However, there is a big problem with this scenario and that is the compatibility issue.
Everyone keeps bringing up some babble about compatibility, and I don't think it is the problem that people think would be.
This of all the different printer models, and they all work the same to the user under Windows. Certainly having multiple options here did not cause incompatibilities. However, if one printer manufacturer had control of the printing subsystem in Windows, and wouldn't share it with others, then there'd be incompatibilities.
Having a standard base is a Good Thing.
Exactly. Incompatibilities are really only a problem if companies cover up/hide the interfaces need to interact. I can go to any gas station and be sure that I can fill up my tank, because the nozzle is always going to be a certain size. Consider the situation if Shell, Ford, and Tom Thumb merged and then built a gas dispensing system that was undocumented.
Standards, cooperation, and documenation are important for products to work together. If there are incompatibilities, it's not the fault of multiple products, but lack of proper communication. The desired result of a break-up (#1) would be that the companies would do all they can to get vendors to write for their OS. Right now, Microsoft doesn't have to listen to anyone, unless they want to. With 2 or more vendors selling a windows product, they will be doing all they can to woo vendors to develop on their platform. This would involve sharing information, and working with the vendors. With of choice of similar products, vendors are going to work with the company that works closely with them. Microsoft will either have to start working with vendors, or lose out to someone who will. And only the strong live. So no incompatibilities.
Only in scenario #1, plus the OEMs still need an operating system. I'll give you a hint -- for quite a while it's not going to be Linux.
Nothing wrong with preloading Windows. But if the OS company doesn't have the browser, then they can't force OEM's to not bundle Netscape and others. Of course, I agree that #1 is the best scenerio. That way, if Microsoft refuses to allow OEM's to preload dual-boot systems, or some other abuse, the OEM will quickly go to the other Windows provider who should be more then willing to make the sale on the OEM's terms.
Unbundling the OS from the hardware will result in better usability? Having multiple Windows flavors will result in less support problems?
Yes. I say this primarily because the OEM's testified under oath that this was so. Instead of summarizing it here, I'll let you research exactly what the OEM testified. Suffice to say though, that 2 points are, when MS forced a certain OEM to bundle IE instead of Netscape, their support calls went up considerably, and they wrote a letter to Microsoft stating that if they could get windows from another source, they would gladly not have anything to do with Microsoft.
Dream on. The compatibility will become a major headache for everybody involved. Note that it's the cars' user interface that's "intercompatible"
I already explained my feelings about intercompatibility. And I might add that it's the Windows "interface" that needs to be compatible. That is not a very challenging task, to say the least. Somehow, there managed to be a compatible hardware interface. I don't see much more challenge to making a compatible software interface.
I could see Microsoft *trying* to make it challenging, but I already explained that if multiple companies owned Windows, they'd be vying for customers by trying to do more for the customer then the other companies.
Well, actually right now you can send the document in the MS Word format and be pretty sure everybody will be able to read it.
Far from it. In fact, it was just a month ago that I sent in Excel 97 spreadsheet to someone, who quickly e-mailed me back to resend it because it was "corrupt". Well, of course, they were using 95. Now I have to find out before I send something whether they have Office 95, Office 97, or Office 2000. And those products are all sold by the *same* company. Now what was that you were saying about incompatibilities?
If multiple companies sold an Office compatible suite, they'd have the same situation as windows companies. The customer is going to buy from the company that is willing to work with it, and all the companies or going to do their best to work more closely with the consumer then the others.
It is in your scenario that you'll have to find out what your counterparty is using.
Nope, communication. Companies who communicate will find their products more viable then those who refuse too.
I'm afraid I don't follow this.. the breaking up of MS into baby Bills doesn't help matters, all you will be doing is creating seperate monopolies which will just continue functioning.
Microsoft was able to force Internet Explorer on OEM's by threatening their Licensing Agreements. By breaking up the company, the company that own IE won't have another program that it can wield to force OEM's to use their product. IE would then have to lie and die on it's own merits.
The basic effect of 1 I see is that Windows (and perhaps Office, etc...) become fragmented.
I disagree. Having multiple companies working on Windows compatible OS's will *not* fragment it. Just like, if the Windows API was documented and WINE supported it perfectly, that wouldn't result in fragmentation.
