On 2024-05-23, Tyrone <none@none.none> wrote:
>
> Hint: U.S. anti-trust laws are in place to protect consumers. Not competitors.
> Epic Games and Spotify whining about Apple means nothing. No one is forcing
> either to support Apple. If you don't like the terms of the contracts you sign
> with Apple, then you are free to tell Apple to Fuck Off and not sign the
> contracts.

You don't have to be a monopoly to be guilty of anti-trust violations. Apple
was found guilty of colluding with the major book publishers a few years
back. They did this specifically to raise the prices of eBooks for their
benefit when they entered the market.

--
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality."
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..." — St. Augustine

On Thu, 23 May 2024 22:31:40 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote in <v2og4c$1un5v$6@dont-email.me>:

> On Thu, 23 May 2024 07:58:35 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>
>> Microsoft will hold onto the Windows core for as long as they can,
>> and if they replace it, they will likely do so with a rewritten Windows
>> core.
>
> The replacement wouldn’t work, because they couldn’t guarantee full bug-
> for-bug compatibility with the current code.
>
> The only way out is the path of least resistance: delegate more and more
> functionality to the Linux kernel in WSL2. Let the original Windows
> kernel simply wither away. This will happen incrementally, not all at
> once.
>
> Does this sound like a wise plan to you? Doesn’t matter whether the
> answer is “yes” or “no”: it is simply a continuation of the trend of
> short-
> sighted decisions, taken for immediate profit, that have led Windows
> development to the point where it is today, and will continue to lead it
> forward into the future.

If the Windows OS developers started working on WINE/proton, it would
(almost literally) be a game changer.

Then they could run proton on Linux to support legacy software, similar
to how MacOS evolved with NeXTStep's core framework. (Cairo, I think?
Can't remember.[*])

But Microsoft wouldn't do that, because they would lose their monopoly[**]
with the OS, with exhorbitant fees and all that. All just a pipe dream.

[*] Just looked up the framework for AfterStep, and it is now something
called "Cucumber".

[**] Adjudicated as a monopoly, but the question before the courts was
whether or not Microsoft had abused their monopoly power.

--
-v

On 2024-05-23, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
> On 2024-05-23 5:51 p.m., Tyrone wrote:
>> On May 23, 2024 at 3:19:39 PM EDT, "Joel" <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Windows is a *type of* monopoly, in that only M$ controls it, but it
>>> is used as a general OS.
>>
>> There is no such thing as "a type of monopoly". Either you are or you are
>> not. The legal definition is very clear.
>>
>> You can't have a monopoly on your own product. If that were the case then
>> Harley Davidson has a "monopoly" on Sportsters and McDonalds has a "monopoly"
>> on Big Macs.
>>
>> But that's not how it works. Monopolies exist is markets. Not products. There
>> is plenty of competition in motorcycles and hamburgers. Apple can not have a
>> "monopoly" on iPhones for the same reason.
>
> For what it's worth, I'm probably part of the minority which actually
> liked Windows Phones. It lacked decent music playing software, but using
> it was rather nice before my in-call mic died.

Microsoft had a chance in the business sector with their Windows phones.
They were rolling these out where my brother worked, but found out they
didn't integrate with the company's voice mail system. Microsoft insisted
that it be done their way, when the industry standard was already set
differently. By the time Microsoft decided to accept the industry standard
it was too late. The rollouts had stopped and business had returned their
Windows phones. Microsoft's near monopoly in its OS, and its own hubris
because of this, worked against them in this market.

>>> But macOS isn't really less so, it just
>>> isn't seen as a "monopoly" because of lower market share, but what's
>>> the difference? It's a proprietary OS. I can't run native Mac
>>> software without a Mac, unless I have some kind of emulation scheme.
>>
>> You can't run native Linux software without Linux either, unless you have some
>> kind of emulation scheme. Is Linux a "monopoly"?
>>
>> Proprietary has nothing to do with being a monopoly. Monopoly means you have
>> 97% of the market and are actively buying up/shutting down competitors.
>
> This is something Microsoft was actively doing in the late 90s. It is
> still buying up game studios and smaller software companies, so it
> hasn't changed all that much.
>
>> Having a successful product does not make you a monopoly. Hell, people are
>> trying to claim that Apple is a monopoly with 25% of the phone market! That
>> is impossible. There is TONS of competition in the phone market.
>>
>> Hint: U.S. anti-trust laws are in place to protect consumers. Not competitors.
>> Epic Games and Spotify whining about Apple means nothing. No one is forcing
>> either to support Apple. If you don't like the terms of the contracts you sign
>> with Apple, then you are free to tell Apple to Fuck Off and not sign the
>> contracts.
>>
>> If enough companies did this, Apple might change their ways. But whining to
>> lawyers is going to go nowhere. As the judge in the Apple/Epic case famously
>> said, "Being successful is not against the law".
>
> Spotify can whine all that it wants but both Apple Music and YouTube
> Music has better offerings. Apple gives you the best interface and sound
> quality whereas YouTube Music offers the added benefit of blocking ads
> on YouTube.

