That same vendor is explicitly excluding all other alternative platforms, and a number of features which rely on the underlying OS will not translate cross-platform. Although the one vendor is providing a version for one alternative platform: Office 2007 is available from only one vendor, and the underlying format (Office Open XML) contains dependencies that rely on the underlying platform. Vista is a single closed proprietary platform available from a single vendor only. Not only is itself available for many platforms, but the ODF document format is supported in many applications from many vendors. This format is open and fully documented, and most importantly it contains no dependencies on the underlying computing platform. uses ODF format, which is an international standard (ISO/IEC 26300). If Ubuntu was holding 90%+ of the desktop marketshare, would they no longer be permitted to bundle with the Ubuntu distro, because it would be anticompetitive to, say, Microsoft’s Office suite?// As bad as Microsoft’s security offerings are likely to be, it would take them many more years to reach the level of sucktitude that Symantec has. On the more facetious angle, I can’t honestly feel that, in this EU issue with Microsoft, having Symantec products being less widely used could possibly be a bad thing.
#Anylogic examples software
debs and distribute these by some other means? It seems to me that there must be a line between discouraging anticompetitive behavior, and encouraging good software (I’m sure you’ll agree that integration is a good thing provided it’s done well, as it is in Ubuntu).
If Ubuntu was holding 90%+ of the desktop marketshare, would they no longer be permitted to bundle with the Ubuntu distro, because it would be anticompetitive to, say, Microsoft’s Office suite? Would they not be permitted to use their official repositories, because it is anticompetitive to companies which don’t have software in those repositories, and would have to produce. I do understand the antitrust argument, but I still tend to think that if Microsoft is offering a comprehensive security suite, then they have a right to at least offer the option of integration between this suite and their OS. Microsoft has done far too much harm in the past for me to feel sorry for them being taken down a notch or two now, regardless of whether it’s fair or not in this case.įair enough. But I do agree that, even though Microsoft is a monopoly, the EU policy seems a little unfair. There should be a way for OEMs to decide that they will not bundle MS security products with Vista, or to provide a means for users to easily replace them if the want to. Now, I’m not in favor of stifling competition. If they don’t, they’ll be criticized for abusing their monopoly. If they are forced to remove their security products, then they will be criticized for providing an insecure OS OOTB. No company has a right to make profits, and while I actually hate what Microsoft is and will not use their products, I don’t see how it is fair to penalize them in terms of allowing them to bundle their own products with their own operating system. This is no different, in principle, to companies like the RIAA demanding judicial protection from losing profits when their business model is obsoleted. I tend to agree (and I’ve made this comment before).
0 kommentar(er)
