Linux-Advocacy Digest #503, Volume #30 Tue, 28 Nov 00 14:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (mark)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 20:23:37 +0000
In article <8vsjgv$5j4i5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> >
>> > "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:PXdU5.25022$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > >
>> > > "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > > news:8vratq$5edhe$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > > Maybe you forget that the only viable alternative to Windows
>exists
>> > only
>> > > > > because it escapes the normal market rules, being a free product,
>and
>> > > > > therefore it is, for a certain amount, protected against monopoly.
>> > > >
>> > > > Mac, Os/2 are viable alternatives and they follow normal market
>rules.
>> > >
>> > > What major vendor could have sold you an Intel based PC in 1996
>> > > without paying for a copy of windows?
>> >
>> > What version of Mac could run on an Intel based PC?
>>
>> We could get into the wide world of emulators on this one.
>> Some people used to run a Mac OS on their Atari STs.
>>
>> Anyway, Les's question spoke to the anti-trust issues, while your
>> question speaks to Apple's hardware strategy.
>
>No, he claimed that you can't buy a intel based PC in 1996 without paying to
>MS.
>(I bought computers then, I didn't go to the OEMs, I didn't pay anything to
>MS for this)
>If the major vendor is such an important issue, then create a
>goverment-owned vendor to buy proccessors from intel and sell computers.
>I don't think that Intel, at any point, would refuse to sell its processors
>to anyone.
Nobody has mentioned refusing to sell anything to anyone, this is
completely specious.
The issue is about barriers to entry of the marketplace, which
is how monopolies are defined. It *is* *not* *a* *technical*
*problem*. There is no value in talking about who you can
buy technology from or not, that is not the problem you are
dealing with.
The issue is why Microsoft see no business gain in providing
a customer with what they want. The reason they do not is
because they do not need to - there is nobody selling a
competing product which will take away their market share
whether they do this change or not. That is a monopoly.
The reason *why* there is nobody there to take that
market share is because of the business *barriers* to
entry into that market space.
I suggest you add a book on basic economics to your unix
book shopping list, it could really help you understand this,
and also help you spot other monopolies. There are plenty
around, and Microsoft is by no means the only monopolist.
It is, however, the most overt.
Mark
>
>I pointed out that even if this is true, then you could still go with Mac.
>The wording was wrong, though.
>However, even if you exclude x86, you still get Linux on alpha, Mac on PPC,
>Sun on Sparc, and so on.
>Plenty of choices.
>
>
>
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
