He may have "whined", about how six gazillion DLLs don't get along after he installs three-and-a-half thousand humonguous application suites, or how he managed to break the whole OS -- often in the most moronic fashion, BTW -- and he may have richly earned the satires posted here and there over the 'Net, along the lines of "Bill sent six of his stand-by techs in a Cobra helicopter..." or "Larry helped me reinstall the database server..."; and in those columns that inspired that kind of satire, he may also have whined -- a little. But, the main thing is, despite all his parenthetic whining, he has consistently written as if it were natural and obvious and logical that Microsoft rules and shall continue to rule the roost; he has always, always, always taken that for so utterly granted that it must have, for those who read too much of him and too little else (and I'm fairly sure such people still exist -- I was one of them for years), seemed like not only a law of Nature, but Ghod-given ghospel too.
And, frankly, the fact that he now makes a few confused noises that -- with a lot of good will -- might be interpreted to say that he doesn't see the world that way any more... is just not enough. For such a humonguous, almost literally Earth-shattering, from his point of view, change of mind to have taken place... for us to really believe that, I think it would be prudent to wait a little while to see if the change is permanent, or if it will just happen to last exactly as long as the re-trial [sic! (unfortunately)] in the appelate court.
Heck, you don't have to wait very long at all to see his old views reasserting themselves! See what he says in the very article that got this thread started:
I do not think Judge Penfield Jackson knew what he was doing. The "monopoly" case against Microsoft in that one was not made. [Note the quotation marks around 'monopoly' - CRC]
Nope, he doesn't think it could actually be true they did anything wrong. (BTW, he's still the same lovable Ayn-Rand-inspired ultra-right-wing kook he has always been, as he illustrates in the very same paragraph by intimating that "TRUE" monopolies can only be government-created or -"enforced". Total fucking bullshit, but to an economist perhaps the surest sign that it's a way-loony objectivist / libertarian / whatever they want to call themselves nowadays that you've found.)
Anyway, he goes on to divulge what Linux is really all about:
Microsoft needs REAL competition [bold typeface mine - CRC]
There you have it. It's not as if anything but Microsoft were actually good or useful on its own; the only function any competing system can really have is to light a bit of a fire under Microsoft's ass, so the Juggernaut wakes up and reasserts its rightful position at the top of the food-chain.
If anything is surprising here, it's how anyone could take that article to mean that he is not a shill -- when all the evidence you could ever need (or want) that he is one, is right there in that same article.
Christian R. Conrad
Christian R. Conrad
I live in Finland.