«

"Anthony Neville" wrote
> > > Did you know that MS is being sued for anti-competitive practices for
not
> > promoting Linux with their Windows XP product?

> > nope... post the link.

> I made it up... Western justice has become so riddled with corruption
such a scenario
> would be quite believable.

well I fell for it... wasn't there something about Netscape during the
browser wars that MS had to mention them in windows 95?

"Lennier" wrote
> > I made it up... Western justice has become so riddled with corruption
> > such a scenario would be quite believable.
>
> NZ's judicial system is NOT "so riddled with corruption"!

really... you live in an ideal world Lennier....

On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 21:27:57 +1200, "Anthony Neville"
<> wrote:

>
>"T.N.O." <> wrote in message news:3f5bda4e$...
>> "steve" wrote
>> > The masses didn't know there was anything else.
>> > My non-PC-literate neighbours all confirm this.
>>
>> so Microsoft is at fault for the masses lack of education... right.
>>
>
>Did you know that MS is being sued for anti-competitive practices for not promoting
>Linux with their Windows XP product?
>

Heh, good one Tony.

The one that always cranked my handle was MS's use of the desktop to
promote their other business activities, in particular the Microsoft
Network.

Any advertising guru will confirm that the Windows desktop is the most
valuable piece of real estate in the world, an advertising billboard
like no-one has ever seen before. Same applies to other practices like
setting msn as the home page on internet explorer. The likes of our
Commerce Commission are so effing useless & clueless they completely
failed to notice that MS were gaining a monstrously unfair competitive
advantage there, and nothing was ever done about it. Every new PC I
came across or set up I used to delete all references to MS stuff,
because I knew most newbies would sooner or later click on the links.

About the only good was the MS Network was so ridiculously overpriced,
at about $18 per hour when Win95 came out, that few people ever used
it past the free trial period. But I know for a fact that a lot of
people did sign up for it, could always tell because the desktop icon
changed once you'd connected to msn.

Gavin

"Bret" wrote
> >> > I made it up... Western justice has become so riddled with
corruption
> >> > such a scenario would be quite believable.
> >>
> >> NZ's judicial system is NOT "so riddled with corruption"!
> >
> >really... you live in an ideal world Lennier....
> >
> I would describe it as a fantasy world after a statement like that.

heh, yeah, but I don't like using the word "fantasy" in this group... Roger
seems to think we are all little boys who play with playstations... kinda
worrying.

"Lennier" <> wrote in message
newsan.2003.09.08.12.58.54.937544@TRACKER...
> On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 00:04:19 +1200, Anthony Neville wrote:
>
> > Yet
> > somehow I believe given enough resources, you'd stoop low enough to be the
> > flag bearer for any company that tried it.
>
> I think that I'd "fly the flag" for any company which was honest,
> reputable, and encouraged cooperation and openness. And I'd put the
> boot into any company which discouraged the same.

Oh, you are ~for~ honest and reputable companies. Cobblers. Your hatred of
Microsoft is so intense, you'd back any louse of a company which having failed
to gain market share in the free market uses the government to grab some of it
from Microsoft. That you responded by saying "Good" when I said Microsoft was
being sued for not promoting Linux alongside WinXP proves you would wave
the flag for a company that lacked honesty and reputation so long as the boot
of government gets put into Microsoft. With regards to your idea of cooperation
and openness, well, from a fanatical Linux bot and open-source advocate it could
mean that companies which make it clear they prefer closed-source as opposed
to open-source are the unclean, the enemy, or have "gone bad". It is possible
that if the open-source concept ever becomes mainstream, we would begin
seeing people crawling out of the woodwork demanding that governments
legislate against the remaining companies wanting to keep their source code
private property.

> Micro$oft has not exhibited any of those qualities - certainly not in
> recent years as it has tried to obfuscate the faults of it's software and
> throw FUD around about non-Micro$oft programmes and systems.

So Microsoft fights to keep its property closed sourced, and publically denounces
open-source because it is a threat to them commercially. I don't care! That's
business. You know who has the monopoly on FUD, Lennier? Our politicians
and political lobby groups do. Not Microsoft. Microsoft doesn't even rate
against them. I do care about any security holes in Microsoft's software known
to Microsoft which it has kept tight lipped about but has neglected to fix. That ~is~
a good reason to stick the boot in.

Tony.

