 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/09/09 08:02, Invisible wrote:
>>>> Do you also think Coca-Cola is wrong for banning pubs and restaurants
>>>> from selling Pepsi?
>>>
>>> Yes. (It's news to me that they can legally do this...)
>>
>> Both Pepsi and Coca Cola do this in the US. They offer a nice rate if
>> the business signs an exclusive contract. It really, really sucks.
>
> They offer a nice rate if the business signs an exclusive contract? Or
> they won't sell to the business at all if they don't sign an exclusive
> contract?
Well, they can always do the latter in a roundabout way: By charging 50
times more if they don't sign an exclusive contract. I really don't know
if they do that, though.
This is common in university campuses here:
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2009/03/audit-questions-rod-blagojevichs-no-coke-pepsi-contract.html
http://www.vpaf.uni.edu/obo/pepsifaqs.shtml
--
Hangover: The wrath of grapes.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawaz org<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Eero Ahonen <aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid> wrote:
> But they should call it Linux if they really base it on Linux
I don't think using the linux kernel requires for the OS to have the
word "linux" in its name.
MacOS X has a BSD variant named Darwin as kernel, but the OS is still
not named "Darwin".
In the modern world it would be just plain silly to try to write a
completely new OS from scratch, at least not for desktop computers. If
you make it incompatible with all existing software, nobody would use it.
Thus you just have to make it compatible. The only software you can
rationally make a new OS compatible with is Unix software (because of
all the existing open source resources to do that, something you just
don't have for the two biggest proprietary operating systems). Thus the
only rational choice is to make the OS Unix-based. But why go through
the trouble of creating one from scratch when there are tons of existing,
open source ones, which have decades of development experience poured
into them?
There would be basically only three possible choices for the kernel:
Linux, NetBSD (or maybe one of the others) or Solaris. Since Linux is
by far the most popular one, and it has good hardware support, it seems
like the rational choice.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> Hmm, so company A includes its browser in its OS and gets fined and told
> to remove it. Company B includes its browser AND actively prevents any
> other browser running - hmmm.
>
> Can you imagine if MS said Windows 7 would only run MS software?
I think Google can get away with it for two reasons:
1) Nobody is claiming that Google has a monopoly position, or that they
are abusing that position in order to stifle competition.
2) Nobody is claiming that Chrome OS will be suitable for the masses,
but instead it is targeted at a very specific market segment, viz,
netbooks. Netbooks themselves are ideal for running Web applications
and little else, so it actually makes sense there.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> 1. Stealing other people's code and passing it off as their own.
I've only read of two instances where this was actually proven. In the
first case, it wasn't actually illegal due to poor wording in the
license that MS signed with Apple, in the second case it was open code
to begin with (the network stack from FreeBSD, I believe).
> 2. Deliberately subverting open standards to force vendor lock-in.
That's not illegal, and the vendors were never forced to use the MS
extensions.
> 3. Forcing PC manufacturers to not to distribute anyone else's OS.
They didn't force anybody. They signed agreements with manufacturers,
and the manufacturers agreed to those contracts.
> 4. Lobbying for a ban on selling PC hardware without an OS.
Name me a big business that doesn't lobby the Government for stuff that
will benefit them. Not only is lobbying legal, but even encouraged by
our system.
> 5. Releasing software for free just to put people out of business.
Wait, do you criticize Linus Torvalds for trying to put MS out of
business by giving Linux away for free? And what's the difference
between MS selling a better product (and so putting other companies out
of business) and MS selling a product for less (or even free) (and so
putting other companies out of business)?
> 6. Announcing vapourware just to put people out of business.
Sure, they announced it, but you can be assured that if they thought
they could make money by selling a particular piece of software they
would have made it. The fact that it ended up being cancelled means
they didn't think it would be profitable.
Or would you rather force business to stick with out-of-date plans that
they know will lose them money, just so they can claim "We stuck with a
losing plan for 10 years straight?"
> 7. Threatening highly dubious legal action just to put people out of
> business.
Again, MS is far from alone in doing this.
It sounds like your problem isn't with MS in particular, but with big
business in general.
> ...but mostly I hate them because they charge extortionate prices for a
> product which isn't actually very good. :-P
Nobody's forcing you to use it. Why don't you use Linux instead?
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>> It's actually even more limited than their Android OS
>
> ...which I also haven't heard of...
It an OS for cell-phones (and also Linux based). Currently, it's only
used on the G1, though another one is supposed to come out soon.
Some companies have discussed using it on Netbooks.
As I understand it, however, Chrome OS will not support Java (only JS),
while Android does support Java.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> 1. Stealing other people's code and passing it off as their own.
>
> I've only read of two instances where this was actually proven. In the
> first case, it wasn't actually illegal due to poor wording in the
> license that MS signed with Apple, in the second case it was open code
> to begin with (the network stack from FreeBSD, I believe).
That second one wouldn't be illegal anyway. So it isn't stealing, any more
than installing Linux is stealing.
They did violate a patent or two, and got appropriately slapped, but that
happens all the time in business.
