Microsoft's Worst Enemy: Themselves

KobyBoy writes "Saw this story posted on OSnews this morning. "Microsoft's biggest threat isn't Linux, OpenOffice, or any piece of software at all--its themselves. Over the last eighteen months two distinctly different Microsoft cultures have emerged, often in opposition to each other." You can get the full article at Sudhian Media."

Comments

Control

[deanj]

This all comes down to control. What Bill wants, Bill gets, at least within his own company. You can bet your life that if Gates wanted to do something within the company, they'd turn on a dime, just the way they did back in 1995 to support Internet stuff

Re:Control

[KaiKaitheKai]

Yeah, that darned "Internet stuff." Too bad it never got off the ground, it could have been big...

Re:Control

[sql*kitten]

This all comes down to control. What Bill wants, Bill gets, at least within his own company. You can bet your life that if Gates wanted to do something within the company, they'd turn on a dime, just the way they did back in 1995 to support Internet stuff

Yes and no. The dissonance between the two cultures could be a sign that the "cult of Bill" is waning. An autocratic leader can only be effective if everyone "drinks the koolaid". It's very hard to fight an entrenched culture, and many CEOs have failed because they couldn't get buy-in from the rank and file. I've seen this first hand, when ordinary staffers made no secret of their contempt for senior management... it's the death knell for a company.

Perhaps Microsoft are running out of the old-skool staff and the new blood they're hiring doesn't automatically defer to Bill on every decision. I'd imagine that Microsoft people are very poor at playing the sort of corporate political games that are taken for granted elsewhere, the old Microsoft culture actively discouraged it. If they've hired a bunch of people who are politically adept, they will be very difficult to control.

Re:Control

[Jason Earl]

Microsoft's problems do not stem from some sort of corporate culture clash, and I can guarantee you that when Bill speaks people working at Microsoft still jump.

The problem at Microsoft is that the people running the show (and that includes most Microsoft developers) are more concerned about Microsoft's stock price than the long term survival of the company. Microsoft stock is still priced for rapid growth, and so Microsoft has to come up with a way to provide that growth or Microsoft shares will eventually lose a significant portion of their present value. If you think that Microsoft's $40 Billion is an impressive number calculate what Bill Gates would lose personally if Microsoft's stock lost half of its value.

The question then becomes where does Microsoft hope to gain its future growth. Linux is cutting deeply into Microsoft on the server side, and there is fierce competition (and very low margins) on the embedded front. That leaves Windows and MS Office, as all of Microsoft's other business units are actually losing money. The XBox is Microsoft's best bet for a new significant revenue stream, but Sony appears to be taking Microsof to lunch on this front.

That's not all of Microsoft's problems either. The PC market continues to be soft, and MS Office is being replaced on the low-end models of nearly every major manufacturer with Corel's PerfectOffice.

So what does Microsoft do to keep growing their revenue? They raise prices, that's what. Microsoft knows that their existing customers have large investments in their Microsoft software. Replacing this software would be very difficult, and so Microsoft is making these customers pay the price of their misplaced loyalty.

Re:Control

[sql*kitten]

I tend to agree with the original poster, however I fail to see how differing ideas within a company would signal its decline.

Differing ideas are one thing, differing cultures are something else. Traditionally, Microsoft have had a reputation for being very adademic and meritocratic in their decision making. Ideas are exchanged and debated, and eventually the best one wins (in theory at least). That assumes that everyone is basically moving towards the same goal, and while they have their own ideas on how to get there, their egos aren't tied up in having their personal idea be the chosen one. What matters is the goal.

But what if some people aren't so much interested in the goal per se, as they are in building their own little empire on the way to the goal? An old-skool Microserf will fully expect to argue the case, then sit back, and let the idea be considered on its merits. They won't be able to cope with a senior manager who does not have the best interests of the organization as a whole in mind. That's what I mean by a culture clash.

Possibly one of their biggest strengths (other than their monopoly) would be differing ideas among upper management.

It was when the senior management was largely comprised of Microsoft lifers who joined in the early days of the company and had worked their way up. But it's very different when those people find themselves competing with professional managers brought in as lateral hires.

Re:Control

[mugnyte]

I read it differently. MS sees an opportunity to finally get all content digital and controlled. Movies, banking, games, education, etc, could all be managed securely if everyone played by the rules. Shaping up the OS, as the author sees, is part of it.

MS's "business side" realizes that Content Is King when all the gizmos are installed. Content providers are holding off until security is in place (draconian as it is). So we'll have crazy licensing schemes, Palladium, etc.

I think we're going to see a much bigger walk into the AOL-with-key-and-lock (fubar as it may be) items from MS. Media Player may just be evolving into the next Tivo that tries to please everyone.

So this side bunches together with the salepitchers to hold our hands and walk us into The New Way. It's gonna be scary.

The "strong" OS of XP and stable round of versions coming out now are an effort to woo the business world into getting MS in the server room, the media room, the bank, etc. Remember, besides Linux there are a lot of AS/400-esqe boxes still running that it would like to replace. MS could care less that you have dual boot on your PC. It wants those juicy corporate licenses, and now it wants to build a world for new licences where it doesn exist: Media Management.

Would you be surprised if MS announced it will be hosting and delivering first-run movies online through MSN, in a partnership with studio XYZ? If you look into MSN's portal, you'll see this is the obvious evolutionary step about to take place. That's big FU money, IMO. They're not going to rush, but I expect it soon.

mug

Re:Control

[sheldon]

Linux is cutting deeply into Microsoft on the server side

Not really, Microsoft marketshare is still growing. In 2001 it grew by 3%.

The PC market continues to be soft, and MS Office is being replaced on the low-end models of nearly every major manufacturer with Corel's PerfectOffice.

Again, this isn't all that critical either.

Like you said, the problem is that in order for Microsoft to show rapid growth they need to be able to expand markets. That's difficult to do, Linux isn't cutting into Microsoft's server market, it's cutting into Microsoft's server growth potential markets by replacing Unix. If not for Linux, those Unix servers would be replaced by Win2k servers.

Similarly with the low priced machines. If not for Corel, chances are those machines would sell with no bundled software in order to keep prices down. It just cuts into the potential sales.

This isn't just a problem for Microsoft, it's a problem for many companies. One of the challenges the stock market gives is that there is an expectation for growth. Companies that hit a plataeu usually get hammered in the markets.

Re:Control

[michael_cain]

If I may summarize, MS faces enormous problems in the not-so-distant future in transforming themselves from a hot-shot growth company into a mature firm. Their share price will not continue to double, so they won't be able to use options as currency (how would you like to be a relatively new hire with MS options at $120?). Some of their newer ventures may end up being profitable -- I would bet on MSN, particularly if AOL continues to screw up -- but the profit margins will not be nearly as good as those for Windows or Office. They have been unsuccessful, so far, in finding the next big thing in software that everyone wants.

MS is not the only firm with this problem. I would also add Intel and Cisco to the list of large successful tech companies whose share price is way too high for their realistic growth prospects. I have a friend at Intel who reported a rumor that Intel's upper management was shocked at a recent meeting with investment bankers who told them that they were a mature firm, not a growth company, and their share price would adjust downwards drastically as the stock market realized that fact.

Re:Control

[Asprin]

Hey, does anybody else out there think that this has less to do with Bill and more to do with Monkeyboy? AFAIK, Bill hasn't been involved in the daily operations since we wandered off into the woods to meditate about the interenet in '97. Steve's the guy that's really been running things.

...or am I extremely deluded?

Re:Control

[juan2074]

If not for Linux, those Unix servers would be replaced by Win2k servers.

Bad assumption.

Win2K is not a good replacement for UNIX in too many cases. And if Linux did not exist, those systems could have been kept in place (not replaced at all) or replaced with one of the free BSD variants (which would exist whether Linux was out there or not).

Your argument that those UNIX servers would have been replaced by Win2K servers is much like the claim by the RIAA that every time someone downloads a song for free, that represents a lost sale.

Maybe in a few cases, but not in every case.

Re:Control

[acroyear]

Well, Cringley always said (he repeats it with at least 3 examples throughout his book) that M$ is one of those companies that always tries to do things the way IBM does, unless it can do it better. IBM, according to him, isn't (or wasn't in 1992) in the business of making computers or software, it was mostly in the business of making managers -- personal empires meant everything, regardless of how much or who did the work. The designer of the PC was kicked out of his own division and moved to some "safe" place, because his job wasn't really to build the PC, it was to build the infrastructure (the "empire") needed to actually build a PC.

So now, M$ is in the same position -- it happens when you have divisions compared to and fighting themselves, which always happens when you run out of serious outside competition. Office competes internally for resources with Windows, competing with XBox, competing with the languages and Visual Studio, competing with .NET (until .NET gets eaten up by libraries, which results in it being divided up between Windows, Office, and VS). You aren't really judged within M$ by how well you do against the competition (outside of XBox, there really still isn't any -- M$'s press department, marketting, and legal teams and the board take care of that issue which isn't a technical issue to them, its a PR issue, and their PR is again IBM's -- nobody got fired for buying IBM, so now nobody gets fired for buying Microsoft).

Yes, M$ is competing within itself, because to them there's no other competition. And its been like that within the company for almost a decade now. And like IBM in the 70s and 80s, each division is in that tricky position of competing with other divisions in size, market share, and profit share, while at the same time doing nothing that potentially damages another core business (e.g., the Visual Studio team can't do anything that might break .NET or .NET integration, or come up with a better .NET than .NET does). Just like IBM crippled their PCs with no networking or terminal emulation, because doing so would have hurt their cash cow of a mainframe terminal business.

Re:Control

[Melantha_Bacchae]

Microsoft's DRM empire will be a bust. The only way they could have succeeded would have been with the Hollings bill mandating their DRMOS as law. Hollings has lost his position as head of the commerce committee, and no longer can use that post as a platform from which to launch his bill.

Without a legal mandate, DRM will fail due to customer rejection. Customers will not like DRM raking up charges on their credit card quietly like Microsoft believes it should. They will not like loosing all their licenses in a computer malfunction and having to obtain or buy new ones.

The next few years are going to be a bit messy, with Microsoft and the media sharks trying all sorts of stunts. But unless they can somehow hook into the "War on Terror", Microsoft won't be getting their kingdom, and they and the media sharks may not survive the wrath of their customers.

Windows: "Go talk to my friend, an 800 pound monopoly-abusing gorilla!"
Mac: "And here's my good buddy, the 66,000 ton Godzilla!"
Godzilla: Stomp! ;)

Re:Control

[elemental23]

The internet? Is that thing still around?

(AABF20)

Re:Control

[sheldon]

You appear to be making a number of really bad assumptions in your own analysis.

The first being that Unix is somehow a superior OS for certain solutions. That's been proven to be wrong numerous times over. I'd appreciate it if you could back up that implied claim with some examples.

The primary reason for migrating from say a Sun Sparc box to a x86 box is one of hardware cost. The other mitigating factor in this equation is the cost of work to rewrite the solution to work in the new environment.

It is far less work to port the solution from Solaris to Linux.

However, this claim "Win2K is not a good replacement for UNIX in too many cases." is simply not a factor in this equation. Any situation where Win2k is not a good replacement for UNIX is also going to be true for Linux, mainly limited by the x86 architecture.

Re:Control

[Jason Earl]

I agree with you completely about your Linux server comment. While there obviously are some cases where Linux replaces Windows on the server (I know of some cases first hand :), Linux is primarily damaging to Microsoft because it is keeping UNIX shops from switching to Windows 2000. Marketshare would be great for Microsoft, but their stock price reflects growth and 3% simply isn't going to cut it. Aside from that Linux really limits how much Microsoft can charge for their server OS (which is why their profit margin is so much lower in their Server business unit).

My point was really that Microsoft could not only make their customers happy, but they could bury the threat of Free Software in one fell swoop by simply lowering their prices dramatically. The reason that Linux, OpenOffice and and the rest of Free Software is still a threat to Microsoft is that Microsoft's customers are tired of being treatedly so badly. The reason that Microsoft hasn't done this has nothing to do with protecting its business long term. Instead it has everything to do with protecting Microsoft's stock price for the short term.

Corporate management should focus on the business (profits, revenues, margins, marketshare, etc.), and not on the stock price. As we all know the stock price can have little or nothing to do with the long term viability of the company. When management starts making decisions based on how Wall Street will react (as opposed to how the decision will effect the bottom line), then the company is in serious trouble.

Re:Control

[Jason Earl]

Yes, the difference is that Microsoft is losing money on the XBox, and the more the console sells, the more money they lose.

Microsoft spent too much money on hardware, and the fact that they can't integrate their chipset (since they bought major components from several manufacturers) means that they aren't really ever going to be able to lower the price of their hardware. Just because Microsoft can afford to give away XBoxes at the same price as a PS2 does not mean that this is a smart business practice.

Gaining marketshare is neat, but if you have to lose money doing it then you had better make sure that you are driving your competitor out of business.

Re:Control

[Citizen of Earth]

Microsoft stock is still priced for rapid growth, and so Microsoft has to come up with a way to provide that growth or Microsoft shares will eventually lose a significant portion of their present value.

I'm sure that they will when their monopolized software categories become more commoditized.

But for a stock poised for rapid growth, it has been completely flat for the past two years, and is still trading at less than half of its all-time high of $120. Their rapid-growth stock hasn't been growing at all, but many of their salary and business strategies require rapid growth, and this is why they are aggressively pissing off their customers to try to re-inflate their stock price.

Ultimately, I think that MS itself will be the force that breaks its own monopoly (with an assist from Linux, OpenOffice & Mozilla), which will precipitate its downfall because the monopolized areas provide the funding for the whole operation (save the big piggy bank).

Re:Control

[alfredw]

Blockquoth the poster:

So what does Microsoft do to keep growing their revenue? They raise prices, that's what. Microsoft knows that their existing customers have large investments in their Microsoft software. Replacing this software would be very difficult, and so Microsoft is making these customers pay the price of their misplaced loyalty.

An excellent point, but not entirely correct. Microsoft has one other option available to it: increase revenue by increasing volume. The market is already saturated, so the only way they can hope to accomplish this is by making people actually want to buy into the next upgrade.

MS's latest move is .NET, which is, as I'm sure many MS developers would agree, is actually a big step forward. It certainly isn't perfect, but it is undoubtedly superior to COM and COM+ from the development perspective. So what? Well, if MS can get application developers onto .NET (perhaps by slashing/eliminating prices on Visual Studio and MSDN?) then they can get real leverage over their customer base to pay for the upgrades.

After all, if the 2004 version of your tax software or your image processor with cool new feature X, or your spanky new 3D game won't run on Win 98, you have a positive incentive to upgrade. (Keep in mind that Win 95 + 98 + NT4 still make up a larger install base than 2000 + XP, and ME sucks too much to matter) If MS can triple its upgrade rate, it can triple revenue without touching the price for the end-user. The catch, of course, is that all of these (except 95) are .NET compatible. Will MS poison the architecture for their own gain?

Time will tell :)

Re:Control

[Jason Earl]

Microsoft has always been a nifty development platform. Heck, I believe that is the reason that Windows won out over OS/2. Microsoft courted developers much harder than IBM did.

However, upgrade cycles are going to continue to be a difficult problem for Microsoft. Even if they do get massive uptake of Windows XP and Office XP they still will have several years before they will have something else to sell, and this time they won't be competing with crappy Windows 98, but a very decent Windows XP. Unless Microsoft comes up with something stunning people are going to be even more likely to stay where they are at. The fact of the matter is that the PC industry is past its growth stage, and the software that Microsoft specializes in (OSes and Office suites) are becoming commodities. Say what you want about Linux or OpenOffice, but Microsoft is not going to be able to get away with 85% profit margins for too much longer.

Re:Control

[sheldon]

I agree with everything you said.

"My point was really that Microsoft could not only make their customers happy, but they could bury the threat of Free Software in one fell swoop by simply lowering their prices dramatically. "

It's interesting to note that had BSDI, Coherent, Dell Unix, whatever been available back in 1992 for about $100, chances are Linux would never have come to fruition. Many of the GNU tools would then not have seen widespread use, even gcc if the compiler had only been $50 or so.

Many years later, after these Unix companies were already losing marketshare, they turned around and started offering it for cheap. But by then it was too late, the mindshare had been lost.

Re:Control

[Jason Earl]

Excellent examples, and an excellent discussion. This is precisely why I keep coming back to /.

Re:Control

[Gleef]

sheldon wrote:

It's interesting to note that had BSDI, Coherent, Dell Unix, whatever been available back in 1992 for about $100, chances are Linux would never have come to fruition.

It would still have been written, but it probably wouldn't have been as popular among developers as quickly; so it wouldn't have gotten as good as it has.

Also, don't forget SCO, almost certainly the most popular x86 unix in 1992. If they had made cheap or free student and developer versions, and had lower prices for production versions, the x86 unix market could look very different today. Not that I'm complaining, I much prefer Linux (or even BSDI) to SCO ;-).

Many of the GNU tools would then not have seen widespread use, even gcc if the compiler had only been $50 or so.

Emacs and gcc had widespread use on commercial Unixes (including BSDI) in 1992. The BSDI boxes that I have used all had both programs installed.

Re:Control

[Gropo]

It was when the senior management was largely comprised of Microsoft lifers who joined in the early days of the company and had worked their way up. But it's very different when those people find themselves competing with professional managers brought in as lateral hires.

Graig Mundie was one of the first royal a-holes to join these ranks. You'll recall Mr. Mundie was the M$ VP a couple years back that decided to go on that major 'LINUX SUCKS' FUD crusade. My pappa was hired by the guy into Alliant Computer Systems back in the gay-80's - at which time he displayed extreme arrogance in the fact that pappa was able to summize (due to it coming from a submarine) that the "director" he needed to take a call with (cutting in to the interview time) was XxXx, a weekend naval sub warrior.

A little research on the company by a prospective employee and Mr. Mundie takes it as an ego-blow. The 'vendetta vibe' over this event haunted my pa until he wisely left that sinking ship for another 2 years later...

Court order not needed

[KaiKaitheKai]

Well, it didn't take a supreme court order to split Microsoft in two.

Re:Court order not needed

[Soko]

As funny as that statement is, I'd rather it be modded as insightful, rather than funny.

Imagine, if you will, that CmdrTaco's little icon joke about the Borg is indeed correct. OK, now, imagine that we manage to insert a little bit of autonomy (by college education, for example) into one of the drones. Remember Hugh? Seems OSS has hurt Microsoft in ways that can't be measured quite yet on the balance sheet.

I've always thought that the best way to dismantle a machine is from the inside. Here's more credence to that thought, IMHO. Actually, my first thought when I read the article was "Merry Christmas, Soko - there really is a Windows user with a clue."

Soko

You Need Only Consider IIS...

[BigBlockMopar]

Of course Microsoft is their own worst enemy. Who else would allow IIS or Outlook - a security hole which masquerades as an e-mail client - to be some of their flagship products?

The security holes are even more annoying than the damned animated paperclip.

Re:You Need Only Consider IIS...

[DalTech]

My animated paperclip went on a bender and refuses to speak to me.

Re:You Need Only Consider IIS...

[BigBlockMopar]

My animated paperclip went on a bender and refuses to speak to me.

The last time I heard mine was a dying scream as I mounted my FAT32 partition, navigated to it, and typed the magic letters:

# rm -rf *

It was high, blood-curdling, but strangely satisfying. Like the sound of the welds in a Honda's body popping as the car crusher takes it down to 3 apples tall, then the wet thunk of a cast-aluminum engine block cracking like a flowerpot in a vise.

Mercifully, when I had to install Excel on Wine because OpenOffice doesn't do something as fscking simple as a polynomial regression, the damned paperclip didn't work.

Re:You Need Only Consider IIS...

[joib]

Mercifully, when I had to install Excel on Wine because OpenOffice doesn't do something as fscking simple as a polynomial regression, the damned paperclip didn't work.


Well, when you need math there's for example R and Octave instead of that excel crap.

Re:You Need Only Consider IIS...

[inode_buddha]

for the nth time.... the last I saw Clippy, I unbent him to clean some body parts...

Re:You Need Only Consider IIS...

[Yokaze]

> because OpenOffice doesn't do something as fscking simple as a polynomial regression

Grace would be a less drastic solution. :)

Not to mention Octave, which might be a little bit too complex for this matter. Here, the function for squares polynomial regression polyfit

Re:You Need Only Consider IIS...

