3 ms·

Ironically, I already predicted that the EC would likely bend over and accept MS's ridiculous proposal, but we would never know since the CMA rejecting it firs

Ironically, I already predicted that the EC would likely bend over and accept MS's ridiculous proposal, but we would never know since the CMA rejecting it first would leave the EC in a untenable position. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35772912 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35772912 I guess it is not as untenable as I thought, and the EC believes it can just throw shit towards the CMA until they get away with it. I also have my confirmation on whether the EC would be stupid enough to accept the deal. Anyway, you cannot disagree with the fact that MS still _tried_ to stifle Linux, which is the point (and the part that I'm quoting). And arguably both as server and as a desktop OS.

shadowgovt 3y ago
Sure, back in the day. And they don't go out of their way to support it in the modern era. ...but this goes back to the US interpretation of "monopoly practice" vs. the European interpretation. Where was the consumer harm? How does MS "stifle" an OS that you can just pick up from a CD, floppy disk, or the Internet and drop on a machine you own? History seems to have shown "You can't." In general, the biggest hindrance to Linux desktop adoption is the Linux UX (and for games, the experience of building one with the libraries available on Linux [https://utopixel.games/en/blog/building-outer-wonders-for-linux/ https://utopixel.games/en/blog/building-outer-wonders-for-li...]), not anything Microsoft (or Apple, for that matter) have done to it.
- AshamedCaptain 3y ago
  "Back in the day" is stretching it since MS did this 2 months ago. With the same strategy they used to kill Be decades ago, which obviously works. It's irrelevant what you think about Linux UX. It is just fact that MS is worried enough that _to this day_ they are using their monopoly position to stifle non-Windows OSes ( desktop AND server) every frigging time they can. Same way they have doing continuously for decades. And also despite the fact their marketing dept says that "MS loves Linux" and the armchair analysts say that MS makes money from Linux servers.
  - shadowgovt 3y ago
    Are you talking about Be as in Be Incorporated? With the BeBox and BeOS? They settled a lawsuit with Microsoft, but Be didn't fail because of anything Microsoft did any more than it failed because of anything Apple did. Nobody wanted yet another operating system to write code against. Be failed for the same reason that Plan 9 hasn't caught fire and served as a meaningful alternative to the Linux ecosystem; when your architecture is too far divorced from the existing ecosystems after the ecosystems grow sufficiently large, it doesn't matter if your solution is slightly better... Developers don't want to invest the time starting over. Monopoly protection is a lot of things, but it isn't a mechanism for somebody to try and compete with DC power for long distance transmission when the world has already wired up AC.
    - AshamedCaptain 3y ago
      Again, it's irrelevant what your opinion of the competition is. I'm just pointing that _they are_ abusing their dominant position to stiffle the competition, as recently as 2 months ago, and using the same tactiques they have been using since forever. "The competition sucks" has never been an argument _at all_ in any antitrust case and never will, by definition.
      - shadowgovt 3y ago
        "Competition is a ruthless process. A firm that reduces cost and expands sales injures rivals--sometimes fatally." ~ Ball Mem'l Hosp., Inc. v. Mut. Hosp. Ins., Inc., 784 F.2d 1325, 1338 (7th Cir. 1986) (Easterbrook, J.)., sourced from the DOJ website. (https://www.justice.gov/archives/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-firm-conduct-under-section-2-sherman-act-chapter-1 https://www.justice.gov/archives/atr/competition-and-monopol...). Also worth noting on that page: "At its core, section 2 makes it illegal to acquire or maintain monopoly power through improper means." Monopoly itself is not illegal in the US system; consumer harm is. This differs from the European interpretation. ... but yes, "Your honor, the competition is just too bad at this to compete" is an antitrust defense as a result. At least in the US system.

shadowgovt 3y ago

Sure, back in the day. And they don't go out of their way to support it in the modern era. ...but this goes back to the US interpretation of "monopoly practice" vs. the European interpretation. Where was the consumer harm? How does MS "stifle" an OS that you can just pick up from a CD, floppy disk, or the Internet and drop on a machine you own? History seems to have shown "You can't." In general, the biggest hindrance to Linux desktop adoption is the Linux UX (and for games, the experience of building one with the libraries available on Linux [https://utopixel.games/en/blog/building-outer-wonders-for-linux/ https://utopixel.games/en/blog/building-outer-wonders-for-li...]), not anything Microsoft (or Apple, for that matter) have done to it.

AshamedCaptain 3y ago
"Back in the day" is stretching it since MS did this 2 months ago. With the same strategy they used to kill Be decades ago, which obviously works. It's irrelevant what you think about Linux UX. It is just fact that MS is worried enough that _to this day_ they are using their monopoly position to stifle non-Windows OSes ( desktop AND server) every frigging time they can. Same way they have doing continuously for decades. And also despite the fact their marketing dept says that "MS loves Linux" and the armchair analysts say that MS makes money from Linux servers.
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  Are you talking about Be as in Be Incorporated? With the BeBox and BeOS? They settled a lawsuit with Microsoft, but Be didn't fail because of anything Microsoft did any more than it failed because of anything Apple did. Nobody wanted yet another operating system to write code against. Be failed for the same reason that Plan 9 hasn't caught fire and served as a meaningful alternative to the Linux ecosystem; when your architecture is too far divorced from the existing ecosystems after the ecosystems grow sufficiently large, it doesn't matter if your solution is slightly better... Developers don't want to invest the time starting over. Monopoly protection is a lot of things, but it isn't a mechanism for somebody to try and compete with DC power for long distance transmission when the world has already wired up AC.
  - AshamedCaptain 3y ago
    Again, it's irrelevant what your opinion of the competition is. I'm just pointing that _they are_ abusing their dominant position to stiffle the competition, as recently as 2 months ago, and using the same tactiques they have been using since forever. "The competition sucks" has never been an argument _at all_ in any antitrust case and never will, by definition.
    - shadowgovt 3y ago
      "Competition is a ruthless process. A firm that reduces cost and expands sales injures rivals--sometimes fatally." ~ Ball Mem'l Hosp., Inc. v. Mut. Hosp. Ins., Inc., 784 F.2d 1325, 1338 (7th Cir. 1986) (Easterbrook, J.)., sourced from the DOJ website. (https://www.justice.gov/archives/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-firm-conduct-under-section-2-sherman-act-chapter-1 https://www.justice.gov/archives/atr/competition-and-monopol...). Also worth noting on that page: "At its core, section 2 makes it illegal to acquire or maintain monopoly power through improper means." Monopoly itself is not illegal in the US system; consumer harm is. This differs from the European interpretation. ... but yes, "Your honor, the competition is just too bad at this to compete" is an antitrust defense as a result. At least in the US system.