Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft and the GPL
rleyton wrote in to tell us about yet another Microsoft related GPL story. He says "The Linux Journal has an interesting article analysing why Microsoft is attacking the GPL. It makes for interesting reading, and ends with a comment on the possibility that Microsoft will be seeking to pursuade the U.S. Government to forbid distribution of federally funded software under the GPL."
Actually this made me think of something from the anti-trust trial.
Billy said that getting another browser was as easy as ocnnecting to www.netscape.com.
How do you do this without using IE, which is the only installed browser on Windows?
And if you cannot agree to the terms of the EULA for IE, you are effectively preveted from downloading a competing browser, are you not?
Your post was very well written, unlike most. The problem though is that it brought to mind the history of the Soviet Union as told by Stalin. Either you are a student who did not watch the desktop comuting revolution and instead is relying on MS propoganda or you are a MS marketer. Either way, almost nothing you say in regard to MS is correct. I learned to program when I was 13. I'm now 41. When I was 15 I learned FORTRAN via punchcard job submisions. My first computor was an Apple II that I paid $1000 for in 1978. In 1987, I got into OS/2 at version 1.0. I have been active in computing for a long time. In all this time, not once has MS done anything realy innovative. In fact, especialy since the mid 80s, MS has done more to hinder development then anything else. The misinformation spewing forth from Bills empire via there puppets at places such as PC Mag, has been incredible. I liken some of the reviews that I have read in Ziff Davis pubs to Malus Maleficiorum for all the science contained. The desktop computing revolution had alread gained unstoppible momentum without Bill, when Micrsoft co-opted it and rewrote the history to make it the hero. At almost every moment, there has been superior and more inovative products then anything MS was offering, but for some reason, they never were reviewed or the reviews were biased. At this time, the amount of capitol MS spends for marketing spin docktors ( sons of Satan) and lawyers is at least 10 times that spent on actual software development. The majority of the resorce apllied to software development goes into technologies that are there specificly to promote MS product lockin, and to provide leverage to force developers to yeild to their wishes( the API games). Development of the "user experience" is more involved with controling what the user can do then enabling the user. The selection of what the user is permited to do is determined by deals with entities interested in control for exclusive suport for MS products. An example of this is MSs Windows Media. Containt providers like it because it has built in mechanisms to prevent users doing things that might infringe on their plans for marketing control, like saving to HD for later viewing, or viewing in Canada when the containt has been priced for the US. In this particular case, containt providors were reluctaint to lose non MS OS users so MS promised a UNIX version, then when enough providers were locked in, MS anounced that it would never support UNIX, using a Catch 22 type excuse! Fortunatly MS plans have not played out as far as they would like. Notice the preference for .pdf over .doc on most websites. This is enough ranting for now, my son is asking about dinner, and I'm hungry also.
Oil and mining companies fund wars in Africa, funding savage rebel armies who keep the countries in chaos and anarchy. Clothing companies give kids in third world countries stimulants so they can work 20-hour days. Drug companies gouge people, making enormous profits and driving people into bankrupcy with Federal- and charity funded research, while thousands die becuase they just can't afford the medication all over the world. Gun companies make sure the cycle of violence continues throughout the world and in our own inner cities. And, of course, tobacco companies make their profits keeping people addicted to poison.
These Microsoft issues are just so petty. Even if they aren't beaten on technical merits (which they will, one day, like all technology companies), even if they dominate, their evil is just so minor and petty compared to true abuse in the world. You really have to be living a life of luxury to think that someone who makes computer operating systems in the anti-christ.
Open your eyes, people... there are just so many things in the world which are far more deserving of your rage. If you want to work on Linux, if you want to beat Microsoft, hey, go ahead, but the way so many Slashdotters obsess about this like Gates is the next Hitler is just sick.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Yeah, what a complete dick. I'd seen the Spectacle article, but it didn't have that update. He *renewed* the fucking domain? That is just unbelievable.
Slashdot should definitely do an article on this whole issue. Has kuro5hin? Maybe I'll submit something.
Live free or DIE!
Oracle has their whole database and depending on their mood - most of their product line.
Word Perfect had their WP on Linux. Many games have come out for Linux. There are other apps that have been released.
So, how is the GPL the thing (as the article mentioned) stopping MS from releasing stuff on Linux?
If they wanted to, they could have IE, Word, etc... on Linux - without GPL problems.
However, that eats directly into their core market - x86 machines. That person no longer need boot to windows for Word/Excel or to view that IE only web page. Sure - some people may be able to get by or around those limitiations, but MS products on Linux means anyone can get around those problems, and there goes the Desktop OS battle.
Then again, IE on Solaris/HPUX blew.
We can probably expect MS to continue writing their EULAs to lock out GPLed and other open-source software. If MS could make it so that managers have to choose between (a) banning all GPLed software from their enterprise or (b) forfeiting the right to use Microsoft software (and access MS file formats and MS services), most would choose (a). This may result in GPLed software being contained in a GNU ghetto, well out of anywhere MS wants to be.
I do agree with the author's conclusion - I think a serious lobbying effort is now or will soon be underway to bar institutions receiving federal funds (read: universities) from releasing GPL'ed code.
Significant kernel and userland code has and continues to come from coders under gov't employ or grad students. Most of the Linux network drivers were written by Donald Becker of NASA, and the copyright is in fact assigned to the US Gov't, administered by the NSA (!).
It's true that currently, most code produced directly by the Federal gov't must be released without copyright. But it's also true that this code can be relicensed and distributed under the GPL (it's public domain, remember?), and it's also true that not all institutions that recieve federal funds are required to release code to the public domain (think universities).
Now, MSFT doesn't have a prayer of getting a bill blocking the GPL passed on its own, but it might be able to slip in a rider on some other bill.
My nightmare is MSFT sweet-talking the gov't on the issue with the siren song of licensing revenue. You know, sort of like how universities already do with patents, where they take public cash for research and sell to the highest bidder?
Watch out.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
They're following Sun's lead in marketing Java the language and Java the platform independant bytecode interpreter and the Java libraries and Java applets and JavaScript and so on. It clouds the issues to the point of making it an all or nothing proposition for the PHBs ("We're using Java!" or "We're going with .NET") instead of using the best tool for the task.
Chris Cothrun
Curator of Chaos
Bleh!
just curious...
does anyone actually believe that microsoft attacking gpl could have any impact whatsoever, besides making them look like a whiney gorilla?
> What, anything to discredit someone who isn't on the Open Source team?
Nope. The original post had an offensively condesending tone, e.g. the title ``Petty petty petty". The original poster was not stating that there was more worthwhile targets for our energies, but that we shouldn't concern ourselves about what Microsoft is doing. My response remains, ``We all rise to fight the evil we think we can defeat."
If the original poster *truly* felt that we should battle these other -- & I'll concede, more immediately important goals -- why didn't she/he offer ways we can contribute to these struggles? I suspect that the posters intent was to silence criticism of Microsoft whether justified or not.
> I can see modding down the original post (Offtopic, perhaps?) but modding up that "you sound like you're from a cult" drivel?
If it makes you feel better, this is the first karma point I've gotten for any of my posts in about a month or two. And I gave up long before that trying to understand how people awarded them; sending email about possible issues to Cowboy Neal doesn't even result in a form letter acknowledging he even reads his email. So I merely look for reponses to whatever I post.
Geoff
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
Well, when companies have laws passed that restrict the development of free software (by making the authors liable for problems), then maybe you'll start to worry.
Oh, wait. Read up on the UCTIA. Start worrying now.
Occasionally the gov't does release GPL software (e.g., NASA's ethernet card drivers, Beowulf, etc). This happens when the software they are modifying is itself GPL'd. Perhaps this is what MS is afraid of? Maybe what we need is an alternative to the GPL which allows persons to use the code in closed-source programs on the one hand, but requires that changes to the source be distributed freely on the other. Maybe like the modified LGPL of wxWindows. Then apply this license to all non-classified US government written code. Microsoft doesn't have grounds to bitch now, but they'll have even less grounds with this new license.
Finding God in a Dog
People are stupid. They will not use additional superior software they can download, because they are too dumb or lazy to bother when they have something that does the job already, even if it is a little substandard.
This is why microsoft has a monopoly, because by including it, you appease the lazy man, who constitutes a large chunk of the software market.
--
Well then, maybe you should start climbing back down the trees and showing the users the leather balls you found up there, rather than taking away the bushes they're playing with down there... or maybe even fashion a rope or ladder in order to help them on their way up...
Anything but sitting up at the top of your "tree" and looking down at everyone else down on the ground while thinking "if only they knew what was up here...."
Easy. They're in the business of making money. Linux has a miniscule desktop marketshare, about 1% at last count, and negligible corporate desktop presence. Now why again are they supposed to spend all this money to try to grab a piece of such a small market? Sounds like a losing proposition, especially since so many Linux users will tell anyone who will listen that they don't want any Microsoft software. They're not a charity, so seriously, why would they produce those products for Linux?
Cheers,
So Microsoft continues to do its thing as it has been, blocking channels of distribution, locking people into their products, and charging outrageous prices. In the mean time, GPL software will still be there because as long as a small band of skilled people want it to exist it will. So it will evolve, it will grow, and companies will end up using it, as they always have, because it works and does so very cheaply. It might not get the headlines but it will be grinding away in the trenches as it always has.
Maybe Linux fades from the spotlight a bit. Maybe it goes back to being the toy of hackers for while. But fundamentally in the long run it will not die and eventually Microsoft will screw up. Either their monopolistic practices will finally get trimmed by the government, they'll jack their prices up too high, or they'll get behind the 8-ball on development. They aren't infallible, they are just very clever.
When the PC came, they saw it coming and got in early and rode it until the Internet came. Initially they saw a threat, they stumbled a bit but recovered and are now moving to make it their own. Free software though is so contrary to their way of doing things that I don't know that they can change. They certainly aren't going to keep people from making and using GPL software and eventually it will be their demise.