[Selfbain]

The paperclip talks to me. It tells me to do things.

well,

[kingofnopants]

Well, this proves it. Microsoft is everyone's worst enemy

Eugenia

[Illuminati Member]

Watch out poster, you may feel the wrath of Eugenia (head of osnews.org). She claims to be all about free OS's and such, but the moment you directly quote the site (like in a comment to avoid slashdotting), she immediately gets angry and lashes out. You directly quoted the article!
Be wary!

Re:Eugenia

[Joey7F]

What does STFU mean? A google search only yields results that say "What does STFU mean?"

--Joey

Reminds me of another company

[TWX_the_Linux_Zealot]

Microsoft's biggest threat isn't Linux, OpenOffice, or any piece of software at all--its themselves

When a Time Warner executive stated that using PVR technology was stealing, right as AOL Time Warner dumped tons of money into Tivo, should indicate a lot about corporate culture these days.

That Time Warner executive should have been fired. He could have even faced lawsuits by AOL Time Warner stockholders, for directly going against (and possibly reducing value) of the parent company.

Re:Reminds me of another company

[rlowe69]

That Time Warner executive should have been fired ... for directly going against (and possibly reducing value) of the parent company.

Let's be rhetorical for a minute:

What's more valuable to AOL/Time Warner and its shareholders? A billion dollar entertainment industry or a million dollar PVR industry that may be dead in a few years?

Re:Reminds me of another company

[afidel]

How about both? The entertainment industry will not fall to Tivo, or just about any other technology. Remember that the industry has called this death knell with every major technology advancement, from the vcr, DAT, CD's, online direct distribution etc. And yet every year the industries post larger and larger profits. Technology and ease of access to their products helps the industry so long as they take the bull by the horns and controll it, when they try to quench a technology (with the exception of DAT) they lose a market.

Re:Reminds me of another company

[TWX_the_Linux_Zealot]

What happens when that million dollar technology booms into something huge, and surpasses that currently billion dollar industry? Remember, the RIAA got on the bandwagon too late, and mp3s, streaming, and high bandwidth are causing them lots of headaches now. Had they been in it from the beginning, this wouldn't be nearly so big of a problem, in their eyes, as it is now.

If the media industries that are still 'safe' invest in technology that will do some of the neat things that we as consumers want, but still leave them in ultimate control, they'll be happy. They won't go away. AOL Time Warner investing in Tivo gives AOL Time Warner some input into the future functionality of the device. This lets them shape what happens, before everyone and their brother has 1,000 movies in divx format on their hard drives.

Re:Reminds me of another company

[91degrees]

The current relative value of different sectors is largely irrelevent. The corporate view of a company with a diverse range of divisiuons sees each division in terms of two perpendicular components - Market share and growth of sector. Ideally we would like to have a large market share of a fast growing sector (so called Star businesses). The PVR market is a potentially fast growing sector, so they need to get their market share as high as possible.

A large market share of a slow growth industry is simply a cash cow. Time Warner own a large chunk of the media industry. The size of this chunk is unlikely to change in the near future, but it does provide them with a steady stream of revenue that they can invest in the fast moving technologies to maximise their own market share.

If the PVR market dies, then that's not too much of a problem. An expensive disappointment perhaps, but business is all about risks. It's no longer a threat to the exisiting business model, so they know they can invest the money in other potential growth areas. Businesses do not succeed by resting on their laurels.

This is a gross oversimplification, but the basic rules apply.

Re:Reminds me of another company

[kawika]

>> That Time Warner executive should have been fired.

Great plan, if you want to see Time Warner die. Once employees know the penalty for thinking outside the corporate party line is immediate dismissal, you'll get a company full of managers who are too timid to challenge any decision regardless of how stupid it seems to be.

Well-reasoned dissent and debate is important to any decision making process. The site is slashdotted so I can't read the original article, but is it just possible that MS is encouraging such debate internally to see whose arguments hold water?

Re:Reminds me of another company

[RedX]

What's more valuable to AOL/Time Warner and its shareholders? A billion dollar entertainment industry or a million dollar PVR industry that may be dead in a few years?

Funny, wonder if TW shareholders had similar thoughts a few years back when AOL (the same AOL that *bought* TW) was just a part of the million dollar online service industry?

Re:Reminds me of another company

[angle_slam]

Some organizations are so large that one part doesn't know what they other part is doing. You think AOL Time Warner has it bad as an information provider that is somewhat invested in technology? How about Sony which is not only a huge information provider, but is also a huge technology provider. What Sony Music wants is not necessarily what Sony Consumer Electronics wants.

Re:Reminds me of another company

[rlowe69]

How about both? The entertainment industry will not fall to Tivo, or just about any other technology.

Of course that statement is true, but let's not dilute ourselves. The truth of the matter is that without entertainment to record, the PVR is useless, not the other way around.

The point I was trying to make is that AOL/TW shooting themselves in the foot over a PVR isn't even CLOSE to shooting themselves in the foot over their entertainment business to protect the PVR business. If it came down to it, it would be an easy decision.

That AOL/TW exec simply has his priorities straight, whether we agree with him or not.

Re:Reminds me of another company

[RickHunter]

Yes, and do you know why their profits keep going up? Because they keep crying wolf. That makes politicians fear for the economy and thus, their jobs. Which means that the entertainment industry gets to virtually dictate legislation. Ever wonder how the "blank recordable media" tax came to be?

They get the best of both worlds. The technology adds value to their business (after, of course, the original innovators are crushed and the tech is in the hands of safe companies) and they get legislation to "protect" them from the technology by strengthening their monopoly.

Re:Reminds me of another company

[jedidiah]

Well reasoned dissent is fine inside the company. As soon as sedition leaves the office and becomes public, the perpetrators should rightly get the axe. This is especially true when such "dissent" is better characterized as slandering the customer.

Public disagreement != private disagreement.

Re:Reminds me of another company

[ppanon]

Of course that statement is true, but let's not dilute ourselves.

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

Re:Reminds me of another company

[jafuser]

I think the word "stealing" (with the quotes) is the latest buzzword to get your product to sell more units to the 18-30 crowd. Therefore, the statement could have been deliberate to increase sales.

Mac vs Apple ][

[zanderredux]

Sounds like the Mac vs Apple ][ fights that took place at Apple.

Creative destruction anyone?

Re:Mac vs Apple ][

[Lt Razak]

Time to watch "Pirates of Silicon Valley" again!!

Excellent article

[billmaly]

It puts into words my own feelings about MS that I have not been able to articulate so eloquently. I like Windows 2000, it works and works well (for me). I totally agree that the marketing dweebs will ruin MS's dominance, and drive users to Linux. Linux is still not ready for everyone's PC.....but the day is coming, maybe in Red Hat 10 or Mandrake 11....MS needs to wake up and realize that we don't like being spied on.

Re:Excellent article

[Alien Being]

"ruin MS's dominance"

And Jonas Salk ruined polio.

Send in John Stossel

[thefinite]

I love seeing a collection of Microsoft's misdeeds in one article. It makes for a fun read. What is really needed is a big expose kind of article a la John Stossel's recent show on the drug companies. Stossel would have a lot more interesting stuff for a show on MS. Unfortunately, he would also have to face a legion of MS lawyers, even if none of what would be broadcast would be libel.

So open source isn't good enough...

[anarchima]

That's basically what the author of that article is saying. As of yet, the open source community is not putting out software, or indeed an operating system, that can compete with Microsoft Windows. Until it can do this, it shouldn't expect more users to come flocking to their programs. End of discussion?

Re:So open source isn't good enough...

[Bilbo]

> Until it can do this, it shouldn't expect more users to come flocking to their programs.

Did you read the same article as I did???

The point of the article had very little to do with the merits of OS software. He was merely stating the fact that he himself had very little experience with Linux.

The point of the article was that, no matter how good or bad your product is, or how firmly entrenched you monopoly may be, if you piss off your customers long enough, you will eventually strangle yourself to death.

Or, to put it another way, "The bigger they are, the harder they fall..."

Re:So open source isn't good enough...

[Jugalator]

I find that a bad way to put it, and it doesn't reflect his opinions very well either. I'd put his thoughts this way:

As *soon* as Linux give him a reason to go through the hassle of installing and learning a new OS environment, he'd easily do that and (quote) "unlike two years ago, I can see it potentially occuring today".

So he's definitely not telling us open source operating systems aren't "worthy competitors", but more like closer to make the Windows user base switch than ever due to the "attidue, lying and marketing BS" of Microsoft.

Re:So open source isn't good enough...

[Bilbo]

> Wow, such insight. No wonder this got posted on the front page of $la$hdot.

Ummmm.... yea. The other point of the article, interestingly enough, is that Microsoft doesn't seem to get it. In fact, it seems to be a pretty common trait among large corporations that a large fraction of their top level executives seem to get so wrapped up in themselves that they don't seem to be able to comprehend simple relationships like this. They have been so successful wringing every last cent out of their customers that they don't even notice when they start to flee in droves, and when they do notice, they respond by simply turning up the pressure, which in turn, accelerates the hemoraging

Re:So open source isn't good enough...

[pod]

Essentially, the point is not that Linux is not good enough or unworthy, but that, as bad as Windows and spyware and licensing is, it's not THAT bad, not bad enough to switch to and learn something completely different. It's not compelling enough. But if trends continue, that day will come. It's just inertia and path of least resistance.

Re:So open source isn't good enough...

[BigBir3d]

As *soon* as Linux give him a reason to go through the hassle of installing and learning a new OS environment

When was the last time you installed a major distro? They all are easy to do now. A few require more input that say, installing Windows 2000, but then again it is easy.

Please stop spreading the FUD that it is hard to install/setup a linux machine. It just isn't true anymore.

And your reference of "learning a new OS environment" is weak also. Gnome/KDE are very close copies of Windows 98. Instead of it being the "Start" button it is called something else. It still acts the same, producing the same results (more or less).

Whether they should emulate win98 some much or not is for a different discussion...

Re:So open source isn't good enough...

[Bilbo]

I haven't gone back to read the article a second time, but as I remember, he is saying that people are beginning to leave Microsoft. His specific examples include numerous Open Source initiatives at various governmental levels (both inside and outside the US), and in the schools.

The author himself admits that he hasn't gotten off his duff and tried Linux, but the general tone of the article was that he was quickly approaching that point.

Again: You can piss people off for a little while and they will forgive you, but continued displays of arrogance are eventually met with your customers dumping you.

Re:So open source isn't good enough...

[Bug-Y2K]

The point of the article was that, no matter how good or bad your product is, or how firmly entrenched you monopoly may be, if you piss off your customers long enough, you will eventually strangle yourself to death.

So, how does that explain Quark, Inc.?

Re:So open source isn't good enough...

[elemental23]

Installing any new operating system is a hassle. Not just because $new_os might be difficult to install/set up, but because you've got to backup your data, find replacements for all your commonly used software, get used to doing things differently, and so on. I would find it a hassle to move from Win2000 to OS X, and no one is going to claim OS X is difficult to use. I don't even like reinstalling Windows because it means I'll have to reinstall all my applications and take the time to configure everything the way I like it all over again.

Most people are very comfortable in the computing environments they nomally use. This makes them naturally resistant to change and makes them uncomfortable with an unfamiliar system.

Re:And open source's demon?

[Space Coyote]

Perhaps the open source community/representatives should stop bitching about MS and make some more quality software.

What if we can do both? Everybdy's got to hvae a hoby after all.

Note to self

[CodeShark]

...email this article to Judge Kollar-Kotelly.

Oh, wait, I forgot. The good judge's decision has assured us that Microsoft doesn't really need to change the way the do business all that much because they've promised to be good from now on, cross their crooked little hearts...

...sigh...

preach to the choir

[kin_korn_karn]

articles about Microsoft = Bad mean nothing when they're posted on OSS/Linux advocacy sites. When the Wall Street Journal has an editorial from the editor in chief saying that Microsoft is going to destroy the world, that'll mean something

Re:preach to the choir

[mark_lybarger]

like this one? http://zdnet.com.com/2100-11-519911.html?legacy=zd nn

there's been plenty of bad press about Microsoft all over all the news palces. and it keeps coming on over and over and over again. somehow their stock continues to prevail and is extremely strong even in these economicly weak times. i think it works something like this:

1) write extremely buggy and non-origional Operating System.
2) force all hardware manufactures into exclusive contracts. our OS or no OS!
3) ?????
4) Profit!!!

Re:preach to the choir

[_Sprocket_]

articles about Microsoft = Bad mean nothing when they're posted on OSS/Linux advocacy sites.

Sure. But times have changed.

It used to be a small group of advocates would compare notes and bitch in their own little confines, well seperated from the mainstream business and tech press. Slashdot is a prime example of one such enclave. And whatever message preached to the choir would stop at the confines of that site... or at least the advocate community if some linking happened.

And then Linux and Microsoft's bad behavior both became big news. Slashdot started showing up more and more in spurious mainstream articles. And its not just Slashdot. Other sources for various advocate groups are more common in an increasing number of non-Microsoft (or Microsoft-critical) articles.

Once an idea, or a particularly well-written article (and even some not-so-well-written), make it in to the advocacy community there's now a good chance some reporter for the mainstream business and tech press will pick it up. Granted - its not the same article. And sometimes the message gets garbled going through that filter. But the idea is still making it where those outside the advocacy group are exposed to it - and with any luck, they get a link to the origional article and the unfiltered message.

Yes. This is no Wall Street Journal expose on why Microsoft is bad for your business. But then, its note entirely a message doomed to obscurity either.

Re:preach to the choir

[kin_korn_karn]

See, that's just it. #2 makes #1 irrelevant to everyone but us.

When will you all get it? WE (meaning the tech/IT industry and community) are the ONLY people that care about our OS being buggy. The fact that #2 has happened makes it irrelevant to complain about the lack of reliability in Windows. And we are DEFINITELY the only people that care about it not being original (don't bring up the Apple/Xerox lawsuits, those have been settled now meaning that we are the only people that ever bring it up). My mom doesn't give a shit if the concept Windows was stolen from a Xerox PARC prototype or a mac or from Bill Gates' college roommate or whoever, she cares about whether her email works or not, and guess what? it does. Not the way you'd like it to, but it's email and it works. Who gives a fuck. The world is not made up of sysadmins.

The way you beat microsoft is to make a superior product, and market it better. The government has shown that they won't help level the playing field for any competitors to MS, so that's the world anyone taking them on has to work in.

Linux is not superior to Windows yet. It's more reliable, on the right hardware. It's got that cool CLI geek cred going for it. So does OSX. The GUIs for Linux plainly suck.

The legal remedy in the DOJ case should have involved abolishing all copyrights MS has to their interface so that KDE or (god forbid) the GNOME folks could clone the Chicago GUI. People would be comfortable with using Linux if it looked just like Windows.

This is around the point in this discussion where someone whines that "we can't take on microsoft, they have [insert ridiculously huge corporate asset here]!!!" If you feel that way, then stop bitching about what you've got. The glory is in the fight, anyway.

Which brings me to my next point. Once the fight is won, then you have to manage what you win. The OSS community couldn't handle being in control of the #1 OS in the world. It's too fragmented and too immature. To handle something with the market share and pervasiveness of Windows would take an infrastructure the size of Microsoft. So, build one. Stop whining about losing and go make yourself into a winner.

Re:preach to the choir

[wind]

WE (meaning the tech/IT industry and community) are the ONLY people that care about our OS being buggy.

This is simply untrue. Anybody who has ever lost a half-hour's work on a project, has had their system hosed by a virus, or worse - had porn spam sent out to their coworkers in their name, they care, believe me. The list goes on and on.

The problem is that the people I talk to don't understand that it can be different. They think it's the computer in some vague, "all computers need to be rebooted every few hours" sort of way. They don't seem to really believe me when I tell them to use a different operating system with different programs that aren't so buggy or virus prone.

I think anyone who uses a computer to do something that they either care about or are paid by someone else who cares, DO care about buggy code. They just don't know it. They think computers are just like that.

Re:preach to the choir

[runderwo]

Heh, more preaching to the choir, but I happen to like it. :) You talk some good sense, my man.

Re:preach to the choir

[m0nkyman]

The legal remedy in the DOJ case should have involved abolishing all copyrights MS has to their interface so that KDE or (god forbid) the GNOME folks could clone the Chicago GUI. People would be comfortable with using Linux if it looked just like Windows.

I couldn't diagree more vehemently. What we need is a standard set of UI guidelines completely different from Mac and Windows. It works differently, and nothing will drive people nuts faster than things looking identical and working differently. From a UI perspective, that's nuts.

What I've always thought would have been the ideal solution would have been to force them to open up the specs to the document formats. We've got competitive products, what we need is the ability to say that "you will be able to access your last ten years of word documents, up to and including the one you finished today"

Re:preach to the choir

[po8]

To handle something with the market share and pervasiveness of Windows would take an infrastructure the size of Microsoft.

By many measures, the OSS infrastructure is already far larger than Microsoft. Number of developers, or developer FTEs? Not even close. Number of lines of source? Again, not close.

The fair comparison, of course, isn't Microsoft and OSS: it's OSS and the Microsoft community. What even MS seems not to understand is that their monopoly-producing asset is the result of maybe the largest first-mover advantage in the history of the world. The biggest advantage of the first mover is that the community tends to form around them. As someone who bought one of the first IBM PCs off the line, I recall perfectly well the reasons why I bought PC-DOS for it rather than the obviously technically superior CPM/86: one of them was that it was clear that PC-DOS would win, and I wanted to be part of the PC community.

(The other was price. folks forget that while both CPM/86 and PC-DOS were available for PCs in retail computer stores, CPM/86 was a lot more expensive. If DR hadn't priced themselves out of the market, they still might have won.)

In short, OSS vs MS is first and foremost a contest in community building and maintenance. The MS community began with an enormous headstart, but so far seem to have done a good job of squandering it. It will be interesting to see whether this trend continues to hold.

Re:preach to the choir

[kin_korn_karn]

OK, the docs, too. I missed that point, but I disclaim it by saying "it should INVOLVE" that, not be comprised solely of that.

The idea is not for the OS not to work much differently. At least, not that the user can tell. Users are comfortable with the Chicago GUI and don't want to change, and honestly, why should they be forced to use something different because a few geeks on a weblog-type site think the Chicago GUI sucks? I'm no nazi.

Re:preach to the choir

[kin_korn_karn]

The fan base (i.e. the community) is separate from the marketeers. Case in point: Star Wars. If the fan base had any say in the prequels, they would be totally different. But we don't.

Corporations don't give a shit about their products' community when it comes to evaluating profitability. They look at things like gross revenue, net earnings, units sold, focus group surveys, market projections, all that business-oriented stuff that nobody in OSS seems to want to care about. Even Red Hat just sells the products that OSS creates (+ support), they don't listen to the community any more than to make sure they're getting a relatively stable version of a package.

Throwing up the community as an example of why OSS will win is a crock. You don't win in business by having fans, you win by making the most money with the best product. OSS has too many idealistic commie types working for it to ever be 100% trusted in the business world.

Re:preach to the choir

[Oliver Defacszio]

The problem is this; "buggy" is a relative term and, at present, there isn't any other product that allows for a quantification. Watch --

"Chevies are pieces of crap." "Oh, in comparison to what?" "A Toyota."

"Windows is a piece of crap." "Oh, in comparison to what" "???"

Now, despite the default Slashdot response to everything, there really is no alternative and it's not the fault of Microsoft. OSX could be an alternative, but it requires hardware that is three times the cost. That's Apple's choice. Linux could be an alternative, but those in charge refuse to target the lowest common denominator that is an absolute requirement in anything mainstream. It is Linux' choice (as a collective) to operate this way.

So, what's left? Nothing, and that's why Windows' past bugginess (no longer a real concern in Win2000) is essentially a moot point.

Re:preach to the choir

[po8]

Nice troll. But hey, I'll bite.

Star Wars is a reasonable example of a franchise that probably killed itself by ignoring its community. There's a reason why it is unlikely that there will be eps 7-9: it isn't that no one would like to make money off of them.

Red Hat participates quite actively in the OSS community: they fund OSS development projects and pay OSS developers, paricipate in OSS standards-setting, and provide leadership to the community through publicity, conference sponsorship, etc. Precisely the activities, in fact, that Microsoft participates in on behalf of the MS community. As you point out, companies don't do these things entirely because they are benevolent: they believe that in the long run, they will benefit the corporate bottom line.