I didn't know Spotify was whining. Last I saw they had over twice the market
share of both Apple and Amazon.

Epic DID win the right to advertise alternate ways to pay for their products
on iPhones, BTW. The 30% commission that both Google and Apple charge to pay
to use their payment system is gouging. It's going to end up hurting both
companies as more and more app makers will opt out of their payment system.

--
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality."
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..." — St. Augustine

On 2024-05-23 6:31 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Thu, 23 May 2024 07:58:35 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>
>> Microsoft will hold onto the Windows core for as long as they can,
>> and if they replace it, they will likely do so with a rewritten Windows
>> core.
>
> The replacement wouldn’t work, because they couldn’t guarantee full bug-
> for-bug compatibility with the current code.
>
> The only way out is the path of least resistance: delegate more and more
> functionality to the Linux kernel in WSL2. Let the original Windows kernel
> simply wither away. This will happen incrementally, not all at once.
>
> Does this sound like a wise plan to you? Doesn’t matter whether the answer
> is “yes” or “no”: it is simply a continuation of the trend of short-
> sighted decisions, taken for immediate profit, that have led Windows
> development to the point where it is today, and will continue to lead it
> forward into the future.

This is wishful thinking on your part. The Windows core won't go away in
favour of Linux, and I look forward to seeing this post again in 2044
and knowing that I was right.

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
TG: @AndrzejMatuch
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king.

On 2024-05-23 7:09 p.m., RonB wrote:
> On 2024-05-23, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>> On 2024-05-23 5:51 p.m., Tyrone wrote:
>>> On May 23, 2024 at 3:19:39 PM EDT, "Joel" <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Windows is a *type of* monopoly, in that only M$ controls it, but it
>>>> is used as a general OS.
>>>
>>> There is no such thing as "a type of monopoly". Either you are or you are
>>> not. The legal definition is very clear.
>>>
>>> You can't have a monopoly on your own product. If that were the case then
>>> Harley Davidson has a "monopoly" on Sportsters and McDonalds has a "monopoly"
>>> on Big Macs.
>>>
>>> But that's not how it works. Monopolies exist is markets. Not products. There
>>> is plenty of competition in motorcycles and hamburgers. Apple can not have a
>>> "monopoly" on iPhones for the same reason.
>>
>> For what it's worth, I'm probably part of the minority which actually
>> liked Windows Phones. It lacked decent music playing software, but using
>> it was rather nice before my in-call mic died.
>
> Microsoft had a chance in the business sector with their Windows phones.
> They were rolling these out where my brother worked, but found out they
> didn't integrate with the company's voice mail system. Microsoft insisted
> that it be done their way, when the industry standard was already set
> differently. By the time Microsoft decided to accept the industry standard
> it was too late. The rollouts had stopped and business had returned their
> Windows phones. Microsoft's near monopoly in its OS, and its own hubris
> because of this, worked against them in this market.

It's part of what I was saying about Microsoft not having an interest in
replacing the Windows core with the Linux kernel. Microsoft has no
interest in using a superior kernel as long as they have one that's good
enough to offer the world which is simultaneously under their complete
control. By using Linux, they're handing over control. They won't do that.