>> 2. Deliberately subverting open standards to force vendor lock-in.
>
> That's not illegal, and the vendors were never forced to use the MS
> extensions.
The only one of these I heard of ever being a problem was the Kerberos
and/or DHCP standards (I forget which), wherein MS put some important stuff
into the area reserved for vendor extensions, which is kind of hard to argue
against unless you're fanatical to begin with. What other standards have
they done this with.
>> 3. Forcing PC manufacturers to not to distribute anyone else's OS.
>
> They didn't force anybody. They signed agreements with manufacturers,
> and the manufacturers agreed to those contracts.
They gave a price break if the vendor would do the duplication and install
themselves, basically.
>> 5. Releasing software for free just to put people out of business.
>
> Wait, do you criticize Linus Torvalds for trying to put MS out of
> business by giving Linux away for free? And what's the difference
> between MS selling a better product (and so putting other companies out
> of business) and MS selling a product for less (or even free) (and so
> putting other companies out of business)?
What I haven't figured out is the huge number of people screaming at
Microsoft for bundling programs with Windows that competes with programs
they give away for free. Say what?
>> 6. Announcing vapourware just to put people out of business.
>
> Sure, they announced it, but you can be assured that if they thought
> they could make money by selling a particular piece of software they
> would have made it. The fact that it ended up being cancelled means
> they didn't think it would be profitable.
Or that they thought it would, but then found out they were wrong.
> Or would you rather force business to stick with out-of-date plans that
> they know will lose them money, just so they can claim "We stuck with a
> losing plan for 10 years straight?"
Duke Nukem Forever!
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/748-Duke-Nukem-Forever
>> ...but mostly I hate them because they charge extortionate prices for
>> a product which isn't actually very good. :-P
>
> Nobody's forcing you to use it. Why don't you use Linux instead?
Oh, please tell me a computer product that *doesn't* suck moose? I could
really use hearing of something that's actually good. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/09/09 20:41, Chambers wrote:
> I think Google can get away with it for two reasons:
> 1) Nobody is claiming that Google has a monopoly position, or that they
> are abusing that position in order to stifle competition.
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUS422108559020090706
http://www.reuters.com/article/bigMoney/idUS104837430520090624
A number of groups have raised a fuss about their book deal. Not sure
if they explicitly used the word "monopoly", but it's fairly questionable.
--
Conscious is when you are aware of something and conscience is when you
wish you weren't.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/09/09 21:19, Darren New wrote:
> Oh, please tell me a computer product that *doesn't* suck moose? I could
> really use hearing of something that's actually good. :-)
Fractint on DOS. Can't think of a single criticism. Awesome program.
Midnight Commander on Linux. I _can_ complain about a few things it
does poorly compared to Norton Commander, but on the whole, it's still
good enough to be Awesome.
People keep going on and on about grep. Should learn it properly one day...
But I'm sure that's not what you really wanted when you asked.<G>
--
Conscious is when you are aware of something and conscience is when you
wish you weren't.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> According to the history books, the story goes that IBM wanted an OS,
>> Gate's mum knew somebody at IBM, so Gates stole an OS off one of his
>> mates and made it work on the IBM PC. IBM PCs became popular for some
>> reason, and the rest is history.
>
> I think you have a rather twisted telling of that story there. :-)
Microsoft's entire history seems to revolve around stealing other
people's stuff and watching them go bankrupt faster than they can sue.
>>> nobody could provide any decent competition back then.
>>
>> I doubt that was the reason.
>
> Name two competitors. Were you even in the market at the time it was
> hashing out?
When the hell was the IBM PC invented anyway?
>> I wasn't referring only to Windows; M$ make other products as well.
>> (Most notably Office, but also things like VisualStudio, IIS,
>> Exchange, SQL Server, etc.) Other people manage to make similar
>> products which work significantly better,
>
> Do they? What works better than Exchange?
Actually... I'm not aware of anything else that does what Exchange does.
Which is a little bit odd, really.
I know of a few office suites that manage to not constantly crash like
MS Office does. Apache is notable for doing the same thing as IIS while
being actually secure and less of a resource hog. (I will admit it's a
PITA to configure though...) There are lots of database engines out
there; I doubt many of them are worse than SQL Server.
I've yet to see an IDE that isn't horribly slow, bloated and inflexible.
I guess in that respect VS is no worse than any other IDE.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Eero Ahonen <aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid> wrote:
>> But they should call it Linux if they really base it on Linux
>
> I don't think using the linux kernel requires for the OS to have the
> word "linux" in its name.
As far as I can tell, if you want to be technical about it, "Linux" is
the tiny bit of code that runs tasks, handles interrupts, manages memory
and has a few device drivers. When you install "Linux", 90% of the stuff
you're installing isn't actually "Linux" at all; it's mostly the GNU
toolchain, GNOME or KDE, Firefox and half a million other 3rd party items.
Apparently some people insist on calling it "GNU/Linux". Like *that's*
going to happen...
Whatever happened to HURD?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