What you don't seem to understand is that in the software business, one reasonable definition of the "best" product is the one that has the biggest "market share". By "community", I mean far more than juvenile "fans": I mean the full range of participants in the software; those that make money with it, use it as a tool, develop it, deploy it, etc.

But at any rate, your definition of the winning conditions is exactly that: many folks, including myself, define winning differently. I think that I win when my computer software is cheap, reliable, and useful. That's a pretty non-"commie" definition, and for me, it's one that leads to an OSS win.

Right now, MS is undoubtedly the market share leader, and cases can be made for the price/performance, reliability, and usability of its software. My point is that MS has been resting on these laurels for a long time: it will be interesting to see whether the relative growth of OSS in all of these areas continues.

Re:preach to the choir

[Doc Hopper]

I used to think I was at least somewhat in touch with what users wanted at my work and at my home. I thought I was responsive to their needs.

Then I sat down with a regular computer user. He asked why I had "Don't use this" underneath the "E" on my desktop (Crossover Office, Internet Explorer icon on Windows desktop). I explained that the browser was insecure due to some recent security exploits, and that I only had that particular browser installed so my wife would be able to do online ordering for one particular business she runs.

"So, you mean, you don't use the Internet?" he asked.

"No, we just don't use Internet Explorer here due to security problems." I responded.

"But when I click on the Internet, it still works," replied he.

I shortly thereafter realized, this kid thought the "e" on the desktop WAS THE INTERNET. He had no idea that it is a network of high-speed fibre circumnavigating the globe, carrying terabytes of information. He had no clue what a web browser or email reader was. He had no idea what a protocol was, or even the concept of security beyond it being what those guys in uniforms in the mall do.

This is the state of the average computer user. We either educate them, or dumb the computer down enough that they can use it. So I have to agree that it seems that only the "geekier" chunk of society even understands what a computer bug is, much less why we'd want few of them...

Re:preach to the choir

[Shelled]

Where do you think the Wall Street Journal checks for tech news? It's common where I live to hear a story on the news that Slashdot posted the day before. Articles on Slashdot generate articles in the mainstream press.

Re:preach to the choir

[Eric Damron]

You make a few good points but most of your rant does not. Sorry, but I call them as I see them.

In the US most of the people don't care if Linux is superior (and btw it is superior) to Windows. However, We (the geeks of the world) are not the only ones who care. The leaders of foreign countries like China, Denmark, India and others are passing pro-OSS laws because they clearly do care about finding the best overall solution to their needs.

Security is a BIG issue. I'm not talking about the plethora of viruses, worms and trojans that can be found for Microsoft platforms, although that is also an issue. I'm talking about the fear of deliberate planting of backdoors in Microsoft's products.

Remember that presidential aircraft that Boeing sold to China? The Boeing 767-300ER with all the trimmings? Well the trimmings included numerous spying devices.

It would be foolish for a foreign leader to believe that the US government would not insist that Microsoft provide ways to spy using Microsoft products sold overseas just as they insisted that Boeing include those spying devices in the 767-300ER. And remember we don't just spy on countries that we don't like. We spy on our allies too.

I think that as other countries wake up to this realization we will see mandatory open source software in foreign government use. Any leader who can't see the danger of closed source software in government use needs to wake up and smell the coffee; buy a vowel or something....

Re:preach to the choir

[HiThere]

For a data point: Two years ago I felt the same way. If X crashed, I rebooted my system. But I knew that this shouldn't be necessary. Now I rarely have these "rebooting is the simplest way to fix things" occurances. Now I open a shell via ctrl-alt-F1, kill the run-away process (or take othe appropriate action), and then return to X via ctrl-alt-F7. So. On Linux over time I learned tricks to gain control. During the same period of time I used Win95/98 at work. I have never figured out anyway out of the various obnoxious problems. (Well, with Win98, PySol usually doesn't garbage the card images if you have Mozilla open in the background. Better yet, have both Mozilla and and IDE open [not visual studio].)

I don't agree that any version of MSWindows comes close to the Linux experience. If a problem happens, the only solution is to reboot. Sometimes reinstall. You can't step sideways and fix things. Not even if you can determine what's wrong.

Re:preach to the choir

[miffo.swe]

"The GUIs for Linux plainly suck."

I would disagree with you on that. I find the Gnome GUI very good, stable and very easy to use. There are others that are even better. The foundation GUI is very nice, all that is left is the glue ie. the wizards and push buttons that does the simple commands.

Re:preach to the choir

[MrResistor]

Users care about what they are trying to do, not how they are doing it.

I don't think that's true at all. Users do care how they are doing it.

Have you ever tried to sell OpenOffice to a business? (I mean sell as in convince them to use, not as in charge money for it) I have.

It was a small sheet metal company. They had a couple of old Macs (pre-PPC) and an old windows box for running AutoCAD. They wanted a network with 7 PCs (2 for the shop, 4 for the office, 1 CAD station) and a file server. This was a very small company and very price conscious, but when I mentioned they could save over $1000 (about 15%) by using OpenOffice instead of MS Office they looked like deer caught in headlights, despite all my assurances that OpenOffice would easily fill all their needs (and yes, it really would have. I was moonlighting and my company worked very close with the company in question, and I took the project on as a favor to my boss, who was very good friends with the owner of said company).

This company didn't have any vested interest in MS Office, yet they couldn't imagine not using it, since that's what everybody else was using.

Never underestimate the power of Brand. Yeah, people care mostly about what they are doing, but god forbid they should be doing it a different way than everyone else.

Re:preach to the choir

[HiThere]

You are missing my point. On Linux I could learn how to cope with my problems, and fix them. On Windows I could learn how to do new things, but if a problem happened there was no fix. You had to reboot. This is a significant difference.

Windows is designed for people who don't want to understand, and don't want to learn. This is a sizable majority, and until Linux became easy enough for those people it was appropriately consigned to a small group. This is less the case, now. Windows may (I don't know) have fixed the problems that it had. Linux has improved enough that I've been able to start using it at work. And it's a far better environment for me to work in. The problems that it had were talking to MS and Novell networks and applications. These are disappearing, partially because I have learned more, but largely because it has improved. But it is still possible to learn to work around the problems that exist. Unlike Windows, where the sole answer appears to be reboot and try again.

P.S.: I'm not claiming that I can yet solve every Linux problem I encounter. They have become unimportant enough that I attend to other things. But I know that I could if I choose to.

Re:preach to the choir

[HiThere]

Umnh...
You are responding to comments I have heard made frequenly, but not to mine.

The reason that I switched to Linux from MSWindows was because of the licensing. I was merely reporting on ancillary advantages. And MSWindows is designed so that you can't know what is going on. This is an intentional design decision. I really doubt that the more recent versions have changed this, but due to the license issue, I must admit that I will never find out. That's fine with me. The MSWindows license is so bad that the OS couldn't be good enough to justify it.

perspectives

[neildogg]

What I find terribly funny, as a non-American, is that similar things are taking place in American society as a whole, the Patriot Act for example, denying people civil rights in order to exercise freedom. I don't understand the complaint that a company is doing things that impose on privacy when it's a common thread in the entire society around it. Linux is counter-culture; I don't think many people would deny that. Once I see America embracing the freedom it so adamantly preaches, I'll understand complaints such as this one.

Re:perspectives

[airrage]

I really think it's all about the pendulum swinging the other way. Microsoft, for most of us, has been around since we first started putting together our IBM-Clones, I mean that's all there was. The industry has had MS for so long that maybe the pendulum will swing the other way now -- what that future means, I'm not sure.

This is typified, in a similar vein, in the Patriot Act. For many decades, immigrants and foriegners, were granted carte-blanche access to the US, and citizens, likewise were finding that we were unable to find a middle ground on the appropriate amount of inalienable rights -- letting therefore the courts to define what that really is (for anyone who cared to sue somebody). Now I think the pendulum has swung the other way.

Now as I step down from my soap box, I leave you with this: your rights end where the rights of the next person's start. It ends up being a small circle.

The answer to the article as to MS's greatest threat: nothing (with a GDP of a small country, they can buy away any threat).

Happy New Year

Re:perspectives

[Jahf]

It's obvious you're judging the attitude of the every day US citizen by the bogus crap that has been put into law here lately.

I for one can not think of a single non-politician that I have met who has supported the Patriot Act or it's relatives. Most people are neutral pending seeing it's results and more than a few are actively against it.

It will take awhile, the voting public still seems to be in shell shock, but when enough people become active again the Patriot Act will be fixed/removed. I wouldn't be surprised to see it essentially nullified within 5-10 years, and probably the same with the DMCA. I wish it would take less time, but that's the way things work. The population mass has reached a point where turn-on-a-dime democracy is very hard to do.

As for you ignoring people's opinions based on the laws that their government enacts, well, that seems rather ignorant.

Re:perspectives

[neildogg]

Ignoring is ignorant? Wow

I was merely pointing out that this specific opinion parallels problems in society as a whole, or at least with the government. I completely agree with this guy's opinions.

Re:perspectives

[hackwrench]

your rights end where the rights of the next person's start.

So, um where do the other person's rights start? I keep running into people that try to lay claim to rights I have no interest in, that interfere with rights I want.

I remember in Dragonball where Goku asked a policeman where Bulma lived and the policeman could call up a picture for every person named Bulma in the city and helped him find her. Impossible with the rights some people want. But then, some people want to be afraid of their government.

Re:perspectives

[Anonymous Coward]

your rights end where the rights of the next person's start. It ends up being a small circle.
Nice to say, but few politicians are practicing. The last year has been about removing all our rights to have oversight of our government. Many things that required full public access is now conducted behind doors. The funny thing is that W. started all that Before 9/11.
How fortutious for Bush that 9/11 happened when it did. I have always that it strange that Clinton could protect our shores with the CIA/FBI while Bush blames them.

Re:perspectives

[Henry V .009]

Shouldn't there be some corollary to Godwin's Law, but involving Dragonball instead of Nazis?

Here is my formulation: As the number of idiots posting in a thread increases, the chance of a Dragonball reference increases accordingly. In case of said event, the person who made the comment will have everything he has said or ever will say forever invalidated.

Re:perspectives

[jackbox]

Indeed, switch a few words around on page 2:

Add it all up and what you have is a company (country) that, at the least, displays a profound level of arrogance coupled with the unshakable belief that they have not only the ability, but the right to dictate to the rest of the world, from charities to corporations, (to governments) how the world should look....

Guess Microsoft is succeeding in the American Way. (sigh)

Re:perspectives

[orthogonal]

I remember in Dragonball where Goku asked a policeman where Bulma lived and the policeman could call up a picture for every person named Bulma in the city and helped him find her.

What, did the Dragonball universe pass the "Stalker Support Act of 2003"? Or is having everybody's picture in a database just a side-effect of the "Blackshirt Employment Act of 1937"?

Yeah, let's make a "Freshman Face Book" for the entire country. I'll sleep a lot more soundly at night, I'm sure.

Re:perspectives

[mbbac]

The same thing you find funny as a non-American, I find tragic as an American.

Re: perspectives

[Antity]

WAR is Peace FREEDOM is Slavery IGNORANCE is Strength

"Join the Mobile Infantry and save the Galaxy.
Service guarantees citizenship.
Would you like to know more?"

Damn, for some reason, they seem to have something in common... People, always keep an open eye on what you get presented as your "freedom".

Re:perspectives

[stephanruby]

How fortutious for Bush that 9/11 happened when it did. I have always that it strange that Clinton could protect our shores with the CIA/FBI while Bush blames them.

Give me a break. I don't like Bush, but Clinton was just lucky this didn't happen under his watch. The security of this country doesn't change overnight simply because a new administration takes over. The screeners didn't change and they certainly didn't care about the new administration. Plus, the hijackers probably didn't care either since most of them were probably already in the US under the Clinton administration.

The only thing, that might have changed, is that the Bin Laden family could have been forbidden to fly out of the United States. That would have been nice. Under Bush and because of Bush, the Bin Laden plane was the only plane allowed to fly out of the United States when every other plane was grounded. Personally, I don't care if the Bin Laden family was innocent, I would still have liked to see them squirm a little bit under our intense scrutiny.

Re:perspectives

[pyrrho]

would you like a little Nuclear War with that sir?

As a New American I'm forced to ask you the following questions:

(1) why do you hate america so much? that is, what is it that you despise about freedom?

(2) if other countries are so great, why is America the only democracy in the world?

(3) how do YOU know what's going on in American society... are you some sort of SPY!?!?!?!

Have a nice day.

PS: satire+cynicism+sarcasm

Re:perspectives

[canadian_right]

Lets pretend you are serious:
1] You preach freedom, but practice intolerance of any economic system other than capitalism. You are so free, that you made it illegal to vote communist. (As a Canadian, I enjoy federal and provincial elections featuring "commies" who get just slightly fewer votes than the lunatic right wing). You are also so "free" that you think its ok to tell other countries how much they should spend on their military.
2] You are not a democracy, you are a representative republic. There have been very few direct democracies since the times of the Ancient Athens.
3] CNN, Time mag, etc... tell me what is going on. In fact, it takes abit of effort to get good local news as we are swamped by USA news.
The most annoying things about the USA is its complete inability to understand why anyone would not want to instantly make their country over in the image of the USA.

Re:perspectives

[Darby]

The security of this country doesn't change overnight simply because a new administration takes over. The screeners didn't change and they certainly didn't care about the new administration. Plus, the hijackers probably didn't care either since most of them were probably already in the US under the Clinton administration.

The only thing, that might have changed, is that the Bin Laden family could have been forbidden to fly out of the United States. That would have been nice. Under Bush and because of Bush, the Bin Laden plane was the only plane allowed to fly out of the United States when every other plane was grounded.

Well, Clinton might not have *ordered* the FBI to stop investigating the bin Ladens.
John Ashcroft wouldn't have been there to *order* the FBI not to examine "the 20th hijacker's" laptop.
Clinton might have gotten up off of his ass and put down the kiddy book before a half an hour passed after a fucking plane blew up the WTC.
Maybe he would have scrambled a few fucking fighters rather than grounding them which could have prevented the rest of the attacks.

Don't get me wrong though, maybe Clinton would have done all this too. Democrats and Republicans are equally slimy scum.
But to say Bush's presence at the controls didn't have a very serious affect in helping the attacks is just crazy.

Seriously, he blocks all attempts at investigating what went wrong for as long as he can, and then when trillion dollar lawsuits are coming up, he tries to appoint Henry Fucking Kissinger to do the investigation. That scrap of garbage is known primarily for crimes against humanity and covering up treacherous illegal actions. How is that different from screaming out "I'm hiding shit that I did"
Look at the piece of work he's putting up now. He's in business with Osama bin Laden's wife for fuck's sake.

Can you even name one thing that Bush has done since he usurped power through his brother's treason in Florida by disenfranchising 10s of thousands of voters that doesn't show hatred and contempt for the freedom we claim to stand for?

Raping the FOIA, Patriot Act, Homeland Security, WTC attacks.

Sure, Clinton was a fuckwad too, but they're not even in the same league.

Re:perspectives

[Darby]

It will take awhile, the voting public still seems to be in shell shock, but when enough people become active again the Patriot Act will be fixed/removed

It's more difficult for something like this to happen when anyone who speaks out against it can be labeled a terrorist and taken away and executed without a trial. Especially since anyone promoting an alternative viewpoint can now legally be spied upon and harassed. This was already happening illegally. Now that the FBI etc. can legally do what they were already doing do you really think they won't step over the line again?
I really don't think you understand the gravity of the situation.

Re:perspectives

[RasputinAXP]

1. We can still vote for the Communists or the Socialists or whatever, they're just less represented. I voted for Jello Biafra of the Dead Kennedys during the last presidential election.

2. No kidding? Tell me something I didn't know. There ARE no direct democracies in today's world. If there are, please enlighten me.

3. You think WE want all of this crap-ass news? Please. Take it. Of course, I read the NY Post on a regular basis so I'm probably not the best person to be commenting on news outlets. Thing is, American media's got the world by the balls and when that's happening, you dance.

I don't know what that last metaphor meant but I'm going to stop now. It's late.

Re:perspectives

[matrix29]

Don't forget that in 1996 the Sudanese government offered three separate times to hand over bin Laden to the U.S. and Clinton refused. Ironically, Clinton, who could find a legal excuse to explain away ANY of his OWN behavior--including quibbling over the meaning of the word "is"--said that there was no legal justification for the U.S. to take custody of bin Laden.
Oh, if only Boy Clinton had put his legalistic mind towards something USEFUL (like protecting our country against bin Laden) as opposed to using it only to get himself out of his own self-made messes...who knows how different the world might be right now? SLURP SLURP SLURP says the whore

U.S. missiles pound targets in Afghanistan

U.S. missiles pound targets in Afghanistan, Sudan
Clinton: 'Our target was terror'
August 21, 1998
Web posted at: 5:10 a.m. EDT (0910 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- American cruise missiles pounded sites in Afghanistan and Sudan Thursday in retaliation for the deadly bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania on August 7.

"Let our actions today send this message loud and clear -- there are no expendable American targets," U.S. President Clinton said in a televised address to the American people Thursday evening. "There will be no sanctuary for terrorists. We will defend our people, our interests and our values."

U.S. officials say the six sites attacked in Afghanistan were part of a network of terrorist compounds near the Pakistani border that housed supporters of millionaire Osama bin Laden.

An official of the Taliban, Afgahanistan's Islamic rulers, reported 21 were killed and 30 were injured in the missile strikes in eastern Afghanistan.

In the Sudanese capital, Khartoum, the El Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries factory -- which U.S. officials say also has ties to bin Laden and produces chemicals that can be used to make deadly VX nerve gas -- was heavily damaged.

In response, an angry crowd of demonstrators, chanting "Down, Down, U.S.A." took over the U.S. embassy building in Khartoum, which had been closed after the August bombings, Sudanese television reported. U.S. diplomats had been pulled out of Sudan in 1996, after the State Department decided it could no longer ensure their safety.

U.S.: Bin Laden's network planning new attacks
Clinton said that information gathered by American intelligence showed that a network of terrorists affiliated with bin Laden was responsible for the bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, which killed 257 people, including 12 Americans.

"Our mission was clear -- to strike at the network of radical groups affiliated with, and funded by, Osama bin Laden, the pre-eminent organizer and financier of international terrorism in the world today," Clinton said.

National Security Adviser Sandy Berger said that American intelligence had also turned up "very specific" information that the bin Laden network was planning additional attacks, which Thursday's missile launches were designed to prevent.

In addition, the United States had information that top leaders of bin Laden's network were to meet in Afghanistan Thursday. Berger said that "influenced our planning" for the attack, which was authorized by the president last Friday.

Bin Laden has been given shelter by Afghanistan's Islamic rulers, the Taliban, and may have been in the area targeted by U.S. missiles. Taliban officials said bin Laden survived the attack, but U.S. officials said they did not know if he survived.

Pentagon sources confirmed to CNN that the attacks were made with Tomahawk cruise missiles, not aircraft. The missiles were fired from U.S. Navy ships in the Red Sea and the Arabian Sea. The simultaneous attacks took place about 1:30 p.m. EDT (1730 GMT).

Rubble, fire in Khartoum
Sudanese television showed piles of rubble at the Khartoum factory and fire raging in the distance. People were seen walking through the damage, wearing masks.

Sudanese officials reacted angrily to the attacks. Interior Minister Abdul Rahim told CNN in a telephone interview that the privately owned pharmaceutical firm had "nothing to do with chemical weapons."

"We have no chemical weapons factory in our country," he said.

A statement read on Sudanese television about an hour after the attack said "the wrongful American air force launched air attacks on Sudan tonight which aimed at strategic and vital areas."
[ more at web page ]

Oh, I'm sorry... I forgot to call them MONICA MISSILES as was choreographed by Newt Gingrich.

Who Killed John O'Neill?
If you believe the media, John P. O'Neill was simply another innocent victim killed in the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center. But you don't need much imagination to suspect something deeper was at work.
Clearly, O'Neill was a man Osama bin Laden wanted dead. O'Neill had been a Deputy Director of the FBI, and Osama bin Laden's main pursuer in the US government. O'Neill had investigated the bombings of the World Trade Center in 1993, a US base in Saudi Arabia in 1996, the US embassies in Nairobi and Dar-Es-Salaam in 1998, and the USS Cole last year.

But once the first plane hit the North Tower, Osama bin Laden wouldn't be the only man to profit from O'Neill's death. At the moment of impact, O'Neill became the man who knew too much.