I don't see much of a direct benefit to Linux/Be/etc, until the versions of Windows become drastically different (which won't happen for many years, if at all).
The purpose of the trial is *not* to benefit Linux, or Apple, or BeOS, or Sun, although that is a probable side effect. The purpose is to benefit consumers. And consumers certainly will benefit when MS has to compete against other Windows to convince OEM's that their product is better.
Yeah, it may be nice to bring the giant down, but will breaking it up into smaller companies really be good for your average computer user?
Okay, wise guy. I'm waiting to hear. Why wouldn't it be a good for the average consumer?
Here are a few reasons why it would be good.
1. There will be no more forced bundling on OEM's, which will result in better usuability, and less support problems for consumers. (Here I would note the proper bullets from the FoF, but unfortunately, I don't have them handy:( )
2. Lower prices for consumers. This means that consumers would have more money to spend on other software for their computers. (Again, I'd point out the proper bullet...)
3. Better compatibility. Just like cars have a lot of intercompatibility, if Microsoft were broken up, that would, in part force the companies to have compatibility with other products. Right now, if I need to send a document to someone I need to find out what word processor they have, and then try to get it in that format.
4. You get the idea. Splitting up the company will force them to have different practices, thereby benefitting consumers.
Apple does indeed have a monopoly on macs especially the iMac. Haven't you heard about other companies making look alike imacs but they are pc's and apple sues the pants off them just because it looks like an imac. If you want a Mac you can only get one from Apple you can't go to Intel.com and say "duh I wanna buy a mac please". That is a monopoly pure and simple.
Isn't anyone else sick of this thread yet? I mean, get real, there's nothing to disagree on here. The statement that Apple is a monopoly is 100%, no doubt about it, pur, factual, truth. Apple has a monopoly. No one in the legal field would question that.
The point you are all missing is that being a monopoly is not illegal. That is nothing, absolutely nothing wrong with being the only company you are able to buy a product from. What is illegal is *forcing* consumers from buying competitors products.
For instance, if I had a business that needed Mac's, and yet I used PC's for 3/4's of my desktop, and Apple said that wouldn't sell me any Mac's unless I replaced all my PC's, then what would I have to do. If my core business requires either buying Mac's or I go out of business, then I *must* replace all my PC's. At which time, Apple would be abusing their monopoly powers, and the DoJ would likely file an anti-trust suit. However, I know of no case where Apple has done this. Do you?
Compare that to Microsoft, where I can't buy BeOS preloaded on my PC's because MS would revoke OEM's Licensing Agreement. If I need Windows, I'm kind of stuck with getting systems preloaded with Windows only. Same thing with Netscape, and others. *That* is the reason for the anti-trust suit. Not because MS was a Monopoly. Of course, it had to be proved that they were a monopoly first, to prove that they have the power to abuse.
-Brent --
Re:Internet Explorer on Windows 2000 Professional
on
21 Linux Web Browsers?
·
· Score: 2
If I was currently a moderator, I'd have moderated that last comment back up. It's really only mild flamebait, and there's a strong element of truth.
It might be "true", but you know very well that the poster only intended it as flaimbait.
Hopefully, Mozilla/Netscape 5 will fix a lot of these issues. I'm hearing hints from various places that Nav5's XML support won't be as complete as IE5's (anyone know?), and this worries me a little.
Let's not forget that UNIX is the competitor that would get hit first if RedHat becomes aggressive.
How can you say that? Solaris, and all the other Unix' for that matter are focused on doing things that Linux doesn't do well. Things that W2K doesn't do well in either, for that matter.
I don't know of anyone who *needs* Solaris, who would be interested in replacing it with Linux. Linux does what it does, and what it does it does well, but it doesn't do what Solaris does.
Solaris and Linux, or any Unix and Linux complement each other. Consider what Compaq is doing with Linux and Tru64. That is the place for Linux.
You are wrong. Linux will be used in Small Networks. Solaris hasn't been designed for that. NT has. Linux will be used as desktops. Solaris hasn't been designed for that. NT has. Consider small internet services. NT? Solaris?
What is Microsoft's strength? Providing low-cost solutions for commodity solutions. People use Microsoft because it's the cheapest. People don't use Solaris because it's the cheapest solution. They use Solaris because it is powerful and reliable. Think 64 cpu systems, and huge RAID's.
