# Microsoft as a scapegoat for other software developers?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/microsoft-as-a-scapegoat-for-other-software-developers/236176>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [March 24, 2004, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/microsoft-as-a-scapegoat-for-other-software-developers/236176 "2004-03-24T19:49:00Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Inoshiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a9adbd/32.png) [@Inoshiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inoshiro)\
**Post date:** [March 26, 2004, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/microsoft-as-a-scapegoat-for-other-software-developers/236176/41 "2004-03-26T15:03:00Z")

</div>

> [@Bob!](#):
>
> And the unanswered point remains: Why doesn’t a _absolutely free_ OS (Linux), along with its _absolutely free_ partners in crime (Open Office, etc) take over the market from non-free MS operating systems and products? Open Source really can’t reduce costs past free, unless Linus and RMS are going to start cutting checks for home users to switch over, can it? But still, people prefer to pay whatever amount (fairly low amount, when you spread the cost out over the life of the OS/program) for the MS product. Why is that?

The point has been answered Bob, you simply can’t think of anything better to say so you keep restating it - argumentum ad nauseum. It’s hugely ironic that the only reason people like you are able to make these sort of “free competition” arguments is that the DOJ’s weak remedy at least allowed people (in theory anyway) to buy a Linux PC without being forced by Microsoft to pay for Windows even though they don’t use it.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/microsoft-as-a-scapegoat-for-other-software-developers/236176.md?page=2)