Just two weeks, TWO WEEKS, prior to the attack, O'Neill had left his job with the FBI. O'Neill had quit because he believed that the Bush administration had stymied the intelligence agency's investigations on terrorism. O'Neill charged that it had done so even as it bargained with the Taliban on handing over of Osama bin Laden in exchange for political recognition and economic aid. In the ultimate irony, O'Neill had gone public with these charges at the same time that he was leaving the FBI to become the head of security at the World Trade Center.

"The main obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism were US oil corporate interests, and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it," O'Neill reportedly told the authors of an explosive new book, Hidden Truth (Forbidden Truth in the US), by intelligence analysts Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie. Brisard met O'Neill several times last summer and reports that O'Neill complained bitterly that the US State Department - and behind it the oil lobby who make up President Bush's entourage - blocked attempts to prove bin Laden's guilt.

Released just last November, Brisard and Dasquie's book was mostly ignored by the US media. But it is beginning to cause a stir. Just two days ago, the story aired for the first time on US television when CNN's Paula Zahn interviewed former Iraqi chief U.N. weapons inspector Richard Bulter. (Read CNN transcript) "The most explosive charge, Paula, is that the Bush administration -- the present one, just shortly after assuming office slowed down FBI investigations of al Qaeda and terrorism in Afghanistan in order to do a deal with the Taliban on oil -- an oil pipeline across Afghanistan" Butler said.

[ more at web page ]

New WTC Evidence Raises Questions Of Evidence Destruction

The evidence that the destruction of the WTC was to destroy evidence contained on the 23rd and 24th floors of the North Tower is now incontrovertable. This message is the first revelation of the evidence that makes this conclusion a certainty. As yet no one has contacted any authorities with this information. (I want to make sure it is well in the public sphere before I show up at the FBI office here in Yakima.)

Dick Eastman 223 S. 64th Ave Yakima, Washington

I want you to provide me with lists of names I can contact in government and elsewhere around the world. I also want you to work by your own avenues to get to any officials or law enforcement agencies with jurisdiction in this case. A war and the greatest crime in history are involved, and many of the people responsible are standing in the way of justice.

Here is evidence supplied by the Head of Security of the WTC on network television indicating that the FBI floors (the 22nd, 23rd and 24th floors) of the North Tower -- 70 floors below the crash-bombing impact -- had been devastated and reduced to debris that this same Head of Security himself dug through to get to trapped persons (whom he saved).

But it was on these floors that the entire accumulation of evidence and investigation briefs on two highly important cases were being stored:

(1) The case against Mobil Oil and James Giffen on illegal oil swaps between Iran and Kazakhstan (at that time before a New York grand jury as described in great detail by Seymore Hersh in the July 9 New Yorker magazine);

(2)And even more important, the evidence in the investigation of GOLD PRICE FIXING stemming from charges brought against Alan Greenspan, Morgan & Company, Goldman Sachs.
(see below [truth.htm] for full reconstruction of this crime -- that is now all but confirmed by this revelation of a bomb devastating the FBI floors of the North Tower before the tower collapsed.)

The secrets one will try to keep
It is long past due to impeach and execute the thief that stole the Presidency for High Crimes, Bribery, and Treason

Re:perspectives

[stephanruby]

Can you even name one thing that Bush has done since he usurped power through his brother's treason in Florida by disenfranchising 10s of thousands of voters that doesn't show hatred and contempt for the freedom we claim to stand for?

Again, I don't like Bush and I certainly don't appreciate him appointing Kissinger as his chief investigator, but I believe he won Florida fair and square. The democrats had no business asking for a recount only in the democratic Counties and they had no business criticizing the ballots when their party designed and approved the ballots.

Re:perspectives

[Darby]

Again, I don't like Bush and I certainly don't appreciate him appointing Kissinger as his chief investigator, but I believe he won Florida fair and square. The democrats had no business asking for a recount only in the democratic Counties and they had no business criticizing the ballots when their party designed and approved the ballots.

The recounts and the ballots have nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Jeb Bush had his secretary of state throw 10s of thousands of legitimate voters off of the voter roles. I'm sure it was completely coincidental that a large percentage of these voters were black ( who as a group typically vote democrat). There is no more fundamental right of a citizen of a free society than the right to vote (rights basic to all people aside). In deciding that some people who were likely to vote against his brother should not be allowed those rights, Jeb and everyone else involved committed acts of *treason*. The only reason that the election was even close in Florida was due to *treason*.

The election itself was a clusterfuck on both sides, but it has nothing to do with the reason Jeb, and GW are both traitors to this country and everything it stands for.

Straddling the Fence

[Flamesplash]

The problem is that MS is trying to give different customers what they want in the same package. People want security, bam there you go, oh but wait we want flexibility, bam there you go, but oh wait we had to remove some of the security so you could be flexible. vice versa and repeat

While ppl will argue linux gives you both, if you are a computer geek, this isn't a valid solution for the average home user. While linux may be secure enough for them, if purely because linux isn't a target platform for widescale hackers and virus writters, the average person will never make use of the flexibility in linux.

"And you can make kernel modifications as you want them"

"What's a kernel?"

"err well you can download other peoples kernel mods off the internet, compile them and add them to your kernel"

"Uhh What's a compile"?

MS is in the unfortunate position of catering to a large diverse market, and I don't really think there is a unified theory of doing so. I run w2k because it is stable. It may not be as flexible as say XP, but it suffices for me and what I want to do. And I have a win98 parition if a game won't work under 2k.

Re:Straddling the Fence

[Dalcius]

"The problem is that MS is trying to give different customers what they want in the same package. People want security, bam there you go, oh but wait we want flexibility, bam there you go, but oh wait we had to remove some of the security so you could be flexible. vice versa and repeat"

Ahh, the fun old philosophy that nothing can achieve perfect balance for everyone, applied to the extreme.

The problem with this argument is that Microsoft CAN put in TONS of features, more than they ever have. But it can still be secure. How? Defaults. Turn everything off by default, and offer to take the user on a "tour" of these options where s/he will be allowed to turn them on.

The problem is that not only do they produce software with holes, which is a declining habit of theirs, they now put in tons of 'features' such as the Windows Help Desk which are insecure by default.

---
"While ppl will argue linux gives you both, if you are a computer geek, this isn't a valid solution for the average home user."

Yes, Linux gives you both -- on most distros, services that are insecure and need to be admin'ed by default, are turned off. But there are plenty of them, if you want them. Plenty of choice and good defaults are what I love in a good OS/distro.

Regarding "a valid solution for the avg. home user", it actually is. The average home user chats on IM, emails, writes docs, listens to music and surfs the web. I won't argue points here, but many distros do this out of the box (RH 7.3), and they're as difficult to install as Windows.

Regarding the smaller group of "average users" who play games, do presentations, complex excel stuff, etc., Linux is not the solution, at least without the user learning to poke around. But, if you'll pay attention to the history of Linux, you'll notice that not only has this area come a long way in the last two years, it's almost there. Give it another year and I'll bet you can take RH's latest version, give it to an average computer user, and they'll be doing everyting out of the box.

But, I could be wrong.

Re:Straddling the Fence

[Danse]

Heh. I can't remember the last time I heard anyone refer to Microsoft's market position as "unfortunate." :)

Split Indeed

[Cokelee]

MS has not just been a software company for a while. It is a monstrous thing. Not for its software, but for its policies. It has become a sort of governmental figure in the Software industry. They create policies and exist under a huge bureaucracy wherein Billie boy is the the ruler in pertuity.

People are fearful of and distrustful of MS the same way they have been of the government since the LBJ days (I'm thinking Vietnam here)-- and many before then (I'm thinking Ralph Waldo Emerson types here).

Re:Split Indeed

[Martigan80]

Come on! A (Score: 3) is all you give the guy/gal? This is one of the best analogies on this thread, quit intelligently put too! Hell how many people here remember those days, or even where born then?

Now if only....

[nizo]

If we can get one half to sue the other half, we will have something.

Re:Now if only....

[csnydermvpsoft]

Even better, if they decide to go their own separate ways.

I can just here Judge Jackson saying, "Ha! told-ya-so! It was for your own good!"

Re:Now if only....

[Lord Omlette]

At the height of the Pokémon frenzy, Nintendo sued itself. The law firm responsible was let go the next day.

The point? Hey, if it could happen to one big company, it could happen again anywhere!

This guy has no point

[bmetz]

This guy's arguments, listed at the bottom of the article, are asinine. To quickly address some of them:

- Microsoft put little more than a CDDB lookup into their player. Since everyone freaked out they've made it very very obvious during the install what gets sent. Take a look at everyone else's player and you'll see they are not trying to take over the world in some sinister plot. And product activation sucks but so does having perhaps the most pirated piece of software in the world so you really can't blame them.

- Microsoft lobbies. Welcome to the united states of america.

- Attacking microsoft because the PCs it donates aren't good enough? Come on! Donations are voluntary and should be welcomed no matter what they are. Don't forget Gates does some serious giving-back. Funny how he forgets to mention this..

I'm tired of reading this poorly thought out crap. People will find any excuse to rag on Microsoft. News flash: it's 2002, not 1992. Microsoft-bashing is getting a little old.

Re:This guy has no point

[Bilbo]

> - Attacking microsoft because the PCs it donates aren't good enough?...

No, because the donated PC's are simply blatant attempt to supplant Apple's dominance in the educational market, and to generate more license revenue for Microsoft. Who do you think pays to upgrade those PCs when people realize that Windows 3.1 doesn't run any real software?

(Also, when another independent company tried to do the same thing, MS took them to court because they couldn't prove they had valid licenses for all the copies of Windows 95 that the used computers were running. They ended up having to trash several thousand used computers because they didn't have enough money to buy all brand new licenses for them.)

Re:This guy has no point

[theLOUDroom]

Microsoft put little more than a CDDB lookup into their player.

Too bad you have no idea what you're talking about.
You should read more about what media player really does:

• Here
• Or here
• Or even here

Media Player sends a unique id number along with the info about what you're watching.

Are you an astroturfer or something or are you just clueless/insane? I don't need to even get into your other points as they're just ridiculous.
News flash: MS is worse now than they've even been.
Why exactly should I pretend they aren't?

Re:This guy has no point

[jamesmrankinjr]

Attacking microsoft because the PCs it donates aren't good enough? Come on! Donations are voluntary and should be welcomed no matter what they are.

No, because the donations were proposed as a settlement for a case in which MS was being sued for monopilistic practices (which was left out of the article). The judge rejected the settlement.

-jimbo

Re:This guy has no point

[cheezedawg]

Privacy experts said they feared the log file could be used by investigators, divorce lawyers, snooping family members, marketing companies or others interested in learning about a person's entertainment habits.

NO! Anything but that! People can know what my entertainment habits are? What is this world coming to!!!

If you are so worried about people knowing your entertainment habits, then maybe you are watching some stuff that you shouldn't be watching...

Re:This guy has no point

[Cyno]

Yeah, c'mon people, stop bashing poor Microsoft. Its not like they are a monopoly or anything.

Re:This guy has no point

[pod]

Look, the argument that you have nothing to hide == you have nothing to fear has long been established as bullshit. It's just like library records. Your parents or loan officer or insurance agent should not be able to find out you've been looking up books on cancer or aids or syphilis, or bomb making for that matter. What you do is by default private (unless done in public) and no amount of disclaimers and click-through licenses change this situation and expectation.

Re:This guy has no point

[Bilbo]

Well, I actually did some hunting and found some hard references. I won't repeat all the details here, since it would be better to read the original article. Please see the CNN article on this.

Also, you can find information on "safe" donations of computers (and why it is dangerous to donate computers running old copies of Windows) on the SchoolForge site.

Saying "thousands of computers" is an overstatement for this particular incident, but if you count the number of "illegally" donated computers (i.e., ones donated to schools where they have not paid the $100 to $200 each for new licenses), then the number probably pretty close. Microsoft has shown repeatedly that they are ready, willing and able to drag school systems through the courts to prevent them from using these systems.

Re:This guy has no point

[Chris Mattern]

> If you are so worried about people knowing your entertainment habits, then maybe you are watching
> some stuff that you shouldn't be watching...

"If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear." Right?

Chris Mattern

Re:This guy has no point

[AndroidCat]

The damned thing tries to access the Internet when I play a local wav file. *Splat* against the firewall.

Re:This guy has no point

[sheldon]

Oh no! Windows Media Player sends a GUID that uniquely identifies the bundle of requests, but is in no way able to link back to your machine.

Oh no! Oh my God!

I don't need to even get into your other points as they're just ridiculous.

Uh huh.

News flash: MS is worse now than they've even been.

No, you've just proven the anything-but-Microsoft astroturfers are more insane than they've ever been.

Christ, next you'll be claiming the government puts flouride in our water supply for mind control.

Re:This guy has no point

[markov_chain]

Yep, that's exactly what I meant :) Thanks for the schoolforge link.

I suppose it's easy to leave whatever OS comes with the donated machines. But it seems like a short-sighted move on part of MS to squeeze for licensing fees, since it gets them to switch away to something else. Maybe they worked out the statistics and expect some large fraction of the donees to pay up.

Re:This guy has no point

[tshak]

Microsoft lobbies. Welcome to the united states of america.


Or better yet, "Don't blame the player, blame the game".

Re:This guy has no point

[tshak]

All of these features that you mentioned are DISABLED BY DEFAULT (at least on WMP9) and you are prompted during install with a VERY CLEAR explanation of what each feature is, and how it relates to information being sent back to MS, and the privacy issues that surround it.

Re:This guy has no point

[kcbrown]

If you are so worried about people knowing your entertainment habits, then maybe you are watching some stuff that you shouldn't be watching...

Sounds to me like you're volunteering to have government-monitored cameras installed in your home. Right?

No? Then maybe you finally understand the point. And if you don't, then go ahead and get those cameras installed. After that, I can't wait until they throw you into a hole for doing something you thought was okay but that they thought was unacceptable. Maybe then you'll understand.

Re:This guy has no point

[sheldon]

If I remember correctly, a segment of the GUID is your MAC address.

Yes, you should look at the DCE documentation to better understand this as that is where Microsoft took the GUID concept from.

That is the link back to your machine (especially if your using on-board ethernet ).

Unless of course you don't have ethernet on board, which is the case for most home computers.

But again, even if this is the case, someone would have to go through the effort it takes to track you down. Oddly enough the IP address provides better information for that purpose than the GUID, and this is recorded not just by Microsoft's CDDB solution but by every web server you ever connect to.

Again, how's that flouride treating you?

Re:This guy has no point

[theLOUDroom]

Wrong.
The id# is unique to your machine.
Read the damn links I posted.

Do you even know what an astroturfer is?

How can such an uninformed post get marked informative?

Re:This guy has no point

[sheldon]

"Do you even know what an astroturfer is?"

Someone who posts crap to web forums to stir up anti-Microsoft sentiments, so as to convince people to use her favorite product instead is an astroturfer.

Did you ever see Clerks? The Chewy Gum salesman was an astroturfer.

You are an astroturfer.

"How can such an uninformed post get marked informative?"

Because it's more informative than your flouride conspiracy theory.

Re:This guy has no point

[irix]

Funny how you make fun of the original poster, but the only piece of information in your post is complete bullshit...

Oh no! Windows Media Player sends a GUID that uniquely identifies the bundle of requests, but is in no way able to link back to your machine.

Wrong. Why not check out Microsoft's own website on this and see what is has to say: "there are occasions when unique machine-identifying information is transmitted across the Internet". That sure sounds like they can link back to your machine to me!

I'm not saying that what Media Player trasnmits is neccissarily a big deal (depends on your views about privacy, I suppose...) but lets be truthful about what they are doing.

Re:This guy has no point

[DGolden]

Repeated because I disagree with mod of AC comment:

And product activation sucks but so does having perhaps the most pirated piece of software in the world so you really can't blame them.

Microsoft WANTS it pirated. Because pirated Windows is what keeps Linux out of the desktop in a large part of the world.

If all eastern Asia had to pay the price Microsoft asks for its software, you'd be sure to see a lot of local OSes spawned from BSD or Linux, with great support for local languages.

But when you can have a pirated copy of a fully-featured Windows for 3$, why bother ?

Re: Writer should get his facts straight

[tomhudson]

Before you arrogantly claim it couldn't possibly happen to you, take a good look at companies like Apple, IBM, or 3dfx who's names were once SYNONYMOUS with computing--and who now, without exception, are either dead or relegated to niche markets in the areas they once utterly dominated. </quote>

IBM sure ain't dead ...

Revenues last quarter:

• Microsoft:
  $7,746,000,000
• IBM:
  $20,592,000,00

Interestingly, IBM made more GROSS PROFIT the last quarter ($8,094,000,000) than Microsoft's total revenues.

Contrary to popular belief, IBM, not Microsoft, is the worlds' largest software company. IBM just happens to bundle a computer with many of their offerings.

Greek Saying

[Shadow Wrought]

One of my history teachers taught us that the Greeks used to have a phrase something along the lines of "Those whom the God's would destroy, they first make proud."

My own $0.02 is that M$'s hubris will eventually provide the catalyst for their decline and eventual demise.

Re:Greek Saying

[sql*kitten]

One of my history teachers taught us that the Greeks used to have a phrase something along the lines of "Those whom the God's would destroy, they first make proud."

I think it was "they first drive mad". Hubris is what brought a mortal to their attention in the first place. Didn't like the competition, see.

Re:Greek Saying

[Anonymous DWord]

Quem deus vult perdere, dementat prius.

http://www.racialcompact.com/whomgodsdestroy.html

Re:Greek Saying

[Shadow Wrought]

Those wacky Greek's! Alway's putting apostrophe's where they just aren't needed. Silly Greek's:-)

Now I have to find my ol' misleading history teacher...

Re: Writer should get his facts straight

[kypper]

Yeah, but do you think you really want a clone?

Stossel the Libertarian?

[burgburgburg]

Stossel will claim that the government has no business interfering with the business model of MS, then he'll throw lots of misleading/off-topic/deeply suspect/just plain wrong details at you, look into the camera and demand "Give me a break" and sit back and ignore everyone's pointing out his logical failures.

He's a worthless hack. Has been for years. Remember his insecticide claims?

Re:Stossel the Libertarian?

[ncc74656]

As long as we're dissing Stossel, be sure to see The Nation's superb exposé of that right wing hack:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020107&s=do wie

You say that as if The Nation is a credible source WRT anything. You might as well quote Pravda.

Re: Writer should get his facts straight

[Syncdata]

Amen to that sir. IBM is alive and kicking, it's just that the IBM name just isn't as ubiquitous as it once was in the media. The author is clearly viewing anything other than the desktop PC market as niche. I wonder what the author thinks about Texas Instruments?

Potential libel? (or is that slander...)

[tstoneman]

The article is not bad, and it basically shows the problems that affect any software company: techies vs marketing.

However, I do think he went out on a limb with the following comment:

"The recently-revealed fact that Microsoft, in effect, offered states a bribe in order to drop their anti-trust suits against the Redmond giant. While I hold the states equally responsible for accepting the money in the first place, Redmond is known for displaying a remarkable level of NIH syndrome (Not Invented Here) perhaps only equaled by Steve Job's unparalleled Reality Distortion Field."

I haven't heard about any of this bribe business, but if it isn't true and if he is exaggerating, I think the writer has really set himself up for a potential lawsuit. To accuse someone of committing a felony like that in this day-and-age when it hasn't been proven is kind of stupid, and I would have changed the wording around if I were him.

It is all bullshit and I am sick of it

[i_luv_linux]

The whole artice's value = zero. Here is why.

The article wants MS not to donate any machine or Windows to poor schools for competitive issues, to protect Apple's interests, but yet at the same time it critizes MS because it donates old technology.

The article accuses MS of bribing, yet there is no known evidence of such a criminal conduct. If the bribe means here a settlement, it is a legal move. There is nothing to talk about here.

Licensing program is not a good move, but let's talk about Oracle's licensing practices. Let's talk about other licensing plans out there in the industry. If you are going to critize MS for this and not others, you are just plain lying about your facts

It is also unbelievable that any person who bullshits to bash MS can get this much of attention. It doesn't even matter what you say anymore, as long as you bash MS. The facts mentioned in the article are all very well known, but still we see it here because it is yet another MS bashing article.

I just hope the real workers behind the open source are not following this stupid trend. Otherwise open source movement is doomed.

