And I'm not being anti-GPL in the way you mean it. I responded to some guy saying it wasn't restrictive. I've given my opinion, which is that it is restrictive. That's not trolling, but you wouldn't be the first net.user to fail to grasp the meaning of the word.
As for your last comments, you're just restricting the scope of the word "alike".
Well, it seems to be awfully popular, so I guess there are also many scenarios in which it IS worth it...
Sure, I guess. I'm not arguing against that.
Heh, look, I wasn't the one to bring up "communist"...
That is a valid point, but it it is easy to counter with "if you don't like it, don't use GPL code".
And that is easy to counter with "I don't, as I have already said a quazillion times in this thread. However, as I have also said, I am not against sharing, in fact I wish I could share, but I cannot get involved with GPL'd code. For me, therefore, the GPL is restrictive."
Why are you looking at me? The straw man is over there -->
I don't want to take your code for free, just for a fair price. And I'm not "taking" it. You still have it. You're hardly going to buy it back from me, are you? Be serious yourself.
The overpriced thing was just a feeling I got, I mean it's not the normal thing. Most people either go GPL properly, or write their own code. Then you get people who ignore the GPL and use it anyway (not me, in case you're as confused as others in this thread). And you have people who dual license on an individual basis. Because it's up to the copyright owner to set a price, and because they probably don't actually do it much, there are not too many data points around. I do remember Qt (which isn't GPL but had dual licensing) going for frankly absurd money. Basically, it's like "yes you can pay for it, snigger, but you're going to get punished for not following my ideology" followed by "think of a number", "double it if you're developing for Win32", and "quadruple it if you're Microsoft."
So provide some arguments to the guys (like me) writing gpl'd software why they should use the BSD license instead.
Why should I? I'm not trying to stop you from using the GPL. It makes it extremely unlikely that people like me can use your work, but that's up to you. We will just continue to write our own code. It's unfortunate that we can't share our resources, but there you go.
'I wan't to use it like all the other good kiddies but don't want to have to do anything for it'
I do hope you're not suggesting I said that.
In fact you have reasured me that choosing the GPL for my software was the right thing to do to keep obvious parasites like you away from it.
Oh, so you are suggesting it. And up pops another ad hominem. Oh well, I have laid out my real position up there ^^^ in the rest of the thread. If you want to score points against the straw man, that's between you and him. Leave me out of it.
The single GPL function or library - that the OP wants to include in the large, hugely valuable pre-existing codebase - is copyrighted.
Show me where I said it wasn't.
Other people use it for a price: they pay by agreeing to share any further modifications of it.
Oh, if only that were the end of it. Go and read the GPL again, understand what it means by "derivative work", and note that I have absolutely no problem with sharing my changes to the code I used. But not necessarily to all code I linked with it. Maybe I'd share some of it, if someone asked. Maybe we could do a deal. But as it stands, the deal I'm forced to take can be extremely unfair.
profit from it... Why is preventing that wrong?
There's nothing to stop you from profiting from it yourself. You still have the code, remember? You haven't lost anything. I added value to it and I should be able to profit from that. In reality I might already have most of the value anyway.
Perhaps even profit at the expense of the original authors
It seems to me that the original authors were giving it away for free! How can they profit any less than that?
hard work
Nice try, buddy, but I worked hard on my stuff too.
That's fine, but you don't seem to be able to grasp the idea of my entire "derivative work" being worth more than the small amount of code I borrowed. And it probably isn't a "derivative work" in any reasonable sense.
I really don't understand your problem.
Clearly.
You seem to think that because you can read the source code of a GPL library, and download it and link it to your program without paying a penny, that you should somehow have the "right" to do whatever you like with it.
Are you a farmer? 'Cos I was wondering where you get all that straw. Not only did I not say that, I said "I don't steal GPL'd code". Because although I don't respect the GPL in the "respect has to be earned" sense, I do respect it in terms of "OK then, I'll continue to write my own code." I'm in favour of sharing, but I can't get involved with GPL'd stuff.
Actually many great Open Source projects have IMHO better licences, so it's not all bad.
I've already asked people to stop lecturing me on what the GPL says and what it doesn't. I don't need your "clues".
