Okay just to play devils advocate. (Not that I'm particularly fond of Micro$oft) but, why would a company be legally required to make a software package for Linux? or Apple? Wouldn't the same then have to apply to all software manufacturers. I just don't see that one standing. I think that they should have to take IM, IE, NetMeeting, OE, and all the other stuff that they imbed out of Windows. I mean if you try and install a rival for some "mysterious" reason it just doesn't work quite right with Windows the way the Microsoft stuff does. It's like an old teacher of mine used to say. Microsoft like Microsoft and heaven help you if you try and interfere with that relationship. -----Original Message----- From: Phil Mendelsohn [mailto:phil at rephil.org] Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 5:06 PM To: tclug-list at mn-linux.org Subject: [TCLUG] MS Settlement For no particular reason I glanced at www.kstp.com, and one of the headlines for today was about the nine states holding out on the M$ settlement. One of the things that they are pushing for is a restriction that make M$ have to supply apps for other OS's. They specifically mentioned that M$ threatened to cease making Office or Word for Apple (Mac), and that that sort of thing would be forbidden. The thought occurred to me that this would be the time to write to Mike Hatch (and the other boys/girls) at the MN AG's orifice and let them know that not only should M$ have to provide apps for Apple, but that they should be forced to make a version for Linux. Not only is it satisfyingly ironic and I'd love to see Gates and Ballmer's apoplectic gasket-blowing reaction, but it's a fair and valid legal point. What say all y'all? -- "Trying to do something with your life is like sitting down to eat a moose." --Douglas Wood _______________________________________________ Twin Cities Linux Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota http://www.mn-linux.org tclug-list at mn-linux.org https://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list