"Gavin Tunney" <> wrote in message news:...
> On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 21:27:57 +1200, "Anthony Neville"
> <> wrote:
>
> >
> >"T.N.O." <> wrote in message news:3f5bda4e$...
> >> "steve" wrote
> >> > The masses didn't know there was anything else.
> >> > My non-PC-literate neighbours all confirm this.
> >>
> >> so Microsoft is at fault for the masses lack of education... right.
> >>
> >
> >Did you know that MS is being sued for anti-competitive practices for not promoting
> >Linux with their Windows XP product?
> >
>
> Heh, good one Tony.
>
> The one that always cranked my handle was MS's use of the desktop to
> promote their other business activities, in particular the Microsoft
> Network.
>
> Any advertising guru will confirm that the Windows desktop is the most
> valuable piece of real estate in the world, an advertising billboard
> like no-one has ever seen before. Same applies to other practices like
> setting msn as the home page on internet explorer. The likes of our
> Commerce Commission are so effing useless & clueless they completely
> failed to notice that MS were gaining a monstrously unfair competitive
> advantage there, and nothing was ever done about it. Every new PC I
> came across or set up I used to delete all references to MS stuff,
> because I knew most newbies would sooner or later click on the links.
>
> About the only good was the MS Network was so ridiculously overpriced,
> at about $18 per hour when Win95 came out, that few people ever used
> it past the free trial period. But I know for a fact that a lot of
> people did sign up for it, could always tell because the desktop icon
> changed once you'd connected to msn.

Screw the Commerse Commission! The Windows OS is Microsoft's
baby. If it chose to plaster Wall-mart icons over the desktop, implant
AOL services into Internet Explorer, or advertised Chicken McNuggets
in the Start menu, well that is Microsoft's prerogative. We may curse MS
for doing it, but MS owns MS Windows, and I would NEVER propose
violating anyone's private property rights no matter what the size of
their business.

Tony.

"Gavin Tunney" <> wrote in message news:...
> On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 21:27:57 +1200, "Anthony Neville"
> <> wrote:
> >
> >Did you know that MS is being sued for anti-competitive practices for not promoting
> >Linux with their Windows XP product?
> >
>
> Heh, good one Tony.
>
> The one that always cranked my handle was MS's use of the desktop to
> promote their other business activities, in particular the Microsoft
> Network.
>
> Any advertising guru will confirm that the Windows desktop is the most
> valuable piece of real estate in the world, an advertising billboard
> like no-one has ever seen before. Same applies to other practices like
> setting msn as the home page on internet explorer. The likes of our
> Commerce Commission are so effing useless & clueless they completely
> failed to notice that MS were gaining a monstrously unfair competitive
> advantage there, and nothing was ever done about it. Every new PC I
> came across or set up I used to delete all references to MS stuff,
> because I knew most newbies would sooner or later click on the links.
>
> About the only good was the MS Network was so ridiculously overpriced,
> at about $18 per hour when Win95 came out, that few people ever used
> it past the free trial period. But I know for a fact that a lot of
> people did sign up for it, could always tell because the desktop icon
> changed once you'd connected to msn.

Screw the Commerse Commission! The Windows OS is Microsoft's
baby. If it chose to plaster Wall-mart icons over the desktop, implant
AOL services into Internet Explorer, or advertised Chicken McNuggets
in the Start menu, well that is Microsoft's prerogative. We may curse MS
for doing it, but MS owns MS Windows, and I would NEVER propose
violating anyone's private property rights no matter what the size of
their business.

Tony.

"Olson Johnson" <> wrote in message news...
> On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 21:20:15 +1200, Anthony Neville wrote:
>
> >
> > Think about this. If you want to people to know about a product you have got to
> > advertise it. This is so rudimentary I should not have to even mention it to a grown
> > man. Radio, TV, mainstream newpapers and magazines are the places
> > to advertise to the masses,
>
> Something like this ?
>
> http://koobox.com/
>
> or this
>
>
http://www.walmart.com/catalog/searc...&Continue=Find
>
> Its not my personal cup of tea, but I assume its the type of thing you are
> talking about.

Yeah, Lindows has the right idea.

> All the stuff is there, different vendors are selling to different
> markets.
> Redhat Suse Mandrake etc are geared up to sell for business use.
> Packaging for the home consumer is different, and thats what Lindows is
> doing.

What Lindows is doing is good, but who else is doing it? Lindows is a tiny
company. What about Redhat and Mandrake, or the so called United Linux
organisation. Are they not interest in marketing a desktop OS to the masses?
Microsoft is a natural monopoly, yet every man and his dog knows about
Apple computers because Apple Corp knows how to market a product. But
we see little or no advertising on Radio, TV, in papers and mainstream
magazines about computers running Suse, Debian, Redhat or Mandrake.
The real reason why Linux is an utter loser in the market place of desktop
OSes is because a user friendly Linux desktop OS that even your momma
can use was never taken seriously by any Linux company, except Lindows.
That's why the masses have never heard of Linux even though it has been
around for what must be close to a decade.

Tony.

