Wierd - I've always had pretty good luck with songs being online when it says they are.
I dunno. Recently, anything I try to download from Napster gives me a "cannot access file" error. And this happens from Gnapster in Linux and Napster in Windows, so it's most likely not me. Or if it is, I have no clue what could be going on.
Chuck D and any other establish artists has no interest what-so-ever in giving away for free the very thing that provides for him and his family.
Perhaps, but I think Chuck D is the type of guy who would gladly give up a couple bucks for the oportunity to stick it to "the man." After all, all that he loses for a pirated CD amounts to nothing more than pocket change, it's the Industry that really loses.
Yes,/. users are more likely to have DC blocked, but if everyone on/. blocked DC, then there would be no reason for/. to serve DC ads; the ad views would never get registered and/. would get no money.
Uh, dude, opting out of DoubleClick only means they disable "Big Brother Mode" and not cross-reference your browsing habits with your personal information. In order for it to tell you've opted out, it still has to read the cookie, so the visit is logged. With a system dependant on knowing how many hits there have been, it would be really stupid to design it to ignore some on purpose. If you're really paranoid, you can just symlink your cookies file with/dev/null.
Heh, I always thought it was funny that the video game had better actors than the movie!
Mark Hamill, John Rhys-Davies and Malcom MacDowell were all in the 3rd one (Heart of the Tiger), the movie got a bunch of no-names (although Saphron Burrows is becoming slightly well-known) and a horrendously bad plot.
Another good Exchange replacement is HP OpenMail. It is also fully MAPI compliant, all that good stuff. The guys on my LUG have been raving about it; yet another way of sneaking Linux in there:)
No, it does not. I've been using DOS/Windows for roughly eight years, and I've been plagued by its flakiness the whole time. I think my annoyance at it reached a critical mass after I bought the Windows 98 upgrade--that's when I began looking for alternatives. Even Microsoft employees admit that the 98 upgrade blew.
As for driver support, that's hardly Linux's fault, now is it? Personally I think keeping your drivers secret is idiocy, but there's nothing I can do about it.
If it's all Microsoft's fault for not playing nice, then you'd think Corel could at least make Word Perfect import Word documents perfectly even if Word doesn't do the same in reverse.
Okay, so even though Microsoft deliberatly changes their file formats as to force you to upgrade and dick with the competition simulatneously; as well as keeping the formats secret so anyone who wants to write compatibility has to reverse engineer them, it's Corel's fault for not being compatible. Uh-huh.
Yes I, too, have been burned by Windows installs. I don't know if it's Windows being flaky, or me having bad Windows karma... but sometimes I think my machine has seen more Windows installs than an OEM dealership. I don't really use it for anything other than games, either. Oh, well.
As a technician who's been in charge of new builds at an OEM, I think I can safely say I'm no stranger to installing Windows. The major difference I've noticed between Windows and Linux, is that while Windows may look more inviting sometimes, Linux installs "just work." Every now and then you may actually need to learn a thing or two about computers, but the installs always just work. Windows installs... well, no. Sure, I've seen it go off without a hitch many times, but I think I'm going to go prematurely bald from the times when it doesn't! My God, when it doesn't work, it doesn't work. Sorry for the long "me too" post. All in all, I wish Linux had more OEM support as well. It would certainly make my job much easier.
Microsoft is being sued for (among other things) adding a web browser to Windows. If MS is not allowed to add features if it might hurt a competing product, then that impacts their choices as to where they can take their software.
It's not adding features into Windows. Internet Explorer was a separate product, but when they noticed people preferred Netscape, they buried it into Windows so that you couldn't get rid of IE in order to take over the web browser market. I don't really care if they think it's part of the operating system; web browsers were a sperate market and they exploited their desktop market dominance in order to push IE. That's product tying. Whether or not it can be seen as just another feature now doesn't really matter because they used their market dominance to get here.
