I guess I thought the point of your original post was that MS had a monopoly, they were adding things to the OS, and that was bad because other people could not compete. Correct?
If so, then what you suggest above does not help that situation at all. If they integrated IIS into the kernel, wouldn't that make things worse for other companies trying to sell a web server?
Palm is the superior platform (compare a high-end Clie to an iPaq and try telling me otherwise).
Ok, "otherwise". In what way is the Clie superior?
WinCE is a bloated, silly way of navigating a palmtop machine.
In what way? Other than "Microsoft made it".
I, personally, don't want to bring my MP3 player to meetings nor do I want to bring my organizer when I go for a walk.
Why not, if they are the same machine, the different functionality is hidden and one function does not interfere at all with the other? Are you really that hindered?
Re:Microsoft following on the dot bombs?
on
Xbox Sequel Rumors
·
· Score: 1
sell a device cheaply then charge for the services? were have we heard this before... Can you say netpliance , can you say cue cat?
I think you may have accidentally responded to the wrong posting, since this didn't really have any relationship to anything that I said. You might want to check the postings again.
So, when they poison the LA water supply and 500,000 are dead, is that still OK? When they crack open the Boulder Dam and drown a few hunded thousand people? How about a small nuke in NYC (1 million dead)? How about 50 million people dead covered with the festering sores of smallpox? You good with that? Let me know.
Let me ask you this. Let's say _I_ bought Qwest and required people to use Microsoft Outlook. I could do that, right? Would that be a shitty thing to do? So you say. Could I do it? OF COURSE! Is it because I have a monopoly in some area? Not that I know of. If you have a problem with that, find another ISP.
Its classic embrace and extend
No it isn't. "Embrace and extend" is a fun catchphrase people use when they want to badmouth MS and look cool. What exactly are they "embracing and extending"?
You are right in one thing - the users of Qwest had no choice in this.Qwest screwed them. THEY sold their ISP to a Windows-only ISP supplier. It doesn't even matter that it's Microsoft. It's only fun to bitch about because it IS Microsoft.
Now, they are unfairly leveraging their monopoly to enter a new market.
How? How is this different than AOL buying Qwest and requiring an AOL email client? They could do that, couldn't they?
We are not talking about buying PCs preloaded with MSN. We are talking about Qwest selling their ISP service to MSN. How does this leverage MS's monopoly? They are completely unrelated. Did MS do this to help sell Windows? Probably, but there is nothing wrong with that and has no bearing on their market share. AOL could have done the same thing, and they have no desktop OS. There is no relation between the 2 things.
People cry "Monopoly!" anytime MS does anything, even when it does not apply, like in this case.
Who the hell gave this a "4, Informative"? If you don't know the difference between server authentication and the POP3 protocol, you should not open your mouth.
Microsoft has no monopoly power in the ISP market. And that is the market we are talking about, right? If MS started selling steaks would you start screaming they are leveraging their monopoly power in the meat industry?
Every single argument you have here is with Qwest, not Microsoft. Qwest screwed their customers by selling their service to a Windows-only ISP. The ISP could have been JunkNet, who might require MS products to access it. The difference? There is no difference.
All the rest stops along the Mass Turnpike just switched from BurgerKing to McDonalds, so now I can't get Pepsi, only Coke. Do I have some inherent right to get Pepsi? There are no other rest stops to buy Pepsi, so who should I sue here?
I think it would suck for the users, yes. My point was that the has nothing to do with MS having an OS monopoly. Perhaps a bad business decision by Qwest, but nothing more.
"Well, no, we didn't - those freedoms were denied from us right from the beginning"
Not quite. We gave up that freedom as a nation by choice by passing laws that forbid it.
If someone really believes they would not give up ANY freedom for safety, then they MUST be in favor of allowing individuals to own nuclear weapons. It's that simple.
Really? I would like the freedom to carry a can of gas and a lighter on an airplane, to own a nuclear weapon in my basement and to pour mercury into your water supply. I'd also like no speed limits so I can go 150mph through your neighborhood and mow down kids. Then perhaps shoot a shotgun our the window as I drive.
Are you saying that taking those freedoms from me won't make others safer?
Just because you don't give up your freedoms does not mean you don't have laws. BIG difference. We don't have absolute freedom here, but the constitution outlines a good framework for freedom within a set of laws.
Ahhhh, NOW we're getting somewhere. Are we not talking absolute freedoms? Freedom is freedom. There is no such thing as "limited freedom".
Allowing the police to search with a warrant is giving up your freedom. It is giving up your freedom of privacy and keeping your stuff and actions to yourself. However, we gave up that freedom for a "little safety" - to allow law enforcement to do their job.
I swear to God that the next housewife I see simultaneously waving her little flag around while proclaiming that she'd "certainly give up some freedoms to be safe".... god, it's so frustrating living in a world like this.
You are so full of shit it hurts.
