On Sun, 2006-03-19 at 03:29, Myth User wrote: > Let me continue to point out that I said earlier Windows is not better than > Linux. > > I will also say that Linux is not better than Windows. Yet, you pointed out a single problem in Linux related to peculiar hardware and used that to claim that the fix was to 'wait until Linux catches up to Windows', when in fact Windows not only has more problems but generally doesn't give you the fix for free when/if the next version does fix it. > Can we agree that they are different yet overlap in functionality? If we > can't then one of us isn't being reasonable. When you have to deal with monopolies, being reasonable isn't one of the choices. > > In any event, the DOJ 'proved' several points of their case against > > Microsoft, they are still under compliance orders, they are under appeal > > for similar issues already adjudicated in the EU. At what point do you > > call the kettle, black? > > The point is that Microsoft engaged in what was ruled to be unfair > competition. That was illegal unfair competition as I recall. But after making some huge political contibutions the case seemed to disappear. Of course those two things couldn't be related. > Microsoft is not a monopoly. What? That part of the case was clearly established and is what made the rest illegal. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