Um... yeah. This is what we call an ad hom: "you must support Microsoft because you don't know any better." For the record, I don't use Windows, and don't particularly like it. I have a Mac at home, and use Solaris and Linux boxen at work. In fact I avoid Microsoft products for the most part. (although IE for the Mac is pretty good)
Well, that's good to hear. And why, pray tell, do you avoid MS products? We both know the answer to that one. I don't really care if they make an inferior product, but stamping out all alternatives so as to force you into using their products just isn't right. When you buy a new computer, you should have more choices than just Windows. BeOS really deserved a chance, I think. It's a really neat OS that could've been really good. But the barriars to entry in the desktop OS market are simply too steep.
If you look at my slashdot userid, you'll see I've been reding/. since summer '98, so yes I'm familiar with Linux's growth. And when it's ready for use by average consumers, then consumers will start using it.
Okay, it sounds like you're reasonably intelligent; why are your posts coming from the perspective of a desktop user? Surely you must concede that Linux is a kick-ass server platform. But you seem to regard it as if it were intended for desktop use. Am I wrong here? That's how I was reading your posts. The fact is, it was never intended for desktop use, so comparing it to other desktop OS's isn't very fair. And "consumers" have been using it for quite some time. Us Linux geeks are consumers too, not just the Windows users. Sysadmins and technicians count as consumers, the consumers of the server market. I wouldn't want any Windows users wandering in there anyway.
I fail to see how antitrust law is going to make a difference one way or another there.
What makes you say that? Is defending Microsoft's freedom to innovate so out there that it's automatically flamebait?
There's that phrase again: "Freedom to Innovate." I've gotten positively sick of Microsoft parroting that phrase. Their freedom to innovate is not on trial. It's their predetory, cut-throat business practices that stifle everyone elses "freedom to innovate" that's raising eyebrows. I don't care if they add more features to the latest version of their OS. But using their position as an eighty-pound gorilla in the OS market against smaller companies that can only play fair is simply reprehensible.
Of course there are examples of people who have complaints about specific MS products, as is true with any product. But my point is that the vast majority of MS users are not up in arms about being "forced" to use their products.
So? I admit it--I was practically in love with Microsoft, too. At least, until I was exposed to alternatives. Now that I have a broader experience with operating systems, I can safely say I am so much happier on Linux that there will never be a reason to go back. You may not feel the same way, but that's irrelevant to me and all of the other numerous people who have found Linux to suit them better. I would be much happier if everyone just got along--but Microsoft wants it all, and they won't stop until they have it. If you havn't realized this yet, take a long, hard look at how they've behaved in the past years.
I think NT is another example of Microsoft's non-monopoly. They have been trying to use the dominance of Win32 to take over the server market for years now. And yet apache has cleaned their clocks. People *certainly* have choices in the server arena.
*sigh* The operating systems market is not monolithic. There are different types of OS's for different applications--desktop, server, and mobile just to name a few. Microsoft has a monopoly in the desktop market, and you're talking about the server market. The reason's for this is simple: when people set up a server, they need the best, not the most popular. And NT simply doesn't cut it as a server in comparison to UNIX. Never will.
As I recall, Microsoft in most case simply required that IE be featured on the desktop. OEM's were always free to make Netscape an option. And even if they didn't, so what? The "obvious option" is called a modem. And it's laughable to say that IE was "crammed down users' throats." This is similar to saying cereal companies cram the little toy at the bottom of the package down kids' throats. Microsoft gave away IE *for free.* How can that do anything but help consumers?
You havn't read the Findings of Fact, have you? No, Microsoft threatened to cut off the discounts of all OEM's who preloaded Netscape on their machines. Why don't you go read through the FoF before you continue defending MS.
Netscape is still being actively developed, so if the goal was to drive them out of business it obviously didn't happen. What's the problem?
Like a previous poster said, they only survived because AOL bought them. Don't kid yourself; they wouldn't have stuck around. They were in serious trouble until AOL bailed them out.
