Apology

[(ProteanThread)]

Sorry for embaressing myself with posts recently in my poll about
forcing Microsoft Windows and Office to become open source. I was
expecting some support. I was offended by not getting any and being
called stupid :-(. I upped the ante and flamed instead of dropping the
matter which is perhaps what I should of done or something else
constructive.

I've seen worse.

 

[socrtwo]

Sorry for embaressing myself with posts recently in my poll about
forcing Microsoft Windows and Office to become open source. I was
expecting some support. I was offended by not getting any and being
called stupid :-(. I upped the ante and flamed instead of dropping the
matter which is perhaps what I should of done or something else
constructive.

 

[Craig]

I upped the ante and flamed instead of dropping the matter which is
perhaps what I should of done or something else constructive.

Dang dude;

It was a valiant attempt on your part. And no worries: You certainly
haven't embarrassed yourself as completely or often as I or others
around here. No harm, no foul...

<grin>
-Craig

 

[Brian (Groups)]

Sorry for embaressing myself with posts recently in my poll about
forcing Microsoft Windows and Office to become open source. I was
expecting some support. I was offended by not getting any and being
called stupid :-(. I upped the ante and flamed instead of dropping the
matter which is perhaps what I should of done or something else
constructive.

I don't think people were trying to be offensive in their replies, just
trying to point out that:

(a) Microsoft have not (legally or illegally) forced a monopoly on the
world at large - anybody is free to use Linux or a Mac or whatever they
choose.

(b) It would be quite unethical, even illegal, to force a company to
reveal its in-house "trade secrets" or give away its intellectual
property, into which it has invested billions of dollars.

(c) The whole future support and development of Windows-based software,
and of the O/S itself, would vanish from MS hands, and be left in the
disjoint hands of usenet cliques and the like. Corporate customers
can't be bothered fighting their way through that mess.

Brian

 

[Mark Carter]

(a) Microsoft have not (legally or illegally) forced a monopoly on the
world at large

Debatable. The US courts have ruled that they effectively are a
monopoly. IANAL, but I understand that they breached the Sherman
Anti-Trust Act, which makes them an illegal monopoly.

- anybody is free to use Linux or a Mac or whatever they
choose.

A poor argument. No-one /has/ to connect to the electricity or water
supply. You are free to generate your own electricity or collect your
own water. But we still regard the water and electricity companies as
monopolies.

(b) It would be quite unethical, even illegal, to force a company to
reveal its in-house "trade secrets" or give away its intellectual
property, into which it has invested billions of dollars.

Probably - although there may be rare exceptions that make it ethical
and legal. I get suspicious when people start throwing absolutes around.
And we all know that only the Sith deal in absolutes

(c) The whole future support and development of Windows-based software,
and of the O/S itself, would vanish from MS hands, and be left in the
disjoint hands of usenet cliques and the like.

Unlikely. I doubt that the world would grind to a halt. I expect that
the world would get along just fine. Hell, it may even be the best thing
to happen to computing.

 

[John Corliss]

Sorry for embaressing myself with posts recently in my poll about
forcing Microsoft Windows and Office to become open source. I was
expecting some support. I was offended by not getting any and being
called stupid :-(. I upped the ante and flamed instead of dropping the
matter which is perhaps what I should of done or something else
constructive.

If it's any consolation to you, John Dvorak kind of agrees with you:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1960969,00.asp

--
Regards from John Corliss
I don't reply to trolls like Andy Mabbett or Doc (who uses sock puppets)
for instance. No adware, cdware, commercial software, crippleware,
demoware, nagware, PROmotionware, shareware, spyware, time-limited
software, trialware, viruses or warez for me, please.

 

[Brian (Groups)]

Debatable. The US courts have ruled that they effectively are a
monopoly. IANAL, but I understand that they breached the Sherman
Anti-Trust Act, which makes them an illegal monopoly.

Fair enuff. I don't know enough about the legalese technicalities to go
further on that.

A poor argument. No-one /has/ to connect to the electricity or water
supply. You are free to generate your own electricity or collect your
own water. But we still regard the water and electricity companies as
monopolies.

A poor analogy. A better one might be several such service companies to
choose from, but one having the dominant profile. You're still free to
choose. Your scenario equates to the only other choice for people being
to write their own operating systems!

Probably - although there may be rare exceptions that make it ethical
and legal. I get suspicious when people start throwing absolutes around.
And we all know that only the Sith deal in absolutes


Unlikely. I doubt that the world would grind to a halt. I expect that
the world would get along just fine. Hell, it may even be the best thing
to happen to computing.

I should have qualified that by adding that if MS weren't making (big)
money from it any more, they'd abandon support and put their capital
into something with a better ROI. I can't see how an equivalent level
of support could rise from the ashes, unless there were big bucks to
support its existence While the world wouldn't "grind to a halt",
people would have to seek alternative (probably commercial) O/Ss to
take advantage of new advances in technology. We might then see the
emergence of the "evil Mac" empire.

Brian