Linux on the other hand is extremely inexpensive, compared to Solaris, and even NT, and extremely well supported. It does all the small stuff well, and inexpensively. But it doesn't do the things that Solaris does well, and probably won't for a long time, and probably doesn't need too. But it does what NT does extremely well.
Microsoft won't be an issue for Linux and RedHat until UNIX is already dead, and Sun is the prime target in that space.
Trust me, before Linux takes any significant marketshare from Solaris, Microsoft's market share will be just a dream of Gates.
Another variation of the x company adopts Linux theme. Is anyone else bored by this?
Probably not. No one is *forcing* you to read it either. I wouldn't be posting this if I wasn't interested. If it bores you, when you see it on the front page, sigh, and move on to the next story.
Linux has passed the novelty phase.
Stories like this are like awards. Linux is a real player now. Some people want to hear about companies using it.
The folks at Microsoft must laugh when they read stuff like this.
I am afraid that you'll have to explain this one. Microsoft laughing because they lost business? Because Linux is overtaking NT? I think that Microsoft would be desperate to cover up all stories about companies deploying Linux.
Oh, you seem to want to cover up all stories about companies deploying Linux. Maybe that explains it. Are you Microsoft?
If it's good for the losers, why shouldn't it be good for the winners? Maybe it's better to have failing companies switch over to Linux and then come out better because of it.
Exactly. Maybe having "losing" companies embrace Linux is the best thing. If companies are using NT and sinking, and then they convert to Linux and become successful, then maybe other companies won't wait for NT to sink them:)
No, but I do believe that Sun's portrayal of their license as just-as-free as the GPL and other "open source" licenses is dangerous.
Does Sun portray their license as just as free as GPL? I think that Sun has done a very good job portraying what they intend their license to do. They *want* other companies to use thier code in closed source programs. The GPL doesn't allow it. Hence, Sun allows other companies to use their code in proprietary applications for a fee.
It's not open-source, and it's not meant to be. It's meant to make it easy for corporations to intergrate with their projects without having to also open their projects.
The GPL and SCSL are not only different, but are meant for completely different goals. What each of them were meant to do, they do, and do well. Let's Cheer For Choice!!
umm if you try typing///home/luke or file:/home/luke (or whatever the directory/file is,..) in netscape,.. (GASP).. whats this? Im looking at the directory... be it,.. in a ftp type style
And it's pretty simple to change how it displays the files too.
It's really hard to believe that this is intentional on the part of Microsoft. It was probably a mistake.
If SP6 would have disabled, say, Exchange, then we would have all laughed and exclaimed, "what a bunch of bozos". However, a mistake that "disables" a competing product is just to much of a coincidence.
Very good points... but "defaults" are definitely NOT the way to go for IP addresses - especially the way some other "user friendly" desktop OS does it - (I'm talking about that gang from Redmond.) - they will use a ROUTABLE IP address as default - (forget which class-C it's from 168.85.12.x, or something like that..) If there's anyone from MS reading this, take a hint: if you're going to "invent" ip addresses, USE NON-ROUTABLES!
I, for one, despise auto-configuring dhcp clients. However, they are a real boon for novice users, how don't care what an IP address is. In this case, I support it (sort-of) to make it easier for novice users to get a network up and running. Real Sys Admins will, of course, configure the boxes properly. And they'll probably use Debian:)
Ah, from the dhcp faq we see why clients shouldn't assign IP addresses without the use of a server. Couldn't find any documentation on MS' site as to the details of their dhcp client though.
Linux is widely accepted as a stable, reliable, and inexpensive server operating system.
Linux is Free, not inexpensive.
Actually, Linux is economically inexpensive. It also happens to also be free, ie non-propriatory.
At no point in the install procedure does it ask you about networking setup. I discovered later that no matter what options you select during install, it always configures DHCP. If you have a static IP address, you must change it manually later--something a beginning user may not be able to do.
Thats horrible. Redhat 6.1 lets you set up a multiple-network-adapter system very easily, and even lets you provide drivers before the installation starts.
Actually, configuring dhcp is ideal for new users. I feel that new users would be confused if they were asked to enter an IP address. What in the world is that? And how do they know what they should put in there. Sure, you could have defaults, and help, but that's still going to be confusing for people. Instead have the dhcp client find an IP address for the box. That'll solve a lot of problems right there. And those who know what an IP address is can set it later.