Re:It is all bullshit and I am sick of it

[Znork]

You should note that the author of the article has no connection to any open source project, and claims not even to be a user of open source software.

Microsoft is not going to change. The solution to this guys problems is to quit whining and switch to Linux.

Re:It is all bullshit and I am sick of it

[mbbac]

The article wants MS not to donate any machine or Windows to poor schools for competitive issues, to protect Apple's interests, but yet at the same time it critizes MS because it donates old technology.

The article accuses MS of bribing, yet there is no known evidence of such a criminal conduct. If the bribe means here a settlement, it is a legal move. There is nothing to talk about here.

That was part of one of Microsoft proposal's for their punishment for using their monopoly illegally. Donating used computers to schools isn't much of a punishment, especially when one of your strongest competitors currently holds a majority of that market.

Basically, that is being allowed to illegally dump product in an effort to conquer a market as a supposed form of punishment.

What if...

[Lokatana]

It's interesting to notice that the author of this article claims to barely know Linux or other competing products to Microsoft. I'm not sure how much I agree with his thoughts regarding a "split" within Microsoft, but...

What if this type of thinking begins to really penetrate MS's customer base? If Joe User (think of all of your friends and family who use you as their technical support hotline) starts to believe that Microsoft is taking them to the cleaners - not just believe it, but become convinced of the fact - and is willing to make the jump to an alternative OS, what then? What if the tools to make the switch are easy enough for anyone's grandparents to freely obtain and use? (Today, most of these kinds of users don't even know how to locate an ISO, let alone download & burn it! I'm also assuming they don't want to pay for the software from a vendor or store)

What would MS do if their customer base starts to erode noticeably? Will we see more "Satanic" actions to lock in their customers, or will MS respond in a way that will benefit the overall user community?

Perhaps this would be a good followup "Ask Slashdot", but I'd love to see people's thoughts on this.

-Lokatana

Re:What if...

[grendelkhan]

At a recent meeting of the manufacturing systems folk of our company, our CIO dropped the comment that if MS didn't make a major change in their pricing structure we'd be looking hard at "open source alternatives for our software needs in the very near future." I would kill to have a sit down with our CTO and see if he's been asked to start evaluating OpenOffice and checking our financial folk's spreadsheets for importing accuracy.

Collective jaws dropped around the conference table, being that we're Fortune 500 and probably get as good terms as you can get under Licensing 6.0. Our applications (on the MES side) are all going Win32 + IIS delivered through IE and away from the UNIX and VMS/VAX platforms, so to be told by the man that we should all be hedging our bets around suites that don't rely on MS was quite the shocker.

In our company's IT goal to massive reduce costs and bring capital spending way down without giving up productivity and return on investment, throwing down that huge of a chunk of change to a single vendor has got to be hurting. So, the sentiment is already out there, it's just taking time to ferment and filter down, but decision makers are already mulling the possibilities.

Things are not what they appear

[WindBourne]

I agree with the author that MS seems to be self-destructing, but that is not really the case. MS has always faught amongst itself. That is a similar approach to the OSS world. The only difference is that OSS does not have Marketers.
As to them, well, Bill is needing to change the strategy to survive. He was able to buy off states and even our current administration without too much repercussion. This shows that MS can adopt. What is happening behind other scences is what ppl should notice. From what I understand, there are a number of start-ups by bill that are designed to push MS. These are targeted towards unique niches. 2 companies are directed at Intuit to compete against TurboTax.
While I am a Linux developer, I do forsee that we have a rough road ahead of us. MS should never be underestimated.

Garbage editorialism.

[Konster]

"What I am, however, is concerned about how Redmond intends to safeguard my privacy, my right to use an operating system as I see fit, and my rights of fair use. I am, in fact, very concerned."

Then he goes on to say, a paragrah later, "Right now, Linux has yet to offer me any reason why I should go to the monumental hassle of switching and re-training myself to the new OS..."

You must NOT be all that concerned about your privacy, the right to use the OS as you see fit (Click on Agree or Decline after reading the EULA? A thought), or your rights of fair use if you blindly click through the EULA and install their product.

RTFEULA. Worried about all that and still agreeing to MS's EULA and being too lazy to learn an OS that's free from all that just befuddles me.

And since when did learning Linux become a monumental effort? Rocketing into space is a monumental effort. Learning Linux is akin to Bellybutton Lint Removal 101.

How does this crap make the news, anyhow?

Re:Garbage editorialism.

[inode_buddha]

Wow, that's cool. RTFEULA. That's going into the Jargon file, one way or another.

Awesome argument, BTW. My sentiments exactly.

Re:Garbage editorialism.

[AndroidCat]

There's some good stuff in those EULAs. There's usually one about not being used in the development/production of chemical, nuclear or biological weapons (unless by nice countries).

Saddam: Damn! I can't send email to my generals because it would violate the licence agreement! Damn you Microsoft to hell!

Re:Garbage editorialism.

[pavera]

Unfortunately your logic fails in that Using windows for that many years does not give you purely *windows-centric* knowledge, much of that knowledge is general computer knowledge.

I have been using Linux for only 1 year after using windows very heavily since windows 3.1, and I would say I am more proficient at linux admin than windows after just that year.

Why? Because alot of windows admin stuff is really just knowledge about computers and how they work, applying that knowledge to linux/unix/macos/any platform is simple and trivial. Sure there are things that are different about Linux, or MacOS or whatever, and it takes a little while to learn it, but switching from Windows to Linux is not switching from being a programmer to being a nude model. In other words, you don't throw out an entire toolset and start over fresh (I would have to do alot of working out if I wanted to make that switch, not to mention some plastic surgery, and other enhancements, and all my programming languages would be useless), you can take alot of things from windows and they translate directly into linux, and the things that don't I've found generally are easier to do in linux... So, no you don't have to throw away thousands of hours to switch to linux, just the hundreds you spent saying "Why the hell did they do it like this??!!"

Re:THE SAME COULD BE SAID FOR LINUX

[Bilbo]

Heh... And your point is???

Another way Microsoft contradicts itself...

[weave]

Microsoft claims on one hand that Linux is more expensive, because you have to hire expensive experts to maintain it. On the other hand they push the value of an MCSE to IT people, how it's a serious certification and not something that any chump can get, and how much more money we can make if we just become certified.

So which is it? I administer a nice big AD domain on w2k servers and I personally am insulted that Microsoft is doing their best to convince my administrators as well as others that Windows administration can be done by a non-expert. How long before CFOs believe this and wonder why they are paying for all of these expensive personnel down in IT? It's bad enough they don't understand the complexity of our jobs, now Microsoft is telling them it doesn't require an "expert" to administer Windows servers. :-(

Re:Another way Microsoft contradicts itself...

[weave]

Isn't windows administration nothing more than just "point, click, reboot"?

Pick up a copy of the windows 2000 server resource kit, read it, and then get back to me. (I realize you may be being sarcastic or trolling here, but still... :)

I will give you an example, point and click just doesn't work in a large environment. I have 13,000 users in my Active Directory for example. To administer a Windows environment successfully, you need to be able to script everything you can in ADSI, WMI, etc... Otherwise you'll spend all your life pointing and clicking or running out to visit client PCs. Let's say your company gets bought out and everyone's e-mail address gets changed. Are you going to sit there and point and click 13,000 accounts in Active Directory Users and Groups and manually type in the new e-mail domain name into each account? If you have to deploy a program to 2,000 desktops, are you going to run around to each PC, stick in a CD and run setup, or are you going to try to figure out how to use GPOs and msi packages to deploy it automatically?

Having Microsoft say that running a Windows environment doesn't take any real (ie, expensive) expertise is an insult to all of us who administer the things.

Re:Another way Microsoft contradicts itself...

[afidel]

I think like most things in IT it is a matter of scale. You can run a small to medium sized business on a platform supported by a few fairly untrained people, but once you get into the large business/enterprise size you need people who know what the heck they are doing because interdependencies grow geometrically so the problems scale faster then the infrastructure. If you have a large AD domain then chances are you fall into the latter catagory and need smart/well trained people. In fact I don't see microsoft advertising or even hinting about untrained people running your IT infastructure to publications like CIO insight etc. The people who have to run large IT deparments usually understand that they are a different beast from the couple of tech savvy people that run many smaller firms IT needs.

Re:Another way Microsoft contradicts itself...

[weave]

Exactly, scale *does* make all the difference. I would believe that in a 10-person office with a simple print and file server, a Windows solution would require less expertise than a Linux solution. Once you start to scale up, I have my reservations about which is really more difficult or requires the greater expertise and even if Linux does require more expertise, the increased per-seat licensing costs of Windows is far from insignificant. For example, my 13,000 Windows users get their e-mail from free (license wise) Linux servers. If I was to convert to Exchange, I'd have to get 13,000 Exchange CALs as well as multiple windows servers to handle the load. For that price, I can hire an army of Linux techs...

The same arguments are ones I have with Mac fans. While it may be true that if you compare a large desktop installation of Macs versus PCs, Macs may be easier to support, it doesn't necessarily mean that in a PC shop, adding a few Macs isn't going to reduce support costs. It will INCREASE them since now I'd have to have support staff trained in Macintosh issues. Now at some point of increasing installed base and ratio of Macs to PCs, the reduced Mac costs might reduce the TCO, but not at a ratio of n-1 to 1 for certain.

(Not that I'm convinced Macs have a lower TCO than PCs, just throwing that out as another example of how stupid these wild claims thrown out about TCO are from all sides of the platform wars...)

Re:Another way Microsoft contradicts itself...

[kruczkowski]

Good point. Most organizations I have seen don't even use there products 10%. Especialy in the Goverment. I seen people buy software just becouse it was a pretty GUI, and I heard a MCSE that was our exchange admin say once "You have to know how to write scripts to do that, I don't"

MS and the other companies know damn well that big organizations that have money don't care, and they will buy ANYTHING if they get a free t-shirt!

Re:Another way Microsoft contradicts itself...

[afidel]

much more realistic is my brothers position, he is one of two "IT" workers in a mid sized telemarketing company, he does all the data prep and processing as well as maintain 2 of the 4 servers they use for everything:DB,call automation, incoming ftp, web, email, file serving, etc. This is where you could use either linux or windows but the windows solution is arguably easier to setup (though IMHO harder to properly maintain) and there are more people likely to be able to step in if he leaves. As an MCSE who is most of the way through studying for his RHCE I can say that both linux and windows are hard to setup properly for a large enterprise and that I personally believe that linux is easier to maintain in the long run but that both systems have their place. For instance I usually butcher my windows install to the point where it almost seems like a linux box, just with a much larger software selection. I have had uptimes on my win2k workstation of over 180 days, and well over a year now on a couple of linux boxes I admin, which is just as long as the Solaris boxes managed by the server admins. For a good example of linux making long term administration easier see The CEPS page This is where the Cisco Enterprise Printing System source is hosted. This system allows a couple of dozen print servers to print to hundreds of printers for tens of thousands of user, all with only 2 global print admins and minimal intervention by the hardware staff. Basically the print queues are virtuallized so that if the local print server dies one of the other print servers notices, resets the server name of the dead server to point to its own IP and takes over the controll of that queue. This allows print servers to be hot upgraded with minimal/no downtime and for failed servers to be fixed at the staffs leisure. In fact when our local print server here in Akron threw a disk it took me almost a full day to find out! No one had complained because jobs kept printing, sure they were slowed some because the had to traverse the WAN, but most people didn't even notice a slowdown.

Why regular people won't switch to Linux

[Radical Rad]

I'm no Linux user. I've never booted a distro of the OS in any of its flavors...

Right now, Linux has yet to offer me any reason why I should go to the monumental hassle of switching and re-training myself to the new OS environment...

This explains in a nutshell why Linux developers should concentrate, at least in the short term, on recreating the look and feel of the MS Windows desktop.

Re:Why regular people won't switch to Linux

[dmaxwell]

Linux developers should concentrate, at least in the short term, on recreating the look and feel of the MS Windows desktop.

That takes care of the the group of people who say "Linux is too different from Windows". Unfortunately, it draws a whole crowd of these other whingers from the woodwork : "Linux isn't innovative at all. They're just trying to look like Windows."

Then we had that dillhead Dvorak who does both: Whine and complain that Linux needs to be like Windows and then when something like KDE provides this he then complains that Linux will never succeed as long as it is copying windows.

I'm starting to understand why OSS coders just build whatever the hell they want and ignore the whingers. How else are they going to keep their sanity?

Re:Why regular people won't switch to Linux

[squiggleslash]

This explains in a nutshell why Linux developers should concentrate, at least in the short term, on recreating the look and feel of the MS Windows desktop.

How?

What reason will recreating the look and feel of Windows give someone to switch?

If they want Windows, they'll use Windows. If they want something else, they will not want a clone of Windows. Choice is _good_.

Re:Why regular people won't switch to Linux

[Radical Rad]

Unfortunately, it draws a whole crowd of these other whingers from the woodwork : "Linux isn't innovative at all.

How could that happen? Since Open Source development is like a bazaar there will always be coders who do new and creative things with Linux. But that doesn't happen in the closed source cathedral style of development where you get what they give you. Once Linux has a user base on par with ms windows it will become obvious to all who the innovators are.

Nice characterization of Dvorak by the way.

Re:Why regular people won't switch to Linux

[Cro Magnon]

Maybe they want something that LOOKS like Windows, but without the Blue Screens and virii.

Re:Why regular people won't switch to Linux

[Radical Rad]

The best reason: Money. When there is little difference at the user interface level between the two systems then the one over-riding concern will be price. Of course there will still be differences in security, stability, robustness, performance, etc. but users and PHBs don't grok those things. Yes, choice _IS_ good.

Re:Why regular people won't switch to Linux

[rmohr02]

But a computer just isn't a computer without the BSOD.

Re:Why regular people won't switch to Linux

[AndroidCat]

How else are they going to keep their sanity? QuirkObjection! This statement makes a very large assumption. :^)

Re:Why regular people won't switch to Linux

[Radical Rad]

Very good points. Yes #2 is coming along nicely. #1 is already here if you know where to look. rpm -i and rpm -e is what I usually use but I have seen Gui versions that make it just like ms Windows. And have you seen the Redhat 8 Package Management applet? It is exactly like ms windows. #3 is actually easier on Linux than ms windows for older hardware. Have you ever tried to install an old network card or trackball that used to work under Windows95 but isn't recognized in wnidows2000 and the manufacturer has no plans to write another driver for it on the new platform? It usually just works on Linux if it already worked on an earlier kernel.

I wonder if it would be a good sub-project for Mozilla, to make a general-purpose hardware/software-installer wizard.

That's not necessary although the Mozilla installer is quite slick. Take a look at the Loki Setup Installer 1.5.8 by Sam Latinga and Stephane Peter. http://www.lokigames.com/development/setup.php3 Joe Average shouldn't need to read any how-to's as long as he sticks with prepackaged apps that have been blessed by his distribution, but when a developer wants to get software out without having to wait on a Redhat or Suse to package his stuff and bundle it with their next distribution then he can download the Loki Setup Installer edit some XML and voila!

Re:Why regular people won't switch to Linux

[Radical Rad]

I see what you mean. And I know that can be done now because I have seen Javascript apps that copy files to a local drive to use as a permanent cache. The app must ask permission to write to the local filesystem first. There are also "evil skins" for Mozilla that can do things like that but I am not sure exactly what they are capable of. But making xpi files is easy from what I hear. Just write some javascript, zip it up, and set the extesion to .xpi.

There are certain things that you must be root to do and there just is no getting around it for security reasons, but if your app does not require the use of well known ports or write access to sensitive files or direct access to the kernel then there is nothing to stop you from installing under a user account.

Microsoft has always had major internal fights

[joeflies]

Like any big company with very few major products making most of the revenues, and lots of opinions on where it should go, there is always an internal power battle

Some of the more public ones that I've heard about include

Battle between the VMS guys and the rest of management and the Windows squad (covered in the book Fumbling the Future)

Battle between the Windows manager and the standalone IE manager during Win98's browser integration. Forgot which book that was in

I'm sure that Microsoft Research creating new technologies largely independently of the product teams also creates PARC-style battles as well.

Parallels

[Tall Rob Mc]

It is most likely that I'm not the first person to draw this parallel, but I've noticed it more and more recently...

Microsoft and the US government are in very similar situations.

Here, we have two extremely powerful entities that are very prone to extend beyond their reasonable range of influence to make everything go exactly the way they want it to.

Both are facing enemies (the US against terrorists, and Microsoft against Linux) that have emerged as a decentralized and nearly attack-proof.

Both have earned a good deal of resentment from the communities which they supposedly serve (MS has people like us constantly bitching while President Bush's approval rating has dropped below 50% this December: and both rightfully so).

Both, despite the great amount of disapproval, appear to be doing nothing to change their situation (except for Bush's recent decision to back down on threats of attacking North Korea, though he intends to push for isolating them economically).

Could a few good leaders in Washington clear this whole mess up? I think so. Now if only such people existed... -sigh-

utter nonsense

[fermion]

I partly agree with the article. It is completely true that if you manufacture an adequate product and don't try to cheat your customers, you will be perceived as a good company. Beyond that, the article is nonsense.

Beyond that, it is nonsense. My experience with XP is that is more stable than any other consumer MS OS, but not as good as 2000. For one thing, the adaptive GUI just gets in the way. The market has spoken on XBox. It is a good machine, but not good enough. Without the benefit of monopoly, MS was not able to set the price on the product, and had to do several price reduction in order to get the results it wanted. This would also be the case with it's OS and apps if competition exists. In countries that aren't MS hostages, the XBox is not doing well. As for the tablet PC, it is not yet a product. We do not how exactly it will act. It is probably as good as XBox, which may not be good enough.

The problem with MS is that it does not have to innovate. It does not have to create great products. Without competition, there is no need to excel. It can steal , cajole, and threaten. The creativity is limited to calling the OS 'Windows'. The charity is limited to giving kids junk and then taking a writeoff for the inflated value. The programming wonders are limited to creating a paperclip that you can't get rid of, or wizards that won't let you get back to the menu. I find the culture to be pretty unified.

Predictions of Microsoft decline

[ManoMarks]

are premature. People have been claiming the end of MS for years, and it's still going strong. While I'd love to see it at least shaken up and reformed, and more consumer friendly, I don't yet see any evidence of even a mild decline.

Re:Predictions of Microsoft decline

[pmz]

I don't yet see any evidence of even a mild decline.

More and more people are becoming skeptical about Microsoft's motives and the true value of their new products (e.g., Win XP really isn't all that great once the novelty wears off). Also, I've seen people at all-Microsoft shops become defensive about why they use the software they do (in the back of their minds they are beginning to realize where their eggs are). And, in general, the adoptions rates for new MS products (Win XP, XBOX, etc.) aren't stellar.

I really think Microsoft has peaked. However, it'll be several years, still, until they really decline, because the installed base is just so huge. And, in those years, genuine much-more-open competition, such as OpenOffice, Mac OS, Linux, etc., will mature further and make Microsoft look more obviously like the proprietary pit of technology that they are.

Perhaps you should too.

[Tide]

Well IBM makes boatloads of cash, thats for sure, but I wouldn't call them just a software company. Like Sun they make their cash off of services and support for overpriced hardware. MS is pretty much all software, and has a market cap more than twice that of IBM, which is why they are the worlds largest software company. Plus Im not sure where you got your profit numbers, but on Quicken a different story is painted:

MSFT:
Revenue - $7,746,000
Net Income - $2,726, 000

IBM:
Revenue - $19,821,000
Net Income - $1,694,000

And also from Quicken:
What is Net Income?
The amount of a company's total sales (revenue) remaining after subtracting all of its costs, in a given period of time (also referred to as "net earnings"). This very important figure (literally the source of the term "the bottom line" for where you find it on an income statement) is the best measure of the current operating state of a company.

Re:Perhaps you should too.

[WindBourne]

MS is pretty much all software
That is changing very quickly these days. I noticed MS's NIC's and switches at Best Buy. My guess is that very shortly, they will buy one of the major companies (i.e. micron, or gateway) and rename them to MS. They are looking to to things that the Hardware companies are not doing, like inovate.
Personally, I wish IBM, HP, Gateway, and Dell would get off their ass and start inovating, but they are only interested in trying to capture markets rather than create new markets. I do not give them much longer before MS is truely up to competing in the hardware arena.

Re:Perhaps you should too.

[frank_adrian314159]

they make their cash off of services and support for overpriced hardware.