>>>> But macOS isn't really less so, it just
>>>> isn't seen as a "monopoly" because of lower market share, but what's
>>>> the difference? It's a proprietary OS. I can't run native Mac
>>>> software without a Mac, unless I have some kind of emulation scheme.
>>>
>>> You can't run native Linux software without Linux either, unless you have some
>>> kind of emulation scheme. Is Linux a "monopoly"?
>>>
>>> Proprietary has nothing to do with being a monopoly. Monopoly means you have
>>> 97% of the market and are actively buying up/shutting down competitors.
>>
>> This is something Microsoft was actively doing in the late 90s. It is
>> still buying up game studios and smaller software companies, so it
>> hasn't changed all that much.
>>
>>> Having a successful product does not make you a monopoly. Hell, people are
>>> trying to claim that Apple is a monopoly with 25% of the phone market! That
>>> is impossible. There is TONS of competition in the phone market.
>>>
>>> Hint: U.S. anti-trust laws are in place to protect consumers. Not competitors.
>>> Epic Games and Spotify whining about Apple means nothing. No one is forcing
>>> either to support Apple. If you don't like the terms of the contracts you sign
>>> with Apple, then you are free to tell Apple to Fuck Off and not sign the
>>> contracts.
>>>
>>> If enough companies did this, Apple might change their ways. But whining to
>>> lawyers is going to go nowhere. As the judge in the Apple/Epic case famously
>>> said, "Being successful is not against the law".
>>
>> Spotify can whine all that it wants but both Apple Music and YouTube
>> Music has better offerings. Apple gives you the best interface and sound
>> quality whereas YouTube Music offers the added benefit of blocking ads
>> on YouTube.
>
> I didn't know Spotify was whining. Last I saw they had over twice the market
> share of both Apple and Amazon.

Probably because some people think that Apple Music also requires Apple
hardware. Even without Apple hardware, the sound quality is superior as
is the selection.

> Epic DID win the right to advertise alternate ways to pay for their products
> on iPhones, BTW. The 30% commission that both Google and Apple charge to pay
> to use their payment system is gouging. It's going to end up hurting both
> companies as more and more app makers will opt out of their payment system.

They won _something_, but time will tell whether this will have any kind
of positive impact on Epic's business or any negative one on Apple's.

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
TG: @AndrzejMatuch
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king.

Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>On 2024-05-23 6:31 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 May 2024 07:58:35 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>
>>> Microsoft will hold onto the Windows core for as long as they can,
>>> and if they replace it, they will likely do so with a rewritten Windows
>>> core.
>>
>> The replacement wouldn’t work, because they couldn’t guarantee full bug-
>> for-bug compatibility with the current code.
>>
>> The only way out is the path of least resistance: delegate more and more
>> functionality to the Linux kernel in WSL2. Let the original Windows kernel
>> simply wither away. This will happen incrementally, not all at once.
>>
>> Does this sound like a wise plan to you? Doesn’t matter whether the answer
>> is “yes” or “no”: it is simply a continuation of the trend of short-
>> sighted decisions, taken for immediate profit, that have led Windows
>> development to the point where it is today, and will continue to lead it
>> forward into the future.
>
>This is wishful thinking on your part. The Windows core won't go away in
>favour of Linux, and I look forward to seeing this post again in 2044
>and knowing that I was right.

It's "wishful thinking" because it doesn't even make basic sense. The
core of Windows NT AKA Windows 11 is not radically different from the
core of GNU/Linux, it's not bloated in itself, it's the foundation of
an, overall, bloated modern OS. A Linux distro, not to sound too much
like Larry, can be bloated too, kind of, but it'd take a lot to rival
M$'s shit. It's just the result of the marketplace for Winblows, it's
a jack of all trades, but then they are somewhat losing ground to
macOS, we'll see how that progresses (i.e. how quickly IntelAMD CPUs
are replaced in the market).

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On Thu, 23 May 2024 21:51:57 +0000, Tyrone wrote:

> You can't have a monopoly on your own product. If that were the case
> then Harley Davidson has a "monopoly" on Sportsters and McDonalds has a
> "monopoly"
> on Big Macs.

Harley tried...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_motorcycle_tariff

The tariff game came back to bite them a few years ago,

https://www.piie.com/blogs/trade-and-investment-policy-watch/harley-
tariff-trend-setter-not-good-way

One organization that definitely is a monopoly is the government, any
government, although the US government has been expanding its monopoly
since before the ink was dry on the Constitution.

Disclaimer: I ride a Sportster. Its stable mates are two Suzukis and prior
to that it shared duties with a Yamaha. Like OSs they each have different
strengths and I use the one best suited for the task at hand.

