Re: [tlug] Re: [OT] Say _no_ to the Microsoft Office format as an ISO standard

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com>]

Godwin Stewart writes:

 > On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 16:37:43 +0900, "Stephen J. Turnbull"
 > <stephen@example.com> wrote:
 > 
 > > The "Microsoft tax" was a clear violation from day one, an intentional
 > > foul.  But "browser in the OS"?  Worth a try.  Doesn't Linux have
 > > "webserver in the OS"?  Maybe that should be illegal, too?  (Not! but
 > > you do see the analogy I'm drawing, right?)
 > 
 > But the analogy is flawed right from the outset.

Of course it's not; they're both features that OS/360, System V, and
CP/M all lacked, thus it makes sense to class them together. ;-)

My point is that you actually have to look at the use cases and
implementations.  *Then* it's obvious.  But as you point out in
another post, software and hardware are physically separate products,
with completely distinct identities.  You don't need to look at the
use case or specific implementation; any attempt to forcibly tie them
is clearly done in the interests of an economic monopoly.  And if this
is done across firm boundaries, well, it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes
to figure it out.