Everyone here is really missing the point. The purpose of a business is mostly to sell the most copies of their software, and hence saturate the market. Even the Open Source community is trying to do this with their OS's. If an Open Source OS was saturating the market, and a company could no longer release a closed source equivalent, the zealouts would think this was alright, when in reality it's just as bad as MS.
Netscape was a huge innovation at the time - Microsoft totally missed the importance of the Internet and the Web, and was left flat-footed when Netscape released a product that could almost single-handedly wrest control of computing from Microsoft. But through a series of illegal deals with OEMs and boosting their initially inferior Internet Explorer through their OS monopoly, Microsoft was eventually able to destroy their competitor. I won't deny that Netscape may have had a few strategic missteps in there too, but you will see this scenario played out in many different markets the exact same way:
This is pure bullshit. Netscape was only good, until microsoft came out with a FREE version that was better (How's that for ironic). I used netscape for the longest time....until IE came out. It was faster, better, and looked cooler than netscape ever had.
Netscape destroyed themselves. Microsoft came out with something that was ACTUALLY BETTER (proving further my point of the mnot being a monopoly), and Netscape dropped the ball.
Mainly because the bully is a 30 year old karate expert and the kids are all 12 year olds
if this is the case, Microsoft gained their vast experience as a karate expert through many thought out battles. Also, when the 12 year olds get enough experience (linux) they might actually have a chance against the karate expert. You should always know when you have been beaten.
Until linux matures into a full fledged workable operating system that the average user can use, it will ALWAYS be fighting to keep up with the technical superiority of Microsoft.
if OSS ever became as popular as win9X, it should suffer the same fate. It stifles competition, because no one company would be able to come out with a closed source equivalent.
Here is the problem with everyone here: THe GNU/GPL license. It serves the same purpose as the copyright, to protect rights. But....coming from a hypocritical group of zealouts, im not surprised to say the least.
This goes against the idea of free and open competition that our economy is based on
Breaking up microsoft goes against this idea. Microsoft became popular because EVERYONE used their software, not because they bought out all their competing OS's. The people that want MS broken up are competition (like the OSS community) (like a bully in the schoolyard, they would rather have mom come in and stop the brawling, then solve the problem themselves). If I
1) create a piece of great software
2) everyone uses it
3) I crush the competition at all times
4) I deserve the success that I get
Microsoft can use its ill-gotten gains to clone your project from scratch faster than you can lock in market share
I call this a powerful business, but not the definition of a monopoly.
If you've written the most innovative code anywhere
that's the problem, noone has done such a task. (BTW. Linux is not innovative, it always seems to be one step behind MS).
competition (of a sort) from Linux and Mac OS X
if MS had a true monopoly, there would be only one OS on all systems.
Everyone's a talker, and not a dooer. Now is the perfect time to dethrone microsoft. Their new version of windows looks great, is rock solid, has a re-built TCP/IP stack, has total backward compatibility with 95/98/ME, and when it comes out, will put all other GUIS to shame. The privacy issue is the main downfall (which may stop XP from becoming as popular as win9X). Linux, on the other hand, has none of these. It has clunky GUIs, barely any driver support, and at times, barely functioning applications. Im not trying to advertise for microsoft, only show people the truth. MS is not a monopoly, they just have the superior product.
here is my problem with all the microsft haters here: If microsoft really was as evil as a monopoly as you say they are, then why do they continue to innovate? I have XP and linux (KDE+GNOME) installed on my systems, and XP blows everyone else away. If they had total control, you would see the equivalent of windows 3.11 (why waste the time or resources, if you are a "monopoly" you don't need to). The market is still as open as it ever has been. Programmers just don't try hard enough to compete (they sure do bitch though).
making TONS of money may not be your top priority, but think of this:
if you do make lots of money, you won't have to worry about things like: rent, food, many other expenses. You will therefore be able to do whatever you would like to do. (IE: travel the world, write GPL code for a couple of years.)
Money isn't evil, the LOVE of money is.
I think most people here would rather get a free handout from the government.
if you had the slightest idea what YOU were talking about, you would have shown me evidence refuting my point. You didn't, so therefore claiming that I have no idea what im talking about (which is what EVERY one of your posts consists of) is just your way of dealing with your vast insecurities. Judging by the fact that you have never logged in as an actual user furthers my point that you are a lazy, son-of-a-bitch moron, who has nothing better to do than sexually harass me in a public forum.
all that can also be said about the FSF. Only the true techies can see what their final goals are. Really, they want to get rid of all intellectual property rights. (I would rather have a corporation that is less controlling. IE. A better OS, which No company or group can accomplish)
I hate microsft, bu that doesn't mean the FSF is my friend.
this is just as legal as the clause under the GPL that states that you are not allowed to release GPL'd code under a license that would defeat the purpose of OSS. (IE. A license that forced a person to pay a monthly fee).
so that last statement by the person that submitted the story : IS THIS LEGAL? deserves the response: AREN'T YOU HYPOCRITICAL?
