> Is there anyone on this list who does NOT believe that computing
> could easily be 2000% better than it currently is?
Sure. All we need is a brilliant and benevolent dictator to oversee
and enforce the adoption of arbitrary protocols.
> Is there anyone who thinks a MS-only world is the best way to get
> there?
I certainly don't, but I don't believe that government intervention is
the best way to achieve a diverse marketplace.
> Microsoft is a great competitor - let them compete! But let the
> rest of us compete, too.
We are all being allowed to compete. We're just not doing very well
at it, because of Microsoft's superior position in the marketplace.
No one is forced to buy MS products; no one is forced to package them
with their PCs. Other companies are free to offer competing
products.
The only Microsoft product I use is Windows 95, and the only reason I
use it is because IBM hasn't bothered to release their Linux port of
the development environment I use at work.
I think it's ironic that many people are cheering for the country's
largest monopoly, the federal government, in a battle against
Microsoft.
> Or do you think we have not gained anything in innovation by
> breaking up AT&T?
Is that the only measure of justification? Am I allowed to meddle
with your life, dictating major changes without your consent, if I
think it will result in more happiness for more people? I suspect you
wouldn't trust me to do so, but you appear to trust appointed
officials to wreak sweeping changes of this nature. This disturbs me
far more than Microsoft's current dominance of the software market.