Frankly, however good it is as a server platform, Linux isn't ready for use by average users. And since it is not a commercial product, Microsoft tactics aren't going to stop it in any event.
Holy crap, I actually agree with you! But don't understimate how quickly Linux can improve. If you had watched it's grow in just the past six months, and I'm gonna take a wild stab here and guess that you haven't, it's growth is simply mind-boggling. How quickly it's been able to improve has astonished me, and I've only been a user since RedHat 5.2! It ain't on your radar yet, but just wait.
As for Be, they seem to still be there, and the market seems to still be funding them.
No, it's not. They've had to rethink the way their company is going to sell Be, and are moving into the Internet Appliance market, because they simply can't make it in the Desktop market. Have you ever seen Be preinstalled on a computer? Or anything other than Windows (with the obvious exception of Macintosh) for that matter? I didn't think so. That's what we call a monopoly.
Re:Great news?? I think not...
on
More on LinDVD
·
· Score: 1
Sure, we could create a better format; but they'll never use it. This isn't exactly a free market here, this is the format made by the industry for the industry. If they had actually allowed people to compete for the format, we wouldn't have ended up with the shitty format we have now. This isn't really a matter of big business trying to screw us over. It's the inevitable butting-of-heads that Open Source and Big Business has coming for a long time. Maybe we will change the software busniess, but it'll take a lot of time. In the meantime, I think we all need to support the underground movement of an open source player.
I don't know if I'm the only one with mixed reactions to this. On one hand it's nice to see a blessed player on the market, but at what cost?
$29.95:)
I understand what you mean. Although I'll probably fork over the cash for this (not happily, though) so I can finally watch my movies legally, I'm not going to stop distributing DeCSS. The lack of a DVD player for Linux is being addressed, but not the fundamental idiocy of CSS, Macrovision and Region Coding. Fine, we can play them. But what if we want to use them under our rights of fair use? What if we want to copy them to tape so we can watch them on the TV, which may not have a DVD player? What if we buy a whole lotta movies over here and move to a different country?
<rant> Recently I've gotten really interested in this anime series, Rurouni Kenshin. Downloading it is a pain, and I'd rather just buy them. However, since I don't speak Japanese, I'd need subtitles, which the VHS wouldn't have. And thanks to Region Coding, I can forget buying it on DVD as well. You hear me, CCA? You're forcing me to pirate! This is just one example of why Region Coding is stupid.</rant>
Microsoft does NOT have a frigging monopoly people
Okay, if I walk into a store and buy a computer, what OS is it going to have? Windows. Can I get another OS if I want? No. How is this not a monopoly? There is a little bit of competition, but that's semantics. They have monopoly power.
Lastly, think on this: Is Cisco next on DOJ's list to tackle? They're huge, they have a 'monopoly' as defined by the DOJ (as seen with MS).
being a monopoly is not illegal, abusing it to remain one, and to enter other markets, is illegal. Microsoft has done this, a lot, Cisco has not. Cisco is a really cool company. Without them, the Internet would literally not have existed. But they are also a respectible company that doesn't behave like a schoolyard bully.
1) It's a whole lot easier to set up and use "out of the box" than Linux.
And Windows isn't as easy to use out-of-the-box as Be or MacOS. What's your point?
2)Microsoft's office suite is damn good. Some may argue that it's "good" because of anti-competitive integration with the operating system, but regardless, objectively, it is a feature-rich, fast, and easy-to-use suite. Nobody I know has ever had a problem learning Word.
Their apps don't totally suck. But my God are they bloated! I coulda sworn I was upgrading the OS but nope, just Word 2000. And fricking expensive, too. Office 2000 costs more than Windows. How messed up is that? Corel Office 2000 is every bit as good, and only fifty bucks. Try it out.
3)Breaking up Microsoft will have little effect on its day-to-day business. Sure, the overhead will increase, but I don't think it'll help foster competition. It shouldn't be allowed to unfairly push manufacturers, but breaking it up will have no effect on all this.
