. A server doesn't need a graphical interface, a serial console should do. That's all what I'm going to say about that.

The others were just whining in the order of "but it's not like Windows". Scrap that, all points were whining that "it's not like Windows". The writer of the article should get a link to this article.

The vast majority of Linux distributions each are trying to achieve something different. People like you want only a handful of distinct distributions. If we had that, we wouldn't have Linux, we'd have Windows v2.

See: Linux is NOT Windows

Experienced users are indeed more likely to prefer the Windows option -- as long as they are experienced as in they have Windows experience.

And Windows users who try to use their existing skills and habits generally also find themselves having many issues. In fact, Windows "Power Users" frequently have more problems with Linux than people with little or no computer experience, for this very reason. Typically, the most vehement "Linux is not ready for the desktop yet" arguments come from ingrained Windows users who reason that if they couldn't make the switch, a less-experienced user has no chance. But this is the exact opposite of the truth.

http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm

Your post hurts me... :\

You imply things on me that go exactly in the opposite of what i meant. For example you imply that i want anything to be simple. I think "making everything simple" is a horrible disease.

The other arguments just builds on that or can't be decoded. :\

Read my post again, please.

Oh, and read this,
http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm
for your "i want my new app to be exactly like the old one, but still better" non-argument. ;)

I clears many things up. :D

Linux is unlike Windows... because, of course, Linux is Not Windows.

http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm

I believe that this post may help explain some things about linux. It's the best post I've ever run across to help people who are trying to switch to linux. Hell, it even made me rethink why I run it.

Wait... you couldn't figure out how to install Flash on Ubuntu 7.10 after TWO HOURS?

The 5th result when you search google for "flash ubuntu 7.10" is this. You read through it, enable the Restricted Repositories in Synaptic, and then just install flash.

I think you may find that this is enlightening. It boils down to this: Linux is NOT Windows. Trying to treat it like Windows sets you up for failure. You don't try to drive your car like you ride your bike, do you?

ps. Linux is user friendly - it's just picky about its friends :)

Why does Vista STILL require defragging. We hear that Linux doesn't NEED defragging because it smartly places files. Why can't microsoft eliminate this part of the market. If they aren't, just for the sake of cottage defragging companies, then aren't such companies vampires and saws and such?

http://cbbrowne.com/info/defrag.html

http://www.linuxforums.org/forum/linux-newbie/58320-disk-defragmentation.html

This one challenges Novell's reply:
http://www.novell.com/coolsolutions/qna/15032.html

http://geekblog.oneandoneis2.org/index.php/2006/08/17/why_doesn_t_linux_need_defragmenting

(Oh, BTW, just heard now 17:05 local PST, Yahoo! is scheduled to layoff numerous employees, but it's about 19hour old:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/22/technology/22yahoo.html?bl&ex=1201150800&en=0019b93b4bb1c219&ei=5087

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/Business/Downsizing_and_Layoffs/

)

As for 'doing something like Windows....for free', isn't that *exactly* what Linux is?
LINUX IS NOT WINDOWS > http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm
this is probably the biggest problem facing people who convert from windows. they often expect linux to just be windows but better.
ITs not harder to use
ITs not harder to setup
IT IS different, and alot of windows users have trouble accepting that they dont know anything about linux and instead of politly asking for help get rude and abusive and say stuff like "IM GOING BACK TO WINDOWS" or "IN WINDOWS it just worked", as a result they get no help then go running back to windows and spend the rest of there days complaining that linux sucks
regarding linux helping windows, were do you think they get they're ideas, im not sure if it was BSD or linux but many of the security improvements for vista started here (sudo, file privelages, stack smashing protection)

i think the current linux approach will slowly grow, but were stealing the geeks!
3/4 years ago i was the hacker/geek family&friends always wanted my help with problems, then my i went to (k)ubuntu, initially i had no linux knowledge (took me a day to get beryl running etc). now im so used to my settings i find it hard to use windows (whats all this clicking about no RSI for me), so when somebody comes to me with a problem i give it the standard checks, virus, malware( with abit of help), Drivers and then i pass it of to my brother. Unfortunately my brother has also seen the light so its just a matter of time till my dad will have to switch. At the end of the day if you want to get under the hood of your pc you need linux (once you switch you can choose how deep/often you go, ive been on linux about 18 months and compiled my 1st program last week, so the myth that you NEED to compile just comes from windows users that are used to knowing 'everything' and cant take the step back to being just users

