Re: If you could design a $300 homecomputer today, what would you choose?

[Roy Miller <millers@inebraska.com>]

David Ogg wrote:

> In article <0avtj9.ed4.ln@ridcully.freenet.co.uk>, spike1@freenet.co.uk
> says...
>
> > David Ogg <davidogg@nc.rr.com> did eloquently scribble:
> > > What would the government do to Linux if Linux had "embraced and
> > > extended" or anything else Microsoft has done? I wonder. Could they do
> > > anything, even?
> >
> >
> > Linux COUDN'T embrace and extend... Embrace and extend involves not only
> > adopting and corrupting an accepted standard... It means keeping the
> > additions and changes to that standard secret. (Or refusing to allow it's
> > use elsewhere).
>
> Ok, not a good example, I'll pick another one, what if Linux integrated a
> free web browser into it's interface? What if (hypothetically) this put
> someone out on the street. What could the government do?

Nothing. Linux is not the product of a company that has a monopoly. So none of
these questions apply.

> Should they do
> anything?
>
> > Kerberos is the perfect example.
> > They took the code from the FreeBSD codebase. As FreeBSD license allows
> > anyone to do anything with the source code they want as long as there's an
> > acknowledgement, they extended it and then, when someone found out what the
> > extensions were and posted source code, M$ forced them to remove it from the
> > web.
>
>  This is where that double edged sword could hurt Linux. If the
> government is empowered to bitchslap developers who change protocols
> to extend them,

But they aren't so empowered.
It's really very simple. The rules you have to play under change once you achieve
monopoly status. You may not use your monopoly to maintain or extend your
monopoly. So Micro$tuff is a very special case that doesn't apply to hardly any
other high tech company (possible exceptions: Intel and IBM [IBM once came close
to a breakup because of it's abuse of monopoly power, they backed down and played
nice, something Micro$tuff doesn't seem to understand how to do])

Roy

> could not this empowerment also be used to bitchslap
> developers who reverse engineer protocols to be compatible?
>  I think the safest ground we could stand on would be that protocols
> be considered speech, and be given the same standing constitutionally.
> (Posting the source code is a different story.) Let Microsoft extend
> whatever they feel like, we'll be right behind them developing tools
> that integrate nicely with those changes.

Here's how it has worked with their "extensions", they made changes to Win 95 and
Win 98 at the request of the Office programmers. Not too much wrong there. They
made such changes available to the WordPerfect and Lotus Suite programmers, once
those programmers learned of the existence of the changes, and then asked for the
information.

Do you see the difference? In house products teams had weeks, if not months lead
time so their products were out first, and had a much closer working relationship
with the Systems programmers than ANY competitor could possibly have. That
allowed the Office products to maintain and extend their lead over their major
competitors. American law prohibits that as unfair when done by a monopolist.

The kicker is that Micro$tuff is STILL denying that they have a monopoly. I
suppose they would only acknowledge it when/if they achieve their wet dream of
all computers everywhere using M$ OS.


> Both these practices should
> be protected, as attacking one hurts the other.
>  This way, any percieved improvements are realized by consumers,
> regardless what product they choose, and competition is still occuring,
> with the consumer benefitting from the race. That /is/ the only thing
> the government is supposed to be concerned with in a monopoly case
> anyway.
>  Consumers do not benefit in any way by having the government soft-
> enforcing a protocol tweeking taboo.
>
>  If you look closely at what's happening to GUI's right now, Microsoft
> /is/ competing, everyone is. Apple is making drastic changes in it's UI,

On yeah, and how much has their market share gone up?

>
> Linux is also,

Big market share their too. Esp in Best Buy, Sears, and Walmart computer depts.

> and Microsoft is changing the GUI at a faster rate than
> they have ever done anything before. This race they're having is picking
> up speed and the consumer is benefitting on all fronts. And this is how
> it should be.

Ah, but what happened to DRI?
How often do you see the Lotus Office Suite (assuming IBM didn't finally throw in
the towel) bundled with a computer? Or the WordPerfect suite? How much shelf
space do they get at the Best Buy, Office Max, Office Depot, Circuit City,
compared to M$??

>
>
>  What we don't need right now is Big Brother stopping this race, so that
> Linux and Mac might slow down,

You won't. Big Brother might slow down M$, but not competitors with less than 10%
of the market place. In a case like this, Big Brother's job is to make sure that
the race is fair to the little guys.

Roy

> and then we lose because competition has
> stopped again. Besides, it's getting interesting ;)
>
> --David