But there is a problem when the standard platforms and software are owned by a private company. And that's the problem with Microsoft, which owned Windows.
I don't see the point of this (and I hear it a lot). Surely you are not saying that Windows might be better-accepted if it was state-owned. If MS
was state owned, you would soon see laws banning other companies (bye-bye Linux).
I don't know if Canada ever had state-owned telephone monopolies, like we had in Europe. Here in Switzerland, in 1990, a one hour phone call to the U.S. would cost about 100 Francs to Swisscom - the state monopoly. Now that the same call will cost only 6 Francs, since competitors were allowed in a few years ago. And that is before inflation is taken into account.
State-owned monopolies do not "protect the consumer from vicious private companies". They are simply another way of raising state revenue.
I think Windows is an amazing product. It has more functioning parts than an aircraft carrier, and costs a hell of a lot less to maintain. I can't really think of anything that I want it to do that it does not allow me to do on a PC
, if properly configured. And nobody is preventing anyone else from developing a competing product - witness Linux. IBM tried hard with OS
/2, but it sucked, and rightfully bombed. Of course, any competitor will have to play catch-up, as Windows XP
is the result of some 15 years of evolving experience with Windows.
That said, if somebody wants to make a better operating system, I'm all for it, and I'll buy it if it is truely better.
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.