well it's about time, i've always considered yahoo as a visually displeasing website and therefore never commited them to my browser's start page as i've always wanted to because of the nice features MyYahoo does have. finally!

edit{
nevermind, i just saw the beta pages... they don't look that much different at all. compare this to MSN's MyMSN page... MSN looks so much better (all-beit slower), i just wish it wasn't M$! :)

Yeah, it isn't much different, is it?

And what's this hostility with Microsoft?

I think MS rulez. Great OS, great products, awesome service and support and overall a great company!

Re: the hostility with Microsoft.

This is just that tiresome (lack of) spirit of our times, I guess: group think.

s/he allegedly loves MSN's features and functionalities, but hey, zeitgeist says:"M$ is evil" so...

The same absence of self determination and reasoning gives you the crowds of zombies marching in the streets with Che Guevarra tee-s***s under Palestinian flags, chanting "Bush equals Hitler, America is a dictatorship".

wouldn't say Bush is Hitler, especially beeing a german. But he isn't quite very democratic either, isn't he ?

Like in almost all western countries, freedom of speech means that you are allowed to say everything, as long as nobody is listening...

:-)

Naah, of course he isn't 'very democratic': zeitgeist says 'Bush stole the elections'.

And sure, 'like all Western countries' there's no real freedom of speech: zeitgeist says 'Bush is crushing dissent'.

The only quirk being, of course, the crowds of zombies marching in the streets with Che Guevarra tee-s***s under Palestinian flags, chanting "Bush equals Hitler, America is a dictatorship"... in America.

And talking about nationality:
a) I'm French ;)
b) I don't see why you 'wouldn't say Bush is Hitler, especially beeing a German'. I mean, particularly when even German ministers have no qualms doing so... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2271137.stm)

You guys know how Hitler actually took over the government in 1932? By arguing "Hey, this dutch TERRORIST set our Reichstag-Building on fire, it'a about time you give all the power to me so I can eradicate terrorism". He was given te power.

Doesn't that sound A LOT like bush? Isn't he justifying his imperial wars with terrorism? Oh yeah I forgot, Saddam Hussein was involved in September 11th... Right.

Wow when did this beta forum turn into a political forum?
Keep politics off here it is consuming too much of the internet/media elsewhere!

There are VERY legitimate reasons to mistrust Microsoft- it is not groupthink, it is not jealousy, it is logical and legitimate. Anything that is virtually a necessity for life must not be controlled by a single source, or if it is, they must be forced to act in the public interest. If water was all owned by Bill Gates, everyone would see the danger in that, we would all be his slaves. If Windows were necessary to run a business, we would be slaves to any whim MS may have. They already get a third of the cost of a new Dell, and if you buy Office also, you've paid more to MS for something that their Incremental cost is zero than you have to Dell for the hardware. The only safety is if there is an alternative, so thank goodness people are trying to make an alternative practical.

live is political. live with it.

Sorry but, as I wrote below, I'm French, so maybe I missed something as far as political life in the US was concerned: when exactly was Bush given "all the power" by the Congress? (or whoever/whatever you imagine is giving away "power")

Huh?

Because seen from this side of the Atlantic, there's this little thing with polls and ballots in just a few weeks that doesn't sound really like totalitarianism. I think it's called an 'election'.

Now tell me: how often have you been wearing Che Guevarra tee s***s? And do yo enjoy chanting in the streets?

Okay, so let me try to put some order in your chaos:

"Anything that is virtually a necessity for life must not be controlled by a single source"

Agreed on the principle, but then MS is not really concerned. A Windows PC is not a 'necessity for life' (I'm not talking to the geeks and nerds here, mind you) and even if computers were 'vital', there are other alternatives. This is free market. Be happy and enjoy.

"...or if it is, they must be forced to act in the public interest."

So called "public interest" is a fallacy and a common alibi to coerce a part of society to the will and needs of another part, so I'm not even going to debate on that.
But then, I'd love to know *who* exactly you reckon should be "forcing" them to "act in the public interest".

Because at that point, it's not yet clear if you're advocating for a Fascist or a Communist way.
The difference would be purely semantic though. Communism is the plundering of the means of production by the state, Fascists regimes just want to control them. Either of which, of course, in the name of your 'public interest'.

"If water was all owned by Bill Gates, everyone would see the danger in that, we would all be his slaves."

To that I could argue that if more water was indeed private property, then we would take more care of not wasting it, but that's not the point here. The point is that you're comparing apples with oranges: you don't need a computer as much as you need water (unless you have serious issues with your social life).

"If Windows were necessary to run a business, we would be slaves to any whim MS may have."

Again, you're leaving aside a rather important parameter: this is a free market, and no matter how hard they try, nobody can sell you something you don't want to buy.

As a matter of fact, and since you seem to hold (rightfully, I hasten to add) a grudge against slavery, I hope you noticed that while the West got rid of it in the XIXth, it was reintroduced during the XXth century in places were Communists enforced the dictate of the 'public interest', having taken the power by force, as they always did.

"They already get a third of the cost of a new Dell, and if you buy Office also, you've paid more to MS for something that their Incremental cost is zero than you have to Dell for the hardware."

I'm sorry but I think that sentence should be taken out and shot. The heck do you mean?

"The only safety is if there is an alternative,"

Err... So what are you complaining about exactly?

"... so thank goodness people are trying to make an alternative practical."

