Patrick Elliott wrote:
> its either something like .NET, which a lot of people don't 
> want at all,

There's a lot of people who don't want a computer at all. Hence, OSS is 
worthless.

> or trust, *or* someone goes, "Gee, doesn't GFBunk (or some 
> similarly weirdly named thing) already do that on such an such OS?"

I see Linux copying a lot of stuff that MS does on Linux file systems, for 
example. When Linux adds something like the ability to watch for changes to 
the file system or the ability to take a snapshot of the file system without 
disrupting operations, I don't see too many people complaining "Hey, doesn't 
Microsoft do that already?"  But if Microsoft adds virtual desktops, I can 
guarantee people will croon that's been in Linux for years.

You're getting caught by confirmation bias here, methinks. Any small 
improvement is going to be seen as a small incremental improvement just to 
make money on upgrades, or sufficiently close to what someone else already 
did that you can dismiss it. If they do something large and new, you say "I 
don't trust Microsoft and they're the only ones I can get this from, so it 
isn't valuable." (While leaving off the "to me" you should be putting at the 
end, mind.)  So, no, of course you don't think they've done anything new.

The list of new things they've done recently is widely available, so I won't 
bother going thru it.

> Hmm. Well there is that. But, the point is "competing", not "every", 
> so... Sure they will just pick which ever one has the most market share 
> at the time, which would be... Hmm... lol

That's my point. The inclusion of IE isn't keeping anyone from buying 
Firefox or Safari.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message