DIYbanter - View Single Post - Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?

In article ,
lid says...
David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:

John Doe wrote:

David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:

Gary H wrote:

Ah well it's criticism based on many writings and rulings (I
suppose) by "experts". He's ended up in court in the US
(antitrust, guilty) and in Europe (antitrust, guilty) fined 32
million by South Korea's FTC (Fair Trade Commission, guilty)

Courts and Judges are positively clueless about the software
world and to call them 'experts' is absurd.

And apparently David Maynard is clueless about how justice works.
Judges are good at judging and rely on expert witnesses.

I suppose you missed the fact that there are always 'expert
witnesses' on both sides of any case with directly opposing
'opinions' and in something as technically complex as an O.S.
there is no way for someone clueless about software to even grasp
the arguments, much less 'judge' which one is the better, assuming
there is such a thing as 'better' when it comes to 'opinions' on
what an O.S. should, or should not, have as it's components and
how it 'should' be structured.

I'm not surprised you have so much trouble with judgment,
considering how you struggle with using ordinary words in ordinary
contexts. That paragraph is a good illustration. You even question
the meaning of words in your own usage.

Judges don't have that problem.

An operating system should not have applications as it's components
if you want to promote competition among software developers. And if
you pretend to not know the difference between an operating system
and an application, you are just a liar. There is a gray area but
it's not that difficult to generally separate an operating system
from applications.

But wasn't a major part of the court process centred around determining
whether IE was or was not a necessary part of the O/S? Weren't
Microsoft claiming that it was and, if removed, then the O/S would not
work as 'advertised'? Isn't that one of the major reasons why the case
dragged on for so long? One set of experts trying to prove that IE was
NOT a necessary component.

Didn't some group or groups actually manage to remove IE completely and
still have Windows work? Wasn't that a major factor in disproving M$'s
claims? In other words, it wasn't just a simple case of showing that
and O/S should not have applications as it's components, it was far more
complicated than that at the time.

It was some time ago so may 'facts' may be somewhat of the mark.

--
Pete Ives
Remove All_stRESS before sending me an email