> Because despite what you might assume from reading what I've written here today, I'm not against or opposed to open source and open protocol stuff.
And the point of asking what I did was to point out maybe you wouldn't be able to get as far as you did without linux; certainly macos wasn't an option, right? Not a modern version at least. Why criticize an area linux is falling short when you're preferred OS isn't even an option? It just doesn't make sense in this context.
> And so as I've asked before in other places, what monopoly are they regulating here?
Are you the same type of person who would argue never had a monopoly because Apple and Netscape were available?
This supports that it seems to be an edge case.
> Because despite what you might assume from reading what I've written here today, I'm not against or opposed to open source and open protocol stuff.
And the point of asking what I did was to point out maybe you wouldn't be able to get as far as you did without linux; certainly macos wasn't an option, right? Not a modern version at least. Why criticize an area linux is falling short when you're preferred OS isn't even an option? It just doesn't make sense in this context.
> And so as I've asked before in other places, what monopoly are they regulating here?
Are you the same type of person who would argue never had a monopoly because Apple and Netscape were available?