At least you had the honesty not to dispute that your own intelligence is low end moronic.
I don't need to, mainly because im not an insecure little pencil dick like you.
No, because my genes combined with my upbringing and education to give me somewhat above average memory retention, critical thinking, and problem solving skills. Feel free to look those up, since you've obviously never heard of them before. Especially critical thinking.
heh. It seems we are a bit hypocritical. First you tell me I can't back any of my claims up. Then, you don't back any of yours up. Come back when you get a clue, shitface.
BTW Why don't you get a fucking real ScreenName).
Well, well, well. An AOL user, what a surprise. Always good to see someone who tries to refute the sterotype of AOL users as illiterate idiots. Too bad you're not one of them
guess what fuckwit? I used the word SCREENNAME intentionally because I KNEW you would try to pass judgement upon me, like a true dumbass.
I'm somewhat above average in intelligence
Why? because you're a SysAdmin, or because you know how to use words like fuck, shit, and cum?.
im sorry, but calling me an idiot and questioning my intelligence doesn't make you any more intelligent. (BTW Why don't you get a fucking real ScreenName).
Ya see, you still haven't figured it out, have you? acting like a hostile little bitch doesn't get you very far in life, does it? Maybe it does........with your mom or boyfriend
Slashdot Mirror
The FSF has approved the resulting arrangement as compliant with the GPL
if the GPL was truly free, you wouldn't see things like this. It sounds as bad as Microsoft. I mean I guess it is the lesser of two evils..........
there's still things like Filenavigator
although napster is dead, many more "clones" will be in its place.
Everyone here is really missing the point. The purpose of a business is mostly to sell the most copies of their software, and hence saturate the market. Even the Open Source community is trying to do this with their OS's. If an Open Source OS was saturating the market, and a company could no longer release a closed source equivalent, the zealouts would think this was alright, when in reality it's just as bad as MS.
Netscape was a huge innovation at the time - Microsoft totally missed the importance of the Internet and the Web, and was left flat-footed when Netscape released a product that could almost single-handedly wrest control of computing from Microsoft. But through a series of illegal deals with OEMs and boosting their initially inferior Internet Explorer through their OS monopoly, Microsoft was eventually able to destroy their competitor. I won't deny that Netscape may have had a few strategic missteps in there too, but you will see this scenario played out in many different markets the exact same way:
This is pure bullshit. Netscape was only good, until microsoft came out with a FREE version that was better (How's that for ironic). I used netscape for the longest time....until IE came out. It was faster, better, and looked cooler than netscape ever had.
Netscape destroyed themselves. Microsoft came out with something that was ACTUALLY BETTER (proving further my point of the mnot being a monopoly), and Netscape dropped the ball.
no, when a 12 year old picks a fight with a 30 year old karate expert, he is expected to get beaten. It's called competition. It's a fact of life.
BTW. Even if MS got broken up, linux sure as hell wouldn't take it's place.
It's sort of like a generalized Turning test. If something can perfectly immitate an x, shouldn't it should be considered equivalent to an x?
it's kinda like maasturbation and sex. You decide.
these days, parents don't show enough discipline. That's why things like columbine happen.
Mainly because the bully is a 30 year old karate expert and the kids are all 12 year olds
if this is the case, Microsoft gained their vast experience as a karate expert through many thought out battles. Also, when the 12 year olds get enough experience (linux) they might actually have a chance against the karate expert. You should always know when you have been beaten.
Until linux matures into a full fledged workable operating system that the average user can use, it will ALWAYS be fighting to keep up with the technical superiority of Microsoft.
if OSS ever became as popular as win9X, it should suffer the same fate. It stifles competition, because no one company would be able to come out with a closed source equivalent.
look at XP,and compare it to GNOME/KDE (if you aren't a linux zealout, you will see the truth
wow that was just a pile of comedic genius.
Here is the problem with everyone here: THe GNU/GPL license. It serves the same purpose as the copyright, to protect rights. But....coming from a hypocritical group of zealouts, im not surprised to say the least.
This goes against the idea of free and open competition that our economy is based on
Breaking up microsoft goes against this idea. Microsoft became popular because EVERYONE used their software, not because they bought out all their competing OS's. The people that want MS broken up are competition (like the OSS community) (like a bully in the schoolyard, they would rather have mom come in and stop the brawling, then solve the problem themselves). If I
1) create a piece of great software
2) everyone uses it
3) I crush the competition at all times
4) I deserve the success that I get
Microsoft can use its ill-gotten gains to clone your project from scratch faster than you can lock in market share
I call this a powerful business, but not the definition of a monopoly.