On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 17:47:35 +1200, Anthony Neville wrote:

>
> "Olson Johnson" <> wrote in message news...
>> On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 21:20:15 +1200, Anthony Neville wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Think about this. If you want to people to know about a product you have got to
>> > advertise it. This is so rudimentary I should not have to even mention it to a grown
>> > man. Radio, TV, mainstream newpapers and magazines are the places
>> > to advertise to the masses,
>>
>> Something like this ?
>>
>> http://koobox.com/
>>
>> or this
>>
>>
> http://www.walmart.com/catalog/searc...&Continue=Find
>>
>> Its not my personal cup of tea, but I assume its the type of thing you are
>> talking about.
>
> Yeah, Lindows has the right idea.
>
>> All the stuff is there, different vendors are selling to different
>> markets.
>> Redhat Suse Mandrake etc are geared up to sell for business use.
>> Packaging for the home consumer is different, and thats what Lindows is
>> doing.
>
> What Lindows is doing is good, but who else is doing it? Lindows is a tiny
> company. What about Redhat and Mandrake, or the so called United Linux
> organisation. Are they not interest in marketing a desktop OS to the masses?
> Microsoft is a natural monopoly, yet every man and his dog knows about
> Apple computers because Apple Corp knows how to market a product. But
> we see little or no advertising on Radio, TV, in papers and mainstream
> magazines about computers running Suse, Debian, Redhat or Mandrake.
> The real reason why Linux is an utter loser in the market place of desktop
> OSes is because a user friendly Linux desktop OS that even your momma
> can use was never taken seriously by any Linux company, except Lindows.
> That's why the masses have never heard of Linux even though it has been
> around for what must be close to a decade.
>
> Tony.


Because no one has a monopoly in Linux, companies are free to focus on
particular user groups. Its not a good idea for everyone in the bazaar to
sell the same thing.
Redhat and Mandrake are distributions but their core business is not the
home user.
Thats the niche that Lindows has chosen because this is the time at which
home computer users are starting to become aware of Linux.
Redhat Debian Suse and Mandrake have helped develop the body of software
that has made Lindows possible, so all Lindows has had to do is develop a
sort of a home user interface layer.

Lindows is KDE on Debian with that home user interface layer.
Its pretty much how I build my own desktop straight off the debian
archives, without Click n Go, because everything is already available that
I need. Lindows is the convenience food version.
The learning curve for Linux is quite steep at the start, and then it
rapidly becomes quite easy. There has not yet been a big payoff for
smoothing out that curve, and Lindows is the first Linux product to make
that its sole purpose.

The masses have heard of Unix, its known to be scary and its been around
forever.
Most people who know what Linux is but haven't used it are aware that it
is related to Unix and therefore scary.
It will be interesting to see what a few more years of exposure to
products like Lindows does to change that public perception.

On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 12:33:07 +1200, "Anthony Neville"
<> wrote:

>
>"Gavin Tunney" <> wrote in message news:...
>> On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 21:27:57 +1200, "Anthony Neville"
>> <> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"T.N.O." <> wrote in message news:3f5bda4e$...
>> >> "steve" wrote
>> >> > The masses didn't know there was anything else.
>> >> > My non-PC-literate neighbours all confirm this.
>> >>
>> >> so Microsoft is at fault for the masses lack of education... right.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Did you know that MS is being sued for anti-competitive practices for not promoting
>> >Linux with their Windows XP product?
>> >
>>
>> Heh, good one Tony.
>>
>> The one that always cranked my handle was MS's use of the desktop to
>> promote their other business activities, in particular the Microsoft
>> Network.
>>
>> Any advertising guru will confirm that the Windows desktop is the most
>> valuable piece of real estate in the world, an advertising billboard
>> like no-one has ever seen before. Same applies to other practices like
>> setting msn as the home page on internet explorer. The likes of our
>> Commerce Commission are so effing useless & clueless they completely
>> failed to notice that MS were gaining a monstrously unfair competitive
>> advantage there, and nothing was ever done about it. Every new PC I
>> came across or set up I used to delete all references to MS stuff,
>> because I knew most newbies would sooner or later click on the links.
>>
>> About the only good was the MS Network was so ridiculously overpriced,
>> at about $18 per hour when Win95 came out, that few people ever used
>> it past the free trial period. But I know for a fact that a lot of
>> people did sign up for it, could always tell because the desktop icon
>> changed once you'd connected to msn.
>
>Screw the Commerse Commission! The Windows OS is Microsoft's
>baby. If it chose to plaster Wall-mart icons over the desktop, implant
>AOL services into Internet Explorer, or advertised Chicken McNuggets
>in the Start menu, well that is Microsoft's prerogative. We may curse MS
>for doing it, but MS owns MS Windows, and I would NEVER propose
>violating anyone's private property rights no matter what the size of
>their business.
>

Get a grip Anthony, the major activity of government is to 'violate'
private property rights.

If you have a read of the Commerce Act you'll find a section in it
somewhere covering 'misuse of a dominant position in the market'.
Using a virtual monopoly in one market to (unfairly) gain commercial
advantage in another market would qualify for that I think. There's
quite sound reasons our govt made that illegal, competition is an
economic benefit and allowing a large multi-national player to
dominate our markets thru economic might is not in our interests.

It's all academic now anyway, MSN got their free advertising while
every other ISP had to pay for theirs. They just didn't get any free
advertising via me, I always deleted it.......which of course was MY
prerogative

Gavin