🚀 go-pugleaf

On 04 Apr 2000 10:32:39 +0100, 
Tim Haynes <piglet@glutinous.custard.org> wrote:
>philh@vision25.demon.co.uk (phil hunt) writes:
>
>> Microsoft is guilty, Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!!!!!
>> 
>> The only think that remains to be decided is what sentence the judge will
>> pass. Personally, I favour The Chair, but I will admit there is much to
>> be said for a lethal injection.
>
>But how do you apply either to a company?

I was thinking of Bill Gates personally. Embrace and extend his
neck, with a noose!

>Is splitting them up into a lot of monopolies all specialists in several
>areas (particularly if they're all part of the "M$loth Group", or whatever)
>any good?
>
>Would the open-source community be interested in hacking Windoze code,
>should (for example) IE5 be open-sourced?

Probably not.

But if Windows + Office were open sourced, i would expect companies to 
come forward to sell Windows+Office distributions, and perhaps add their
own enhancements. Like Red Hat with Linux.

In fact, RH might even come up with their own Windows distro -- obviously
if they did, it'd come with tools to make it work well with Linux; for
example it'd be able to read ext2 partitions.


-- 
***** Phil Hunt ***** send email to phil@comuno.com *****
Moore's Law: hardware speed doubles every 18 months
Gates' Law: software speed halves every 18 months