If you've written the most innovative code anywhere
that's the problem, noone has done such a task. (BTW. Linux is not innovative, it always seems to be one step behind MS).
competition (of a sort) from Linux and Mac OS X
if MS had a true monopoly, there would be only one OS on all systems.
Everyone's a talker, and not a dooer. Now is the perfect time to dethrone microsoft. Their new version of windows looks great, is rock solid, has a re-built TCP/IP stack, has total backward compatibility with 95/98/ME, and when it comes out, will put all other GUIS to shame. The privacy issue is the main downfall (which may stop XP from becoming as popular as win9X). Linux, on the other hand, has none of these. It has clunky GUIs, barely any driver support, and at times, barely functioning applications. Im not trying to advertise for microsoft, only show people the truth. MS is not a monopoly, they just have the superior product.
here is my problem with all the microsft haters here: If microsoft really was as evil as a monopoly as you say they are, then why do they continue to innovate? I have XP and linux (KDE+GNOME) installed on my systems, and XP blows everyone else away. If they had total control, you would see the equivalent of windows 3.11 (why waste the time or resources, if you are a "monopoly" you don't need to). The market is still as open as it ever has been. Programmers just don't try hard enough to compete (they sure do bitch though).
Microsoft only invented the most popular operating system in the world!
BTW. if what you say is true, Linus trovold didn't invent anything either.
The GPL isn't good for the general public anyway. It's good for academic learning.
making TONS of money may not be your top priority, but think of this:
if you do make lots of money, you won't have to worry about things like: rent, food, many other expenses. You will therefore be able to do whatever you would like to do. (IE: travel the world, write GPL code for a couple of years.)
Money isn't evil, the LOVE of money is.
I think most people here would rather get a free handout from the government.
the person that moderated this down to 0 is an asshole.
newsflash:
point taken. The slashdot community dispises people that make money. I thought linux was about "Freedom"? What about MY freedom to make money?
or is freedom defined as: what's good for the better of the community as a whole.
if you had the slightest idea what YOU were talking about, you would have shown me evidence refuting my point. You didn't, so therefore claiming that I have no idea what im talking about (which is what EVERY one of your posts consists of) is just your way of dealing with your vast insecurities. Judging by the fact that you have never logged in as an actual user furthers my point that you are a lazy, son-of-a-bitch moron, who has nothing better to do than sexually harass me in a public forum.
I win, you lose, go home.
all that can also be said about the FSF. Only the true techies can see what their final goals are. Really, they want to get rid of all intellectual property rights. (I would rather have a corporation that is less controlling. IE. A better OS, which No company or group can accomplish)
I hate microsft, bu that doesn't mean the FSF is my friend.
'Nuff said
this is just as legal as the clause under the GPL that states that you are not allowed to release GPL'd code under a license that would defeat the purpose of OSS. (IE. A license that forced a person to pay a monthly fee).
so that last statement by the person that submitted the story : IS THIS LEGAL? deserves the response: AREN'T YOU HYPOCRITICAL?
accuse your opponent of refusing to answer questions or refusing to back up statements in order to avoid answering
sounds mysteriously what you're doing.
At least you had the honesty not to dispute that your own intelligence is low end moronic.
I don't need to, mainly because im not an insecure little pencil dick like you.
No, because my genes combined with my upbringing and education to give me somewhat above average memory retention, critical thinking, and problem solving skills. Feel free to look those up, since you've obviously never heard of them before. Especially critical thinking.
heh. It seems we are a bit hypocritical. First you tell me I can't back any of my claims up. Then, you don't back any of yours up. Come back when you get a clue, shitface.
BTW Why don't you get a fucking real ScreenName). Well, well, well. An AOL user, what a surprise. Always good to see someone who tries to refute the sterotype of AOL users as illiterate idiots. Too bad you're not one of them
guess what fuckwit? I used the word SCREENNAME intentionally because I KNEW you would try to pass judgement upon me, like a true dumbass.
I'm somewhat above average in intelligence
Why? because you're a SysAdmin, or because you know how to use words like fuck, shit, and cum?.
im sorry, but calling me an idiot and questioning my intelligence doesn't make you any more intelligent. (BTW Why don't you get a fucking real ScreenName).
Ya see, you still haven't figured it out, have you? acting like a hostile little bitch doesn't get you very far in life, does it? Maybe it does........with your mom or boyfriend