Slashdot Mirror
The Return Of Microsoft: Part Two
Microsoft is not, as the new administration has made abuntantly clear, about to be broken up. It has cashed in on its enormously profitable near-monopolies for desktop and server software. Analysts believe it will soon return to 20 percent revenue growth, up from 14 percent today, which already is nearly double last year's.
The company is also launching a mind-boggling series of sweeping and expensive new initiatives:
- .Net services, software that permits unrelated Web sites to talk with one another and with PC programs, without the user having to open new programs or visit new sities. This is the company's wedge into Web services.
- XBox. As we know, this is the company's huge leap into the $20 billion game console business, scheduled for launch on November 9. XBox is supposed to be three times more powerful than Sony's or Nintendo's boxes, and Microsoft says it plans to spend $500 million on advertising in the first 18 months alone.
- Small Business Software. For the first time, Microsoft will jump into the $19 billion small-business software arena, says Business Week, having bought accounting software specialist Great Plains Software for $1.l billion in April. The company says it then plans to offer customer-relationship, human-resources, and supply-chain software.
- Stinger, Microsoft's latest effort at software for cellphones, begins trials in Europe later this year.
- Ultimate TV. Described by industry analysts as a "set-top box on steroids." For less than $400, this box will allow people to surf the Web and interact with TV shows, and record progams on hard drives for storage and later viewing.
On top of that, Windows XP, the biggest update in more than five years, is scheduled for late October. The company is also breaking out of the low end of the server market with Windows 2000, which began shipping last year. Services running Win2000 claimed 41 per cent of the market, says Business Week, up from 38 per cent in l999.
There's much more. MSN is now one of the most heavily-trafficked sites on the Web, the msn.com portal ranking second in this country behind Yahoo. Hotmail is the world's most used free e-mail service, and MSN Internet Access second only to AOL as the most popular consumer route to the Web. This from a company much criticized for failing to perceive the Web's importance a few years ago.
The rise of MSN demonstrates just how difficult it is to compete with this company. Were it owned by anyone else, the long-struggling MSN would have gone belly-up long ago. But Microsoft can subsidize its products through good and bad times, creating an environment in which it's difficult, if not impossible, for competitors to survive. Microsoft now operates under its own notions of Darwinian business evolution. That is, the rich prey on potential competitors and hang on until they win.
Microsoft is also getting serious about the handheld devices market; its Pocket PC has begun eating into Palm's market share. According to Net market researcher IDC, Pocket PC should hold 19 percent of the market by year's end, up from 10 percent two years ago.
The market for Windows servers grew 32 percent this year, while sales of servers running Unix grew only 14 percent.
Furthermore, Microsoft will spend $4.2 billion on research and development this year, while unleashing the above cavalcade of significant new products and initiatives, starting this week with the launch of Office XP.
Waiting in the wings are Microsoft's "pipeline initiatives," under development or planned for later launch: the first table PC; natural-language processing (talking to computers the same way you talk to people); face mapping (using digital camers to scan a PC user's head into a 3D image so that software can add a full range of emotions for gamers); information agents (software agents that sift and sort through information for businesses and consumers).
It seems almost silly to argue that this is too much power for a single company to wield over something as central to the country's business, entertainment and cultural life as the Net and the Web. But Microsoft's power is barely mentioned in politics or the popular press, and seems of little concern outside of the open source and the boardrooms of some competitors. No company has ever dominated so enormous a part of the country's economy as Microsoft is about to do. The company is moving far beyond the ability of competitors to challenge it, and thus offer consumers any real choices. In fact, the company has grown much more monopolistic than when the government sued it.
Since almost everyone who goes online intersects with a Microsoft product, there are substantial privacy concerns. It follows that MS knows more about the Web habits of Americans than any other company. And should the company ever decide to impose political or cultural values on its users and properties, it could have an enormous impact on speech and the transmission of political ideas.
The return of Microsoft, and its ferocious onslaught on well-funded new initiatives and projects is re-writing both government and civic history. We now have the Unaccountable Company, bigger than the government of the nation in which it resides, beyond the reach of legislators, regulators, citizens, critics, victims, or more individualistic and entrepeneurial competitors. People who need the Net and the Web in their personal loves or workplaces will do business with Microsoft, or they won't do business.
That returns Gates to his pre-lawsuit position as the pre-eminent figure of the Internet, invincible as Frankenstein's monster, the creature that really can't be vanquished or driven off.
Note: Here's Part One of this piece, if you missed it.
Its high time us Americans start to support this great national treasure. Here we have a company that serves most of the world in an important arena, and we try to break them up?? It is a world economy now, we have a company with a lot of money and a huge staff willing to research and produce products that no one in the world can touch. And we get pissed?
and this got marked insightful??? (should be troll).
I.E. is not free software, in the true sense of the word. Service packs darn well better not cost anything. If you ship a broken product that you charge a lot of money for, you should support it.
'wuite' is not a word. 'Write' maybe? 'write' would still be wrong in this case.
Hundreds of gigabytes of completely free programs (warez? hundreds? not "free software" by any stretch)
Microsoft is so bog?
Insightful my ass.
The CEO of MS is Steve Balmer.
If you are going to rip Paul Allen, rip him for the fact that the Portland Trail Blazers still suck, in spite of all the money he spent.
If you are going to rip Bill Gates, let's talk about that haircut.
Instead of bitching, moaning, whining "Microsoft THIS" -- "Microsoft THAT".. get off your ass and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. I bet a good number of people who use this site are coders, and if you were actually out cOdInG instead of reading/posting news articles, a difference could be made about it. So Microsoft is making some new products, who the hell cares! If Linux had a good strong concentrated effort, it would actually *be* something instead of the "renegade OS"....
most people are lazy and/or stupid.
don't blame microsoft for capitalizing on this! Instead of ranting, i suggest you try educating people on the alternatives.
bye now,
rhad
Not all cases are consumers even given a choice. Consider that when Microsoft invested in AT&T so that AT&T would drop the set top box they were developing and use a box created by Microsoft instead, even though AT&T originally found the other box superior for their consumers, consumer choice entered nowhere in this picture. When one can buy exclusive markets, even where your products had already otherwise been rejected, consumers loose.
".Net services, "
..."
Has no substance, its only marketing.
"XBox.
Nintendo blew them away at E3 and Sony have a years lead on them and are much bigger and own related music and movies industries. Microsoft are toast.
"Small Business Software. For the first time, Microsoft will jump into the $19 billion small-business software arena"
They failed to take the money crown from Quicken at the low end, so now they're trying again in the mid market. Why do you imaging they will succeed when they have less of an advantage than they had over Quicken?
"Stinger, "
The top 5 phone manufacturers have all opted for other software. MS was stung by Stinger.
"Ultimate TV."
They already have set-top internet boxes that don't sell. This is just another attempt with a VCR attached. Tivo have patents for MS to choke on in that market. Why do you think Compaq are discounting the iPAQ MSN Companion?
"Windows XP"
Windows 2000 had lousy takeup among corporations (the reasonable numbers were HOME USERS), they are having to threaten companies with steep price increase to force them to upgrade, why do you imagine XP will succeed when you have to bully customers into buying it?
"MSN is now one of the most heavily-trafficked sites on the Web"
No a lot of traffic is *routed* to MSN, its not by choice they go to it. MSN as an ISP has a tiny fraction of AOLs subscriptions ( $250 market instead.
They made loud noise because they knew people would look at the 10% figure and realise that Pocket PC had failed.
Utter bullshit designed to hide miserable failure.
Look at Europe for an answer. Everyone whith a serious interest in curbing Microsoft's illegal market practices (have been convicted in the US) should look at Europe to get a much more level playing field.
;)
It is illegal to jointly sell products (bundling) in Europe. I think you can get a conviction for producers only selling PC's with Microsoft windows and/or Microsoft office.
In some countries it is illegal to sell products below the price it costs. So giving away IE for free is illegal. Offering it installed automatically on your PC is illegal too (illegal bundling).
Other rules might also apply, but I'm not aware of that.
People allways should be given a choice. I think it is enforceble in Europe. And if Microsoft takes a blow in Europe, it hurts and creates openings for other players to stay alive (even other US firms).
But this action should be organised from the US, because most Europeans are unaware of what's happening.
P.S. political leaders in Europe think Bill Gates is a god. But people handling complaints are officials who are very knowlegeable and independent. A job at the European Union is something you don't let go by
P.P.S. monopolistic behaviour should be curbed very quickly. Otherwise it anoys the public (and the politicians). The moment they try something new (bad), someone should file a complaint at the European Comission or at the European court of Justice. But this is work for lawyers, not me.
Jon's got the right idea but a lot of his facts are total vapor. Actual performance of XBox protoypes suggests it's a lot weaker than PS2- 'Halo' starts to crawl when doing nothing more complicated than splitting the screen four ways. Microsoft's money is often talked about, but I for one am deeply skeptical- prove it. Whose figures are we citing here? Microsoft's. There's talk that they are operating a share-valuation pyramid scheme, and plenty of support for that position. In effect, Microsoft's money is strikingly similar to the dot-com 'bubble'- cash or not, it could be burned up awfully fast, and you've only their word that this cash reserve is even there. Many companies would not have a reason to lie about the amount of assets they have- but Microsoft is not normal, and they do have such a reason and have constantly lied, even in court, much less outside of it.
Microsoft's a huge threat, but far from invincible. The important thing is to try and get at the truth, and to not be a damned Pollyanna about their future plans. There are many things they can do to seize control of world commerce, for instance, if they're not subject to higher authority- and of course everything they say confirms that in their opinion, they are not.
It would be great if 'free market' actually meant something to the effect of 'people are free to enter it and conduct business', but seeing as 'free market' demonstrably means 'free to put up barriers to entry and drain business off to sweatshops in Costa Rica', why should anybody consider that a good thing?
Face it, we've been trying 'free market' in the sense you mean. We've given it a good try, and this _is_ what happens. So what is so wrong with the idea of wanting to support a BIG market for a change, one with a LOT of players in it? What is wrong with wanting to have a lot of choices? I mean, just to HAVE choices! Bring 'em on!
And if the only practical ways of doing this seem socialist or commie to you, because they give Microsoft only 70% of the world rather than 99% like it'd get without regulation... well boo hoo. Poor it. Poor you. Then wipe your tears and get busy participating in a REAL market- one that you can get a goddamn foothold in, one where you may not be guaranteed monster success but you _do_ have more assurance that you're not going to be flung out of the market entirely by the shifting of a giant.
Welcome to the real world. You might like it- if, that is, we get a chance to _implement_ it that way. First thing we do, we'll find a better word for 'free' for _your_ kind of market. How about 'constricted'?
Are there _videos_ of the Microsoft rallies involving this chant? Can _footage_ be put on television? If it is mysteriously impossible to put the footage on American television, is it possible for other countries to run it heavily on television?
This time around _we_ might be the ones who need to be stepped on and straightened out- to the extent that we _do_ align ourselves with 'Microsoft, kill 'em!' and behave like we support Microsoft seizing control of world commerce and communications. I don't care about junk like X-Box (doomed) or the specifics: they may not be invincible but their _attitude_ is damned worrying and that needs to be fully considered.
So what kind of jail times does that usually get?
If you could do that with Microsoft, there would be somebody out there with a stripped down, debugged version of W95 for gaming and functional use, that would be eating W2K's lunch. You can't, so there was never the possibility of forking existing hugely popular market sections off as their own OS. It was always expand expand, debug AND expand more, bloat and migrate people unwillingly. If Microsoft's having trouble doing this, a Linux dist would find it flat impossible.
The Linux model isn't much like, say, the market for cable. It's more like the market for food. Personal taste can wildly differentiate. That's actually an advantage...
How many windows boxes would you need to buy to compare to a Sun E10k?
And that if you have X Linux boxes running services, you probably need 2X Windows boxes to do the same darned thing (that gui sure eats memory and CPU).
This is classic MS FUD, and you're helping them!
Everyone in the press (counting you, Jon) is so terrified with what MS WILL do, as opposed to what they ARE doing. Competitors get afraid that MS will beat them at their own game they give up and basically hand MS the market they want. Duh!
If you want to complain about what MS IS CURRENTLY doing in terms of products, fine. Everything else (until it ships) is fiction. Their "pipeline initiatives" should be called "pipe dream initiatives", because there's little chance it will see the light of day.
yes, big brother takes good care of his little brother. . .
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
It may not be fair that a cheetah can run faster than a rabbit, who's sole purpose in life is to run fast (and breed).
Poor rabbit.
luckily, rabbit can breed quickly to offset this problem.
Netscape can't breed. It can only become extinct.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
ya see, that's why I keep Jon Katz enabled. So I can find these poor lost souls and say; you can go into your profile and disable Jon Katz!!! And ANY MS bashing article.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Come on, you read Ballmer. This is just ``fair compensation'' for copies of your ``intellectual property''.
Okay, now it's early in the morning and I am a bit irritable, but PLEASE GOD somebody tell me how it is that this troll got moderated to FIVE?
This person appears to think hat any software running on windows is made by Microsoft. How could such an ignorant statment be moderated anywhere but DOWN?
Hundreds of GIGs of free software? Are you sure you know what a gig is? Or are you just confused as to what FREE means?
And there's just one more thing I've got to say.. something-O-O something-O-O economics?? VOODOO Economics.
Just give money to rich people and out of the kindess of their heart they will make damn sure that he give all the money back to the people by employing people for exactly the minimum amount they can possibly be paid while the 5 or 6 fat cats make ALL the money and buy sports teams, ridiculously large houses and stupid looking museums.
Three cheers for the monopoly! Hip-hip-hurray! Hip-hip-*gag order*
-- Object known as a camera. Vintage uncertain, origin unknown. - Twilight Zone
Microsoft now operates under its own notions of Darwinian business evolution. That is, the rich prey on potential competitors and hang on until they win.
MSFT doesn't have it's own interpretation of Darwinian theory at all. It's survival of the fittest, and MSFT is certainly one of the strongest. MSN might not have survived as an independent entity, but it *is* part of MSFT, and thus it survives from being part of a strong entity.
Really Jon, you're defeating yourself with your own argument: you seem to imply that you support Darwinian theory, but at the same time you're upset with MSFT!
... it costs USD$29 for an individual license.
Perhaps your ex-boyfriend had a hard-drive full of illegal warez!
That's what comes of having billions in the bank, and being patient enough to let your investments pay off. Even so, it doesn't always work. WebTV was still a poor investment (although if you count UltimateTV they are still working on it).
The fact of the matter is that no one is going to beat Microsoft at their own game. If you develop software for Windows eventually you will get screwed. Every year Microsoft picks a couple of software niches and targets them for domination. For example, now that Great Plains has been bought out by Microsoft you can bet that the other small business accounting systems are going to be hard pressed to compete. Microsoft will undoubtedly come out with a server package that includes Great Plains and that is less expensive (probably considerably less expensive) than the competition.
This is bad for Microsoft's competitors, but it is great news for small business owners. It is exactly what they want.
This cycle has been repeated over and over again, and by this time it should be clear to software developers everywhere that the only way to beat Microsoft is to change the rules. That's part of the reason that Microsoft has become so crticial of Free Software. They see Free Software as the one software development strategy that is immune to their current tactics. Free Software development doesn't rely on the resources of one company to flourish. There's no one to bankrupt, there is no one to buy, and there is no possible way that you can win a price war.
It is almost certainly true that no company that bases their fortune on Free Software is ever going to be as profitable (or as powerful) as Microsoft. But at least there is potential for success. With commercial software, especially in the Windows world, it is only a matter of time before Microsoft destroys you.
In a situation such as that, You politely tell the sales person, "I'll take my business elsewhere."
Do not read this
Wow, I can't believe the pro MS propaganda which filled both the last Katz post and this. The fact that this post got modded up to a five above all others, along with nearly every other pro MS post, only goes to show that the moderation system is being badly mis-used by those with an (obvious) agenda.
You misrepresent the meaning of "Free" with respect to the difference between Mozilla and Internet Explorer. Mozilla is not only "free" as in gratis, it's also free as in "Free Speech"; source included. One can't say that for IE. Mozilla will *always* be free in this respect; IE is remains gratis at the whim of MS.
But you knew this, and you knew these were the responses you'd get. It doesn't matter, though -- it's still effective propaganda. One of the primary tennents of effective misrepresentation of facts is that if you repeat it enough, the general population will -- over time -- come to accept the blatently false as true. And here you are -- telling us that black is white, freedom is slavery, and IE is free.
MS is going to win; Katz is right. Those involved with the Free Software movement might be well advised to begin planning a move to a country which supports their free speech rights -- like The Netherlands. If MS can buy their way out of this then they can buy any damn legislation they want, just like the RIAA and MPAA. Welcome to hell.
--Maynard
...'cause this guy's saying something that's not getting reported: The Appeals Court case was handled by amateurs with the guys who won the case at lower levels sitting helplessly in the front row. It's reasonable to expect that Bush would not use David Boies after Florida. But making ALL the guys who knew the case sit there and watch fools sabotage the mission amounts to judicio-terrorism.
I frequently said during the campaign the Bush administration would not make a big impact on the anti-trust trial. I was wrong. These guys have gone to a level of legal corruption unprecedented in American history. I never anticipated they would attempt anything so blatant.
It will be interesting to see what the state attorneys general do.
Eternal vigilance only works if you look in every direction.
What's so unamerican about a company having the freedom to make and sell products as they see fit? If anything, all the rules and restrictions placed on Microsoft (and our efforts to put more restrictions on them, and in fact to break up the entire company) could hardly be called "American."
Does Microsoft have the freedom to compete with other companies with the strength of monopoly power to subsidize its failures? That seems pretty anti-capitalistic to me. In my capitalistic utopia, the competitors compete solely based on the merits of their products and services.
Why is that bad? Katz, you're knee-jerking again. They coming up with new projects and products. That's *wonderful*, not terrible. It adds to the "marketplace of ideas." If we don't like them, we don't have to buy them.
And if we don't like electricity, we don't have to use it. For the vast majority of people (especially businesses) in this country, there simply is no alternative. That's the nature of monopoly, that's the way Microsoft wants it, and that's why their expansion is a bad thing.
If Linux (or anything else) is going to make it in the marketplace, the people behind it will have to stop whining about not having the market equivalent of affirmative action, and instead will have to develop business models based on something other than "If we make it, they will come."
Linux's success has little to do with the technical merits of Linux. As long as 1. There are no "killer apps" for Linux, and 2. Microsoft controls the standards (which they have written about doing ), then Linux cannot compete no matter how good it is. The OS market is wildly different from almost any other market, and traditional economic principals simply don't apply. What other kinds of non-software, non-media products can you envision that can be duplicated infinitely at nominal cost?
Uhhh....what about the fact that almost everyone who goes online also intersects with Cisco routers? You're not using any logic, Katz.
