John Bokma wrote: > Roel Schroeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>John Bokma wrote: >> >>>Roel Schroeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>>>But that's not the point; the point is that they have the choice. >>>>If MS had it its way, they wouldn't have that choice. >>> >>> >>>I doubt that. But even if you're right, do you really think that MS >>>is the only evil company on earth working like this? Do you really >>>think that companies like Disney, Sony, Intel, AMD, Apple, etc work >>>any different? >> >>No, I do not think that MS is the only company that uses shady >>tactics. Also I didn't use the word 'evil', since I think it is too >>strong for what even MS does. But the fact is that MS is convicted for >>abusing its monopoly position. > > > If just one got convicted it means that some got away with it, and still > am.
I'm not going to answer this one anymore. Other companies use shady tactics too, I already said that, but we're talking about MS now. >>>>Thousands and thousands of website work perfectly in all of the >>>>aforementioned websites right now. >>> >>>Maybe you define perfectly different then me, but have a look at the >>>Acid tests for example. Even between minor versions of for example >>>Firefox, or Opera there are differences in rendering. I won't call >>>that perfectly, but maybe because I am a programmer. >> >>Differences in rendering are perfectly acceptable on the World Wide >>Web. > > > Not the differences I am talking about. There is ambiguity in for > example the CSS working drafts (or recommendations, too lazy to check > their current state). Maybe check out what the acid test is (actually > there are two IIRC). Also, wonder why if the differences I am talking > about are "perfectly acceptable" why some are fixed between different > versions (e.g. Opera). I know what the ACID test is. I also know that we're talking about the browser wars and that those date from long before the ACID tests were created. >>>Others just pick Intel, because it's Intel. The same is happening for >>>MS. People just buy MS, they don't care that it's cheaper (or maybe >>>"cheaper") to install Linux + OpenOffice (for example). MS, so it's >>>good. >> >>Popularity is not the same as quality. > > > Did I state such a thing? That's what I gathered from "People just buy MS, ... . MS, so it's good." Maybe I misunderstood, in which case I apologize. Still, doesn't matter since it also is completely besides the point. > Moreover, quality doesn't (in general) sell in > this world. If you think so, wake up. I'm very well aware of that. > Or do you really consider the Linux desktop (any of them) quality? Actually yes. Are they better than MS's desktop? Depends on one's needs. If I didn't need MS for my job, there's a very big chance I would only use Linux. Or MacOS X. >>I still fail to see your point. The original issue was the browser >>wars. Tim Roberts wondered why Microsoft went through the efforst of >>dominating the browser market, even if they don't make any money on >>IE. David Schwartz gave the answer: MS did it to prevent the OS from >>becoming a commodity, since that would allow users to freely choose >>their own OS. > > > *the* answer? LOL. I doubt it, since David's *the answer* isn't > happening. As I asked in another reply: can you name several companies > MS acquired to justify their fears of a major paradigm shift towards > notworking computing? I read that other reply of yours, and David's reply to it. He replied much better than I could have done, but I agree with what he said so I'll just refer to his reply. -- If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants. -- Isaac Newton Roel Schroeven -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