No, but they would be unable to use monopolistic power illegally, and that's the point. Leveling the playing field. If M$ is broken into Baby Bills, they will have to compete against each other. They will have to play fair! Hee hee.
4)Microsoft shouldn't be punished for having a better product. Netscape (which helped initiate the litigation) complains about IE, and although I agree it shouldn't be forcibly packaged without alternatives by OEMs, the fact remains that today IE is way better than Navigator. Shell integration aside, IE crashes on me less often than Navigator.
No, they should be punished for using monopoly power to steal marketshare from companies instead of competing. If their stuff is so much better, than why can't they win without abusing power? Don't write Netscape off just yet, either. Mozilla kicks ass, and they have a huge comapany backing them--AOL/Time Warner. AOL will switch over to Netscape 6.0 as soon and Mozilla is done--instant dominate marketshare. Plus, Mozilla will be the only decent full-featured browser to run on other platforms than Windows.
To sum it up, the case seems like punishment for Microsoft for being too successful.
No, they will be punished for killing off other companies illegally to become successful. They don't compete, they smother the competitor out of business. This is why they're in deep shit now.
Actually, I would tend to believe a bloated monlith like M$ is right now would be easier to overthrow than several seperate companies. Baby Bills would be a lot more versatile, since they have a much more narrow market. Of course, this is purely speculation by some guy who doesn't know a thing about running companies. Still, common sense would dictate Baby Bills would be a hell of a lot more versatile. Still not, however, as versatile as Linux--and never will be. An eighty-pound gorilla makes an easier target:)
Gee and here I'm using pipes, redirecting and filtering on windows and I didn't even realise windows doesn't have them. don't i feel stupid.
Yes, DOS does have those capabilities--copied from UNIX, just like so many other of its features. But it's really kludgy in comparison, doesn't work as well.
Think about it: Linux was written by programmers for programmers(!). Windows was written... to make money. Linux devel tools are freely available and numerous. Windows devel tools are ungodly expensive. Linux has many free API to write for, Windows has a single, partially obfuscated API. Linux's source code of freely available, so you can look under the hood and see how it works--and that can only help developement. Windows? Um, no. Whatever upsides Windows may have, Linux is a programmer's wet dream.
Well, if you market a service directly towards people who don't know anything about computers (the easiest just got easier! No need to learn a single thing!) it's inevitable that you will end up with the largest portion of the lusers. Even if there are some people on it who aren't ignorant, they're completely outweighed by the majority.
It's not just a simple choice of an ISP--AOL has consistently scored the lowest in every category that matters except for ease of use. Therefore, the only reason you would choose it above a real ISP is if you don't know anything about computers.
I guess this goes with the statement that geeks generally suck at creating interfaces. We dig complexity and usefulness, but the unwashed masses want simplicity. I think it would probably take a separate group developing the front end, Eazel perhaps? A group of ex Apple and AOL employees sounds like people used to idiot-proofing interfaces. Corel is also doing cool things with KDE to make it easy. (Too bad they have to change Qt, though) But if we should take advice from any interface, it should be Be. Now that's and easy inteface! Certainly one my mom could use.
I love Gnome, as a matter of fact I'm using it right now. But one thing I've noticed is that it seems to just follow Window's lead in UI design and not really do anything novel itself. When do you think Gnome, and open source in general, will stop following the Evil Empire(tm) in UI and start choosing it's own path for a better, more useful interfaces?
Good point. In fact, my playlist is almost completely independant, thanks to mp3.com. They have improved greatly since the last time I was on. Instead of listening to the same recycled crap from the radio, I'm listening to a bunch of people I've never heard of before. And I don't miss the mainstream stuff one bit! If I like something from mp3.com, I can just send the band $6 and get the CD (complete with CDDA and mp3 files!)--I'm paying the artist directly for their music, and they're making a hell of a lot more off of me then they would through a label. All in all, I think it's a pretty nice setup. And with mp3.com, there's no need to download songs with Napster to try them out.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
I dunno. Recently, anything I try to download from Napster gives me a "cannot access file" error. And this happens from Gnapster in Linux and Napster in Windows, so it's most likely not me. Or if it is, I have no clue what could be going on.
