Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 13:26:45 -0500 From: Drew Baxter <netmonger@genesis.ispace.com> To: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com> Cc: freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Internet Explorer and UNIX Message-ID: <4.1.19981104132327.00a802f0@genesis.ispace.com> In-Reply-To: <364020B1.A21D6174@newsguy.com> References: <199811031907.MAA02861@usr05.primenet.com> <4.1.19981103170405.00a94280@genesis.ispace.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 06:38 PM 11/4/98 +0900, Daniel C. Sobral wrote: >Drew Baxter wrote: >> >> Microsoft also bought into Web Browsers. By basing their product off of >> Mosaic, they enter yet another market where there is already a more capable >> company (Netscape) producing a product that is their sole reason for >> existance. Netscape makes products for the web and having to do with the >> net and the web. >> >> I would buy a toaster from Proctor-Silex, not from the Seiko Watch Company. >> People and corporations need to learn to have a DISTINCT existance in a >> market, and leave the one-level marketplaces alone, ESPECIALLY Netscape. >> It's one thing to make a product to compete with a company that isn't >> fulfilling their end of the bargain, it's another to try to eradicate them >> with the ability of hiring a ton of programmers and submerge them with >> their 86%(?) Home OS Power.. > >Now, come on! Microsoft had very good reasons to compete in the >browser market! If Internet-based client-server applications became >too important, the operating system you were running wouldn't matter! >That meant Microsoft needed things like FrontPage (sp?) and that >horrible alternative to Java they have that I have even forgotten it's >name (no, don't remind me!). And, if they wanted that, they needed a >server *and* a client. A client they could control, of course. > >Moreover, at the time MS decided to get into this market, it was >widely claimed by the press that "browser" software would *replace the >desktop UI*. That *is* a very serious treat to Microsoft. If the >public can't see it, it doesn't matter. That's why Windows 95 is an >"operating system", instead of a GUI over an operating system. > >You may hate them, and they may have been _illegally_ unfair, but it >was *not* something out of the blue. > >-- >Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS) >dcs@newsguy.com > How do you call this competitive? They don't give open paperwork for their "ActiveX" standard, otherwise I'd imagine someone (Maybe even Netscape) would portal it into Netscape products.. The other thing is, I don't see an option to install Netscape anywhere on a Win95 or a Win98 CD. That's using their market share in the Home (and business) PC market to promote their own product. The consumer should have an option over what they want to install during bootup. Win98's IE4 is integrated into the shell (without any prayer of removing it).. Microsoft tells customers "Oh no chance that Win95 will run under Caldera/Digital Research DR. DOS" Like hell, they just don't want to market it without their DOS layer under it so people can use DR. DOS. As it goes, Caldera proved them wrong, but still, let's be real here. --- Drew "Droobie" Baxter Network Admin/Professional Computer Nerd(TM) OneEX: The OneNetwork Exchange 207-942-0275 http://www.droo.orland.me.us My Latest Kernel: FreeBSD 3.0-CURRENT (ONEEX) #14: Mon Oct 19 22:36:58 EDT 1998 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.1.19981104132327.00a802f0>