I think that's one of the problems with Linux, actually: that a "quick" solution involves checking out code from a Subversion repository. As a more practical note, one of the problems I've had with Ubuntu is that (over two months into using it), my DVD burner is *still* not full recognized (it burns at about -100x speed, and reads even slower). When I've tried to fix this, about a dozen times now, I invariably end up trolling through about 6 different "HOW-TOs" or suggested fixes at a given time, most of which give different and sometimes contradictory advice to solve the same problem! Some of this is because one of them is out of date, or the author was just plain wrong, or I just didn't understand enough about low-level workings of the kernel to realize that they were actually talking about slightly different problems. It's not that the community is unhelpful, or unresponsive, because they're not - but they are disorganized, and many times the left user doesn't know what the right user is doing.

This all reminds me of an article I read when I started using Linux: http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm. The author makes a great point about how Linux is not Windows, and I think until Linux decides that it *wants* to be Windows or that it wants to be something better FOR THE AVERAGE USER, it will never have widespread adoption. (And by average user, I don't mean the kind of person for whom checking out code from a repo is common practice, I mean the kind of person who's never heard of a "forum" and gets frustrated if something takes more than two clicks which are highlighted with shiny red arrows. Linux people don't understand that kind of user very well. Neither do Windows or OS X people, sometimes, but at least they're trying.)

OMG - i have to learn a new UI - i'm so lost :-)

http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm

Your forgetting that Linux is not supposed to be a windows clone, it is better because it is different.
http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm

If you have spent more than a day with any current distro, you would know that what you said is not applicable 99% of the time, and never all that at once.

Just picked that figure from somewhere where the sun doesn't shine? Please back it up with a reference. Or is it that you would like it to be around that figure?

Many people have moved to linux over the last year or two and think that it is something new. It isn't. The problems that they (and perhaps you) encountered have been discussed many, many times before. (E.g. http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm, http://www.psychocats.net/essays/winuxinstall, http://www.psychocats.net/essays/linuxwindowscompa rison) Linux will not suit everybody, just as a 4x4 or a Rolls Royce will not suit everybody. There is no point in trying to pretend otherwise. If people did a little research before trying Linux and then discovering that it is different, they would be a lot less disappointed when they find that it is not what they are used to. People are not born with an inherent knowledge of Windows but they have been exposed to it for many years. They have learnt how it works over time and by experience. So why are they surprised when they encounter something new and cannot master it in 10 minutes?

I haven't got an attitude about Linux. Can you please provide one authoritative source which states that Linux is trying to become as big as Windows? Please don't just give me someone's personal viewpoint, I want something that clearly states that the objective of the Linux community is to beat Microsoft in the market place. Most of those who support Linux by writing code don't give a toss about Microsoft. Those who want to use it because it is better than Windows have already made up their mind. The 99% of people that I think you are referring to are those who have come to Linux recently, find it is free, and would like it to become the new Windows so that there is yet more free software written for it. I have no objection to this viewpoint but I do not think it is representative of the Linux community that I have been part of since 1998.

As many others have pointed out. Installing Linux can be difficult but it is easier than installing Windows on top of Linux and keeping both installations working. But if you want something that is point and click just like Windows, then stick to Windows. I think that your problem is that you are not as skillful at using Linux as you are at using Windows, and you attribute this to something wrong with Linux. Many of us would disagree with you. For those that make the effort to learn Linux (and anything rewarding requires some degree of effort on the part of the individual) then there are rewards aplenty. But please don't change Linux to make it like Windows - many of us don't want it to be like Windows, thank you.

