Re: Bundling and operating systems

[Eric Lee Green <elgreen@iname.com>]

On Sun, 19 Dec 1999, Mitch Stone wrote:
> Eric, the reason you're not hearing much support for your viewpoints is 
> not because we don't agree. Speaking for myself, at least, I believe you 
> are 100% correct, and I believe others feel likewise. And you have 
> articulated the points succinctly and lucidly, which is entirely to your 
> credit. No, the reason we stay clear of the fray is because we are simply 
> bone-weary of Lewis Mettler's broken record approach to this question. 

Oh, I was already aware of that. I started this thread primarily to allow Lewis
Mettler to make a fool out of himself, which he has proceeded to do by saying
that a prominent Linux activist is a Microsoft plant and that if one single
person is harmed by a bundling action then it's illegal. 

> You will soon learn (I sincerely hope) that his position is inflexible 
> and absolutist in the extreme, and that he will reject out of hand all 
> data which does not conform to his rather bizarre theories.

I suspect that I will be going away soon, simply because the entertainment
value of watching L.A.M.E. humiliate himself will soon wear thin. I do think
that his focus upon one particular action, bundling IE as part of Windows 98, is
short-sighted and ignores the realities of the modern operating systems
market..  It is Microsoft's business practices and abuses of its monopoly
position, such as not allowing Netscape to be bundled with the OS on an equal
basis with IE and its retaliation against OEM's which dare to sell machines
without an OS for use by Fortune 500 companies that have already
site-licensed Microsoft operating systems, which has resulted in consumer harm.
The bundling of IE, by contrast, has had only a minor effect, and it would have
been minor indeed if vendors such as Compaq had been allowed to bundle Netscape
on an equal basis. 

-- 
Eric Lee Green   e_l_green@hotmail.com
  http://members.tripod.com/e_l_green/