I don't charge for other people's software, I charge for mine. If I used a bit of someone else's, aiight, but that's a separate issue to be worked out. I didn't curse anyone. Perhaps you're replying to that straw man over there -->
Then pay form some other equivalent proprietary library/function that lets your source closed.
If you read my post, you'll see that I did address that. It's definitely a possibility, but people often seem to charge ridiculous amounts. And it's a bit annoying considering everyone else is getting it for nothing. I'm not saying sharing stuff is bad, I just want it to be fair.
In capitalism, the seller sets the price and the buyer decides whether it's worth it.
Precisely. Thanks for making my point. There are many scenarios in which it is clearly not worth it.
Me? A communist? We're in a discussion about RMS, and I'm siding slightly against the GPL, and I'm a communist? Interesting.
As I have already pointed out multiple times, I don't use GPL'd code so stop telling me not to use it.
If you make it proprietary, I don't have the legal right to it anymore; nor does anyone else.
Eh? What? You still have your original code. If I make changes to that code I'm more than happy to send you a patch. As for the rest of my code, you never had any right to that, and you still don't, so you haven't lost anything.
You warty troll.
I'm not trolling. I develop closed source software (games) and I have issues with the GPL such that I can't use GPL'd code. Simple as that. I'm just trying to put my opinion. Shame on you if you have to use such namecalling tactics rather than debate the issues in a civil manner.
Freedom is all well and good, and as I said, I'm not against a bit of "share and share alike". It's the "alike" bit that the GPL doesn't address.
"...only if you distribute..." I know that. Duh. But if I use it I might want to redistribute it. And I would be effectively restricted from doing so. So don't try to lecture me on the ins and outs of the GPL, because I'm not a noob. "...that code only must be GPL'd." Which could be a lot of code, which was my point. Yes, you could come up with scenarios in which it wasn't my entire code base, but you're nitpicking. "And of course if you disagree - well then don't use GPL'd code, write your own !" Uh, well, I do. But thanks for jumping on the patronising bandwagon.
Yeah, sure, I am just plain lazy. Thanks for the ad hominem. My reasons for wanting to use the GPL'd code are not relevant. Either it's free, or it's not. And it could be more than a single function, it was just an example. Maybe it's a library or something. A nice library that allows me to interoperate nicely with other software. Imagine that. Oh, so I should stop being lazy and reinvent the wheel? Nice new argument for that. I understand the GPL, thankyouverymuch. You don't actually address my point that although the GPL'd code may be valuable, it may not be as valuable as my entire source base. And I know the GPL allows the copyright owner to license the code to me under a parallel non-GPL agreement. But that seems a bit clunky to me. I'd be happy with a BSD style licence. I don't respect the GPL, because I have the aforementioned issues with it. You appear to have misunderstood me, however. I don't "steal" GPL'd code (whatever that would mean). So your "If you don't like the license don't use the code." is needless and patronising.
Yes, it is restrictive. "Share and share alike" is all very well. "Use a single GPL'd function and have to give away my entire source base" is another matter. In addition, it's not a zero sum game, so if I "steal" some of your GPL'd code, you still have it, so you have no grounds to bitch about me making it proprietary. The GPL has its good points, but to say it's not restrictive is to ignore reality.
The point is that you're only prepared to accept your own definition of "OS" and what should go into it. I am aware that there has been a court ruling on the matter, I thought I made it clear that I disagreed with it. That's my right, you know. I didn't say you personally used Mozilla on Linux. Only that many people do, while whining about choice. It seems that I wasn't too far off, though, so thanks for taking that point. There is no contradiction in what I said, although you try to belittle me. People want to run Windows apps. People should be able to run Windows apps if they want. If BeOS can't run Windows apps, it's useless to many people. That doesn't mean people can't choose BeOS, as many people did, or Linux. You have to realise that other operating systems do not have a god given right to mindshare. I don't have that book so I can't check your claim. All of those alleged incidents were rather a long time ago, though, and it's amusing to see them dredged up continually. IE is the dominant browser and if you don't like it, hard luck. That's democracy for you. Oh and Netscape failed mostly because their browser sucked hard. Please don't tell me you think it was any good.