---
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
As a Brazilian (hence my username) and a government network admin I gotta tell you that the law ain't got a snowball's chance in hell to being approved - and yeah, it's not law yet. :(
--
All browsers' default homepage should read: Don't Panic...
All browsers' default homepage should read: Don't Panic...
Yet I'm quite sure that if RMS uttered the following, Microsoft would be crying Communism.
It's not what Microsoft executives say that surprises me anymore. It's that most media just print it as if it was coherent.
Peace PatientZero
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
Hey, I'm a flag-waving, apple-pie-eating, baseball playing, gun-toting American just as much as the next guy, but quite frankly, what the US does vis-a-vis Micro-Soft amounts to precisely dick. Let's face it, as a country/government, we are going to roll over and take it in the ass from Bill and friends. It's just the way things are.
Our saviours come in the form of China, India, France, and Brazil (among others). They get a leg up on development (look at all that tasty source!) without playing BS games or paying BS licensing fees.
And yes, right now, in 2001, the US is the economic 800 lb. gorilla. But by the time my son (five weeks old this past Tuesday) is old enough to vote, you better belive various brown/slant-eyed/'furrin' speakin' communists are going to be showing their shit. And quite frankly, it doesn't involve paying Bill and the fam squat.
Let's say that tomorrow, China alone (ignoring India, which would make this more pathetic) had as many PCs per capita that the US did. Furthermore, let's imagine that most of them ran some Open Source OS. All of the sudden, Micro-Soft's 92% domination of the market shrank to what, about %20?? What happened to the monopoly power?
Quite frankly, if either Linux or Micro-Soft wants to get ahead, it's time to have easy-peazy Mandarin support. Or give the Chinese a few years. They'll take care of it themselves. A billion people with a little motivation and direction can really mess things up (or change them for the better depending on your POV).
(Better stop. This is starting to sound like that Chinese or communist tide sketch from Python)
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
I've never seen Mozilla advertised on TV or in mainstream newspapers and publicatoins. I've seen Microsoft advertise its products in these places.
Maybe if Netscape/Mozilla marketed its product to the general public, there would be more awareness among that group?
Fault for that lack of awareness lies with the organisation.
If I try to create a car brand to compete with the massive companies, I'd need to do some serious advertising/marketing/PR to get people aware, interested, and buying. If people trust existing brands, and ignore my car brand, then that is hardly their fault - they've worked hard to build up awareness and trust in their name.
'Thats they exact same thing a banana wrench monkey.'
To her mom, a computer is just a computer. It sends her e-mail, she can put picture from her digital camera on it, but she doesn't even think about things like licensing or freedom
And that's how it should be. You should use what works best for you. If you don't want to be bothered with anything technical, just send email, write recipies, etc., then use what is easiest, which is probably Windows. I'm quite happy for Linux to stay away from the mass market - it means it will stay oriented toward the areas which are best for me.
Don't assume that the operating system space should be a monoculture. For all the wierdos harping about Windows, it's a very good product, particularly given the (mostly achieved) objective of maintaining compatibility with code going all the way back to Windows 2.
-- Help Digitise the Public Domain at DP.
You could argue, of course, that because Microsoft has been forcing companies to pay over and over just to keep what is basically the same functionality, Microsoft is hurting the economy. That is, they make you buy new office software by making the new product incompatible with the old, although with the new XP stuff, they won't have to bother - they can make you pay over and over without having to come up with new formats.
:-)
When companies operate less efficiently, the overall economy suffers. The extreme example is, you could have 100% employment by having people harvesting food and performing other manual tasks that are currently automated.
If you have to pay again for something you already bought (i.e. pay for a new Windows license when you replace your old computer), you are operating less efficiently. Unlike other subscription-based schemes, Microsoft isn't adding any additional value for the subscriber (cable companies, satellite providers, etc. must keep their systems going in order for subscribers to use their services). On the other hand, someone could nuke Redmond and the MS software would still keep going - at least until hit hit the artificially imposed deadline.
I would argue that in the long run, this approach hurts the economy.
Even if you disregard subscription software, though, you could still argue that heavier reliance on open/free software eventually improves the economy, since companies can operate more efficiently - there is a good solid framework for new development and you don't have a single company trying to place barriers to development in order to maintain their monopoly.
Never forget that all that money that Microsoft makes eventually comes out of our pockets - either directly or indirectly.
Then again, you could also argue that I'm full of it.
>Solution: Don't buy the thing for fucks sake.
>Has anyone ever had a gun stuck down their
>throat by an MS employee and been forced to
>purchase MS software? No so what the hell is the
>big deal?
Well, in corporation alas, it doesn't works like this. Most of time, the easiest and less risky solution is to go with an M$ product. To swim against the tide, you need to be highly motivated and you need really a lot of energy, to convince the upper management. Most of the time people just give up, as they don't want to add the this burden for projects which migh be already difficult.
After consecutive straight weeks of hot-air, nothing gained or accomplished, anti-IBM reverse incestuous FUD, underpaidBBStech goes batshit....
C'mon people. Ask yourself, and really think about this. Do you really think that most companies are going to switch to PC clones, if IBM continues with it's bullying of corporate clients, strong-arming of minicomputer manufacturers and subscription models?
I am so sick of all the "DOS will win out in the end" fervour. It's not happening anytime soon, guys. Market penetration and an established userbase are working against you.
Enough said.
--
Aaron Sherman (ajs@ajs.com)
No Microsoft has a monopoly because of what people choose and what people choose is Microsoft.
The problem is that people don't (and often can't) choose due to Microsoft having a racket going with supply to OEMs. Which effectivly puts them in the position of "if you want to supply Windows at all you do so on our terms". Microsoft's terms tend to be "Supply the latest version", "only supply our software", "use only the default install", etc.
Actually for site license enterprise customers they do have a gun to their head. Pay for Win XP and Office XP by October 1st or pay full price after that.
Does Microsoft do an actual site licence anyway? Remember that they have years experience in intimidating and FUDding OEMs. Sounds like they are simply extending their tactics.
Well, perhaps I WANT to buy an HP Kayak WITH LINUX PRE-LOADED! Isn't it a violation of ME the CUSTOMER that I can't buy an HP Kayak with Linux preloaded?
And it gets even sillier. Microsoft wants a situation where they can end up being paid twice for Windows per machine.
Trying to say that an OEM licence dosn't cover putting Windows on the machine using drive imaging software.
ah, but what about the reason that HP won't sell you a non-windows pc: because microsoft says that if they do they lose their OEM license.
If they still want Windows it will cost them considerably more per unit.
The only suppliers likely to be flexable are those too small to have these special OEM deals in the first place. Indeed they might prefer Linux since they can charge a lower price with higher markup.
I think(and i'm just stating my opinion), that's a pretty questionable practice.
The term you are looking for is "racket". Can anyone even find other examples of this kind of thing which do not involve organised crime?
If HP could make a profit selling Kayaks with Linux pre-loaded (i.e. the overhead costs of preinstalling it would be made up for by more sales)
You are missing that the overhead costs of installing Windows are non zero. What makes you think that pre-loading Linux would be more expensive. It's quite possibly less since the process can also perform diagnostics, with Windows you need to put a special image on, rather than a fully working system, so how do you test it?
Microsoft is correct in this case: since companies fund the government, the software created with those funds should be as accessible as possible. The GPL certainly doesn't allow that, because companies aren't allowed to use code governed by it in their own projects (unless, of course, they open the source, which you can't force companies to do).
The GPL isn't "open" enough since it dosn't allow the software to be converted into proprietary software. An interesting kind of "logic". The real reason Microsoft don't like the GPL is that it makes software immune to their normal business practice of "asymilate or kill".
The only parts of their code it would "force" the opening of would be derived works from CPL software. If they don't like this then maybe they should first think about changing the way US copyright law handles "derived works".
This may be forbidden already. It seems to me that allowing Microsoft Word documents to enter or leave a government office is not providing equal protection under the law to all consumers. There's something or other that guarantees everyone equal protection under the law.
That would be anti-discrimination legislation. In the case of the US Federal government the US consitution explicitally forbids any discrimination.
As is i believe that the recent MS liscense which bans "viral" tools from being used with a released API-- which offers a definition of "viral" more extreme than what the GPL is, then gives the GPL as an example of fufilling that definition-- is slander
Or rather libel, since it is written rather than spoken. (A more serious situation.)
Another aspect here is "projection", Microsoft is accusing the GPL of being "viral" when if there is a viral licence involved here it's Microsoft's.
Of course, I turned off the new XP theme immediately. It looks pretty much like Win2K once you get it to calm down.
So what advantages does it actually have over Win2K then?
It dosn't help matters that Microsoft appear to be selling software using the same methods GM invented to sell cars.
Then, we look back another 15 years. CP/M is the best OS available. Microsoft buys DOS for $50000, ports BASIC to DOS, and undersells CP/M by a substantial amount, and owns desktops
The critical issue here isn't how much DOS sold for, so much as Microsoft's contract with IBM for supply of DOS.
Then, as in the early 80s, when Microsoft were instrumental in the first truly personal computer - the mass-market computer, Microsoft truly brought computing to the masses.
The difference here is that the early 80's was a competitive market. Whilst Microsoft were a big player in supply of BASIC they wern't the only player. Indeed the one project to carry the Microsoft name (MSX) fell flat on it's face. MSX machines just couldn't compete with those from Commodore, Acorn, Sinclair, Oric, etc.
As you have said, they have been responsible for bringing computers to the mainstream.
Probably more credit is due Compaq than Microsoft. Who turned the hardware into a commodity product with competition at many levels.
The reason why I dont like MS is because of their "below the belt" business tactics.
The top of the list must be their contracts with OEMs...
You might be so kind as to credit Apple, Commodore, and other GUI companies with the research work that Microsoft has so kindly expropriated
:)
See "search for actual Microsoft innovation threads"
You might note that this was the primary reason behind Apple's UI suit of the early 90s - which, if you recall, they lost mostly because they'd written a license for MS with enough loopholes to drive a small carrier group through.