Apples and oranges. Cisco complies with open standards. Microsoft, on the other hand, *is* the standard. Anyone can go make a router and try and sell it. Competing in the OS market is about a bazillion times more difficult. Go ask Be, Inc. how their experiences competing with Microsoft in the desktop OS market are going (and BeOS is superior to *any* desktop OS Microsoft has produced, IMHO).
This Microsoft garbage is getting really old. Aren't there any important tech topics left in the world?
What's getting old are your invalid, pro-Microsoft arguments. And considering that Microsoft's power is growing, not shrinking, I think it's still an important topic.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Why does everyone bitch about MS subsidizing their OWN PRODUCTS???
Because what Microsoft is doing is rightly called "dumping." It's illegal and anti-capitalistic.
Microsoft has made enough money convincing people to buy their product.
Inaccurate. Microsoft was riding on IBM's coattails for years while their MS-DOS cash cow churned out millions. They didn't have to spend a dime convincing anyone of anything; IBM's reputation took care of that.
Saying that MS doesn't have to right to spend money on it's own product implies that Microsoft does not have the right to spend its own money.
Except that I didn't say this. I am against dumping, not investing. If you and I are selling shoes, and I use the profits of my diamond mine to sell my shoes at $0/pair, would you regard that as "capitalism"?
Naturally, there is a fine line between the two, but it's impossible to argue that Microsoft is anywhere near that line considering that they hold monopoly power in the Desktop OS market making them the richest and most powerful company in the world -- commanding almost an entire sector of the U.S. and world economy and the fates of dozens if not hundreds of companies who base their entire future (see also: Intuit) on running on the Microsoft OS.
I'd have that over a diamond mine any day of the year. At least then I wouldn't be held captive by DeBeers.
If a company wants to lose wads of cash on a poor product, LET IT. If they want to string it along until it's good enough for people to use, LET IT. Microsoft doesn't hold a gun to people's head and say "use MSN or you're dead."
Again you beat up a strawman. I never said Microsoft forces people to use their products. I argued that people are forced to choose their products because they have no other choice. And MSN is only one of their products in which they don't have monopoly power. But it's only a matter of time. Despite the fact that MSN has been a loser for years, Microsoft has enough power and resources to simply outspend their rivals. In a fair market (i.e. one not pervaded by Microsoft's monopoly power), MSN would have gone belly-up a long time ago.
There are always equivalent alternatives.
Wrong. For the majority of people in the world, especially the business world, there is no alternative to a Microsoft OS + Microsoft Office. For those people (again, the majority), not choosing Microsoft means not choosing computing. At least, the desktop kind. Notice how Microsoft is using their desktop monopoly to start creeping into the server space and every other aspect of computing. Is it beginning to make sense to you why I am concerned?
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Both. Neither. It doesn't matter. I think we should get Katz and Gates in a street brawl on PPV and settle this once and for all.
Or something.
Attn moderators: Moderate this to -1, Troll please.
make the bad man go away!
The point is, MS has enough money that they can outlast anyone. Examples:
Windows - Windows 1.0 - complete failure. Windows 2.0 - complete failure. Windows 3.0 - complete failure. Windows 3.1 - success
MSN - until 2001 - complete failure
Internet Explorer - 1.0 - complete failure. 2.0 - complete failure. 3.0 - success
Do you see a pattern here? MS has so much money that they can continue to pump it into crappy, failing products until they overtake the market. Eventually they usually do become better than the alternatives, but that's after millions of R&D and marketing, while the competitors had a good product to start with.
Basically, anything MS is willing to put pressure on, they end up winning at least after a while.
Engineering and the Ultimate
If you make it your production O.S. today you will get your improvements faster :)
Seriously, if you are frustrated with the situation you should work to change it, not just wait for someone else.
Engineering and the Ultimate
The difference is not whether their doing right or wrong technically. With free software, user's freedoms are preserved. Period. No matter how bad the software or how evil the company, your rights as a user are preserved. With proprietary software, you are at the mercy of the company. And in this case, the company has no mercy.
Engineering and the Ultimate
More Preaching to the Choir. Why doesn't he take this act on the road? We all know Microsloth is evil.
-----------------------------
Try buying a laptop without paying Microsoft money. The only freedom of choice you have there is whether or not to buy the unit. If you choose to buy the unit you are *forced* to buy Microsoft products.
"I once preached peaceful coexistence with Windows. You may laugh at my expense - I deserve it." Be's Jean-Louis Gass
"Corporate Republic formerly known as America"
Oh enough with the bleeding heart liberal whining, Katz. America was built on capitalism and I like it that way. I hate microsoft too. Just means people need to work that much harder to beat them at their own game. It isn't impossible to do.
IRNI
You bring up a lot of good points and I respect them. I just don't know what we can do except elect independant candidates to change the world. Which doesn't seem to be working. I don't know if I see that the way to fix everything is to go totally socialist and I don't know if that is what everyone is suggesting. I just wish there was a way that this capitalist society held a way to say what is right and wrong and what is acceptable but let there still be huge companies. Just not monopolies. Guess we have to have one extreme or another. Totally socialist or totally big business. Anyway maybe I was harsh in what I said. But katz still sucks :)
IRNI
As a Linux zealot and full time Linux systems admin/user of free software solutions in the business world, I think it's embarrassing to see such a rabid attack article on Slashdot.
At least when RMS goes off he's more accurate in his facts and consistent with his beliefs, I mean, you don't have to like what he says but the guy does stand for something.
But this, this is drek. First you're pumping up MS technologies to be more than they really are(MS has STIFF competition in the markets you've listed and will likely fail in many of them).
And I can see no point in your attempt to vilify MS other than to hear yourself rant.
First you create the enemy.
Then you fight the enemy.
Then you are the enemy.
How so?
Shoot... Most WINDOWS systems running in a corporate environment have to pay for two copies of Windows. The first Microsoft Tax comes with the OS installed by default on the system. The second one comes when the Sysadmin pulls the machine out of the shipping box and immediately wipes the drive so he can clone the "corporate standard configuration" on it.
How is that different from buying a "standard" system to install *nix on?
(BTW, most corporations don't LIKE building systems from scratch like you and I do. It's time consuming and expensive, and means that there is no hardware support for the system when they are done. They'd rather go to the Dell or Compaq site and buy something off the shelf)
--
Your Servant, B. Baggins
Unfortunately, I can't find the original Naked PC page. I have a feeling they must have taken it down. This is the best I can find... :-(
--
Your Servant, B. Baggins
Your example compares numbers of systems sold. You can also look at (a.k.a., "lie" with statistics) the dollar values of systems.
For example, another hypothetical situation. Let's say MS sells 500,000 low end servers. Sun sells 100,000 high end servers. Avg price on MS server is $5,000. Avg price on Sun Enterprise server is $100,000. That's $2.5B to $10B - a 4/1 difference, even with significantly fewer units sold.
(I'm not sure, but I suspect that most of those statistics are in $$$ amounts, not counts of licenses. Even then, there's no way to compare Linux with anything else, since one copy of a CD can still be installed on many servers. The only way to get a number there would be to count service contracts sold by companies like RH, which are actually gaining momentium as Linux is gaining credibility in the corporate environment.)
--
Your Servant, B. Baggins
From what I have seen, Microsoft really does quite a lot for free software. It provides competition and so on, true, but it also writes free software itself.
When people on /. refer to "free" software they normally mean "free as in speach" not "as in bear".
Also, if competition is so good, then why is MS killing off all of theirs ?
--
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb15CB32EF3AF9C0E5D727
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
...is that you completely buy into the Microsoft marketing hype without any critical thought. Don't you remember, with the advent of NT years ago, Microsoft was supposed to own everything by now?
"Microsoft is not, as the new administration has made abundantly clear, about to be broken up."
Really? I follow this case closely, and I've never seen the administration say that. It's not only a political dead-end, but they don't have control. It's in the courts. And the states AGs will pursue no matter what the feds decide.
Even if they aren't broken up, they still face a strong possibility of other remedies. It will be very difficult for them to be exonarated.
"Anaylists believe it will soon return to 20 percent revenue growth..."
Again, not what I read, and I read a lot. Most stories I see project single digit growth, at best. Some of their divisions have had declining revenue.
"The company is also launching a mind-boggling series of sweeping and expensive new initiatives:"
Keywords here: mind-boggling, as in "consumers are generally unfamiliar with any of them" and "expensive", as in "how do we (MS) maintain expected profit growths when we're spending billions on new products, our money-makers are slowing, and the PC industry is now predicted to show its first annual sales decline?"
".Net... the company's wedge into Web services."
.Net isn't even released yet, and it's already facing competition from the other big players (IBM, Sun, Oracle). Also, it's not entirely clear the MS will be able to lock people into their own web services due to the fairly open nature of that market.
"XBox... huge leap... three times more powerful... Microsoft says it plans to spend $500 million on advertising."
First off, that's wrong. MS is spending $500 million on _marketing_, of which the bulk of that will be spent on non-advertising sources like wooing developers. Do you think Sony and Nintendo spend nothing? It's only an interesting amount b/c it's coming from Microsoft.
Also, it's the games that count. XBox will face fierce competition, and speaking as a hardcore gamer, I see no buzz about XBox around at all, other than that cooked up by ZDNet.
"Small Business Software..."
Microsoft just made a whole score of new enemies who are going to be more than happy to put up a fight.
"Stinger... for cellphones..."
Who cares? Who wants to write apps for specifically for Stinger phones when Java is already becoming the lingua franca? Many, many millions of phones are shipping with Java, and according to Nokia's president, they alone will ship 100 million of those in only a year or two.
"UltimateTV"
Only works with satellites, thus limiting its adoption, and a massive money drain on the company, just like WebTV...
Most of the rest of your points are just as ridiculous, but I've got more important things to do -- hey, I'm off to develop software that competes with MS! -- to waste any more time responding. I'm sure the other Slashdotters will pick up the slack.
So John, quit pushing this defeatist idea of Microsoft inevitability.
Wow that is not true. Microsofts sole purpose in buisness is to make money. I agree to that but the way the do it is not been by making good products. It's been by maintaining their monopoly. PERIOD. The money they spent on licensing Java from Sun and corrupting it on the Windows platform didn't make them money. Or how about the Millions they paid SpyGlass for Mosaic only to eventually rewrite it as Internet Explorer v3(?). Remember, they gave that product away too while Netscape was selling theirs for $50/ea and had a massive amount of the market.
These are just some of the examples of the fact that Microsoft makes money by monopoly and their business goal is always to maintain that monopoly so they can do to the competition what they did to Java on the client, to Netscape Navigator, etc. .Net, etc are just another example of them protecting their monopoly. They will never call the Xbox a PC, but that is what it is, and mark my words it will someday run full MS Windows applications ( most of the FROM MICROSOFT ). They don't install the dll's now so they can call it a console and keep the label "PC" away from it. The DOJ wouldn't like that.... Anyway, there are many battles today that Microsoft has to fight because of the Internet. The INet has allowed for so many new innovations in how we and our "tools" interact that each has a potential of changing Microsofts monopoly status.
These other "ventures", Xbox, UltimateTV,
That is the only reason they are backing these products/services ( or many in the past ). Making money is their goal. By protecting the monopoly the goal is a given.
Until now. ;>
Lob
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Many companies I've worked for including the one I do work for surely purchase MS based servers, but that doesn't mean that the company who purchased them will be running Microsoft on them. E.g. we've purchased hundreds of Compaq Proliant servers with MS only to wipe the entire contents of it and place a Unix base system on it.
Bullshit. This argument works for the desktop space but it's ludicrous for the server space. All the major server companies normally ship servers blank (though most, such as Dell, have options for them to install whatever OS you pick for you). I just double checked and sure enough default Compaq servers have no OS, so if someone in these companies is paying extra to have a MS server OS bundled and paying extra to have it installed, and they then wipe it...well those people should be stoned and quartered.
It applies to the four core exams (though it covers all the same areas as those four core exams). You then take one additional core exam, and two optionals (though the optionals include items that many NT4 MCSEs would have already passed, such as SQL Server exams).
You then have to take the four core exams (you don't get another try at 70-240). The point is that if you don't prepare yourself enough to actually pass then obviously you don't know you shouldn't be on an accelerated track.
Indeed the number of MCSEs worldwide is going to absolutely plummet at the end of this year: That's a good thing. The worst thing is when someone acquires some transient knowledge and then thinks they can slack through life living the good times because they managed to get through the MCSE tests (this is true of university, college, etc: Technology moves too fast now and knowledge is obsoleted very quickly, so when someone thinks it's valuable that they passed some University courses in computer science 10 years ago...).
The reality is that the MCSE was diluted because of its value: Suddenly tonnes of technical schools were offering MCSEs to their graduates, and because you can pound knowledge into someone's head until they can pass the tests, a lot of these candidates got MCSEs (especially because NT4 tests were mostly islands so they could be conquered independently), boosting the global MCSE #s to about 400,000. I would wager that after January 1st that number drops below 100,000: Not because the MCSE is no longer as valuable, but rather because the barriers to entry are getting higher. Because these barriers are higher you'll see lots of bitter NT4 MCSEs strike out at Microsoft because they know that they no longer can measure up and get the requirements. There are also a lot of people for whom it's no longer relevant, and that's fair too. However the fact that knowledge expires in relevance is a valuable thing for this program, and it will reestablish its credibility.
With the 2000 track though this is becoming much more difficult. Firstly the 2000 series is significantly more complex than the NT4 track, and it is also much more "all-encompassing" : i.e. each test builds on the knowledge of the others, so it's a total knowledge rather than a knowledge in a particular area at a particular time: You have to know the particulars of security, delegation, ActiveDirectory, group policy, security objects, impersonation, NT4, Windows 98, etc, to understand the DNS, DHCP, RIS, etc. Each one covers over ground of the other in a much greater area than it did with NT4.
As another poster indicated Microsoft has offered a free 70-240 exam for NT 4 MCSEs to allow them to transition to the 2000 track easier. This test doesn't require less knowledge (indeed it covers all of the same information as the 4 tests separately), but rather it's economically nicer.
When considering anyone to do anything related to NT4 or 2000 networks I consider an MCSE absolutely imperative. Why? Because it ensures, or at least gives a better probability, that they know what they're doing with 2000 products, and they understand how all the components fit together to provide a solution, and the pitfalls and benefits of each. Having an MCSE does not make them great programmers, good cooks, or great conversationalists, but when it comes to setting up an ActiveDirectory forest with AD integrated DNS, secured DHCP, distributed RIS locations with local secondary domains for a worldwide network, etc., I will trust someone who showed a dedication to understand more than I'll trust someone who proclaims themself an expert just because (You can see that a lot here on Slashdot where Linux fans proclaim the truth about NT4/2000, yet it's so far off-base and incorrect it's laughable, yet they speak with such a measure of authority. They know grep, therefore they know all that is involved with MS OS'). Sure there are lots of people who learned it and didn't pursue certification, but at the same time there are a shitload of people who claim to have the knowledge who don't have the slightest clue (and these are the ones most likely to make clunky, unreliable, totally insecure networks...."That isn't working for you? Hrmm...I'll add you to Domain Admins").
Cheers!
Like what company? Dell? Nope, the default config is on OS. IBM? Nope. Compaq? Nope. HP? Nope. Shall we continue? Are you thinking of the desktop space by chance?
Hey idiots, the Joke's on you. Katz did not write this piece. This appeared in the mainstream media earlier this week.
His biggest mistake was assuming that you lot were literate enough to have seen it, and to recognize his first piece as the satire that it was.
It's self extractor is also freeware.
Microsoft has a long history of releasing stuff before it's ready, and that may well be fatal when it comes to
I personally would not want a centralized exchange to have my credit card number, even if it did make it more convenient for me to order stuff. See, it would also make it more convenient for people to steal my credit card number. Could you imagine a clever CGI exploit that combined a password cracking program with an automated login to
For an alternative perspective on
For the rest, visit:
http://www.computeruser.com/articles/2006,3,7,1
D
----
"Corporate Republic formerly known as America"
... pray it doesn't pass in any more states than it already has. Microsoft has already sounded the "unamerican" theme, which among other things is clearly a trial balloon to test the waters for the possibility of buying legislation banning free software outright, perhaps arguing that it has an "unfair" advantage in that it costs nothing and is written by volunteers, and there are other threats as well ... such as patents and changes in the copyright laws at the federal level designed to favor the large copyright holders at the expense of individual copyright holders and consumers.
... probably one of the reasons they are taking off the gloves in the part they still, as yet dominate.
Oh enough with the bleeding heart liberal whining, Katz. America was built on capitalism and I like it that way. I hate microsoft too. Just means people need to work that much harder to beat them at their own game. It isn't impossible to do.
Yeah. Arbeit macht frei.
If you believe "hard work and perserverance" is enough to displace the very rich and powerful, who can buy laws, legislatures, and legislators by the armload, then I have some excellent lakeside property in Florida I'd like to sell you.
GNU/Linux and other Free Software can be killed outright by legislation. Proposed UCITA legislation would impose onerous default warranty conditions on software which only corporations are to be allowed to disclaim
Now, why is this a concern? Because suppression at the point of a government gun may be the only recourse Copyright Cartels and Patent Barrons such as Microsoft have to fall back on. Certainly efforts to get hardware manufacturers to produce only closed-spec hardware are having a small effect, but fortunately for free software most hardware vendors are intelligent enough that by allowing everyone to write software to use their hardware they generate more customers, hence more demand and profit. Not all are so wise, and a big cash payment from the likes of Microsoft can tip the scales of advantage far the other way.
It is true that free software is hard to kill. Unlike proprietary software it can thrive in unkind markets, living soley off the time and energy of its own adherents and enthusiasts, improving and competing against such behomeths as Microsoft without the underlying capitol. But in a country, or a world, in which large corporations can and do routinely buy governments we can, all of us, very easilly be forced away from the keyboard at gunpoint and back to the couch where the media and copyright conglomerates would prefer us to be, as happy, compliant consumers of whatever they choose to push down our throats.
Having said all that I suspect the worse case scenerio won't come to pass, or if it does, it will be limited to the United States and possibly (and this is a remote possibility I think) Europe. Microsoft and its ilk have already lost most of the rest of the world
One certain way to usher in the worst of all possible outcomes is to dismiss it completely, as many on both sides of the Microsoft/Proprietary vs GNU/Linux/Free Software argument do (though for very different reasons). These dangers are real, immediate, and our vigilence in standing up to them leaves a great deal to be desired.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I totally agree with you. Microsoft's range of mice *is* pretty good.
--
1) Given that EJB Session Beans at least are almost a straight rip-off of DCOM, I'd be interested in what exactly the problem is.
.NET). Besides he's comparing existing versions of Java with future versions of .NET. Sun will ship SOAP and UDDI around the same time as Microsoft, for example. Furthemore he seems to think that SOAP is a scalability tool, which it isn't.
.NET (my guess is no).