Are you claiming that you would give up ABSOLUTELY NONE of your freedom for ANY amount of safety? Is that your claim? Do you really want to make that claim? Are you REALLY an anarchist? Are you sure?
People who read/. are already Linux users. Are there any readers who DON'T think Linux is superior to Windows? Who is this "grassroots method" targeted to?
The only value in posting this on/. is to say "Look! We're better than Windows! They suck! Nah nah!"
So shouldn't you be helping someone instead of browsing/. all day?
those kids that get kicked out of homes can go to shelters
Are there shelters in your town? There sure as hell aren't any in my town, or in any town near here.
ALL childern have the RIGHT to get foster care if they are in an abusive home
You DO know there are not nearly enough foster homes, don't you? Not even close. Unless you are opening YOUR home to foster kids, you should keep your mouth shut.
See my response below for an example. If you want more, I can give them to you.
people are not victims of their situation
So, if I grew up in poverty, and had to drop out of school at age 12 to work to support my family, and never had any resources to help me learn, or even TELL me what to learn so that I could do better, then that is my fault? What should I have done differently? Work harder than 18 hour days?
Your knowledge of society is so tiny I can't believe you even have a job.
My best friend in high school was poor - dirt poor. She was 1 of 5 kids. Her Dad was a successful IBM'er, her mom stayed at home and took care of them. When she was 12, her dad lost it, and abandoned them. He lives in a shack in Florida.
What did her Mom do? She found a cleaning lady job, and worked while the kids were at school. At night she took care of them. The money she made wasn't nearly enough. They were on welfare.
Then she got a better job selling appliances. More money, this time enough that she CHOSE to get off welfare. 2 of the kids were old enough to work so they helped out. Still scraping to even put food on the table.
Now, you tell me: what the hell should she have done differently? Work harder? In what way?
If you think this is the exception rather than the rule, you need to open your eyes. Do you really think that most poor people WANT to be poor? WANT their kids to go hungry and get mocked at school for wearing dirty old clothes?
Slashdot Mirror
I guess I thought the point of your original post was that MS had a monopoly, they were adding things to the OS, and that was bad because other people could not compete. Correct?
If so, then what you suggest above does not help that situation at all. If they integrated IIS into the kernel, wouldn't that make things worse for other companies trying to sell a web server?
Perhaps I misunderstood. In your earlier post your said
Microsoft is attempting to coopt the Applications into the Operating System
Based on what you said above, if MS designed Word or IIS to run in kernelspace, that would then be OK with you? Perhaps I am not understanding.
So, you are saying we should make a firm definition of an OS, and LIMIT what it can do. How is that supposed to increase innovation?
Palm is the superior platform (compare a high-end Clie to an iPaq and try telling me otherwise).
Ok, "otherwise". In what way is the Clie superior?
WinCE is a bloated, silly way of navigating a palmtop machine.
In what way? Other than "Microsoft made it".
I, personally, don't want to bring my MP3 player to meetings nor do I want to bring my organizer when I go for a walk.
Why not, if they are the same machine, the different functionality is hidden and one function does not interfere at all with the other? Are you really that hindered?
sell a device cheaply then charge for the services? were have we heard this before... Can you say netpliance , can you say cue cat?
can you "mobile phone"?
I think you may have accidentally responded to the wrong posting, since this didn't really have any relationship to anything that I said. You might want to check the postings again.
Yes. Yes, it is.
So, when they poison the LA water supply and 500,000 are dead, is that still OK? When they crack open the Boulder Dam and drown a few hunded thousand people? How about a small nuke in NYC (1 million dead)? How about 50 million people dead covered with the festering sores of smallpox? You good with that? Let me know.
People from Sun think .NET is a bad idea? Really?
Seriously, why even bother posting this?
Let me ask you this. Let's say _I_ bought Qwest and required people to use Microsoft Outlook. I could do that, right? Would that be a shitty thing to do? So you say. Could I do it? OF COURSE! Is it because I have a monopoly in some area? Not that I know of. If you have a problem with that, find another ISP.
Its classic embrace and extend
No it isn't. "Embrace and extend" is a fun catchphrase people use when they want to badmouth MS and look cool. What exactly are they "embracing and extending"?
You are right in one thing - the users of Qwest had no choice in this.Qwest screwed them. THEY sold their ISP to a Windows-only ISP supplier. It doesn't even matter that it's Microsoft. It's only fun to bitch about because it IS Microsoft.
Now, they are unfairly leveraging their monopoly to enter a new market.
How? How is this different than AOL buying Qwest and requiring an AOL email client? They could do that, couldn't they?
We are not talking about buying PCs preloaded with MSN. We are talking about Qwest selling their ISP service to MSN. How does this leverage MS's monopoly? They are completely unrelated. Did MS do this to help sell Windows? Probably, but there is nothing wrong with that and has no bearing on their market share. AOL could have done the same thing, and they have no desktop OS. There is no relation between the 2 things.
People cry "Monopoly!" anytime MS does anything, even when it does not apply, like in this case.
