I dont see apple coming off of the proprietary scheme anytime soon. I actually think they would do better if they did. If they made their product more accessible instead of forcing one into buying their propietary hardware. None the less, they have a very advanced operating system and extremely secure.
This research is flawed. Comparing Microsoft to Firefox is like comparing the U.S army to a golden retriever. I am not even sure if Firefox is "competing" with Microsoft. The article also fails to take into account Google's abilities. I am surprised that no one mentioned the rumored "Google OS" based on Linux that sprang up last year. Google is highly capable of basing an operating system on Linux, and I wont doubt that they can even create their own. I believe these experts are failing to see the big picture.
Telling me Linux and Apple are not viable alternatives to Microsoft is completely ridiculous to me, and will probably cause me to cast all of your credibility out of the Window. How could a credible "expert" on operating systems say Linux and OS X are not viable alternatives? What's a viable alternative? What's viable?
As for legalities, I do not think Microsoft is doing thing illegal.. only wrong. It's not illegal to use other peoples operating systems then tell your people to copy the feature with an ad-hoc, watered down version, that's not-exact-but-looks-alike-enough to pass. The OS market is predominantly run by three key competitors, two if you exclude Linux as I'm not sure it can be actually classified as a company. But these three competiting operating systems are actually similar in more ways than most would realize.
Web operating systems are not replacing desktop operating systems.
Slashdot Mirror
I dont see apple coming off of the proprietary scheme anytime soon. I actually think they would do better if they did. If they made their product more accessible instead of forcing one into buying their propietary hardware. None the less, they have a very advanced operating system and extremely secure.
This research is flawed. Comparing Microsoft to Firefox is like comparing the U.S army to a golden retriever. I am not even sure if Firefox is "competing" with Microsoft. The article also fails to take into account Google's abilities. I am surprised that no one mentioned the rumored "Google OS" based on Linux that sprang up last year. Google is highly capable of basing an operating system on Linux, and I wont doubt that they can even create their own. I believe these experts are failing to see the big picture. Telling me Linux and Apple are not viable alternatives to Microsoft is completely ridiculous to me, and will probably cause me to cast all of your credibility out of the Window. How could a credible "expert" on operating systems say Linux and OS X are not viable alternatives? What's a viable alternative? What's viable? As for legalities, I do not think Microsoft is doing thing illegal.. only wrong. It's not illegal to use other peoples operating systems then tell your people to copy the feature with an ad-hoc, watered down version, that's not-exact-but-looks-alike-enough to pass. The OS market is predominantly run by three key competitors, two if you exclude Linux as I'm not sure it can be actually classified as a company. But these three competiting operating systems are actually similar in more ways than most would realize. Web operating systems are not replacing desktop operating systems.