I was thinking how unlawful most corporations are today, especially Microsoft with their Windows operation system. There should be a standard for operation systems applicable to all types of machines, instead of having a complete monopoly by one company, this way any company could create as many operation systems as they like, it wouldn't matter, all software in the world would still run on all of them and people will not be forced to buy a specific one just because there's no other way.

Right now:
- you can't buy and use a computer without buying Windows, that is if you want to have access to all big software out there;
- you can't succeed in making a competing operation system, because there would be no applications available to make it of any use
- you can't make an operation system that would be compatible with Windows because of all patents and copyrights they own (making the .exe proprietary is obviously a monopoly maneuver)

It may be in human nature to be greedy and unlawful, but what truly shocks me is the fact that no government in this world takes any measures to fight this, a standard to operation systems is really required to be enforced (among other things) if the laws of free market are to be respected, how can no one care about this? Shouldn't be US a model of democracy and free market to the world? Because I see no democracy or free market left in US today...

I believe Linux may have changed the world a bit, but they had to screw things up too by forcing the developers to reveal the source code, what exactly would be the benefit of that? Well I kinda agree with open source, but I don't think it's applicable today, maybe in 100 years or so... as a result of this, a big game like World of Warcraft will probably never run on Linux except maybe using that half legal WINE.

Also, taking common names and trade marking them is a true spit in the face of the whole world, how can one take names like Windows, Apple, Orange etc and get away with it? And Android and Droid are reqistered names wtf?? So when androids will be produced they won't be called that cause some stupid company took the name? Wouldn't be more reasonable to create unique names and register them as your heart pleases instead of stealing words from the dictionary? In fact, if I recall correctly you can't register common names ("Basically common or generic names, or words or phrases that are merely descriptive are not sufficient for trademark registration with the USPTO."), so how did this happen? No wonder the whole economy is so fucked up, if people will keep doing this shit it will be the end of the world for sure...

You make some really valid arguments...

Let me see if I understand you correctly.

You think anyone should be able to make an operating system that works with all software. You want world governments to unite to determine OS standards. You are for Linux and government legislated OS standards but against open source. You think the current system is not free market because the government doesn't regulate OS standards. You think patenting will cause the end of the world.

What is your real name and how do I vote for you in the 2012 elections?

I was thinking how unlawful most corporations are today, especially Microsoft with their Windows operation system. There should be a standard for operation systems applicable to all types of machines, instead of having a complete monopoly by one company, this way any company could create as many operation systems as they like, it wouldn't matter, all software in the world would still run on all of them and people will not be forced to buy a specific one just because there's no other way.

Any company can make as many operating systems as they like. No amount of standardization is going to allow all software to run everywhere.

Right now:
- you can't buy and use a computer without buying Windows, that is if you want to have access to all big software out there;
[/quote]

Sorry, Wine runs pretty much everything under the sun.

- you can't succeed in making a competing operation system, because there would be no applications available to make it of any use
[/quote]

Unless your OS is super awesome (TM) and people want to port their apps to it. Like android did, or iOS did, or linux kinda did, or...

It may be in human nature to be greedy and unlawful, but what truly shocks me is the fact that no government in this world takes any measures to fight this, a standard to operation systems is really required to be enforced (among other things) if the laws of free market are to be respected, how can no one care about this? Shouldn't be US a model of democracy and free market to the world? Because I see no democracy or free market left in US today...
[/quote]

Dictating that 'there shalt be only one standard executable format' seems like the direct opposite of free market to me.

I believe Linux may have changed the world a bit, but they had to screw things up too by forcing the developers to reveal the source code, what exactly would be the benefit of that? Well I kinda agree with open source, but I don't think it's applicable today, maybe in 100 years or so... as a result of this, a big game like World of Warcraft will probably never run on Linux except maybe using that half legal WINE.
[/quote]

Wine is completely legal. Linux does not force developers to release source code; there are many proprietary for profit apps that run on Linux. People don't port much there because it's not profitable to do so.

Also, taking common names and trade marking them is a true spit in the face of the whole world, how can one take names like Windows, Apple, Orange etc and get away with it? And Android and Droid are reqistered names wtf?? So when androids will be produced they won't be called that cause some stupid company took the name? Wouldn't be more reasonable to create unique names and register them as your heart pleases instead of stealing words from the dictionary? In fact, if I recall correctly you can't register common names ("Basically common or generic names, or words or phrases that are merely descriptive are not sufficient for trademark registration with the USPTO."), so how did this happen? No wonder the whole economy is so fucked up, if people will keep doing this shit it will be the end of the world for sure...
[/quote]

Because you'd prefer everything named ZEQERR or Narblaff?

Trademark law has existed for centuries and the world has not ended.

If there wasn't any functional differentiation between OSes, there'd be no need for multiple OSes.