So you're another one locked into some pathetic semantic thing about what IE is part of. Doesn't it fit into your pet definition of an OS? Try having an open mind sometime. I know about the SAA, thankyouverymuch. I'm just of the opinion that Microsoft don't fit the definition of a monopoly - and accordingly reject the rest of your arguments. You know it's funny, so many people saying they have no choice. Typing that whine into Mozilla running on Linux. BeOS didn't run Windows applications... Stillborn, I'm afraid, because people use their OS to run their applications, not marvel at the number of video streams they can play simultaneously. "DOS ain't done till Lotus won't run"... Hahaha... That's a good one. We're all still waiting for a cite for that one, of course. And it's not like we should take a humorous remark too seriously. You want me to find some choice quotes from Linux people? I didn't think so. You have already had it explained to you multiple times that you can install your own web browser, so the fact that IE is installed for you is irrelevant. You just need to stop whining about it, and we're done.
Precisely, my friend, and if there were significant consumer demand for Windows with no browser, Microsoft would have no choice but to offer it. But there isn't, so it doesn't.
"They made Win 3.x claim DR-DOS wasn't fully compatible"
Only in a beta version. But yeah, that wasn't cool. But then DR-DOS->Caldera->SCO, hmm...
"they included undocumented API calls in 9x to make office work faster"
Care to list them?
Why do you need to remove IE? Do you genuinely need the disk space? Come on. You can use Mozilla all you want. No-one is stopping you from doing that. Please don't try to tell us that Microsoft are stopping you from running other browsers.
If they can do it at a competitive price, then battery and charger me up! If I already have some batteries and a charger, then perhaps I would like to buy the thingy without that bundle. If I couldn't, then maybe I would get the bundle and have some spare stuff, or I would buy a different product, or I wouldn't buy it at all. First point: One company doesn't control 97% of the OS market. Second point: What's worse than one company in the market? Well, having no companies in the market! I can't buy a time machine at all! No-one will sell me one. Oh woe is me, what am I to do? Sometimes you can't have what you want, sometimes you can have something like what you want, and sometimes you have choices even though you say you don't.
It's interesting, I mean that's pretty much the pitch you get from Open Source folks. They pride themselves on doing "whatever the fuck they want", and that's absolutely fine. Good luck to them. Again, it all comes down to control. People want control other other people, whilst at the same time limiting the control others have over them. You and others want destructive control over what Microsoft does and I don't think that's cool. The one area of difference is of course that with Open Source there's a more public way of influencing the product. It's possible with Microsoft too, though! I develop for XBox and the developer support team have implemented many of our suggestions. I guess I'm just not anti-Microsoft. Peace, dude...
"No. A monopoly is defined as an organisation that unfairly uses its influence in the marketplace to stamp out competition. WMP (media player) is being used by Microsoft (monopoly) to stamp out competition (open standards)."
You haven't been paying attention. It's not illegal to be a monopoly. OK let's say I'm selling left handed wingebangers. Oh look, I now have a monopoly. No-one else is selling left handed wingebangers. I had better stop now because I'm so evil. Riiight.
"MS believes IE and Windows cannot be removed. They even showed this case."
And someone else showed that they could, with a lot of hackery, but it would cripple Explorer. Well, whatever floats your boat. Personally, I'd like a system that works... And anyway, why do you feel the need to remove IE? You can install Mozilla and use it all you like.
"they are blurring the line between OS and applications"
I don't think they are. I think that if you're confused about which is which, that is your problem.
When I say "begging the question" I mean that you are using a circular argument.
"MS has a controlling command of what an OS is."
No, they have control over what Windows is. Not over any other OS or distribution thereof.
"blur the original standards"
What standards?
"Because of its widespread use, these new standards become the norm."
In other words, Windows has become a de facto standard. Nothing wrong with that. If you feel that other products do a better job, feel free to promote their use!
"internet browser has never been part of an OS"
Well, browsers are relatively new in the scheme of things. Why shouldn't Microsoft integrate IE into their user experience?