.NET programs will be portable if an essential part of the runtime (for both ADO.NET and ASP.NET) is Windows-specific. (And, back to EJBs, you could avoid those with CORBA as well, but the day MS ships a CORBA product, hell freezes over.)
objectwatch.com touts itself on the homepage as a MS consulting firm and their white paper reads essentially like a Microsoft whitepaper. I doubt he has any working knowlege of Java (or
I see you posting lots of pro-MS information, which is fine. I do it sometimes myself. Just get better sources. Besides, you dodged the question about if COM+ is a permenent part of
2) There's a couple licenced ports of MS COM on Unixes. Microsoft has stated that COM+ will not be licenced for porting. XPCOM and Bonobo are similar but incompatible. Again, I think you are dodging the valid question of how
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
COOL is C#, which hasn't shipped yet but will.
.NET as if it really existed as a product and not just a preview kit. How long until you are being sneared at for using COM+ instead of .NET?
I agree that Microsoft has many many market failures under it's belt. This is primarily due to their paranoid desire to be in every market possible to ensure that nobody is sneaking up on them (as they did to IBM and DEC). And their enormous cash reserves which make this sort of shotgun approach feasible.
What's worse is that they are very effecive in wiping out the collective memory of failed products in nearly Soviet fashion. Remember "MS Commercial Internet Mail Server"? You won't find much about it on their site - all technotes and so on have mysteriously disappeared.
This attitude translates to their userbase quite effectively. Last year it was "Windows DNA and COM+ Rah Rah Rah." Now folks are already talking about
Microsoft gets that they need to be in the enterprise software market. However, they don't quite get how to act like an enterprise vendor (provide proper technical documentation, don't just "disappear" products, provide legacy support and migration tools, providing patches for older product releases, provide a sane way of delivering and installing patches, etc etc.)
And that's why software rental maybe isn't the worst thing if you are a MS shop. Right now, most of the industry has this little concept called "annual maintenance" which often runs up to 40% of the purchase cost -- Essentially a rental fee, although it's sorta optional. It also give the manufacturer a strong incentive to support legacy customers. Microsoft most all their residual income off not off of support but instead off of upgrades, which is a huge incentive to NOT support legacy customers and to make it as painful as possible to avoid spending the considerable amount of money (labor and licences) to upgrade.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Quick trip to MSDN shows that you are correct .. certain types of NET calls thunk to COM+. I was confused by the earlier propaganda that .NET was independant of COM.
.NET Beans' sometime in the future?
Now the obvious two questions are:
1) Is this an architectual decision or a stopgap -- will we see 'Enterprise
2) How the hell is NET portable to other platforms if it heavily relies on COM+? MS seems to be having their cake and eating it at the same time.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Speaking of "FUD and misconceptions"....
Every Compaq or Dell server that I've seen come out of a box comes BLANK. In fact, the drives are often packaged seperately. If you don't install the OS, you can certainly pay an 'integrator' to do it for you, someone who is also happy to install NetWare or Linux.
Now, I have no doubt that there's low-end server bundles with NTS pre-installed. However, at $500 for the base licence, that's not an insigificant sum to pay if you don't want it. It has to be easy enough to order a version without NT installed.
Bundling has been Microsoft's practice in consumer space. But the server market has always been too diversified for this to fly (has MS ever had more than 50% marketshare?). There is no "Microsoft tax" for servers.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
- face mapping (using digital camers to scan a
PC user's head into a 3D image so that software can add a full range of emotions for
gamers)
So, when this technology comes into practice, and the next school shooting after is Jon going to protect Microsoft? The media will attack Microsoft for making this technology, which obviously led these poor (psycho) victims of society on a rampage will Jon step up with a Voices from the Hellmouth MCXX or will he attack Microsoft too.And, on another side note:
- Microsoft has battled back to the top of the Internet heap
I'm sorry, but I think I missed when they werent on top. When did it change that they weren't the dominant market player?Here's to summarize this entire article into one sentence:
Microsoft is the largest company in the USA, which spends a lot of money on new products and innovations.
*sigh*
If only I had code to write,
I wouldnt sit here and put up a fight
against Jon Kats and his short-sight
Maybe I need to write a resume tonight.
Yes.. that is how bored I am.
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
Ah, but MSN wouldn't have survived in its original incarnation if it wasn't propped up by profits in Microsoft's other markets. Monopoly power will be generally immune to natural selection in the business arena. You can't count MSN as a success of evolution anymore than a big hydroponic tomato is a triumph of Nature.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
The difference is that a pack of wolves won't always cooperate if they perceive their interests to differ, but the different arms of Microsoft will of course always cooperate to help each other. Microsoft is more like the tentacles of an octopus than a pack of wolves.
It's really not so much that Microsoft is a monopoly in various markets that is illegal; mere possession of a monopoly could come about by a variety of legal means. However, once you are a monopoly, there are stricter standards on your actions in the interest of maintaining a competitive market in the interests of society as a whole. Using monopoly power in one market to create a new monopoly in a different market is a powerful way to destroy competition, which is why those actions are illegal. It doesn't matter whether your competition is very capable or not; since they lack the power of multiple market monopolies, they're no match for you as new markets open up.
In the true Darwinian sense, the monopoly would of course expand (like the pack of wolves), until eventually it destroys its business ecosystem (eats all the game), and everything dies back (famine) until a new ecosystem can take root (first the prey starts to come back, and then new predators emerge). The point of going after Microsoft now is so that society as a whole doesn't have to ride the roller-coaster down along with them.
If Microsoft had acquired its monopolies independently through the creation of superior products and their sale at better price than their competitors, I don't think there would be nearly the condemnation of them that is seen in this forum. The fact that Microsoft can't compete on a level playing field, or at least refuses to try, is what most people have a big problem with.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Boy, you picked the wrong forum on which to demonstrate an alternative use of the phrase "free software" :)
Oh, wait, its only LA,T. You've been here long enough to know better, which makes you a troll instead. At least I'm not the only one that took the bait...
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Yesterday, I received a letter in my snail-mail box from microsoft. You see, I am an MCSE, certified under NT4, which of course means my certification runs out at the end of this year. This letter offered me a 25% discount on my testing fees for upgrading my certification to Windows 2000. It's funny. Microsoft has finally figured out that their certification amounts to nothing, that very few people are even worried about "upgrading their cert" to 2000. So, in an effort to try to boost their decreasing numbers of certified engineers, they are offering deals to make getting certified look more compelling. Funny. Just do a job search on any of the major sites, and use the keyword MCSE... slim pickings. The era of Microsoft dominance is behind us.
Brought to you by Frobozz Magic Penguin Fodder.
You can make up whatever definition you want for monopoly, but legally the absolute absence of competition is not required. AT&T never had 100% of the market, yet they were regulated as a monopoly. Most utilities do not have absolute monopolies, because after all, you can always buy bottled water and run your own generator! But this does not excuse them from being regulated as a monopoly.
The simple fact is that Microsoft has been legally found to be a monopoly. Even if the appeals court finds that they have not abused that monolpoly, it is unlikely that they will reverse the finding that they are in fact a monopoly. So, the fact remains, Microsoft is a monopoly. That is a legal fact. You can say otherwise all you want, but the existence of their monopoly is a simple fact.
What is the difference between this post and that of yesterday?
-- Cheers!
What if we DO have to buy them? Do you own Windows? Why? Because it was the best thing for the job? Or was it because you had no choice? Do you run Office? Why? Because it was the best thing for the job? Or was it because you had no choice?
Personally for my use I've found many alternatives to Microsoft products that work good enough, but yet for many things I must own Microsoft products. Example: if you try to get a job, any recruiter you talk to will want you to e-mail them a resume IN WORD FORMAT. So, to get a job, I have to own a copy of word.
If it was really as simple as choosing not to use things I'd be happy with them. It's not that simple though...
---
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
MS does provide zip-folder functionality in it's Win98 Plus product. But that isn't free, either.
Microsoft is predominant today, but twenty-five years ago IBM was in a similar position; they were the predominant computer manufacturer in every country in the world. Then, new technologies arose and smaller companies began to eat IBM's lunch.
Remember how the federal government wasted 10 years and millions of dollars trying to break IBM up? They failed but managed to leave it a crippled giant, stodgy and conservative and afraid to appear too predatory. Hindsight shows that the feds should have saved their time and our money for more productive pursuits.
Another example of how history repeats itself is how the Japanese almost took over the world. Does anyone remember the "threat" of Japanese software factories? They were going to blow away American software makers, who were "too expensive" and "in decline". Meanwhile, American car makers and steel makers, especially the Texas mini-mills, have made a big comeback, despite the dire predictions of the late 1970s.
This is Microsoft's day in the sun, but sooner or later things will change. Meanwhile, FTC should act as a referee and otherwise keep out of the fray.
just my 2 centimos.
--
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
Then, by this reasoning Apple Computer should be the dominant force on the desktop?
They're not, as I presume you know.
Microsoft's rise to market dominance had very little to do with their products' performance, and much more to do with its positioning.
Helium balloons want to be free.
Nobody has calimed that MS doesn't have some very asute business minds. There was this article on The Economist a week ago that described that MS did a strategic analysis ofwhat software would be universally required and came up with 7 broad thematic thrusts. While the article didn't say what they were (probably a corporate trade secret), you can expect MS to be formulating their product offerings to extend their dominance into these areas. The tactical concept is very similar to the fact that there are only a few choke points on the high seas and by dominating the technological passes, you can extract gate-keeper fees. It's not just a matter of where you want to go today but see this shiny new tool-road we've erected just for you with an express lane to this strip mall that oh ... bypasses that inconvenient and unsightly bazaar.
Unfortunately these are areas which anti-trust laws will find very hard to address as they are not an industry sector (or market as such) but intrinsic to our human nature of interaction. My guess (completely wild-assed) but based on what they're pushing are:
1) Identity (Passport) - most people take their nationality or wider concept of self for granted but this defines your affiliations. Some might even claim you are what you buy in which case your credit card is your life as far as companies are concerned.
2) Memory = smart tags - unless you're Einstein, there is no way of remebering all the interesting bits and pieces. By outsourcing this function to bookmarks, PIDs, or external reminders, you relinquish control over your records and cues. Frankly, given how busy most professionals are, the convenience of someone else offering you a pre-defined sales channel (e.g. travel) is very alluring.
3) Communications - social connectivity. The network effect only works if there is a network. Your address book, your pal email list, your club-membership are all targets. Because most people have learnt to tune out active marketing, direct marketing via inserted/prompted recommendations with friends (cough*Amway*cough) is a less intrusive but more effective mechanism. This IMHO destorys social capital as your level of trust declines if there is a hidden financial consideration (cough*Payola*cough).
4) Learning (Learning Resource Interchange - aka mindshare). Not so much universities but borrowing their perceived authority and historical independence and (supposedly) unbiased opinion. Ubfortunately dogma and doctrine are too easily propagated via this vector, especially if it can reinforce specific habits.
5) Entertainment packaging (MS MEdia) you don't need the content if you have control over the packaging. Afterall, if everything comes in a brown paper bag, do you really worry about the source? Whether it is codecs, IP control, or distribution/usage rights, using a few high profile sites and platforms (cough*Xbox*cough) will bring the rest of the industry flocking to your "standard"
There are probably some others (e.g. financial history but this is closely related to memory). How can laws impact on something which is effectly nebulous such as your habits? Do people realise the risks they are taking when outsourcing their family photo album or exposing their pal-list? (social connections). It is bad enough if individual companies tried dominating each of the above leading to potential monoculturism, but to have a bunch of very very talented people aiming to dominate all these intangibles is a slight matter of concern.
LL
This is the way that Compaq has shipped servers for the last several years, but only more recently has Linux been an option with Smartstart (IIRC, SCO always has been).
However, many large Compaq servers are bought through integrators who buy and install NT for you before you get the system.
Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
The company is offering an amazing array of new features, and it's becoming extremely influential. Those are the two main points in the article, and the conclusion Katz draws is that this is a problem.
Katz is unbelievable. Nobody -- including Microsoft -- has ever used FUD to such an outrageous extent. There's nothing in the article which argues that Microsoft is anything but a brilliant and powerful competitor, creating new products, solutions, and value for voluntary customers. But the conclusion Katz wants you to draw is that Microsoft should seem scary and threatening.
In other words, Microsoft is doing exactly what we would hope free-market companies would do... and Katz is totally against it.
Katz, you're a buffoon.
Don't try that "protecting the children" shit you people use to keep the tits and bad words off my TV. --Seanbaby
Well you have to remember Corperations are people too. And last time I checked it was illigal to bribe, rackater, and blackmail. And its definatly UnAmerican to not punish someone just because they are popular. Though it becoming the "American" way.
there is an OSS browser that works very nicely and is the best that's out there right now (I starting using it probably before 95% of the
Hmm. I've tried it, and it just doesn't do even basic HTML correctly, muchless Flash or Java. I'm talking about a recent version (shipped with Mandrake 8.0), too. Maybe I'm missing something, but it looks like an alpha to me.
---
I, for one, welcome our new Antichrist overlord.
That's why I started with "If I understand correctly." But you're splitting hairs; the point is that it is Microsoft's intent to make most of its money using .NET to make subscription-based software.
---
I, for one, welcome our new Antichrist overlord.
why don't you just get off your ass and write what you want yourself
Who's bitching? I'm not saying worthy stuff isn't out there. My point is that with the right priorities, we can take microsoft out, or really weaken it. The problem is that you just read what you wanted to read.
And hell, if I wasn't so busy trying to feed myself, I probably would take it upon myself to write good filters for an office suite, develop a browser that's better than IE, and rework Gnome until it had an actual interface, instead of a group of pretty pictures.
Until I have that kind of time, constructive criticism never hurt anyone. Self-righteousness, however, just might. :)
---
I, for one, welcome our new Antichrist overlord.
You're not paying attention. Maybe they can do that, but it is Microsoft's intention to use
---
I, for one, welcome our new Antichrist overlord.
Oh, I agree. They aren't guaranteed a win here, if we fight hard enough.
For instance: ".NET". If I understand correctly, this is a software subscription service.
Problem:
What we really need here is:
Give a company the option of using that stuff for free, or
---
I, for one, welcome our new Antichrist overlord.
I am an avid linux supporter, use it daily, and have all kinds of stickers on my car. But what about turning the tables here. if linux were really in the position that microsoft was in right now. Well that could never really happen, being that linux is not a company and M$ is. but if linux grew so popular that everyone was using it, would anything really be any better. I don't really think so. The main thing that we are looking for her is freedom of choice, variety. We all want different things. but aside from any of this, what really scares me about this point, is that M$ is a company, an entity, and can be targeted as such, as it already has. But linux is not. We can almost make a comparison between napster and gnutella here. napster is one entity, and there in is it's fault, it can be tageted and taken down. gnutella not having a "single point of failure" will never be destroyed by other companies. Now just image if Microsoft had a linux model, how would we even hope to combat it then, or would we even bother to try.
not trolling, it was just an interesting thought I had, and wanted to share.
Aw c'mon, this is a bit simplistic isn't it? Microsoft has the ability to be infinately more invasive than Linux, or FreeBSD. As has been shown time and again they can afford to buy out universities, high schools, businesses, ISPs, etc. They make them offers "they can't refuse" and this indirectly inflicts these products on the end user.
I know. I know. We don't have to go to school, eat at restaurants, buy a house, buy a car, go to the grocery store, or use the Internet, but then thats not much of a choice is it. When a company is this invasive and creates as many problems as Microsoft does than it is perfectly legitamate to lambast them.
This is the one flaw with so many libertarians. I don't think they have truly been faced with the decisions required for their "free market utopia" to exist. I say this as a libertarin by the way.
There needs to be a way to deal with companies such as Microsoft and I am very open to non-governmental alternatives. Because as the Katz article basically pointed out, a boycott ain't gonna work this time.
Aw c'mon, this is a bit simplistic isn't it? Microsoft has the ability to be infinately more invasive than Linux, or FreeBSD. As has been shown time and again they can afford to buy out universities, high schools, businesses, ISPs, etc. They make them offers "they can't refuse" and this indirectly inflicts these products on the end user.
I know. I know. We don't have to go to school, eat at restaurants, buy a house, buy a car, go to the grocery store, or use the Internet, but then thats not much of a choice is it. When a company is this invasive and creates as many problems as Microsoft does than it is perfectly legitamate to lambast them.
This is the one flaw with so many libertarians. I don't think they have truly been faced with the decisions required for their "free market utopia" to exist. I say this as a libertarin by the way.
There needs to be a way to deal with companies such as Microsoft and I am very open to non-governmental alternatives. Because as the Katz article basically pointed out, a boycott ain't gonna work this time.
We have Jon Katz doing two features on Microsoft back-to-back. That's bound to generate a "few" responses!
/. get new hardware that needs to be stress tested? Were some secret improvements made to the backend code or database that need testing? Or perhaps CmdrTaco has found a banner ad server that still pays out per viewing, and he really needs the cash right now (for his pr0n addiction, of course!)...
So did
There's more to this than they'd have us believe!!!
"Intelligence is the ability to avoid doing work, yet getting the work done".
It's only software!
Often, companies will not sell you a server without an OS. And often, requesting Linux and other alternatives will cost more than Windows.
i purchased office for $99. it was the educational version and it didnt have access. just powerpoint, word and excel i believe. it was office 95 or 97. i dont remember which.
use LaTeX? want an online reference manager that
-- john
"Microsoft is not, as the new administration has made abuntantly clear, about to be broken up. It has cashed in on its enormously profitable near-monopolies for desktop and server software" Near-monopoly? Now, I thought we were just talking about the evils of Microsoft as a monopoly... so now they are really just a "near-monopoly"... which means, of course, that they are not a monopoly. So why pursue them as such?
your analysis is correct. what you havent accounted for is that MSFT knows this. they *know* that they will take a hit...their product manager was interviewed a few months back and he stated bluntly that XBox was going to drain M$'s revenues and cash position *significantly* for a short time. Thats why Office XP and windows XP are also coming out at roughly the same time or as a staggered launch -- they will help cover costs of the XBox to offset the drain. After that the XBox will blow away PS/2's and other game consoles and take control of the market which is when their profits will increase by a huge factor. .NET which despite its hype and marketspeak is actually fairly decent as a language (blatantly ripping off Java will get you that) ...decent enough to allow me to seriously consider switching to NET development even though i code 99% of the time in linux with Java. Its so easy that theres no learning curve required..i picked it up in 5 minutes....easy enough so that miguel from GNOME actually said he liked programming in C#.
.NET services it might make sense to hop over the fence...in which case its another dark age for the IT industry like in the 90s....again..
Its a gamble...but then M$ has always been unafraid to gamble. Theres also the issue of C# and
bottom line is -- M$ may actually win this time. their platforms are becoming seriously attractive from the language C# (no braindead C++) and stability (hate to admit it but win2k isnt too bad..not as good as any unix but its not revolting either..).
i'll continue using linux as i always have and as long as i can but if M$ wins this time and linux/unixes cant connect to
not a good future.
You could be right - most of the content on the net is a steaming heap...
--
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
No, no - your PC is a desktop PC, this will be a table PC - a dramatic paradigm shift. Kind of like the world changing transition from laptop computers to notebook computers. Whew!
