"A browser shift by AOL is going to leave an awful lot of companies that assume their Web sites only need to work with Explorer scrambling to rewrite their code so that they don't lose AOL's 30 million-plus subscribers, or about 30% of all U.S. Internet users."
I think this is the first real effect we'll notice from all this.
Standards compliance means fewer times that I have to say, hmm, doesn't
work in Konq...lets try Mozilla...no, hmm...let's try Opera...no, hmm...
darn now I have to go get my Windows computer.
Just to elaborate on that a bit...
If someone wants to use a Unix-style OS, then
typically they install BSD or Linux. Microsoft
sees Linux as a threat, so by encouraging BSD
the intended effect may be to even out the number
of people using BSD and Linux. The point is 95% of
all non-Windows users running Linux would be worse for
Microsoft than if 50% run Linux and 50% run BSD.
Power (or lack thereof) in numbers. Simple.
"On Wednesday, District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly plans a hearing to help her decide whether to approve the settlement deal as being in the public interest."
I think every article about the case has contained this line,
and I really don't see why. I thought corporations were effectively
"individuals" as seen by the law. Now if an individual does something
wrong, and is convicted of doing something wrong, a judgment is passed
against that individual to punish them. Why should this be any different?
Microsoft did something wrong (became a monopoly), was convicted of it, and
now the courts are deciding the appropriate penalty. Why should "the public
interest" become so important here? Is it because Microsoft is so big that
the penalty could likely affect a huge number of people? Well gee, that is
a result of the problem...they are a monopoly. You break a monopoly up and
you let natural economic forces take their effect. It may end up being
in the public interest and it may not, but you can't predict that. I'm just
afraid the judge will end up with something like "well, they are a monopoly,
but breaking them up or making them do any of these other
things would affect too many people so I can't do that to them." Does
anyone see my point here?
I think it'd be interesting to know if these guys
have really experienced dealing with ISPs from a
consumer perspective. I don't know anything about
what sort of perks politicians get, but I imagine
once you hold an office at the state level or above
you automatically get some sort of high-bandwidth
service to your residence. Besides, half the people
voting on this bill have probably been in Washington
since before the Internet really took off and their
notion of access is their office computer hooked up
to some government LAN.
Slashdot Mirror
That "Bang the Machine" link opened up 8 separate windows asking me to download Shockwave. 8 WINDOWS!!! I get the point. Geesh...
"A browser shift by AOL is going to leave an awful lot of companies that assume their Web sites only need to work with Explorer scrambling to rewrite their code so that they don't lose AOL's 30 million-plus subscribers, or about 30% of all U.S. Internet users." I think this is the first real effect we'll notice from all this. Standards compliance means fewer times that I have to say, hmm, doesn't work in Konq...lets try Mozilla...no, hmm...let's try Opera...no, hmm... darn now I have to go get my Windows computer.
Just to elaborate on that a bit... If someone wants to use a Unix-style OS, then typically they install BSD or Linux. Microsoft sees Linux as a threat, so by encouraging BSD the intended effect may be to even out the number of people using BSD and Linux. The point is 95% of all non-Windows users running Linux would be worse for Microsoft than if 50% run Linux and 50% run BSD. Power (or lack thereof) in numbers. Simple.
How about Sale! Sale! Linux?
"On Wednesday, District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly plans a hearing to help her decide whether to approve the settlement deal as being in the public interest." I think every article about the case has contained this line, and I really don't see why. I thought corporations were effectively "individuals" as seen by the law. Now if an individual does something wrong, and is convicted of doing something wrong, a judgment is passed against that individual to punish them. Why should this be any different? Microsoft did something wrong (became a monopoly), was convicted of it, and now the courts are deciding the appropriate penalty. Why should "the public interest" become so important here? Is it because Microsoft is so big that the penalty could likely affect a huge number of people? Well gee, that is a result of the problem...they are a monopoly. You break a monopoly up and you let natural economic forces take their effect. It may end up being in the public interest and it may not, but you can't predict that. I'm just afraid the judge will end up with something like "well, they are a monopoly, but breaking them up or making them do any of these other things would affect too many people so I can't do that to them." Does anyone see my point here?
I think it'd be interesting to know if these guys have really experienced dealing with ISPs from a consumer perspective. I don't know anything about what sort of perks politicians get, but I imagine once you hold an office at the state level or above you automatically get some sort of high-bandwidth service to your residence. Besides, half the people voting on this bill have probably been in Washington since before the Internet really took off and their notion of access is their office computer hooked up to some government LAN.