Some accurate perceptions indeed, but you left out these:
- Control the client market, control the server market.
- Instigate wide spread acceptance of a proprietary standard.
On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 02:37:20PM +0100, Bernhard Rosenkraenzer wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Feb 2000, Robert Fausey wrote:
>
> > Microsoft is considering releasing a Linux version of
> > its Windows Media Player.
> >
> > Any opinions?
>
> Call me paranoid, but I think there are only three possible explanations:
>
> - Vaporware. They announce it so nobody will care enough to release a
> replacement, but they never actually release it.
>
> - "We are not a monopoly. See, even people who need Microsoft Media Player
> are running other systems. And now that the court believes it, we'll
> quickly stop maintaining this port."
>
> - A deliberately bad port: "Benchmarks clearly show Windows is superior to
> Linux. Doing the same thing in Microsoft Media Player for Windows takes
> only about half the time it takes in Microsoft Media Player for Linux.
> Anyone who cares about speed shouldn't use Linux."
>
> LLaP
> bero
>
> --
> The first time Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is when they
> start making vacuum cleaners.
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe"
> as the Subject.
>
--
J. Scott Kasten
jsk AT tetracon-eng DOT net
"That wasn't an attack. It was preemptive retaliation!"
--
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe"
as the Subject.