--
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
Wow, Jon Katz has some of the seriuosly most stupid things I have ever sen to say. (Not just because he is all thrilled about Microsoft or whatever). But as deplorable as his attempt at an article is, good lord - all the idiotic things these slashdot people have to say! Slashdot has fucking sucked for so long now. I really think they might as well stop allowing comments and admit that its time to DIE!!!!!!!!!
Juln
I don't know - some of them are okay...
the way they pretended to invent the optical mouse last year ws pretty shitty, but typical.
Also, the cheap plastic that thing was made out of was pretty laughable (but not for $50 bucks, thats more depressing).
Anyway, I think Micron was being punished a few years ago when I obtained my PC. The intellimouse I have was made in Mexico, rather than various the Asian locations my father and brother's mice originate from.
And, my mouse has this different wheel configuration that rubs against the body of the mouse and SUCKS; I had to trim it with an exacto blade. It still barely moves. The imps2 driver hates it. I hate it.
Juln
The moral of this story is this: Unless you feel pure hatred for everything Microsoft is and does, they you are a soulless idiot and do not deserve to live. Please, for the betterment of all mankind, go kill yourself. I mean it. Now!
I could not agree more. Anyone that hasn't perceived that Microsoft 'FUCKING SUCKS' has essentially failed what should be an elemental test of natural selection.
Juln
Does Jon know that Slashdot at large thinks he's an idiot? Why does he keep writing this tripe? He's had some decent articles recently, and I thought he was straigtening out, but...
After almost a thousand comments almost-unanimously telling him he's a stupid troll for writing Part I, Jon Katz, in his infinite wisdom...
a) rewrites his next article to be thoughtful, intelligent and worthwhile.
b) realizes what an idiot he is, and jumps off a cliff for the good of all mankind.
c) posts Part II.
He doesn't even bother reading these, does he?
Sigh.
-grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Uh, no. Microsoft does not 'give [power] back' to anyone. They consolidate and control. The only reason MSIE was 'free' was because it was competing with Netscape, also 'free'. They could not have sold it.
Err... and no matter how bloated all things Microsoft may seem, they're not 'hundreds of gigs'.
Go back under your bridge.
-grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
I agree with this- how many websites with DirectX have you ever seen? How do you think Active Directory is doing? Linux's big advantage is that its ---really, really cheap!---- You get an immense amount of ---free stuff--- in the distro, and if you're able to use interfaces that arent real stndard and occasionally need a text editor, you can have stuff that would cost $thousands from Microsoft for $30. And you can legally install that $30 disk on howevermany machines you want to.
As long as Linux has such a huge price advantage it will be more popular for people who can deal with it.
OTOH, if you just want to buy a "computer", plug it in and "surf the web" or "do email", then Microsoft is fine for you. As usual, the low-skill-end of the market is MUCH huger than the high-skill end, and Microsoft is undoubtedly easier to use.
Dump Jon Katz?
I find the poll results.. interesting. And the singular comment.
this was posted in '98, about a month after Katz got here. Staying neutral, i ask - Does anyone think its time to revisit this article?
What is it Microsoft week on slashdot or something? Can we get back to more urgent and pressing matters like I dunno maybe a couple of benchmarks on some of the apache 2.0 alphas. I'm sick about hearing about Microsoft! Stop it.
Free? No. Microsoft doesn't give anything away freely. It all has it's price. The sooner you learn that the price you are paying is with your own freedom of choice the quicker you yourself become free.
It's truly sad that you feel that way, it just proves to me how unaware people are of what free means and how blindingly they'd give up having a choice.
Ha ha... mac people are cute.
Cats know what you're thinking. They don't care, but they know.
The fact that none of you have ever heard of QuickPascal shows how well that plan worked. Borland ran into their own problems, but they had more to do with the mistakes made by the Borland people than anything Microsoft did and Turbo Pascal is still around, it's just been renamed "Delphi".
Sometimes, Microsoft persists with a poor seller and makes it into a market power. With QuickPascal, they decided to go in a different direction (to wit, emphasize Windows development, where they have a natural advantage) and to bury the loser deep.
The moral of the story: Microsoft is not a magical company. They make mistakes.
Waiting in the wings are Microsoft's "pipeline initiatives," under development or planned for later launch: the first table PC;
But I already have a PC on my table.
--
I use Macs for work, Linux for education, and Windows for cardplaying.
get a f%$%!"/* life!!!
"The answer to the Question of Life, the Universe and Everything is... 42"
You know... every one of those Compaq Proliants that you bought and wiped to put unix on is still money as far as Microsoft is concerned.
They don't really care if you buy them and throw them away. It pumps their market share statistics just the same; it makes Compaq and Dell believe that you wanted a Win2k computer; it is one less computer that Rackable, VA Linux or whatever would have sold.
-pos
The truth is more important than the facts.
The truth is more important than the facts.
-Frank Lloyd Wright
The market for Windows servers grew 32 percent this year, while sales of servers running Unix grew only 14 percent.
It's amazing how people always try to argue some broken facts about the server market and Microsoft. Let me add something to this thread that many people don't see in write ups by news agencies.
Many companies I've worked for including the one I do work for surely purchase MS based servers, but that doesn't mean that the company who purchased them will be running Microsoft on them. E.g. we've purchased hundreds of Compaq Proliant servers with MS only to wipe the entire contents of it and place a Unix base system on it.
Lets look at another angle here. Not too many vendors are shipping servers with FreeBSD or Linux pre-installed and instead your likely to find about a 4-1 ratio of servers being pre configured with MS on them. How many of those servers are wiped and a Unix based system thrown on them? There are no stats for this, nor can you say more MS is being sold when many of the Unix based OS' are free.
So for those who follow these so called stats, there are always other sides to the issues which never see the light of day.
Want Root?
I'm writing this from the convention floor of JavaOne running on a pretty nifty SunRay 150 workstation. It's amazing for one company that's "dominating" a technology at how many Fortune 500 and Global 500 companies use combinations of Unix/Solaris/Linux + a Java server for a significant portion of their company's systems. Of a survey of 104 Forutne 500 companies, 80% of those use a Java-based approach to web services using systems like iPlanet, Weblogic or Oracle9i. The OS itself is becoming increasingly irrelavant in today's technology. One application writting in NT is a quick drop-in into a Solaris machine running the same server. Let Microsoft try and dominate this area and it'll fail.
Some people take their .sig way too seriously
But they CAN always win.
.NET wrong for a decade, but eventually they will get it right and succeed AND still have $30 billion.
They can get
A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. -- William James
The fact that free software exists for the Windows platform has little to do with Microsoft giving software away. To the contrary, most of the software written for the Windows platform (free or otherwise) is produced by other companies BESIDES Microsoft.
What irks me is their upcoming business plan of making their software liscensing scheme work like a magazine subscription; you won't BUY software, but rather RENT or LEASE it, and have to pay again later on down the road if you wish to use it past the liscense's "expiration date".
I'm sorry, but when that day comes, I'm backing up my data and taking a very powerful electromagnet to my hard drives... then loading the Intel build of Darwin on the now-virgin magnetic media previously occupied by WinBlows....
"God, root, what is difference?" Pitr, www.userfriendly.org
I just can't see how anyone can think Microsoft can or will become some kind of censoring machine.
Microsoft is a company, with division, departments, internal politics, and most importantly, investors.
Microsoft is not interested in GreenPeace, OSHA, Unions, or anything like that. Well only interested in them inasmuch as they are customers with money. The only way MS will ever try to squelch the political process is if some anti-corperation political nut in Washington decides that MS is too good (or Darwinian or whatever) at business and trys to exert some form of unfair limitations of their rights as a business.
Sure, MS doesn't always play nice. Sure, MS isn't the model of politeness. But this is corporate America, in a new Global economy.
The rules are changing, and in order to compete with corporations in countries with less restrictive regulations, American companies have to be that much better at the game.
Microsoft has battled back to the top of the Internet heap, with more heavy-duty products coming to market this year than ever before, profits soaring again, and more research and development money in the bank than most of the world's nations can ever get their hands on, not to mention Microsoft's many out-maneuvered competitors.
Microsoft is not ontop of the internet Heap. The server side of the internet is still heavily weighted by *nix platforms runing open source software. Microsoft is a minor player in the ISP market compared to the likes of AOL and Earthlink. They also are not driving the content of the web, nor do they have any presence as one of the major web retailers.
Microsoft, reports Business week in a thorough report in its June 4 issue, and discussed in on Slashdot two weeks ago, is drowning in cash: $30 billion, more than any other company in the Corporate Republic formerly known as America.
FUD. Microsoft put 4.8 billion in cash on the books last quarter. They have over 30 billion in current assets (cash, short-term investments, stocks). However, most major banks and large investment houses have hundreds of billions in current assets.
Microsoft is not, as the new administration has made abuntantly clear, about to be broken up. It has cashed in on its enormously profitable near-monopolies for desktop and server software.
Server software monopoly? cough cough Apache cough Linux cough Java cough Perl cough cough Send Mail cough... etc. You are the Wotan Master of FUD.
Analysts believe it will soon return to 20 percent revenue growth, up from 14 percent today, which already is nearly double last year's.
Good for them.
The company is also launching a mind-boggling series of sweeping and expensive new initiatives:
Well, if they practice what they preach, this is the first place-nice integration MS has ever done. Exporting their software with soapy xml (w3c standard) is actually a step in the right direction. If they don't f-it all up. As for
XBox. As we know, this is the company's huge leap into the $20 billion game console business, scheduled for launch on November 9. XBox is supposed to be three times more powerful than Sony's or Nintendo's boxes, and Microsoft says it plans to spend $500 million on advertising in the first 18 months alone.
Those same analysts say that if X-box every turns a profit, it wont be for at least 4 years out. Not to mention, MS has always failed in consumer electronics, and they are up against Sony. Plus, alot of that money being pumped in to the X-box is going to the game designer companies, that view this as a win-win.
Small Business Software. For the first time, Microsoft will jump into the $19 billion small-business software arena, says Business Week, having bought accounting software specialist Great Plains Software for $1.l billion in April. The company says it then plans to offer customer-relationship, human-resources, and supply-chain software.
You're in some fuddy waters again. I would call MSOffice small business software, and frankly Office is MS's most profitable and lucrative monopoly. However, Microsoft's small business software suites that you are referring to have all landed them as duds. Sales are relatively dismal for this unproven market which nobody has had any success with todate. As for Great Plains, anybody that has used this software welcomes the change. Maybe we can finaly upgrade our NT 3.1 boxes now that Great Plains is being run by Microsoft. Great Plains is good stuff, but man was it always behind the OS times or what?
Stinger, Microsoft's latest effort at software for cellphones, begins trials in Europe later this year.
Oh my god how terrible. R&D in a new market. The way I see it this is fine. They aren't leveraging any monopoly here (and because of it they will get their ass's toasted).
Ultimate TV. Described by industry analysts as a "set-top box on steroids." For less than $400, this box will allow people to surf the Web and interact with TV shows, and record progams on hard drives for storage and later viewing.
Boy this market is on fire too. Let them piss their money away. a) nobody uses it or is going to use it. b) good for them, they aren't leveraging their OS or Office software here either!
On top of that, Windows XP, the biggest update in more than five years, is scheduled for late October.
XP is just Win2k with some extra crap thrown into it. Win2k is just NT with some bug fixes and a cleaner UI. Microsoft's NT OS versions are just like their Word product (nothing different, except that you'll spend a few hours configuring it after you upgrade). Plus, XP signs the end of the shitty win95/win98/winMe kernel. Thank god! Poor suckers have been living with that unprotected piece of sh*t for 6 f'ing years now!
The company is also breaking out of the low end of the server market with Windows 2000, which began shipping last year. Services running Win2000 claimed 41 per cent of the market, says Business Week, up from 38 per cent in l999.
Mixing your facts up. Microsoft is trying to get into the high-end (traditional RISC you know what the f I mean) market. Tred softly MS, because these guys are serious and they mean business. There names are IBM, SUN, HP to name a few. I see this as good news and hopefully will drive down some of those sun fire prices! As for this Services figure, thats the back-office stuff, not the high end market. That stuff is priciply driven by MS's monopoly on Office software.
There's much more.
Uhg. I'm getting tired.
MSN is now one of the most heavily-trafficked sites on the Web, the msn.com portal ranking second in this country behind Yahoo. Hotmail is the world's most used free e-mail service, and MSN Internet Access second only to AOL as the most popular consumer route to the Web.
FUD FUD FUD. MSN's traffic is driven mostly by idiots browsing to it after they install windows for the first time. Earthlink is #2 for internet access, not MSN. Hotmail has the marketshare of the free-email services (free mind you) but the competition is still present (competing for what I wonder?)
This from a company much criticized for failing to perceive the Web's importance a few years ago.
True, they were scared sh*tless, because the web was driven by servers (*nix) not windows 95.
The rise of MSN demonstrates just how difficult it is to compete with this company.
Compete for what? Portal space? Yahoo is #1. AOL in a wierd way is also #1 if you think about it.
Were it owned by anyone else, the long-struggling MSN would have gone belly-up long ago.
True because it is just a website. Websites alone aren't a business (/.)
But Microsoft can subsidize its products through good and bad times, creating an environment in which it's difficult, if not impossible, for competitors to survive.
Yes, this is true, however any large company can also do this. Sun subsidizes its lowend servers and software from the highend sales. IBM is subsidizing all of its current Linux spending with sales from its other businesses. Subsidizing is not nessessary evil; leveraging however is. And Microsoft does leverage its OS and Office suite.
Microsoft now operates under its own notions of Darwinian business evolution. That is, the rich prey on potential competitors and hang on until they win.
Actually that is the socialist theory. Microsoft believes the most productive will survive and that they are the most productive.
Microsoft is also getting serious about the handheld devices market; its Pocket PC has begun eating into Palm's market share. According to Net market researcher IDC, Pocket PC should hold 19 percent of the market by year's end, up from 10 percent two years ago.
Suprizing what color screens will do. Again, MS is not using any leverage from its OS or Office suite here. Palm integrates pretty well with Office.
The market for Windows servers grew 32 percent this year, while sales of servers running Unix grew only 14 percent.
Grr, back here again eh? Think carefully... Oh yeah, linux is free. No OS... Hmmm. When you add in the OS-less server sales the figures quickly change in favor of Non-Microsoft servers.
Furthermore, Microsoft will spend $4.2 billion on research and development this year, while unleashing the above cavalcade of significant new products and initiatives, starting this week with the launch of Office XP.
Just whose side are you on? Spending 4.5 billion on R&D. Releasing significant new products and initiatives. Hmmm, whats the problem here?
Waiting in the wings are Microsoft's "pipeline initiatives," under development or planned for later launch: the first table PC; natural-language processing (talking to computers the same way you talk to people); face mapping (using digital camers to scan a PC user's head into a 3D image so that software can add a full range of emotions for gamers); information agents (software agents that sift and sort through information for businesses and consumers).
Great. Meanwhile, on the Open Source front, Star Office is still trying to read a f-ing word file. No offense to Open Source and Star Office, but the intiatives you just mentioned are all good things.
It seems almost silly to argue that this is too much power for a single company to wield over something as central to the country's business, entertainment and cultural life as the Net and the Web. But Microsoft's power is barely mentioned in politics or the popular press, and seems of little concern outside of the open source and the boardrooms of some competitors. No company has ever dominated so enormous a part of the country's economy as Microsoft is about to do. The company is moving far beyond the ability of competitors to challenge it, and thus offer consumers any real choices. In fact, the company has grown much more monopolistic than when the government sued it.
Blah blah blah. Too much power eh? Hmmm, maybe we should set up some sort of Committee to oversee it. Some kind of Vangaurd Elite Committee. You could be... Chairman. All kidding aside, I agree with you on the OS and Office issues. Its a monopoly and they are abusing it. On all other counts you are smokin crack.
Since almost everyone who goes online intersects with a Microsoft product, there are substantial privacy concerns. It follows that MS knows more about the Web habits of Americans than any other company.
FUD. Its a concern, but one that watch groups are constantly monitoring, just like the Intel serial numbers.
And should the company ever decide to impose political or cultural values on its users and properties, it could have an enormous impact on speech and the transmission of political ideas.
Too bad this wasn't the crux of your arguement, because I do feel there are some issues here surrounding IE. I wouldn't characterize the impact as "enourmous" however.
The return of Microsoft, and its ferocious onslaught on well-funded new initiatives and projects is re-writing both government and civic history.
What the f are you talking about? Dude, you are seriously paranoid.
We now have the Unaccountable Company, bigger than the government of the nation in which it resides, beyond the reach of legislators, regulators, citizens, critics, victims, or more individualistic and entrepeneurial competitors.
Bigger than the government again eh? Whatever FUD master. I wish it was bigger than the government. It shames me to think how big our government is. It would be nice if there were some private enterprizes that spent more. Also, Microsoft is 100% to its shareholders don't forget.
People who need the Net and the Web in their personal loves or workplaces will do business with Microsoft, or they won't do business.
To some degree yes, principly because MS is still getting payback for unifying the desktop OS.
That returns Gates to his pre-lawsuit position as the pre-eminent figure of the Internet, invincible as Frankenstein's monster, the creature that really can't be vanquished or driven off.
Spare us Katz. You are the monster with this horrible analogy that you keep making.
Someone you trust is one of us.
Citicorp is the largest (by asset)company in the entire world with more than $900 billion.
if electricity is created by electrons, is morality created by morons?
Forget splitting up the company.
If MS was prevented from buying the competition such as hot mail, visio, link exchange, power point, IE (spy glass), etc. and were forced to develop from scratch then you would find a company that struggles when having to enter a new market or suffers missing a new trend (such as the internet).
Preventing MS from buying companies would ensure competion reigns in the market place. For example where is the competion to Visio, Power Point, IE ?
Companies such Visio represent more value to MS then it does to any other company because MS is a monopoly. MS can leaveage their monopoly and distribution to generate more profits from such a software products then could any other competitor.
On the contrary I have found these recent articles interesting and and the view points informative.
.NET. Their actions affect anyone involved with technology.
MS is in the news more these days as they are including several controversial "features" in XP and
You have the power to skim over these articles or you can filter them out of your display if you like. The choice is yours.
in fact I believe they had more power in the "Robber barron" period.
Your quite correct, but how many of those corperations could tell people what to think? obviouisly MS cant really do that, but when so many people use msn.com, and only MS Approved(r) info goes up, it doesn't look pretty. As i'm sure Katz has once posted in some doomsday thing, computers are ultra powerful (Nahhh, really??), people still have simplistic attitudes about them. Just think right now, how many lusers do you know that actually change their homepage? I.E. is aimed at people who just want it to work.
P.S. yes, i know my post is just a rehash of some old ideas, but they are important.
Only dead fish swim with the stream...