Did Apple actually write this licence?
The main reason for the binary ones (e.g. .DOC) is that it's easier to tweak
them to load/save more quickly. This isn't as much of an issue as it used to be, but back when most documents were stored on floppies, things
like quicker loading and saving were big selling points.
How does that explain the long standing bug in Word being able to save to floppy?
Open standards allow fair play and use of resources by everbody (a democratic ideal).
Note that "everybody" in this context also includes business. If anything rather than being "unamerica" something like the GPL at least in agreement with the US constitution. Where the whole point of IP protection is the promotion of "science and useful arts".
Making a profit from IP wasn't intended as being an end in itself so much a "carrot" to publish.
1. Microsoft invented (or is it Innovated??) the GUI. Right. I've got this bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.
There is one in London available too.
2. People hate Microsoft Corporation because they are successful. No. Perhaps some people do. People hate Microsoft for the same reason that some people dislike television. It plays to the lowest common denominator. That does not appeal to me.
People also dislike Microsoft because they find their business practices distasteful, in some cases very similar to those employed in organised crime...
5.Quality is an issue. I know people who love Windows. They think it is so easy to use, that it's easy to install (they think the 20 questions game Microsoft plays with you to register when booting a new machine is 'installing')
It's hardly an endorsement to say in effect that it's easy to do something you should never need to do in the first place anyway...
6.Arcane filesystems. Did I read correctly? Do you have a problem with read/write permissions? I know I love mine. The last thing I need is some script kiddie getting into my machine (with no account even) and having full write access to command.com.
In a corporate environment you want to be able to sit a box on someone's desk and be sure that it isn't easily broken. You just can't do this with Windows, since there is no proper distinction made between "user" and "administrator".
7.Grandmas. I'll grant you that Linux (and the other *N*X flavors aren't *inherently* the most user-friendly thing out there, but that's improving.
Nor is Windows that user friendly. e.g. grandma is upset and insulted when the computer says she did something "illegal".
Also, when set up properly, it's a lot easier for grandma to kill important files in Windows than it is in a non-root account on a *N*X box.
It's trivial for anyone, being a woman or having grandchildren isn't really a factor here
Do you know what the best part was? She could copy the songs to her own 'home' folder (Hmm, a concept borrowed in Windows XP? Innovators...bah.)
XP also "borrows" having a login screen with icons for users from KDM.
If you're hoping to eliminate the public-domainness of the original release, it seems very doubtful that that would have any legal force.
Maybe they were looking at something like making a trivial change, then trying to create uncertainty about which version the corporate actually used...
Whilst this tactic might work when used by a large corporate its unlikely to be useable against one.
It's the kindof abuse of the law where you need deep pockets.
how are they out billions of dollars. OSS is free(typically). Even if the Gov. pays for development it's going to be a shitload cheaper than having to pay for proprietary software that they have to pay again for when they want to upgrade?
Whatever it costs this money is likely to stay in the Brizilian economy, rather than winging its way North.
What is Brazil's current balance of payments situation?
When you're the US government you can demand that MS release its source code for analysis as part of a contract (and they do). From what I hear from my military buddies, though, it takes a hell of a long time to analyze it, as you might imagine. Personally, if I were the government I'd be happier with open source, since its analysis is relatively commonplace, and security implications are well-known.
Also OS code is more likely to be written to be easy for someone to understand. Thus your analysts have less work to do. Let alone if they actually find something they don't like they can do something about it.
Whilst the US military might be able to see MS source code are they able to build custom versions?
You don't want any little surprises when state secrets are on the line.
This applies even more when you are not the US government and have no close diplomatic ties with the US.
What would happen if the GPL was struck down by the courts?
In this case Microsoft would loose, since they would be fighting court battles to protect their own licencing systems.
If it wasn't for the fact that it had been under such a free and liberal license as the BSD license, we might never have seen the rise of such quality, albeit proprietary, operatings systems such as Sun's Solaris or Windows 2000. The nature of the GPL would have forced the companies to give away a lot of the rest of their intellectual property
Complete and utter rubbish. All the GPL would oblige them to distribute under the GPL would be any GPL and GPL derived works they used.
Since IP is a published specification the only changes which would have been likely would be of the bug fixing kind. What GPL does prevent is "embrace and extend".
The only situation where GPL would force giving away their IP would be if they had attempted to contaminate GPL code with proprietary additions. Or their code was complete "sphagetti". It structured modular programming is beyond them then probably best the go out of business anyway!
Forcing the openness of all the software would have been wrong and anti-American.
Actually the only way you could actually make it "anti-American" would be to ammend the constitution. The sole reason IP laws even exist in the USA is to promote publication.
According to you, if the BSD TCP/IP stack had been under the GPL, Solaris and Win2K wouldn't be able to access the internet! Do you not realize that TCP/IP is a published standard? Any company or group of individuals can get a copy of that standard and write their own TCP/IP stack which follows the published standard and interoperates with other systems through it.
Anyway even lawyers and judges can understand the concept of modular programming.
MS keeps arguing "everyone should benefit" from the software the government is paying for, and that since companies can't benefit from GPL software, tge government shouldn't be spending any morney on it. Fine.
Fine except that the meaning of "everybody" changes mid sentence...
Microsoft could *never* challange the legality of the GPL, no matter how much money they throw into it.
Certainly not in the USA without a consitutional ammendment. For the simple reason that the GPL is about encouraging publication...
Why shouldn't the term "organized crime" apply to Microsoft?
Simply because it isn't Politically Correct to do so.
I think the definition of "organized crime" needs to be broadened to mean more than just the Mafia... The shoe seems to fit corporations such as Microsoft just as well. Bonus points for RICO action on them (not that that will happen with the current political environment)...
There was another post recently about RICO being applied to a medical charity, so the definition does appear to be broad anyway.
Market penetration and an established userbase are working against you.
But you also have an established attitude of "change everything every 18-24 months", which greatly complicates things. It means that Microsoft's desktop monopoly actually has its foundation built in quicksand....
Look, I firmly believe that any MS server platform is and will continue to be utter SHITE. But, most people that use computers are not even interseted in the damn things.
They probably do care when they don't work. They might even care when things can work better with less money being spent.
Until Linux as easy to install,
Except that end users shouldn't be installing operating systems in the first place, in the main they don't. The issue here is education as to why users shouldn't have the chore of installing software and why it's a bad idea in the first place.
use and has the applications that we all know and love (or hate),
Not really so critical as it might appear because of the way things keep changing
and is no more confusing or intimidating as Windows
Windows is very confusing and intimidating in one critical area. That is when something goes wrong
Has anybody used XP yet? It looks like an OS for toddlers. Big, gawdy Fisher-Price/Tonka Truck icons and buttons. Very non-intimidating, and I'm using the professional beta. They really dumbed the OS down. I wonder what the final "server" release will be like?
Non intimidating to who? Also it could easily end up being just as intimidating to adults.
The problem is doing this to a "server" is actually part of the problem, not only do you get an interface which does not help system administrators you get a situation where end users think theu know what they are doing...
If microsoft would just stop all this crap with windows being the one and only operating system and get back to the task of developing software NO MATTER WHAT THE PLATFORM OR LICENSE we would all be better off.
Including Microsoft, as someone said on CNN last night.
Lets face it Bill Gates is a very corrupt person and no matter how much money he gives away he will still be corrupt.
He's more someone who is obsessed. Which is not to say the methods used to further the obsession (of Windows everywhere) arn't utterly corrupt.
GPL == immortality.
If it's released without any copyright, thus into the public domain, then can't anyone just appropriate it, alter it trivially, and claim copyright on the whole work? And thus GPL their trivially different strain?
I assume so, but so what? Any corporation that wants to use the code can just grab a public-domain copy and do whatever they want with it. The GPL will only protect the changes made to your own derived strain.
If you're hoping to eliminate the public-domainness of the original release, it seems very doubtful that that would have any legal force. Otherwise, corporations would circle like vultures waiting for any any public-domain release, and instantly remove the release for the public domain. This doesn't happen. Instead, corporations must rely on tactics like embrace-and-extend, where the legal rights only apply to their derivative works but not to the original.
After all its OUR money which funds government projects...
Corporations have been known to pay taxes too.
Well, not "immortality" in the sense that it is guaranteed that people will continue to use it, but immortality in the sense, as you allude, that people *can* continue to use it, that anyone can resurrect it at any later date, and that anyone can lift useful bits and pieces of code out of the programs for use in a different GPLed project.
You know, when I was in high school, I had an underground newspaper. A lot of kids liked it. A lot of kids didn't care about it. And a few kids were assinine enough to call me names like "fag", "dork", and "ass-kisser" as I handed out my newspapers. Now, there were kids who physically threatened me at times, but I was no pushover... I fought back, and won almost all of the time... but if it didn't come to that, I simply politely ignored them and continued with my business. I figured that I had better things to do than waste my time reacting to every loser who wanted to make me look stupid. In general, my newspaper was a success, and I remember who read it and enjoyed it rather than those who were pricks about it.
So why can't you guys do that with Linux and Microsoft? Sticks and stones (and lawsuits and anti-competitive measures) may break your bones, but names won't ever hurt you. You can't spent a lot of time worrying about this crap. Just write good programs, put together a good operating system to fit peoples' needs, and you will be a success no matter what. I honestly don't know why you get so worked up over nothing, really...
Professors usually have a tenure and are paid to do research work as well as lecturing. It's a step up the food chain from a Post Grad (who is usually earning a PhD and paying for the privilege).
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
Damn good point. Now why can't professors see this sort of thing?
Of course, it raises the question on whether companys should benefit from University's research. Also, once the research is done once and GPL'd, it doesn't take much effort to research the results and write your own code from it. You may want to use a chinese wall situation but it should still assist.
Of course, this means University research is highly favoring the Free Software movement, but I've not really formed an opinion on that yet. Someone else want to form one for me?
