How does it take away the say of people in Iowa? An Iowa voter's vote would count exactly as much as a New York or LA vote. You seem to over-value collectivizing people based on where they live. In the end one American vote is one American vote (unfortunately - as most Americans are dumb-as-rocks).
Dense? Because I'm not swallowing your laughable sophistry? "flaws". Give me a break dude. Please enumerate the precise existing flaws and detail how MS is unable to provide a fix. Please prove that any of the other hundreds upon hundreds of other OS components shared by applications in Windows are free of "flaws".
Your argument is nonsensical. Any part of the OS can have "flaws". They need to be fixed and patched - an HTML rendering component isn't a special case. The Windows service mechanisms have had "flaws" involving interactive components allowing escalation of privilege in Windows service backends.
Explain how I can run Windows without the Windows service host and service mechanism in general? I can't - it's part of the OS - deal with it.
A reasonable ruling would be that the market is "computer operating systems". There are plenty of alternatives and in many spaces MS isn't even dominant.
A more reasonable ruling would be that antitrust law should only be applied to physically limited resources of vast public importance (water, oil, power, food).
This is false. You don't get to just define something as having a market because you try to sell it. Can I decide to sell a new type of SATA driver and claim there's now a SATA driver market? Can I try to sell a Windows taskbar replacement and them claim there's a taskbar market now?
You're like a neo-con - you keep arguing the same arguments, but essentially you're just megaphoning. None of your arguments hold water and many of them are outright preposterous.
The idea of selling an operating system without a browser is simply untenable from both a technical and a marketing perspective. The correct approach is that OEMs can install any other browser they want, and the end-user can install any other browser.
Right. Any modern OS needs some kind of HTML rendering engine which is well-known and guaranteed available. If you have applications which use MSHTML.dll then perhaps you should complain and tell them to use an alternate method.
Also - this isn't about "flaws". Many parts of any OS are open to "flaws". So what.
Re:You fell victim to one of the classic blunders
on
You Are Not a Lawyer
·
· Score: 1
Ironically, had there been a bunch of techies on the jury the morons would have let him go. Seriously, even after he led them to the body there were people still saying he shouldn't have been convicted.
I get their argument and all - you can be convicted for the wrong reasons. The thing is that in this case once the evidence was presented it was stunningly clear he was guilty, but all these geeky dweebs don't understand how evidence works.
Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know other people made cars that took BMW parts and had BMW's exact styling, performance, and quality.
Please, show me this magic car!
The entire MS is a monopoly "logic" is exactly the same. You are (by simple fact) forced to admit there are actually many alternative OS's, but none of them are Microsoft Windows compatible. Similarly, if I want a car that is BMW Compatible I have to buy a BMW. Crazy that, huh?
Your car analogy doesn't quite work. We're talking about two separate products; the web browser is not a part of the OS.
This is a lie. The web browser is a part of the operating system product. You'd be hard pressed to find any operating system product intended for general use which doesn't include a browser.
What nonsense. Microsoft in no way dictates how you use your computer. I can install Linux, I can buy an apple, I can install any of the myriad *BSD OS's, I can buy an appliance that just has basically a web browser.
I'm all for the trendy anti-corporatism when it involves corruption, bribery, destroying the environment, unsafe products, etc...
This is about a company seeing that, shit, customers expect a web browser! Shit, a lot of apps need some kind of basic "always available" embeddable browser. Shit, we've got to retain backwards compatibility now. This is about you trying to dictate what legal, reasonable product a company creates based on your idiotic zealotry.
I feel MS should sell only the kernel. Otherwise, how in God's Name will desktop environment companies ever compete?! Christ, why can't I buy Apple's desktop interface and run it on Windows? So what if every software developer would have to develop applications for every permutation of desktop and graphical toolkit, I want my competition! I AM JOHNNY T TRUSTBUSTER! RAWR!!!!
Your post is idiotic. How about we allow OS developers to deliver the products their customers want, and not the product their competitors and geeky linux dweebs think they should?
The idea of distributing an OS without some kind of "always there" web browser is asinine. The ridiculous logical contortions you people jump through to justify it are just laughable.
By all means, if Microsoft prevents OEMs from including other browsers then you Johnny T Trustbusters might have a legitimate gripe. The simple fact is that the OEMs are entirely able to include other browsers, and if people buy a shrinkwrap Windows version they can install any browser they want.
I'm unclear why this is informative or what you're babbling about. You do know that OEMs are entirely free to do this now, right? The OS only "routes calls" to their browser only if the application developer chose to do so. You can most certainly choose not to use MS's browser DLLs, and only MS apps would use it.
