> > define ethical? if your saying that I can insure that I can get my
> > operating system to be included with every PC by making a deal with
> > vendors.. I think I would... is that unethical?
>
> ethical == not doing a hack to win 3.11 so it doesn't run on DR-DOS as
Ok.. lets say hypothiticly I was the creator of Dos.. and I wanted
everyone to run my program... so it would be easyer for me to sell my
other applications.. don't you think I would try to write software that
would create a higher cost of entry for other people? There is nothing
"un-ethical" about being selfish..
> well as not coercing pc manufacturer to licence MS-DOS to be able to buy
> windows,
Ok.. if I owned windows and I owned dos... I should beable to sell my
product as I see fit.. there is nothing un-ethical about that
> and for doing deal with PC manufacturer,you could deal
> fairly,i.e.if the manufacturer wanted to have 10% of his PC line running
> on OS/2,he has the right to do so.
the manufactur has the option not to do business with microsoft
>
> might include some background:
> you see,at the time,there where lot of application available for
> windows so MS could have a very good following,MS also had (and still
> have) a very good relation with independant developpers,
>the company
> could have stood on it own without any illegal tactic and still enjoy a
> very good market but they decided otherwise,with the amount of
> development and research there,they could have stiffled a lot of
> innovation (with the profit that come with it) but they choose not to
> obey the 80/20 rule which mean in this case 80% of the market for 20% of
> the effort,instead they choose to get the remaining 20% for 80% of the
> effort (by 100%,i mean the windows users community,not the entire
> computer users community).
Umm I belive that microsoft would like to have 100% of the market, but
they can't... there are more computing platforms in this world then I can
hold in my head (look at the gcc makeable list to get a genral feel)...
I've only gotten through part of the sherman anti trust act (haven't even
gotten to the statement of facts yet).. but from what I understand of this
is a company must fully be able to control a commodity in order to be
considered a monopoly.. ie. if I owned all of the coal mines in the
world.. and thus noone else was able to open a coal mine... Operating
systems are not like that.. anyone can build the next OS.. or heck.. even
create a new platform for a nother OS...
> Alain Toussaint
>
> ************
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
>
************
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