Oh I don't know, but I suspect that the yellow journalism from newspapers all owned by Herst in the same time period actually controlled much more mindshare than msn.com does. (wasn't the spanish american war in large part fought because of the froth of public opinion stirred up by these papers, ie. Remember the Maine but IANAH {I'm not a historian} so feel free to enlighten ;))
-------- This space intentionally left blank --------
No company has ever dominated so enormous a part of the country's economy as Microsoft is about to do.
Damn ever hear of Morgan, Carnegie, and Rockefeller -- They (and their monopolistic practices as "robber barrons") drove the creation of the anti-trust laws in the first place because they became so dominant the public at large actually was forced to do something about it (instead of the usual sheep role). Hell even after some of the controls went into place Morgan still had enough cash to bail out the New York Stock exchange (can Bill G do that?).
I'm not advocating we should retun to the times of the "Robber barrons" just that this is not the first time corporations and individuals have had such concentrated power, and in fact I believe they had more power in the "Robber barron" period.
What this should do is allow us to learn from our history and try to prevent the kind of concentrated wealth that occurred in this period and hurt a enough people to create a general public outcry. Unfortunately we seem to be quite good at repeating the mistakes of history.
-------- This space intentionally left blank --------
Once Microsoft has another $10-20 billion in cash, Bill Gates will finally be able to buy himself a decent haircut.
I think that all of you are missing the point. Katz isn't dissing Microsoft just because they make a good punching bag. He is making a political point about the power structure of America, and how corporations as exemplified by Microsoft can generate almost instant control over their own futures despite governmental balances meant to keep corporate power in check.
So all I wonder is "Where is your 2004 campaign site, Jon?" I'm half way serious in this... if you are willing to make yourself a political demagogue for this cause, I'm willing to make a cash contribution, and probably even a vote. Power to the people, god damnit!
For a long time now we have all argued that Marx was mistaken; that even if an eventual surplus of wealth would eventually cause a transition to more socialist ideals, it wouldn't require bloody revolution to effect that change. Marx, we keep telling ourselves, was simply a product of his times.
But with people in a previous thread seriously arguing that corporations should "have no moral obligations" something is seriously out of whack, and I'd be highly surprised if this imbalance between the rights and duties of individuals and corporations doesn't come to a head. And soon too, if the pendulum doesn't start swinging back pretty quickly.
LibBT: BitTorrent for C - small - fast - clean (Now Versio
Connection Opened
RollYourOwn Linux 2.6
login:katz
password:
no new mail
/~katz>slashdot-rehash returnOfMicrosoft.story returnOfMicrosoft2.story -use slashdotPropaganda.troll
rehashing returnOfMicrosoft.story using slashdotPropaganda.troll as dictionary
.............
/~katz>slashdot-post returnOfMicrosoft2.story -section frontPage
posted
/~katz>slashbot -activate -story returnOfMicrosoft2.story
using default options -troll -hiveMind
slashbot pid is 3492
/~katz>logout
Connection Closed
This is a manual virus. Copy it to your sig and help me spread!
But look at CE. I remember their early attempts; they sucked. Big time. The Compaq 2010c (company dabbled witha few of them at one time) at the back of my desk drawer is huge, heavy, and slow. But if I had to replace my trusty Psion 5 tomorrow, it'd be with an iPaQ.
That's how they work. The first versions suck; but they are so rich they don't fail with V1 and keep going until they have something that doesn't suck.
~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
This may be what makes Free software suceed; it has so little need for money that it too can outlast anyone.
Everytime I get hold of a fresh distribution of Linux I am impressed by the improvement since the last one. Thats why, even though it is not my production OS, I keep coming back. Some day I think it will be my production OS.
~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
I don't usually like to respond to posts like this but, why don't you just get off your ass and write what you want yourself? I know I know... you don't have the time to do it, or the knowledge, or whatever, but then please stop bitching about what you're getting for free.
It seems that the golden rule of free software, the do it yourself mentality that actually produces code, is being lost in the noise of people who just want shit handed to them.
"Our browser's not good enough, Mozilla is slow!" Well, go help speed it up.
"Our interface sucks!" Change it to suit yourself.
"I want a good office suite!" Go pick one help out on it.
Geez... you'd think you were living in a world that didn't encourage users to participate in software development...
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
Enough is enough!
.NET, Xbox and MSN all at the same time? Gee maybe good for the advististment industry but not very good for MS's pocket books.
MS is not invincible. Although they might seems so. The launch of the XBox will seriously test their finance. And it could prove to be a total disaster!
Remember the dreamcast? It was earilier and better then the PS2. But it screwed up. IT could have been earilier and even better but internal politics added quite a bit of time to it's development.
Ms still faces a very power Sony. Sony has produced two winning console so far. They dominate the industry. And they know what needs to be done to ensure they win. Ms isn't going to just walk in and be able to snap up the market. Although I think they have a fair chance at doing quite well.
Most of us are looking at the number of different things MS is going to try in the next few years are we are awed. And rightly so because it is a very large number of thing to try and do at the same time.
First off they have to put out the Xbox. That needs alot of marketing which cost tons of money. They need to distribute the Xbox to retailers again going to cost money. The xbox is the size of an elephant and it looks like something ripped out of a borg ship ( how interesting..). Basically it looks ugly and as a result it would be harder to sell.
Also of interest is what the Xbox and PS2 is trying to do. They are becoming more and more like PCs. Which has alot of implications. For example how popular is getting online with webtv or a console now? Not very if you look at the amount of web-ware that's got a console version. True Xbox will be running windows and should mean alot of clients like icq and other web-ware for the xbox. But at the end of the day you are not going to find writing emails or sufting the net on your low resolution Tv very easy to use. Sure tack on a high resolution TV or a monitor but that'll make the thing about as or more expensive then a low end PC.
Generals try very hard not to have a 2 front war. MS is walking into a multi-front war with Sun, Sony, IBM and AOL. They are going to push XP,
I think that's a pretty vague generalization. As for UltimateTV and Stinger, I think they will at least break even. With the media machine they have packed behind the XBox, I don't see how they can't make money, and by all appearances it should out perform the currently available gaming platforms.
The thing I always remind people is that no matter how much you dislike Microsoft, they are still one of the largest companies in America and they didn't get that way by making bad decisions and backing stupid ventures. I don't think they would make a move on something they weren't guaranteed to at least break even on.
Don
For somebody whose regularly complaining about how adults and legislators stereotype kids, Katz certainly has a rather black-and-white view of the world.
Microsoft is neither an unstoppable Frankenstein (in fact I think it is in far worse shape than Katz lets on), and neither is it the wholly benevolent innovator that its worst apologists claim.
This article by Katz is just as distorted and one sided about Microsoft as Craig Mundie's FUD-filled speech about Linux and open source was.
Another misguided definition. A monopoly is created by the absence of competition. Notice that I did not put any qualifiers on the word "competition". The lack of "reasonable" or "valid" or even "technologically similar" competition does not make a monopoly.
Here's a brief list of Microsoft's chief competitors (very brief, no need to e-mail me with additions):
- Internet Explorer - Netscape Navigator
- Windows $DESKTOP-OS - Linux, MacOS (particularly MacOS X)
- MSN Portal - Yahoo!, Netscape.com, hundreds of others
- Office Suite - Corel WordPerfect Suite, StarOffice
- PocketPC - Palm, Handspring, Compaq
...and on and on and on...Also, the ability to form a coalition against competition (cf. packs of wolves vs. their predators) actually moves forward the Darwinian model of evolution, it does not disprove it.
MSN evolves as a function of the evolution of its "social group", in this case, Microsoft, just as Netscape.com evolves as a function of the evolution of AOL/Time Warner.
The fact that the rewards of success of other arms of the company are used to prop up not-as-successful arms of the company could be said to be an evolution in the sense that altruism is further evolved than selfism.
Zaphod B
Zaphod B
When duplication is outlawed, only outlaws will have
I'll ignore the obvious troll here and just go for what little you actually said.
Why is it so bad that Joe AOL uses a computer? Just because you're able to write your own OS entirely in Motorola 68K does not mean that that should be the minimum knowledge (notice the word choice, since intelligence implies the ability to learn).
I can think of a hundred reasons off the top of my head as to why Joe AOL should be using a computer. I realise that you're not quite old enough to have experienced this yourself, but find someone who was working in offices before the PC revolution. Ask him or her to describe the productivity level. Now look at today's office, which (though far from the 'paperless office' trumpeted at us 7 to 10 years ago) are immeasurably more efficient and productive. Look at enterprises with more than one office, especially if they're spread out.
Joe AOL, or, if you like, Joe BusinessExec, does not care how computers work or what platform they run on, nor should he care. Joe BusinessExec's job is not to know computers inside and out, and Joe BusinessExec's job (trust me on this) takes up too much of his time already without having to worry about it.
I'm incredibly tired of hearing people whine about the intelligence level of users who use Windows, and I'm sick and tired of hearing how Joe BusinessExec should embrace being able to modify his own source code.
That, my friend, is why there are IT professionals. If you don't want people to use Microsoft, then get a job where you have influence over such things and then change it, damn it.
As for your aircraft carrier analogy, well, if aircraft carriers made the lives of the typical person so much easier that they would ever be in popular demand (ignoring the obvious defects of having millions of aircraft carriers anchored in navigable waters), then you would have two choices: (1) Have someone who knew the aircraft carrier inside-and-out attached to EVERY SINGLE AIRCRAFT CARRIER owner as an employee, or (2) dumb down the aircraft carrier. Which would be better? Probably 1, though it's improbable that that would ever happen. This leaves (2).
You want people to stop using MS products? Go start finding users and training them on other products. I mean it. Now! I'll be too busy doing the same to kill myself.
Zaphod B
Zaphod B
When duplication is outlawed, only outlaws will have
Jon, I don't know where you get YOUR definition of Darwinisms from, but where I come from, the Darwinian model boils down to "the strongest [or most adaptive] shall survive".
And as much as I hate to say it, have you looked at MSN lately? The portal, I mean, not the lame dial-up ISP. It's really not all that bad.
I fully realise I shall be thrown into the dungeon for this, but... <gasp> some of Microsoft's things aren't too bad!
We won't, of course, mention the travesty of a platform that is .NET... not without laughing... but their Windows 9x GUI is a shining example of something that can be quickly grasped by Joe AOL, and their Visual Studio products have made programming accessible to those who shouldn't ever have considered a career in devel...er, wait, never mind, I'm having Freudian slips here. Never mind.
Zaphod B
Zaphod B
When duplication is outlawed, only outlaws will have
Just doing my part to help VA stock.
and they skewer everyone, not just MS.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
After yesterdays garish depiction of the juggernaut brought out 900+ posts spanning the full ranks of trolls, indignant types on all 7 sides of the political spectrum, astroturfers, and probably Elian Gonzalez and Timothy McVeigh as one time posters, I think we've seen the pro and the con adequately.
Enough already!
"Provided by the management for your protection."
What's so unamerican about a company having the freedom to make and sell products as they see fit? If anything, all the rules and restrictions placed on Microsoft (and our efforts to put more restrictions on them, and in fact to break up the entire company) could hardly be called "American."
The company is also launching a mind-boggling series of sweeping and expensive new initiatives:
Why is that bad? Katz, you're knee-jerking again. They coming up with new projects and products. That's *wonderful*, not terrible. It adds to the "marketplace of ideas." If we don't like them, we don't have to buy them.
But Microsoft can subsidize its products through good and bad times, creating an environment in which it's difficult, if not impossible, for competitors to survive. Microsoft now operates under its own notions of Darwinian business evolution. That is, the rich prey on potential competitors and hang on until they win.
If Linux (or anything else) is going to make it in the marketplace, the people behind it will have to stop whining about not having the market equivalent of affirmative action, and instead will have to develop business models based on something other than "If we make it, they will come."
Since almost everyone who goes online intersects with a Microsoft product, there are substantial privacy concerns. It follows that MS knows more about the Web habits of Americans than any other company.
Uhhh....what about the fact that almost everyone who goes online also intersects with Cisco routers? You're not using any logic, Katz.
That returns Gates to his pre-lawsuit position as the pre-eminent figure of the Internet, invincible as Frankenstein's monster, the creature that really can't be vanquished or driven off.
If it was Linus Torvalds, Slashdot would praise it as the second coming.
This Microsoft garbage is getting really old. Aren't there any important tech topics left in the world?
Got Rhinos?
We won't, of course, mention the travesty of a platform that is .NET... not without laughing...
.NET / XML
.NET / XML
And why is it a travesty? Because you say it is? I hope you realize that while you're laughing at it, Microsoft is laying out billions of dollars to say otherwise. And who are the masses going to listen to, hmm? Will they listen to some joe out in cyberspace, or are they going to listen to $$$?
Are you familiar with the song "Sixteen Candles"? The song was basically a flop (barely broke the top 100 on the Billboard chart if I remember right) until some guy named Dick Clark played the song on some show called American Bandstand. And he played it again, and again, and again. Suddenly, the song was a hit. Why did Dick Clark play the song over and over? Well, the newspapers soon found out that he was being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to do so, aka payola. Money speaks, and millions of teenage fans listened.
Now I'll be frank. Right now I'm using the Windows 98 platform to type this message to you. My machine has Micrsoft Works (which I often use for word processing), and my DSL ISP will [unfortunatley] soon become MSN (although I'm still using Netscape). I enjoy using Microsoft Works, and there isn't an easier-to-use and highly-supported OS out there right now than the Windows lineup.
Why do I have all these products? Because this is what the economy has shoved in front of my face. Sure, I can bash it all I want...call it a travesty, say that Win9x is a piece of crap, rip Internet Explorer apart...but it's no use. It is what the world uses, so it is what I must use. Why is it what the world uses?
It's the golden rule: He who has the gold makes the rules.
Personally, I thought this was one of Katz's better articles. There wasn't as much biased onslaught against MS, but instead he laid out a huge list of facts which basically gave out Microsoft's position. His last couple paragraphs (rather than his entire article) showed where he stood.
But I thought this summed it up real nicely: "People who need the Net and the Web in their personal lives or workplaces will do business with Microsoft, or they won't do business."
Truthfully, Microsoft is being innovative. I can't deny that. They're pushing technology (and my swap file) beyond its limits, always trying to see what it can do. But they're pushing it their way...the way they want it to go, so that they can maintain the power. They claim that they'll make the internet greater than it was before. The problem with this is that the internet was born WITHOUT MICROSOFT. The internet became what it was in 1996 WITHOUT MICROSOFT. What we worship in the internet was not created by Microsoft.
Look at where the internet is going now.
Netscape --> Internet Explorer
E-Mail (Eudora, PINE, Pegasus, etc.) --> Outlook
Movies (Quicktime, RealPlayer, etc.) --> Microsoft Media Player
Streaming Audio (RealPlayer) --> Micrssoft Media Player
Java -->
Shockwave -->
Chat (AIM, ICQ, mIRC, etc.) --> MSN Instant Messenger
Sure, one could argue that I'm being too paranoid, but when billions of dollars coming from one company alone are being used to push a product, people are going to listen. On the left side, each company worked on their own branch of the internet. Microsoft's working on them all. Why? When people listen (or rather are blindly following the pied piper), the $$$ has the power.
I know that Katz-bashing appears to be the mainstream, simply because he's got an opinion. My advice for Slashdot readers: Don't bash him because he's opinionated. Opinions are like assholes: everyone's got one, and everyone thinks everyone elses stinks.
Here's the problem: everyone keeps bashing (in some way or another) Microsoft, but when Katz tries to absorb everyones' opinion into one article, they bash him for it, since it appears to overly-dramatic, to biased, or whatever (even though many of us all write that way ourselves). My advice for Katz: rather than trying to follow and reflect what people are saying in their postings, write what you truly believe. That way, people will fight with what you have to say (which leads to better conversation) than bash the way you write.
"Preview Comment
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted."
Wow. All I ever wanted to do was post one little bit of critique in the form of code. I find it a little weird that Katz complains about censorship, but when you complain a little about him...
Click here to read too much about my personal life
=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=
I've seen Ultimate TV and XBox in persona nd I'm telling you, it's better than anything on the market. If only they had made the 56k modem on the UltimateTV moduler, and offered a ethernet card as an option, it would rule the market even more than it's going to do already. It's (feee)TIVO, Web TV, etc, all rolled into one. When they leverage their .WMA into the box, it will be able to DL songs and movies on demand.
--- RFC 1149 Compliant.
Here are my ideas on possible reasons, feel free to reply with more.
This is not a time to rest on your laurels.
--
People said the same about General Motors in the 1950s and IBM in the 1960s. Commerce spent decades trying to force GM to split off Chevrolet. IBM was hounded by the monopolice for years.
Free markets really work. That's how Microsoft got where it is and that's how Microsoft will be defeated if they do something stupid. Meantime, the handwringers get payment and notariety for moaning about the rewards of brilliant strategies and hard work.
Lets hear a few negative comments about General Electric while you're at it. Number one or two in each of the many markets they play in. Incredible finanical resources. Far more diverse than Microsoft. Ruthless competitor.
Another brilliant example of how the game is played -- and won.
They're dead. But they don't realize it yet. Like the French, they always learn the wrong lesson from the last war. This time, they think that their apparent (but far from garuanteed) win in appelate court gives them a license to bully the marketplace like they have never dared to before.
.Net subscription services with increasingly restrictive licenses, they will find they have a competitor. Themselves; in the guise of all those Office 2000 and Win2k installs. Unless MS figures out a way to retroactively disable Office 2000 and Win2k, they are going to have problems.
It won't work. MS is about to undergo a revenue meltdown. Win2k has been far from the revenue wonder it was supposed to be. WinXP is going to be a hard sell on several fronts. Not least because many shops will install the home version to replace NT4. Why spend the extra $ on an enterprise version. OfficeXP is likewise going to have a hard time as a no-brainer upgrade. MS knows it. That's why they are doing this licensing tango lately. Watch the IT departments of the world vote with their feet on this one.
The real issue for them is that they have a dandy desktop monopoly. But as soon as they start trying to move everyone to
And remember the wrong lessons? MS thinks they can get away with Sherman Act violations. They think that they will get away with what they are doing with Smart Tags & MSN, Windows Media Player, MSN Instant Messanger, etc. They will continue to think that until they go so far that even the Bush administration will turn against them.
Pretty simple. Don't buy it then. Or use Linux. You act like people have no freedom of choise. People DO have freedom of choice, and they choose Microsoft products.
I read on a sneak-preview website about another new MS Product that is going to take the market by storm. It's a really slick GUI to your computer that makes everything so simple anyone can understand it.
It's called Microsoft Bob...
...from this? Seriously... for all their evil, unethical, potentially illegal actions, Microsoft is doing some things _really_ well. Surely there must be some lessons that the OS/FS community can learn (besides from "kill your competitors at dusk with .45's") from this. After all, for all it's flaws, more people like windows than linux. Yes, that's right. More people. And this is despite the fact that Windows (at least 95/98/Me) is still often quite unstable... but then again, so is a poorly configured system, which seems to be the rule these days, rather than the exception. Why?
-- Is "Sig" copyrighted by www.sig.com?