On 24 May 2024 01:30:15 GMT, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote in
<lba8t6F9st5U1@mid.individual.net>:

> Disclaimer: I ride a Sportster. Its stable mates are two Suzukis and
> prior to that it shared duties with a Yamaha. Like OSs they each have
> different strengths and I use the one best suited for the task at hand.

Windows' strength seems to be that it runs Windows software.

Pick a task -- supercomputers to phones, Linux can do it. Most
desktop software is made for Windows, though, so there it is king
of the marketplace.

I wonder, though, if the Windows store was somehow tied into
Steam, how many of its apps would work with proton? (There are
a _lot_ of Windows apps on Steam that run with proton, albeit
some better than others. https://www.protondb.com/ )

--
-v

On Thu, 23 May 2024 20:53:05 -0400, Joel wrote:

> The core of Windows NT AKA Windows 11 is not radically different from
> the core of GNU/Linux, it's not bloated in itself ...

That “core” no longer exists as a separate entity. Remember, Microsoft
tried to use it to implement the first version of WSL, emulating Linux
system calls on top of this “core” NT kernel, and they couldn’t get it to
work. That’s why they had to give up and tack an actual Linux kernel in a
separate bag hanging off the side, with WSL2.

On Thu, 23 May 2024 20:06:47 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:

> By using Linux, they're handing over control. They won't do
> that.

They’re losing control over the sheer complexity of Windows as it stands.
Look at the ongoing quality problems with Windows releases. Delegating
functions to Linux would actually be a way of regaining that control.

On Fri, 24 May 2024 01:44:04 -0000 (UTC), vallor wrote:

> Windows' strength seems to be that it runs Windows software.

You can be even more specific than that: its strength is that it runs x86-
based Windows software.

Take away either one of those qualifiers: “Windows” or “x86”, and the
result is market failure.

On Fri, 24 May 2024 01:44:04 -0000 (UTC), vallor wrote:

> Windows' strength seems to be that it runs Windows software.

In the corporate world the mantra was 'Nobody ever got fired for choosing
IBM.' and Microsoft inherited the safe choice crown. The same process is
at work in the consumer world too.

On Thu, 23 May 2024 23:00:45 -0000 (UTC), vallor wrote:

> But Microsoft wouldn't do that, because they would lose their
> monopoly[**] with the OS, with exhorbitant fees and all that.

Somehow, I don’t think that monopoly is still as a) much of a monopoly, or
b) exorbitantly profitable, as it once was. That’s why you see the ongoing
quality problems with Windows releases, and with patches to fix bugs in
those releases, often causing their own problems.

This is a sign of declining investment on the part of Microsoft. Which in
turn must be a consequence of declining returns on that investment.

Making more use of Linux would be a way of saving money.

On 24 May 2024 03:05:54 GMT, rbowman wrote:

> ... Microsoft inherited the safe choice crown. The same
> process is at work in the consumer world too.

Never worked for mobile devices, though.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

>> The core of Windows NT AKA Windows 11 is not radically different from
>> the core of GNU/Linux, it's not bloated in itself ...
>
>That “core” no longer exists as a separate entity. Remember, Microsoft
>tried to use it to implement the first version of WSL, emulating Linux
>system calls on top of this “core” NT kernel, and they couldn’t get it to
>work. That’s why they had to give up and tack an actual Linux kernel in a
>separate bag hanging off the side, with WSL2.

If it sounded as though I think the NT kernel isn't different from the
Linux kernel, that was unintended - it's that they're comparable in
the approach to their design, in a more basic way. M$, for all their
faults, does want Windows to be competitive on the techie details,
even as the various features get bloated, making the impression of the
OS somewhat muddled, but the core, the foundational code, does still
exist beneath it all, it is possible to boot without the GUI for
example.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On Fri, 24 May 2024 00:16:18 -0400, Joel wrote:

> If it sounded as though I think the NT kernel isn't different from the
> Linux kernel, that was unintended - it's that they're comparable in the
> approach to their design, in a more basic way.

I doubt that. Remember that NT was masterminded by Gordon Bell, a refugee
from the nest of Unix haters at DEC. He carried over many misfeatures from
DEC’s flagship OS of the time, VMS, such as expensive process creation and
the antiquated command-line system.