Overpriced? With respect to what measure? Most of the people who use IBM hardware do so because they can't find alternatives that provide the stability and service provided with an IBM solution. When you get me a PC platform where I can hot swap memory modules and CPUs we can talk. Plus make sure that the OS that it's running supports such usage. Self monitoring so that I don't have 75% of my scheduled jobs crashing before I found out CPU 3 has crashed would be nice, too. People who use these machines might find them overpriced if you want to talk MIPS, but most have other, very rational reasons to use these machines.

Re:Perhaps you should too.

[NullProg]

The IBM finacial statement for the quarter can be found here:

http://www.ibm.com/investor/3q02/3q02earnings.ph tm l

The line that is most relevent is how much they paid in federal taxes. Microsoft does not pay any taxes. Nor do they pay investor dividends (IBM Does).I don't think we can call Microsoft just a software company with the introduction of X Box.

I also would not trust any earnings report from Microsoft. Like Enron, standard accounting practices do not apply. Read some of these articles:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/business/DailyNew s/ msbooks990121.html

http://finance.pro2net.com/x34261.xml

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit1999052 7. html

http://www.billparish.com/msftfraudfacts.html

Enjoy,

Re:Perhaps you should too.

[GlassHeart]

[Net Income is the] amount of a company's total sales (revenue) remaining after subtracting all of its costs, in a given period of time [...]. This very important figure [...] is the best measure of the current operating state of a company.

This is grossly simplified. A company with poor sales (and therefore negative net income) can hold a valuable patent, a developing bestseller product, or even just a good domain name to be worth more its net income suggests. Similarly, a company with great net income may be facing an anti-trust investigation (think IBM), or some other potential disturbance (think brewing internal conflicts in Apple).

Worse, net income has not proven to be difficult to falsify: some companies have added future earnings to bloat revenue, and others have hidden away expenses in subsidiaries.

The wise observer will not attribute too much importance to a single metric of performance.

Re:Perhaps you should too.

[Citizen of Earth]

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit19990527. html

How do I mod an external link as +1 Insightful?

May 1999 was well before the telecom meltdown, right?

Absolutely Correct

[awitod]

This author is dead on. The IT graveyard of invincible vendors is wide and deep, and without an exception I can think of the killing blows were always self-inflicted: Micro-Channel Architecture, Word Perfect 5.0 for Windows, Unix-Ware, and on and on and on.

I watch this board closely to try to gauge perception. (I watch lots of other things too, because everything has some inherent bias, borg toon anyone?) I want to know where the industry is headed. In the past I've felt the pain of backing the wrong technology and after many years have come to appreciate such an error's effect on my families ability to do things they enjoy, like eat and sleep inside.

For the last several years the food on my table has come from a deep knowledge of many of Microsoft's products. At the end of the day, I really don't care what tools I used to create a new system. What I care about is that I can do what I love (design and build software) for someone who appreciates the effort enough to pay me a decent sum of money.

I view many of the arguments on this site with mild amusement (open vs. closed source) as the ravings of modern-day hippies or the very young. Unfortunately, I am constrained by certain requirements in my life and I doubt very much that my wife or my children would care about free-as-in-speech vs. free-as-in-beer, and as such care much more about the bottom-line than high-minded principals, no matter how appealing.

That said, I am starting to study and use Linux and other offerings of this community. Some of it is very impressive and some of it, I must say, is promising but primitive crap. I do not believe that the movement will overthrow Microsoft on its own merit. I do believe that Microsoft is creating enough incentive for the market to make this a commercially viable alternative.

The PS2's were awesome and reliable machines. They were probably worth the additional price. But, by the time IBM really tried to strong-arm the market, the IT buying community was pissed off enough that the platform's relative merits meant nothing. I believe that OS/2 was equally affected by this, although it's terrible setup procedure hurt it as well. Microsoft is today's IBM. I hope they get their heads out of their asses soon, but they'd better do it quickly.

Re:Absolutely Correct

[n-baxley]

Just curious, what other places do you visit to get a well balanced view of the IT community? I like /., but it does get a bit extreme for me too.

Pots and Kettles

[Swanktastic]

"Microsoft has serious problems because they have a dichotomy in their strategy and thinking!" or so says the slashdotter...

Listen folks, if this is a problem, then the Open Source movement might as well quit while the quitting is good. If you can get N OSS developers in a room, you're guaranteed to have N completely different opinions on what should be done in terms of any software strategy: technical, marketing, or other. And why should it be any different? After all, projects are done ostensibly for fun and self-improvement. No one should be allowed to tell me what to do with my code! Multiply this logic by a million and you have a good handle on the swarming behavior of the Open Source community.

Besides, if I am to read the article correctly, the main problem with Microsoft is that they are making better products while they still haven't cleaned their act up in terms of being a "good corporate citizen."

This isn't really grounds for celebration. If anything, it should be a wake up call that Linux on the desktop is becoming less competetive by the day in terms of functionality and 'meeting the consumers needs.'

Re:Pots and Kettles

[No Such Agency]

If you can get N OSS developers in a room, you're guaranteed to have N completely different opinions on what should be done in terms of any software strategy: technical, marketing, or other.

More like N+1 different opinions ;-)

A-FUCKING-MEN to this article...

[pVoid]

For those who actually read articles on Slashdot, this one is probably the most insightful article I've seen in a long time!

And people should start opening their eyes:

It says two basic things: Moft technicians good, moft lawyers and marketers bad.

Think about it, Moft's bugs aren't so humoungous... Had they had 'proper' legal and marketing departments, nobody would have been so outraged by most of these bugs. (Btw, most of the bugs in IIS are actually in ISAPI filters. Not IIS itself - and if Moft had had the courage of leaving them un'plugged' to start with... sigh)...

I truely hope the tech team at redmond wins it out though... They DO have some of the most amazing programmers out there. And I really don't care what some /. geeks with 'vengeance' written on their forheads have to say about it.

Dual boot computers will be a major test

[jonsmirl]

This latest anti-trust round has made it possible for the PC makers to ship dual boot systems. Hopefully all of the major PC vendors will have some backbone and start offering dual boot Windows and Linux on all of their machines. A shared partition would let you get at data files from both OS's.

Only a few people might initially try out Linux, but over time this would improve. Open Office, Linux games, a mess up or price increase by MS may all be reasons to switch. But having the OS on the hard disk is critical to making the switch easy.

Microsoft needs a villian to rally it's employee against. Linux is playing the part of the villian. Without a credible villian MS will break up into internal fiefdoms like it is doing.

Dumb and Dumber

[Veteran]

Microsoft's managers by the standards by which people in that field judge success are superb.

What do I mean by that? If you judge Microsoft's management by the universal business scorecard - money - then no one can argue that they are doing a bad job.

From a technical viewpoint Microsoft's managers are clueless idiots, from an ethical standpoint they are amoral cretins who barely qualify as human; but from a business standpoint - the company has made a lot of money on their watch.

In reality Microsoft's management is a lot like a defensive lineman who gets a pass stuck in his face guard - then stumbles blindly into the end zone to score a game winning touchdown; they were in the right place at the right time - every thing else was pure dumb luck.

Of course, Microsoft's management believes that their brilliant business decisions are responsible for Microsoft's success; but then I have already written about their technical judgment.

Just to give you an idea....

[jordanda]

I work at Microsoft Game Studios. Every full time engineer in my department runs Linux on at least one of their home computers but I've met project leads who don't even know what the GPL is. A lot of our staff come from companies that we've purchased. The difference between a native Micosofty and a bought one is staggering. The most comic example are the guys who work for Bungie. Bungie made Mac games for years and they all come to work in Mac schwag.

Cheap shot against Microsoft

[stephanruby]

This article is a cheap shot against Microsoft. The same thing could be said of any other profitable company.The people who create a product don't see eye to eye with the people who try to extract as much money as possible from that same product. This is Universal a truth.

The real enemy of Microsoft is the Status Quo. It's that old version of excel spreadsheet that a secretary is using as a database, it's that scrap of paper that the IT director is using to keep track of his passwords, and it's that old Linux box humming along under the desk. The Status Quo is the enemy of Microsoft. It's the enemy of Linux. And it's the enemy of every god damn company out there.

If Linux keeps on focusing on the Status Quo as its main competitor and if Microsoft keeps on focusing on Linux as its main competitor -- Linux will always win.

Hits the Nail Right on the Head

[serutan]

Hruska couldn't be more accurate. In my past 5+ years as a contractor working mostly at Microsoft, I've definitely seen the internal character of the place becoming less geek-centered and more suit-centered. Recently there was a poster on the wall exhorting people to save the company money by remembering that the free beverages are for consumption at work only. When you have administrative people busying themselves with that type of "hall monitor" behavior, you are also going to see things like junk-computer disposal disguised as charity, advertising disguised as customer feedback, and lawyer-driven software design.

Re:Hits the Nail Right on the Head

[blair1q]

UNIX was lawyer-driven software design.

your point is?

[rodentia]

News flash: it's 2002, not 1992. Microsoft-bashing is getting a little old.

As though defending yourself and your pocketbook were a fashion trend. Like they are any less a monopoly today. As if they were not actively buying legislative influence, strong-arming interoperability standards and bribing nations to maintain marketshare.

Self-defense is *so* nineties. Value for money is just bourgeois. Ethical behavior, no legal behavior, is, like, last week.

Re: Writer should get his facts straight

[mrkurt]

Wow, IBM had $20 bil. in their most recent quarter. I'm surprised. And they made $8 bil. in earnings. It has to be the industry's best-kept secret. (It shows you how much I've been following balance sheets lately) One would think that MS was bigger than B. Blue given the amount of publicity they generate. Perhaps what Hruska was talking about was the fact that MS drove IBM off most desktops way back when. Things have changed a lot for them in the past 4-5 years though.

Other than that oversight, I think Joel Hruska delivered the most concise, complete critique of Redmond I've read all year. MS really is their own worst enemy. You would think a company who has experienced the success they have would figure out a way to continue to be successful by supporting and promoting open standards, seriously committing themselves to security and reliability for their products, completely opening up their APIs to encourage developers toward Windows, and have flexible, reasonable licensing agreements to satisfy the interests of all their customers. But then, that has never been characteristic of MS, has it?

Instead, for this camper, MS's moves over the past twelve months have meant the following:

• Dual-booting a machine with Win98 and Linux, then blowing away Windows when I turned the machine into a server (after all, getting Win 2k Server would be $1000 list, and might not be all that stable)
• Figuring out that .NET is nothing more than a way to freeze its Windows developers in place, and lock organizations into Windows, I decide not to migrate to VB.NET or C#. Understand, my background had been as a VB developer. I go exploring alternatives. Python is looking mighty good to me right now.
• After finding out that Win XP contains "product activation" modules that rob one of one's dignity, and SP's that give MS admin rights on your machines, I decide I will install Win 2k on my new "naked" PC and my old laptop, but I will not go beyond SP2. In fact, Win 2k will be the last version of Windows I will ever buy.
• Seeing the incredible amount of security vulnerabilities that IE, Outlook, and Windows itself continue to experience, on my Windows machimes, I install and run Mozilla as my default web browser.
• On my laptop and Linux machine (by now upgraded to RH 8), I have OpenOffice 1.0.1 installed, and I enjoy the ability to share files among the machines, as well as read files created by MS Office programs on the other PC. I also enjoy the fact that I saved at least $400- 500 by using OOo.

If my experience is any example of how MS is trying to win friends and influence people in the know, it ain't happening, folks. For Joel and others who say that the learning curve is too steep, I say, give Linux a try-- you'd be surprised how much has changed in the past couple years.

Best Post

[d3xt3r]

By far the best post I've read on Slashdot in a long, long time. Well said.

It will take more than Microsoft's own failings

[ACK!!]

to bring down a monopoly such as this.

The key to Microsoft ever losing its monopoly status is two-fold.

1. Microsoft must screw up royally and continue to tick its customers off.

2. The competition (linux or Apple or whoever) has to progress significantly and continue to do well at the same time.

Otherwise the consumer will have to stick to the kludged up monopolist because there is no other choice.

The key therefore is not just Microsoft failing but other companies actually succeeding and progressing as MS fumbles.

After all even if Linux and Apple and other companies do a good job with their products the vast majority of people will continue to make the safe move and use MS products despite the alternatives.

Without both factors, the monopoly continues.

yep

[geek]

It's a perfectly natural progression. It happens in everything from government to businesses. It's called freedom of speech and it's what makes this country great. The tossing of ideas into the idea pool and fishing out the good ones.

People around here seem to think Bill runs things at MS which is far from the truth, not only is he not CEO anymore but the decision makers are the shareholders and board of directors. Of course if the mindless drones around here didn't have a target like Bill they wouldn't know what to do with themselves.

...and what is your point?

[WebCowboy]

I have to respectfully counter some of your statements--quite honestly I'm surprised they were modded up to the degree they were as they are as poorly thought out as you claim the featured article to be...

- Microsoft put little more than a CDDB lookup into their player. Since everyone freaked out they've made it very very obvious during the install what gets sent. Take a look at everyone else's player and you'll see they are not trying to take over the world in some sinister plot. And product activation sucks but so does having perhaps the most pirated piece of software in the world so you really can't blame them.

Kudos to MS for disclosing exactly what their player is doing--if they didn't we WOULD have reason to be concerned about ulterior motives and "sinister plots". However, the very fact that extensive means of monitoring usage are being integrated into software is itself disturbing. Sure it's done in the name of convenience and no ill will is intended...but what if the system is compromised by someone with malicious intent--either within MS or outside it(especially knowing MS's security record)?

And as for product activation being a response to rampant piracy--perhaps MS is putting too much into treating a symptom rather than finding a cure. Windows and Office aren't pirated so much just because they are there (although their universality in the market doesn't help). Consider that the ONLY profitable divisions of MS are the OS and Office groups, and that they achieve their profits through extreme mark-ups and draconian licensing policies. Combine that with very low hardware prices and it's no wonder nobody like buying Windows or Office--why spend less than $1000 on a very capable PC and more than that just for the basic software? Can you imagine what piracy would be like in the video industry if you paid $150 for your DVD player and a single movie cost $100 or more?

- Microsoft lobbies. Welcome to the united states of america. ...and all that is wrong with it. Exactly where is the point or thought in that statement? Is you point that since massive corprate lobbying happens all the time it is still good? RIAA, MPAA, Benson&Hedges, EXXON and other such corporate interests are stuffing the pockets of a lot of politicians too--most often in defence of coporate welfare and policies against the interests of democracy, individual rights and freedoms and the environment. I guess since MS shouldn't be held accountable for their lobbying practices neither should anyone else.

- Attacking microsoft because the PCs it donates aren't good enough? Come on! Donations are voluntary and should be welcomed no matter what they are. Don't forget Gates does some serious giving-back. Funny how he forgets to mention this..

Having had first hand experience with organisations on the receiving end of such so-called donations I have to say WHAT A PILE OF CRAP! Donations are voluntary and should be wecomed no matter what? So the food bank should accept donations of mouldy cheese? Distress shelters should accept ripped, tattered and soiled blankets, coats and clothing? They were "volunteered" by someone too so we should bend down and kiss their feet for ther generous offers?

Schools, churches and other charitable organisations are staffed by and large by volunteers and low-paid staff on meagre budgets--dealing with inappropriate donations wastes their time ans id more harmful than not giving at all. These 386, 486 and early Pentiums running Win 3.1 and 95 that MS "graciously" donates to schools are THEIR "mouldy blocks of cheese". Indeed, they can be put to as much good use in a typical school.

And as far as Bill and MS giving back a-plenty. If I remember correctly a good tithe to your church was traditionally 15% of your disposable income. MS and Bill personally come NO WHERE CLOSE to that. Furthermore, much of the charitable work Bill does is done with his own interest in mind. Bill can swoop down and provide a school with dozens of brand new P4s equipped with Windows XP (he doesn't even to that). Then in subsequent years he'll subject them to software audits and mandatory upgrades, to MS's benefit. Well--praise the lord Bill Gates was around to help us out.

As for me, I'll continue bashing Microsoft so long as they provide me with the wrecking ball with which I can do it.

Re:...and what is your point?

[jedidiah]

A tithe is 10% of your GROSS. It's a concept spelled out quite unambiguously in the Tanach.

LOL

[Danse]

They are looking to to things that the Hardware companies are not doing, like inovate.

Only if your definition of innovate is, "To create something that only works with Microsoft's proprietary software." Gee, weren't winmodems a great idea?

Re:LOL

[WindBourne]

Only if your definition of innovate is, "To create something that only works with Microsoft's proprietary software."
No that is MS's approach to Innovation (BTW, IBM, Sun, and HP all used it as well). Consider that these companies still manufactuer what are basically soup-up versions of the same thing from 1982: the PC. That is not innovation. They all tweak a little here a little there, but they are basically, the same damn thing. They also pay lip service to saying that they will improve, but they are afraid of hurting their own Bottom Line.

Consider the House market
PC's with wireless make absolutly no sense. The Laptop makes a bit, but only a bit more. Why? becuase they still need to be hooked up to power. Instead, they should offer a ethernet switch with POE that provides 15 watts of power / connection. Does not sound like much until you get too realizing the shear number of devices that can run at that low wattage. Over time, the race would be on to create high speeds, but lower wattage items. So what are some suggestions for items:

• Use the Etrax chip to create :
  1. 2 CF slots, that can handle ethernet card, or a modem. This allows interface back to DSL or POTS lines. Likewise, you can easily create APs.
  2. 2 IDE/ATA slots. Combined with 2 2.5/1.8 " drives, you have a nice small server for house operations: Yes, I know it is not fast, but for holding info about the house, or songs, or movies it is perfect. If you need more speed, then a different system could be bought and plugged in instead.
  3. 1 USB which the etrax supports nicely. Build a cheap web cam.
  4. Audio. this is a big one. Combine it with a small amp, and use one / speaker. True, you would only be able to get watts, but that is / speaker. That will handle most household. It would also solve the problem that hollywood has.
  5. combined with TV/radio card for streaming video/audio. The nice thing is that if an OSS program shows up that captures and saves it to the disk, then it gets around the TIVO patent that is only for an integrated unit. (What do you bet that MS will do this and then IBM/HP will give it a look-se.) This will allow a multi-monitors to see TV or hear the radio. The argument will be that they have to see the same thing. Fine, just buy 2 or 3 of them. Issue solved.
  6. create a small touchscreen interface, say 5 and 10 ". This can be used for input to the house system as well as other devices. A great example would be Washer/Dryer. IBM or HP could easily get Maytag to create washer/dryer with interface, but would have a chip and ethernet port. This device is then used to control both washer/dryer. Or with a DAC and thermostat, you could control Furnice/h2o heater/air conditioner. Out here in the west, we irragate our lawns. They could be put on the same system. Use the touchscreen as pix display or clock.
• Use a faster but low wattage chip such as transmeta combined with ram, ehternet, lcd display, blue tooth. This could be done in 15 watts. But even if it was not, they you have to plug it in. What of it. Use the POE to drive the ethernet, chip, ram and have the display/blue tooth on other power. If plugged in, that allows for distributed proccessing in the house. higher power processor combined with lower

I find it amazing how hard it is for companies to innovate now. They are so afraid until somebody else has done. BTW, I have been trying to get IBM and HP to look at these ideas (and others). It is very difficult to get through there levels of marketeers. What is sad, is that I have worked for both. If it is hard for me, I can not imagine what it is like for others.
From others, I have heard that MS is far easier to work with on getting things off the ground. It's just that they will screw you shortly.

*cough*

[Balinares]

Microsoft put little more than a CDDB lookup into their player.

Err. Mind explaining what kind of use a CDDB lookup might have for DVDs?

Re:*cough*

[pod]

Err. Mind explaining what kind of use a CDDB lookup might have for DVDs?

Uh, perhaps to look up the director, cast list, reviews, goofs, trivia?

Many mp3 players have an option to hook up to a directory to look up album details. Why would they do that? It's an MP3! It already has all the info you need in the ID tag! But there's obviously a use for it.

The problem with WMP lookups is that it sends a unique id along with the request.

Re:*cough*

[jedidiah]

Is there enough metadata on a DVD to completely catagorize it for use inside some sort of jukebox? If not, then a DVDDB database has exactly the same usefullness as a DVDDB database.

Admittedly, this is NOT what the M$ player is.

Um.

