joaocordeiro

Nope, for it to be illegal MS just needs to make "unreasonably hard" for competition to exist. Making a total blockade is also illegal, but not a necessity.

MS is a software provider. In VS specific package. They sell/sold a program developing editor with a compiler and the respective support. They advertise it's a C editor/compile. That's their product in that category. But instead of adopting standard, already existing opensource libs, they created a bunch of packages to make sure that C compiler would only compile windows stuff. Let me say it again in other words. They went the extra mile to make it harder for others to compete. When a company exists in markets A, B. And markets A and B are distinct but have an inter connection. The law says a company cannot use its position on market A to reduce competition on market B.

Dot net compatibility.... Visual studio not having a Linux compiler and code made there not compiling on other compilers. Direct X not existing on any form in Linux. Visual studio redistributes not existing on Linux. making near impossible to compile VS created stuff for linux.

Nice to see you admitting that at least there was a monopoly....

For example: for years, MS broke HTML compatibility, making website written for Internet Explorer only work properly in Internet Explorer. And there was no IE for Linux. In this case, MS abused their monopoly to make sure that using an alternative, even facing the HTML standard, would come at a great cost. Greater than any "design choice made by linux of opensource folks".

If you have extra hardships to use the alternative in consequence of MS abusing its power, then it's a monopoly issue. There are laws against this.

Goverments all over the world have anti monopoly laws.

There is. Make governments break this monopoly. My 2 kids have IT in school. OS used: windows... It was a pain to explain to teachers to accept their papers in PDF. They kept saying they wanted a docx....

Look, i dont agree. But lets pretend I agree with this comment. How about now? Do you believe Linux is still far from being "user friendly"? And if yes, please say 1 measure they could take to fix it. Do you believe MS does not abuse their current monopoly situation to retain its market share despite major privacy and security issues proven to exist in Windows?

But "incompetence" is a lot more unforgiving when facing a monopoly. To a point where "valid design choices" can become "incompetence".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp. https://fsfe.org/activities/ms-vs-eu/timeline.en.html

This is even a bigger BS... Its like MS was never put in court for screwing compatibility. Like EU never passed daily fines on the millions on MS for breaking MS file standards or forcing a browser into its users.

What a complete BS... You can install ubuntu graphically with 5 to 10 "next" clicks. You can manage most stuff with UI. You install packages with a graphical ui. No terminal is ever needed. If thats not user friendly, what is?

Actually there are a lot more. Those 3 are "Generalistic OS", but you are missing OpenBSD(and its brothers). It has a working desktop environment and most (linux) office tools work there. Then you got a lot of purpose specific Os but also used worldwide. like: Android. (what ever iphone uses) vmworks HarmonyOS While the last group was meant to serve a specific platform/function, the first group was designed to be generalist. As a user, understanding reality, we are all forced to make these choices. But it is not by design. It's because of a crappy 30 years old monopoly. If software and drivers producers dedicated the same amount of time to Linux and MAC that they dedicate to Windows, no one, in their right mind would be using windows, as it is. Why the hell, EVERY program you try to run requires administration elevation to install? How is this safe? Why is there no package manager on Windows? Why, after 30 years of downloading Trojans, do we still have to go find a website to download software? Why are we forced to have Cortana and a bunch of new publicity stuff enabled every time Windows updates? A Windows user has no real control over their computer. We have to assume MS will take care of it. And that assumption comes at the cost of privacy and security level. The only reason we still use this crap is because that's what everyone else uses, makes tutorials about and makes software for. It's a bad product forced to us by its monopoly position. It's the exact reason why anti monopoly laws exist.

Not in mine:

On smartphones/tablets? On pc? Can you give us a screen/picture? (because i don't see any sidebar)

There no technical reason for this to happen. Linux kernel is capable of supporting any VR software or driver. The reason is how capitalism works facing a monopoly. So my question is, how long should governments allow for this unchallenged monopoly to continue..

Nice addition. And i know some of you will argue that this should not be a priority. But remember programers are not all equal. The ppl skilled to do this are not necessarily skilled to program what you consider a "priority"

This applies to other areas. In physics we have a theorical possibility. It is great to do papers about it and test it in very controlled environments. But if we want to implement it in a device, a "theorical possibility" is not what we need. We need a "easy and cheap to reproduce effect" Back to DU JC's vision was a pack of "theorical possibilities" : Player only content. 1 shard for the entire world. Voxel based massive world. Player driven civilization. All of those were possible. But were those "easy" or "cheap" to implement? No. So a good visionary is one that the main core of theories used are practical. So should visionary change its vision after it has been shown to fail? Yes and no. No, the vision should not change. It should be discarted as "failed" Can a project with a failed vision get another new vision? Sure. So the status of JC's vision: Failed. Does DU currently have a vision? Dont know. Does DU need a new vision? Probably yes.

No, their opinion is not important. Their feedback is important. And there is a big difference between this two words. A trained expert can read 100 entries of feedback, from 100 different players and see a pattern. With that pattern he can find a problem he needs to solve. Maybe even find the solution to the problem. This is a professional method. This has nothing to do with the player's opinion. Most/all the problems you see in the game were/are support by some player giving his opinion. Each problem to each group of lobbyists. This is what following "opinions" got us.

I think you are right im some things while not that right in others. Yes i feel NQ has to change their decision making strategy. But in my view, they should not listen to any suggestion players make. Instead they should hire profecionals. Ppl that know what players want. Ppl that know how to gather statistics about player engagement and happiness. And after they have those professionals then they can look to our suggestions and analise those with data and experience, instead of guts.

Well, i dont know about "geek". And i dont regard the "geek" as a offense. But you're definitely being a "diva" And please understand, i agree with you with your posts about Linux. But in this world, unlike what cartoons would make us believe, ppl are not allways right or allways wrong. And you are wrong with your "toxic" excuse. And not that we are not "toxic", we are, to the point NQ had to warn us, a few weeks ago. I myself got a serious warning about "trolling" recently. But that did not happen on this topic! In a capistalist world, ppl have the right to point linux's market share as a reason to not provide support. I dont agree, but its not a "rude" argument to make. I will say it again. There are a allot valid reasons to not play this game. I dont currently play it. But dont use this topic as a lame excuse... No one will stop playing a game because of writen stuff in a forum. And yes, i "dare" call your "reason" BS. Because it is BS and i got eyes to read..

There are allot of reasons to do this. But dont use this topic as a excuse. There are like 5 ppl replying to you. 1 of them may be considered toxic, the others are just debating the topic. If you dont like the game cancel the subscription. Just dont make up excuses.

Maybe we just need a windows version that runs on Linux

Yes, i have that example in mind. And most of the problems of java are related to the crappy programers doing code in it. But java is not a true binary standard. Java vm only allows "binaries" written in java language. The idea would be for any .obj created by compiling a code file to be able to linked into that new binary format. Those binaries, instead of preforming kernel calls directly, would provide a place in memory for the address of those calls to be added by the OS. Instead of assuming maloc calls kernel on address 0xNNNNN the binary would require that address to be fulfilled by the kernel on program start. Understand that this things already exist. There is a windows standard, very well known. And a Linux standard, and a Playstation format, etc... We just need regulation to force them all to adopt a single standard.