There was supposed to be some kind of internal API allowing the creation
of alternative “personalities” on top of the core kernel, but by the time
of creation of WSL, that seems to have bitrotted away.

> M$, for all their
> faults, does want Windows to be competitive on the techie details, even
> as the various features get bloated, making the impression of the OS
> somewhat muddled, but the core, the foundational code, does still exist
> beneath it all, it is possible to boot without the GUI for example.

Turning off the GUI is one thing, replacing with another seems quite
beyond Microsoft’s capabilities. Consider how the Linux-based Steam Deck
has been making inroads in handheld PC gaming, even while its
compatibility with Windows games is only around 60% or so: a key selling
point is that its GUI is purpose-built for that usage.

In response, Microsoft has showed off some kind of “Handheld Mode” that
would let Windows compete better in this market, but even after two years,
it still has nothing of production quality.

On Fri, 24 May 2024 04:51:28 -0000 (UTC), I wrote:

> Remember that NT was masterminded by Gordon Bell ...

Correction, his name was Dave Cutler. But yes, he was a Unix hater, and
probably still is.

On 2024-05-24, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
> On 2024-05-23 7:09 p.m., RonB wrote:
>> On 2024-05-23, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>>> On 2024-05-23 5:51 p.m., Tyrone wrote:
>>>> On May 23, 2024 at 3:19:39 PM EDT, "Joel" <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Windows is a *type of* monopoly, in that only M$ controls it, but it
>>>>> is used as a general OS.
>>>>
>>>> There is no such thing as "a type of monopoly". Either you are or you are
>>>> not. The legal definition is very clear.
>>>>
>>>> You can't have a monopoly on your own product. If that were the case then
>>>> Harley Davidson has a "monopoly" on Sportsters and McDonalds has a "monopoly"
>>>> on Big Macs.
>>>>
>>>> But that's not how it works. Monopolies exist is markets. Not products. There
>>>> is plenty of competition in motorcycles and hamburgers. Apple can not have a
>>>> "monopoly" on iPhones for the same reason.
>>>
>>> For what it's worth, I'm probably part of the minority which actually
>>> liked Windows Phones. It lacked decent music playing software, but using
>>> it was rather nice before my in-call mic died.
>>
>> Microsoft had a chance in the business sector with their Windows phones.
>> They were rolling these out where my brother worked, but found out they
>> didn't integrate with the company's voice mail system. Microsoft insisted
>> that it be done their way, when the industry standard was already set
>> differently. By the time Microsoft decided to accept the industry standard
>> it was too late. The rollouts had stopped and business had returned their
>> Windows phones. Microsoft's near monopoly in its OS, and its own hubris
>> because of this, worked against them in this market.
>
> It's part of what I was saying about Microsoft not having an interest in
> replacing the Windows core with the Linux kernel. Microsoft has no
> interest in using a superior kernel as long as they have one that's good
> enough to offer the world which is simultaneously under their complete
> control. By using Linux, they're handing over control. They won't do that.
>
>>>>> But macOS isn't really less so, it just
>>>>> isn't seen as a "monopoly" because of lower market share, but what's
>>>>> the difference? It's a proprietary OS. I can't run native Mac
>>>>> software without a Mac, unless I have some kind of emulation scheme.
>>>>
>>>> You can't run native Linux software without Linux either, unless you have some
>>>> kind of emulation scheme. Is Linux a "monopoly"?
>>>>
>>>> Proprietary has nothing to do with being a monopoly. Monopoly means you have
>>>> 97% of the market and are actively buying up/shutting down competitors.
>>>
>>> This is something Microsoft was actively doing in the late 90s. It is
>>> still buying up game studios and smaller software companies, so it
>>> hasn't changed all that much.
>>>
>>>> Having a successful product does not make you a monopoly. Hell, people are
>>>> trying to claim that Apple is a monopoly with 25% of the phone market! That
>>>> is impossible. There is TONS of competition in the phone market.
>>>>
>>>> Hint: U.S. anti-trust laws are in place to protect consumers. Not competitors.
>>>> Epic Games and Spotify whining about Apple means nothing. No one is forcing
>>>> either to support Apple. If you don't like the terms of the contracts you sign
>>>> with Apple, then you are free to tell Apple to Fuck Off and not sign the
>>>> contracts.
>>>>
>>>> If enough companies did this, Apple might change their ways. But whining to
>>>> lawyers is going to go nowhere. As the judge in the Apple/Epic case famously
>>>> said, "Being successful is not against the law".
>>>
>>> Spotify can whine all that it wants but both Apple Music and YouTube
>>> Music has better offerings. Apple gives you the best interface and sound
>>> quality whereas YouTube Music offers the added benefit of blocking ads
>>> on YouTube.
>>
>> I didn't know Spotify was whining. Last I saw they had over twice the market
>> share of both Apple and Amazon.
>
> Probably because some people think that Apple Music also requires Apple
> hardware. Even without Apple hardware, the sound quality is superior as
> is the selection.