But you are begging the question. The PC market is what the users want it to be. If more people used other operating systems (Apple, *n*x, etc) then MS would have less market share. The choice is obviously there. It's not Microsoft's problem if people want to buy its product instead of the others available. On to your next point. Are you a farmer? 'Cos I was wondering where you get all that straw. No, Microsoft are not the world's arbiter of "what is necessary for the standards of an OS." They produce an operating system and bundle it with their choice of apps. Much as any other OS distro does.
J'H'C. We're not talking about cars. It was just an example. I can think of many others. Anything where something is bundled. Like anything that comes "batteries included". Waaaah, they restricted my choice of battery. FFS, it's convenient. The price of Windows is up to Microsoft to set. It's up to you to decide if you want to pay it. IE and WMP are most definitely freebies, you have always been able to download them at no cost. BTW I wrote 'arbiter', not 'arbitrator'. They mean roughly the same thing, but if you're gonna bung it between a pair of quote marks, you should be more precise...
??? You can't use an operating system without apps! My analogy doesn't "fail". You can always find ways in which my analogy doesn't match, that's because it's a frickin' analogy, if it wasn't different it wouldn't be an analogy would it? However in the sense of the point I was trying to make, it works just fine. If a company sold only one specification of a car, and I didn't want that specification, then I guess I would just have to buy a different car from a different company. That company's loss. Fortunately, you are not the world's arbiter of what is "necessary for the standards of an OS."
But who says Microsoft are just selling an operating system? They are selling the whole thing, applications and all. What is wrong with that? Why can't they sell what they like? If other people want to sell alternative applications, then they need to make them better, or cheaper, or both. No-one is guaranteed that their business strategy will work. If users don't look around for other software, then the producers of that other software are doing a bad marketing job. Why should Microsoft advertise for their competitors? Do you think that if I buy a car, it should come with no seats? That I should be forced to buy my own seats from elsewhere?
Slashdot Mirror
The GPL is off-topic in a thread about RMS?
And I'm not being anti-GPL in the way you mean it. I responded to some guy saying it wasn't restrictive. I've given my opinion, which is that it is restrictive. That's not trolling, but you wouldn't be the first net.user to fail to grasp the meaning of the word.
As for your last comments, you're just restricting the scope of the word "alike".
Well, it seems to be awfully popular, so I guess there are also many scenarios in which it IS worth it...
Sure, I guess. I'm not arguing against that.
Heh, look, I wasn't the one to bring up "communist"...
That is a valid point, but it it is easy to counter with "if you don't like it, don't use GPL code".
And that is easy to counter with "I don't, as I have already said a quazillion times in this thread. However, as I have also said, I am not against sharing, in fact I wish I could share, but I cannot get involved with GPL'd code. For me, therefore, the GPL is restrictive."
Why are you looking at me? The straw man is over there -->
I don't want to take your code for free, just for a fair price. And I'm not "taking" it. You still have it. You're hardly going to buy it back from me, are you? Be serious yourself.
The overpriced thing was just a feeling I got, I mean it's not the normal thing. Most people either go GPL properly, or write their own code. Then you get people who ignore the GPL and use it anyway (not me, in case you're as confused as others in this thread). And you have people who dual license on an individual basis. Because it's up to the copyright owner to set a price, and because they probably don't actually do it much, there are not too many data points around. I do remember Qt (which isn't GPL but had dual licensing) going for frankly absurd money. Basically, it's like "yes you can pay for it, snigger, but you're going to get punished for not following my ideology" followed by "think of a number", "double it if you're developing for Win32", and "quadruple it if you're Microsoft."
So provide some arguments to the guys (like me) writing gpl'd software why they should use the BSD license instead.
Why should I? I'm not trying to stop you from using the GPL. It makes it extremely unlikely that people like me can use your work, but that's up to you. We will just continue to write our own code. It's unfortunate that we can't share our resources, but there you go.
'I wan't to use it like all the other good kiddies but don't want to have to do anything for it'
I do hope you're not suggesting I said that.
In fact you have reasured me that choosing the GPL for my software was the right thing to do to keep obvious parasites like you away from it.
