Sujet : Re: Do Microsoft?sCopilot+ PCs Require Linux? (was: Do MicrosoftsCopilot+ PCs Require Linux?)
De : joelcrump (at) *nospam* gmail.com (Joel)
Groupes : comp.os.linux.advocacyDate : 23. May 2024, 21:19:39
Autres entêtes
Message-ID : <jd5v4jh01l2cobjil6k7tjpuj6g8ricb1q@4ax.com>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6
User-Agent : ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
Tyrone <
none@none.none> wrote:
On May 23, 2024 at 7:58:35?AM EDT, "Andrzej Matuch" <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>
There is no benefit to a corporation looking to have a monopoly to use
UNIX. Microsoft will hold onto the Windows core for as long as they
can, and if they replace it, they will likely do so with a rewritten
Windows core.
>
Microsoft has no monopoly. On anything. It is to their benefit to retire
Windows. Windows usage is shrinking, and has been for the last 14 years.
Monopolies don't go from 95% of the market to 70%.
Windows is a *type of* monopoly, in that only M$ controls it, but it
is used as a general OS. But macOS isn't really less so, it just
isn't seen as a "monopoly" because of lower market share, but what's
the difference? It's a proprietary OS. I can't run native Mac
software without a Mac, unless I have some kind of emulation scheme.
But I would argue, given the choices people do indeed have, there
isn't any one "monopoly" among OSes. Each one individually could be a
type of monopoly, but no one's forcing anyone to use any of them.
Particularly thanks to the open source community (hail Stallman and
Torvalds, etc.), we have a choice that truly is free in price and
freedom.
-- Joel W. CrumpAmendment XIVSection 1.[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.
Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.