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
Ooohhh. Rather a class system you chaps have over there! Wow.
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
So Microsoft is attacking the GPL because they can't "embrace and extend" GPL'd programs? I think this is a short sighted view of the whole thing and a conclusion that really doesn't surprise a lot of people or analysts.
I would have expected more from a professor.
Microsoft has many reasons for attacking the GPL but by far the biggest reason is to attack Linux. I don't think they are too upset about not being able to embrace and extend Linux - they could do that anyway by simply putting a Linux ABI on NT (which is entirely possible and less work than most people think). What really concerns them is the increase in server sales of Linux. The best way to stop people using and developing for Linux is to attack the GPL. It's simple really - make people afraid of the license and Linux suffers.
It's naive to think the MS attacks on Linux are somehow special. Look at their site and you'll see plenty of vitriol against Sun/Solaris, Oracle and other systems - just they attack a different way because different systems have different perceived weaknesses. Linux is nothing special in this regard. Microsoft has just started to take notice. Competition is good, but don't complain if the heat gets turned up.
I did like one bit where he brazenly states that adding instructions to a CPU won't speed it up. I think people will find the 386 faster than the 286, MMX faster than non-MMX and Altivec faster than non-Altivec. The comments are silly - of course new instructions can speed up a CPU. They just have to be useful and well implemented.
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
What is interesting about .NET is that the runtime is actually being ported to FreeBSD by Caldera. I wonder how long it takes to get an MSIL implementation running on Linux? Given that it is going to be an ECMA standard (unlike Java), it shouldn't be too long until someone implements the full runtime and class library, not to mention creates a gcc back end.
.NET: You have a good point that I didn't consider. I'll remember to factor that in to my future arguments.
.NET. It means so many different things, some good (MSIL/runtime/C#) some bad (subscription services). I wish they hadn't lumped it all under the same handle.
Now the "application services" side of
I hate
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
It would be more expensive because HP and most other big manufacturers do not build computers to order, they have assembly lines. If you're only installing one OS, that's simple. If you're installing two, then you have to fork the assembly line and keep separate inventories of the same machines with different OSes. Forking the assembly line adds cost because you need extra equipment and extra workers to handle the extra OS. Keeping separate inventories of the same PC with different OSes causes overhead.
/. So if enough geeks aren't willing to buy VA Linux hardware for them to stay in the hardware business, then enough geeks definitely wouldn't buy HP Linux desktops to make it worth them even considering maybe possibly doing it sometime in the distant future. Be realistic.
And no, there are no diagnostics done. Why would anyone do that? This is an economy of scale--you set up one PC to have a crisp OS install, and since the hardware in all the others for that model will be identical, you image the drive and duplicate it down to the bit for each and ever PC that has the same hardware. If the hardware is imperfect the store or buyer will send it back--it's cheaper that way than testing each PC, since they churn them out by the thousands and only a tiny fraction will be flawed.
So the point is, it doesn't benefit most companies anything to add a Linux option. It adds cost to have two OSes instead of just one, even if the second OS is free it still costs an incredible amount of overhead compared to just having to install one, since we're talking about having to fork one assembly process into two. If there were a large enough demand for Linux desktop PCs, then companies like HP would make them. But there is not enough demand to offset their costs, since almost all customers want Windows--as I pointed out, few geeks buy desktop systems from big manufacturers, and geeks and their associates are the only end users who would run Linux in all likelihood. So, there's no profit. Hell, even VA Linux just got out of the hardware business--not enough geeks were buying Linux machines from them for them to make a profit from it, and we're talking VA Linux here, the company whose banners have been right here in the heart of geekdom since before they even bought
"It's a damn poor mind that can only think of one way to spell a word."--Andrew Jackson
which is why Windows XP will come bundled with a browser, media player, fire-wall, email client, and ISP.
Solution: Don't buy the thing for fucks sake. Has anyone ever had a gun stuck down their throat by an MS employee and been forced to purchase MS software? No so what the hell is the big deal?
Placing a firewall with all these moronic attacks taking place is a good thing definitely nothing wrong with MS doing so. Bundling a media player, OH MY GOD SAY IT ISN'T SO! Don't you think people would appreciate listening to music on their PC. Again no one is stopping anyone from using alternatives they can download, MS never threatened anyone for creating an alternative MS based media player.
OH MY GOD STOP IT!! An email client!! NO!!! What will they think of next, heaven knows no one really needs an email client. Nope they need a bare bones OS they can spend hours on end downloading everything from scratch. Evil Microsoft, how dare they.
All this bashing is making me sick. Shit I don't use MS, way I see it, out of sight out of mind, my opinion is let them be, they can self destruct on their own.
Want Root?
I applaud Dr. Pfaffenberger's insight. The focus is on GPL because Linux won't last forever but GPL will. GPL is an exquisite pain in Gates' groin and he can't stand it any longer. In the wake of today's court announcement that Microsoft will not be broken up, we should expect a legal challenge by MS against GPL soon on constitutional grounds. We must be prepared to support the FSF legal team with every penny we have.
As I have pointed out in a paper I wrote a few years ago (www.seiferth-ryan.com) the Government doesn't directly distribute ANY GPL. It must be released by a third party usually an individual since few organizations until the last few years released anything GPL'd. Federally funded software is most generally distributed without a copyright of any kind (Title 17, Section 105).
The situation is compounded by the use of proprietary software with its ever-changing formats (MS Word being the most prominent offender). The National Archives could give proprietary formats a poke in the eye, reduce costs, and improve service if they would choose an archival digital format (CD-ROMs might be acceptable, given appropriate testing), and state that they will accept digital submissions in formats that are published and blessed by standards bodies.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
They don't have to find that the GPL is illegal, they just have to find that the GPL is unenforcable. That would make it pretty much useless. If would also make it very hard to relicense a lot of software which was written through the combined efforts of different developers. I don't think that this will happen, but IAMAL, so I'm mostly rambling about something I don't know much about.
Microsoft spends Millions if not Billions of dollars trying to improve their public image. I can just see it in the press now, "Microsoft violates the license used by Linux!", "Microsoft steals code from starving programmers in latest application!". These topics are becomming mainstream enough to effect Microsoft's core customers' opinion of them. They'll just wait until someone else violates the GPL, and use their lobying and PR efforts as best they can to discredit the GPL.
I guess I have a different opinion on subscription based licensing of software than some people here. When I worked in computer support about 5 years ago, we were licensing MS software through Microsoft Enterprise Licensing Program. It worked very well in a large corporate environment, and was very cost effective. You bought licenses at avolume discount, and you could run whichever MS OS you felt was appropriate on the machines you had licensed it for, except server versions. That meant that you could load Win95 or NT4. When Win 98 came out, you could switch to it if you chose to do so. What made it work was that the prices for the subscription were cost effective for us opposed to buying the OS with the computers, and then upgrading the OS on some of them later. Another large benefit was that it greatly simplified keeping trace of software licenses. We were spending 10s of thousands of dollars keeping track of licenses, and we still failed every internal software audit, every time. Once you get to the point where you have hundreds of employees, just keeping track of how many computers you have is a challenge, knowing what OS and software they are running is nearly impossible. There is other software that I've purchased as a subscription, where it worked well. One example is the recently maligned MSDN. You pay around $500 for a professional level license. It includes everything you need to develop device drivers but the compiler. You still purchase Visual C++ seperately. You also get a license to load up to 5 computers with MS OSs in order to test your software. This includes Windows 9X right up to Win XP server beta 2. Advanced server and datacenter versions are not included. The software and documentation you are sent is constantly being updated, and you receive these updates as part of the subscription price.
I guess my point is that sometimes a subscription is a good way to purchase software. It depends on the software, and the price. As long as MS continues to offer the software on a non-subscription basis as well, and they don't artificially inflate the price, this my work out well for many consumers.
I pay taxes too. What if I want to take the code and put it in my software. The code should be released into the public domain because the public paid for it. I can then use that code and release the software under any license I choose. That could be BSD, GPL, or a closed source license.
If you limit government funded to being released under GPL, then you prohibit that software from being used in software under almost every other license.
Microsoft did not pay a penny in federal income tax last year!
While this is true, it's kind of misleading. Microsoft didn't pay income tax because they were able to count the stock options they gave their employees as an expense. This just shifts the tax burden to their employees. This means that although Microsoft itself didn't pay any taxes directly, Microsoft still generated an enourmous amount of this country's tax base.
The government has been moving away from funding development and trying to buy off the shelf products. They are doing this because they can get comercial software cheaper than custom built software. The reason for this is that commercial software is writen for a wider customer base, and therefore the development costs are spread out over a wider number of customers. If you force all the software the government uses to be GPL (which is something Greyfox didn't necessarily propose, but other posters did). How do you pay the developers, or who pays the developers? You can say that people will pay developers to add the features that they need added. Developers are expensive, why would they pay someone to write code, when they know someone else needs the same thing, and when it gets written for them, you'll get it for free. What you end up with is a bunch of hackers writing code for the joy of it, while having to have other jobs, and the government paying for the rest of the development. That's a horrible way to fund software development, and doesn't really encourage investment in innovation. The money has to come from somewhere, and the government can't provide all of it. The govenment can't even provide much of it unless it has a tax base. For them to have a tax base, people have to be making money. Where does the money come from.
The standard answer I hear to this is that the money will be made through selling hardware and support. The problem with this is that is doesn't spread the costs out among the people who need the software very well. You'll always have those who won't pay for the software to be developed, and then undercut the prices of those who do. It's not a level playing field. It is possible for a few companies to make money selling hardware and services for GPLed software, but it's not something you can base your economy on. The system isn't self limiting. Those who chose to not pay for the innovation have the lowest costs, and can make the most money. This discourages innovation, even though the tools for innovation (the source code itself) are more available.
If you think I'm wrong then let me know. I will read your posts and listen to your facts and opinions. If you flame me or just repeat some unsupported dogma, then my opinion isn't likely to change.
