Posted on 08/26/2005 6:31:03 PM PDT by Bush2000
Ok, at what point do they no longer have a monopoly. I never said it was illegal. I'm just asking at what level do they stop being a monopoly?
To sell to a market that didn't exist. He was smart to want to keep it anyway, but he was lucky that IBM didn't want it. He was not negotiating from a position of power.
I'm questioning the benefit. There's a significant tradeoff with emulation: Performance.
It would be on the same processor, so not so bad. Think of the old Twunk16.
Apple didn't have a choice. It had to use emulation. It also knew that, despite anything that it does, Apple's users would slavishly suck down Stevie's Kool-Aid and upgrade.
It wasn't exactly emulation, and most applications ran faster under it due to the better memory handling offered by the parent OS. And after switching, and ending up with a world-class OS, they got a lot of converts from Windows.
Define "competition".
Define role first. Desktop OS, can't beat OS X. Server OS, Linux is ahead in many ways, and OS X is more easily managed. Network infrastructure, way behind IOS and any UNIX. Cluster? Forget it, Linux, OS X and other UNIX rules. Going beyond 2003, embedded, they're still trying to get it to work right, behind established embedded OSs including Linux (especially real-time ones). Palmtop, doing pretty well actually, although the interface needs more work (still looks like Windows shoehorned into a palm). Phone, behind Symbian and others.
My best wishes go out to Apple, but I wouldn't hold my breath, if I were you.
Apple has historically had a problem in that they cannot fulfill many orders for new hardware when it's released due to processor shortages. They lose a lot of sales because of it. This time they won't.
No, people buy Macs primarily because of an aesthetic and one-size-fits-all mentality that isn't present in the PC market.
People buy Macs for a variety of reasons, such as better OS, easier to use, easier for a newbie to maintain, no problems with malware, low power consumption, quiet operation, quality of construction, and, yes, they do look better on the desk.
Meaning, the only thing that Apple really gains is performance parity; which isn't enough to drive their sales.
PPC and x86 have been leapfrogging in performance for years. What Apple really gains is a reliable volume supplier of chips with a competitive long-term processor roadmap that will likely never leave Apple out on a limb again. They also gain the ability to switch to a second supplier (AMD) if their current one flakes out on them.
Who knows? Monopoly is vague.
Let me guess, if it wasn't for those pesky suits that run businesses Microsoft would be a big underdog.
It is? Well if one can claim they are a monopoly, surely they must have a threshold where they are no longer a monopoly. Not answering the question is BS, as it lets you play on the M$ is abusing tie-ins argument for as long as you need it.
Interesting but it doesn't fit the bill. It requires users to go to a malicious website.
Ahh. I didn't see that requirement. Just that the exploit be remote, and the system be physically secure.
I did, now are you gonna respond to the post #447 ?
Once again, I'd say all the details of the Mac bet apply. Except it must be a buffer overrun. It's an ongoing discussion.
I have never heard of anything that modifies the current Windows password hash algorithm. But I could also be wrong.
Also, IIRC, at one point Windows used MD4 (easily broken) and obfuscated it using a secret algorithm -- security through obscurity -- and people relied on it. It wasn't too secure once the obfuscation algorithm was leaked. Thus another advantage of open source, security through obscurity (which never works in the long run) is avoided.
Since you're so worried about windows security and like to customize Linux to be more secure, have you changed the crypto on Windows?
I was only talking about what could be done by any programmer (no license and NDA from Microsoft necessary) to enhance a system that is already unbreakable by Rainbow Crack.
It's only unbreakable if configured as such. Same as windows. Just replace the Crypto provider dll and you can have whatever you want. I do believe it has to be signed by M$; however, they will sign all as long as you agree to US export laws of encryption.
Whatever that threshold is, it won't be in percentage. It will be in influence and power, which is decided by the authorities on a case-by-case basis.
Not answering the question is BS, as it lets you play on the M$ is abusing tie-ins argument for as long as you need it.
Only if there's ulterior motive. I hated what IBM was doing as an abusive monopolist, and now I admit they are definitely no longer in a monopoly position. Same will happen with Microsoft eventually, but I don't think the market will relieve Microsoft of its monopoly status for at least a decade or more.
By that asinine standard we shouldn't even be discussing Microsoft because you can't legally run it without a license. I wish you'd say that up front so I wouldn't have to waste my day trying to educate you.
If that's the case, I was only talking about systems that require a windows license. When Linux requires it, then dialog with me again. Now isn't that a stupid comment?
We really know what happened. When I knocked your argument down by saying you could replace the crypto dll, you changed the context of what you're talking about. We know you didn't care about Windows licenses early on or you would just say, I don't deal with Windows licenses.
But even then you said you run win2k3. So obviously you do use windows licenses (or you're a thief). Why can't you just say, "I didn't know that about Windows. I'll research it and use it if applicable. Thank you for letting me now about this great feature to make Windows more secure."
Note to self: When talking to antiRepublicrat, remember his standard requires that no license be required from Microsoft; therefore, it's impossible to "win".
Is Sun a monopoly with it's Java standard?
Let me put it this way: As shipped today, a Windows system has easily-broken passwords. If what you say is true, then a theoretical product can enhance your security.
As shipped today, any Linux distro can have effectively unbreakable passwords, this feature either being enabled by default at install time (like Red Hat does) or as a suggested option (as Debian does).
Sorry, Windows is way behind on this one. It's just a fact.
So did you think M$ was a monopoly prior to the official court ruling saying they were? Or did you just say, "I haven't a clue if they are a monopoly, as that's up to the authorities on a case-by-case basis."
I find that hard to believe you'd say such a thing.
Now you're taking this way off to the side. I said that because anyone can do it to enhance Linux security beyond what already can't be easily broken. It was an extra comment, after proving the modern *NIX password mechanism is superior to Windows, showing how the flexibility of OSS would allow anyone to go even further.
It's just a simple advantage, and fact of life, that open source software gives you far more ease and flexibility to customize your system to your liking. You cannot intelligently dispute that.
We're getting into two different things: opinion and legality. For things like this, I tend to think in terms of legality. Prior to the ruling, Microsoft was an alleged monopolist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.