I didn't know this big CONTINENT is now a republic... sheeeeshhh... canadians, USers, mexicans, brazilians all together now in a single republic... It's a little strange to see people ranting about how does a particular entity (MS in this case) behave like if it were the only existent thing but behaving exactly the same way.
Math is the weapon!!
I wonder how many of MSN's page hits are due to people being too lazy or incompetent to change their Default home page? I bet if they made the default home page blank, they would fall way back in the rankings.
------------------------------------------
If God Dropped Acid, Would he see People???
What are we going to do tonight Brain?
Instead of bashing Microsoft's products why don't you suggest a way to improve them?
"The market for Windows servers grew 32 percent this year, while sales of servers running Unix grew only 14 percent."
So back when Unix ran 80% off all the servers were you mad at Unix?
This whole penis envy thing is getting old Jon!
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
Ahh, I see. Well, I'm going to have to wager that if you hold any grudges against him, just call the local SPA and mention his "hundreds of gigabytes of completely free programs" to them and see how quick you learn that they were only aquired without cost. :)
And if he has a foot in that puddle on the Internet, I'm sure you'll find why he left you in the other "hundred gigabytes" of files he never explained to you, especially if they ended in ".mpg" or ".avi". >:)
Free-as-in-beer and Free-as-in-speech are two VERY different things. Microsoft does little for Free Software.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to make my donation to the Freedom to Innovate foundation.
icqqm [ICQ:11952102]
Just because they *have* new products doesn't guarantee they'll catch-on and make the company money. Just look at Sidewalk ;-D
If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
Point is, if you're so sure about the platform you're on, probably other people feel the same way you do. If a product is worthwhile, it'll survive, if it dies, it's because it's badly marketted or not an absolutely needed product.
You linux people (not the old hardcore but the new commers) have been living against microsoft for what, less than 5 years? Guess what, Amiga owners have been living against PC for 10 years before switching platform, and why did they? because the PC finally catched up with multimedia capabilities, content creation tools, etc etc... not only raw cpu power... If amiga would still have been the computer to do the job I needed it to, I'd still use it 95% of the time, not the opposite.
In the end, machines are a tool, there'a a bit more philosophy behind platform wars and buisness practices, but in the end, is your tool right for the job? yes/no? are there any other alternatives? yes/no? good... not take it and do the job you need to do for god's sake.
Microsoft doesn't control everything yet, I can still chose my beer.
--- Metamoderating abusive downgraders since my 300th post.
Then buy individual parts and assemble your own PC if you're so concerned about it. Microsoft shouldn't get any of your money if you do that.
It's only a few months ago that Jon Katz came out with a number of articles in which he said it was "the end of the Microsoft era".
I thought that was funny at the time, as it so obviously wasn't.
Now he's writing articles saying "Microsoft are back".
And that's funny, as they've never been away!
Jon Katz, what a funny guy! He doesn't half write a load of old bollocks!
Hacker: A criminal who breaks into computer systems
"Information wants to be paid"
Already slipping into reruns, eh Jon? Oh wait... you've been posting the same Anti-Microsoft FUD article for years now..... I mean, how could I forget?
Advice for Jon: Shut the fuck up.
Gam
I love idealists not because I am one, but because they make life bearable for pragmatists such as myself.
I'm assuming that was actually hundreds of gigabytes of pr0n, since he obviously didn't need you anymore. :-p
This sig is xenon coated, and will glow red when in the presence of aliens
Entertaining yet somewhat truthful. All the pieces are there for it to happen. Just depends on what the person running the show decides to do.
~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
Fire Katz, hire Selectspec!
I suspect you are trolling but I am going to reply anyway...
Internet Explorer is not free just like Mozilla is. Show me the source code for IE - you can't because it's not free. (Speech v Beer) For a definition of free software see the Free Software Foundation website at http://www.fsf.org
Winzip is not a Microsoft application.
The hundreds of gigabytes(?) of free programs he had were probably not written by Microsoft. Are you sure you don't mean megabytes. Do you know how big a gigabyte is?
As for your last paragraph - it speaks for itself. Microsoft are not in the business of giving power to people, they are in the business of making money. To them that means taking power away from users.
Damn it! Why can't I have mod points today?
(Score:5 Funny)
this is what a corporate republic looks like....
~~ What's stopping you?
1. Negative assertations aimed at Microsoft, Microsoft products or Microsoft users.
2. Said assertations are at best only half-correct but usually completely wrong on the critical details.
3. SlashFUD is rarely informed by facts but rather by an irrational contempt of all things Microsoft.
4. Following the journalistic lead of Slashdot editors, those who post SlashFUD rarely take the time to actually research the veracity of the material supporting their arguments.
Here is the trailer from the WinZip website: WinZip is a registered trademark of WinZip Computing, Inc By the way, did you know that Phil Katz died a few months ago?
Jon's article started out this time with more of the MS-bashing, US-bashing hysteria from part one, but after a couple of paragraphs, his main points seem to be:
1. MS is coming out with some irresistible new products.
2. MS is one of the most solvent companies in the world.
3. MS can not possibly lose.
I'm starting to think that Jon Katz is actually a Microsoft shareholder, and that he wants to make them out to be an unstoppable juggernaught so his stock value will rise more.
Somebody should call the SEC and have this guy checked out.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Wow. I am SO smart.
--
--
Ikaruga scoreboard (supports netranking)
The bigger they are, the harder they fall. If history teaches anything, it's that megacorps, meganations, and mega-anything rot themselves out from the inside once avarice and power-lust replaces hunger and passion. I don't know how the Microsoft juggernaut will eventually founder, but I do know that it will. No matter how much cash is thrown at them, the best and the brightest can not thrive, or even survive, among relentlessly expanding cadres of focus-group marketroids, lawyers, MBAs, and suited Napoleans still trying to compensate for pimply highschool careers. In the long run, history teaches that innovation, success and ascension are sustained by hearts and minds, not dollars and marketshare. Hearts and minds are what currently drive open source development...$$ drives Microsoft. Place your bets.
BTW, Christopher Woods wrote a superb analysis of the Japanese brush with dominance called The Bubble Economy (recent dot com stockholders can also benefit from it). Here's a reference to a summary.
Unfortunately for the average, naive American, the government isn't going to do anything until it is too late. By that time Microsoft will be to large to stop. As the saying goes, the bigger they are, the harder they fall. When MS falls (and they will...it's just a question of when) they are going to take most of the country with them. The government runs MS. They won't have the resources or funds to retrain everybody on something else. And then, my friends, the four horsemen will be upon us.
---
If you want to throw UNIX on a server, why the hell did you buy it with a WinNT or Win2k license? ...and you say this took place on hundreds of them...which translates to hundreds of thousands of dollars to Microsoft in licensing.
Talk about flamebait!
Now I understand why so many long-time Slashdotters filter out articles by Katz. I kept reading and expecting some sort of objective commentary or informed question at the end to provoke further thought (like CmdrTaco and most decent submitters do) but it never came.
It was a like he was reading verbatim from some MS Press Release or something. Unbelievable. I'm going to the preferences page to filter out articles by Katz as soon as I hit the submit button.
steve snyder
my email
"The more laws, the less justice."
Marcus Tullius
Vote Quimby.
Most posts I read don't believe it, talk of hype. I can understand that it is hard to believe, especially when standing on the "sound" side.
But Microsoft is consumer good, even for Mr. average CEO-consumer. Even politicians are super-consumers.
It's strange that the article from Katz does not mention MS PassPort. The arrogance in this PassPort idea alone is repulsive.
Let me tell you what happened:
I had to sign up MS Messenger to be able to "reach" some technical assistance I needed. I was forced to take a Hotmail account to have the Messenger service.
A few weeks later Messenger proposed to upgrade itself. I pushed "Later". A week later again, I chose "Later". Till I pushed "Ok". Then it proposed to get an account to "Passport", which I consequently refused.
Guess what: Next time clicked the "you have mail" in Messenger, Hotmail showed I could optionally logout of my MS PassPort account?? !!!!! Mr Consumer will eat everything they feed him.
*** EVERYTHING. ***
Every one I talk about this answers "What do you want to do about it?"
Prepare for a big indigestion in ten years, when your kids will ask you where you were when it happened.
Cultural sell-out. Will we say "Wir haben es nicht gewusst?"
--------
* Sigh *
Why not? StarOffice is may not be perfect, but it is cheap and "good enough". Being "good enough" is the big success secret behind the PC (and also behind Microsoft).
We tried it, it doesn't stand a chance in the desktop publishing business. StarOffice is lacking way too many features in that area. Trust me if it was any good, we would have used it and saved a lot of money.
One thing Katz seems to be forgetting, is that in the end its up to the consumers to decide what product is a sucess and what isn'y. Microsoft products won't suceed purely because they're microsoft products - they'll succeed because consumers believe them to be the best, and so buy them Katz seems to think that everything MS does performs well, when this is not the case, just look at WebTV.
That's right. Until someone comes out with something BETTER, Microsoft will be the way... but instead of everyone whining about it, they should get off their asses and do something about it!
I think people are really forgetting that Linux's current strengths are not in the desktop computer environment. Linux has been successful in more niche markets: server boxes, high-end workstations and embedded devices such as TiVo. In fact, given the fractious state of UI environments in Linux, no wonder we're starting to see articles expressing serious concerns about the success of Linux on desktop environments. Somebody (IBM or to a lesser extent Dell) should wave a very large sum of money to a group of developers to create a single unified UI for Linux completely with automatic hardware configuration so it can become truly viable competitor to Windows 95/98/ME/2000/XP.
Frankenstein's monster was eventually killed. Invincible? No. Hard to defeat? Maybe. Microsoft has gotten to it's position by a very intelligent marketing mastermind (Mr. Gates) He just doesn't understand computers but also how people think and what they want. Until someone else can do this, he'll remain at the top of his game.
The thing that has made Microsoft so successful is the very fact their marketing department has been generally way more successful than not in judging user needs for desktop computers. It also helps that in the late 1980's Microsoft started up its superb Usability Lab, which allows Microsoft to carefully monitor user reactions to the designs of various products in development and make improvements based on lab testing. This is why the UI look and feel of its products since the early 1990's has always been top-notch, as noted by the comparison of the look and feel of Internet Explorer 5.5 Service Pack 1 and Netscape 6.01. Remember Word for Windows 2.0 when it was unveiled at COMDEX Fall 1991? One of the first products to take advantage of the Usability Lab, Word for Windows 2.0 was vastly superior to WordPerfect for Windows 5.1, a much-more hyped product shown at the same COMDEX show. Because Word for Windows 2.0 could import WordPerfect 5.0 for DOS files more perfectly than Wordperfect for Windows 5.1, small wonder why Microsoft pulled the rug out from under WordPerfect and became the dominant word processor for Windows to this day.
Microsoft can do wrong. Linux can do wrong. Microsoft get things right. Linux gets things right. But its not a black and white, MS bad, Linux good world. There are arguements for and against both. An article such as this simply panders to the slashdot majority, it shows little research, and less thought. A shame considering the potential of such a piece.
http://twitter.com/onion2k
And being met with lines like, "Whoa, whoa. A fat, sarcastic Linux fan. You must be a devil with the ladies."
Thanks be to Matt Groening and the people at SNPP.
"I took the red pill. Ha ha. You can't have it now."
It's posts like this idiotic one that get modded up, that make me want to take back all of those other mod points I used positively, and mod this down to 0.
I h8 trolls.
---
He said laptop, not PC, where can the average person go and buy the parts to make their own MS free laptop????
Now I know why. This guy is the opposite of the Microsoft FUD-bunnies that /. readers have grown to loathe. He's trying to scare us, for God know's what reason, into believing MS is going to take over the world. I'm guessing his intent is political in nature, maybe just a way of saying, "Hah you idiots, you voted Bush in, now Microsoft is going to take over."
He couldn't be furhur from the truth.
"The market for Windows servers grew 32 percent this year, while sales of servers running Unix grew only 14 percent."
Yeah, that's great Jon. Unix *is* a dying OS. *Linux* on the other hand was stated in that statistic to be what percent? Oh wait, you didn't include it. Not to mention including the source for that statistic, which would help those of us that have statistics saying NT isn't doing all that well.
Also, what about machines that are bought from Compaq (leader in server sales) and then formatted with a new OS? A number of times they *come* with NT.
Where will Linux be? Studies show a projected 10% growth for 2001.
So anyway, please take what Jon has to say with a grain of salt. He's got no legitimate reason for wanting to spread FUD.
Microsoft, to sum it up, is an opportunistic company... Anyone who's age exceeds the mid twenties can attest to the causes for Microsoft's level of power, and the tech community's contribution to same...
Apple: They essentially invented the term "Personal Computer" with their first computers, then IBM tried their hand at it, the PC market was born... Apple responded to the confusion many non technical computer users experienced with a CLI by recycling (Xerox PARC gave them the technology since they foresaw little use for it, their own GUI system costing more than the public could afford) Xerox's GUI into the Lisa (big shot in the foot one), followed by the Mac...
From 1984 to 1988/89 (Time enough for Commodore to release the Amiga, and shortly after, Atari with the ST, both later killed by horrendous mismanagement), Apple enjoyed an appreciable measure of the market, until Steve Jobs bailed to pursue his vision for NeXT (big shot in the foot number two), and without any clear direction or visionary potential, Apple languished for almost 10 years, on the virge of bankrupcy whilst their management attempted to learn again, just what the difference between their ass and a hole in the ground really was...
Microsoft, on the other hand, not having much of a say in hardware production, took advantage of this to move up in the market... The considerable difference in pricing between Macs and PC's also contributed to the blow suffered by Apple once more, as any semi savvy geek can assemble a PC from piecemeal, while Apple took on an aloof "We'll decide who works on the machine you own" attitude...
IBM: For a short period of time, the PC languished in the realm of the elite, people who understood CLI for the most part, requiring either expensive training, or ownership of a system that they could teach themselves on, still an expensive prospect during the 1980s... There was no Linux, it was purely multiple flavors of DOS, and Unix... Period... Eventually, Microsoft grabbed onto the concept of GUI and incorporated it into the first stumbling versions of Windows... IBM did the same with OS/2, and subsequent generations afterwards... IBM took their sales potential and threw it out the window, expecting massive sales on name alone...
Microsoft, on the other hand, took advantage of this lack of foresight as well... They took IBM's paltry excuse for an advertising budget, and spent up to 10 times that, completely dwarfing their advertising campaigns...
Unix: Actually one of the few competant OS manufacturers today, their software goes almost everywhere Microsoft/IBM/Apple won't, in a multitude of flavors... Unfortunately, much of this includes professional platforms that the general public cannot afford, and lacks the expertise to use... Similarly, this is the case for Linux, FreeBSD, etc... The OS is so complicated for the general public, that Microsoft/Apple are the only viable choices, due to the inability to completely grasp CLI's... And so, Microsoft (and finally Apple) are taking advantage of that again...
And saying that it's the fault of the "Clueless Newbies" does nothing to change that, let alone improve on it... How many Linux users learned how to operate it overnight? How about over a week? How many are still learning today? Are they, therefore, clueless newbies? After all, many of them haven't been using computers half as long as some of those who've been using them since the 1980s...
The truth is, what you are witnessing is the long term result of 20 years (or more) of long term educational and economic failures, dating from 1980 when the PC became available on the market... Most folks above 25 didn't have mandatory computer classes in their schools (excluding colleges), and in the recessive period of the 1970's through the early 80's, the families that could afford a computer of any kind were actually in the minority... They had to choose between food or gas so they could get to work... Myaself, I couldn't afford anything better than an Atari 2600 game or two, receiving the console as a hand me down... Most families were lucky if they could break $10K a year, and spending 3 months salary on a computer they hardly knew was nigh impossible... Which is why for the most part, computers were relegated to professional usage...
When it came to my own experiences in operating computers, the Mac was the first I clicked with, since the retailers loved having me play with them (after all, how better to sell a computer, than showing how easy they were for kids to use) back in 1984... I also remember my inner city high school having a computer course, but the classroom was always empty... Why? Because they had a ridiculous rule that in order to have computer training, you needed to have an A average in your classes, as if such was possible in one of the worst high schools in NYC at the time...
The fact is, all the wailing and gnashing of teeth in regards to Microsoft is denying the actual truth... *WE*, the nerds, the geeks, the taxpayers, and all the companies we love above Microsoft, HANDED them their status... On a silver, albeit a spit bespeckled, platter...
Microsoft also uses extremely aggressive marketing... However, how many here have considered doing alternative OS's on the AOL (the only real competitor for Microsoft advertising wise) model? Create an OS that can kick M$'s ass, for profit, and simply mail off thousands of CD's, only requiring an online registration/payment to be functional? Oh, Windows XP already does that...
However, why not make the OS friendly for the general public, not requiring hours of configuring in order to just go online to access e-mail? I have to occasionally dig into Windows with a garden weasel to clean up the OS, without a completely clear idea of whether some of those repairs would eventually trash the system, but the damages incurred can often be easier to solve...
And for the most part, the market that many of you unadmittedly depend upon, depends upon the non geeks, the simplest of users, and for the most part, many of which didn't have the advantages that you take for granted...
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
Isn't his the same thing that was posted yesterday? Really, this was not so much a Part Two, as a Redundant Agitation Attempt.
Are those cynical souls who question Jon's sincerity actually correct in their view that this is thunder to generate "discussion"?
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, The Histories
And trying to increase their power by contending that the US government is a monopoly. I'm not sure who I'd root for in that lawsuit.
Well, it's certainly interesting to hear the opposing point of view every once in a while. However, I believe you've missed the point. Microsoft doesn't give away software for free because they believe in openness and innovation. They give away software for free for two reasons:
1.) To price their competitors right out of the market. For example, if I have to pay $25 for Netscape (and I don't remember how much it was) and I can get IE for free (and later IE was built right into the OS) which one do you think I'll use?
2.) To solidify their hold on their monopoly. By giving away software for free they make it more likely that their software will become the de facto standard. And when their software becomes the de facto standard, they can do whatever they like and everyone else has to dance to their tune.
So basically I think your arguments are based on a false premise. If Microsoft gives software away it's only so that they can extend their monopoly.
Onorio Catenacci
--
"And that's the world in a nutshell -- an appropriate receptacle."
--
"And that's the world in a nutshell -- an appropriate receptacle."
-- Stan Dunn
Bill opened with some self deprecating humor, to loosen up the audience and put them at ease. Then he went on to spell out all the great things the future beheld and how Microsoft would create this technology. Not pausing to mention that there were hundreds of products at the show, which used established technologies (e.g. MP3) and those product lines, if the companies didn't get under the Microsoft Tent, would die. By the end of the evening I was pretty sure he had threatened, indirectly, but most definitely about half the companies at the CES. Not a minor thing to do, when you consider the initiative it would take to do it.
Well, much of that hoopla is coming out, and nobody can't say they didn't have fair warning. Where you want to go tomorrow is increasingly limited to diversity of ideas, which is being whittled down all the time.