Linux just happened to be the first project that got completed. NSA has been playing with different ideas for secure systems on several different OS's.
LibBT: BitTorrent for C - small - fast - clean (Now Versio
Furthermore, storing or distributing any files in a proprietary file format should be forbidden for all government offices. They should only be allowed to use a given file format if full specs for the format are publically and freely available and are unencumbered in any way by patents or other IP law.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I call Windows XP "Windows for Dummies". Of course, that's redundant. :)
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
What Microsoft doesn't want you to understand is that by playing their rational game, you lose, they win.
Doing business is much like playing games. No wonder some praise Go or other strategy games for learning business tactics. It's not just business, but all competition, such as evolution, is much based on "games".
Game theory is a branch of mathematics that deals with identifying winning strategies and situations in games, such as business.
Drama theory is a generalization of the game theory that takes into account irrationality. Irrationality, in this case, means just short-term irrationality. On long term, or on another scale, it's very rational.
Drama theory gives explanations to why people get mad, envious, revengeful, bullying, and what not. These are usually considered very negative aspects of life, and I'm not trying to say that they shouldn't be, but their function really is just level the playing field when you get stuck in a losing situation. They are rational at some level.
Revolutions, violent demonstrations, and wars (''war is just a continuation of politics'') are examples of trying to change the rules. Others more accepted ones are boycotts, work strikes, and so on. Religions are not usually rational - but amazingly they are often helpful to the followers. Even if a certain God of Vows (such as Mithra) doesn't exist, believing in his powers and making business deals or marriages in his name helps in building a strong society. Irrationality pays, big.
Microsoft wants businesses to play by the traditional rules of the business game. Supporting the proprietary business model may be rational in many cases. But the problem is that Microsoft has attained a game-theoretically sustainable winning position. You can only win by changing the rules, which may require slight "irrationality".
It's perfectly rational to get red mad at Microsoft, and give up short-term business opportunities, to perhaps be able to compete in a healthy market later.
Microsoft is also trying to talk generally about the ''best'' business model for software industry, although Linux and Open Source movements are an ad hoc response of the IT world to combat specially against Microsoft's unhealthy monopoly. The rationale for general context is completely irrational and irrelevant for the current specific situation in the operating system industry.
GPL means changing the rules, especially for this particular situation. It means starting a revolution, which may in some cases mean giving up the proprietary model even where it might have been useful otherwise. The target is Microsoft.
This is what Microsoft is afraid of.
P.S. Has anybody used XP yet? It looks like an OS for toddlers. Big, gawdy Fisher-Price/Tonka Truck icons and buttons. Very non-intimidating, and I'm using the professional beta. They really dumbed the OS down. I wonder what the final "server" release will be like? *shudder*
It doesn't matter. You will use it. So will most other people. Quality got nothing to do with it. Here is the plan.
1) Stop support and new device drivers for all old operating systems
2) Do not allow OEM sales of anything except XP.
3) Only allow Office XP to be set up on Windows XP.
This simple strategy will force all users into Office XP and Windows XP within 3 years. It will be horribly coercive. Ever notice Windows NT doesn't support LCD monitors ?? How about new sound cards/new NICs ??
All new hardware will be only supported under XP. Old office will not be supported or compatible with Windows XP.
All your $$ belong to BG & Co.
That depends on the LCD. The head of our academic center upgraded to 2000 against his best intentions to support HIS LCD screen.
The point remains though - new hardware for which drivers do not yet exist will only work under XP. This is a critical part of the strategy, just as forcing all OEMs to use XP is.
This article really misses the boat.
If we backstep 3-5 years, we see a different computing environment. Microsoft OWNS the desktop and office. UNIX OWNS servers.
Then, we look back another 15 years. CP/M is the best OS available. Microsoft buys DOS for $50000, ports BASIC to DOS, and undersells CP/M by a substantial amount, and owns desktops.
Then, to 1995. OS/2 comes out. Windows 95 comes out. OS/2 is good, Windows 95 is junk. Windows 95 sells for under $100. OS/2 sells for a few hundred. Microsoft owns graphical user interface environments. Mac could have owned it, but they made the same error made by CP/M and IBM - they went after the high end.
The low end takes over. This pattern has repeated itself over and over.
Back to the mid to late 1990s. Microsoft was concerned. As networking became more relevant, they needed a network presence. Hence Windows NT. It rapidly looked like NT would take over the low end server market. It didn't matter that it sucked badly compared to UNIX - it cost a third of UNIX. The low end would rule again.
However, as NT was starting to make ground, enter linux. UNIX admins EVERYWHERE set up linux boxes to do server tasks for free instead of tolerating NT. This ate into Microsoft's market.
Microsoft would OWN the low end server market today if it were not for open source OSs, primarily linux.
And now Microsoft is attacking the GPL. They are attacking it because it owns markets that otherwise would rightfully belong to Microsoft, following the age old rule that the cheaper system wins independently of function. They can now see the writing on the wall. Linux (and *BSD) has eaten the low end server market, and Microsoft is not getting it back. You cannot undersell free, and Microsoft has never won by competing on quality of software.
This is alien to their entire business strategy. They make crappier products, sell them cheaply, provide no support, and own the market. Once they own one market, they leverage into other markets as strongly as possible.
This strategy today makes them a PROFIT ABOVE TAXES OF A BILLION DOLLARS A MONTH. And Microsoft wants more. If they could merely keep new quality software out of the GPL, they have a chance.
The GPL, you see, does not prevent a business from using software. But it does assign the IP to the open source community. And that scares Redmond to death. Open source has already eaten markets Microsoft had earmarked. They are now worried about the home base - the main monopoly, the billion dollar a month monopoly.
Now THAT is something to worry about.
Think. Places like NASA and the U.S. Navy already using Open Source systems to base their mission critical apps on, with very little likelihood of them switching back to MS stuff. If the entire government switches to non-MS stuff, they have absolutely no reason to stop the antitrust suite against MS.
I am !amused.
The GPL is based on copyright law. They could change copyright law, couldn't they (hell, the do every time disney asks them to)? I'm sure dubya wouldn't mind helping out if one of his big business buddies asked him to. Something along the lines of "copyright law applies as long as the work in question is purchased, if it is given away free then the owner forefits copyright on the work." Also the GPL has never been tested fully in court and M$ have access to a LOT of lawyers.
Well Linux is really just the kernel, no external apps at all including shells. Hence the debate on classifying a distribution as Linux as opposed to GNU/Linux, since the kernel alone doesn't allow for much productivity.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
In addition to that you said yourself that you installed everything, that's uneccessary (I do it too, so if I learn about a new tool I don't have to bother installing it), but you are given complete freedom to install just the OS or the OS plus any extra software you want (that is provided that is).
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
Well, US has a law against using software products from non-US based companies in sensitive areas of government (if not in all govt.) The only reason why other governments didn't have such law is that there was no such option. Now that there is open source software, that is the next best thing to having it produced by your own citizens. So NATURALY every sane government is pushing to use such software when they got the chance. Thats no surprise.
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
You know, if you want to buy a Windows PC, then yes, it *IS* your fault and your problem that it isn't available without Windows. Buy another machine, build another machine, or even better complain to HP and tell them to sell you a computer without an operating system pre-installed. If they won't, well, don't give them your business and eventually, when they get lots of calls and letters from people who want a Windows-less option, they will realize that they're missing out on a significant market. But it is their right to put whatever OS they want on their brand of PC. Bitch to them, not to me.
Of course, that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with what I was talking about in this thread (Yep, that's me too--forgot the account password, so my work PC has a cookie for SirWinston, and my home PC has a cookie for Sir_Winston--but anyway), which is the integration into the OS of functions which have before now been done by external apps.
But, NO, it is not a violation of you the alleged "customer" that HP will probably not sell you one of their shitty PCs without Windows installed, because they as the company get to decide what they want to sell, and you as the customer get to decide whether you want to purchase it or to buy something else. It's a free market, my friend, and there are many comparable choices for almost every computer product. You can get Linux preloaded on everything from a handheld to a set-top box to a PC to a high-end IBM RISC machine. So forgive me if I don't see it as being such a cruel and unforgivable plight if you cannot buy a shitty nonstandard HP machine with Linux preloaded. If there's a sizable market, they'll do it. So start writing to them and stop whining. You have plenty of choices, like the choice to buy a competing product or to support online vendors or screwdriver shops, instead of a company like HP which is actually at least as bad as Microsoft in terms of customer support and which is in bed with Intel over their Itanium piece of crap and all manner of other negative things. You can also choose to let HP know that you want a Linux option, instead of complaining here where it makes no difference. As I said, HP wants to make money like every other company, so if enough people ask then they'll damn well give you your option, since the many options from other sources don't seem to be good enough for you.
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, *The Annals*
But that doesn't matter because Microsoft, in this political climate, cannot get away with it like they got away with pressuring IBM many a year ago. HP, with its sizable resources, could afford lawyers as good as Microsoft's and get not just a judgement against Microsoft for illegal anticompetitive practices, but a judgement for actual and punitive damages more than large enough to cover attorney's fees and reinvigorate their bottom line. After all, MS may have gotten the break-up order vacated on appeal because of improper actions by Judge Jackson, but they've still been found guilty of anticompetitive practices and await resentencing.
Microsoft can pull that shit with the little guys, but not with the big ones, not in this day and age. Aside from which, they wouldn't want to pull that stuff with the big boys--they make too much money off HP, and the Linux market would be just a niche market overall--which is why HP doesn't sell Linux desktops in the first place. Not enough people want them.
