from the libertarian newspaper

[Luke -Jr]

On Monday 22 January 2007 14:56, Phil Thayer wrote:
> I think that what people forget is that there are reasons that all
> operating systems on the market in today's IT world are there because
> they have something that the user wants. 

Or, in the case of Microsoft, because they have a monopoly.

> Windows on the other hand is not as stable as Linux, however has it's own
> strengths in the fact that it is the most recognizable OS on the market
> today.  If you were to set someone who was relatively computer illiterate
> down in front of Windows and Linux, which one do you think they would
> recognize?

If someone is computer illiterate, they wouldn't recognize either. They would 
certainly have an easier time using a *nix OS than they would using Windows.

> I do not understand what you mean by the "Microsoft Tax".  If a company
> or person creates a product and markets it extremely well (regardless of
> whether it is good or not) and there is a demand for that product, why
> would they not price it based on the demand?  That does not seem like a
> tax to me, that seems like capitalism to me.  

Except that it is not optional. You are *forced* to purchase Windows with the 
vast majority of computers. If it was optional, you *might* have a point.