[runderwo]

From the article:

I'm no Linux user. I've never booted a distro of the OS in any of its flavors, and save for playing with it on a friend's machine, I've never spent much time in it. I am not an open source maverick, nor am I anti-business or anti-profit.

You know, if someone has to qualify their editorial claims by saying that they aren't part of those "open source mavericks" over there, or that they are not "anti-business or anti-profit", what does that say about us open-source mavericks as a desirable group of people to identify with?

I think the very idea that someone in the mainstream has gotten the idea that we are anti-business/anti-profit is very BAD, as it constitutes a fundamental misunderstanding of the movement behind free software and the open source development model.

Who in the mainstream is going to align themselves with us, if we give them the impression that we're anarchists and commies?

Re:Um.

[GauteL]

"Who in the mainstream is going to align themselves with us, if we give them the impression that we're anarchists and commies?"

Speak for yourself! I might not be an anarchist, but I'm pretty close to a commie!
Are Free Software and communism related? At least not closely. I'm actually more concerned with people (especially it seems in the US) having the notion that communism is evil. Thus I object to the idea of seeing Free Software as communism is also seeing it as evil.

Although I have to admit that it is easier for me to promote free software if I do not mention that I'm a socialist/communist.

You can decide wether promoting free software is just part of my sinister plot to introduce communism in the western world, or if this is all (or mostly) unrelated.

Re:Um.

[tshak]

I think the very idea that someone in the mainstream has gotten the idea that we are anti-business/anti-profit is very BAD, as it constitutes a fundamental misunderstanding of the movement behind free software and the open source development model.

I dissagree that there is a fundamental understanding. First, there are many FSF leaders who seem to have a semi-communisitic or more accurately a utopian philosophy which precludes the need for profiting or much profit. Second, those who are part of the FSF and OSS movements generally believe that profiting is possible through means other than selling software. However, this has yet to be proven (arguably), and therefore even those who think they believe in profiting practically don't because they are supporting an (again, arguably) not-for-profit movement.

Re:Um.

[sheldon]

I think the very idea that someone in the mainstream has gotten the idea that we are anti-business/anti-profit is very BAD, as it constitutes a fundamental misunderstanding of the movement behind free software and the open source development model.

On the contrary it shows that they have a very good understanding of the movement behind free software.

Who in the mainstream is going to align themselves with us, if we give them the impression that we're anarchists and commies?

They are not. But if you want to shed that image you need to stop acting like Software Communists.

Re:Um.

[m1a1]

I think that that is fine he claims not to be an "open source maverick." This editorial isn't meant to connect with you and I (although it does resonate with me on many levels). He wants it to be accessible to even those who know little or nothing about linux. He makes sure they understand that he isn't just some sort of activist (as MS makes OSS users out to be). His PC is a tool. He feels that MS is on the way to breaking his tool, and he wants the world to know that he won't stand for it. This is good.

Re:Um.

[runderwo]

They are not. But if you want to shed that image you need to stop acting like Software Communists.

I don't get your point. Of course free software is about the ability to share.

Are you saying that RMS is speaking out against profiting from selling software? If so, you're wrong. RMS has always embraced companies that sell free software. To him, everything else but the freedom is irrelevant.

I think you may be falling into the same trap that these mainstream pundits fall into.

Re:Um.

[runderwo]

I dissagree that there is a fundamental understanding. First, there are many FSF leaders who seem to have a semi-communisitic or more accurately a utopian philosophy which precludes the need for profiting or much profit.

Who are these "many FSF leaders"? Where have they said this?

Second, those who are part of the FSF and OSS movements generally believe that profiting is possible through means other than selling software.

You make it sound like the availability of other means of profit mutually excludes selling the software. It does not.

However, this has yet to be proven (arguably)

I would argue that there are already many companies out there embracing the demand for business built around free software, but I'd just get flamed and pointed out that none of them are as successful as Microsoft.

and therefore even those who think they believe in profiting practically don't because they are supporting an (again, arguably) not-for-profit movement.

Well, it seems that you're as confused as the guy in the article. There is nothing at all not-for-profit about free software or OSS development. Would you please provide me with some references that you used to reach the conclusion that you currently hold? I really hope you re-evaluate your opinions.

Re:Um.

[runderwo]

Although I have to admit that it is easier for me to promote free software if I do not mention that I'm a socialist/communist.

Well, that's just it. I think the movement would succeed a lot more if we focused on the movement itself, and not tying it into other dogmas that we may hold.

This is a capitalist society at heart. If I present myself as a businessman, and promote free software on the basis of what it can do for my business, I will be much more well received than if I present it as a basis for a pro-communist or pro-socialist argument.

People will already be shocked by the notion of an alternative model to proprietary software, and that shock must be overcome for them to accept your argument; why saddle it with even more shock by tying another sociopolitical agenda to it?

Re:Um.

[sheldon]

Are you saying that RMS is speaking out against profiting from selling software? If so, you're wrong.

Really?

Maybe you should explain this quote from the Manifesto then...

"Low-paying organizations do poorly in competition with high-paying ones, but they do not have to do badly if the high-paying ones are banned."

I think you may be falling into the same trap that these mainstream pundits fall into.

Since when is reading comprehension a trap?

There's a old saying... "Above all things, be true to yourself." You should keep that in mind next time you try to claim RMS is not against profiting from selling software.

Re:Um.

[tshak]

Who are these "many FSF leaders"? Where have they said this?

I'm talking about guys like RMS, Torvalds, etc.

You make it sound like the availability of other means of profit mutually excludes selling the software. It does not...I would argue that there are already many companies out there embracing the demand for business built around free software, but I'd just get flamed and pointed out that none of them are as successful as Microsoft.

You are missing the entire point. We are talking about general public perception. You can sit here and argue with me how OSS can be profitable without selling software, but the bottom line is most people won't sit down and listen to your arguments. Sure, IBM has done some things with Linux, but DB2 is still closed. Sure Apple has an OS'd Unix core, but their bread-and-butter OS is not OS'd. The guy in the article isn't confused at all, he simply doesn't see the profit. Now, whether or not we think that profit is possible is a totally different discussion - one that's been made in countless threads on /. before. I can link you to many sites that show profit models for OSS. But what really matters is if the big companies are truelly profiting off of OSS without selling software (they aren't, yet anyway), or if companies are profiting off of supporting OSS (they aren't, RH's recent profit was only for a single quarter - they are still tens of millions in the hole).

Again, I don't want to argue about how we think OSS could profit, or how it's working well in certain situations like OS X, or IBM's Linux Servers, because in both cases propietary software is being sold.

Re:Um.

[runderwo]

You know, you sound an awful lot like a troll. As much as you spout off about reading comprehension like you're my superior or something in that regard, you're relying on one quote taken completely out of context to back your point up. That's not a good argument.

Maybe you should explain this quote from the Manifesto then... "Low-paying organizations do poorly in competition with high-paying ones, but they do not have to do badly if the high-paying ones are banned."

If you read the preceding paragraphs, he mentions that programmers who share code will not be able to charge as much for that code. He doesn't say they will give it away for free, and he also enumerates some non-monetary benefits that programmers can receive from coding the "GNU Way".

In your out-of-context quote, he is not advocating banning high-paying jobs, which you may be claiming (I'm not sure!). But this is not what he is saying -- placed in context, he is simply stating a fact: that programmers are unhappy at low-paying jobs only when higher-paying ones are available to them. The example he used is one that was close to his heart, the programmers at the MIT AI lab. He claims they were perfectly happy while hacking at MIT, and were lured away by job offers where their happiness was not increased, only their money.

The whole section is a claim that money does not have to be constantly changing hands in order to motivate people to work. This has nothing to do at all with businesses capitalizing on free software as a product!

Re:Um.

[runderwo]

I'm talking about guys like RMS, Torvalds, etc.

Torvalds, like most other people, has nothing to do with the FSF besides using their license for his OS kernel. He is not a Free Software advocate, he is an advocate of the open source development model.

I am certain that if a company approached him with an offer for a proprietary-licensed version of the Linux kernel, he would be more than happy to provide it, to the behest of RMS.

The guy in the article isn't confused at all, he simply doesn't see the profit.

He is confused because he insinuates, from his perception, that FS/OSS advocates are anti-profit or anti-business. This is not the case, and my point was that if that is how people are perceiving us, that perception needs to be repaired, and soon.

Certainly, there may be individual communists or socialists among our ranks, but by and large, the movement does not represent their views. It represents a software development and distribution model that strikes a better balance between the rights of the user and the rights of the producer. That's all.

Re:Um.

[sheldon]

"You know, you sound an awful lot like a troll."

Is this ad hominem? You can't defend your position intelligently so you try to discount any opposition to it?

"In your out-of-context quote, he is not advocating banning high-paying jobs, which you may be claiming (I'm not sure!)."

Even in context, the quote advocates the banning of high-paying jobs. Why exactly are you uncertain why I am claiming this? Is it some sort of unwillingess to come to terms with the position you are defending? Why are you so fearful of Stallman that you pretend that he does not say that which his words advocate?

"But this is not what he is saying -- placed in context, he is simply stating a fact: that programmers are unhappy at low-paying jobs only when higher-paying ones are available to them. "

Yes, he said that, but then he went on to say that if we make higher-paying jobs unavailable then they'll all be happy again. What's that say to you? To me it says he's advocating the elimination of my freedom as a developer to choose who to sell my services to.

This right for me to decide the terms by which I am willing to sell my mind and body is one of the fundamental rights we enjoy in the United States.

"The example he used is one that was close to his heart, the programmers at the MIT AI lab. He claims they were perfectly happy while hacking at MIT, and were lured away by job offers where their happiness was not increased, only their money. "

That was *THEIR* choice. Besides that Stallman doesn't know whether or not they were happier, all Stallman knows is that he wasn't happy. So Stallman decided to take it upon himself to make their lives as miserable and retched as his own out of spite.

"The whole section is a claim that money does not have to be constantly changing hands in order to motivate people to work."

No it does not. There are many men and women who devote themselves to god and become Priests and Nuns. But you know what? They choose to do that.

"This has nothing to do at all with businesses capitalizing on free software as a product!"

You're right, it doesn't. This has to do with Richard Stallman advocating ways to eliminate high-paying jobs for developers. One such way is to destroy the notion of intellectual property via the GPL. The other such way is to ban commercial software.

http://www.redhat.com/opensourcenow/bill_opensou rc e.html

Re:Um.

[sheldon]

He is confused because he insinuates, from his perception, that FS/OSS advocates are anti-profit or anti-business. This is not the case, and my point was that if that is how people are perceiving us, that perception needs to be repaired, and soon.

Repair the perception by explaining to me how I'm going to get rich by creating software.

represents a software development and distribution model that strikes a better balance between the rights of the user and the rights of the producer.

No... the GPL represents a software distribution model that favors the rights of the user over the rights of the producer. I agree that we need a better balance, but the GPL does not represent that. Largely because it's motivated by envy and spite rather than any positive virtues.

Re:Um.

[runderwo]

Repair the perception by explaining to me how I'm going to get rich by creating software.

If your only intent is to "get rich", then I'm afraid I have no answers for you, as getting rich is sort of like winning the lottery.

If you actually meant "make an honest living" instead, then there are plenty of examples: Dual licensing, Hardware bundling, the "ransom" model, etc.

No... the GPL represents a software distribution model that favors the rights of the user over the rights of the producer.

Right, and how is this? Point out exactly in which areas that the user gets more rights than the producer.

(Notwithstanding that the intent of the GPL was to discard the notion of producers and consumers in software. Any user can become a producer if they want to.)

Largely because it's motivated by envy and spite rather than any positive virtues.

Uh-huh. (Rolls eyes.) Where is this "envy" and "spite" that you speak of? RMS wants everyone to have the freedom to modify and redistribute software that they use. What is so utterly hateful about this?

I really wish people would open their eyes to new possibilities, instead of blindly fighting things that they just don't understand.

Re:Um.

[runderwo]

Is this ad hominem? You can't defend your position intelligently so you try to discount any opposition to it?

You're the one that talked down to me in the first place, so kiss my ass if my "ad hominem" (consisting of pointing out your ad hominem) bothers you.

Why are you so fearful of Stallman that you pretend that he does not say that which his words advocate?

No. You're simply reading things into his words that aren't there.

You know, if you take offense to his words and you cared enough to make a change, you could drop him an intelligent, well-considered email and post his response here. As it is though, you're sounding more like a conspiracy theorist, than someone with a legitimate beef.

This has to do with Richard Stallman advocating ways to eliminate high-paying jobs for developers.

You've got to be joking. How many companies wouldn't exist if it weren't for Free Software? How many "middleware" service jobs would not exist? How many hardware products would not exist without an unencumbered embedded operating system in them? The list goes on and on.

Things benefit the industry in ways which you would hardly have any idea of. Just because you can't immediately see and identify the effects doesn't mean they aren't waiting to be discovered.

One such way is to destroy the notion of intellectual property via the GPL.

Riiight. The GPL is by all means a brutal hack on the intellectual property system in the US, but by no means does it prevent anyone from putting works under any other license. In addition, it leverages the existing IP framework in the US to accomplish its own goals.

The GPL's terms are not onerous; if you use GPL software and wish to redistribute it, you must do it in accordance with the GPL; nothing more, nothing less. If you don't like it, don't use the GPL for your software, and don't use any software licensed under it, or else pay the developer for a proprietary-friendly license.

How is it going to "destroy" intellectual property?

The other such way is to ban commercial software.

That's just absurd. I'd like to see you show me where RMS has ever advocated outlawing proprietary software. The GNU/FSF was erected in the first place as an alternative, so people can exercise choice if they are tired of being locked into proprietary solutions. Why on earth would anyone advocate removing the same choice that fostered the creation of Free Software?

So anyway, you've managed to flame away without even answering the original question: from what angle exactly are people getting the idea that Free Software is anti-capitalist or anti-corporate? I still haven't found any reasonable means, just a lot of angry people and RMS-bashers.

Re:Server slashdotted ... here's the article

[Jucius Maximus]

"Add it all up and what you have is a company that, at the least, displays a profound level of arrogance coupled with the unshakable belief that they have not only the ability, but the right to dictate to the rest of the world, from charities to corporations, how the world should look."

Reminds me of Dubyah.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:excuse me?

[Tall Rob Mc]

First of all, I don't hate Bush. I voted for Bush. He's doing the best he can in a shitty situation. He hasn't had many choices. I brought him up because he's nearly impossible not to mention with the topic I was commenting about.

As for the approval rating, I was watching CNN yesterday where a few talkings heads were having a discussion about the fact that Bush's approval rating for December will be 49%. I'm not sure of the name of the show, but I wish I would have noticed it so I could mention it here.

Bill Gates' Money

[Valdrax]

If you think that Microsoft's $40 Billion is an impressive number calculate what Bill Gates would lose personally if Microsoft's stock lost half of its value.

His fortune is less tied to MS than you might think. Gates has diversified his holdings over the past several years and as of Sept. 9th of this year only held 11.6% of the company's stock. I believe his current net holdings are worth $43 billion. MSFT has 5,346,449,872 shares as of Sept. 30th, and it closed on that day at $43.74. On that day, MS stock was worth $223 billion, and he held only $27 billion in MS stock. If he lost half that, he'd go from $43 billion to $29.5 billion (ignoring the fact that an MS crash would take down the whole market). Boo hoo. He'd still have over 100 times what he was worth back in 1986.

Of course, this in no way invalidates your argument which is 100% correct. MS is a very stock price-obsessed company, and a lot of mutual funds invest so much money into it because it's preceived as a stable growth company. A major Enron-like shake-up like Bill Parish has been hoping for would devistate the market as badly as Enron's did. MS's business personnel are wholy obsessed with keeping this growth stable, and it's been well documented that MS uses tricky accounting to smooth losses from one quarter to the next by storing up money from good quarters and counting it as "earnings" later.

Incidentally, the Bill Gates Net Worth Page is an amusing collection of statistics and extrapolations about his wealth, though its data is a little out of date. It shows things like how long he could buy off every major official in the government (if he stopped earning money), how fast you'd have to go picking up dollar bills from end to end to earn money as fast as he has since MS went public (35+ MPH), and how if he can maintain his current rate of growth per year (over 35%!), he'll be a trillionaire by 2014.

Re:Bill Gates' Money

[Zordak]

and how if he can maintain his current rate of growth per year (over 35%!), he'll be a trillionaire by 2014

And this is exactly Microsoft's problem. As has been pointed out, they are obsessed with inflating stock prices. Their entire strategy is like a positive feedback control system. Make money, Extend monopoly, make more money. Setting economics aside, this kind of system cannot even be maintained mathematically. Unbounded systems are inherently unstable. There has to be negative feedback for the system to maintain itself. In the past, the Sherman Act did a fair job of providing the requisite negative feedback (notice how the Bells are still around, and are still solid businesses, if not as large as before), but Microsoft seems to have been able to castrate that in the latest round, so no there is absolutely nothing to hold them in check. Any system -- physical, financial or otherwise -- has limited energy. I really don't know that our financial system has the energy to sustain an individual trillionnaire. I could be wrong, maybe the number is bigger, but ultimately, there is a finite limit to how much mass a body can accumulate before collapsing in on itself. The larger Microsoft gets, the bigger and more impressive their eventual fall will be, and unfortunately, the more collatoral damage they will inflict in the process. So, Microsoft really is their own worst enemy. In my opinion (I am dead serious about this), the best thing they could do is hire a bunch of controls engineers to take over their business development, who could then come up with a stability model. Unfortunately, as someone else pointed out, Microsoft appears to be much more concerned with short-term growth than with longevity. With their present model, there is no question of if they will crash spectacularly, it is only a question of when.

Re:Bill Gates' Money

[ninewands]

Quoth the poster:

Any system -- physical, financial or otherwise -- has limited energy. I really don't know that our financial system has the energy to sustain an individual trillionnaire. I could be wrong, maybe the number is bigger, but ultimately, there is a finite limit to how much mass a body can accumulate before collapsing in on itself.

Oh yeah, that's that "Club of Rome" thing I remember from economics back in the 80's ... IIRC, the world economy was going to collapse some time around 2000 because all the resources would have been consumed.

Don't get me wrong ... I don't disagree with MOST of what you say. In fact, a couple of months ago, I shocked my broker by telling her that I considered (and I still do) Microsoft to be a high-risk investment. There will come a time when Microsoft stock will at least, if not collapse, fall dramatically. Despite (or maybe because of) all their cash, Microsoft is pretty much a financial house of cards, and their continued attempt to pump up the stock price by any means necessary will eventually come home to roost. I cannot predict how much damage will be done when it happens, but I, for one, am keeping my IRAs and other investment funds the hell OUT of MSFT.

Re:Bill Gates' Money

[wormbin]

this kind of system cannot even be maintained mathematically. Unbounded systems are inherently unstable.

Next thing you'll be telling us is that a group of genetically engineered Dinosaurs on a remote island are uncontrollable. :)

Seriously, I agree with the substance of your post. Unless MS figures out how to sell Windows to Martians, their stock price is in for a tumble.

Re:Bill Gates' Money

[ConceptJunkie]

Yeah, with Microsoft it can be a net negative game. They often get paid to make things worse. That's one of the benefits of being a monopoly.

Re:Bill Gates' Money

[SectoidRandom]

Although I agree with just about all of what you said, I most definatly agree that comparisons to mathematical models are certainly valid, I suggest a more appropriate example to better compare with Microsoft than your choice of Bell is IBM. Like MS they too jumped through all the hoops of the Sherman Act, and like MS they essentially came out un-touched. The thing that got them in the end was the market place, and unfortunatly that is likely to be the only thing that has a chance of taking MS down. It may be hard to imagine, MS being surpassed by rivals, but i'm sure 25 years ago the same was thought of IBM.

I said unfortunatly because unlike a quick breakup of Microsoft by the government a slow gradual erosion of power and position by market forces, is firstly in no way assured, but secondly likely to be drawn out much longer. Meaning that when it comes to competition and fairness for consumers in the market, it is going to get a lot worse before it gets any better!

Re:Bill Gates' Money

[Zordak]

The mass does not have to be physical mass. In this case, it is financial mass. The laws of an unbounded system still apply. Are money and economics made up? Perhaps, but enough people believe in them that they are viable entities. Made up or not, in the world of economics, Microsoft is an extrememly massive body, and the positive feedback loop continues to add to that financial mass. This cannot be sustained indefinitely. It may not collapse this year or next year or even next decade, but it will collapse eventually. Just as there is a finite amount of physical mass in the universe, there is a finite amount of money, even in our "made-up" system. You can only make up so much before the whole system breaks down. Something has to give eventually.

