WARNING: Some language and this entry is a bit rambly/unfocused.

I was reading an antitrust complaint[0] on quux.org about Microsoft's
brilliant strategy against Netscape and the "vicious" cycle of OS
dominance leading to software dominance. While Windows truly does have
quite a big software presence still, it is no longer the undisputed
king of the hill. In the USA especially, Apple has gained quite a bit
of ground. Thanks to Nadella being a fucking idiot cramming and
forcing anticonsumer policies and software onto newer Windows
versions, Windows is less popular than ever (before they became the
big dog). DistroTube recently said that Linux flavors were now in the
"normie" OS space. All the work of learning a POSIX-based OS and
dealing with the quirks has become more viable to many than dealing
with Microsoft's bullshit. As an even-more-oppressed user of Mac OS
(back when it was called System #), Windows XP and beyond represented
the freedom that I wanted: freedom to use more than a pittance of
software and games.

I'm not a FOSS idealist, at least not in theory. Why? I don't
particularly respect the libre/gratis software market. It's like the
Atari market in 1983 or the Nintendo Wii: it's filled with newbie and
terrible software, glitches, bugs, trash. Ubuntu is one of the largest
Linux OSes out there because it has money behind it. It has a vision
(agreeable or not). It has direction and quality (which I personally
don't use, but can respect) that 99% of open-source software doesn't.
For all the great things about free software (I use quite a bit of
it), I'm not opposed to closed-source or necessarily paid software
(although gratis software makes up at least 90% of my software use).
It all comes down to trust, and even though the transparency of FOSS
enables you to see it, sometimes you have to look pretty damn hard to
find any malicious code or intent. Opera (before the Chinese firm
bought it and they went Chromium) was a great example of how
closed-source software is done right: great features, a WWW
trailblazer that even had an entire web suite (email, calendar, even
IRC). It was superior to the tab-copycat Firefox (which I don't use to
this day thanks to bad bugs and other pitfalls of FilOSSophy and
tedious installing of extensions). It just worked. And that's the
problem with an unfortunate number of FOSS projects: a single dev
makes it work for them, but it doesn't work for others' setups. I have
a simple Python-based epub reader for terminal that has a dependency
that is or isn't satisfied based on which PC I'm using. That's
frustrating. That's FOSS and Github, for the most part.

But this is just a roundabout way of acknowledging the "evil" FOSSers
profess to hate isn't all that bad, at least not in the wrong hands.
At the end of the day, you still have to trust the developers to do no
harm, FOSS or closed-source. Neither necessarily are virtual
monopolies. One thing the WWW has done reasonably well is provide
universal software, platform free. No compiling, no dependencies
(other than JS + a full web browser), etc. Gosh, Flash games used to
be amazing until Apple killed it. Fuckers. I guess they still run but
you have to jump through too many hoops for my liking to access them.

Virtual monopolies aren't all bad. Netscape's complaint from the
beginning bemoans the fact that Windows has the power to choose which
software they push, which companies they'll work with, which
developers they'll hire, etc. That's freedom. FOSSers clamor for it on
the user side. But as soon as a company chooses to discontinue
business with someone, suddenly that's horrible (intent
notwithstanding). The reason PC ports of games from consoles are
usually so buggy is because they have to accommodate a much larger
array of hardware and software compatibility. Indeed, a major reason
why Steam and Linux gaming is getting so much bigger is the idea of
"streaming" or playing the game remotely on Steam's machines or
emulation rather than strictly your own. But hey, PC master race and
all that. Yes, I use a video game console mostly, although it's 2
generations behind now. I won't be getting into the rampant
anticonsumerism plaguing gaming in this post.

Back to the point: virtual monopolies make it easier and faster to
push software. You don't have to worry about much else if everything
(mostly) works the same. You don't have to worry about certain
graphics cards or drivers. You can concentrate on improving the
software instead of worrying about compatibility. Compatibility, as it
exists today, is a distraction for developers, a speed bump. "Quick
and dirty" is the default dev mode thanks to unreasonable timetables
and expectations. Get it working then worry about it working for other
people. The days when Windows was 95% of computing, IMO, helped push
software forward. Who knows where we might be if every dev had to
worry about supporting OS/2 and UNIX and Linux RPMs, debs, Flatpaks,
etc. When there's one instruction set to worry about, it's easier.
Yes, there are many languages like C that are cross-platform. But many
of them require the user to install them or, God forbid, compile them.

As much shit as Bill Gates gets thrown, he really was a very positive
effect on the PC world. Where would computers be without a GUI that
cost less than $5,000 (fucking Apple)? He may have been a shrewd
businessman to people who underestimated and dismissed him (looking at
you, Jobs and Netscape), but he was brilliant. He was a dev. He is a
humanitarian, a philanthropist, a genuinely "cool guy" who put more
PCs in homes than probably anyone else.

Looking back at the complaint, it seems quite similar to how
Blockbuster (Netscape) viewed Netflix (Microsoft). At first it was a
joke. Microsoft wanted to work with the big dog in web browsing. The
big dog looked at Microsoft's offer and laughed. "No. Go fuck
yourself." "All right," said Microsoft. "You're going to have a bad
time." And in 2002, Netscape claims they're the ones being bullied
when they started this mess. It's also absolutely hilarious seeing
them tout what are essentially Netscape applications as a threat to
Microsoft Windows. Granted I was very young in 1996, I don't quite
recall ANY applications that required Netscape to run (much less in
2002), and I loved using Navigator and Communicator as a kid. Maybe
Java applets? But that doesn't quite seem right. It's just a former
big dog crying about how "unfair" it is that MS bundled their own
software with their own software. Huh? Maybe Netscape should have
launched their own OS or at least not laughed Bill Gates out of the
room with his offer.

If your browser really is all that and a bag of chips, people will
download it anyway. People did that with Firefox and Chrome. But by
the time 2002, 2003 rolled around, Netscape was a bloated mess of a
browser. I believe I used the last version quite infrequently as a
nostalgia trip more than anything else. It was inferior. Regardless
whether Netscape won or lost the lawsuit (MS lost quite a few
antitrust cases), they were wrong and the losers to me.

0.  gopher://gopher.quux.org/0/Government/USA/Microsoft/ntscpmcrsft12202cmp.txt