From pycyn@aol.com Tue Sep 05 14:45:18 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23922 invoked from network); 5 Sep 2000 21:45:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 5 Sep 2000 21:45:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d07.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.39) by mta1 with SMTP; 5 Sep 2000 21:45:18 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.15.) id a.e.1e5a260 (4553) for ; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 17:45:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 17:45:06 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] RE: emacs, etc. To: lojban@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 41 From: pycyn@aol.com In a message dated 00-09-05 16:54:24 EDT, cowan writes: << This is the last thing that Microsoft desires: their monopoly depends on maintaining a high applications barrier to entry. >> That is, it is hard for anyone else to develop an application within Windows? Maybe it is hard, though people do seem to manage it pretty regularly. The obvious opportunity for profit is a strong motivation. And I would have thought that the monopoly depended at least as much on seeing to it that what the user buys includes a strong dose of MS products, enough to discourage him from bothering to go elsewhere. As noted, if we had to buy our software piecemeal, we probably would not buy Windows and Word -- or they would be priced much more reasonably -- and there would perhaps be more reasonably priced and better products for all manner of tasks. But we don't, so there ain't.