Windows 7 - Is Linux Really Dead On The Desktop? Linus's Own Family Doesn't Use Linux!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Asked By linux.freak.detecto

20-Oct-07 07:29 PM

Looks like Linux is deader than dead.....


http://tinyurl.com/2cwv8s


How Far Behind Is Linux?
October 17, 2007; Page B1


use Linux, what hope is there for the rest of us?


Linux, the free operating system whose development is overseen by Mr.
Torvalds, has long been entrenched in the worlds of science and
commerce. When Google gives you a search result, a Linux machine is
doing the work. At tens of thousands of other companies, computer
managers take comfort in the fact that these days, no one ever gets
fired for "buying" open source.


But world domination? That's another story.
'CHOICE IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL'


[Interview icon]
I think Microsoft used to actually care about trying to help the
consumer. I may not think that they did wonderful technology, but I
think they really did try to serve their customers. But look at their
[digital rights management] and their "Genuine Windows Advantage" --
they're not trying to serve their customers any more in their
products; they are adding features that are actively bad for users,
because they probably feel like they aren't even competing any more.
=B7 Read the exchange between Linus Torvalds and Lee Gomes.


Even though Linux is easier than ever to use, the dream of many Linux
buffs of it replacing Windows as the desktop mainstay is, at best,
stalled, and at worst, fading. While exact numbers are hard to come
by, one survey has desktop Linux users barely scraping a single
percentage point of the market share. Among Microsoft's customers,
concedes Mr. Torvalds, are his father and sister, though Mom has
managed to resist the allure of the dark side.


So, with the top version of Windows Vista running at nearly $400, at
least for new users, why do people continue to open their wallets
wide
when there's a free alternative?


One reason is that for most consumers, Windows is "free," coming as
it
does with their new PCs. Computer companies hardly seem interested in
offering alternatives. H-P, for example, ships more PCs than anyone,
but won't sell a computer without Windows, at least in the U.S.


Dell is far more Linux friendly, and offers a line of consumer Linux
machines that run $50 less than their Windows counterparts. But Dell
doesn't exactly broadcast the option; there's no mention of it on its
home page and you need to know to click on an "Open-Source Computers"
link on an inside page of its Web site before you know of the
alternative.


Dell started installing Linux earlier in the year after a suggestion
box on its Web site drew a deluge of requests for the system. Dell
doesn't say how many Linux PCs it ships, but one survey puts it at a
tiny fraction of total units.


And, tellingly, far more people requested that Dell sell Linux than
actually bought a machine once it went on sale. That suggests the
typical consumer user has none of the philosophical objections to
Windows of some members of the open-source community. Windows works
well enough that the difficulty involved in switching operating
systems outweighs any slings and arrows of using it.


Linux developers, though, remain determined to eliminate that
difficulty. The best example of their efforts is a Linux
More than anything else, Ubuntu has come closest in making Linux
ready
for prime time.


Ubuntu's most prominent backer is Mark Shuttleworth, a 34-year-old
South African who made a bundle in 1999 when he sold his security
firm
to VeriSign. He used some of those proceeds to become the first
African in space, as a for-pay tourist in 2002 on a Russian space
mission. He regards his work with Ubuntu as partly a philanthropic
endeavor, because of its use in developing countries, where loaded
computers are hard to come by.


Ubuntu's claim to fame is that its developers have bundled not just
Linux, but a shelf full of other important programs, such as Web
browsers and word processors, into a single easy-to-install package.
Once on your computer, it looks and acts much as Windows does. What's
more, Ubuntu updates itself every six months and notifies you if
security updates are needed in the interim.


That last feature, incidentally, should disabuse an actual Ubuntu
user
of the notion that a non-Windows operating systems is security
utopia,
where hackers are powerless and children are all above average. I
recently installed the April version of Ubuntu on my home machine and
promptly was informed that more than 50 security patches to problems
discovered in the interim awaited my downloading. Who does Ubuntu
think it is? Windows?


Everything about Ubuntu worked as billed, but don't take my word for
it. Test-drive it yourself at Ubuntu.com. Developers have created a
mode that lets you experiment with the software without permanently
installing it on your PC. You also can load Ubuntu into its own hard-
disk partition using a built-in, dual-boot program -- although if you
have to ask what that means, you probably shouldn't try it.


Mr. Shuttleworth says Linux-Ubuntu has become so easy that anyone,
anywhere can use it as a primary operating system, as long as they
have a technically savvy friend to help with rough patches. And that
gap, too, he's determined to close, he says.


