From: nuh-uh@nope.com   
      
   On 2026-02-23 09:23, Joel W. Crump wrote:   
   > On 2/23/26 12:12 PM, -hh wrote:   
   >> On 2/23/26 09:51, Joel W. Crump wrote:   
   >>> On 2/23/26 9:46 AM, DFS wrote:   
   >>>> On 2/23/2026 8:11 AM, chrisv wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> "[chrisv] refueses to realize that MS & Apple weren't ever the only   
   >>>>> OSs out there:"  -  lying asshole "-hh", lying shamelessly   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Only you are lying, asshole.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> You called Microsoft Windows a "monopoly" hundreds of times.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> FU   
   >>>   
   >>> Windows is a monopoly but so is macOS, any proprietary OS is a   
   >>> monopoly because it's impossible to 100% make a compatible system,   
   >>> Wine has done a good job of trying to do that, but it comes up short   
   >>> inevitably because it will never keep the pace with M$ itself.  GNU/   
   >>> Linux, OTOH, is compatible with other Unix-like systems.   
   >>   
   >> Unfortunately, that isn't the definition of a monopoly.   
   >>   
   >> Monopolies:   
   >>   
   >> * Exclusive Control: company controls a good or service in a specific   
   >> market, typically with no close substitutes.   
   >>   
   >> * Market Power (similar to "deep moat"): has significantly influence   
   >> market prices, & limiting competitor entry.   
   >>   
   >> * Market Share:  having very large share (often over 50%) is generally   
   >> considered to have monopoly power.   
   >>   
   >> Of these, Windows comes the closest, but being a monopoly isn't   
   >> illegal in of itself: it is to exploit that monopoly power for undue   
   >> gain.   
   >   
   >   
   > The first example fits Apple, though.  Apple has created a closed   
   > platform despite its dependence on the Unix core, where you literally   
   > have to buy hardware they produce to use the software, that is   
   > definitely a type of monopoly, because the fans are so loathe to make   
   > any other choice.  Windows not only has that definition in effect, but   
   > the one of having majority of the market.  If it were not for GNU and   
   > Linus Torvalds, there would literally be no other choice that wasn't   
   > commercial.  This is why savvy users choose GNU/Linux.  It's not only   
   > free as in freedom, but it's superior software, anyway.  I can run   
   > Debian on this four-core four-thread mini PC, and it performs very well   
   > nearly all the time, Win11 was OK but had its moments of lagging in   
   > performance.   
   >   
      
   No. Because the "specific market[s]" that Apple serves aren't "Apple   
   compatible devices", but "personal computing devices".   
      
   Anyone who uses Apple's devices is free to buy devices from other   
   companies that run other OSes.   
      
   The "fans" being "loathe" to make any other CHOICE is tacit admission   
   that they are free to MAKE a choice.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)