You can most certainly delete the IE icon from your machine and not run IE. I'm sure you think you have a reason to "remove" IE, but you simply don't. You have tons and tons of other garbage on your machine that you don't use, a few DLLs and a few EXE's are no different.
Your point? If it does what they need it to do, why _should_ they look for a replacement? If it doesn't, there are plenty of alternative browsers available.
In the end, this just comes down to a bunch of whiners who can't understand that most people don't _care_ about which web browser they use and that the idea of a browserless OS is a ridiculous anachronism.
OEMs are free to put other browsers on the machines, Opera and Firefox can most certainly work with the OEMs to become that browser.
Even if they do have access to the x86 instruction set, there are various patents on technologies without which it is is probably difficult or impossible to make a modern chipset.
Saying "x86 instruction set is patented" is an oversimplification.
No matter how many bridges NVidia builds with AMD, AMD cannot license Intel IP. So it's unclear why the article even mentions this like AMD can somehow "sell" its Intel license.
I don't know all the licensing details, but for NVidia to build a modern CPU they may need both AMD and Intel licenses.
Yes, I have which is exactly why your comment is hilarious.
C# is obviously Microsoft's "answer" to Java. So what? As it turns out, C# and the.NET platform are vastly more advanced than Java in almost every way. It's not even close in terms of language features or the richness of the _native_ platform feature set.
Now, Java of course is vastly superior for cross-platform applications and also has a much more rich "ecosystem" of open source and third party class libraries.
I get it. You're some kind of nut. Nothing but hatred for MS and your enemy Bill Gates will get through your cloud cover of mild insanity. Carry on, dude. Carry on.
If the voices in your head urge you to do anything much beyond post nutty, disjoint, illogical claptrap about them I would go see a therapist, though.
You guys are really hitting the bottom of the barrel in the MS jihad movement, aren't you?
You mean MS lets you download a patch even though it doesn't apply to the machine you download from?! CRAZY!?!
What next, going to claim Bill Gates is the antichrist and is just trying to somehow make money off of giving away most of his money to charity? Oh...wait, you already do that. Ahahaha. Jackasses.
Slashdot Mirror
How does it take away the say of people in Iowa? An Iowa voter's vote would count exactly as much as a New York or LA vote. You seem to over-value collectivizing people based on where they live. In the end one American vote is one American vote (unfortunately - as most Americans are dumb-as-rocks).
Dense? Because I'm not swallowing your laughable sophistry? "flaws". Give me a break dude. Please enumerate the precise existing flaws and detail how MS is unable to provide a fix. Please prove that any of the other hundreds upon hundreds of other OS components shared by applications in Windows are free of "flaws".
Your argument is nonsensical. Any part of the OS can have "flaws". They need to be fixed and patched - an HTML rendering component isn't a special case. The Windows service mechanisms have had "flaws" involving interactive components allowing escalation of privilege in Windows service backends.
Explain how I can run Windows without the Windows service host and service mechanism in general? I can't - it's part of the OS - deal with it.
That's strictly an interpretation.
A reasonable ruling would be that the market is "computer operating systems". There are plenty of alternatives and in many spaces MS isn't even dominant.
A more reasonable ruling would be that antitrust law should only be applied to physically limited resources of vast public importance (water, oil, power, food).
This is false. You don't get to just define something as having a market because you try to sell it. Can I decide to sell a new type of SATA driver and claim there's now a SATA driver market? Can I try to sell a Windows taskbar replacement and them claim there's a taskbar market now?
You're like a neo-con - you keep arguing the same arguments, but essentially you're just megaphoning. None of your arguments hold water and many of them are outright preposterous.
The idea of selling an operating system without a browser is simply untenable from both a technical and a marketing perspective. The correct approach is that OEMs can install any other browser they want, and the end-user can install any other browser.
Right. Any modern OS needs some kind of HTML rendering engine which is well-known and guaranteed available. If you have applications which use MSHTML.dll then perhaps you should complain and tell them to use an alternate method.
Also - this isn't about "flaws". Many parts of any OS are open to "flaws". So what.
Ironically, had there been a bunch of techies on the jury the morons would have let him go. Seriously, even after he led them to the body there were people still saying he shouldn't have been convicted.
I get their argument and all - you can be convicted for the wrong reasons. The thing is that in this case once the evidence was presented it was stunningly clear he was guilty, but all these geeky dweebs don't understand how evidence works.
I certainly would be angry...at the gas stations and people making BMW only parking spaces.
Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know other people made cars that took BMW parts and had BMW's exact styling, performance, and quality.
Please, show me this magic car!
The entire MS is a monopoly "logic" is exactly the same. You are (by simple fact) forced to admit there are actually many alternative OS's, but none of them are Microsoft Windows compatible. Similarly, if I want a car that is BMW Compatible I have to buy a BMW. Crazy that, huh?
