Lucas Vogel wrote:
> 
> Not at all. I'm saying the "ploy to get MS to pay tribute" theory, along
> with the statement that if MS were a real monopoly PLUG/Linux "not being
> allowed to exist", is a bit extreme.
> 

I think by definition M$ is a monopoly.  Monopoly
does not mean having the means to control all. It
means having enough power due to it's size in the
market place that it can exert undue control which
does not let the market work properly.

The violation is not being big or a monopoly, it
was the harm they did to the consumer because they
are a monopoly.  They have about 10 years of bad
faith business practices.

An example is that Compaq wanted to ship their
systems configured so you could select to install
M$ or Linux.  M$ said if you do I will not sell
you windoze any longer.  Compaq stood to lose much
business so they backed down.  It is my
understanding that this was the case with several
of the large clone manufactures.

I believe this had an impact on the growth of
Linux.

Think about this - M$ creates a free linux
derivative and ties it into their products and
create some proprietary interfaces.  The business
community embraces these hybrid tools and the next
thing you know M$ owns the market because if you
want to interface with M$ you use their flavor of
Linux and BUY their proprietary interface. 

M$ is a scary company with scary goals.

Just my 2 cents from watching what they have been
doing for the past 7 or 8 years - since DOS 6.2

Keith


-- 
Jesus is Lord!,
Keith Smith
520.298.2227
------------------------------
Come see what's new at:
http://www.christian-home.net/