But it would address every one of the anti-competitive practices listed in the FoF.
No, not unless that were to cause a company to develop an OS based on the API that OEM's could use in place of Windows. And the likeliness of a company doing that, according to the FoF is very slim.
You see, even if Netscape had all the API's that they requested, Microsoft would still have been able to tell Compaq that they couldn't license Windows if they bundled Netscape. The case wasn't really about Microsoft having "closed" API's that only they knew about, as much as it was them stifling innovation from other companies by denying licensing or giving "special" deals to those companies that did or didn't do what Microsoft wanted them to do.
ie5, on the other hand, no matter what you say, is fast and it barely ever crashes. yes, you heard me right, it barely EVER crashes.
I use IE 5 on Windows because I've found that using Netscape 4.7 was a "jolting" experience. However, IE 5 crashes or otherwise chokes up at least once a week on me. But that's okay, because I'm only using it until Mozilla is released.
Yep, but that Netscape code is going away anyways, so it doesn't matter. And most of those issues didn't exist when the browser was first developed meaning that there basically had to be kludges to get them in.
However, that's no big deal, because we have Mozilla now. Mozilla was written from scratch with all these issues in mind, so it implements them in a documentably superiour manner.
All this crap from ZDET really means is that the division between Windows Users and Non-Windows users is growing faster and deeper which is something that is seeming more and more to scare the hell out of the IE/Windows-boosting crowd, because it really means that any "standards" from Microsoft most likely won't be supported outside of MS.
The fevor of both the Windows users, and the Linux users is getting to the fanatical level of religous bigotry. Pretty soon it'll be taboo to talk about religion, politics, and what OS you use. The pro-Microsoft arguments have especially been getting worse and worse lately, with the debate not being over concrete things, but just abstract ideas. IE is better then Netscape because the moon is full tonight. Nay-yay-yah!!!
Chrome Effects was an example of this
Oh, did I miss something important? What is Chrome Effects?
I can't see Netscape winning back the browser wars. They have just pissed their market share away and haven't made much of an effort to remain competitive. Maybe Mozilla can change this, but I wouldn't bet on it.
Maybe you could elaborate on this. I see Mozilla as a *huge* effort to stay competitive.
This is a market where the main competitor doesn't play by the rules. How do you think Netscape should have competed?
I think that be redefining the market, and then making as much effort to create that market, is the best thing that Netscape should have done. By taking the time to have a solid Mozilla project, that is the best way to compete that there is.
Of course Microsoft must've also hacked the macos, solaris, irix, linux, and whatnot kernels to include the "make Netscape suck" option.
The quality of Netscape on non-microsoft platforms certainly may be something to debate about, but it's certainly not anything more then your opinion that Netscape sucks on other platforms. Certainly there are many people who believe that IE on Solaris and HP sucks worse.
But it is fact, as documented in the FoF that Judge Jackson released, that Microsoft intentionally made it a "jolting" experience when users tried to use Netscape as the default browser under Windows. So maybe MS didn't make it suck, but the certainly did make it hard for you to make it the default browser on Windows. I know for one that it isn't a problem to make Netscape the default browser on Linux.
Added to which, Netcenter has basically fallen off of the map in term of portals (not that it was ever a real threat to the established players),
Netcenter is still one of the top 5 sites on the internet in terms of hits. How can you say that it's fallen off the map. It gets more hits the/. ever will.
Slashdot Mirror
Everyone keeps bringing up some babble about compatibility, and I don't think it is the problem that people think would be.
This of all the different printer models, and they all work the same to the user under Windows. Certainly having multiple options here did not cause incompatibilities. However, if one printer manufacturer had control of the printing subsystem in Windows, and wouldn't share it with others, then there'd be incompatibilities.
Having a standard base is a Good Thing.Exactly. Incompatibilities are really only a problem if companies cover up/hide the interfaces need to interact. I can go to any gas station and be sure that I can fill up my tank, because the nozzle is always going to be a certain size. Consider the situation if Shell, Ford, and Tom Thumb merged and then built a gas dispensing system that was undocumented.
