There are a couple of points I'd like to bring up. The mose important thing is getting the job done, at a reasonable cost.
Now, If I can move my entire infrastructure over to something like star office (Which, when not used as a Office-compatable package, is pretty damn great... But the MSO compatability sucks.), Then this has to be done in a complete fashion.( no office holdouts...)
However, If I'm switching to say Corel office or some other closed source alternative to MSO, what's the fsking point? It does not help to switch to another comercial package I would say.
I guess being anti-microsoft for the sake of being isn't terribly smart in my opinion.
Breaking the company up in this fashion would not serve the American people, but actually harm it. Splitting the company along product lines would not guarantee fair competition in the OS market, it would furthur strengthen it's stranglehold on corporate america.
While the applications sub-company would no longer be bound to creating only windows apps,it is not a guarantee that they would build the flagship for any OS outside of windows. By splitting the company up on these lines, This is a punitive measure, not a corrective one.
If the US Goverenment wants to correct the problem (Which IMNSHO is that I am forced to buy Windows to get IE, use Word and Excel and a bunch of other corporate-america-accepted-psuedo-standard software), they should take and make three or four Microsoft clones. Make them Identitcal, give them all the source code to all of the products. Make them COMPETE. Trust me, if there were 3 or 4 exact same companies, they would then have to compete to deliver and sell the product to anyone. Want Windows, no browser? MS#1 might not sell that, but MS#2 would climb up and sell that to ya... The OS could'nt be hijacked and controlled by One company, as each is vying for a quarter share of the marketplace they held as a unit....
They must be made to compete If the states fail to do that, the rest does not matter.
Slashdot Mirror
There are a couple of points I'd like to bring up. The mose important thing is getting the job done, at a reasonable cost.
Now, If I can move my entire infrastructure over to something like star office (Which, when not used as a Office-compatable package, is pretty damn great... But the MSO compatability sucks.), Then this has to be done in a complete fashion.( no office holdouts...)
However, If I'm switching to say Corel office or some other closed source alternative to MSO, what's the fsking point? It does not help to switch to another comercial package I would say.
I guess being anti-microsoft for the sake of being isn't terribly smart in my opinion.
Breaking the company up in this fashion would not serve the American people, but actually harm it. Splitting the company along product lines would not guarantee fair competition in the OS market, it would furthur strengthen it's stranglehold on corporate america.
While the applications sub-company would no longer be bound to creating only windows apps,it is not a guarantee that they would build the flagship for any OS outside of windows. By splitting the company up on these lines, This is a punitive measure, not a corrective one.
If the US Goverenment wants to correct the problem (Which IMNSHO is that I am forced to buy Windows to get IE, use Word and Excel and a bunch of other corporate-america-accepted-psuedo-standard software), they should take and make three or four Microsoft clones. Make them Identitcal, give them all the source code to all of the products. Make them COMPETE. Trust me, if there were 3 or 4 exact same companies, they would then have to compete to deliver and sell the product to anyone. Want Windows, no browser? MS#1 might not sell that, but MS#2 would climb up and sell that to ya... The OS could'nt be hijacked and controlled by One company, as each is vying for a quarter share of the marketplace they held as a unit....
They must be made to compete If the states fail to do that, the rest does not matter.
Thanks.