Mr. Torvalds isn't involved with Ubuntu. That isn't the way Linux
works. He agrees that increasing the desktop presence of Linux is a
crucial long-term goal, largely because that's how new programmers
get
interested in the software, which keeps the wheel turning.


He still believes that ultimately the race for dominance will go to
the slow and steady. "Maybe the desktop isn't exactly getting
conquered, but it's getting a fair amount of development attention,"
he says. "I'm a technical guy, so I tend to believe in the 'if you
build it, they will come' motto, even if the inertia in the market
would make it a long road to travel."
=B7 Email me at Lee.Go...@wsj.com.

20-Oct-07 07:58 PM

Maybe. Linux is pushing toward 2% at w3counter - big jump last week.

Looks like Linux is deader than dead.....

20-Oct-07 08:21 PM

I would be ashamed if I was Mr. Torvald. A mother will always support and
encourage their children, thats why she is using it, just for the sake of
him.
--
Andre
Blog: http://adacosta.spaces.live.com
My Vista Quickstart Guide:
http://adacosta.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!E8E5CC039D51E3DB!9709.entry
Looks like Linux is deader than dead.....


http://tinyurl.com/2cwv8s


How Far Behind Is Linux?
October 17, 2007; Page B1


use Linux, what hope is there for the rest of us?


Linux, the free operating system whose development is overseen by Mr.
Torvalds, has long been entrenched in the worlds of science and
commerce. When Google gives you a search result, a Linux machine is
doing the work. At tens of thousands of other companies, computer
managers take comfort in the fact that these days, no one ever gets
fired for "buying" open source.


But world domination? That's another story.
'CHOICE IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL'


[Interview icon]
I think Microsoft used to actually care about trying to help the
consumer. I may not think that they did wonderful technology, but I
think they really did try to serve their customers. But look at their
[digital rights management] and their "Genuine Windows Advantage" --
they're not trying to serve their customers any more in their
products; they are adding features that are actively bad for users,
because they probably feel like they aren't even competing any more.
· Read the exchange between Linus Torvalds and Lee Gomes.


Even though Linux is easier than ever to use, the dream of many Linux
buffs of it replacing Windows as the desktop mainstay is, at best,
stalled, and at worst, fading. While exact numbers are hard to come
by, one survey has desktop Linux users barely scraping a single
percentage point of the market share. Among Microsoft's customers,
concedes Mr. Torvalds, are his father and sister, though Mom has
managed to resist the allure of the dark side.


So, with the top version of Windows Vista running at nearly $400, at
least for new users, why do people continue to open their wallets
wide
when there's a free alternative?


One reason is that for most consumers, Windows is "free," coming as
it
does with their new PCs. Computer companies hardly seem interested in
offering alternatives. H-P, for example, ships more PCs than anyone,
but won't sell a computer without Windows, at least in the U.S.


Dell is far more Linux friendly, and offers a line of consumer Linux
machines that run $50 less than their Windows counterparts. But Dell
doesn't exactly broadcast the option; there's no mention of it on its
home page and you need to know to click on an "Open-Source Computers"
link on an inside page of its Web site before you know of the
alternative.


Dell started installing Linux earlier in the year after a suggestion
box on its Web site drew a deluge of requests for the system. Dell
doesn't say how many Linux PCs it ships, but one survey puts it at a
tiny fraction of total units.


And, tellingly, far more people requested that Dell sell Linux than
actually bought a machine once it went on sale. That suggests the
typical consumer user has none of the philosophical objections to
Windows of some members of the open-source community. Windows works
well enough that the difficulty involved in switching operating
systems outweighs any slings and arrows of using it.


Linux developers, though, remain determined to eliminate that
difficulty. The best example of their efforts is a Linux
More than anything else, Ubuntu has come closest in making Linux
ready
for prime time.


Ubuntu's most prominent backer is Mark Shuttleworth, a 34-year-old
South African who made a bundle in 1999 when he sold his security
firm
to VeriSign. He used some of those proceeds to become the first
African in space, as a for-pay tourist in 2002 on a Russian space
mission. He regards his work with Ubuntu as partly a philanthropic
endeavor, because of its use in developing countries, where loaded
computers are hard to come by.


Ubuntu's claim to fame is that its developers have bundled not just
Linux, but a shelf full of other important programs, such as Web
browsers and word processors, into a single easy-to-install package.
Once on your computer, it looks and acts much as Windows does. What's
more, Ubuntu updates itself every six months and notifies you if
security updates are needed in the interim.