You guys are like Obi-won Kenobi. You wave your and and spout the magic "they are a monopoly" and think this will win your argument. It doesn't.
I can't go to a store and choose a different browser or a different operating system.
Lie: Provably false.
All new computers have windows.
Lie: Provably false.
Your car analogy doesn't quite work. We're talking about two separate products; the web browser is not a part of the OS.
This is a lie. The web browser is a part of the operating system product. You'd be hard pressed to find any operating system product intended for general use which doesn't include a browser.
What nonsense. Microsoft in no way dictates how you use your computer. I can install Linux, I can buy an apple, I can install any of the myriad *BSD OS's, I can buy an appliance that just has basically a web browser.
I'm all for the trendy anti-corporatism when it involves corruption, bribery, destroying the environment, unsafe products, etc...
This is about a company seeing that, shit, customers expect a web browser! Shit, a lot of apps need some kind of basic "always available" embeddable browser. Shit, we've got to retain backwards compatibility now. This is about you trying to dictate what legal, reasonable product a company creates based on your idiotic zealotry.
I feel MS should sell only the kernel. Otherwise, how in God's Name will desktop environment companies ever compete?! Christ, why can't I buy Apple's desktop interface and run it on Windows? So what if every software developer would have to develop applications for every permutation of desktop and graphical toolkit, I want my competition! I AM JOHNNY T TRUSTBUSTER! RAWR!!!!
Your post is idiotic. How about we allow OS developers to deliver the products their customers want, and not the product their competitors and geeky linux dweebs think they should?
The idea of distributing an OS without some kind of "always there" web browser is asinine. The ridiculous logical contortions you people jump through to justify it are just laughable.
By all means, if Microsoft prevents OEMs from including other browsers then you Johnny T Trustbusters might have a legitimate gripe. The simple fact is that the OEMs are entirely able to include other browsers, and if people buy a shrinkwrap Windows version they can install any browser they want.
I'm unclear why this is informative or what you're babbling about. You do know that OEMs are entirely free to do this now, right? The OS only "routes calls" to their browser only if the application developer chose to do so. You can most certainly choose not to use MS's browser DLLs, and only MS apps would use it.
You can most certainly delete the IE icon from your machine and not run IE. I'm sure you think you have a reason to "remove" IE, but you simply don't. You have tons and tons of other garbage on your machine that you don't use, a few DLLs and a few EXE's are no different.
And the OEMs are entirely free to do so.
Your point? If it does what they need it to do, why _should_ they look for a replacement? If it doesn't, there are plenty of alternative browsers available.
In the end, this just comes down to a bunch of whiners who can't understand that most people don't _care_ about which web browser they use and that the idea of a browserless OS is a ridiculous anachronism.
OEMs are free to put other browsers on the machines, Opera and Firefox can most certainly work with the OEMs to become that browser.
Even if they do have access to the x86 instruction set, there are various patents on technologies without which it is is probably difficult or impossible to make a modern chipset.
Saying "x86 instruction set is patented" is an oversimplification.
No matter how many bridges NVidia builds with AMD, AMD cannot license Intel IP. So it's unclear why the article even mentions this like AMD can somehow "sell" its Intel license.
I don't know all the licensing details, but for NVidia to build a modern CPU they may need both AMD and Intel licenses.
Yes, I have which is exactly why your comment is hilarious.
C# is obviously Microsoft's "answer" to Java. So what? As it turns out, C# and the .NET platform are vastly more advanced than Java in almost every way. It's not even close in terms of language features or the richness of the _native_ platform feature set.
Now, Java of course is vastly superior for cross-platform applications and also has a much more rich "ecosystem" of open source and third party class libraries.
No. Nobody but single-OS shops use NFS ACLs. And POSIX ACL's are pointless as they only work on the local FS.
Bullshit. Try using your POSIX ACL's on NFS. Good luck with that.
I get it. You're some kind of nut. Nothing but hatred for MS and your enemy Bill Gates will get through your cloud cover of mild insanity. Carry on, dude. Carry on.
If the voices in your head urge you to do anything much beyond post nutty, disjoint, illogical claptrap about them I would go see a therapist, though.
You guys are really hitting the bottom of the barrel in the MS jihad movement, aren't you?
You mean MS lets you download a patch even though it doesn't apply to the machine you download from?! CRAZY!?!
What next, going to claim Bill Gates is the antichrist and is just trying to somehow make money off of giving away most of his money to charity? Oh...wait, you already do that. Ahahaha. Jackasses.
Yeah. He released real malaria infected mosquitos. Right. Idiot.