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. >>>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). >> 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? Moreover, quality doesn't (in general) sell in this world. If you think so, wake up. Or do you really consider the Linux desktop (any of them) quality? The fact is that a company has no time to work on quality. If they do, the competition is selling what they hope to release in 2015. > 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? > You seem to be saying that that is not their intention, since users > will always prefer Windows as their OS anyhow. Well I don't think so, > but just maybe you're right. But I'm pretty sure MS didn't want to > take the chance, and did what it did for the reason David gave. Again, I doubt it. MS just wants that every user who doesn't care if there are better products just knows one and one name only: Microsoft. So: Internet = Microsoft, Music = Microsoft, Videos = Microsoft, Blogging = Microsoft. Multimedia = Microsoft. Your keyboard = Microsoft, your mouse = Microsoft. Your computer has a sticker on it: Designed for Microsoft Windows. Microsoft is (creating) a meme. -- John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/ Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/ I ploink googlegroups.com :-) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