You would have better ears than I have to tell the difference.

>> Epic DID win the right to advertise alternate ways to pay for their products
>> on iPhones, BTW. The 30% commission that both Google and Apple charge to pay
>> to use their payment system is gouging. It's going to end up hurting both
>> companies as more and more app makers will opt out of their payment system.
>
> They won _something_, but time will tell whether this will have any kind
> of positive impact on Epic's business or any negative one on Apple's.
>

--
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality."
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..." — St. Augustine

On 2024-05-23 9:44 p.m., vallor wrote:
> On 24 May 2024 01:30:15 GMT, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote in
> <lba8t6F9st5U1@mid.individual.net>:
>
>> Disclaimer: I ride a Sportster. Its stable mates are two Suzukis and
>> prior to that it shared duties with a Yamaha. Like OSs they each have
>> different strengths and I use the one best suited for the task at hand.
>
> Windows' strength seems to be that it runs Windows software.
>
> Pick a task -- supercomputers to phones, Linux can do it. Most
> desktop software is made for Windows, though, so there it is king
> of the marketplace.
>
> I wonder, though, if the Windows store was somehow tied into
> Steam, how many of its apps would work with proton? (There are
> a _lot_ of Windows apps on Steam that run with proton, albeit
> some better than others. https://www.protondb.com/ )

If Proton can get the Microsoft Films & TV (Movies & TV in the USA) app
running in Linux, I'd have no remaining reason to stay in Windows.
Considering what Microsoft is planning with the Recall feature, I don't
feel comfortable sticking around. Even DFS is concerned.

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
TG: @AndrzejMatuch
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king.

On 2024-05-23 11:03 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Thu, 23 May 2024 20:06:47 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>
>> By using Linux, they're handing over control. They won't do
>> that.
>
> They’re losing control over the sheer complexity of Windows as it stands.

This was the same problem they had in the mid-2000s when they rewrote
the core and implemented it into Vista. Looking back, they actually did
a good job. People forget that the beloved Windows 7 was just an
optimized Vista.

> Look at the ongoing quality problems with Windows releases. Delegating
> functions to Linux would actually be a way of regaining that control.

When referring to quality, what exactly are you pointing at? The
security problems? Updates breaking the desktop? The desktop experience
itself is rather stellar.

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
TG: @AndrzejMatuch
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king.

On 2024-05-23 11:08 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Thu, 23 May 2024 23:00:45 -0000 (UTC), vallor wrote:
>
>> But Microsoft wouldn't do that, because they would lose their
>> monopoly[**] with the OS, with exhorbitant fees and all that.
>
> Somehow, I don’t think that monopoly is still as a) much of a monopoly, or
> b) exorbitantly profitable, as it once was. That’s why you see the ongoing
> quality problems with Windows releases, and with patches to fix bugs in
> those releases, often causing their own problems.
>
> This is a sign of declining investment on the part of Microsoft. Which in
> turn must be a consequence of declining returns on that investment.
>
> Making more use of Linux would be a way of saving money.

Microsoft is still invested in Windows, but they are having trouble
finding every possible way hackers will use to break into the system.
They can foresee a lot, but the hackers are a lot more creative than
anyone expected. Linux is better in this regard as is Apple, but even
they get hacked along the way. If they were used as heavily as Windows
is, those creative hackers would likely find better ways to break into
them too.

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
TG: @AndrzejMatuch
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king.