It seems like something a non-programmer would write. From my perspective, one of the main ways OSes compete is by having applications folks want and one of the ways they do that is by competing for developers.

In any case, having used Windows, Mac, Linux and even IRIX as my "daily driver" for extended periods, I have not felt this was a problem since the 1990s. If I run Linux, I can do pretty much everything I need to except for making software that isn't for Linux, and even then that isn't strictly true since I strongly preferred Linux when I did web development. And I didn't even use Wine. Linux isn't of monster significance but it's big enough to sustain its own software ecosystem to fulfill needs.

On the trademarks, some of your examples are also examples of how it isn't so strict. "Windows" is only a problem if you're selling software (I think Lindows got in some trouble, gee-wiz) and Apple actually used both the name and logo of a company that already existed.

Since they weren't in the music business, they came to an agreement, and when Apple decided "hey let's go into the music business!" the others were upset, but - eventually - came to another gentlemanly agreement and now the Beatles are on the app store.

It's not like you can't say window or apple anymore. In fact there's a food product called "Apple".

I was thinking how unlawful most corporations are today, especially Microsoft with their Windows operation system. There should be a standard for operation systems applicable to all types of machines, instead of having a complete monopoly by one company, this way any company could create as many operation systems as they like, it wouldn't matter, all software in the world would still run on all of them and people will not be forced to buy a specific one just because there's no other way.

No, the current process is VERY lawful.

1. you can't buy and use a computer without buying Windows, that is if you want to have access to all big software out there;
2. you can't succeed in making a competing operation system, because there would be no applications available to make it of any use
3. you can't make an operation system that would be compatible with Windows because of all patents and copyrights they own (making the .exe proprietary is obviously a monopoly maneuver)
[/quote]
1. Your post itself and followups list counterexamples. The claim ignores the very existence of MacOS, iOS, Android, Unix (with hundreds of variants like Linux and BSD), and more. It is trivial to buy a home computer without buying windows, just point your web browser to a store like TigerDirect. I suppose you could try some circular logic, and define "all big software out there" in terms of a circular reference to the software that runs on windows, so the big software that runs of windows is the big software out there. But that would just be your own invalid argument.
2. Again, false. Your post itself lists counterexamples of competition. What you describe is a "network effect". Yes the network effect does increase value, but it does not happen in the absolute terms of hyperbole that you state.
3. Again, false. Your post itself contains counterexamples such as Mono. You dismiss it as not being legal, yet lawyers who actually understand the law do not share your assertion. Many people can do it, and it has been done many times before, it is happening in markets across the board today, and new competitors will certainly appear in the future.

a standard to operation systems is really required to be enforced (among other things) if the laws of free market are to be respected, how can no one care about this? Shouldn't be US a model of democracy and free market to the world?[/quote]
For real? "I want to create a free market by requiring and enforcing a single standard". That is the exact opposite of a free market.

Also, taking common names and trade marking them is a true spit in the face of the whole world, how can one take names like Windows, Apple, Orange etc and get away with it? And Android and Droid are reqistered names wtf? ...
[/quote]
This is simple trademark law. You can go back to pre-historic times where ranchers branded their animals and other craftsmen created marks to indicate their source. Stonecutters used quarry marks and potters introduced glaze marks that are still helping archaeologists discover trade patterns and discover the cultures that died off thousands of years ago.

The "true spit in the face of the whole world" has been around for thousands of years. Somehow cultures have thrived during those thousands of years despite the cumbersomeness of trademark.

No wonder the whole economy is so fucked up, if people will keep doing this shit it will be the end of the world for sure.[/quote]
Yes, the world will end for sure. It is absolutely going to happen eventually.

But probably not from this.

- you can't buy and use a computer without buying Windows, that is if you want to have access to all big software out there;

Apple.

- you can't succeed in making a competing operation system, because there would be no applications available to make it of any use[/quote]
iOs.

- you can't make an operation system that would be compatible with Windows because of all patents and copyrights they own (making the .exe proprietary is obviously a monopoly maneuver)[/quote]
cygwin.


This is a red herring.

What you want is to *not pay* for top-of-the-line software. But those horrible programmers, they want to eat.

Remember: beggars can't be choosers.

All software is available for free. There is nothing that cannot be done. But brand-name software - that costs. Like Nike shoes cost much more than same shoes without logo. So the question you need to answer to yourself is - do I need Nike brand to fit in? Or can I perform in any shoes?

The only real criminals are those who accept and agree to online activation

btw, Hello. I am new to these forums.

I've been doing cross-platform development lately. It's actually really easy. Microsoft's C# language with .NET can compile to run on top of the CLR which has implementations on Linux and Mac so your code runs on those 3 platforms. It's pretty cool actually and a lot of languages can use it. Microsoft was actually nice enough to do this which a lot of people don't realize. The separation from native code has many advantages. However, because of that separation CIL is missing many many features like SSE support so the programmer often is at the whim of the JIT compiler.