MS has a number of proprietary things that the FOSS world would like to get inter-operable. The NTFS file system. The Office formats. Etc. etc. And the EU has been nagging at them to release interoperability information for ages.

Since MS seems to really dislike GPL v3, they could solve a lot of their problems with a simple move: Release all the code necessary to get interoperability under Linux working. Under GPL v2 only.

Take Samba. Samaba is going GPL v3-only. If MS released some significantly-big swathes of code under v2-only that resulted in much better Linux-Windows networking compatibility, a lot of people would use the MS-code with the last GPL-v2 release of Samba: Most end users are more concerned with how well software works than with which license it's released under.

That would leave the Samba team with two choices: Stick with GPL v3 and have a less-popular, less-functional fork of their own software. Or cave in and go back to GPL v2 so they can take advantage of the GPL'd code from MS.

And either way, MS would be able to show to concerned parties, such as the EU antitrust people, that they have finally released the code that the FOSS people have been demanding, under the single most popular FOSS license in current use.

Sorry, but Vim eats those "advanced GUI editors" for breakfast, with enough features left over to make a small snack of your favorite scripting language as well. Your complaint is merely that you're using an unfamiliar system. What you're requesting is that Linux be more like Windows so it's easier to learn without having to think or read. That will never happen, and we shouldn't want it to anyway.

Read more: Linux is Not Windows

Linux is not "Windows, only free",
and those of us answering questions in the IRC channel would appreciate it if you'd stop saying that.

Thanks.

You make a common mistake. Linux is NOT Windows!

http://geekblog.oneandoneis2.org/index.php/2007/03 /29/linux_on_dell

(To the tune of "Road to Hell")

Well I'm here to place an order
But there's a choice I don't know
It's weathered every crisis you can think of
And I came here to buy Vista
But the Windows joy I know
Is priced beyond belief way down in the shadows
And the need for anti-virus
Chokes the smile on every face
And common sense is screaming, "What the Hell!?"
This ain't no technological breakdown
Oh no, this is Linux on Dell

And I don't need to ask for credit
And there's nothing they can do
But watch the E.U.L.A.s, flying away from you
Oh look out world, take a good look
What goes down here
You must learn not to have fear of the G.P.L.
This ain't no vendor lock-in-forced upgrade
Oh no!
This is Linux
This is Linux
This is Linux on Dell

Before I start, I'm not a Windows fanboy, I use primarily Linux at home (Kubuntu to be precise).

Quote: "no one gets confused or complains when their Mac won't run some Windows app, an Ubuntu system is the same."

You've obviously never met someone who's used only windows and switches to anything else for the first time. I worked in a school for two years, while there I was repeatedly asked why application XYZ wasn't installed on the mac laptops the school had. They have quite a surprised look on their face when I inform them that without emulation software there is no way to run windows applications on mac's (and then I have to explain what emulation software is and why we didn't have it... but that's a longer story).

Same goes for Linux. Principal hears "school ABC is running their Terminal Services network on Linux and having less problems than we are, why aren't we doing that too?!?!". After getting in contact with the school and finding out exactly what they were doing I found out they didn't even have Terminal Services, and they only had one Linux box. The PDC was Linux with a bunch of fat XP clients. But that's not the point is it? The point is that roughly half of the uneducated users I have every met don't have the slightest clue that there's any more difference between OS X and XP than there is between XP and 2000, so why on earth would they expect that their applications wont all run Linux?

For further proof just look at Linux is NOT Windows. If everyone knows that Windows applications will not run on Linux why did that ever need to be written?

I live in Australia, I suppose it is possible users are better educated elsewhere in the world, but I doubt it.

