By law, they should be diversifying, not repeting the behavior that got them into the courtroom.

The issue back then: Give away a free browser when Netscape sold one.

When you're a monopoly, you can't do that. IBM was found guilty in 1972 or 1973 and still can't sell their stuff below cost.

Have you ever wondered why they don't have a "free distribution of IBM Linux".


Please take a look at the article released yesterday:

http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/38971/index.html

So wassup B? Watching the Os's fight and having a bud. True, True.

There's no need for personal attacks just because somebody doesn't share your point of view

tadelste - different or opposite views from your own on a given topic are not necessarily wrong. While you may disagree with another's comments, please refrain from any unnecessary personal comments. Thanks -- J.W.

well, did anyone consider this? That Microsoft might go so far as to learn how to prevent the antivirus from fixing,(or blocking) the security holes in all Linuxes in general so that the hacker will eventually try and destroy the credibility that Linux has?? If he is, he is trying to do something that is virtually impossible, due to the high number of variations of Linux distributions. For example: one might try to attack Slackware based distros in general, however it is so customizable that the hacker wsould have to find a specific bug in the kernel, which by the way isn't always the same anyways. So he would have to make this virus or whatever monstrous in size to accmodate all of the different types. It just would'nt be feasible for a hacker at least.