> No, they bought an operating system,
I thought I corrected myself on this one.. sorry if I haven't..
>then designed a GUI for it based on
> what was already being done by other GUIs
>(as in MacOS, or Presentation
> Manager, the precursor to IBM's Workplace Shell in OS/2).
which they all copied off of Xerox... not sure what copying a gui means...
I have a friend who still uses qvwm (last I checked) which is as close to
an exact duplication of the win95 gui as a wm can get proly
> There is very
> little that is original in Microsoft's various and sundry operating systems.
Much of technology is built this way...
> It's cobbled together from pieces they bought and modified, or outright
> copied.
Welcome to the commercial version of opensource :)
>
> Several other companies came out with arguably better operating systems, but
> Microsoft, using practices that are questionable or downright illegal,
> either bought or killed most all of them.
I realy do hate it when this happens don't get me wrong.. however with the
acts that were illegal (for non-shermanact reasons) should be the
only thing they should be punished for..
> >
> > what practice do you consider to be illeagle that they commited?
>
> Oh, restraint of trade would be a start.
> Have you read any anti-trust law?
not since proly 94 to be honest.. and what is quoted in the papers lately
> Are you familiar with any previous anti-trust cases?
abit on the steel, railroad, and ATT
> >
> > Microsoft didn't "force" the vendors to agree to this.. the hardware
> > venders did this so they could get cheaper pricing...
>
> No, it was the Microsoft way of the highway. Because Microsoft has an
> effective monopoly in PC operating systems, any company who didn't agree
> would be bankrupt almost immediately. If that isn't "force", I don't know
> what is.
Last I checked apple is still around... and that is a company that TRYIED
to commit suicide...
> >
> > Companies that don't agree with microsoft have managed to stay in
> > busniess.. look at sun, redhat, corel, be, etc...
>
> Let's see... Red Hat has *never* had a profitable quarter, and is a
> relatively new company. Sun does not compete in the PC market,
Errms keep your eye on sun... as embeded technologies start taking over
more things... Sun could very well be the next monopoly :)
> now, been an OS manufacturer. Without the DOJ case somewhat restricting
> Microsoft, the prospects for Corel and Red Hat are pretty bleak,
I disagree... Microsoft probably won't be able to kill linux..
> particularly if UCITA becomes law. That would have a chilling effect on the
> Open Source community, considering that, as proposed, it would make reverse
> engineering illegal.
don't you love laws that restrict your rights?
> >
> > What do those laws actualy do though?
>
> Allow for competition and a free market. Please read the appropriate laws,
> specifically the Sherman Act, and Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's Finding of
> Fact in the case.
Ok... very well I'll try to remeber to respond to this after I have read
these :) to be honest I'm working off of summarys atm..
> Is enforcing the law wrong?
if a law is unethical.. yes
> Would you prefer if no laws were enforced?
would be intresting.. I would like contracts to be inforceable.. still
working on others.. ie. is it right to kill.... etc...
> Would you prefer anarchy?
Certianly would shake things up a bit :)
>
> You seem to see any form of government involvement in the economy, or in our
> lives, as an evil.
I belive the government should enforce agreements and keep the peace...
other areas are up for debate... :)
> Our government is not totalitarian.
not totaly totalitarian.. however we are all partial slaves to the
government since we do not have a choice on paying taxes... ie. they can
come collect taxes by force...
> Our economic system
> is not laissez faire Capitalism, nor is it Socialism, but rather it is a
> mixture of both.
And without a consistant philosophy..
> Would you like the government to get out of education, for
> example?
As an end result.. yes
> How about social security?
out of that too
> Medicare?
yups
> How is enforcing anti-trust laws going to "screw things up"?
It punishes thouse who are succesful... it aplies one set of rules to
someone who is successful... it's unfair.. and un-equal....
> Be specific.
It will set precidence for further actions and lawsuits... it will
influence peoples choices in ways it should not... I've met people who
have opted for lower paying jobs so that they could get more of the money
that they earned... sick I tell you.. anyways.. it would cause unfair and
undue hardship on successful people..
> How is that going to impact your individual rights?
it limits my potential to do what I want to do (ie. take over the world :)
)
> >
> > What exactly do you want the government to do?
> >
> Make absolutely certain that Microsoft cannot continue the practices it has
> used in the past to prevent competition. OS/2 is not going to be revived,
> nor is DR-DOS (and yes, I know Caldera still sells it) . However, Microsoft
> still controls 95% of the desktop OS market. Let them have to face current
> and future challenges (including Linux) within the laws of the land. If
> they win, let it be because they produce better products, not because they
> use strong-arm tactics to destroy superior innovations. I would also like
> to see some kind of punitive financial damages. I wouldn't want them to be
> large enough to prevent Microsoft from moving forward, but I would love
> there to be enough to fund some real innovation independent of Redmond.
> >
> > Ahh yes the evil train people... I'm SOOO glad that in america we have
> > enforced passenger railroad compitition..
>
> What are you talking about? Have you ever heard of Standard Oil? Do you
> know the history there.
Will read up on this and will try to remeber to respond to this issue :)
>
> > I'm so glad that If I decided
> > that Amtrack was doing a horrible job I could compete with them.. or
> > heck.. if I wanted to start a mail system to compete with the us postal
> > system.. ahhh yes... I'm soo glad we have these laws..
>
> This has nothing to do with anti-trust. You are mixing apples and oranges
> here.
I don't think so.. we are saying that a microsoft monopoly is evil.. yet
we are just fine with having Amtrac, USPS, DOT own the highways... etc...
be government own and/or controled monopolies...
> >
> > I would agree that alot of the laws were written with the best of
> > intentions.. others were written in the intrest of certain other
> > oganizations/corperations.. look into alot of those laws that were written
> > and what they accomplised... you might be quite surprised...
>
> This is really vague and generic. What laws are you referring to? I
> agree if you are saying that some laws are good and some are bad. Nobody
> here is trying to write new law. We are trying to say that enforcement of
> existing laws is a good thing. Are you saying the Sherman Act is a bad law?
> If so, why? Please be specific.
Let me read up some more... before I say much more on this... I'm working
from memories of readings from roughly 5-6 years ago...
> > I agree microsoft will not be put out of business.. infact I'm quite sure
> > whatever measures are enacted.. they will at somepoint intime backfire...
>
> No new laws will be enacted. I do not share your utter distrust of the
> governments ability to enforce it's laws in an equitable manner.
>
> I do think you need to be familiar with the specifics, rather than throw out
> vague generalities about the evils of government.
Will do...
>
> -Caity
thanks for your patience :)
sorry by the way to all of you for not having my "stick" together as much
as I should have before taking on this arguement...
hugs,
Chris
>
>
>
>
> ************
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
>
************
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
