Seems almost everyone in Slashdot is excited about Microsoft getting slammed. Honestly, I find it a good step toward restoring competition in the desktop OS space. However, MS is not in and of itself evil. It has provided products that most people find useful and productive. The software's ubiquity means almost everyone can share information. And the stuff is relatively cheap., MS's sin lies in using its monopolistic power to gain marketshare, not the superiority of its products. The obvious stated, I think the breaking up of Microsoft would be good for Windows, if not necessarily for Bill Gates. Windows would be forced to be more stable and scalable. The price will probably increase, but then perhaps its true cost would be reflected,, not a monopolistically-maintained one. As Windows improved, maybe LiNUX and UNIX would be forced to become more user friendly, that is, if they really wanted the desktop marketplace. Government intervention bad? It's only as bad as the one's forcing it's hand. Anti-trust guidelines are fairly strict and well-established. This government has determined that open, competitive markets are in society's best interest. And these are not irresponsible Congressmen/women making up rules as they go along; they represent constituencies, who are prodding them to take actions. Some, like the representatives from Washington State, are almost certainly recipients of big $$ from MS, but others arent'. Not all are corrupt, but not all are innocent (as usual the truth is in between). BTW, if Congress is pushing for decency regulations, that partially reflects what the constituents want, and that's fine, if not small-minded. This tension between the decency-rabid and the Net-anarchists who say any law is bad law is healthy, and the majority will weigh in somewhere in the middle. If the 2 extremes are distressed by the result, that only shows how fair it may be. Just a few thoughts...
Slashdot Mirror
Seems almost everyone in Slashdot is excited about Microsoft getting slammed. Honestly, I find it a good step toward restoring competition in the desktop OS space. However, MS is not in and of itself evil. It has provided products that most people find useful and productive. The software's ubiquity means almost everyone can share information. And the stuff is relatively cheap., MS's sin lies in using its monopolistic power to gain marketshare, not the superiority of its products. The obvious stated, I think the breaking up of Microsoft would be good for Windows, if not necessarily for Bill Gates. Windows would be forced to be more stable and scalable. The price will probably increase, but then perhaps its true cost would be reflected,, not a monopolistically-maintained one. As Windows improved, maybe LiNUX and UNIX would be forced to become more user friendly, that is, if they really wanted the desktop marketplace. Government intervention bad? It's only as bad as the one's forcing it's hand. Anti-trust guidelines are fairly strict and well-established. This government has determined that open, competitive markets are in society's best interest. And these are not irresponsible Congressmen/women making up rules as they go along; they represent constituencies, who are prodding them to take actions. Some, like the representatives from Washington State, are almost certainly recipients of big $$ from MS, but others arent'. Not all are corrupt, but not all are innocent (as usual the truth is in between). BTW, if Congress is pushing for decency regulations, that partially reflects what the constituents want, and that's fine, if not small-minded. This tension between the decency-rabid and the Net-anarchists who say any law is bad law is healthy, and the majority will weigh in somewhere in the middle. If the 2 extremes are distressed by the result, that only shows how fair it may be. Just a few thoughts...