That last feature, incidentally, should disabuse an actual Ubuntu
user
of the notion that a non-Windows operating systems is security
utopia,
where hackers are powerless and children are all above average. I
recently installed the April version of Ubuntu on my home machine and
promptly was informed that more than 50 security patches to problems
discovered in the interim awaited my downloading. Who does Ubuntu
think it is? Windows?


Everything about Ubuntu worked as billed, but don't take my word for
it. Test-drive it yourself at Ubuntu.com. Developers have created a
mode that lets you experiment with the software without permanently
installing it on your PC. You also can load Ubuntu into its own hard-
disk partition using a built-in, dual-boot program -- although if you
have to ask what that means, you probably shouldn't try it.


Mr. Shuttleworth says Linux-Ubuntu has become so easy that anyone,
anywhere can use it as a primary operating system, as long as they
have a technically savvy friend to help with rough patches. And that
gap, too, he's determined to close, he says.


Mr. Torvalds isn't involved with Ubuntu. That isn't the way Linux
works. He agrees that increasing the desktop presence of Linux is a
crucial long-term goal, largely because that's how new programmers
get
interested in the software, which keeps the wheel turning.


He still believes that ultimately the race for dominance will go to
the slow and steady. "Maybe the desktop isn't exactly getting
conquered, but it's getting a fair amount of development attention,"
he says. "I'm a technical guy, so I tend to believe in the 'if you
build it, they will come' motto, even if the inertia in the market
would make it a long road to travel."
· Email me at Lee.Go...@wsj.com.

20-Oct-07 08:34 PM

OMG! What is RS saying?
Frank

20-Oct-07 10:05 PM

How about some factual evidence to back that claim up? No? Didn't think
so...

21-Oct-07 02:19 AM

They really don't have much choice do they?  After all, Linus isn't
there to help them install it, make sure that the transition is as
effortless as possible, and help them learn the nuances of Open
Office, FireFox, and KDE.  Linux is the kernel developer.  The kernel
is just a single component in a much larger project called a Linux
kernel and GNU libraries, but then adds an entire suite of user
interfaces aka desktops, applications, and configuration and
management utilities.

My dad uses Linux part time, and loves it, but he also like Quicken,
and isn't willing to learn BASE to create his own accounting and tax
suite (even though he was an accountant for a major utility company
for 30 years).


Very true.  In fact, many companies are now reaping huge savings and
even huge profits by USING open source.  Many government agencies and
nonprofit organizations are saving huge amounts of time and money by
using open source.

[snip]


This has been the topic of government investigations since as early as
1987 when the Federal Trade commision began to investigate Microsoft
for their fraudulent use of Vaporware announcements in order to
prevent OEMs from switching to competitor products like DR-DOS/GEM,
OS2/VDI, or Unix/X11.  Microsoft had promised true multitasking in MS-
DOS 4.0 and instead delivered an iterrupt that **could** be used with
Terminate and Stay Resident programs.

Microsoft has also lost and settled many lawsuits involving sabotage,
again designed to discourage OEMs and corporate customers from
adopting competitor products such as DR-DOS, GEM, Stacker, OS2,
DesqView, WordPerfect, Lotus 1-2-3, and other 3rd party products
instead of Microsoft's overpriced offerings.  In each case, the terms
of the settlements were sealed in an effort to prevent the evidence
presented during the discovery proceedings from being used in other
cases.  One could argue that this was obstruction of justice, but the
courts will normally only unseal those records in the case of a
criminal trial.  It is possible that part of the settlement in each
case included what amounted to immunity from prosecution in all
related matters.

In most cases, Microsoft settled, either during the preliminary
hearings because the judge ruled that behavior was illegal, or settled
after winning an appeal in which the judge and appellate court had
ruled that Microsoft's activities were illegal.  Although crimes were
committed, and admitted, Microsoft has avoided prosecution under the
RICO act by making sure that all settlements include a provision that
allows Microsoft to claim that is not admitting any guilt, even though
the judges have ruled against them.  I guess this is to prevent
criminal prosecution of Microsoft executives.

Microsoft has used the copyright license to engage in numerous acts
which would otherwise be federal felonies.  Because of the copyright
license, Microsoft is allowed to engage in computer trespassing,
sabotage, wire-tapping for private or criminal investigation purposes,
and can avoid most class-action lawsuits on behalf of end-users.

In addition, Microsoft has used it's copyright license to engage in
collusion.  The Clayton act forbids any contract designed to exclude
competitors, regardless of whether these contracts are the result of a
formal agreement of a group of businesses, or the result of agreements
imposed by a monopolist on it's customers.  Such contracts are
illegal, but Microsoft carefully dances around the edge of these laws.