Man what's that all about wining against linux... Read that you dumb MS people! http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm

But don't you realize that most people use Linux because it is a Unix system? http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm

I'm so glad you're not the one in charge. What's the point of making Linux just like Windows? Haven't you heard of ReactOS? http://www.reactos.org/ -- This is where the "just like Microsoft" attitude belongs.

Great link! While I don't agree with quite all of this essay (particularly bits under Problem #7: That FOSS thing.[1]), the vast majority is dead-on. It would take me many, many hours to write something that probably would not be as good. I've spent untold hours over the years explaining bit and pieces of what's contained in it.

Dominic Humphries has placed it under a Creative Commons License: The URL http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm must be supplied in attribution. To answer many questions, I think I'll just redistribute under his license terms, and document where our opinions differ.

[1] My perspective does *not* match that of many Slashdotters, who often seem to overwhelming post from the perspective of a home user. This article would be a good example, as my posts to it will prove. While I'm a home user, and currently admin a security lab environment, I've spent time in large commercial Unix and Linux installation environments, and contract into that environment for a living. I try to view things from both perspectives, but often fail.

Even if I had a perfect success rate at this, I'd still be off base with some (many?) posts, because I have zero exposure to, say, the huge embedded space. I can try to extrapolate into that space, much like a programmer who knows many languages (that's not me--90% of my code is written in perhaps half a dozen languages) can often extrapolate into a language he/she has only read about (often only on the Web, USENET, etc., and there is something to be said for editorial review) but there's no real substitute for experience.

And sometimes I'm just short on sleep and irritable, reading Slashdot while waiting for a client to get back to me, etc. After all, it's only Slashdot, and best not taken too seriously.

In fact, I think I'll just pop this into my journal, and change my sig.

You may want to read this excellent essay, entitled Linux is not Windows. I think it will offer you some valuable perspective on the issues you're addressing.

Here's what I wrote :o)

of the 21 members, IBM's was the sole dissenting vote. IBM again was the lone dissenter when Ecma also agreed to submit Open XML as a standard so long as you don't count the twenty assorted countries that registered comments and objections to our fast-tracking proposal.

When ODF was under consideration, Microsoft made no effort to slow down the process because we were too busy trying to kill it completely.

This campaign to stop even the consideration of Open XML in ISO/IEC JTC1 is a blatant attempt to use the standards process to limit choice in the marketplace for ulterior commercial motives and is in no way whatsoever similar to our own campaign to stop the consideration of ODF in Massachusetts for our own commercial interest.

It is not a coincidence that IBM's Lotus Notes product, which IBM is actively promoting in the marketplace, fails to support the Open XML international standard in the same way as all other office software (other than our own) does, because we deliberately designed it so nobody but us could use it.

If successful, the campaign to block consideration of Open XML could create a dynamic where the first technology to the standards body, regardless of technical merit, gets to preclude other related ones from being considered and that's one of our tactics, dammit! Or do you actually think all those people out there using Internet Explorer do so because they tried out Opera and Firefox too, but decided IE was the best browser going? No, they use it because it was the first browser they ever used.

The IBM driven effort to force ODF on users through public procurement mandates is a further attempt to stop us forcing Open XML on them instead through our usual blatant monopoly abuse.

XML-based file formats, which can easily interoperate through translators can easily allow Open XML documents to be imported into Lotus Notes, and there are two such translators currently in existence - one of which we ourselves initiated - so we're being blatantly two-faced here by saying that Lotus Notes not supporting Open XML will be a significant barrier to people using Open XML for their documents.

This campaign to limit choice and force their single standard on consumers should be resisted so that we can limit choice and force our single standard onto consumers. Don't you know how important lock-in is to us??

We have listened to our customers. They want choice. They want interoperability. They want innovation. But we don't have to give it to them, because we're Microsoft! Bwahahahahah! Give us money or you'll wither and fade into the limbo of incompatibility.

What do you mean, that tactic doesn't work any more? It's got to, our whole business depends on it!

Damnit. . . hand me another chair. . .