Oh, so you are suggesting it. And up pops another ad hominem. Oh well, I have laid out my real position up there ^^^ in the rest of the thread. If you want to score points against the straw man, that's between you and him. Leave me out of it.
The single GPL function or library - that the OP wants to include in the large, hugely valuable pre-existing codebase - is copyrighted.
Show me where I said it wasn't.
Other people use it for a price: they pay by agreeing to share any further modifications of it.
Oh, if only that were the end of it. Go and read the GPL again, understand what it means by "derivative work", and note that I have absolutely no problem with sharing my changes to the code I used. But not necessarily to all code I linked with it. Maybe I'd share some of it, if someone asked. Maybe we could do a deal. But as it stands, the deal I'm forced to take can be extremely unfair.
profit from it... Why is preventing that wrong?
There's nothing to stop you from profiting from it yourself. You still have the code, remember? You haven't lost anything. I added value to it and I should be able to profit from that. In reality I might already have most of the value anyway.
Perhaps even profit at the expense of the original authors
It seems to me that the original authors were giving it away for free! How can they profit any less than that?
hard work
Nice try, buddy, but I worked hard on my stuff too.
They're paying in source code.
That's fine, but you don't seem to be able to grasp the idea of my entire "derivative work" being worth more than the small amount of code I borrowed. And it probably isn't a "derivative work" in any reasonable sense.
I really don't understand your problem.
Clearly.
You seem to think that because you can read the source code of a GPL library, and download it and link it to your program without paying a penny, that you should somehow have the "right" to do whatever you like with it.
Are you a farmer? 'Cos I was wondering where you get all that straw. Not only did I not say that, I said "I don't steal GPL'd code". Because although I don't respect the GPL in the "respect has to be earned" sense, I do respect it in terms of "OK then, I'll continue to write my own code." I'm in favour of sharing, but I can't get involved with GPL'd stuff.
Actually many great Open Source projects have IMHO better licences, so it's not all bad.
I've already asked people to stop lecturing me on what the GPL says and what it doesn't. I don't need your "clues".
I don't charge for other people's software, I charge for mine. If I used a bit of someone else's, aiight, but that's a separate issue to be worked out. I didn't curse anyone. Perhaps you're replying to that straw man over there -->
Ok, then GPL isn't free.
;-)
Thanks, that was my original point
Then pay form some other equivalent proprietary library/function that lets your source closed.
If you read my post, you'll see that I did address that. It's definitely a possibility, but people often seem to charge ridiculous amounts. And it's a bit annoying considering everyone else is getting it for nothing. I'm not saying sharing stuff is bad, I just want it to be fair.
In capitalism, the seller sets the price and the buyer decides whether it's worth it.
Precisely. Thanks for making my point. There are many scenarios in which it is clearly not worth it.
Me? A communist? We're in a discussion about RMS, and I'm siding slightly against the GPL, and I'm a communist? Interesting.
As I have already pointed out multiple times, I don't use GPL'd code so stop telling me not to use it.
If you make it proprietary, I don't have the legal right to it anymore; nor does anyone else.
Eh? What? You still have your original code. If I make changes to that code I'm more than happy to send you a patch. As for the rest of my code, you never had any right to that, and you still don't, so you haven't lost anything.
You warty troll.
I'm not trolling. I develop closed source software (games) and I have issues with the GPL such that I can't use GPL'd code. Simple as that. I'm just trying to put my opinion. Shame on you if you have to use such namecalling tactics rather than debate the issues in a civil manner.
Freedom is all well and good, and as I said, I'm not against a bit of "share and share alike". It's the "alike" bit that the GPL doesn't address.
"...only if you distribute..."
I know that. Duh. But if I use it I might want to redistribute it. And I would be effectively restricted from doing so. So don't try to lecture me on the ins and outs of the GPL, because I'm not a noob.
"...that code only must be GPL'd."
Which could be a lot of code, which was my point. Yes, you could come up with scenarios in which it wasn't my entire code base, but you're nitpicking.
"And of course if you disagree - well then don't use GPL'd code, write your own !"
Uh, well, I do. But thanks for jumping on the patronising bandwagon.
