Denys wrote:

> Why do
> people automatically assume that success was achieved through cheating and
> then desire the successful to be punished?

We don't assume; Compaq told us.  After all, Netscape doesn't have an OEM
to tell "Put our browser on every machine you sell, and put the icon in the
user's face, or we'll yank your license to sell the OS on which your hardware
sales are based."

> Me, I admire success.  I think success should be rewarded not punished.

Me, I admire a great product.  Adager, Qedit, and Suprtool--to name a few
off the top of my head--are all great products, even backed up by great
support, and I wish every success to their respective companies.

If Office 98 is as good as preliminary reports indicate, then I wish
more power to Microsoft.

As for successful companies in general, I do not believe that the end
justifies the means.  If a database is a piece of horse-pucky, then
the company who makes it should not get rich on the basis of it.
If they do, then they do NOT have my admiration; rather, I question
how it came to be.

Did the competition not market as well?  Or were lies told along
the way?  Or was there some other reason?

> What cracks me up about this whole fiasco is that Netscape is THE
> undisputed leader in Web Browsers.  Do people think it is going to
> disappear overnight?  If it does, perhaps it was meant to be.

Today I read where Netscape has 55% of the browser market (though I think
Mr. Andreesen disputes that figure).  I believe that the crux of the matter
is that MS is not playing on a level field (see Compaq example above).

If MS Write (or whatever that bare bones text editor is that MS bundles
with the OS) was instead MS Word, then you can bet the competition would
scream. (It's tough to consider Lotus's Ami Pro competition, but I don't
recall any others.)

If a 'lynx' port (text only) were bundled as a browser, there may be a
little complaining, but likely not alot, as marketing would quickly show
its very real limitations.  But bundling a real competitor...

I strongly suspect that many home consumers (whom MS has stated repeatedly
is the target market for Windows 9x) are not entirely savvy on their
options.  Further, I strongly doubt that any would look further if the
bundled, in-their-face (on the desktop) browser filled their needs.

With MS Write, it doesn't take long to realize its bare-bones nature.
For IE, which is real competition to Netscape, there can be no such
realization.  Would you complain if Netscape was the browser on the
desktop, and IE had to be downloaded?  If IE then disappeared, would
you say *that* was meant to be?

[snip]
> IBM played the Washington game very well and was never seriously
> bothered by the government.

How long was that anti-trust suit?
I guess the DOJ action against MS has to run for another decade
before we can call MS "seriously bothered" by the government.

[snip]
> Three years later, after losing US$3 billion, IBM quietly sold the
> manufacturing and research part of ROLM to Siemens and retained the sales
> force.  IBM gave up on the telephone business and went back to computers.
> The government never said a word about this one.  They let the market do
> what they do best, decide for themselves.

And that's what I believe the government wants to ensure happens here:
they want the market to decide for itself, without MS exercising
questionable ethics.

If IBM had said that with each computer installation, we will GIVE YOU
telephone equipment to use so you don't have to bother with the others,
I wonder what would've happened.  (Never mind the economics to IBM... ;)

> If tomorrow, MS started giving away SQL Server with
> every copy of Windows NT Server, the clamor would be deafening.  Yet, I do
> not recall ever hearing people gripe about the fact IMAGE was being given
> away gratis with MPE.  Or VPLUS, a user interface.

If HP owned 80+ percent of the mainframe market, you can bet there would
be gripes from other vendors.

> I want MS to keep IE bundled into Windows.  Having IE bundled into Windows
> does not prevent someone from installing Netscape.  Also note that no
> computer manufacturer wants to pre-install Windows without IE.

I'm not convinced this is true.  We know that Compaq did not want the IE
icon on the desktop (or the threat from MS never would have happened).

> Having the DOJ say that MS must remove IE from Windows 95 is
> actually a slap in Netscape's technical face.  The DOJ is in effect,
> saying that Netscape is too stupid to maintain their lead and they
> need help.

...against monopolistic practices, not that Netscape is stupid.

Best Regards,
and Best Wishes to ALL for a happy, healthy, and peaceful holiday season,

--Glenn Cole
  Software al dente, Inc.
  [log in to unmask]