Standards, cooperation, and documenation are important for products to work together. If there are incompatibilities, it's not the fault of multiple products, but lack of proper communication. The desired result of a break-up (#1) would be that the companies would do all they can to get vendors to write for their OS. Right now, Microsoft doesn't have to listen to anyone, unless they want to. With 2 or more vendors selling a windows product, they will be doing all they can to woo vendors to develop on their platform. This would involve sharing information, and working with the vendors. With of choice of similar products, vendors are going to work with the company that works closely with them. Microsoft will either have to start working with vendors, or lose out to someone who will. And only the strong live. So no incompatibilities.
Only in scenario #1, plus the OEMs still need an operating system. I'll give you a hint -- for quite a while it's not going to be Linux.Nothing wrong with preloading Windows. But if the OS company doesn't have the browser, then they can't force OEM's to not bundle Netscape and others. Of course, I agree that #1 is the best scenerio. That way, if Microsoft refuses to allow OEM's to preload dual-boot systems, or some other abuse, the OEM will quickly go to the other Windows provider who should be more then willing to make the sale on the OEM's terms.
Unbundling the OS from the hardware will result in better usability? Having multiple Windows flavors will result in less support problems?Yes. I say this primarily because the OEM's testified under oath that this was so. Instead of summarizing it here, I'll let you research exactly what the OEM testified. Suffice to say though, that 2 points are, when MS forced a certain OEM to bundle IE instead of Netscape, their support calls went up considerably, and they wrote a letter to Microsoft stating that if they could get windows from another source, they would gladly not have anything to do with Microsoft.
Dream on. The compatibility will become a major headache for everybody involved. Note that it's the cars' user interface that's "intercompatible"I already explained my feelings about intercompatibility. And I might add that it's the Windows "interface" that needs to be compatible. That is not a very challenging task, to say the least. Somehow, there managed to be a compatible hardware interface. I don't see much more challenge to making a compatible software interface.
I could see Microsoft *trying* to make it challenging, but I already explained that if multiple companies owned Windows, they'd be vying for customers by trying to do more for the customer then the other companies.
Well, actually right now you can send the document in the MS Word format and be pretty sure everybody will be able to read it.Far from it. In fact, it was just a month ago that I sent in Excel 97 spreadsheet to someone, who quickly e-mailed me back to resend it because it was "corrupt". Well, of course, they were using 95. Now I have to find out before I send something whether they have Office 95, Office 97, or Office 2000. And those products are all sold by the *same* company. Now what was that you were saying about incompatibilities?
If multiple companies sold an Office compatible suite, they'd have the same situation as windows companies. The customer is going to buy from the company that is willing to work with it, and all the companies or going to do their best to work more closely with the consumer then the others.
It is in your scenario that you'll have to find out what your counterparty is using.Nope, communication. Companies who communicate will find their products more viable then those who refuse too.
-BrentYes, it *does*. But Microsoft's license agreement with OEM's, prevents the OEM's from using it to dual-boot multiple preloaded OSes.
-BrentMicrosoft was able to force Internet Explorer on OEM's by threatening their Licensing Agreements. By breaking up the company, the company that own IE won't have another program that it can wield to force OEM's to use their product. IE would then have to lie and die on it's own merits.
-BrentI disagree. Having multiple companies working on Windows compatible OS's will *not* fragment it. Just like, if the Windows API was documented and WINE supported it perfectly, that wouldn't result in fragmentation.
I don't see much of a direct benefit to Linux/Be/etc, until the versions of Windows become drastically different (which won't happen for many years, if at all).The purpose of the trial is *not* to benefit Linux, or Apple, or BeOS, or Sun, although that is a probable side effect. The purpose is to benefit consumers. And consumers certainly will benefit when MS has to compete against other Windows to convince OEM's that their product is better.
-BrentOkay, wise guy. I'm waiting to hear. Why wouldn't it be a good for the average consumer?
Here are a few reasons why it would be good.
1. There will be no more forced bundling on OEM's, which will result in better usuability, and less support problems for consumers. (Here I would note the proper bullets from the FoF, but unfortunately, I don't have them handy :( )
2. Lower prices for consumers. This means that consumers would have more money to spend on other software for their computers. (Again, I'd point out the proper bullet...)
3. Better compatibility. Just like cars have a lot of intercompatibility, if Microsoft were broken up, that would, in part force the companies to have compatibility with other products. Right now, if I need to send a document to someone I need to find out what word processor they have, and then try to get it in that format.
4. You get the idea. Splitting up the company will force them to have different practices, thereby benefitting consumers.