-- .sig are belong to us!
All your
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Of course MSN is going to be the busiest web-site. It's the default opening page for IE, and most users don't know how to, or just won't be bothered enough to change it.
/*drunk.. fix later*/
Winzip is owned by Winzip Inc., and is really not affiliated with Microsoft.
Windows 98 Plus has compressed folder technology included which was added using Dynazip from Innermedia Inc.
Both technologies are based of the infozip code however that code is only the basis for what is being used nowadays. So each program/developer kit has a different way of doing things.
There are indeed alot of free programs out there for the taking, however most are written by random programmers with some free time on their hands.
Hopefully that sums up everything for all of ya ^.^
Ok so let's first look at why Apple is not where it needs to be. Simple put.. Elitist attitudes about people who use computers. Had Apple and other companys not held that attitude, things could be very different now. Microsoft had the attitude that the majority of people would not be competent computer literate users from early on in the GUI game. They focused on the mass market whereas Apple consistently refused to liscence out their technology unitl it was far too late to profer from it. If your product will work for the guy who looks at his printer and says "Hey, that's a printer, not a file..." You are going to make money.. Otherwise, just keep on keeping on. Make software that average people cannot use.... but don't complain when another company is filling that service.
It a simple tactic really... Come out first with easy to use software and then build on it till you get where they are today. I don't think M$ is the best company there is, but when I look at how the average guys has trouble installing Red Hat, supposedly the easiest distro to get working, I know exactly why they are as dominating as we see them to be. Average people want their hands held. Average people are still afraid of computers, even with Windows. Average people don't even own PC's on the whole. M$ holds their hand and let's them think they are being productive. In some cases they actually are. Most Slashdotters don't fit that category which is also why the Open Source movement suffers. If you want to make software solutions for software developers, cool. However, don't get mad when the company the makes stuff for the user make more money than you. It's simple math, there are more computer illiterate people than there are l33t hackers.
Although it may be appropriate either way!
Murphy's Law of Copiers
I love the smell of Karma in the morning
All he's doing is giving us much-needed counter-arguments against Microsoft's marketing machine. Despite what any of us might think about whether or not MS deserves its success, Microsoft's competitive marketing tactics are TERRIBLE. First they're spreading fear about Linux's lack of support. Then they're spreading uncertainty about the total ownership cost of free software. Now they're spreading despair about the GPL. And they've just gotten started. And make no mistake, if the various BSDs start getting the mindshare that Linux has gotten, they'll be next.
If you really feel so strongly that some of Jon Katz's arguments are incomplete and unclear, then by all means speak up and question them and clarify them. But flaming him? What does that accomplish? Am I the only one who thinks we should be THANKFUL that a guy's willing to let it all hang out just for the sake of offering counter-arguments to the industry's biggest juggernaut? In a competitive marketplace, where points of view are bought and sold and consent is manufactured, it's positively VITAL for us to encourage dissenting opinions. Making a straw man out of one of our more eloquent advocates only serves to weaken our stance as a whole. Next thing you know MS will be saying that the Linux OS is unreliable because even the supporting community is fractured.
If Microsoft needs advocacy and legitimacy, let them do what they always do and buy it. Don't give it to them for free.
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
The company is also launching a mind-boggling series of sweeping and expensive new initiatives:
.Net services, software that permits unrelated Web sites to talk with one another and with PC programs, without the user having to open new programs or visit new sities. This is the company's wedge into Web services.
Umm, Microsoft is repackaging Back Orifice?
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
So, Microsoft is introducing a lot of new products. Great. Good for them. IF you don't introduce new products, you can't stay in business. Not all will succeed. This is normal.
My problem is with the way microsoft introduces products. John aludes to this with respect to keeping MSN on life support for so long until it cought on. Microsoft is now in a position to be able to introduce poor quality products and be immune to the market forces that would cause other companies to abandon poor quality products.
Microsoft has two options they seem to make use of often, they either buy the competition, obsorbing the superior product and integrating it into their own, or simply outlast the competition, allowing them to exhausr their available marketing capital and then stepping in when they are the only remaining player in the market, after the competition goes belly-up/chapter 11
John also mentions darwinian Busines practices. On this he's dead wrong. Microsoft has grown to the point now there they are immune to the normal darwinian evolution of businesses and markets. Microsoft's practice are more draconian than darwinian. Microsoft now has the ability to lay seige to an industry and simply wait out the competition. This is not a healthy business enviroment, however, most unhealthy business enviroments of this sort have a minimum efficient scale beyone which efficiencies are lost and corporations of such larger scale suffer inabilities to compete in markets governed by these forces. Microsoft is a strange animal in this way. It's difficult to sum up it's business activities in a paragraph at this point, and as such, it's hard to determine where efficiencies could be gained be a reduction in the company's scale.
Microsoft seems to behave more as a keiretsu than as a single business. Interestingly, this behavior was a model used (asside from in Japan) by HP in the early 1980s where managers were granted resources and personel to pursue product development from end to end, and grow their 'canton' on the success of each activity. Microsoft has taken this to practice (derived from the company's roots) to the next level, where there seem to be small conclaves of people pursuing entirely disjoint businesses. I'm not a big fan of Microsoft but you have to give BIll credit for weaving common threads throughout such a large empire.
--CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
Oh, really? Tell me, Jonny, from which orifice did you so casually pull that statement?
Allow me to present 78 examples of companies that are each dominating an even more enormous part of the country's economy at this very second.
Of course, I realize that the Fortune 500 is not a foolproof, catch-all guide to measuring a company's worth. You'll understand, though, if I have a tad more faith in it than in baseless rantings...
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
i wanna die like micro$oft: drowning in cash. its the only way to go
Actually, in some countries North and South America are considered one continent.
"Again, this has to do with your statement of "lack of innovation". If the XBox is 3 times better than Sony or Nintendo, isn't THIS an innovation? And no, this will NOT knock Sony out of any markets since Sony's annual capitalization is actually higher than Microsoft's... using your theory, Sony will be able to "live out the competition" which includes Microsoft." Since when is 3 times FASTER the same as 3 times BETTER? Faster is NOT innovation, and in my IMHO the Xbox is NOT innovation, just an axtension of something that already exists (like ps2, DC etc.)
This is just the latest failed attempt by Katz to be Eric Raymond.
Fact is, no one is compelling anyone to use any MS products or services. Don't wanna use .NET? You don't have to. Gates's stormtroopers aren't going to break into your house & install an XBox while you're at work, either. All that has to happen for them to fail is for people to see how their aim (in competition with AOL/TW) is to be the toll-point for entry, exit, & movement about the 'net. Their desire to not be encumbered by the decisions MS has chosen to make for them will take care of the situation nicely. It's as if some people here are saying "DAMN THEM for making such lucrative products that people are just going to be FORCED to buy & use them!", which is a ridiculous statement. Some, perhaps many, people will like the controlled experiences MS seeks to provide. I myself intend (as I'm sure most here do) to avoid all things XP, .NET, XBox, etc like the plague.
However, if only us geeks feel this way & the rest of the world likes having their entertainment & information experiences predigested for them, there is little we can do.
As a post script, the idea of a corporation beyond regulation is the stuff of backwoods cabin manifestos. All any gov't needs is the will to regulate MS's actions in their countries to do so.
The only tool you've got against psychosis is experience.
informative, definetly not.
it's free as in beer, right?
you so missed the mark on this one...
"I keep looking in the want-ads under 'revolutionary' but there don't seem to be any listings.. "
other than the Windows OS, if the consumers only wind up with one choice it's THEIR own fault !
"I keep looking in the want-ads under 'revolutionary' but there don't seem to be any listings.. "
Ok folks, let's face it. Microsoft does a lot of research and creates a lot of software. Yes, they are motivated by profit and should be -- that's how a company can exist. Sure, Billy Boy's personality comes into play when it comes to its aggressive nature, but how many of you can say you wouldn't do the same given the circumstances.
Flame suit off
All kidding aside, they research quite a bit and, as buggy as it may be, have made computers accessible to everyone. Companies such as Apple, albeit first to the market with ease of use, failed to get into many homes and businesses. Microsoft succeeded.
I can show you plenty of examples where their research paid off. My wife was scared silly of computers in pre-Windows days and even in Win3.X days. She is now comfortable writing, doing graphics work and accessing the internet. She's also lucky to have a 24x7 help desk (me), but that's an issue dealt with later.
I can show you secretaries at the company I work for who were deathly afraid of using IBM Selectrics who now routinely use Word, send email, surf the web, maintain spreadsheets, etc. Of course, none of this was invented by Microsoft, but they got these programs into businesses, where others have failed miserably.
Where Microsoft is to be faulted is that they produce poor code, but it is a tremendous challenge to create an OS for all those diverse platforms -- see the linux kernel usenet posts to see the incredible peculiarites some of the intel hardware displays.
Microsoft is also to be faulted for being too aggressive, but everyone in the U.S. who is of voting age should bear the blame for putting the current administration in place. They are too big and will overtake the government in two years. Then, W will work for Billy Boy ;-)
In any free enterprise system, the leader in a market must do everything they can to maintain that position. It is when they are allowed to grow out of bounds when things go wrong. However, this is where the government must step in, and it is here where they government has repeatedly failed. They are too slow, too entrenched by process and run by too many self interest groups to work here. So, if you really want to blame someone for your Microsoft woes, blame the U.S. Government for not being able to do their job.
However, capitalism is still a free enterprise system. If you can produce an alternative at a lower cost that does everything that Microsoft software does today or promises in the future, then you will curtail the Microsoft growth. What this means is that slashdotters should focus on an open alternative of .Net, Instant Messenger, etc., that runs not only on linux, but on *BSD, UNIX and Windows as well. The applications sell the operating system -- that was the lesson learned by Microsoft when they pulled together design teams to create Office, and it is applications that will "destroy the monopoly."
Sitting out there whining on /. about how no one can break up Microsoft is exactly what Gates wants. Get your ass off your chair, stop trying to be the first post on /. and start writing real applications. Join forces with other projects and merge the competing projects so that there are less projects out there, but better focused and with sizable teams contributing competetive applications.
Yes, you will have IP issues if you work in the field. Yes, it means giving up precious free time. But, if you are serious about keeping Microsoft in check, start working. If not, imagine the new $100 bill with Bill Gates smiling at you.
In the mean time, give Microsoft credit for bringing the computer into homes and offices where Apple, RMS and Linus have failed to do so.
I am really curious. /. should not be used for ranting by a pompous idiot. For the most part Jon is so far off in left field that he can be easily dismissed.
/. that essentially is nothing more than a slam versus corporate America by a nearly if not confessed Socialist.
/. community refutes him yet he never replies in the story he started.
/. IF ANY)
Now, he is running a three part series on
He makes declarations as if they are fact, but never bothers to prove a single point. Half the
I suggest that if you want him on the site then post him elsewhere and his stories or rants are meritable then let someone submit them as news.
As it stands, he isn't news for nerds or anyone, and he defintely doesn't matter.
(please note, I am not attempting to Troll here, Jon really has gone overboard here). So far both parts could have been one entry, and I am betting combined with the third they don't merit more than one headline on
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
You do realise that the price of IE is included in the purchase price of Windows operating systems, right? It's not as free as it appears...
I don't care how dominant Microsoft becomes, as long as I have a reasonable alternative. Most of my fellow libertarians think the government has no business at all monitoring MS, but I disagree. When MS tries to use its dominance to manipulate standards (official of de facto) for the purpose of driving out competition, then the government needs to take strong action. Unfortunately, they have a history of doing that.
I watch Brit Hume on Fox News
I wonder how many boxes ship with Linux (or a non-M$ OS), and get converted to M$???
I would have mod'd you up, but I'd already commented on his article (as I can't mod him down!). I've been to the article and made my vote. Long live democracy !
Two wrongs may not make a right, but three
Crikey. Here I am with those golden moderator points and I choose to write on this forum instead. I was shocked and dismayed to read "part 2". Crikey. Part 1 was only worth reading coz of the flames that followed it. Is it just my imagination or is it that every day a MS bashing piece of news comes out, and if it doesn't, then JC'll just write on e anyway? This really is getting tedious. When I first discovered /. I actually thought it was a refreshing, up-to-date finger on the pulse site that informed me of stuff that I actually found interesting - just the like the title says - news for nerds. Now, instead of hoping /. puts up more stories during my working day, I'm finding I visit theregister.co.uk more often coz it's often more relevant, more interesting and more amusing. The only thing it doesn't have is the comments from joe public (which makes /. sooo much more compulsive). But today - jeez - it's as if today is a no-news day in the world of /. , but theregister still seems to make something out of it..
Please please please start publishing stories that aren't just anti - MS. I hate them as much as the next MS hating man (or woman), but I'm bored of x stories a day just bashing MS. Please
IF ONLY I COULD HAVE USED THOSE POINTS ON THIS ARTICLE!!
Two wrongs may not make a right, but three
38% of the server market was running Win2k in 1999 ? - now that's impressive!
Jedidiah
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
Are you SURE of that??
Standard Oil
US Steel
IBM
To name a few who have had this kind of market power. It was never a permanent state of any of these conglomorates; neither is the current state of M$. Get over it, or at least check your facts and claims.
Maskirovka
So now is a good time to buy some M$ stock, eh?
Maskirovka
Sometimes a little perspective is good. Microsoft is big enough to buy themselves out of trouble. JP Morgan probably wielded more power, proportionally speaking, than any other American in history. It all worked out nice with him not being evil and all. But if push came to shove with Microsoft and the government, the government would win and win big. J.P. Morgan was so powerful that even though he used his power to save the US from a crisis, it disturbed people. We, in large part, owe our prosperity to his actions. I would bet no man will wield more power and wealth than J.P. Morgan did. (It's worth mentioning his personal wealth was rather modest in comparison to those he associated with). In short, the power Microsoft has is not even on par with the U.S., much less greater than it.
--Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
Til the fat lady sings. IF MS wins the appeal, the case COULD go to the Supreme Court, but under Bush's DOJ? Highly unlikely. If Gore the Bore were elected, Round 3 would have a better chance of occuring, not much of a better chance.. html
I've as well, noticed in the past year that the ruling doesn't really affect MS. Sure, it slowed them down a bit, like a rock trips someone up, but they sure didn't fall down, they kept going and are going at an incredible pace.
Now all these features of XP and the previous story on Explorer's new feature, will definitely raise alot of eyebrows, but then again, what will happen under the Bush adminstration? Nothing. The states? Good luck, most are hands-off Republicans, although, the first case started with a alarmed Republican of Texas. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.11/microsoft
I suggest everyone read that article, it describes the entire antitrust case up til a bit after the ruling.
MS is exactly where they were before the investigations started now.
Before the decade is out, another antitrust lawsuit will be filed, the first one may have failed to slay the giant, but the second might, and if it doesn't, then MS can then say, "all your anti-trust law are belong to us"
Slashdot Hypocrisy at work?
... now I peed in my pants. Whaaaaah!!! *sob*
BTW: You sound like the Mickeysoft commercial guy.
You're with them, aren't you? C'mon, confess!
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
When Microsoft can comfortably afford to return 1.3 trillion dollars to the US population (without having to create a distribution system or a list of US residents for that matter), when MS can build a new freely usable interstate across the entire country, when MS can negotiate treaties to protect US steelworkers, then this will be the Corporate Republic.
The DOJ can break up MS, contrary to what Katz believes. Whether they will prevail is a different question, one we might not be asking except for Judge Jackson's inability to shut the fuck up. Not to mention the fact that, should he want to, Bush might actually be able to nationalize the Windows OS and place it in the public domain. Talk about switching sides... MS would be arguing 'code is speech' in about 3 seconds.
The fraction of internet users is still very small, and Microsoft is, for all it's income, no match for the power of the Tennessee Valley Authority, or even the New York Times. Tech world, get over yourself! Microsoft's annual revenue is a drop in the bucket compared to the GNP of the United States.
Whatever happened to JonKatz?
MS will stop at nothing before they own the small, medium and large business software market. Why get your CRM from peoplesoft when MS is giving it away with a new copy of sql server.
What is pirate software? Software for inventory of stolen treasure?
MS is doing everything it can to leverage it's power in areas it dominates to those areas it does not (yet) dominate.
Just think: IE is used by perhaps 80% of net users. Push that percentage a few points higher, and MS can do WHATEVER THE HECK IT WANT in terms of proprietary tags, .NET tie-ins, 'integration' into the operating system. In fact ... they're already doing it with the 'Smart Tags,' which will change your web page and my web page and provide links where? To MS's sites, of course.
The very perceptive comment Katz made is that MS is MUCH more powerful and monopolistic now than it was at the time of original antitrust suit.
The uber-geeks in this crowd don't seem to care because Linux will always be around, and there will always be some free OSS stuff to play with and get off on ... but that kind of abandon-the-masses approach is isolationistic and dangerous. If 90% of your website visitors expect (even need) proprietary serverside extensions or software in order to view your content, because that's the way MS build their browsers ... what are you going to do? Close up shop?
(Note: MS just also aquired a content management system ... nCompass Resolution. Next thing you know, that will be 'integrated' into IIS. Website in a box -for one low price!!! Only from MS!!!!)
What the majority of people just don't seem to get is that everything that MS does - EVERYTHING - is aimed at making itself stronger, making itself more indispensable, making itself more unassailable.
Can you imagine a MS-free business in North America these days? I can, and you can ... but most corporate types can't even begin to.
The MS thing IS depressing. It IS worrying. MS is like a cult ... and they've brainwashed themselves most of all ... that is intent on worldwide domination.
I can only hope that the technology world will be saved from incredible domination by adoption of Linux en masse by 2nd and 3rd world countries like China and Mexico, who, then, when they get enough economic power, will be able to build technology infrastructures on non-MS foundations.
What the US government doesn't recognize, seemingly, is that slavish protection of and concessions for MS could likely result in the US be marginalized in the long term, technologically speaking.
PS: I am so incredibly SICK of the 'adding value for customers' argument from MS. Do they even believe it themselves? How can they keep a straight face???
The people who say 'it's just another company,' 'they're just trying to be competitive,' etc. etc. are probably MS plants at Slashdot.
This company IS evil, it HAS crushed competitors, it HAS reduced choice and options for ordinary people, and it WILL use it's desktop and possibly future internet monopolies to contain to get people to pay, pay, pay, and pay some more ... all for the glory of Gates.
Mmmmm, last time I checked the vast majority of the stuff I could download free for Windows was not written by Microsoft. It was written by the same type of people who wrote Linux. I don't see how the availability of third party free software can be used as a defense for Microsoft.
Just 2 days ago (I believe) you claimed that Microsoft stiffled innovation. How is this when you just named several products they are releasing which are arguably BETTER than what is already out there? Isn't that innovation?
