Subject:
|
Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 25 Oct 2001 01:24:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
636 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Low writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > Nothing is stopping any hardware vendor from not installing it and going
> > with a different OS, or any end consumer from uninstalling it. Nothing
> > except that maybe consumers don't WANT Linux on their boxes.
>
> Okay, another couple of points.
>
> 1. It's not about the OS, whatever the merits of DOS/Windows//NT. It's about
> producing the OS _and_ the application software (whatever the merits of the
> Office suite). By developing both the platform and the applications that 90%
> of users want, MS gains a massive advantage over anyone who wants to develop
> either a platform or apps separately.
Yes, yes, yes, it does.
But I'm still sort of missing how that's a bad thing. By developing both the
engine and the transmission that 90% of users want, already preengineered to
work together, GM, Ford, Daimler, Toyota, et al gain a massive advantage
over those manufacturers who want to develop either an engine or a tranny
separately. Yet we still have the Rousch Racings of the world, developing
massively blown hemis that just take a little (!!!) work to bolt into your
Holden Commie. Or Falcon for that matter if you're determined enough.
How is that different, fundamentally?
> And it's not just because they've got
> better developers or a better distribution network -- they can customise
> both product lines to work optimally with one another, shutting out other
> developers. This is especially so when they have the inside running on new
> versions of the apps and OS.
Again, how exactly is this a bad thing? Just saying it's anticompetitive
isn't going to wash with me, because of course it's anticompetitive. That's
the idea, after all. MS isn't in this for their health, they're in it to
make money for their stockholders. When I build a better mousetrap, of
COURSE I want everyone to buy mine.
The sealed computer as appliance crowd could be served by anyone who can
lash together the hardware and OS and apps, don't need to use MS gear for
that. But that market has been tried and it seems not to actually be there.
> 2. I'm not really interested in reviewing the anti-trust case in detail with
> regard to pre-installs. I think it's worth noting how ignorant many people
> are of even the most basic software customisations (like setting a new
> default homepage on their browser for instance), and how unreasonable it is
> that "industry standards" should be tied to a particular corporation's
> products.
Pretty much any signficant technical standard you care to name (with the
exception of IETF stuff) started out that way. Why is that a bad thing?
> > > Thirdly, OS/application "efficiency" makes it much easier
> > > to compromise security (and privacy?), cf Lovebug, Melissa etc.
> >
> > Here you have something. I'm just not sure what. I'd say take a looksee to
> > see if those license provisions that disclaim responsibility are actually
> > enforcable...
>
> Or build and use systems that aren't as intrinsically vulnerable...
Vote with your dollars. Don't run MS. Nobody's forcing you to.
I'm not trying to be difficult here, per se. I just don't get most of the
"obvious" arguments as being at all obvious, or even true, and I think a
healthy dose of "why"-ing might actually work to bring you and others to
wonder about it too. Besides, I'm entitled to a little "why"-ing don't you
think? Goodness knows I got enough of it from others.
So examine your premises. Why is dominance (without coercion) bad, per se?
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
| (...) Or I'm missing why it's not a bad thing... ;^) (...) Huge snip, while I actually print out Larry's post and think about it (scary stuff). In the meantime, where did you pick up Holden "Commie"? Did someone from Australia actually say that or (...) (23 years ago, 25-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
| (...) Okay, another couple of points. 1. It's not about the OS, whatever the merits of DOS/Windows//NT. It's about producing the OS _and_ the application software (whatever the merits of the Office suite). By developing both the platform and the (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
173 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
