->> "Fred A. Miller" wrote: ->> >http://www.zdnet.com/anchordesk/stories/story/0,10738,2913989,00.html ->> ->> Yeah, if Microsoft was smart, they would start "MSLinux" and work ->> on making all their apps compatible. Windows would just be a fancy ->> window manager, which you pay extra for. -> ->They will do that with *BSD and they will call it WindowsNG (Next Generation). -> ->Praise Heh... Can you say Mac OS X?

Who the heck *is* that writer anyway? Is he an M$ paid flunky who's even farther behind on knowing when an April fools joke is supposed to happen than the guys at MSN UK?

Yes, David Coursey has no Di... Oh, wait. Yes, David Coursey is an M$ stooge. He replaced Jesse Berst right after M$ and ZD publishing partnered up. Some of the stuff that comes out of his mouth is the most ludicrious stuff you can imaging. And he's shamelessly an M$ plant trying to seem impartial - at which he does a terrible job and is very transparent. M$ couldn't do a version of Linux. For one they may not have to release the code for their in-house products, e.g. IE, Outluck, etc. but any changes they did to GPL code would have to be presented. And in making the GPL'ed code compat with M$ code (for again Outluck, etc) the OSS/GPL programmers would get incite into M$ codes and hooks. This is all the OSS guys need to make it possible for M$ programs to work in Linux and would essentially cut M$ out of the picture. Why, because the minute M$ products run on Non-M$ OS such as Linux then why would you need Windows. Can you Say IE 5.5/6.0 WMplayer that never die or become obsolete because M$ can't mandate upgrades to new versions with more features that are really M$ control codes and all the other programs such as PhotoShop, etc, etc, etc, in Linux. So, get a copy of IE, a GPL sourceforge program to install it, and load up. Let's see, M$Linux = $99.00 you probably get one cd and an EULA that conflicts grossly with the GPL. Or, you get SuSE with all the works, IE/Outluck with source forge installer at about $80 and copy it around every desktop you can get your hands on. Then M$ runs around trying to get the BSA to enforce EULA on IE/Outlook - wouldn't that be interesting. Cheers, Curtis.

Then they could advertise: "".....the security of linux with the familiarity of Windows", like "have your cake and eat it too". OR...."Virus-proof multi-user Windows".

True enough, but in 2 or 3 development cycles they'ld screw that up considering their cut and paste coding style. I could see M$ taking a real beating if this was to happen. I mean think about it. M$ jumps on the OSS bandwagon and attempts to dominate. Virus writers figure out how to get the virus to execute in IE or whatever. So, the OS remains stable (or somewhat so) and everything in userland that's M$ gets infected. Or even worse, you use something like WebMin in IE and IE gets a bug and then some creative chap gains access to your Webmin controls - but this only happens in M$Linux because their native programs are flawed and this is used to gain root access. Hmmmm! That would kinda prove how inherently flawed M$ is. I mean to have the first and only version of Linux that gets kludge by a VB.net virus. I'm wagering they know this and won't go to Linux becuase of this, but then again..... Cheers, Curtis.

On Monday 09 June 2003 07:58 pm, John wrote: [stuff cut]

M$ would rather implode and become a black hole, than let anyone other than their cubicle mushrooms (M$' programmers) know it or see it

That would be a *bad* thing ?