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Perhaps, but I think Chuck D is the type of guy who would gladly give up a couple bucks for the oportunity to stick it to "the man." After all, all that he loses for a pirated CD amounts to nothing more than pocket change, it's the Industry that really loses.
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Uh, dude, opting out of DoubleClick only means they disable "Big Brother Mode" and not cross-reference your browsing habits with your personal information. In order for it to tell you've opted out, it still has to read the cookie, so the visit is logged. With a system dependant on knowing how many hits there have been, it would be really stupid to design it to ignore some on purpose. If you're really paranoid, you can just symlink your cookies file with /dev/null.
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Umm... you must not have seen "Hackers", then.
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Heh, I always thought it was funny that the video game had better actors than the movie!
Mark Hamill, John Rhys-Davies and Malcom MacDowell were all in the 3rd one (Heart of the Tiger), the movie got a bunch of no-names (although Saphron Burrows is becoming slightly well-known) and a horrendously bad plot.
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
As for driver support, that's hardly Linux's fault, now is it? Personally I think keeping your drivers secret is idiocy, but there's nothing I can do about it.
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Okay, so even though Microsoft deliberatly changes their file formats as to force you to upgrade and dick with the competition simulatneously; as well as keeping the formats secret so anyone who wants to write compatibility has to reverse engineer them, it's Corel's fault for not being compatible. Uh-huh.
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Yes I, too, have been burned by Windows installs. I don't know if it's Windows being flaky, or me having bad Windows karma... but sometimes I think my machine has seen more Windows installs than an OEM dealership. I don't really use it for anything other than games, either. Oh, well.
As a technician who's been in charge of new builds at an OEM, I think I can safely say I'm no stranger to installing Windows. The major difference I've noticed between Windows and Linux, is that while Windows may look more inviting sometimes, Linux installs "just work." Every now and then you may actually need to learn a thing or two about computers, but the installs always just work. Windows installs... well, no. Sure, I've seen it go off without a hitch many times, but I think I'm going to go prematurely bald from the times when it doesn't! My God, when it doesn't work, it doesn't work. Sorry for the long "me too" post. All in all, I wish Linux had more OEM support as well. It would certainly make my job much easier.
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
It's not adding features into Windows. Internet Explorer was a separate product, but when they noticed people preferred Netscape, they buried it into Windows so that you couldn't get rid of IE in order to take over the web browser market. I don't really care if they think it's part of the operating system; web browsers were a sperate market and they exploited their desktop market dominance in order to push IE. That's product tying. Whether or not it can be seen as just another feature now doesn't really matter because they used their market dominance to get here.
Um... yeah. This is what we call an ad hom: "you must support Microsoft because you don't know any better." For the record, I don't use Windows, and don't particularly like it. I have a Mac at home, and use Solaris and Linux boxen at work. In fact I avoid Microsoft products for the most part. (although IE for the Mac is pretty good)
Well, that's good to hear. And why, pray tell, do you avoid MS products? We both know the answer to that one. I don't really care if they make an inferior product, but stamping out all alternatives so as to force you into using their products just isn't right. When you buy a new computer, you should have more choices than just Windows. BeOS really deserved a chance, I think. It's a really neat OS that could've been really good. But the barriars to entry in the desktop OS market are simply too steep.
If you look at my slashdot userid, you'll see I've been reding /. since summer '98, so yes I'm familiar with Linux's growth. And when it's ready for use by average consumers, then consumers will start using it.
