Slashdot Mirror
MS "Software Choice" Campaign: A Clever Fraud
Bruce Perens writes "Microsoft's new "Software Choice" campaign is all for your right to choose... as long as you choose Microsoft. It's too bad that Intel and the U.S. Government couldn't see through the rhetoric. Read the full story at The Register." Note that California will soon be considering - like Peru - a law to mandate open source software in government. The gloves are off - on both sides.
Exactly. If you work with Microsoft Windows XP every day, and you consider it thoroughly, you find that the situation is worse than people commonly say.
If you haven't seen this article about Windows XP problems before, it may interest you. I wrote it to try to show the aggressiveness behind Windows: Windows XP shows the Direction Microsoft is Going.
If you have seen the article before, and you view it again, reload your browser, because the article was recently updated.
It's wonderful that government agencies are beginning the realize the liability of using a closed, proprietary, software product from a company that seems to care more about control than about making money.
And think how much more money will flow into the lobbyists. I wonder if California just trys to make these laws to bring in millions for lobbying and even MORE money.
Like legislating CO2 emissions, the automakers are dumping piles of cash into the state to fight it.
Interesting idea, discuss making controversial laws, pull millions into the state economy.
Probably not. Consider the fact that the majority of lawyers in Washington DC work for Microsoft - they have a HUGE lobby effect on our government. Combine that with their cash flow - they can pretty much buy whatever vote, or avoid whatever damages in court, they care to. We have seen this over and over again.
In order to effectivly release microsoft's strangle hold on the industry we need to do several things:
It's these kind of sleazy tactics that microsoft likes to use as well... case in point... NOW SUDDENLY they think they have a patent on portions of openGL - why? because SGI sold them certain IP rights (which is probably illegal to begin with to something that is open source).
Patents and IP rights on software and algorithms simply don't make sense, and as we have seen over and over again, only result in someone trying to lock the industry and drain money from everyone and everycompany.
Secondly... outlaw, or EXTREMELY CURTAIL lobbies. While lobbies *might* be important, they are too dangerous. There are much better ways for the government to receive information (e.g., hauling up experts in front of congressional hearings, etc). Lobbies are funded by people who DO NOT represent te rest of us. They have self-interests at heart only, and they swing deals with government that do not help the people. This includes MICROSOFT, which has a HUGE lobby effort in DC.
Additionally, why would ANY government (especially foreign ones) in their right mind go with Microsoft. Microsoft is a US company. If I was a foreign government I would DEFINATLY want to have control over the source code so that I could be sure that Redmond isn't reading my sensitive government email. Again... think about it folks. I'm sure the US is RIGHT BEHIND microsoft in pusing their software to other countries - why? cause Bunny Pants Bush would have his ear to classified communications planet wide. I wonder who is REALLY behind the microsoft push into other countires (I can hear the meeting right now... BILLYGOATS: Say Bushie Boy... we can let you eavesdrop on russia, brittan, afganistan, but ONLY if you look the other way, forgive us our wrongs, and help us push our standards on the rest of the world. BUNNYPANTS: Sounds good... say, watch me drive this golf ball).
It's unfortunate, but the giants such as Microsoft have virtually ruined our industry. From their crap software to their crap policies and lies and their holy-bug-ridden-virus-prone *secure* software - it is all crap and they need to be slapped down seriously for trying to fuck with every industry and government out there.
Now contrast this with the situation if our researcher had GPLed Collaborate. Everyone who paid taxes (and everyone else as well, of course) benefits from the technology. MS can still distribute it with Windows, but if they want to "improve" it, they have to give the new version back to the people who paid for it.
Surely the GPL is better in this situation? I don't mean this as a rhetorical quetion, I'm genuinely interested to know whether you think there's a flaw in my argument.
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
Where does Microsoft go if Open Source software ultimately wins out and makes the operating system a no-cost commodity just like the web browser? Long ago, the web browser could only be had for a fee, and MS commoditized it by making it free, because they still had other products to sell. These other products were ultimately more important and more expensive, so for them it was a good choice. Linux and its open source brethren could do the exact same thing to the operating system, and Microsoft really doesn't have anything else that is more expensive or more important than their OS. Office uses Windows function calls that aren't available to anyone else, and if they wanted to port it to Linux, they would be forced to reveal a considerable amount of their precious intellectual property that they seem so convinced should be secret.
Because of this, Microsoft would be rather reluctant to port their Office software to a platform like Linux. But this hurts them more than it hurts anyone else. Programs like OpenOffice and StarOffice are maturing, and are approaching the professional quality of the incumbent MS Office. And, in the case of OpenOffice, it is free to use and the source is available to modify. OpenOffice will make the office suite a free commodity, just as Linux will make the operating system a free commodity, just as Internet Explorer made the web browser a free commodity (for the masses).
Once Microsoft's main products have been made free commodities, what has been left for Microsoft? Do they continue trying to sell expensive bloatware that has been commoditized by superior products? Do they seek legislation to protect their monopoly from the same government that is failing to punish them for said monopoly? Or do they go the way of IBM, go quiet for a few years, and then come back as a support company? In the recent past they have been doing the first option, but it appears that time is running out on that. They are now, evidently, attempting to do the second option. This is foolish, however, because this is America, land of free markets, and the people really won't take well to being forced to purchase anything. Ultimately, and probably in the relatively near future, Microsoft will be forced to move over to the support side of the business. They will not go out of business, but they will never again see the infinite billions they currently enjoy.
Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
In Practice, it seems you are mistaken. BeOS used several GNU utilities (such as BASH), but they were not forced to GPL BeOS.
It's been a long time.
My parents computer connects to the internet via M$N (I'm trying to get them to change), and if they want to use any POP3 email account they have to use Outlook Express to access it. Outlook (98 at least) will not work. You cannot access email from another program, which everybody else allows, and you must send all your email through them, rather than through a university account or other. They said their changes were "industry standards", so I (in separate emails) asked them which other ISPs required you to send all email through their SMTP program, which other email programs required the use of "Secure Password Authentication" (probably trademarked by M$ so that nobody else can), which other ISPs required you to use Outlook Express, and why M$ was specifically forbidding the use of a program I bought from them for email access (Outlook). I did not get a response to any of these, despite the fact that I submitted them in various different ways multiple times.
Why would they bother to goof with the books? They've never had to shift money around to inflate profits - in fact, if anything, they've shifted money into the future in order to not beat the street too much in a particular quarter, and to try to spread the good news out into the future.
That practice *IS* cooking the books!!!
In that future time which is spread with the current good news, they will be 'meeting expectations' when in fact profits are down.