Hell, not enough people wanted them to keep VA Linux in the hardware business, either, and they had a ton of ads here, in the heart of the Linux community! You don't need to attribute to malice what can easily and more provably be explained by a simple lack of market. Aside from some businesses and some government entities, the only people using Linux on the desktop are geeks. Geeks almost always either build our own PCs, or buy them from specialty sources, not from mainstream vendors. therefore it wouldn't be cost-effective for most mainstream vendors to offer Linux desktops. Why interrupt your perfect assembly line somewhere so that you can install Linux on a tiny fraction of one percent of the machines? It's not worth the overhead. And then, factor in support--why on Earth would HP want to provide Linux support staff in addition to its Windows people? I guess they could sell the Linux boxen sans support services, but then a fraction of users would still be returning the hardware because of some software glitch, and they'd have to have Linux staff to track down the issue and determine whether it's the hardware or the software, and then they'd have to resell the machine at a markdown. What a pain in the ass.
See, that's why most big manufacturers don't do Linux desktops. It isn't fear of Microsoft--look at what IBM and other companies, who do use MS software in some of their products, are doing to promote Linux, without a fear of MS. It's just that the Linux desktop userbase is already smaller than their Windows base, and most of them wouldn't buy an HP or Compaq or whatever box in the first place, being technically savvy and able to roll their own or buy online or from a local shop at a very reduced price.
So if you rweally want an HP desktop without Windows, get a whole lot of people to ask HP for one. Then they'll offer it. But it's not going to happen because there aren't enough interested people. HP deals in economies of scale, not in what a small subset of a small subset of PC users may or may not want as an option.
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, *The Annals*
I think the definition of "organized crime" needs to be broadened to mean more than just the Mafia... The shoe seems to fit corporations such as Microsoft just as well. Bonus points for RICO action on them (not that that will happen with the current political environment)...
--Fesh
--Fesh
Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
1) Kernel developed by Linus Torvalds and others 2) Shell of user's choice (csh, bash, ksh, etc.) 3) GNU toolset.
That's it folks. Anything else you get is at the whim of the distributor.
--Fesh
--Fesh
Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
Microsoft made the conscious, corporate-level choice to attack Linux and its philosophical and community underpinnings on a legal front. It falls to the Linux / Free Software community to respond in kind. Simply ignoring them and taking the high road here will not work, since Microsoft is adept at changing the rules of whatever game it plays to its own liking. Should Free Software advocates simply play wait-and-see, they will undoubtedly find the political and marketplace climates turning very chilly, very quickly.
Free software is winning on its own merits; it's Microsoft that recognized its own basic inability to compete fairly and has resorted to bringing out the All-Terrain Assault Lawyers.
Chris Tembreull
Web Developer, NEC Systems, Inc.
Chris Tembreull
"My karma just ran over your dogma."
Yes. And it was identified as a serious threat in the famous Microsoft "Halloween memo".
Bill Gates, "The ecosystem where you have free software and commercial software--and customers always get to decide which they use--that's a very important and healthy ecosystem"
... which is why Windows XP will come bundled with a browser, media player, fire-wall, email client, and ISP.
_f
Tha ability of GPL'ed software to outlast companies and organizations that create them is an interesting feature to focus on. Because of this capability, GPL software would seem to have more chances to "get it right" than Microsoft's traditional competitors.
** The opinions expressed here are my own, and do not reflect those of my employers - past, present, or future**
Of course, if a piece of software is GPLd, Microsoft would be crazy to spend their time and money on extending it with an expectation of monetary profit. The GPL denies them that option. (There could be ancillary benefits, such as enhanced recognition or just getting the fratzen job done, but such probably wouldn't motivate a company like Microsoft.)
Without the ability to charge for extending GPL code, companies most likely won't do much extending. Then you get into a philosophical debate: Supporters of the GPL would say that if extensions need be proprietary, then they're worse than leaving the code unextended. In other words, you automatically lose more by closing the source than any functionality you gain through the new resources thrown at the problem.
I think it's far from proven that such is the case, but it's an interesting view of the world. One must remember that the GPL and its backers are not philosophy-neutral; they have a vision of what "right programming" is.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
That's the sort of attitude that will, eventually, sink this nation. I am not a consumer first. I am only incidentally a consumer, in that it's what I do to take care of necessities to get on with my life.
I am a citizen first, foremost, and above all.
And my government exists for the welfare of citizens, not for consumers. The distinction is getting lost and the Republic is ailing for it.
OK, I guess I've met my rant quota for the day.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
People forget that things like freedom of the press, freedom to assemble, the sanctity of one's home, and accountability of governance were all "revolutionary" in their day. And, for we American readers, as Independence Day approaches, we should probably recall that, from time to time, "in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them".
Or, in other words, when The System is corrupt, Revolution can be good.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Bryan Pfaffenberger does himself a disservice with the uncalled-for sideswipes at the BSD license.
"If Linux had been released under the BSD license, Microsoft would have probably already released a version of Linux,Linux++ or Linux# or L-Nux"
Interestingly, there is no FreeBSD++ or FreeBSD# or FeeBSD, and there never will be, but because of the distribution model, not the license. You're not really supporting your case here Bryan.
"There should be free software that we can appropriate and modify--we just love BSD stuff--as well as Microsoft software"
Ok, so now I'm beginning to think you have an axe to grind against the BSD license. The BSD license applies to everyone who wants to use the code. It means some distinctly unpleasant people get to benefit from it, but so do others. People who release code under BSD do so in the full knowledge that Microsoft, or Apple, or Sun, or even Linux developers may use, modify, adapt, sell it or whatever. Really, truly free code in fact. *BSD has not been embraced into non-existence because of its license.
So I guess your pissed off because MS have incorporated the *BSD TCP/IP stack. Well, good. At long last they're using a quality code base, recognised universally as being fast, stable and seceure. That is generally to be considered a Good Thing. Linux is perfectly entitled to do the same thing, as is any competing OS. At long last it seems that we're seeing the adoption of a standard based on solid code. And you have to bitch about it? Keep your eyes on the enemy, not on your allies.
"The idea that Bill Gates has appeared like a knight in shining armour to lead all customers out of a mire of technological chaos neatly ignores the fact that it was he, by peddling second-rate technology, who led them into it in the first place."
Things haven't changed much at all.
All things considered, I'd rather have Douglas Adams.
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Solaris and HP-UX are only the first...
http://www.microsoft.com/unix/ie/default.asp
...and I'll bet Bill Gates can count the number of downloads without taking his shoes off.
Microsoft does support UNIX... just UNIXes that they no longer perceive as threats...
They could go after the developers by persuading Congress that GPL programs are written by hackers and that it is illegal to write software with a compiler which doesn't embed some unique id into the binary which allows the developer to be tracked down.
And who exactly would write that particular compiler?
Microsoft?
But even then, would hackers even use it?
So basically "hobbyist" code writing has become illegal. Non-Microsoft innovation is thus stifled. Wait until the press gets a hold of that one... they love the "little guy gets the shaft, and the public/American Dream is harmed in the process."
Hmmm. I could have gotten you a really nice laptop that didn't have Windows on it, ever. This weird little shop in California... they even have a website: www.apple.com. I hear there is a Linux distribution that installs on these machines, too.
Quit whining. Microsoft didn't just rob you or swindle you. You knowingly and with full awareness handed over money to them (indirectly). You had choices and you made one which was uncomfortable, but apparently less uncomfortable for you than buying a machine from Apple or buying a used machine with no OS expense or looking a little harder for a Linux laptop or simply doing without.
I do not have a signature
They do it for the same reasons that they attacked Sun's Java and IBM Network Computers!! They bash everyone else until the fad passes, then they slap a new name on it and release it as their own. Look at .NET. It is the same idea that IBM and Sun were pushing about two years ago, and MS got it so that people said they would ne ver do it. Now MS come out with the same idea and a new name and expect everyone to buy it. Do they think we're retarded??
Deven Phillips, CISSP
Network Architect
Viata Online, Inc.
Wherever you go, there I am...
And don't forget about NSA's version of Linux. Why Linux? NSA's official job includes safeguarding the secrets of the US government. (They approve all of the methods, systems, codes, etc, for guarding sensitive information.) They've come to the conclusion that because they can't see what Windows is doing (closed source), that it can't be trusted. Sounds logical to me too. If NSA doesn't trust MS, (they only trust what they can get their paws on), the GPL/Linux will be allowed to exist.
Think bureaucrat logic: In both cases you have to do massive code review. M$ = 49 million lines, Linux = (I don't know, but have to assume it's a lot less...). Linux saves money. Also, to even get your hands on M$ code, you have to... sign big contracts, pay lots of money, and promise not to tell anybody anything. Given that the whole goal of the NSA is to advise the rest of the government, that sort of defeats your purpose.
Microsoft is by no means the sole and unique source of research in how people use computers. The fact that they're on top of the heap for the moment, and thus spending large amounts of money to stay there, doesn't give them sole right to the credit, or even the implementation.
which leads to:
"Microsoft can't play its "embrace and extend" game with GPL-licensed software because the company can't appropriate and modify the code. If Linux had been released under the BSD license, Microsoft would have probably already released a version of Linux, Linux++ or Linux# or L-Nux, with a variety of maddeningly incompatible oddities that taken together would make it even more difficult to develop applications for Linux."
(The first half of the article drew a parallel with IBM in the old days, when it changed its processor code not to become more efficient than upstart Amdahl, but to make it incompatible, allowing IBM to capitalize on the fact that if you wanted a processor that ran all code written for the IBM, you needed to buy an IBM.)
It's an interesting story, though, and the author tries very hard to keep it interesting. ("But I've included lots of subheadings so you can skim around, if you like."..."Still with me?"..."Doubtful? Read this:")
Of course this isn't news for any of us who remember ASCII back when it was ASCII (ie "standard", as opposed to duffed just enough by Microsoft to make any Windows text outside what's on a keyboard totally nondeterministic when used between DOS and Windows).
One question for the gang: the author seems to assume that you can GPL a standard (he mentions "HTML, JavaScript, CSS", which last time I checked weren't source codes but standards), which keeps Microsoft from adding proprietary extentions. Is this in fact the case? I certainly haven't heard of a standard that's GPL'd. And if it is, does that mean Microsoft can use a binary implementation of the standard to add its proprietary hooks onto, as an "extention"? This can't affect the GPL, because it doesn't even USE the source code, let alone modify it. (IE, if ASCII were a binary standard, could it find an implementation of this standard with a nice API, then write a wrapper which uses it but makes each #!xyz!# series, where xyz are 000-999, show up in a Microsoft, incompatible, way, with a special symbol associated with it instead? It's not modifying the standard, it's just using an executable made with it...)
