Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 3rd Oct 2006 18:35 UTC, submitted by anonymous
SCO, Caldera, Unixware Novell appears to be attempting to cut off SCO's lifeline to its cash reserves. By not focusing on the arguments over who owns what in Unix but instead hammering on the far more simple matter of SCO not living up to its business contract, Novell hopes to put a quick end to SCO and its seemingly endless Linux litigation.
Thread beginning with comment 168009
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Title has it backwards
by DrillSgt on Tue 3rd Oct 2006 23:44 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Title has it backwards"
DrillSgt
Member since:
2005-12-02

"Don't confuse Linux with "desktop linux." Linux is strong force on the server side.

Also, don't forget that msft is insanely paranoid about the slighest chance of real competition. What Netscape that great a threat to msft?"


True enough on the server side. We use it here at work along with OpenBSD. We have one MS server that was put in before I got here.

Netscape kind of killed themselves off actually. I used Netscape myself until one thing happened, and that was that MS gave away the plugins for free, and to do something as simple as listen to an audio file one had to pay $29.99 in order to do the same for Netscape. Anyone else remember when you had to have Crescendo to do that? If Netscape had not gotten so cocky as to keep charging so much they could have won the browser war, although I will admit that MS sped things up a bit once they came out with IE 4. If Netscape could have kept up there are many of us I am sure who would have stayed with it, instead we went with the most for the least amount of money.

Reply Parent Score: 1

atsureki Member since:
2006-03-12

Economically impossible. Netscape was a company built on web browser sales. Microsoft decided to pull that market out from under them by making web browsers free (by licensing Mosaic and then giving it away). They paid for this ability with money from their profit ventures and introduced a vector where they could exert some influence over how the Web was read and written, thus creating dependence on a $200 product instead of a $30 one if you wanted a browser with working plug-ins. I was trying to watch some music videos on Logo's website. They don't work in anything but Windows (WMDRM only, lousy Viacom). The site author knows this and doesn't care. I guess I have you to thank for that.

Reply Parent Score: 3

DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"The site author knows this and doesn't care. I guess I have you to thank for that."

Huh? Any web page I write is w3c compliant and validated. So, I guess you have the site author to thank for that. I have not slammed anyone, so don't attack me without cause..fair enough?

Reply Parent Score: 1

DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"They paid for this ability with money from their profit ventures and introduced a vector where they could exert some influence over how the Web was read and written, thus creating dependence on a $200 product instead of a $30 one if you wanted a browser with working plug-ins."

Actually Netscape had working plugins as well. In fact, the exact same ones MS had. The difference was MS gave them away, and they were about $29.99 for the ones that worked with Netscape. In that effect yes, MS did play hard ball. As well, between Netscape and MS they each had browsers that were no where near standards compliant and had their own tags and such, not readable by any other browsers. Stupid on both parts IMO.

Reply Parent Score: 1