-BrentIsn't anyone else sick of this thread yet? I mean, get real, there's nothing to disagree on here. The statement that Apple is a monopoly is 100%, no doubt about it, pur, factual, truth. Apple has a monopoly. No one in the legal field would question that.
The point you are all missing is that being a monopoly is not illegal. That is nothing, absolutely nothing wrong with being the only company you are able to buy a product from. What is illegal is *forcing* consumers from buying competitors products.
For instance, if I had a business that needed Mac's, and yet I used PC's for 3/4's of my desktop, and Apple said that wouldn't sell me any Mac's unless I replaced all my PC's, then what would I have to do. If my core business requires either buying Mac's or I go out of business, then I *must* replace all my PC's. At which time, Apple would be abusing their monopoly powers, and the DoJ would likely file an anti-trust suit. However, I know of no case where Apple has done this. Do you?
Compare that to Microsoft, where I can't buy BeOS preloaded on my PC's because MS would revoke OEM's Licensing Agreement. If I need Windows, I'm kind of stuck with getting systems preloaded with Windows only. Same thing with Netscape, and others. *That* is the reason for the anti-trust suit. Not because MS was a Monopoly. Of course, it had to be proved that they were a monopoly first, to prove that they have the power to abuse.
-Brent--
It might be "true", but you know very well that the poster only intended it as flaimbait.
Hopefully, Mozilla/Netscape 5 will fix a lot of these issues. I'm hearing hints from various places that Nav5's XML support won't be as complete as IE5's (anyone know?), and this worries me a little.You want to check out the Netscape Standards Challenge.
-Brent--
It seemed to be an older review. It listed kfm, along with, of course, Mozilla M10 and Netscape 4.5.
-Brent--
Actually, Red Hat already actively develop's Gnome.
-Brent--
How can you say that? Solaris, and all the other Unix' for that matter are focused on doing things that Linux doesn't do well. Things that W2K doesn't do well in either, for that matter.
I don't know of anyone who *needs* Solaris, who would be interested in replacing it with Linux. Linux does what it does, and what it does it does well, but it doesn't do what Solaris does.
Solaris and Linux, or any Unix and Linux complement each other. Consider what Compaq is doing with Linux and Tru64. That is the place for Linux.
You are wrong. Linux will be used in Small Networks. Solaris hasn't been designed for that. NT has. Linux will be used as desktops. Solaris hasn't been designed for that. NT has. Consider small internet services. NT? Solaris?
What is Microsoft's strength? Providing low-cost solutions for commodity solutions. People use Microsoft because it's the cheapest. People don't use Solaris because it's the cheapest solution. They use Solaris because it is powerful and reliable. Think 64 cpu systems, and huge RAID's.
Linux on the other hand is extremely inexpensive, compared to Solaris, and even NT, and extremely well supported. It does all the small stuff well, and inexpensively. But it doesn't do the things that Solaris does well, and probably won't for a long time, and probably doesn't need too. But it does what NT does extremely well.
Microsoft won't be an issue for Linux and RedHat until UNIX is already dead, and Sun is the prime target in that space.Trust me, before Linux takes any significant marketshare from Solaris, Microsoft's market share will be just a dream of Gates.
-Brent--
Probably not. No one is *forcing* you to read it either. I wouldn't be posting this if I wasn't interested. If it bores you, when you see it on the front page, sigh, and move on to the next story.
Linux has passed the novelty phase.Stories like this are like awards. Linux is a real player now. Some people want to hear about companies using it.
The folks at Microsoft must laugh when they read stuff like this.I am afraid that you'll have to explain this one. Microsoft laughing because they lost business? Because Linux is overtaking NT? I think that Microsoft would be desperate to cover up all stories about companies deploying Linux.
Oh, you seem to want to cover up all stories about companies deploying Linux. Maybe that explains it. Are you Microsoft?
-Brent--
Exactly. Maybe having "losing" companies embrace Linux is the best thing. If companies are using NT and sinking, and then they convert to Linux and become successful, then maybe other companies won't wait for NT to sink them :)
-Brent--
Does Sun portray their license as just as free as GPL? I think that Sun has done a very good job portraying what they intend their license to do. They *want* other companies to use thier code in closed source programs. The GPL doesn't allow it. Hence, Sun allows other companies to use their code in proprietary applications for a fee.
