🚀 go-pugleaf

On 24 May 2004 21:21:52 +0200, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:
>T. Max Devlin <tmax@localnet.com> writes:
>
>> On 24 May 2004 00:03:10 -0700, rolftollerud@msn.com (Rolf Tollerud)
>> wrote:
>> 
>> >"Linux is business."
>> >
>> >For 8 years now each year has been declared "the year of Linux
>> >desktop", no inroads at all has been made.
>> 
>> For 8 years, noticeable inroads have been made.  But MS still
>> illegally maintains monopoly power.
>
>Uh, it is not illegal to maintain a monopoly as long as you don't do
>it by unfair means.

True, but there is no other way to maintain a monopoly, so it is
really a moot point.

>The antitrust laws tie the hands of monopolists
>for certain acts that, in the hand of a monopolist, are likely to
>nullify the regulating power of the free market.

You sound like you're saying that 'monopolists' is a fixed and
specific group.  Actually, it just means 'one who monopolizes or
attempts to monopolize', and both monopolizing and attempting to
monopolize are illegal, regardless of how they are achieved or how
briefly they are maintained.  In theory anyway.  Which is to say that
is what it says in the statute: "monopolizing is a fellony."

> In short, there are
>some rules that kick in, once you have gained a monopoly, to make sure
>that basically the best, as opposed to the strongest (which often at
>least implies a _history_ of being best in some respect), will survive
>in the long run.

That may be the easiest way for you to comprehend what happens, but
that isn't at all what happens.  Or fails to happen, as it were.

In short, the Sherman Act made monopolizing (which is to say any and
all monopolizing) illegal, as well as both attempts to monopolize and
any contracts in restraint of trade.  Nothing about "a monopoly" at
all.

>In short, you must not bully if you are the only one with the
>necessary strength for it.

You are confusing market power with monopoly power.  Not surprising;
they are both abstract things, though the second is much more abstract
than the first, since it cannot be expressed as a number the way
market power can be encapsulated, if not perfectly captured, by market
share percentages.

Monopolizing is illegal, whether you "have a monopoly" or not.  Which
is to say, in short, that you must not bully, period.

>> >Linux is a 30 year old incorrectly designed OS that should have
>> >been "Microkernel".
>> 
>> And Windows is a badly designed non-OS that should have been a
>> forgotten footnote in the history of PC software.
>
>Well, it is.  Linux has _never_ been redesigned even from the start.

It has never been converted to a microkernel, certainly.  Whether that
means it has never been redesigned is questionable.

>There have only been replaced subsystems, added stuff and so on.  And
>yet it is now an enterprise level system with unique performance.

Starting with a system similar to Unix will do that for an OS.  Even
if it isn't a microkernel.

> In
>contrast, Windows has been replaced _several_ times _from_ _scratch_,
>with the help of compatibility layers.

Now if only they could get it right just once.

>In general, it is a good rule of thumb for good engineering to first
>work on a project until it basically functions, then scrap it and do
>another version from scratch, after having learnt all the necessary
>lessons.

If I'm not mistaken, UNICS was scratched and replaced with Unix.  Then
Unix was scratched and is now being replaced with Linux.

>Windows needed about 4 completely different code bases in its history
>in order to learn its lessons.

Actually, they went from DOS to NT; one semi-different code base
(still a lot of stuff left over from DOS even after DOS itself was
long gone, since compatibility with Windows was necessary) and they
botched the job very badly.  If their intent was to make a "better
Unix than Unix", at least, though not if their intent was to satisfy
the market enough that they could maintain their monopoly power.

>They are only now getting to a point
>where they are close to being competitive.  Except in the gaming
>compartment which is their stronghold.

They aren't anywhere near close being competitive in any compartment.
Gaming is more susceptable to their monopolization, is all.  Getting
the industry to support their DirectX-based gaming middleware was a
real coup for the felons running the company.

>Apart from that, I see little point in using Windows as long as Linux
>and various BSD variants exist.

Well, that works fine for Microsoft, I guess, since they still have
you trapped in "their stonghold".  It doesn't matter to them whether
it is web services or gaming that keeps you locked in, as long as
something does.