On 2024-05-24 3:00 a.m., RonB wrote:
> On 2024-05-24, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>> On 2024-05-23 7:09 p.m., RonB wrote:
>>> On 2024-05-23, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>>>> On 2024-05-23 5:51 p.m., Tyrone wrote:
>>>>> On May 23, 2024 at 3:19:39 PM EDT, "Joel" <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Windows is a *type of* monopoly, in that only M$ controls it, but it
>>>>>> is used as a general OS.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no such thing as "a type of monopoly". Either you are or you are
>>>>> not. The legal definition is very clear.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can't have a monopoly on your own product. If that were the case then
>>>>> Harley Davidson has a "monopoly" on Sportsters and McDonalds has a "monopoly"
>>>>> on Big Macs.
>>>>>
>>>>> But that's not how it works. Monopolies exist is markets. Not products. There
>>>>> is plenty of competition in motorcycles and hamburgers. Apple can not have a
>>>>> "monopoly" on iPhones for the same reason.
>>>>
>>>> For what it's worth, I'm probably part of the minority which actually
>>>> liked Windows Phones. It lacked decent music playing software, but using
>>>> it was rather nice before my in-call mic died.
>>>
>>> Microsoft had a chance in the business sector with their Windows phones.
>>> They were rolling these out where my brother worked, but found out they
>>> didn't integrate with the company's voice mail system. Microsoft insisted
>>> that it be done their way, when the industry standard was already set
>>> differently. By the time Microsoft decided to accept the industry standard
>>> it was too late. The rollouts had stopped and business had returned their
>>> Windows phones. Microsoft's near monopoly in its OS, and its own hubris
>>> because of this, worked against them in this market.
>>
>> It's part of what I was saying about Microsoft not having an interest in
>> replacing the Windows core with the Linux kernel. Microsoft has no
>> interest in using a superior kernel as long as they have one that's good
>> enough to offer the world which is simultaneously under their complete
>> control. By using Linux, they're handing over control. They won't do that.
>>
>>>>>> But macOS isn't really less so, it just
>>>>>> isn't seen as a "monopoly" because of lower market share, but what's
>>>>>> the difference? It's a proprietary OS. I can't run native Mac
>>>>>> software without a Mac, unless I have some kind of emulation scheme.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can't run native Linux software without Linux either, unless you have some
>>>>> kind of emulation scheme. Is Linux a "monopoly"?
>>>>>
>>>>> Proprietary has nothing to do with being a monopoly. Monopoly means you have
>>>>> 97% of the market and are actively buying up/shutting down competitors.
>>>>
>>>> This is something Microsoft was actively doing in the late 90s. It is
>>>> still buying up game studios and smaller software companies, so it
>>>> hasn't changed all that much.
>>>>
>>>>> Having a successful product does not make you a monopoly. Hell, people are
>>>>> trying to claim that Apple is a monopoly with 25% of the phone market! That
>>>>> is impossible. There is TONS of competition in the phone market.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hint: U.S. anti-trust laws are in place to protect consumers. Not competitors.
>>>>> Epic Games and Spotify whining about Apple means nothing. No one is forcing
>>>>> either to support Apple. If you don't like the terms of the contracts you sign
>>>>> with Apple, then you are free to tell Apple to Fuck Off and not sign the
>>>>> contracts.
>>>>>
>>>>> If enough companies did this, Apple might change their ways. But whining to
>>>>> lawyers is going to go nowhere. As the judge in the Apple/Epic case famously
>>>>> said, "Being successful is not against the law".
>>>>
>>>> Spotify can whine all that it wants but both Apple Music and YouTube
>>>> Music has better offerings. Apple gives you the best interface and sound
>>>> quality whereas YouTube Music offers the added benefit of blocking ads
>>>> on YouTube.
>>>
>>> I didn't know Spotify was whining. Last I saw they had over twice the market
>>> share of both Apple and Amazon.
>>
>> Probably because some people think that Apple Music also requires Apple
>> hardware. Even without Apple hardware, the sound quality is superior as
>> is the selection.
>
> You would have better ears than I have to tell the difference.

The ears are one thing, but even if you only know about the
specifications, you would know that what Spotify offers can't compete.
Apple's lossy codec is the best there is, so a song encoded at 256kbps
using it will sound magnificent no matter what kind of speakers you use.
If that is not sufficient for you, it also offers lossless at no extra
charge. Meanwhile, the default for Spotify is AAC at 128kbps, using an
inferior codec that is probably the one offered by Nero. High quality
there is 256kbps, more or less on par with what Apple Music offers at
the low end but, again, with a worse encoder. There is no lossless option.