It's not open-source, and it's not meant to be. It's meant to make it easy for corporations to intergrate with their projects without having to also open their projects.
The GPL and SCSL are not only different, but are meant for completely different goals. What each of them were meant to do, they do, and do well. Let's Cheer For Choice!!
-Brent--
And it's pretty simple to change how it displays the files too.
-Brent--
If SP6 would have disabled, say, Exchange, then we would have all laughed and exclaimed, "what a bunch of bozos". However, a mistake that "disables" a competing product is just to much of a coincidence.
-Brent--
Ah, after all these years, Microsoft can say that they were successful in at least one goal.
-Brent--
I, for one, despise auto-configuring dhcp clients. However, they are a real boon for novice users, how don't care what an IP address is. In this case, I support it (sort-of) to make it easier for novice users to get a network up and running. Real Sys Admins will, of course, configure the boxes properly. And they'll probably use Debian :)
Ah, from the dhcp faq we see why clients shouldn't assign IP addresses without the use of a server. Couldn't find any documentation on MS' site as to the details of their dhcp client though.
-Brent--
Actually, Linux is economically inexpensive. It also happens to also be free, ie non-propriatory.
Thats horrible. Redhat 6.1 lets you set up a multiple-network-adapter system very easily, and even lets you provide drivers before the installation starts.Actually, configuring dhcp is ideal for new users. I feel that new users would be confused if they were asked to enter an IP address. What in the world is that? And how do they know what they should put in there. Sure, you could have defaults, and help, but that's still going to be confusing for people. Instead have the dhcp client find an IP address for the box. That'll solve a lot of problems right there. And those who know what an IP address is can set it later.
-Brent--
No, not unless that were to cause a company to develop an OS based on the API that OEM's could use in place of Windows. And the likeliness of a company doing that, according to the FoF is very slim.
You see, even if Netscape had all the API's that they requested, Microsoft would still have been able to tell Compaq that they couldn't license Windows if they bundled Netscape. The case wasn't really about Microsoft having "closed" API's that only they knew about, as much as it was them stifling innovation from other companies by denying licensing or giving "special" deals to those companies that did or didn't do what Microsoft wanted them to do.
-Brent--
I use IE 5 on Windows because I've found that using Netscape 4.7 was a "jolting" experience. However, IE 5 crashes or otherwise chokes up at least once a week on me. But that's okay, because I'm only using it until Mozilla is released.
-Brent--
Yep, but that Netscape code is going away anyways, so it doesn't matter. And most of those issues didn't exist when the browser was first developed meaning that there basically had to be kludges to get them in.
However, that's no big deal, because we have Mozilla now. Mozilla was written from scratch with all these issues in mind, so it implements them in a documentably superiour manner.
-Brent--
The fevor of both the Windows users, and the Linux users is getting to the fanatical level of religous bigotry. Pretty soon it'll be taboo to talk about religion, politics, and what OS you use. The pro-Microsoft arguments have especially been getting worse and worse lately, with the debate not being over concrete things, but just abstract ideas. IE is better then Netscape because the moon is full tonight. Nay-yay-yah!!!
Chrome Effects was an example of thisOh, did I miss something important? What is Chrome Effects?
-Brent--
Maybe you could elaborate on this. I see Mozilla as a *huge* effort to stay competitive.
This is a market where the main competitor doesn't play by the rules. How do you think Netscape should have competed?
I think that be redefining the market, and then making as much effort to create that market, is the best thing that Netscape should have done. By taking the time to have a solid Mozilla project, that is the best way to compete that there is.
-Brent--
The quality of Netscape on non-microsoft platforms certainly may be something to debate about, but it's certainly not anything more then your opinion that Netscape sucks on other platforms. Certainly there are many people who believe that IE on Solaris and HP sucks worse.
But it is fact, as documented in the FoF that Judge Jackson released, that Microsoft intentionally made it a "jolting" experience when users tried to use Netscape as the default browser under Windows. So maybe MS didn't make it suck, but the certainly did make it hard for you to make it the default browser on Windows. I know for one that it isn't a problem to make Netscape the default browser on Linux.
-Brent--
Netcenter is still one of the top 5 sites on the internet in terms of hits. How can you say that it's fallen off the map. It gets more hits the /. ever will.
-Brent--