...what about LGPL? Can it "#include <REAL LGPL'd ASCII.h>" inside "MSASCII.h", where MASASCII duffs up the standard, and end up with something incompatible on a source level, but not in violation of LGPL because "REAL LGPL'd ASCII.h" doesn't change??
But see, I think the the author's wrong: even if Microsoft were making linux, the GPL'd linux we all know and love, then its MSLinux, which would be commercial, although the source-code would be distributed, would still be incompatible with every other linux. So what if you have the source code? We don't have the source code to MS-Word, but we've certainly reverse engineered it enough that we might as well have -- we have filters that translate Word into any other format you want. Doesn't mean that Word doesn't have more market share because of the fact that it doesn't output richtext by default: on the contrary, that's what keeps it on every one of my coworker's desktops. We need to read our attachments!
~
The thing I don't quite understand is why they haven't done this in the past. I mean - all it would take would be for them to violate the GPL in some little application they release and then get taken to court by some developer.
Of course if the GPL is upheld and a case like that gets kicked all the way up to the Supreme Court then they really would be up a creek (if the Supreme Court upheld the GPL), so that might be a good reason not to. And maybe that's what they're afraid of.
I think they've already played out that scenario and looked into the GPL and they have good reason to think they would lose (in spite of all their lawyers).
So barring that what can they do? They could try and blacklist GPL programmers and call us all socialists or communists or something =) Unfortunately for them, McCarthy already tried that and look where it got him.
They could go after the developers by persuading Congress that GPL programs are written by hackers and that it is illegal to write software with a compiler which doesn't embed some unique id into the binary which allows the developer to be tracked down.
I don't know - what's the worst possible thing M$ could do that would cripple Open Source? M$ is trying to discredit and destroy a philosphy, which is historically a lot more difficult to do than going after an individual or a corporation. Even countries that have used much more extreme measures than anything M$ has tried have failed when it comes to that.
That IBM paid Microsoft to develop OS/2?
I test almost every major NOS for compatibility with my company's server and RAID card line, and we've been testing "Whistler" (AKA Windows XP Server) for the last 3 months...
My impressions:
1. The GUI, as you said, looks like it was designed by Miss Shirley for Romper Room. Makes someone as experienced as me with computers feel stupid for using it.
2. Windows XP is a VERY VERY minor upgrade from 2000. In fact, the installer is virtually identical! I guess the new retardo GUI (see above) was slapped on so as to make the user THINK that the OS is something new and more "advanced" than 2000. I in fact, happen to like the 2000/ME GUI, and think the XP one is a definate step backwards. But then I have a brain, and so I'm NOT the person MS is marketing to.
3. When you keep in mind the freedom XP takes AWAY from you: forced activation, tying to your motherboard and hard drive (no hardware upgrades without getting approval from Redmond), breaking of cd-burner software, among others, unless you NEED the added compatibility with `9X games that XP has over 2000 (which, IMO, will likely make XP less stable than 2000, and thus less suitable for servers), there is NO reason to upgrade!
4. If you read this story ( ) from The Register, MS plans to force the enterprise to "upgrade" to their new rental scheme by basically telling them" "Upgrade or we send in the stormtroopers from the BSA"
The bottom line: MS thinks that they will get away with tons of mass marketing to get Joe "I can't find the power switch" to upgrade. They also think their new draconian licensing and "rental" schemes will force the enterprise to upgrade.
But, I think XP will certainly fall short of MS's expectations. For one thing, the consumer will be disappointed with the loss of compatibility with some `9X games. Their heavy-handed, mafia esque treatement of the enterprise, IMO, will cause many to think of alternatives. Who likes being blackmailed?
Also, if MS fails to get punished by the new judge hearing their case, I believe that a new and even MORE damming anti-trust suit will be started by the states against them over XP (this has already been hinted at by the state Attorney's General who participated in the
current case).
Really, I don't understand why MS is so stupid as to think that they can DO what they are doing right now and get away with it... They are pulling a Rambus in many ways... Their threats of extortion against enterprises, their heavy handed treatment of OEM's, their outright contempt for their customer WOULD kill any company that is not a monopoly.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
>If the US does that, taxpayers will be out >billions
poppycock! balderdash!
You have absolutely no understanding of the system you live in! How the hell can the tax-payers be out billions because they are buying (through govt. departments) cheaper software?
"Microsoft will pay less taxes" I hear you whine, well what do they pay the taxes with? taxpayers money...
Listen, if you believe what was posted (and i know it was a throwaway post, but maybe someone will read this) then you probably reply to all the crappy pyramid $5 in 5 envelopes spam you get. Moving money around may make an individual (Bill Gates, whoever) or an elite richer (like a casino) but it does not add wealth to a society or the world. Wealth is created through human labour, creativity, and effort. If lots of people develop OSS without big financial incentives (adding real wealth and value)... great! There is no need to spend more money on more expensive ways to duplicate some of that effort.
Really, think about it
m
They also want paying for machines that don't even have Windows loaded. Buy too many naked machine from the wrong vendor and you'll get The Letter from MS gently reminding you that you need X licenses. Long story short, in a large company, regardless of what you're actually using those boxen for, the cheapest option is to buy the licenses and then throw them in the bin.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Hmm. The Slashdot moderators think a post accusing someone of being a Scientologist (with absolutely no evidence of anything) is worth more than a post outlining the various corporate crimes which are far worse than the much-hated Microsoft.
I can see modding down the original post (Offtopic, perhaps?) but modding up that "you sound like you're from a cult" drivel? What, anything to discredit someone who isn't on the Open Source team?
In many ways, the Open Source movement and the anti-globalization movement are on the same team... fighting corporate abuse, the expansion of corporate beasts that exist only to make more money. Maybe even transforming society into something that isn't based solely on profit.
And as a cog in that movement, the Open Source movement is important as a means to prevent the corporate control of the information infrastructure. But there are a lot of other battles out there, and they're bigger than the OS battles, or even the normal Left-Wing, Right-Wing schizms. Perhaps Slashdotters should try to learn a bit more about this.
No matter if you're Pro-Microsoft, Pro-Linux, Democrat, Republican, there are abuses being carried out by corporate entities that offensive to anyone - and that's what, for example, the Seattle and Quebec City protestors are protesting about. Even if you are staunch Republican, even if you think you think you disagree with the protestors because they're the same people who protest for too much union power or gun control or more welfare, trust me, there are many issues you probably agree with them about.
--
Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.
Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.
- Nietzsche
Everything in this country appears, on first impression, to be consumer-oriented. You've got a lot of work ahead of you if you want to change that.
"What are we going to do tonight, Bill?"
www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance
The article here almost implies that there is something wrong with the government distributing its own work under a license other than the GNU GPL. Honestly, what's wrong with using something like the BSD license?
First off, let's take the biggest and most obvious example of why GPLing gov't funded software would've been a bad idea: the BSD TCP/IP stack. If it wasn't for the fact that it had been under such a free and liberal license as the BSD license, we might never have seen the rise of such quality, albeit proprietary, operatings systems such as Sun's Solaris or Windows 2000. The nature of the GPL would have forced the companies to give away a lot of the rest of their intellectual property, thus making it impossible for them to use the "standard" implementation, and forcing them to create their own implementation and standard.
Also, what's wrong with companies profiting off of taxpayer-funded work? Last time I checked, large corporations pay taxes just like the rest of us do. I think it would be an affront to our freedom as American taxpayers and entrepreneurs if the governement released their software under such a restrictive license as the GPL.
In conclusion, one can't really argue with the fact that the GPL is a pretty viral license, because with examples like TCP/IP, where it is actually a part of the core operating system, rather than a seperate component. Forcing the openness of all the software would have been wrong and anti-American.
Is your company running tools written by ma
ARRRGH. C'mon people. Ask yourself, and really think about this. Do you really think that most people are going to switch to Linux, if MS continues with it's smarttags, self-avoiding cookies, subscription models, and forced registration?
I am so sick of all the "linux will win out in the end" fervour. It's not happening anytime soon, guys. Market penetration and an established userbase are working against you. Look, I firmly believe that any MS server platform is and will continue to be utter SHITE. But, most people that use computers are not even interseted in the damn things. It's just part of their job. They go home and vegetate in front of the TV. They are office drones and are concentrating on the BBQ this weekend, not contemplating the IPO of Mandrake. Mandrake what? All they know about Linux is the FUD they will hear about from major online news feeds, and sorry to say, but for the majority of computer (L)users, /. is not their source for news that matters.
They have no idea what the GPL is. Or what a BSD license is. --Now, this next part is crucial-- if they see the words "linux" and "virus" in the same sentence, you can bet that their 6'oclock-news-conditioned brains are going to latch on to that real tight. All the discussion on these MS topics for the last while has been never-ending posts about how wrong MS is and endless justifications about how much better Linux is than windoze. That's nice, but the users DON'T KNOW THAT. Let me state this another way, with extra emphasis -- MOST PEOPLE ARE COMPLETELY IGNORANT ABOUT THEIR COMPUTER. (In fact, 90% of respondants to my fictional survey said they find computers downright uninteresting.) File that away in your brain for future reference please. Because although we are knowledgeable and they are not, they pay our salaries, they make the bulk of the purchases, they run the companies we work for.
Those bad hackers use Linux, hippies use Linux, RMS never showers, chicks dig Windows, Linux is a virus, GPL kills the U.S. economy, GPL kills market innovation, Linux is bad for the ecology, Linux-distro IPO overvalution burst the .com bubble. You name it, MS will say it, people will eat it up. If not MS, someone else would. Hell, I wouldnt be suprised if MS went to court ( on a pretense just to test the GPL in court) and argued that Linux is leveraging it's "free" ( as in beer) status and bundling everything under the fscking sun into its OS, and is therfore anti-competitive to the software industry as a whole.
