From: Mac Norton <mnorton@cavern.uark.edu>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 11:24:47 +0800
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Subject: Re: Bill Gates, the Bully Savior
In-Reply-To: <v0300780cb073f0205b7b@[168.161.105.141]>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.96.971022215855.9350C-100000@cavern.uark.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Well, nobody is purporting to decide for anybody, as I understand
the case, what is an "operating system" in general. DOJ only 
seeks to enforce what MS agreed to, in the Decree. If those two
parties chose to define OS for that pupose, and only for that
purpose, as blanketyblank, why do we care? Because that's all
their litigation is about.
MacN

On Wed, 22 Oct 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:

> There was a good op-ed in the WSJ on Monday. The Politics of Envy,
> basically. Why everyone in Silicon Valley hates Microsoft...
> 
> But some of the complaints about Microsoft come down to personal taste. The
> masses offend refined sensibilities when they buy Windows 95 in droves.
> Rein them in! Stop them from buying what they want! Don't let them get free
> copies of Internet Explorer.
> 
> I share Lizard's distaste for Microsoft products. My Unix workstation at
> home has not one MSFT application on it. I have only Microsoft Word on my
> Duo at work, and I could get by with WordPerfect. But our dislike for their
> products doesn't mean that we are morally justified in restricting what the
> company can do.
> 
> -Declan
> 
> 
> 
> At 10:42 -0700 10/22/97, Lizard wrote:
> >Uhm...how do 'we all' benefit from having the same Justice Department which
> >defended the CDA (and which is pushing for GAK) decide for us all what is,
> >and is not, part of an operating system?
> >
> >These people are not qualified to make ANY judgements about computers -- I
> >have to assume the 'experts' they got to tell them about OS software are no
> >more qualified than the 'experts' they got to testify about the CDA (L-18,
> >anyone?).
> >
> >I have no great love for Microsoft (I don't think anyone forced to use
> >their crappy software does), and, emotionally, I'd like to see them get
> >taken down a peg -- but legally and ethically, they are not doing anything
> >wrong. They're just being tough competitors. Microsoft has prospered not
> >due to any technical brilliance on their part, but due to sheer
> >incompetance on the part of the rest of the industry, who have made a hobby
> >of underestimating Bill Gates and overestimating their own customers loyalty.
> >
> >It's a pity I'm a mind-flaying victim. If I wasn't, I could forget
> >principles and ideals and just say, "Microsoft Big. Microsoft Nasty. Uncle
> >Sam stomp Microsoft. Yay, Uncle Sam." But because I work from principle
> >FIRST, I have to grant Microsoft the same rights I would grant Sam's Deli
> >or Joe's Shoe Store, and that includes the right to offer any combination
> >of products or services they wish, and let the market decide to buy or not.
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------
> Declan McCullagh
> Time Inc.
> The Netly News Network
> Washington Correspondent
> http://netlynews.com/
> 
> 
>