Microsoft doesn't tell the OEMs that they can't install Linux and
Windows on the same machine, they just require that OEMs get prior
written permission to market or support any change in configuration.
Trivial changes such as new drivers can be approved almost
immediately.  Changes such as adding or changing a boot manager which
would allow users to select the operating system of their choice -
seem to get "lost" or for some other mysterious reason, are never
formally approved or rejected.  Unlike most contracts where the
partner has a finite amount of time to give a response before the
proposed change is considered accepted by default, Microsoft's OEM
license agreements make no such allowances, meaning that Microsoft can
effectively block any attempt by any OEM to create any system in which
Windows and Linux coexist on the same machine.  Ironically, the
technology to do this has been around for years.  OS/2 had a boot
manager which allowed users to boot into OS2 or Windows 3.1, Slackware
offered dual-boot capability as well as the ability to install Linux
on a FAT file system (meaning partitions weren't required for newbie
users).

Virtualization has made it possible for end-users to configure PCs in
which Linux and Window scan be running on the same machine at the same
time.  In some configurations, the performance of Windows can even be
enhanced using this type of configuration due to improved memory
management and disk access management.  Microsoft steadfastly
continues to stonewall the OEMs on these matters.

In fact, the latest licenses for Vista Home editions (Home Basic and
Home Premium) expressly forbid the use of Vista Home edition as a VM
client to Linux, even though the technology is trivial to do.  Users
who want to run Vista as a virtual machine have to order a machine
with Vista Business edition via telephone, mail-order, or web-order,
since the retail versions only support Vista Home editions.

Even though the DOJ Settlement expressly forbids Microsoft from
attempting to prevent OEMs from offering machines equipped with Linux,
Microsoft has continued to defy the courts in this matter.

Another tactic Microsoft has used to prevent the spread of Linux is
their control of the Microsoft trademarks and logos.  Microsoft
controls those trademarks and logos and requires that all advertising,
promotional materials, and other materials using those trademarks be
approved by Microsoft prior to publication.  Because there are
deadlines involved, Microsoft merely has to delay their answer beyond
that deadline to "pocket veto" any advertising, promotional materials,
or  related marketing material.  As a result, you can't even go to a
store and pick out a machine that lists "Linux Compatible" as one of
it's features.  Even the web order forms and telephone operators are
not allowed to tell you whether the machine you are about to order
will work with Linux or not, because Microsoft logos and trademarks
are used in the promotional materials and scripts.

Microsoft also conspires with hardware vendors.  Threatening penalties
and offering incentives for producing hardware that will only run
under Microsoft's software and enforcing nondisclosure and taking
legal actions related to any attempt to reverse engineer drivers for
Linux and competitor platforms.  In most cases, there is a finite
amount of time, usually up to 1 year, by which time even Microsoft
concedes that such provisions are probably unenforceable.  Still, this
increases the chance that a customer looking for a Windows machine
capable of running Linux is likely to get a Window machine that is NOT
capable of running Linux, and not knowing that he has done so.  With
customers spending as much as $2000 for Linux compatibility, many OEMs
are using announcements through alternative channels to tell would-be
Linux users that certain distributions are supported on certain models
of their computers in certain configurations.  Normally, corporate
customers who want this option have to make commitments to purchase a
minimum number of computers.  Many companies now purchase one
candidate machine for evaluation and one of their tests is to install
Linux.


Actually, IBM, Dell, HP, Lenovo, and Toshiba all offer "Linux Ready"
computers, and it's even possible to order them.  In addition, there
are VARs who purchase these machines in bulk and convert them to Linux
or Windows/Linux configurations.  For example Emperor Linux offers
several different desktp and laptop machines which have been
reconfigured to run Linux.  Typically there is a premium paid for the
reconfiguration, service, and support.  It's possible that one of the
reasons that IBM sold their PC division to Lenovo was so that they
could operate as a similar type of VAR, offering service and support
for Linux or Linux/Windows machines in much the same way they provide
support for multi-platform servers.


Dell, HP, Lenovo, Acer, and Toshiba have all been offering "Linux
ready" computers, and these computers are often more profitable than
the "Windows only" configurations.  Machines with DirectX-only video
cards, Windows-only WiFi, and other Windows-only chips have tended to
erode in price much more rapidly than machines with OpenGL, Linux-
ready WiFi, and Linux-ready SATA or SAS controller chips.