So the ultimate test is this:
Until Linux as easy to install, use and has the applications that we all know and love (or hate), and is no more confusing or intimidating as Windows, AND have a defensive marketing strategy to fend off whatever crap MS or whoever else is threatened by Linux, OSS, GPL, or whatever, then maybe you have a chance of making MS eat our collective shorts. In short, until the OSS movement IS Microsoft.
P.S. Has anybody used XP yet? It looks like an OS for toddlers. Big, gawdy Fisher-Price/Tonka Truck icons and buttons. Very non-intimidating, and I'm using the professional beta. They really dumbed the OS down. I wonder what the final "server" release will be like? *shudder*
It's 1977, Bill Gates is fresh from dropping out of Harvard, and IBM is the big bad company, throwing around its corporate weight to discourage new entrants (like Amdahl) with competing technology. Within a decade the PC revolution and antitrust suits have brought IBM to its knees, from which they recover through innovation and (reasonably) fair corporate practices.
It's 2001, the Internet is an emerging technology, Microsoft is trying to take control while chasing off antitrust suits and a bad corporate image. Suppose the .NET initiative falls on its face (or suppose, like the PC, it is too successful and slips out of their grasp), and Linux starts to pick up some serious steam.
It's not farfetched to imagine, in 2024, that MS will be a good corporate citizen, having learned lessons about innovation and co-operation the hard way. It's also not hard to see that Linux and the GNU effort can have a role in such a positive transformation, by presenting an immovable obstacle to MS.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
I hope I've addressed the major issues with your post, and I hope I've been conclusive and not too redundant. Good night.
Error 404 - Sig Not Found
Then, as in the early 80s, when Microsoft were instrumental in the first truly personal computer - the mass-market computer, Microsoft truly brought computing to the masses. For the first time, the elderly, the young, and the technically illiterate were empowered to use computers. Although computers still betrayed some of their arcane origins of a time when computing was the real of those with genius IQs and degrees in mathematics, the computer was now almost as much a part of the home as the television and the microwave. This was achieved by always providing what the market needed. The Microsoft formula was to pile 'em high and sell 'em cheap. This formula was applied again and again over the years, slashing the price of software until everyone could afford it. Microsoft's success came through out-maneuvering the competition. Revolutionary was the approach that said that a spreadsheet, which at one would have cost over a thousand dollars, could be sold for a fraction of the price. This approach drove the computing revolution of the 80s and the net revolution of the 90s. Microsoft's aggressive approach made computing far more affordable, leading to today's society, where we truly can afford to have a computer on every desk. While competitors floundered - as IBM pursued their lumbering corporate path, as Apple chose to marginalize themselves by charging a premium for their product, and as the Unix vendors were tied to standardization committees and relics from the 60s - Microsoft recognized the potential of computing for the masses. By the launch of Windows 95 (at which time Linux was little more accessible to the masses than the punch-card computers of the 1950s), Microsoft's approach of providing the product the market wanted right now had made Bill Gates richer than Croesus, and the youngest billionare in history. Since that time Microsoft have continued to pursue their agenda of expedient computing, empowering thousands of small businesses, often without the funds to employ dedicated IT admin staff, to manage their own computer networks and to sell themselves on the web, via Microsoft's standardized point and click administration interface. Similarly, Microsoft's masterful integration of the internet within Windows means that for most people the internet MEANS Internet Explorer. This typifies the Microsoft approach - to first bring down the cost for the consumer (in this case to zero - it is now bizarre to think that web browsers could cost money), and to subsequently consolidate their position by making their product vastly superior to the competition. This brilliant formula has never failed - the consumer sees that he is benefiting and is happy to acquiesce. Over the past two decades, Microsoft have driven the computing revolution, generating billions of dollars in revenue, not just for themselves, but for the companies, small and large, who were able to compete thanks to the low barrier to entry erected by Microsoft. Fast forwarding to the present day and the imminent launch of Microsoft's new product, Windows XP, described as an end to frustration for the millions of computer users, who, unlike most of the readers of this article, have neither the time nor the inclination to discover the highly logical (but also deeply complicated) way that computing systems such as Windows or (especially) the *nix family of operating systems, work. Millions of dollars of research, of observation, funded by Microsoft's amazing success and commitment to research and development (currently four billion dollars a year), have gone to create an operating system that is the most intuitive yet, especially for people new to computing. For instance, Microsoft's testing uncovered the fact that 80% of users never discovered the functionality of the right mouse button, which has, since Windows 95, offered a variety of useful shortcuts to expedite common tasks. As such, the new operating system provides a new menu system replicating this functionality. The millions of dollars of research have been used to find what people do with their computers, and attempt to empower them to do that in an intuitive way, making computers more accessible than ever before. The new operating system is the most integrated ever, pursuing the Microsoft vision of a truly cohesive entertainment and networking center - a product where computing is a natural experience rather than a painful one, with effortless remote maintenance and inter-computer interaction. At the same time that Microsoft is on the brink of launching of a product that makes them feel 'super super excited', the competition is still hopeless, incapable of competing against the company that ensures its success by daring to give the consumer what he wants and at a price he can't refuse - Apple is still determined to occupy an overpriced niche, while the 'great open source hope', Linux, looks as far off as ever from being something your granny or a class of 11-year-olds could use. Particularly for Linux, the outlook looks bleak. No longer buffeted by the heady currents of the internet goldrush, Linux-based companies - which have never made any appreciable amount of money - appear to have reached their darkest hour yet. Just as the markets have started to recognize the absurdity of valuing websites with no apparent means of making money at billions of dollars, and are instead examining the underlying worth of companies, they are also recognizing that companies required by their underlying philosophy to give their product away, do not have significant revenue opportunities. As a result, the development of the interface (the most important part of a system for end users) of open source products - without a cent to spend on research - relies on ideas stolen directly from Windows. Despite this blatant copying (seen in all the popular open source desktop environments such as KDE and Gnome) and enormous goodwill to shoddy workmanship and incomplete and buggy software (the likes of which would not be tolerated from commercial software), even in supposedly 'complete' distributions, these desktops seem but a pale shadow of the real thing. The in-fighting and lack of commercial rigor of the Unix and open source world has left a system of wild inconsistencies and rough edges, with little consistency between 'competing' 'toolkits' and 'desktop environments' making Linux an operating system suitable only for those with patience with computers, a good deal of computing experience, and a stubborn streak. For everyone else, Linux remains something that is frustrating to use, with its bewildering array of arcane concepts (file permissions, symbolic links and compilers to install software (something users used to InstallShield would find troubling)) and inconsistencies that, because of the lack of revenues to fund research, haven't been ironed out. And although use of Linux would certainly be painful for most people, administration would truly be a nightmare. The almost total lack of co-operation between projects means that there is no consistent graphical configuration tool to match Windows' Control Panel. Despite all this, the overwhelming majority of those in the nerd and geek community - experts on computing who take joy in computing for its own sake - harbor deep-seated resentment of 'Micro$oft', peddler of 'Winblows', a resentment most ordinary people are unware of, and one that would they not understand if they were. The cause of the massive hatred of Microsoft is not entirely clear, but it appears to be a combination of factors. The ultimate cause of it in many cases is probably human nature, as there is no doubt that we are programmed to be resentful of success and to be envious of those who succeed - the hatred directed at other successful people demonstrated only too well how personal insecurities and feelings of inferiority, and, ultimately, that the person has failed as a human being by not succeeding, manifest themselves in hatred of people who have succeeded. That these feelings should be directed at a company largely responsible for the massively improved levels of prosperity brought by bringing computing to the masses, and without which, the world as we know it would be drastically different, is of no consequence, since as humans are essentially selfish beings, personal reassurance is a far more important emotion than altruism. There is no doubt that this is a very powerful emotion behind much of the Microsoft bashing - in the same way that other successful and life-enriching companies such as Starbucks have been attacked, apparently purely on the basis of their success, Microsoft's overwhelming success has also attracted it hatred. But it is more than that. What many geeks object to is Microsoft's new broom approach. For instance, there is a great deal of resentment at Microsoft's 'replacement' of the Netscape browser with a free alternative. For the end user, for the consumer, this was an enormously positive event, just as the advent of the mass-produced Ford motor car was a positive event in the early years of the 20th century, or Kodak's affordable camera was a positive event for mass photography, providing access to a camera for just 5 cents, the overpriced products made obsolete by a high-quality mass-produced and, most imporantly, dirt-cheap replacement. The resentment, which probably was in the past confined to those involved with the makers of the products that were made obsolete, now finds voice in a wider community of highly intelligent and articulate 'geeks', resentful in part that computing should become accessible to the uninitiated, thereby devaluing their skills, and in part too of the lack of regard for the old institutions - the willingness to boldly sweep away the archaic relics of the computing past, just as Henry Ford swept away the expensive and unreliable handbuilt cars with his production lines almost a century ago. And all the while things continue - small businesses and stock traders with adoration for Microsoft, the ordinary person with blithe indifference, and the geek community with pure hatred. Slashblots are only intended for entertainment purposes only! They can be seen about three times a day!
Slashblots are only intended for entertainment purposes only! They can be seen about three times a day!
Impact to the average slashdot reader? No.
Impact to business people who actually allocate money to buy things? Yes.
The average person assumes monetary success is the only success that matters. That's why people spend $$$ buying expensive status symbols like SUV's and huge houses.
Face it; even among slashdot readers, I doubt many people dream "I want to be poverty stricken my whole life while I write GPL'd software."
Business Logic: Microsoft makes lots of money. Therefore they must be successful. Therefore, they are the best people to help me be successful, make lots of money and waste it on a house in Atherton. If they tell me GPL'd software is bad, I'll give them more credit than some penniless granola telling me that MS is wrong. I mean really; if MS was wrong, they wouldn't make lots of money, would they?