Okay, it sounds like you're reasonably intelligent; why are your posts coming from the perspective of a desktop user? Surely you must concede that Linux is a kick-ass server platform. But you seem to regard it as if it were intended for desktop use. Am I wrong here? That's how I was reading your posts. The fact is, it was never intended for desktop use, so comparing it to other desktop OS's isn't very fair. And "consumers" have been using it for quite some time. Us Linux geeks are consumers too, not just the Windows users. Sysadmins and technicians count as consumers, the consumers of the server market. I wouldn't want any Windows users wandering in there anyway.
I fail to see how antitrust law is going to make a difference one way or another there.
I agree, it won't.
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
There's that phrase again: "Freedom to Innovate." I've gotten positively sick of Microsoft parroting that phrase. Their freedom to innovate is not on trial. It's their predetory, cut-throat business practices that stifle everyone elses "freedom to innovate" that's raising eyebrows. I don't care if they add more features to the latest version of their OS. But using their position as an eighty-pound gorilla in the OS market against smaller companies that can only play fair is simply reprehensible.
Of course there are examples of people who have complaints about specific MS products, as is true with any product. But my point is that the vast majority of MS users are not up in arms about being "forced" to use their products.
So? I admit it--I was practically in love with Microsoft, too. At least, until I was exposed to alternatives. Now that I have a broader experience with operating systems, I can safely say I am so much happier on Linux that there will never be a reason to go back. You may not feel the same way, but that's irrelevant to me and all of the other numerous people who have found Linux to suit them better. I would be much happier if everyone just got along--but Microsoft wants it all, and they won't stop until they have it. If you havn't realized this yet, take a long, hard look at how they've behaved in the past years.
I think NT is another example of Microsoft's non-monopoly. They have been trying to use the dominance of Win32 to take over the server market for years now. And yet apache has cleaned their clocks. People *certainly* have choices in the server arena.
*sigh* The operating systems market is not monolithic. There are different types of OS's for different applications--desktop, server, and mobile just to name a few. Microsoft has a monopoly in the desktop market, and you're talking about the server market. The reason's for this is simple: when people set up a server, they need the best, not the most popular. And NT simply doesn't cut it as a server in comparison to UNIX. Never will.
As I recall, Microsoft in most case simply required that IE be featured on the desktop. OEM's were always free to make Netscape an option. And even if they didn't, so what? The "obvious option" is called a modem. And it's laughable to say that IE was "crammed down users' throats." This is similar to saying cereal companies cram the little toy at the bottom of the package down kids' throats. Microsoft gave away IE *for free.* How can that do anything but help consumers?
You havn't read the Findings of Fact, have you? No, Microsoft threatened to cut off the discounts of all OEM's who preloaded Netscape on their machines. Why don't you go read through the FoF before you continue defending MS.
Netscape is still being actively developed, so if the goal was to drive them out of business it obviously didn't happen. What's the problem?
Like a previous poster said, they only survived because AOL bought them. Don't kid yourself; they wouldn't have stuck around. They were in serious trouble until AOL bailed them out.
Frankly, however good it is as a server platform, Linux isn't ready for use by average users. And since it is not a commercial product, Microsoft tactics aren't going to stop it in any event.
Holy crap, I actually agree with you! But don't understimate how quickly Linux can improve. If you had watched it's grow in just the past six months, and I'm gonna take a wild stab here and guess that you haven't, it's growth is simply mind-boggling. How quickly it's been able to improve has astonished me, and I've only been a user since RedHat 5.2! It ain't on your radar yet, but just wait.
As for Be, they seem to still be there, and the market seems to still be funding them.
No, it's not. They've had to rethink the way their company is going to sell Be, and are moving into the Internet Appliance market, because they simply can't make it in the Desktop market. Have you ever seen Be preinstalled on a computer? Or anything other than Windows (with the obvious exception of Macintosh) for that matter? I didn't think so. That's what we call a monopoly.
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
$29.95 :)
I understand what you mean. Although I'll probably fork over the cash for this (not happily, though) so I can finally watch my movies legally, I'm not going to stop distributing DeCSS. The lack of a DVD player for Linux is being addressed, but not the fundamental idiocy of CSS, Macrovision and Region Coding. Fine, we can play them. But what if we want to use them under our rights of fair use? What if we want to copy them to tape so we can watch them on the TV, which may not have a DVD player? What if we buy a whole lotta movies over here and move to a different country?