Retailers are having a hard time unloadng Vista Home machines because
of the license restrictions.  CompUSA closed shortly after Vista was
released.  That was one of the few stores where you could look at an
iMac with OS/X and go to the next set of shelves and look at a machine
running Vista.  Many users wanted the Mac machines, but Apple can
barely keep up with the demand generated in their own stores.

Gateway has reached the verge of bankruptcy, with increasing losses
quarter after quarter.  The price has dropped so low that Gateway is
now a takeover target.  Acer has made an offer.  Acer has made "Linux
Ready" machines a staple.  Nearly all of their machines are "Linux
Ready", and many users in other countries can actually purchase Acer
PCs with Linux pre-installed.  When VA Linux was offering Linux-only
machines and generating substantial market and growth, Microsoft
offered them a license which allowed them to install both Linux and
Windows on the same machine.  Unfortunately, they were still not able
to get there product positioned on retailer shelves, and as a result
eventually began offering consulting services, offering the ability to
convert large quantities of a number of different PCs to Linux and
support those Linux machines.


This may be a pattern based ot the fact that a "Linux ready" machine
which is sold with Windows offers more that a machine that will ONLY
run Windows, or a machine which requires the purchase of a separate
$400 copy of Windows if sold with Linux.

Most versions of Windows, including XP Professional, Vista Business,
and Vista Ultimate, as well as Windows 2000, permit the use of Windows
as a VMWare client.  In addition, XP Pro and 2000 permit Linux users
to call Microsoft libraries from Linux using WINE interface libraries
which can full those Microsoft libraries into thinking that they are
calling the Microsoft operating system instead of Linux.  Not all
applications run on WINE, but a much larger number run on WINE when
supplemented with the Microsoft libraries - which means the end-user
must purchase a machine with an OEM copy of Windows to legally use
that library.


If I order a Lenovo T61p with Linux-ready hardware, I can purchase it
with Windows, use VMware converter to generate a VMWare image from the
installed system.  Then I can back-up that image to a USB drive,
install Linux using a live-DVD distribution, install VMWare player,
and then run the VMWare Image of Windows.  Since Linux is providing
the disk buffering, memory management, security, and network
interfaces, the VMware image of Windows often runs FASTER than the
Windows native version.  The VMWare overhead is normally very low,
usually less than 10%, but this is recovered through faster and larger
disk buffering, read-ahead, and better memory management.

If I purchase a Gateway "Windows Only" box, I could install VMWare
workstation (for $150), and install Linux into a virtual drive, but
the NTFS file system would be slower, the Windows operating system
would dole out memory only after substantial delays, and it might take
20-30 minutes for the Linux system to reach the highest possible
speed, which is still subject to the locks, pauses, and delays of
Windows garbage collection.

Microsoft tried to orchestrate a "Showdown" between Linux and Vista
Home edition, and it backfired.  Microsoft insisted that Vista Home
edition was a "Windows Only" environment, and that Vista Home edition
could not be used as a VMWare client.  They then insisted that only
Home Edition would be displayed on retailer shelves.  Users who wanted
to upgrade to Vista Business edition would have to either order it
online, or pay an additional $200 for the upgrade and "Geek Squad"
installation of the upgrade.

The result was a disaster.  End users went to OEMS and started
ordering Windows XP instead, since the license was less restrictive.
In fact, there was even a rush to purchase XP machines before
Microsoft forced the OEMs to stop selling it.  Many end-users paid
premium prices of up to $2500 per PC for machines that featured OpenGL
graphics cards, 4 Gigabyte memory capacity, SATA hard drives, and
Linux compatible WiFi, along with Windows XP operating system.  It's
pretty obvious that these users were buying the machines for the
purpose of running Linux and Windows concurrently, with Linux as the
primary operating system.  Microsoft has simply allowed the OEMs to
to claim the sales as Vista licenses, even though the machines were
shipped as Windows XP.  At one point, according to Dell "most" (over
51%?) of the PCs they were shipping were going out with Windows XP.

The PC department of most electronics stores has become a depressing
place.  Often, the only machines available are the display models,
slots have been left vacant, and in many cases, the PCs aren't even
bootable.  In some stores, the machines are locked down, to prevent
users from testing machines for Linux compatibility using Knoppix or
Live-CD versions of Linux (because they aren't).  In other stores,
about the only machines that are still on display are the ones that
are "Linux Ready", but even those aren't moving because of that Vista
Home Premium license restriction against using it as a VM client.  For
the first year in almost 3 decades, PC retailers are not looking
forward to the Christmas season.

