🚀 go-pugleaf

"John Doe" <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message 
news:Xns968980B7A1EBCwisdomfolly@207.115.63.158...
> David Maynard <nospam@private.net> wrote:
>
>> kony wrote:
>>> On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 03:20:29 -0500, David Maynard
>>> <nospam@private.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>kony wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 23:34:59 -0500, David Maynard
>>>>><nospam@private.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>so are any concerns that conflict
>>>>>>>with MS's wallet.  After all, we're only paying customers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Why is it that people who want things for 'free' get incensed
> when the
>>>>>>other party is concerned with their wallet too?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Did you overlook those last two words I wrote?
>>>>
>>>>No. You didn't 'pay' for what isn't offered.
>>>>
>>>>But it is interesting that you kept claiming 'support' was
> 'free' while
>>>>simultaneously accusing them of dropping it to save money.
>>>
>>>
>>> No,
>>
>> Yes. You said "[trivial] are any concerns that conflict with MS's
> wallet,"
>> which is a clear 'accusation' that they were motivated by cost
> cutting even
>> though you simultaneously claimed it costs nothing.
>>
>>> you were the one arguing about it costing them money,
>>
>> Yes, I was and am. Because it does.
>>
>>> so
>>> within that context it's still a poor excuse because they'd
>>> have to actually add features rather than subtract them if
>>> they had a competitive market.
>>
>> Or increase the price to cover the expense to 'support' a
> meaningless
>> protocol or sacrifice some other feature in exchange.
>>
>> Not to mention that in a 'competitive market' there's no advantage
> in
>> 'supporting' inferiority.
>
> Are you talking about Windows? As decided by our courts, Microsoft
> in fact has monopoly power over the personal computer operating
> system market.

Like hell it does when even someone as
stupid as you should have noticed Linux.