Forums Developers Linux MiRC

linux is great.. for servers(http,ftp,irc,game,router) etc (and a few fps shooters that are supported lately)
windows is great... for games, gameservers, administrating aps, music proggys, mirc,graphics editing/rendering etc etc etc

now 1 gues why your bored:)

have a nice day

Monopolies arent illegal that I know of - only the abuse of those monopolies is illegal

Give me an example of how Microsoft have abused their position in the software market. I would have thought that if there's only one company able to market it's product well then that company will certainly do better than it's competitors. Don't get me wrong here, I'm not a Micro$oft advocate. They don't need me or any other unpaid user of their products to help them along in any way. But given that you pay for Windows and are able to get most, but not all, Linux distributions for nothing it must say something about the userfriendliness of the whole range of products. Grimz made a good point about Linux, it's okay for servers because a server just sits in a corner and gathers dust. Windows is a far better environment for the desktop or workstation. Why? because it is user-friendly. If you talk about domination then look at all the freeware you can get for Linux and then discover that it has specifically been made to be as compatible as possible with things like Micro$oft Office. This of course is a perfectly reasonable course of action.

Back to mIRC - you got your answer on that before you even uttered a word, I'm not going to bother repeating it. Also, if you want to get technical about the meaning of the word monopoly then you'd realise that it doesn't apply to Micro$oft anymore than it does to any other large company or company with a large market share. "Mono" is a Greek word meaning one or single. Source: Macquarie Dictionary. So I can safely assume that by using the term monopoly you are referring to a company with a large market share, not a company with 100% of the market share.

Give me an example of how Microsoft have abused their position in the software market

Theres probably a better webpage than this, but heres one that has several questions and answers
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/july-dec97/microsoft_10-21.html

Microsoft have used their monopoly in windows to create (/attempt to create) a monopoly in various middleware
including Internet Explorer - which is the only thing that they have been convicted of so far.

Also, if you want to get technical about the meaning of the word monopoly then you'd realise that it doesn't apply to Micro$oft anymore than it does to any other large company or company with a large market share

I was talking about the way the term monopoly is used in the eyes of the law - which I believe I read as being a 95% market share being termed a monopoly

The absolute non-arguable fact is that microsoft DID abuse their monopoly on windows to create an illegal monopoly in internet browsers - that fact was upheld on appeal
Much more information on the microsoft anti trust trial can be found on google
The slightly arguable question is whether microsoft continue to abuse it (.net vs java, other middleware) - since they have not been convicted as of yet

I was talking about the way the term monopoly is used in the eyes of the law - which I believe I read as being a 95% market share being termed a monopoly

In the eyes of what law?

That website you pointed to is just a news portal anyway not a government website. This may not occur to you but no court in the world (except perhaps the UN and only if they had jurisdiction over this, which I believe they don't) could enforce a world-wide split up of Micro$oft. The worst-case scenario is that they'd split in the US and carry on as per usual elsewhere.

At the end of the day I don't care either way because I don't intend on spending my life stressing about one man controlling the computer world. Someone has to do it in the name of compatability and if it's gunna be Uncle Bill then so be it.

No matter how much Gates is hated by anti Micro$oft people he's not gunna go away, so it's best just to think about something else. Like chatting with mIRC, a great chat programme with extras on Windows, a great user-friendly OS.

Wow, hold on there. Now we are drifting away from "opinions" and drifting towards "false facts"

The idea of a GUI was not a Microsoft invention, Microsoft stole the idea from Macintosh. Machintosh widely distributed their version of a GUI OS long before MS even dreamed of it.

Also, FreeBSD is NOT Unix. Saying something like this is equivilent to saying "Windows XP is DOS" sure there might be some features in XP inspired by DOS but it certainly is not DOS. In the same respect FreeBSD is not Unix. It has features in common with Unix, but it isn't even based on any of the Unix code (which is copyrighted and can not be freely distributed or modified).

Now before you go and call me a "Windows hater" let me just say I have currently 4 machines running Windows (98,Me,NT4,and XP) I am quite happy with it. But this doesn't mean I think *nix OSes are bad. I think they are great. Personally all software I write is capable of running on both Windows and *nix. And really I don't see a reason not to. Sure it is more work, but in the end it means more users. And more users means more money. So where is the downside there? And also I want to comment on the "not bringing this up often" remark. Yea you are right it has been discussed only about 12 times or so. But notice how this particular thread has about 30 posts because discussion was generated by it. That means people are interested in it. And I agree with what was said. *nix users are more apt to read the rules and follow them than Windows users are. If you don't believe that let me know I and I'll give you proof of the matter. I think if Khaled changed his thoughts to "if enough people request it I will make a Linux version" you would see hundreds of posts here.

