Something for those who despise MSFT to chew on.

By a declaration of rights, I mean one which shall stipulate freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of commerce against monopolies, trial by juries in all cases, no suspensions of the habeas corpus, no standing armies. These are fetters against doing evil which no honest government should decline. -- Thomas Jefferson

I couldn't have said it better myself.

That a judge could find it unlawful to give away new features of value to consumers, and that an appeals court could sustain that finding, shows how much the law has been distorted to protect competitors instead of consumers.

Tell me, do you know anything about the STAC lawsuit, and how it was started and later resolved?

Tell me what you know about WANG and MSFT's OLE technology.

Tell me what you know about IBM paying MS over $500 million for their work on OS/2; then MS turning around and sticking a knife in IBM's back.

I don't despise Microsoft, but I do despise the mentality that lets them get away with their obviously bogus claims.

Oh, so Internet Explorer was so tightly integrated into Windows that it could not be extricated without damaging Windows? One of the first principles of software engineering is modularity. If they could not design a modular web browser that the operating system does not depend on, they are so incompetent that they should have all failed Programming 101. And anyone who falls for stuff like that doesn't know beans about software engineering.

Every Unix system can use any of several web browsers. In fact, several users on a single Unix system can each use a different browser. The user decides. What a concept!

IBM got what it deserved on OS/2. It totally failed to develop what it had (just as Apple failed to take advantage of the Mac II). IBM management left the one executive backing OS/2 out to dry. But then, that's another reason why that IBM management team was dumped and replaced by an outsider. So MS tried for a third time, came up with Windows (obviously an inferior product to those other two OS's at the time), paired up with Intel and gave us cheaper and cheaper computers with more and more power. IBM and Apple were more interested in charging premiums. Gates prefered to have greater sales with lower unit profits.

There are other programming paradigms than the ones you were taught in programming 101.

Also, im not sure what your point is. The current lawsuit is unreleated to those things you mentioned.

Tell me what you know about the benefits to application developers and thus eventually to consumers of having standard Microsoft-backed components included with all modern PCs that I can build programs out of with confidence.

Every Unix system can use any of several web browsers. In fact, several users on a single Unix system can each use a different browser. The user decides. What a concept!

Then I guess this Netscape name on my browser is a lie, oh wait, what's this here, Quattro Pro and here's Word Perfect, and my my, I'm listening to mp3's on Winamp. jeez you know what the only MSFT product I'm using now is the OS, I must be some kind of frigging genius to get all this stuff running on a WINDOZE machine. Let me go and watch the news on RealAudio.

Yes, apparently so. But any programming paradigm that throws out modularity is garbage.

Suppose I was selling a general-purpose personal computer, and I told you that it won't work unless a particular monitor and a particular printer are plugged into it. What would you call that design? I'd call it ridiculous.

The same applies to an operating system that depends on a particular web browser, as MS claimed theirs did. They were lying, of course. Not even MS is that backward.

Oh, and can you completely remove Internet Explorer? Gates said it was impossible, didn't he? Is he a liar or a moron?

By the way, can another user use IE at the same time you are using Netscape?

You are missing the concept of the user of the modules. Your general-purpose computer example presumed that the users of the modules are human end-users. In the case of Microsoft and Windows, the modules are reused by other parts of the OS and developers, not necessarily always end-users. For example, users are free to use or not use Internet Explorer. However, Explorer, their control panel, and the documentation for thousands of programs will continue to use it. They will not work without it. This is not a failure of modular design, this is its culmination.

No one ever claimed Gates and MSFT were choir boys. Caveat Emptor. Also, being a monopoly in itself isn't illegal.

"Internet Explorer" as the computer newbie knows it is basically an icon. "Internet Explorer" as the layman knows it is basically an HTML notepad. "Internet Explorer" as a developer knows it is a suite of components. Asking if you can remove "Internet Explorer" is as dishonest as the query about beating one's wife.

By the way, can another user use IE at the same time you are using Netscape?

I guess I have to answer this too. Can you pat your head and rub your tummy? The correct answer is, we don't care because we're not interested.

I guess I have to answer this too.

You don't have to answer.

Trust me.

Oh, and can you completely remove Internet Explorer? Gates said it was impossible, didn't he? Is he a liar or a moron?

Why would I want to do that, it just sits there not bothering anything but if you did you would lose the active desktop and the intergration between it and Windows Explorer which is a nice feature. They also share many common functions, you can do a web search in Windows Explorer but it's actually IE that's doing the search. Without IE you would lose some functions.

By the way, can another user use IE at the same time you are using Netscape?

If you mean can I have both open at the same time the answer is yes, I just opened IE 5.5 right now as I am typing this using Netscape and have Yahoo up. Don't know if I would want another person using my machine when I am but I can run side by side Windows of each if I wish. I also put Opera on this machine but took it off because it's adware. At home I use IE only for browsing but I have 3 different e-mail readers, Outlook Express, Foxmail and Eudora Light for my wife and kids and I use FreeAgent for Usenet.

I also have an old P200 at home that I'm setting up with Linux, I don't hold any prejudices against OS's, I figure the more I can learn about them the better. I use Windows because that's the OS my games are written for in the most part but if all of a sudden they were only available for Linux then I'd primarily use that. I don't care one way or another, I'll run whatever OS my software comes written for.

I figured as much. You home users basically only need toy computers. One of the reasons I worry about an MS monopoly is that I'm afraid that I might someday be forced to use an MS computer for my engineering work. For that, I need a real computer. If I was forced to use a toy MS computer, that would be a real nightmare.

So let me get this straight. A computer is a toy unless it does [certain arbitrary things] that you require a computer to do before its not a toy anymore. Furthermore, since it is a toy, someone "playing" with it must be a little kid. And little kid's opinions are ignored when we're discussing adult matters. This is your strategy for dismissing Windows users/boosters. This tired trick has been used by people convinced of their total intellectual superiority (re: Microsoft's design decisions) to infantilize their opposition as long as I've been around as the opposition.

Grow up.

My father sailed on the USS Prometheus, South Pacific, WWII.

Good to know, angry beaver norbert.

When you appear again, please bring the small boat.