< snip >

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
TG: @AndrzejMatuch
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king.

Andrzej Matuch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On 2024-05-24 3:00 a.m., RonB wrote:
>> On 2024-05-24, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:

<brevsnip>

>>> Probably because some people think that Apple Music also requires Apple
>>> hardware. Even without Apple hardware, the sound quality is superior as
>>> is the selection.
>>
>> You would have better ears than I have to tell the difference.
>
> The ears are one thing, but even if you only know about the
> specifications, you would know that what Spotify offers can't compete.
> Apple's lossy codec is the best there is, so a song encoded at 256kbps
> using it will sound magnificent no matter what kind of speakers you use.
> If that is not sufficient for you, it also offers lossless at no extra
> charge. Meanwhile, the default for Spotify is AAC at 128kbps, using an
> inferior codec that is probably the one offered by Nero. High quality
> there is 256kbps, more or less on par with what Apple Music offers at
> the low end but, again, with a worse encoder. There is no lossless option.

But is the "loss" noticeable to human ears?

And if so, does it matter? I enjoy a tune the same whether I listen to it
through earbuds, $15 logitech speakers, whether in quiet or a bit of
background noise. Most of musical information is low frequency (under 5 kHz),
though the harmonics increase that up to maybe 16 kHz.

--
I'll burn my books.
-- Christopher Marlowe

Andrzej Matuch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On 2024-05-23 6:31 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 May 2024 07:58:35 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>
>>> Microsoft will hold onto the Windows core for as long as they can,
>>> and if they replace it, they will likely do so with a rewritten Windows
>>> core.
>>
>> The replacement wouldn’t work, because they couldn’t guarantee full bug-
>> for-bug compatibility with the current code.
>>
>> The only way out is the path of least resistance: delegate more and more
>> functionality to the Linux kernel in WSL2. Let the original Windows kernel
>> simply wither away. This will happen incrementally, not all at once.
>>
>> Does this sound like a wise plan to you? Doesn’t matter whether the answer
>> is “yes” or “no”: it is simply a continuation of the trend of short-
>> sighted decisions, taken for immediate profit, that have led Windows
>> development to the point where it is today, and will continue to lead it
>> forward into the future.
>
> This is wishful thinking on your part. The Windows core won't go away in
> favour of Linux, and I look forward to seeing this post again in 2044
> and knowing that I was right.

Heh, I will likely be dead by then. :-D :-D :-O

--
You will gain money by an illegal action.

On 2024-05-24 8:30 a.m., Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> Andrzej Matuch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On 2024-05-24 3:00 a.m., RonB wrote:
>>> On 2024-05-24, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>
> <brevsnip>
>
>>>> Probably because some people think that Apple Music also requires Apple
>>>> hardware. Even without Apple hardware, the sound quality is superior as
>>>> is the selection.
>>>
>>> You would have better ears than I have to tell the difference.
>>
>> The ears are one thing, but even if you only know about the
>> specifications, you would know that what Spotify offers can't compete.
>> Apple's lossy codec is the best there is, so a song encoded at 256kbps
>> using it will sound magnificent no matter what kind of speakers you use.
>> If that is not sufficient for you, it also offers lossless at no extra
>> charge. Meanwhile, the default for Spotify is AAC at 128kbps, using an
>> inferior codec that is probably the one offered by Nero. High quality
>> there is 256kbps, more or less on par with what Apple Music offers at
>> the low end but, again, with a worse encoder. There is no lossless option.
>
> But is the "loss" noticeable to human ears?

It is. There is an additional punch to the Apple AAC encoder that is
lacking in Nero's. Nero's does a good job, but it isn't as good. It's
better than MP3 though.

> And if so, does it matter? I enjoy a tune the same whether I listen to it
> through earbuds, $15 logitech speakers, whether in quiet or a bit of
> background noise. Most of musical information is low frequency (under 5 kHz),
> though the harmonics increase that up to maybe 16 kHz.

For people who aren't audiophiles, there isn't a difference in audio
quality, but they will likely notice the greater selection from Apple. I
also think that Apple has an excellent interface, with YouTube's being
the absolute worst.

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
TG: @AndrzejMatuch
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king.