Yeah, sure, I am just plain lazy. Thanks for the ad hominem. My reasons for wanting to use the GPL'd code are not relevant. Either it's free, or it's not. And it could be more than a single function, it was just an example. Maybe it's a library or something. A nice library that allows me to interoperate nicely with other software. Imagine that. Oh, so I should stop being lazy and reinvent the wheel? Nice new argument for that.
I understand the GPL, thankyouverymuch. You don't actually address my point that although the GPL'd code may be valuable, it may not be as valuable as my entire source base. And I know the GPL allows the copyright owner to license the code to me under a parallel non-GPL agreement. But that seems a bit clunky to me. I'd be happy with a BSD style licence.
I don't respect the GPL, because I have the aforementioned issues with it. You appear to have misunderstood me, however. I don't "steal" GPL'd code (whatever that would mean). So your "If you don't like the license don't use the code." is needless and patronising.
Yes, it is restrictive. "Share and share alike" is all very well. "Use a single GPL'd function and have to give away my entire source base" is another matter.
In addition, it's not a zero sum game, so if I "steal" some of your GPL'd code, you still have it, so you have no grounds to bitch about me making it proprietary.
The GPL has its good points, but to say it's not restrictive is to ignore reality.
Then you copy it from the hard drive to a memory card. Most of the time you have the convenience of the internal hard drive.
The point is that you're only prepared to accept your own definition of "OS" and what should go into it.
I am aware that there has been a court ruling on the matter, I thought I made it clear that I disagreed with it. That's my right, you know.
I didn't say you personally used Mozilla on Linux. Only that many people do, while whining about choice. It seems that I wasn't too far off, though, so thanks for taking that point.
There is no contradiction in what I said, although you try to belittle me. People want to run Windows apps. People should be able to run Windows apps if they want. If BeOS can't run Windows apps, it's useless to many people. That doesn't mean people can't choose BeOS, as many people did, or Linux. You have to realise that other operating systems do not have a god given right to mindshare.
I don't have that book so I can't check your claim.
All of those alleged incidents were rather a long time ago, though, and it's amusing to see them dredged up continually.
IE is the dominant browser and if you don't like it, hard luck. That's democracy for you. Oh and Netscape failed mostly because their browser sucked hard. Please don't tell me you think it was any good.
So you're another one locked into some pathetic semantic thing about what IE is part of. Doesn't it fit into your pet definition of an OS? Try having an open mind sometime.
I know about the SAA, thankyouverymuch. I'm just of the opinion that Microsoft don't fit the definition of a monopoly - and accordingly reject the rest of your arguments.
You know it's funny, so many people saying they have no choice. Typing that whine into Mozilla running on Linux.
BeOS didn't run Windows applications... Stillborn, I'm afraid, because people use their OS to run their applications, not marvel at the number of video streams they can play simultaneously.
"DOS ain't done till Lotus won't run"... Hahaha... That's a good one. We're all still waiting for a cite for that one, of course. And it's not like we should take a humorous remark too seriously. You want me to find some choice quotes from Linux people? I didn't think so.
You have already had it explained to you multiple times that you can install your own web browser, so the fact that IE is installed for you is irrelevant. You just need to stop whining about it, and we're done.
Precisely, my friend, and if there were significant consumer demand for Windows with no browser, Microsoft would have no choice but to offer it. But there isn't, so it doesn't.
"They made Win 3.x claim DR-DOS wasn't fully compatible"
Only in a beta version. But yeah, that wasn't cool. But then DR-DOS->Caldera->SCO, hmm...
"they included undocumented API calls in 9x to make office work faster"
Care to list them?
Why do you need to remove IE? Do you genuinely need the disk space? Come on. You can use Mozilla all you want. No-one is stopping you from doing that. Please don't try to tell us that Microsoft are stopping you from running other browsers.
If they can do it at a competitive price, then battery and charger me up! If I already have some batteries and a charger, then perhaps I would like to buy the thingy without that bundle. If I couldn't, then maybe I would get the bundle and have some spare stuff, or I would buy a different product, or I wouldn't buy it at all.
First point: One company doesn't control 97% of the OS market.