The first real competition to AOL? AOL obviously has the Internet service market share, and people are ALWAYS complaining about that. Now when someone has the balls and resources to compete with AOL, others complain
Again, this has to do with your statement of "lack of innovation". If the XBox is 3 times better than Sony or Nintendo, isn't THIS an innovation? And no, this will NOT knock Sony out of any markets since Sony's annual capitalization is actually higher than Microsoft's... using your theory, Sony will be able to "live out the competition" which includes Microsoft.
A market they haven't gotten into. And I'm sure, just like Windows gives users what they want for a desktop system, their Small Business software will give companies good software that does what they want. Microsoft is just giving consumers and corporations the products which work to best fit their needs.
I'd rather have a WinCE screen on my cell phone with a nice little color display. A lot better than that crappy pixalated B&W display currently on there! Ever compared the iPaq handheld with a Palm or Handspring? WinCE is a better mobile platform, because of it's ability to do things PalmOS cannot do! Again, THIS IS INNOVATION!
Since I haven't seen this one myself, I cannot comment on it directly. However, seeming as 2 of my previous statements show that Microsoft created a better solution to it's competition, I'm sure UltimateTV will be an innovation with it's competitors ReplayTV and TiVo
As far as XP goes, from reports I've seen it's a great O/S! Again, Microsoft delivers what consumers and corporations want... and they do it with an elegantly put together product.
You cannot claim Microsoft to be a "big bad bully" without comparing it to other companies. For instance, Sony. They sell TVs, audio equipment, computers, monitors, handheld devices, a A.I. god, video cameras, still digital cameras, music, videos, TiVo compatible device, Satelite TV equipment, and telephones. What about such companies as General Motors? I found out one of my credit cards was handled by GM Capital. GM now just doesn't sell cars, but also sells insurance and credit. They are the single largest corporation in the world with the amount of money they make every year. (Microsoft doesn't come close!) What about Japanese companies like Fujitsu? They make a lot of things as well, mostly sold in Asia
This is pure hysteria. Microsoft will never have the power to do such a thing. Sure, all the desktop systems run XP... but there are MILLIONS of devices out there NOT running ANY Microsoft software. They will never *control* the net as you say they will.
As I said above, General Motors is the largest corporation in the world! Microsoft is but a spec of dust. This statement is FALSE and again you only live off of hysteria.
What?! The U.S. has more money being spent on hammers this year than Microsoft has made in the last ten years. You don't think that funding the biggest, most technically advanced military, funding the largest space program, funding the world's best spy network doesn't cost lots of money? For heavens sake, they just gave us back $1.3 trillion dollars in 10 years. Microsoft will only MAKE that much in 10 years, let alone give it back!
That's right. Until someone comes out with something BETTER, Microsoft will be the way... but instead of everyone whining about it, they should get off their asses and do something about it!
Frankenstein's monster was eventually killed. Invincible? No. Hard to defeat? Maybe. Microsoft has gotten to it's position by a very intelligent marketing mastermind (Mr. Gates) He just doesn't understand computers but also how people think and what they want. Until someone else can do this, he'll remain at the top of his game.
I think you need to flash your brain's firmware.
A good place to start is the slashdot troll how-to.
And remember, its not the quality of the troll that counts, its the spirit and love that went into it's creation.
Ignore the apologists. Rage on.
"I don't have pet peeves, I have major psychotic fucking hatreds." - George Carlin
Why? Just look at Commodore, the vendor of the C64 and Amiga and why the PC killed it:
C64/Amiga was proprietary, the PC is open. C64/Amiga was a single-vendor platform, the PC is multi-vendor. C64/Amiga was very easy to use, the PC had a lot of IRQ/DMA issues. C64/Amiga had a lot of software especially games, the PC had only niche apps in the beginning. The C64 is still the most sold computer model ever, no PC-model ever came close.
I think now the very same is happening in the Windows vs. Linux fight. I also think that Windows 95 will stay the all-time most sold OS, nevertheless Windows will be gone in 10 years. It will take a long time (10 years is a VERY long time in this industry) but it will happen, Microsoft may delay it but it can't prevent it from happening.
Roland
You failed to notice the following: The only reasons why IE is free, were (1) to drive Netscape Navigator out of the market, (2) to get people hooked into using IE since IE would become the new front-end (just as DOS and Windows were before) to Microsoft's future Web ventures (like .NET, MSN, etc).
.NET and Windows will blend in such a way, that even if they give any one of those three "free" to you, you will have to pay for the other two!!!
Besides, now that IE is basically king, and it runs on 95% of all machines (the remaining is IE on the Mac, and Netscape on Unix flavors), you ARE paying for it by having a Winsows OS!!!
In other words, in the coming future, IE,
I'm scared of seeing so much power on only one company.
This is a true story: Not long ago I was joking about how one day we all might wearing underwear with the Microsoft brand name on it. Well, I honestly do not think that is so far-fetched after all!!!
MS has a consumer package -- the Works Suite -- that has Word, Works, Encarta and some other consumer products for $89 or so. Maybe that's what you're thinking of.
I don't think Office has ever been available retail for $99.
Not sure how we got on this tangent.
Internet Explorer is free for download just like Mozilla is...
But, it is not open sourced. I cannot see the source code behind it.
Usefull utilities like Winzip are free too...
Winzip is not a Microsoft product. It is also not open source.
Before he left me, he had hundreds of gigabytes of completely free programs...
None of which came from Microsoft, except for the minor eexceptions of maybe IE, FrontPage express and Solitaire.
It is important to remember that just because I can download it for free does not mean it is open, and because it runs on windows it does not mean it is from Microsoft.
DocWatson
MessEdUp
#/var/www/v
Thanks, this Microsoft sounds like a really good stock tip. If this company is half as good as you say it is, I should be able to make 30% on my investmen t by year's end. If you have anything else like this, please send me a personal e-mail first, before letting the rest of this slashdot rabble in on it.
Yes... it is gratis... but, if you detect a bug, and know how to fix it, you can't. If you don't like the software the way it is woking (or not), you cannot change it. That's why it in NOT free software. You should understand the diference. see this: ftp://ftp.procergs.com.br/video/stallman.rm
\m/
Microsoft net worth: ~4 x 10^11 US$
US GNP / Year: ~ 1 x 10^13
Weeks for the US economy to generate wealth on the order of Microsoft's: ~2
National debt: ~7 x 10^12
Portion of the national debt Microsoft could pay off if liquidated for the purpose: ~6%
My point, of course, being that Microsoft may be large, but it's not (to quote John Lennon) "bigger than God."
-- MarkusQ
Microsoft is also getting serious about the handheld devices market;
Underlying your commend is the belief that if only Microsoft gets serious about something, they can get it. That's wrong. Microsoft has been serious about the handheld devices market for years, they have just produced one flop after another. Their handheld devices have been so bad so far that even Microsoft's marketing machinery couldn't paper over the problems. If they catch up with Palm it's because Palm has been dropping the ball.
Microsoft is a corporation, almost a person legally. Microsoft can do wrong. Arguably, they have. Linux is trademark on a kernel and collection of open source software. It can't do anything: it isn't a person, it isn't a legal entity. "Linux" can't attack your wallet.
Now, how about the employees of Microsoft and the developers of Linux, can we compare them? Sure. And the difference is profound. Microsoft, the company, needs to survive by maximizing profit: they have no alternative, and their employees act accordingly. Technical quality and satisfying users is only a means to that end, and given that they don't have any competition, is often secondary to considerations of market position and strength. The Linux world is entirely different: no company can dominate the market with Linux, and Linux survives whether anybody makes a profit with it or not.
Another thing you might compare is technical quality. Indeed, both Windows and Linux have serious flaws. But with Linux, users are empowered to fix them, and with Linux, people don't pay an arm and a leg for basically the same software every couple of years.
No, they are not. Just about every one of their announced products is something pioneered by some other company. Microsoft has a legal right to do that, but we have a right to point out the facts.
So where is that hiden price of your typical GNU package ?
It MUST be somewhere since there are no free lunches and no one managed to create something out of noting.
...and you can't blame meteors for everything.
I agree that Microsoft is pretty much an abomination, and I agree with most of the things that this author says; but I think that the arguments need to be strengthened. The above paragraph doesn't move me to revolt, for example.
What are the privacy concerns, explicitly, and why do they follow from interacting with Microsoft products?
MS probably does know more about my Web habits than any other company, but show me why that is a problem.
All of the arguments in the paragraph above appear to be based on the somewhat scary hypothesis that someday MS will impose its values on users and properties, but those values are already imposed by the very software that they create and the business practices that they employ, which are really just reflections of a capitalist economy. Are you implying that MS will impose its religious values on me? It's family values? If you are implying that it will impose its business values/ethics on me, don't worry: competitive, capitalist, Darwinist aggression has been imposed on me since the first day I went to school.
I'm a new initiate to the open source movement; I happen to love it (and increasingly to depend upon it). But I'm concerned that this movement may become reactionary, and when you react, you like the asshole and it is easy for your competitors to point their fingers. Why not try some passive resistance? Take your GPLs and BSDs and continue to make excellent software. Maybe the best way to fight this is not to fight.
Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest. -- Mark Twain
They offer free software initially as part of their startegy to be the ONLY software provider on EVERY home computer. Look at the Price of Office XP. I don't have the hard numbers to back it up, but I seem to remember getting Office for around $99 way back when. Now that its the standard its a $250 UPGRADE price! The strategy is to gain the market and THEN soak you for your dollars. Its a good strategy to make money but it IS illegal to leverage your monopoly in such a manner. Its called predatory pricing when you give software away for free that other companies charge money for. M$ has somehow been able to keep the government "watchdogs" (joke) completely SNOWED!
I was refering to the upgrade version - Maybe I'm wrong.
This might be flamebait, off topic, and various other things, but:
The year l999? When's that?
The letter L is *not* a worthy substitute for the numberal 1.
Here's a little something for those who may need a refresher on M$ history and business practice. Like maybe your U.S. senator, local paper tech editor, .?
Microsoft vs. Innovation
How the Redmond Giant works to stifle diversity and
&n bsp;competition in the software industry
--or--
Balls to Ballmer
In the Microsoft philosophy, you do not own your computer.
Microsoft owns your computer. You are allowed to use "your"
computer as long as you use it in a manner that meets
Microsoft's approval, that is, pays money to Microsoft at every
turn. Any deviation from Microsoft's dictates is a crime, at
least in theory, and if Microsoft gets its way--which it usually
has so far--violating Redmond's dictates may soon be against the
law. According to the latest Microsoft propaganda, Linux and
other GPL software is un-American, destroys intellectual
property, and threatens the entire software industry with doom.
They are buying as many politicians as they can, as fast as they
can, starting with over $36 milliion to help "elect" George W.
Bush. So what's on their agneda?
Microsoft is your friend
The Microsoft philosophy is illustrated most clearly in its
dealings with computer manufacturers: They threaten PC makers,
that they will refuse to allow them to resell licenses for any
MS operating system at a price they can afford, if that company
fails to pre-install application software and marketing material
dictated by Microsoft. In other words, "You will ram our
application software and advertising down your customers'
throats, or we will refuse to allow you to sell computers at
all." This is extortion, because realistically, most consumers
still want a Microsoft operating system, and would not buy a PC
that did not include it.
http://unquietmind.com/bust_micros1.html
Resistance Is Futile
What about selling computers with no operating system at all?
According to Microsoft, this is a very bad thing to do, because
the people who ask to buy "naked" PCs intend to break the law by
stealing Microsoft operating system software. In their "Naked
PC" web page, which was hastily taken down when the Internet
press publicised it beyond its intended audience (small
independent PC makers), Microsoft said exactly this: "even if
your customer manages to illegally acquire and install operating
systems elsewhere, it still costs them far more time and money
than they bargained for." They go into considerable detail
about how bad and dangerous it is to allow people to buy
computers without Microsoft operating systems pre-installed, and
after ominous warnings of installation problems, viruses, and
the long arm of the law, advise small computer makers: "Politely
decline to expose your buyers or their businesses to such
troubles."
http://www.lut.fi/~lseppane/linkit/nakedpc.html
Embrace, extend, dominate.
How does Microsoft deal with companies that manage to compete
with it successfully? One example is a strategy originally
developed by Microsoft in its efforts to finish off Netscape.
Once its dominant market share with Internet Explorer was
secured (by illegally dumping it on the market), Microsoft went
to work to break the HTML standard used to display web pages. It
does this by incorporating new HTML "tags"-- programming codes--
into its own automated web-authoring software (which it also
dumped on the market, killing competitors). These new tags were
designed so that they only work with the Internet Explorer web
browser, in effect sabotaging the websites created by Microsoft
Front Page, so that they will work poorly (if at all) when
viewed with any browser but the latest and greatest versions of
Internet Explorer.
http://www.internetnews.com/wd-news/article/0,,1 0_ 83051,00.html
Another example of "embrace, extend, dominate" tactics, is
Microsoft's handling of another major competitor, Sun
Microsystems. Sun introduced Java, a programming language
designed to work the same with all operating systems: "Write
once, run anywhere." Now that's real innovation! Microsoft's
response was to adopt Java as its own, change it so that it
would only operate correctly on Microsoft platforms, and push
their new, improved, "J++" version of Java by, again, dumping
J++ development tools on the market. In this case, the strategy
failed: Java is not a comsumer commodity, it is an advanced
programming tool, and by definiton a crippled version of Java
that will only work with Microsoft's operating systems, is no
Java at all. J++ was universally rejected. Oh well, you can't
win them all.
http://www.javacoffeebreak.com/articles/microsof tj ava/
How Microsoft Innovates
Microsoft's leading propaganda buzzword is "innovation". MS
marketing strategy includes claims that it invented nearly
everything in the PC world, when in fact, Microsoft has never,
in its entire corporate history, made an original contribution
to PC functionality. The original DOS product that made Bill
Gates rich was, in fact, QDOS, the Quick Dirty Operating System
written in six weeks by Tim Paterson. This is nothing but a
simplified version of CP/M, which was sold to Mr. Gates for
$50,000.00. Mr. Gates' sole contribution was to get rid of the
word "dirty". All the innovations in DOS came from the company
Mr. Gates licensed DOS to: IBM rewrote MS-DOS after finding 300
bugs in it. Xerox invented the modern graphic "desktop
interface", Apple developed it into
consumer product, and Microsoft reverse-engineered Apple's work
to create its own "innovative" desktop operating systems.
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,289893 ,s
id9_gci214277,00.html
http://www.mackido.com/Interface/ui_history.html
Innovation Stops Here
There is little evidence that Microsoft has ever invented or
developed anything: From operating systems to networking
technology and desktop applicaitons, Microsoft never makes what
it can buy. A list of companies bought out and absorbed by MS
includes: Stac Electronics, Aha software, Lernout & Hauspie,
Fox Software, Altamira, Santa Cruz Operation, Netwise, Panorama
Software Systems, Wildfire Communications, VANstar, ENTEX
Information Services, XLConnect Solutions Inc., Vxtreme, One
Tree, Vermeer, Narta, Aspect Engineering, ResNova Software,
Interse Corp., Coopers & Peters, `LinkAge Software Inc., Colusa,
Dimension X, eShop, Softimage, Dreamworks SKG, RenderMorphics
Ltd., Bruce Artwick Organization, SingleTrac Entertainmnet,
Atomic Games. Rainbow America, Exos, Electric Gravity, UUNet,
Web TV Networks, Navitel, and controlling interests in many
other software companies.
In short, Microsoft does not innovate; they buy and kill
companies that do, and once they have absorbed the work of
others, they go looking for more new technology to purchase.
This process ends innovation, rather than creating or supporting
it.
http://www.netaction.org/msoft/world/
Microsoft and the Internet Age
Mr. Gates used to take personal credit for the purely imaginary
"information economy" and the e-everything boom; now that market
forces have had time to assert some reality and the e-swindles
have collapsed, Microsoft publicists have fallen silent on these
subjects. The facts are more like this: The Internet was built
of, by, and for the UNIX operating systems. All the standards
and technologies that run the Internet are still UNIX based, and
by the way, UNIX and its freeware clones, like BSD and Linux,
still dominate the webserver market. When and where performance
matters, Microsoft products are, by definition, excluded-- MS
Hotmail runs on FreeBSD (a high performance UNIX clone), and the
Microsoft web pages are delivered to you by Apache (a free Linux-
native web server). This demonstrates, conclusively, that even
Microsoft knows that Microsoft technology is inferior.
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,25 07 538,00.html, 00.html
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,20768
Linux is a cancer?
Micfrosoft CEO Steve Ballmer has said, in an interview with the
Chicago Sun-Times,that Linux is "a cancer that attaches itself
in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches."
Mr. Ballmer says, "Open source is not available to commercial
companies. The way the license is written, if you use any open-
source software, you have to make the rest of your software open
source." These lies come from the CEO of a company that, as
mentioned above, does in fact use GPL software in its daily
operations. Microsoft's real objection to Linux, is that
Microsoft can not cut and paste the superior Linux code into its
own products. That is all. Oh, yes, and Microsoft can not buy
GPL-licensed software technology, and claim to have invented it.
No one can. GPL software, such as the Linux kernel and GNU
operating system, is public property, free for anyone to use,
and the GPL keeps it that way.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/tech/cst-fin-micr o0 1.html
http://www.opensource.org/halloween/faq.html
My two cents
Microsoft is right to hfear Linux. The Linux
phenomenon demonstrates that a bunch of amateurs, working in
their spare time, can make a kernel, operating system, and
comprehensive suite of software applications that is always as
good, and usually better, than anything Microsoft can buy and
put its name on. Linux is so deadly to the business world that
IBM, among others, has made a massive financial and engineering
committment to making GNU/Linux bigger and better. The
Microsoft monopoly is a temporary aberration; within two years,
Linux distributions that are more user-friendly than the latest
and greatest MS consumer products will be in circulation. Linux
already has MS beat, hands down, in network and professional
applications technologies; and what's worse, application
software written for Win32 can now be run under Linux, via VA
Linux and/or the WINE emulator.
Microsoft is already dead, running on nothing but inertia; they
have run out of real innovators they can buy, and don't know how
to do it themselves. Ballmer and Gates have only possible hope:
buy enough politicians and distribute enough propaganda to have
the GPL license declared null and void in the U.S., so they can
happily steal and use superior GPL code in their closed source
products... and claim to have invented it themselves. That is
the only way Microsoft knows how to innovate. That is the only
way Microsoft knows how to compete in the marketplace.
There will always be a Microsoft, but its days as the
invincible bully of the technology world may be coming to an end.
It's going to be a lot of fun, watching the Redmond giant fall.
(c) 2001, this text is released under GPL license, see
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
99 buckets of bits on the wall...
99 buckets of bits on the wall...
take one down and pass it around, 99 buckets of bits on the wall
isn't luke skywalker syndrome where you snog someone who turns out to be your sister?
First of all, you're a friekin idiot. But the microsoft security features are very week. They need better technology from that standpoint. I don't think that the new will necassarily be as profitable as everybody is hoping that it will be.
Death is only the beginning...
I think it is souly because when people hear the name "Bill Gates" they think MS. Nobody knows Allen
Death is only the beginning...