Microsoft has got a huge monopoly. Everyone knows that but who cares? They were first to mass-distribute an OS that had a GUI, had a stack of applications to go with it, was ready for the net, came with a browser, and ran on a IBM compatible PC (don't here that term used much now ay) which was the type of computer making the most inroads in the market share stakes.

That is what I said re: your accusation of untruths. Please don't insult my intelligence by ripping a sentence apart to suit yourself. Take note of MASS DISTRIBUTE and the other things included in the sentence please. When you then consider Apple's effort you'll realise their systems, by comparison, were never mass distributed. Nor did anything else apply that I mentioned.

In the eyes of what law?
In american law - and probably european too (since these things seem to be pretty global). It wouldnt supprise me if the actual number varied - but I would be shocked if anywhere claimed that anything with less than 75% market share was legally defined as a monopoly

This may not occur to you but no court in the world could enforce a world-wide split up of Micro$oft. The worst-case scenario is that they'd split in the US and carry on as per usual elsewhere.

Wrong
The US governemt could without a doubt split up microsoft - worldwide. It is an american company which has a world wide presence, but its still american.
I am unaware of the capabilities of the EU over whether they could enforce a split order, but there is no doubt that the US government could enforce a global split (for example, if non-US divisions broke off to form their own "united" company, they would not be able to use/sell the code developed by the US company on any other terms than those of normal resellers) - However, they could certainly prevent microsoft from trading in europe unless they split, which would effectively kill the company if they did not split

btw, that article is really quite old - I could possibly have found a better source of information
A judge DID order the split up of microsoft (Judge Jackson) but that was overturned on appeal because of some out-of-work comments that jackson made which indicated that he was biased against microsoft; but the original conviction was upheld, just the punishment was sent back for re-negotiations

A second judge (cant remember her name) was tasked to decide on the punishment, then bush got elected and the DoJ accepted/proposed a very much watered down rememdy with microsoft - which the 2nd judge accepted

Feel free to check out the official (but difficult to read) DoJ website...
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_index.htm

Actually, the overview is a pretty reasonable starter for all anti trust cases (not MS specific)

At the end of the day I don't care either way
Fair enough - everyone can choose whether they find the current situation acceptible or not

because I don't intend on spending my life stressing about one man controlling the computer world.
Also fair enough - who cares if billy is gonna charge everyone £150 for windows? Sure, we HAVE to buy it because everyone else uses it, and he's just doing it in the name of compatibility, but so what? £300 isnt too much for an operating system - if he wants to charge £400, we still have to pay because its a monopoly which we cannot get out of due to the compatibility requirement...

The only difference is that microsoft know that if they charged that much then everyone would realise that their monopoly is BAD for the consumer

No matter how much Gates is hated by anti Micro$oft people he's not gunna go away, so it's best just to think about something else.

True, Gates wont go away for a long time - and very few anti microsoft people hate the man gates, their just jealous of his money - no, they hate the illegal practices that he and his company used to squash competition, 'cause competition is good - right?

Just a quick point I would like to make...

The notion that Windows somehow sucks or is any less because of Microsoft's monopolistic ways is complete and utter BS. Yes, MS has a monopoly.. No, that doesn't make Windows not any good. It has NO effect on how good Windows is.

It reminds me of people to refuse to like any music from a certain band because they dsont like the people in the band (for selling out or whatever else).. it's so stupid. It's illogical block association.

The notion that Windows somehow sucks or is any less because of Microsoft's monopolistic ways is complete and utter BS. Yes, MS has a monopoly.. No, that doesn't make Windows not any good. It has NO effect on how good Windows is.

Depends what you mean by "good"
Their monopolistic practices dont make windows XP crash or difficult to use - but their monopolistic practices DO make windows bad for consumers in terms of choice of what they use and dont use...
An example is webpages coded to work for IE - if windows werent such a huge monopoly, then IE wouldnt be as widespread and web designers would be forced to follow standards which work for everyone - rather than making do with what works on IE and not even checking anything else

As a choice.. yeah..maybe you do have a point... the product itself though? NO.

I'm in NO WAY geting into this argument, i refuse to lol

however i will make a comment on the logistics of not useing a product because you disagree with the actions of those who produce that product.

when i'm at a resturont that gives bad service, i never go back, when i'm trying to return something to a bussness that doesnt work and they give me a hard time i just dont buy anything from them again (recently a cd-burnering i bought from stables didnt work, the have only a 14 day return policy on there hardware can u beleive that!!!!!!!!!!!, i wont never buy nothign from them again)

if enough ppl followed this patern it would force these ppl to clean upthere act and do things the right way.

i just dont suport crapy bussnesses, dont raise a fuss, or cause trouble its just simply i wont be back or wont purcahse from them anymore plain and simple :P

Cobra^

if enough ppl followed this patern it would force these ppl to clean upthere act and do things the right way.