Second point: What's worse than one company in the market? Well, having no companies in the market! I can't buy a time machine at all! No-one will sell me one. Oh woe is me, what am I to do? Sometimes you can't have what you want, sometimes you can have something like what you want, and sometimes you have choices even though you say you don't.
It's interesting, I mean that's pretty much the pitch you get from Open Source folks. They pride themselves on doing "whatever the fuck they want", and that's absolutely fine. Good luck to them. Again, it all comes down to control. People want control other other people, whilst at the same time limiting the control others have over them. You and others want destructive control over what Microsoft does and I don't think that's cool.
The one area of difference is of course that with Open Source there's a more public way of influencing the product. It's possible with Microsoft too, though! I develop for XBox and the developer support team have implemented many of our suggestions. I guess I'm just not anti-Microsoft. Peace, dude...
"No. A monopoly is defined as an organisation that unfairly uses its influence in the marketplace to stamp out competition. WMP (media player) is being used by Microsoft (monopoly) to stamp out competition (open standards)."
You haven't been paying attention. It's not illegal to be a monopoly. OK let's say I'm selling left handed wingebangers. Oh look, I now have a monopoly. No-one else is selling left handed wingebangers. I had better stop now because I'm so evil. Riiight.
"MS believes IE and Windows cannot be removed. They even showed this case."
And someone else showed that they could, with a lot of hackery, but it would cripple Explorer. Well, whatever floats your boat. Personally, I'd like a system that works... And anyway, why do you feel the need to remove IE? You can install Mozilla and use it all you like.
"they are blurring the line between OS and applications"
I don't think they are. I think that if you're confused about which is which, that is your problem.
When I say "begging the question" I mean that you are using a circular argument.
"MS has a controlling command of what an OS is."
No, they have control over what Windows is. Not over any other OS or distribution thereof.
"blur the original standards"
What standards?
"Because of its widespread use, these new standards become the norm."
In other words, Windows has become a de facto standard. Nothing wrong with that. If you feel that other products do a better job, feel free to promote their use!
"internet browser has never been part of an OS"
Well, browsers are relatively new in the scheme of things. Why shouldn't Microsoft integrate IE into their user experience?
"the soon-to-be former prime minister"
Hehe, well we can wish can't we?
But you are begging the question. The PC market is what the users want it to be. If more people used other operating systems (Apple, *n*x, etc) then MS would have less market share. The choice is obviously there. It's not Microsoft's problem if people want to buy its product instead of the others available.
On to your next point. Are you a farmer? 'Cos I was wondering where you get all that straw.
No, Microsoft are not the world's arbiter of "what is necessary for the standards of an OS." They produce an operating system and bundle it with their choice of apps. Much as any other OS distro does.
J'H'C. We're not talking about cars. It was just an example. I can think of many others. Anything where something is bundled. Like anything that comes "batteries included". Waaaah, they restricted my choice of battery. FFS, it's convenient.
The price of Windows is up to Microsoft to set. It's up to you to decide if you want to pay it. IE and WMP are most definitely freebies, you have always been able to download them at no cost.
BTW I wrote 'arbiter', not 'arbitrator'. They mean roughly the same thing, but if you're gonna bung it between a pair of quote marks, you should be more precise...
??? You can't use an operating system without apps! My analogy doesn't "fail". You can always find ways in which my analogy doesn't match, that's because it's a frickin' analogy, if it wasn't different it wouldn't be an analogy would it? However in the sense of the point I was trying to make, it works just fine.
If a company sold only one specification of a car, and I didn't want that specification, then I guess I would just have to buy a different car from a different company. That company's loss.
Fortunately, you are not the world's arbiter of what is "necessary for the standards of an OS."
But who says Microsoft are just selling an operating system? They are selling the whole thing, applications and all. What is wrong with that? Why can't they sell what they like?
If other people want to sell alternative applications, then they need to make them better, or cheaper, or both. No-one is guaranteed that their business strategy will work.
If users don't look around for other software, then the producers of that other software are doing a bad marketing job.
Why should Microsoft advertise for their competitors?
Do you think that if I buy a car, it should come with no seats? That I should be forced to buy my own seats from elsewhere?