<rant>
Recently I've gotten really interested in this anime series, Rurouni Kenshin. Downloading it is a pain, and I'd rather just buy them. However, since I don't speak Japanese, I'd need subtitles, which the VHS wouldn't have. And thanks to Region Coding, I can forget buying it on DVD as well. You hear me, CCA? You're forcing me to pirate! This is just one example of why Region Coding is stupid.</rant>
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Okay, if I walk into a store and buy a computer, what OS is it going to have? Windows. Can I get another OS if I want? No. How is this not a monopoly? There is a little bit of competition, but that's semantics. They have monopoly power.
Lastly, think on this: Is Cisco next on DOJ's list to tackle? They're huge, they have a 'monopoly' as defined by the DOJ (as seen with MS).
being a monopoly is not illegal, abusing it to remain one, and to enter other markets, is illegal. Microsoft has done this, a lot, Cisco has not. Cisco is a really cool company. Without them, the Internet would literally not have existed. But they are also a respectible company that doesn't behave like a schoolyard bully.
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
And Windows isn't as easy to use out-of-the-box as Be or MacOS. What's your point?
2)Microsoft's office suite is damn good. Some may argue that it's "good" because of anti-competitive integration with the operating system, but regardless, objectively, it is a feature-rich, fast, and easy-to-use suite. Nobody I know has ever had a problem learning Word.
Their apps don't totally suck. But my God are they bloated! I coulda sworn I was upgrading the OS but nope, just Word 2000. And fricking expensive, too. Office 2000 costs more than Windows. How messed up is that? Corel Office 2000 is every bit as good, and only fifty bucks. Try it out.
3)Breaking up Microsoft will have little effect on its day-to-day business. Sure, the overhead will increase, but I don't think it'll help foster competition. It shouldn't be allowed to unfairly push manufacturers, but breaking it up will have no effect on all this.
No, but they would be unable to use monopolistic power illegally, and that's the point. Leveling the playing field. If M$ is broken into Baby Bills, they will have to compete against each other. They will have to play fair! Hee hee.
4)Microsoft shouldn't be punished for having a better product. Netscape (which helped initiate the litigation) complains about IE, and although I agree it shouldn't be forcibly packaged without alternatives by OEMs, the fact remains that today IE is way better than Navigator. Shell integration aside, IE crashes on me less often than Navigator.
No, they should be punished for using monopoly power to steal marketshare from companies instead of competing. If their stuff is so much better, than why can't they win without abusing power? Don't write Netscape off just yet, either. Mozilla kicks ass, and they have a huge comapany backing them--AOL/Time Warner. AOL will switch over to Netscape 6.0 as soon and Mozilla is done--instant dominate marketshare. Plus, Mozilla will be the only decent full-featured browser to run on other platforms than Windows.
To sum it up, the case seems like punishment for Microsoft for being too successful.
No, they will be punished for killing off other companies illegally to become successful. They don't compete, they smother the competitor out of business. This is why they're in deep shit now.
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Actually, I would tend to believe a bloated monlith like M$ is right now would be easier to overthrow than several seperate companies. Baby Bills would be a lot more versatile, since they have a much more narrow market. Of course, this is purely speculation by some guy who doesn't know a thing about running companies. Still, common sense would dictate Baby Bills would be a hell of a lot more versatile. Still not, however, as versatile as Linux--and never will be. :)
An eighty-pound gorilla makes an easier target
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Yes, DOS does have those capabilities--copied from UNIX, just like so many other of its features. But it's really kludgy in comparison, doesn't work as well.
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
It's not just a simple choice of an ISP--AOL has consistently scored the lowest in every category that matters except for ease of use. Therefore, the only reason you would choose it above a real ISP is if you don't know anything about computers.
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?