What I should have said is that SPA is used in addition to standard POP3 authentication, so POP3 is implemented as it should be.
then is ceases to be POP3 access
blatant case of interstate fraud.
Who the hell gave this a "4, Informative"? If you don't know the difference between server authentication and the POP3 protocol, you should not open your mouth.
Microsoft has no monopoly power in the ISP market. And that is the market we are talking about, right? If MS started selling steaks would you start screaming they are leveraging their monopoly power in the meat industry?
Every single argument you have here is with Qwest, not Microsoft. Qwest screwed their customers by selling their service to a Windows-only ISP. The ISP could have been JunkNet, who might require MS products to access it. The difference? There is no difference.
All the rest stops along the Mass Turnpike just switched from BurgerKing to McDonalds, so now I can't get Pepsi, only Coke. Do I have some inherent right to get Pepsi? There are no other rest stops to buy Pepsi, so who should I sue here?
I think it would suck for the users, yes. My point was that the has nothing to do with MS having an OS monopoly. Perhaps a bad business decision by Qwest, but nothing more.
How is this "leveraging their monopoly power" exactly?
How is this different than say, if Qwest had turned over their ISP business to AOL and AOL required using the AOL client?
"Well, no, we didn't - those freedoms were denied from us right from the beginning"
Not quite. We gave up that freedom as a nation by choice by passing laws that forbid it.
If someone really believes they would not give up ANY freedom for safety, then they MUST be in favor of allowing individuals to own nuclear weapons. It's that simple.
Less freedom != more safety.
Really? I would like the freedom to carry a can of gas and a lighter on an airplane, to own a nuclear weapon in my basement and to pour mercury into your water supply. I'd also like no speed limits so I can go 150mph through your neighborhood and mow down kids. Then perhaps shoot a shotgun our the window as I drive.
Are you saying that taking those freedoms from me won't make others safer?
I eagerly await your back-pedalling.
Just because you don't give up your freedoms does not mean you don't have laws. BIG difference. We don't have absolute freedom here, but the constitution outlines a good framework for freedom within a set of laws.
Ahhhh, NOW we're getting somewhere. Are we not talking absolute freedoms? Freedom is freedom. There is no such thing as "limited freedom".
Allowing the police to search with a warrant is giving up your freedom. It is giving up your freedom of privacy and keeping your stuff and actions to yourself. However, we gave up that freedom for a "little safety" - to allow law enforcement to do their job.
you said it. I won't give up any of my freedom for any amount of safety. Safety is only an illusion btw
So you are an anarchist then? No laws, right? That is what you are saying.
I swear to God that the next housewife I see simultaneously waving her little flag around while proclaiming that she'd "certainly give up some freedoms to be safe".... god, it's so frustrating living in a world like this.
You are so full of shit it hurts.
Are you claiming that you would give up ABSOLUTELY NONE of your freedom for ANY amount of safety? Is that your claim? Do you really want to make that claim? Are you REALLY an anarchist? Are you sure?
that possibly, just possibly, that, Microsoft produces, the, *GASP*, best solution for some people? Is that completely beyond comprehension?
People who read /. are already Linux users. Are there any readers who DON'T think Linux is superior to Windows? Who is this "grassroots method" targeted to?
/. is to say "Look! We're better than Windows! They suck! Nah nah!"
The only value in posting this on
look pal I work for the Welfare office
/. all day?
So shouldn't you be helping someone instead of browsing
those kids that get kicked out of homes can go to shelters
Are there shelters in your town? There sure as hell aren't any in my town, or in any town near here.
ALL childern have the RIGHT to get foster care if they are in an abusive home
You DO know there are not nearly enough foster homes, don't you? Not even close. Unless you are opening YOUR home to foster kids, you should keep your mouth shut.
See my response below for an example. If you want more, I can give them to you.
people are not victims of their situation
So, if I grew up in poverty, and had to drop out of school at age 12 to work to support my family, and never had any resources to help me learn, or even TELL me what to learn so that I could do better, then that is my fault? What should I have done differently? Work harder than 18 hour days?
Your knowledge of society is so tiny I can't believe you even have a job.
support them selfs?
themselves
You had your anectdote, so here is mine.
My best friend in high school was poor - dirt poor. She was 1 of 5 kids. Her Dad was a successful IBM'er, her mom stayed at home and took care of them. When she was 12, her dad lost it, and abandoned them. He lives in a shack in Florida.
What did her Mom do? She found a cleaning lady job, and worked while the kids were at school. At night she took care of them. The money she made wasn't nearly enough. They were on welfare.
Then she got a better job selling appliances. More money, this time enough that she CHOSE to get off welfare. 2 of the kids were old enough to work so they helped out. Still scraping to even put food on the table.
Now, you tell me: what the hell should she have done differently? Work harder? In what way?
If you think this is the exception rather than the rule, you need to open your eyes. Do you really think that most poor people WANT to be poor? WANT their kids to go hungry and get mocked at school for wearing dirty old clothes?