Now, the motherboard manufacturers are offering a hypervisor which is
compatible with several virtualization solutions, and will make it
possible for OEMs to easily configure a machine to run Linux and
Windows concurrently.  The motherboard makers are even offering Linux
as part of the package.  All the OEM has to do is leave room for a
Linux partition on the hard drive.  The problem is that Microsoft
doesn't want to share the hard drive.  That requirement for prior
written consent again.  Microsoft normally insists that OEMs install
Windows on a single partition.  They are allowed to have a Windows
been corrupted by a virus.  The Linux installer and VMware can be
configured to install Windows into a virtual "appliance", but again,
there is that little "gotcha" about not being able to install Vista
Home editions as VM clients.

It almost seems like Microsoft would rather bankrupt the entire PC
industry than allow them to sell the machines with anything other than
a "Pure Microsoft" configuration.  They seem willing to let major
outlets like CompUSA close their doors, rather than allow Linux, OS/X,
and Windows to be seen within 20 feet of each other.  They seem
willing to lose IBM as a customer rather than make concessions that
allow them to sell and support configurations requested by their
customers.

They would rather see 5 HP display machines sitting on the shelves for
3 months unsold, than allow HP to offer configurations that would be
more likely to "fly off the shelves".

Microsoft hyped Longhorn/Vista for almost 7 years.  Even as Windows XP
was being released at the end of 2000, Microsoft was promising that
Longhorn would solve all of the problems that XP hadn't successfully
solved.  Ballmer announced that Linux was "evil" that it's supporters
were "communists" and after 911 even tried to have us declared
helped t orchestrate the lawsuit against IBM by SCO.  They helped to
arrange financing, possibly even helped Daryl McBride get the job,
told him to ignore the advice of his top technical people, and even
appeared to make "guarantees" to Mr Goldfarb, the equity fund that
bailed out SCO when it became appearant that IBM wasn't going to
submit to a quick settlement and admission that Linux users should pay
$700/PC royalties to SCO.

Microsoft is losing, but they still defiantly engage in their illegal
business practices, even when a compliance officer (who is paid by the
marketing department?), a technical committee, and federal
prosecutors, are SUPPOSED to be preventing them from doing so.

Microsoft IS ABOVE THE LAW.

Therfore THERE IS NO LAW.

This is the nature of a Monopoly, and why Monopolies are eventually
broken.

21-Oct-07 03:10 AM

The trouble is that the average person in the street knows nothing about Linux.

They know more about Mac.

The bottom line is money and capitalism!!!!

Gates and Jobs can afford to build a consolidated OS, and afford to
advertise them as well!
Until capitalism really rears its ugly head with Linux, it will only plod
along in an uncoordinated way.

21-Oct-07 03:53 AM

Microsoft is losing, but they still defiantly engage in their illegal

Really, you should read the book *Rats in the Grain* and see if the company
in the book is not still in control of everything you eat, even after being
busted. During the cold war with Russia, Russia had  missiles pointed at the
little city the company's corporate headquarters are located. MS is nothing
compared that company the company. I worked for company, and I know what
it's capable of doing. MS is no match to it.

21-Oct-07 07:45 AM

I haven't read the book, but I did see a quick synopsis.  It sounds
like an interesting book.  You might also want to read the full story
of the Clanton/Erp feud, the Lincoln County wars, and even the
biography of Jesse James.  In each case, farmers, who had been brought
to the area by the railroads, were being driven out by the cowboys,
who had been brought to the same area for the purpose of burning the
farmers off their newly aquired homesteads after spending 7 years
clearing the land and making it suitable for cattle grazing.  In each
case, the railroads committed criminal acts, including cold blooded
murder, and were left unpunished.

As for modern food production, you might also want to view "Harvest of
Shame", a documentary on the virtual slave labor used to harvest many
american food crops.



You have a point there.  To my knowledge, no Microsoft executive has
ordered the murder of a competitor.

Microsoft did obtain it's monopoly illegally, but the evidence to
prove that has been sealed as part of it's settlements.

Microsoft did engage in criminal acts as a monopoly, but the evidence
has been sealed as part of it's settlements.

21-Oct-07 07:47 AM

I am on record saying that Bill Gates would never allow himself or any
member of his family to get into an (imaginary, obviously) airplane or
operating room which uses Windows.

Mr. Gates should be more careful and equally prevent any person he
cares for to be anywhere near:

- ATM
- Voting machines
- and a long etc.

based on Windows.

-Ramon