Nope. The word you're looking for is "thank free market economy" or even "thank Capitalism", if you want to make it shorter and more generic.

There's no such thing as "public interest", but there is indeed a vast, dynamic and creative web of individuals' private interests. Some of them program computer OSes, some of them make shoes, stools, t-bone steaks or space ships, and some of them search a cure for cancer. That's what Adam Smith called 'the invisible hand'.

And that's what Capitalism is about.

After your class on how to write you may want to seek another board to post your political views.

"The only safety is if there is an alternative,"

> Err... So what are you complaining about
> exactly?

I complain that there is NO alternative for most novice users now, because they are not up to the task of using an alternate o/s.

"... so thank goodness people are trying to make an alternative practical."

Nope. The word you're looking for is "thank free market economy" or even "thank Capitalism", if you want to make it shorter and more generic.

Wrong! Capitalism or the free market will never provide any help against Microsoft. It is only the generosity of people willing to give away their code for nothing that will hopefully save the common users one day, and that is not a foregone conclusion. I thank those people, who are not acting in pursuit of profit. But still, Linux may never be easy enough for the common user if we are not fortunate.
Capitalism does not function in the situation of monopolies, for reasons that you understand very well if you know as much about economics as you claim. If you support MS, a powerful and manipulative monopoly of a good that is an essential for the majority of businesses, you are not a capitalist.

anyone here ever hear of Godwin's law?

look it up on your favorite search engine, be it yahoo, google, msn or whatever.

this thread is over.

Let's be fair here. Most capitalists, when unchecked, would be entirely in favor of rampant monopoly power. The good thing is, though that where monopolies exist, there are checks put in place to prevent such things.

Microsoft is a monopoly by default. It is an easy operating system that most people have chosen to use. Therefore, Microsoft has the power of the marketplace to set prices and do business. I see nothing very wrong with that.

I don't approve of crushing businesses. Microsoft has in the past done this. However, businesses have learned how to survive in the MS dominated marketplace by simply being better.

Bill Gates is not Satan and Microsoft is not the harbinger of the apocolypse. Please be aware that there are some people who just simply like using the products that are presented to them. The more third party applications I install, the larger my registry gets, and the slower my computer eventually becomes.

I am pleased that Yahoo! is attempting to improve their site. But saying that. I don't use third party apps whenever possible. I have Opera and Firefox on my machine primarily because I design web pages and they have to show up the same on all pages. Little quirks here and there make it necessary for me to tweak and render. I choose one simple search engine, A9 which is very cool. I choose one IM to stay mostly in, MSNIM, but my mom has AOL so...

You get the point. I'm a power user, but I really don't care about tabbed browsing. The popup blocker in XPSP2 is awesome, and so is the firewall. I don't want to bloat my machine any more than is necessary. Or then maybe your paranoia blinds you to the point I'm making.

"Paranoia comes from ignorance. Facts bring peace" -- Steven Brock (Myself)

I admit that it is convenient to have everything all in one bundle, and that Windows is a nice program, that serves most of the needs most people and businesses have. But, even if a Honda is a good car, I am also glad that Honda is not the only car company- the existence of other strong competitors reduces the price to a reasonable level. Windows, however, with its monopoly, can cost much more than it should.

Also, the expense of Windows for US businesses makes everything made in the US cost more than it would if there was real competition to windows. In a true free market, there would be at least one strong competitor with a close (but not exact) substitute, and competition would reduce the price to just barely enough to keep the 2 companies in business, with a small and reasonable profit. (Both would want to lower their price to gain market share, but if they were equally efficient, would come to a point where they could not without making themselves too close to unprofitable.) But, MS has so much money, market share, compatible software, user familiarity, etc., that no capitalist competitor can ever catch up unless several countries devoted their entire budget to trying to beat MS. But, the ability to charge nothing gives Linux the advantage that may one day allow them to be a real competitor, and gain enough of the market that games will be written for both, that a business can survive with either, etc. Then, MS will either have to lower its price to compete, or give up at almost all of its market share and only keep the rare customer who believes that the new "widely-used, win compatible, easy linux" is not a close enough substitute. This will lower the costs of all businesses and allow more low income consumers to have more computers, both of which would improve the economy and people's quality of life. Let us pray that Linux gains market share soon.

So you say a free alternative that is inferior to a paid product (primarily because of support) can make for strong competition? Do you drink from the tap or do you buy bottled water?

>So you say a free alternative that is inferior
>to a paid product (primarily because of support)
>can make for strong competition? Do you drink
>from the tap or do you buy bottled water?

If by support you mean tech support, then yes, I say exactly that. Inexpensive availability of safe (if perhaps not as tasty) tap water keeps the price of bottled water in check. Also, the competition between many bottlers of water.
If there was a free alternative that could run enough Windows programs and was easy enough to use and install- even if it had no phone or guaranteed response email support- many, many people will choose it. MS would have to either lower their price or give up LOTS of market share.
If on the other hand by "lack of support" you mean the fact that most applications are written for Windows only, then obviously the majority of people would not choose that, even for free. It seems likely that good Windows emulation (or compatibility if you prefer) will be one of the prerequisites before Linux can get significant market share for home users, and perhaps even for business desktops.
However, imagine that MS tripled their OS prices. If they did, Linux as it stands now could easily gain major market share. So, even Linux as it stands now is forcing MS to keep some sanity in its prices.