Geebus, you can't even quote correctly.
You didn't prove anything about OS software working on the end-user platform. Wow, so Dell and others offer it as an option. Big f'n deal. It's still unwieldy, poorly implemented, and until your regular user adopts it is not a viable alternative to anybody but a geek.
Dell offers it on their platform because it appeals to Linux users who feel good about buying a pre-built system with Linux on it. It costs Dell *nothing*. Just replacing the image on the machine. Personally, I think the smarter move is to get the copy of Windows for $30 (since that's about what you'd pay if you broke down the PC down into parts) and download Ubuntu for free. The people who buy Linux PCs from Dell are more idealistic, and honestly... a tad stupid.
Every company is anti-competitive. If any company could choose they wouldn't have any competitition and they do anything they can to destroy that competition. It is up to the competitor to do the same dang thing. You're pretty damn naive to think that that is anything but.
I do not remember the exact release of Firefox, but it was an ass release, yes, it is still better than IE in some cases, worse in others.
IE is a good example of MS's failings. They GAVE UP development on it, and allowed a "Firefox" to rear its head. They brought about tabbed windows, usability, extensions, etc. Now MS has to play catch-up to Firefox. This is the natural order of things, and I can guarantee that by IE8, there will be significant enhancements to the browser to help set itself 'on top' again.
Perhaps you should have realized that it wasn't neccessarily directed at you? My argument is far from falling apart. Again, if OS was anything but insignificant than they would have a much larger market penetration. The excuse it uses on the end-user front is a monopolistic power. Wow, great job at deflecting the problem.
The point of the argument and me bringing that into the picture is that I am not a kid and yes, I have been around the block. Frankly, you seem to not have that great of an idea of what roles companies play, as much as you think I don't have a great idea about software. I used to run a few solaris servers back in the day, when I was working sys admin for a few departments at my school. You're right, I don't know about software engineering, nor could I care about it at this point.
I don't like windows personally for a few reasons, but that doesn't mean I cannot appreciate what it has done for personal computing and what it continues to do. I do not try to deflect the problems of windows by claiming that somebody else has a monopoly. I can dislike a lot of things but appreciate their overall value.
However, as far as disliking MS in general, I think people like blaming MS for a lot of stuff that's simple business practice. Whine and cry about it all you want, it doesn't make OS any better for your average person.
Microsoft doesn't make the BEST OS by any means. OS X has a lot of things going for it that I love (especially their ease of use with installations, etc). There are limitations on what MS can, and cannot do.
First, they cannot re-write the OS and give you something better. There HAS to be legacy support for their older OSes because people won't upgrade if they can't run their older software. Apple had such low marketshare, that a re-write wasn't going to hurt them. It's helped them significantly.
Next, Microsoft -- and most Linux folks forget this -- has a LOT of smart people working for it. The idea that an OSS programmer is somehow better than a MS programmer is idiotic. MS programmers are brilliant minds, and the ones that are not get weeded out on an occasional basis.
Also... Open source is not any better than closed source just "because". This is an idiotic argument. First of all, the belief in Open Source is kind of like a religion, where the hard work people do on their product should somehow be revealed for everybody to see and benefit, is not a NECESSARY step to take. What if I open sourced my medicine? What if I open sourced my new recipe for brownies? Sorry to say, but open source is a nice novelty in a world of capitalism. And in that world, secrets are abound, and make money. If drug companies let others 'in' on how they created a drug, then they will have a bunch of copycats and make little to NO money off the product. In software, you can do this because you will sell the software as a 'service'. You pay for support. You pay for implementation.
Also realize, that open source isn't better in quality than closed source either. John Carmack has said as much -- if there are dedicated eyes continually looking at software being built, then it is probably better than an open source environment where lots of untrained eyes are looking for and filing bug reports. Firefox is a great example of a successful open source piece of software, because there is SO MUCH participation in the project. But go on SourceForge and tell me how many products get that kind of participation. Almost none.
Lastly, Microsoft doesn't sell just an "OS". They sell you an "Enterprise". You get Windows as your foundation. Upon it you get Office. Upon that you get Sharepoint. Upon that you get Exchange. Upon that you get IIS. Upon that you get Softgrid. Upon that you get more and more software. And it all works together, seamlessly, providing you an environment you would only dream of mimicking in Linux or on a Mac.
Are they the best tools? NO! But they are the ONLY ones in some cases, and they work with one another with raw power and seamlessness that nobody can duplicate. That's why Microsoft is successful. Because when you need that software that allows you to write a document, publish it easily to an intranet, email it out to others, collaborate on it, make sure it's available online, etc... you tend to go with the products that work together the best. And that's why people hate them.
But I always say, instead of complaining.. do something about it. Bill Gates and Microsoft may have stomped out competition without any heart -- but that's capitalism. I don't think he should feel bad about using and bending every rule he can to make his company as successful as possible. That's the heart of the American system, and it helps to stomp out those (like IE) and bring adoption to something new (Firefox).
In the US, and in the world at large.. the best product wins. Windows isn't the best single product, but as a whole on what it offers.. it is BY FAR the best product for a lot of people. And they continue to be that way. When they get challenged on an area as a 'platform' then, and only then, will MS have something to worry about. IBM is trying and failing miserably because they are staying true to their horrendous UIs and horrible interoperability, but they are offering a 'suite'. And the joke of what IBM is trying to do is the BEST there has been so far.
It's not good enough. Good for Bill Gates to get as far as he did. He used the system, forced it to work for himself, and got rich. Now he's giving back. There is nothing to be sorry about for that. Kudos to him, and his legacy for computing will last hundreds of years to come.