From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 16:12:09 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 16:11:59 -0400 Received: from 216-60-128-137.ati.utexas.edu ([216.60.128.137]:36742 "HELO tsunami.webofficenow.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 16:11:56 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Rob Landley Reply-To: landley@webofficenow.com To: Tony Hoyle , Davide Libenzi Subject: Re: [OT] Threads, inelegance, and Java Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 11:10:55 -0400 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.2] Cc: Russell Leighton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ben Greear In-Reply-To: <3B30D776.5090902@magenta-netlogic.com> In-Reply-To: <3B30D776.5090902@magenta-netlogic.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01062011105507.00776@localhost.localdomain> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 20 June 2001 13:03, Tony Hoyle wrote: > (Just came back from a .NET conference... MS are currently rewriting > all their apps in bytecode... whoopee... They're even porting *games* > to run on it. I can see it now 'MS Flight Simulator .NET' (Requires > quad Pentium 4 1.6Ghz minimum) :-o ) Well, that ought to make Intel happy. The price of a new desktop box around these parts has dropped to about $250, and that comes preassembled. $25 for ram, $80 hard drive, $40 processor in ~$30 motherboard, and the floppy, case, power supply, and keyboard are all a rounding error. The monitor's still expensive, but those are recycled from system to system and you can get a 17 inch for $99 from goodwill computers. So how exactly DOES MS expect to stop the Linux folks from reverse engineering .NET apps? Patents? Giving up on the client side and moving to an ASP business model (toe to toe with AOL)? Constant gratuitous compatability changes to try to prevent all those nasty GPL viruses from evolving an immunity to their new proprietary drug? (Without, of course, being obvious enough to trigger a third antitrust trial after the 1995 and 1998 ones...) Just curious... > Tony