Unix servers up 2.7%, Linux servers up 35.6% 1371
 |
If it was public domain, then why did Microsoft pay for it? Well, (a), it *wasn't* 'public domain'. See, for example, here...
"Poor Spyglbutt Software"??? Spyglbutt sold MS the technology for IE 1.0 which everyone on the planet considers to be a joke. The technology was public domain in any event, and was just obscurely held by those who had worked on Mosaic.
Come, come, now, Ray! You brought it up on your item 2, which, in context and on its face necessarily follows item 1. You refer to this "monopoly" when you discuss the alleged deliberate conduct by Microsoft to affect Lotus 123.
I don't agree that they are unethical. There is no requirement to aid and abet the efforts of the compebreastion. If they try to take a free ride on your efforts, it is not so terrible to bump them off the wagon.
OS-2 v1.1 with Presentation Manager was the principal compebreastion to Windows in the 1992-1993 era, Ray! It was the cause of the breakup between MSFT and IBM.
in the sense of not being patented? "Public domain" is a *copyright* term, not a patent term. (Go ask DFS, he thinks that any open-source program...
Both. DR-DOS offers some compebreastion in the market, Microsoft counters with a discount offer under circumstances that would be most effective where the threat was most pronounced. That's the way things work, Ray, i.e. market move, counter move. What is so wrong with that? Do you expect the leader to surrender whenever threatened?
You are being obtuse here, Ray. The AARD code was seen by next to no one and was not seen by anyone who was following the rules.
You conveniently snip my explanatory comment "the decision had nothing at all to do with the AARD code, and I never even knew about it until 10 years later. The decision at the time was based solely on the belief that Microsoft was here to stay and that they would be diligent in making Windows work with DOS first and foremost." in trying to unfairly misrepresent my remarks.
I was replying in context where you said "if you have to use Windows". Certainly for those who, like ourselves, had to use Windows, the choice of MS-DOS over DR-DOS was easy to make on the expectation that Microsoft would make sure of their own products first. As to keeping people off of DR-DOS in general, I don't think it had so much of an effect as the fact that DR-DOS wasn't perceived as being all that attractive and the fact that MS-DOS was already well in the lead when DR-DOS came about.