The vast majority of people are unaware of why microsoft illegaly abused their monopoly, why it was illegal, why it hurts consumers, and what the other alternatives are (and whether they are realistic for them)
So its like the microsoft resteraunt is the only one on the high street (all others are in back alleys that ya dun know about) and most people either dont realise or dont care that they cook food without washing their hands after going to the loo

:P

but I think I've posted more than enough in this thread already, so I'll be leaving it alone now

Here's a better analogy: If the restaurant was cruel in their business practices, would you not go there? What if you enjoyed their food most out of all restaurants, but they did things that were "wrong", but did NOT directly affect you or the service/product you were getting?

If you choose not to support MS because of their business practices.. that's all fine and well.. but to imply that the product and/or service is somehow altered is retarded, IMHO.

I myself do not agree with some of the things MS has done and does, but it does not directly affect me..and I am NOT going to use alternatives for that reason... when their product suits me just fine and I enjoy using it.

So fraggle, you're saying by using MS products, I could be hurt.. and how? Please enlighten me.

I'd have to say that out of everyone, I agree with GrimZ the most. I run a 266 next to me with Slackware on it, and it stays in console mode all day long, and I love. I use to for all kinds of stuff. I dual booted this computer with Slackware, and I've only used it like twice. I just cant get use to using Linux as a desktop enviroment.

btw, vcv, you damn cat stealerL!@

just to let everyone know that I wasnt ignoring him, I've sent vcv my reply in private

I have no objection to anyone requesting that vcv forward my reply to them

Here's a better analogy: If the restaurant was cruel in their business practices, would you not go there? What if you enjoyed their food most out of all restaurants, but they did things that were "wrong", but did NOT directly affect you or the service/product you were getting?

would i not go there? absolutly, i cant stand the idea that some bussness/people/etc think they are so large that the public is forced to do things there way.

back to the resteront anaology, i dont care how good there food is, if there involved in junk like that i will not suport them, fo me to eat there would be me giving them money, basicly finding activity that i dont agree with.

just as anouther example, i live very close to cederpoint .. i've been there only 2 times, then i learned somethign about them that causes me to make the determination that i will never ever pay to enter there again .. now its neve rhappened but if i was with a group and had a free ride in there somehow i'd be fine with that, as long as my money isnt suporting them.

i'm very stubrner about this. bussnesses can either clean up there act or they dont need my bussness .. i'm only one person though so i'm sure they dont care. but even so i stick to my guns regarding this.

If you choose not to support MS because of their business practices.. that's all fine and well.. but to imply that the product and/or service is somehow altered is retarded, IMHO.

Correction i didnt not even refrence MS, nor imply anything in regards to them.. dont put words in my mouth. i made a generalistic opnion on the point of logic.

i'm purposly avoiding the whole ms vs linux thing .. i run both, use linux as a server, use windows for my workstations (although the leagal copy of the windows os that i obtained i was not required to pay for)

i'm outa this descusion now lol

Cobra^

Correction i didnt not even refrence MS, nor imply anything in regards to them.. dont put words in my mouth. Well I wasn't talking to just YOU.. I was talking in general.. so no, I did not put words into your mouth.

Damn this thread has got big

The US governemt could without a doubt split up microsoft - worldwide. It is an american company which has a world wide presence, but its still american.

Completely wrong wrong wrong.

Any decision made by a US court could only ever be enforced in the US. Or does whoever wants M$ split up plan on filing claims in the high courts of all 200-odd sovereign nations?

Corporate law differs vastly in many countries. Read some legislation before you make such statements. Did it ever occur to you that in this world of globalisation (Of which the US Govt is a proud supporter) the idea is to rationalise and make the remaining entities as big as possible? I don't necessailry agree with this way of playing the game but that is the general idea of globalisation.

As an example: Royal Dutch Shell wanted to take over Woodside Petroleum (a dominant oil exploration company with rigs on the Australian North West Shelf). The Dutch Govt had no problem with the idea, that I was aware of. The Australian Commonwealth Govt did have a problem and blocked the takeover and is able to enforce it because the handshake would have taken place down here. When gold mining Co. BHP launched it's merge offer with Billitons in England it went ahead because the respective Govt's approved of it. When Campell's soup Co. bought out Arnott's biscuits it was approved because both respective Govt's approved of it, and most likely because Australia has more biscuit companies than oil companies.

To vcv: I agree wholeheartedly with your reply.
To Grimz: Yep, it seems that a monster has been created.