I personally don't think that's a very good arguement.
first: X-windows isn't owned by Linux. And linux isn't the only
multitasking os around (try freebsd, solaris, irix, sunos, minix to name
a few), and it would take more than two years to produce windows from
Linux. Windows 95 was probably built on from the win16 versions windows
3.11.
Second, Microsoft DID release a multitasking os for the pc platform
(xenix, that's already been discussed earlier in the thread), but
thought that DOS would be the way to go.
Third: the whole point of making products require IE is so that IE is
installed (and used) on that machine. Otherwise why do it? It can't be
because IE has some capabilities that the programs incorporate, that's
what dll's are for: to provide that modularisation.
Fourth: Yes the windows style thingy looks similar to X-Windows, but
that doesn't mean that it was derived from the same code, or that the
backend works the same way at all. In fact, it works a fair bit
differently. The *ideas* had probably have been used, and customised
from there. Copyright violation of intellectual property. I do actually
believe that Microsoft did pay for the right to use a windowing style
system, as did the unix comunity. X-windows originated from Xerox, and
some lovely person bought it off them. Can't remember who.
Fifth: the so called "security measures" in NT aren't really the same as
Linux at all. About all there is are file permisions and passwords and
access lists. To get a lot of the security that a unix os (such as
linux) provide you have to PURCHASE third party products for to get them
on NT. You don't even have half of the security features that NT has
under windows 95.
While I do not support or reject Microsofts arguments, I do believe that
the facts have to be recognised.
That's (as "Techno Joe" says) is MY $0.02c worth!
Chris Dowling.
Unix System Administrator.
Joseph Wagner wrote:
>
> This is a big, brilliant joke. However, if you want a serious talk about
> copyright infringements, you should check out this article at:
>
> http://www.osopinion.com/Opinions/TechnoJoe/TechnoJoe1.html
>
> It's a slick idea.
>
> Thanks for your time.
>
> Joe Wagner
>
> --
> To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe"
> as the Subject.
--
If a manager offers "constructive advice" and no-one is around to hear
it,
is he still an idiot?
Chris Dowling.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe"
as the Subject.