As more programmers and developers realize this things should become nicer. However GUI applications like WPF stuff hasn't made the jump sadly which I believe is halting movement. Once that's converted it should be all fine.

<br />[quote name='LeChuckIsBack' timestamp='1311091797' post='4837466']<br />I was thinking how unlawful most corporations are today, especially Microsoft with their Windows operation system. There should be a standard for operation systems applicable to all types of machines, instead of having a complete monopoly by one company, this way any company could create as many operation systems as they like, it wouldn't matter, all software in the world would still run on all of them and people will not be forced to buy a specific one just because there's no other way.<br />

<br /><br />No, the current process is VERY lawful.<br /><br />

<br />1. you can't buy and use a computer without buying Windows, that is if you want to have access to all big software out there;<br />2. you can't succeed in making a competing operation system, because there would be no applications available to make it of any use<br />3. you can't make an operation system that would be compatible with Windows because of all patents and copyrights they own (making the .exe proprietary is obviously a monopoly maneuver)<br />[/quote]<br />1. Your post itself and followups list counterexamples.  The claim ignores the very existence of MacOS, iOS, Android, Unix (with hundreds of variants like Linux and BSD), and more.  It is trivial to buy a home computer without buying windows, just point your web browser to a store like TigerDirect.  I suppose you could try some circular logic, and define &quot;all big software out there&quot; in terms of a circular reference to the software that runs on windows, so the big software that runs of windows is the big software out there.  But that would just be your own invalid argument.  <br />2. Again, false.  Your post itself lists counterexamples of competition.  What you describe is a &quot;network effect&quot;.  Yes the network effect does increase value, but it does not happen in the absolute terms of hyperbole that you state.<br />3. Again, false.  Your post itself contains counterexamples such as Mono.  You dismiss it as not being legal, yet lawyers who actually understand the law do not share your assertion.  Many people can do it, and it has been done many times before, it is happening in markets across the board today, and new competitors will certainly appear in the future.<br /><br />

a standard to operation systems is really required to be enforced (among other things) if the laws of free market are to be respected, how can no one care about this? Shouldn't be US a model of democracy and free market to the world?[/quote]<br />For real?  &quot;I want to create a free market by requiring and enforcing a single standard&quot;.  That is the exact opposite of a free market.<br /><br />

Also, taking common names and trade marking them is a true spit in the face of the whole world, how can one take names like Windows, Apple, Orange etc and get away with it? And Android and Droid are reqistered names wtf? ... <br />[/quote]<br />This is simple trademark law.  You can go back to pre-historic times where ranchers branded their animals and other craftsmen created marks to indicate their source.  Stonecutters used quarry marks and potters introduced glaze marks that are still helping archaeologists discover trade patterns and discover the cultures that died off thousands of years ago.<br /><br />The &quot;true spit in the face of the whole world&quot; has been around for thousands of years.  Somehow cultures have thrived during those thousands of years despite the cumbersomeness of trademark.<br /><br />

No wonder the whole economy is so fucked up, if people will keep doing this shit it will be the end of the world for sure.[/quote]<br />Yes, the world will end for sure.  It is absolutely going to happen eventually.<br /><br />But probably not from this.<br />[/quote]<br /><br /><br />

Statistics say 9 of 10 computers run Windows. The other OS you listed (including Linux) are part of that 10%. By simple logic that means 9 of 10 software products are designed for Windows.

Windows acts like a standard, except that only one company gets income from it. If you want to benefit from that 90% you have to buy Windows and only Windows. If you decide to go for the other 10%, you will not be able to use many software products, but only some created by companies that decided to cover that 10% too.

If we refer strictly to PCs, most games "require Windows". If you want to play a specific game for PC then you must buy Windows. If Microsoft decides to make more money, they will release a new version of Windows, developers will be forced to release products to comply with the new "mood" and the end-user will have to pay the new Microsoft "tax".

If this isn't a shameless monopoly then what is it? If this is called free market, then how would you define freedom? "I am free to kill the little fishes because I'm the big fish?" Is that absolute freedom or is it just crime?

Imposing standards doesn't mean killing free market, but en contraire, free market needs to be regulated so no abuse can unbalance it. And standards are not just imposed by someone, but they are the result of complex negotiations and analysis from many parties. When the technology evolves so does the standard.

Is the free market broken if there is a C++ standard? It is not, there are many compilers to choose from and they all follow the same standard, some are free, some offer super duper features for which you must pay, but there is the freedom of choice. Why would that be different for operation systems?

The current global economy status is the direct result of such abuses, and millions of people are suffering and will suffer even more in the following years. If this isn't a way to hell then I wonder where will it lead.

This is a free market. You are perfectly free to write your software for MacOS, or Linux, and sell it to people who are perfectly free to not use windows.