Re:Bill Gates' Money

[Zordak]

IIRC, the world economy was going to collapse some time around 2000 because all the resources would have been consumed.

I didn't say when Microsoft would collapse, only that it is inevitable. I think the global economy is more stable than that. The only way it would collapse is if there were absolutely no physical resources left to put behind the money we make up. I haven't seen any credible sources predicting that happening in the immediate future. Within that system, however, there are finite resources ("money" in this case). Microsoft is a single body within that system that is absorbing vast amounts of those resources and accumulating mass in a positive feedback loop (it's like a monster that only gets hungrier when it eats and is large enough to eat whatever it wants). That simply cannot be sustained forever. I don't know when it will break, but I will stand fast by the assertion that it will eventually break.

Re:Bill Gates' Money

[perljon]

Any system -- physical, financial or otherwise -- has limited energy.

Your theory would have merrit if we were close to the limit of economic productiog. But we aren't. We aren't even close. Much of the world is undeveloped and not optimised for maximum production efficiency; there is plenty of room for population growth in most parts of the world; and we have an abundance of raw minerals and energy on the earth and beyond.

The energy of Microsoft is based on the economy of it's customers. The economy of it's customers is fuelled by production. Production in is determined by the number of producers; the effeciency of the producer; and the raw materials availabilty to maintain effeciency and feed production.

Comparing MS's rate of growth against a snapshot of a present economy is flawed. You must also predict the economy of 2014 and the growth steps from here to there, which is nearly impossible without divine intervention. Also, it has to be assumed that' MS's growth rate will change depending on the size of the economy (which is the amount of production).

Finally, predicting the economy of 2014 is a pretty tough thing to do. It's feasable, but would take a lot more resources than just you because there are so many factors involved. It's pretty straight forward to predict the number of producers in 2014. Population predictions based on the current population are a dime a dozen, and they are fairly accurate minus siginfigant events (war, disease, famin). Next you would have to calculate the effeciency of the work force. That's very tuff. You not only have to consider ifrastructure changes that increase efficiency, but technological and methodical advances. There's lots of possible infrastructure changes to be done in 3rd world countries, for example. And who can accurately predict scientific breakthroughs in the next decade. But there are also some infrastructure changes that could take place in developed nations. In the past, efficiency in the United States was significantly increased with the development of centralized power and heating, for example. (Also, internet, computers, highways, combustion engines, farming methodologies, factory robots, AI, etc.). Finally, you would have to calculate the availabilty of resources for the products, producers, and effeciency systems. For example, an oil shortage would decrease effeciency in all kinds of siginficant ways, and wouldn't neccesarly be predictable. Also, what if all of a sudden food stops growing in half the world. That really blows your population estimates. Silicon becomes a scarce and computers are no longer available in mass quantities... etc.

In short, economic predictions over 10 years is like trying to predict the wheather 10 years from today. You can guess, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it. But that doesn't matter in your theory any way, as you don't really consider that the production (ie, economy) will increase at a significant rate in the next 10 years, providing the prequesite energy for Bill Gates to reach a trillion dollar goal.

Re:Bill Gates' Money

[Brendan Byrd]

In fact, a couple of months ago, I shocked my broker by telling her that I considered (and I still do) Microsoft to be a high-risk investment.

Sounds like you need to switch brokers. She shouldn't be shocked by that.

Re:Bill Gates' Money

[Zordak]

I agree that it is not practical to predict the economy of 2014. In fact, even ignoring catastrophic events, we can't predict the economy next year. That's not what I am getting at here, though. As I said at first, any positive feedback control system is inherently unstable. To refute that, you need to refute my theory that Microsoft operates on a positive feedback model. If you are willing to grant the positive feedback theory, they will eventually fail. How long is eventually? That is where it is pure conjecture. It may not be in the next 10 years (I would conjecture that 10 years is sufficient time for them to reach critical mass if they don't get some negative feedback introduced into the system, but as you said, that's just a guess).

Re:Bill Gates' Money

[Valdrax]

That was over the course of a few months after a 2-for-1 stock split, so it was really just a shaking out of the price to match the previous market capitalization of the company. However, I wasn't aware of the dip in 2001 and the fact that the price has hovered there ever since. (I don't own MSFT stock, so I don't watch it often.) Maybe the stock has finally stabilized after all these years.

Re:Bill Gates' Money

[jafuser]

You know, this has *got* to be the same way with AOL subscriptions. Seriously. If you haven't already gotten a dozen discs in the mail and passed over a couple of hundred displays at checkout stands for a free two zillion hours on AOL, are you suddenly going to change your mind?

The only people they (AOL and MS) have left to consume are new computer buyers, and last I heard the number of people without computers is drying up.

Love hate

[Capt_Troy]

Just to preface this: I've only read te first page of the article, the second seems to not be available at the moment...

I use Microsoft products as a home consumer (joystick, steering wheel, mouse, Windows XP, and an XBox). I do most of my programming work on a Linux box.

I do feel like MS treats business customers differently than it does home consumers however. For example, the company that I am working for is currently undergoing a MS audit where they are treated almost like a bunch of thieves and the general theme of the audit is "We know you are stealing something, where is it?" And for that, I hate them. They could handle it better and provide better service rather than just trying to pry more money out of our cold dead hands...

However, as a home user I have been very pleased, especially with the customer service. My XBox broke last week, they shipped me a box with an Airborne shipping label. I boxed it up, shipped it out and they fixed it same day and next dayed it back to me. 2 days! I was amazed and impressed, try to get that kind of service out of Sony... And it was all totally free.

So if MS would spend the same kind of efforts to please their business customers as they do their home customers, they would be in a much brighter place corporate wise. Why don't they do this? Well, I think it's pretty simple, cause it is very easy to take a lot of money from a big company, much easier than it is to take a little money from some guy sitting at home trying to play his Xbox.

well.....*DUH*

[andy_geek]

So, you say Microsoft will ultimately destroy itself? Well, la deefreakin' da! What megalitic entity throughout the history of time that's been destroyed hasn't destroyed themselves? See the Roman Empire, the Soviet Union or the Roman Catholic Church for a refresher.

I just hope I'm not supposed to feel sorry for Bill, Steve and the gang because they're getting some pushback from the Microserfs.

I tend to think the reason we're starting to see dissention up at the Redmond Institute for Wayward Boys is an ecomonic one: in the 80's and 90's, developers at Microsoft were making the same sort of crap/bloat/spy/suck-ware, but the difference was they were making a mint off of it. Now, the fully-vested huge stock options are not there, staff turnover is high, and the cro-magnon managers that drive projects have become more and more unpleasant to work for. I speak from some experience, as a former Microsoftie. So, just like any of us who are feeling more pressure to perform with smaller reward at the end of the day, the geeks out there are starting to bitch and moan.

This happens in bajillions of companies every day, particulalry from the IT infrastructure: just ask IBM'ers off-the-record how happy they are with their company's adherence to J2EE spec's, as an example. But don't get the lofty idea that the programmers at Bill Central are nobly rising up to give an Open-Source pimp-slap to their .NET oppressors. If they were getting the juice, they'd be happy as clams.

And don't fault them for it: it's why they went to M$ to begin with. These are people who are not agonizing over the social and geek-topian ramifications of their work. They've made their peace with that. Now, we can (and will, dammit) harrangue them for being a part of said same awful machine, but that's who they is, folks.

This isn't about technology anymore than it is about macaroni and cheese. This is about moolah. As long as they can put in their 10 hours a day building flight simulation easter eggs into the latest version of FrontPage, they will tolerate the occasional Nazi-esque rally with Ballmer or the (less-occasional) ass-reaming they receive from their managers. It's just as the rewards for such easter egging have been diminishing, the risk for complaining about the coroporate ethos has dimished as well.

Let the flaming begin.

Microsoft success or faliure, so what?

[miffo.swe]

I have come to the conclusion that wether Microsoft survives or not doesnt bother me a piss. One part of me would most gladly see the Borg go down in agony. The other part looks at his nice linux desktop wich does everything he did in windows and much better and feels a state of nirvana. As long as i have my linux and no one tries to destroy it i couldnt give less sh*t about windows. We need to stop looking at what Microsoft is doing and do our own stuff.

They are hurt if linux makes a success, we shouldnt care less if Microsoft do. Lets focus at linux and let Microsoft play in their own little pond by themselves.

Variety is the Spice of Software Communities

[Alethes]

I don't want any "mass unification" in Linux or any such garbage. I'm just saying that the Microsoft community having two opposing viewpoints within it doesn't mean anything more than Linux having several fragments. Variety is a Good Thing(TM).

People are jumping and down excited that Microsoft is going to somehow fall apart because of opposition within the camp, but Linux has been strengthened by that very characteristic. Will Microsoft be weakened by the very thing that makes software better? Of course not. Microsoft is not their own worst enemy anymore than the Linux/FS/OSS community is theirs. Come on people -- use a little consistency in your logic.

Wow, did everybody miss the point of that one?

Re:Variety is the Spice of Software Communities

[jedidiah]

There is a vast gulf between Microsoft "the community" and Microsoft "the company". Also, Microsoft is not the multi-headed beast that the Free Software community is. The Free Software community really can go in 100 directions at once. Microsoft probably can't. It's a more limited entity working with limited resources.

NT5 WILL be compromised to suit the consumer needs of XP. EASY will take precedence over secure or even "reasonably secure".

Microsoft is a consumer company trying to pretend at being an enterprise company. Whereas the Linux/Unix community can afford a more varied identity as there are more brand names to go around.

3 apples tall !!!

[ghjm]

I really want to know: Do you know where that reference comes from?

-Graham

Re:3 apples tall !!!

[Fulcrum of Evil]

That's smurf size

Re:Market Cap

[tomhudson]

Re: Market Cap: Microsoft doesn't pay dividends. Never has. It's a pure speculation play. If it were evaluated as an income-producing stock, it's market cap would be negative, because they are facing potential liabilites in Europe (read their financial statements) over anti-trust concerns that amount to several times their cash horde.

Besides, their market cap is a mooks game, as most investors found out this past year.

As another poster pointed out (below), MSFT didn't pay taxes last year, IBM did. Who has the "real" profits?

Microsoft hardware: Joysticks, mice, keyboards, home multimedia centers, pvrs, etc, a division that is losing money hand over fist.

The true value in any computer is not the hardware. IBM understands that with their zSeries Linux mainframe. They've done a real value-add there.

Re:Bigger Picture

[andy_geek]

You realize, Nostradamus, that at the current rate that Linux is chipping away at Microsoft, your predictions will come true...in roughly the year 2050. At which time, are you telling me Linux is still going to be the major player? I doubt even Linus would make that guess. The market is flooded with Windows boxes and we're in a recession. Think people are eager to switch to something else, even if its free? That means buying books, buying manuals, buying friends who know this stuff dinner.

The "war" such as it is has been lost, for a long time. Evolution is the only thing that's gonna stop M$, and it will. But if you're waiting for the giant Asteroid to wipe them off them map, good luck. Look at how long cockroaches have survived.

Re: IBM vs Microsoft

[tomhudson]

Actually, IBM has always generated more revenue than Microsoft. And when you get down to it, they're both software companies - even mainframes are useless without software. I've been winning this bet since at least the middle of 1996. Back then, IBM earned on Monday what Microsoft took the whole week to make. So we've seen how, while hardware has followed Moore's law, Microsoft products have been doing the opposite.

Actually, your experience is much more indicative of where everyone's going to be going over the next few years, ;-)

Have a happy new year!

Re:Microsoft Marketing & Microsoft Developers

[cranos]

You know I though no-one used Share Point either, that is until the fucking MCSE here at work whacked it onto the Intranet Server without telling me. AAAAARGGGGGHHHH, fucked everything up.

Let this be a lesson to you, the only good thing an MCSE can say to you is "Would you like fries with that?"

Re:LINUX WILL NEVER WIN IN THE DESKTOP WAR...

[andy_geek]

No no no! There is no UNLESS. There is just NO, it won't win. I know this sucks to admit. Listen, I'm a Mac person: I'm well acquainted with the bitter taste of having a 3rd-rate, bug-ridden piece of bloatware being a standard. But move past it.

Let me tell you, Bill Gates is SO beyond thinking about the desktop. It's the advantage of having oodles of cash, you see, but he's already targeting emerging markets (tablets, wireless, etc).

The battle, she is over. And it wasn't even much of a fight. And if the tech community stays mired in the "we're better, how come they won't notice that?" conversation, M$ will run right past us all and own the next big thing.

Stop trying to re-do what Microsoft has already undone. Think of what else is out there to do, change the whole paradim, not the perception.

Bribe vs. settlement

[coyote-san]

If the money goes to the official(s) approving the deal, it's a bribe and criminal. If it goes towards other programs or the general fund, it's a settlement and legal.

Of course reality is far more complex than that. Some officials may use the money to fund pet projects that they can't fund through regular channels. But that's a matter for the state (either the elected officials overseeing these people, or the voters themselves) to address.

Not exactly true

[autopr0n]

No, people arn't going modify the kernel or download kernal mods of the 'net, but what they can do is choose between lots of diffrent distros, with diffrent options and software installed.

Communism == EVIL

[jmorris42]

Yes, communism is Evil. Everywhere it has been tried it has ended in millions of bodies in unmarked graves. Everywhere. Don't even start that crap about some wicked people getting in control and screwing up a good idea. It has to be that way, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Communism is based on the idea that one absolute dictator will decide what is best for everyone (the Seven Year Plan) and everyone else will selflessly put out a 100% effort to achieve the goal. When the reality that people won't put out much effort with no hope of a reward, the 'malcontents' start get shipped off to the deathcamps.

If the maximum leader actually responds to the wishes of the lead, he isn't a maximum leader anymore and the government drifts away from communism because 'the people' never actually want communism. They might SAY they want some of the trappings of it, but offer them the whole package and as soon as they figure out how badly they get screwed along with 'the evil rich' they want nothing to do with it. Then it's either popular rule or rule from the muzzle of a gun. Popular rule means slide towards a European style Welfare State Socialism with a stagnant economy or keep going towards a full Free Market. The other option is for starry eyed communism to turn into Stalinism, which is historically the more popular choice since those in power never want to give it up without a fight. After all, they have convinced themselves they are the most wise and enlightened leaders in the land and are most fit to rule.

Re:Communism == EVIL

[Chris Johnson]

How old are you? :D

The trouble with communism is that man oppresses his fellow man. With capitalism it is the reverse ;)

You seem to have communism confused with fascism. An understandable mistake, considering that our own leaders have a hard time telling the difference between capitalism and fascism! Still, you might consider being more quiet about things that you only have a 'Schoolhouse Rock' understanding of.

And don't look at me that way- I'm an anarchist, meaning that I don't trust you, Stalin, the assembled CEOs of the (ha!) 'free market', or even myself if you gave me that kind of power. You're all conning yourselves into thinking you have the magic bullet, 'do things this way and you'll never have to come to agreements with people you don't like because everything will happen perfectly thereafter'. Yeah right! Your 'free market' is just as corrupt as the worst Stalinist excesses, if you give it the same amount of power. And you're busy convincing yourself that you're the wise and enlightened one and you (or at least the policies you suggest) are most fit to rule.

Your view of democratic capitalism is based on the idea that crime does not pay :) too late!

You can still say communism is evil, though. As long as you concede that capitalism is equally evil :)

Re:Communism == EVIL

[GauteL]

As opposed to the millions of graves capitalism has created. Possibly not in the US, but in all the countries that Western Capitalist countries exploit for profit.

Besides. "Kill counts" are almost always exaggerated when presented from a "communist country" as part of common propaganda. When Ceucescu was overthrown in Rumania he was presented as a communist dictator, when in fact he was largely supported by the west, and was much more of a facist than a communist. The kill numbers where presented in the scale of 50.000 when in fact they were less than 1000.

At the same time USA attacked Panama in a "clean, precision attack to take down an evil communist dictator", when in fact he came to power supported by the US, and the kill numbers (civilians) where actually larger than in the revolt in Rumenia.

I would not trust for instance CNN, NBC or CBS to give you an objective view on communism.

Red Khmer in Cambodia was supported by the west until he got troublesome.

Communism in it's basic idea is "provide what you can, and receive what you need" and the idea that the people shall own the means of production.

I'm not saying that it has been a raging success so far, although Cuba seems to work pretty well right now, apart from the ridiculous ban by their biggest potential market (USA). The implementation of Communism has so far been flawed. Their are lots of elements to change in the idea, but it has not at all been proven that the basic idea is evil. Perhaps it is not a good idea to give too much power to a leader, that can be changed.

The notion that "capitalism works" is equally ridiculous. It might work for you, but there are huge masses of people being hurt by capitalism every day.

I'm just "nearly" a communist, and I think there is a better way than capitalism. If you disagree, that is fine, but the whole "communism is evil" mantra of Western Capitalism is basically flawed and makes arguments useless.

Re:Communism == EVIL

[jmorris42]

> How old are you? :D

I only got to vote for Reagan's re-election. Do the math. ;)

> You seem to have communism confused with fascism.

That is because while they differ somewhat in theory, in implementation they look pretty much the same. One maximum leader deciding what the correct allocation of resources is and when someone objects, shooting them or putting them in camps.

> And don't look at me that way- I'm an anarchist, meaning that
> I don't trust you, Stalin, the assembled CEOs of the (ha!)
> 'free market', or even myself if you gave me that kind of power.

You won't see me defending the mercantilism passing itself off as Capitalism these days, but I'll defend Capitalism to the end. Because it is the only system devised so far that doesn't depend on giving one maximum leader (or cabal of Congresscritters) so much power that it must corrupt. When the invisible hand of the marketplace allocates resources it is through mutually consentual transactions instead of a government decree enforced at the end of a gun.

Oh, and don't rag on Schoolhouse Rock. It does a better job of teaching civics than what goes on in actual schoolhouses these days. It pretty accurately covers the material that the elementary school set should be required to know and does it in a way that the intended audience remembers it. In reality, most high school grads can't even name the three branches of our government. Sad.

Re:Nothing that is so, is so

[jedidiah]

So are you all just admitting that the "invisible hand" is DEAD? That seems to be what you're saying. While no robber baron should WANT to actually produce what the customer wants, any robber baron should be FORCED too.

Why you seem to celebrate the notion that the "invisible hand" is dead and buried confounds me.

For you are the sort of inconsequential mite that The Invisible Hand is supposed to benefit.

What?

[autopr0n]

Um, I don't think you can have a negative market cap. IIRC, the market cap is just the number of stocks times the stock value. In order for M$ to have a negative market cap, they would need to have negative-valued stocks.

Re:Come along and share the software...sing it!

[jedidiah]

Stallman's antics are strictly for the choir. If you think that potential WinDOS converts are going to base their choices on the antics of RMS, you need to get out a bit more. Stallman is invisible to most end users.

Re: Writer should get his facts straight

[tomhudson]

Who has more sales? IBM. That makes them number 1 by any rational standard. As for market capitalization, the day that Microsoft pays dividends, we'll see it evaluated like any other company. In other words, rationally.

Re: Writer should get his facts straight

[tomhudson]

The writer said that IBM was a has-been. They're actually number 1 in terms of sales.

Also, net income can fluctuate based on differences in accounting principles (Enron, etc), whereas sales, unless fraudulently booked to different quarters, really says just how much money passes through your hands.

After all, a company that breaks even on a bllion of sales is certainly bigger, and a more important player in their field (as measured by customers who vote with their wallets) than a competitor that makes a thousand-dollar profit on annual sales of two grand.

Microsoft "Engineer"

[AndroidCat]

Aren't there a lot of places where only a P.Eng can legally call themselves an engineer? (Memebership in the local professional engineering society, worked under another P.Eng for n months, a degree.) Frequently my job title has been "software engineer", but I'm never very happy about that. And someone with a CrackerJack prize certification calling themselves an "engineer" makes me even less happy.

Emm-Aye-Cee-Are-Oh-Ess-Oh-Eff-Tee...

("CrackerJacker" would be a nice subtitution for hacker if we could get the press to adopt it. Not likely.)

Stossel the Liar

[burgburgburg]

John Stossel reported on 20/20 that tests commissioned by ABC News indicated organic produce was more likely than conventional produce to be contaminated by E. coli bacteria. Stossel also said, "Our tests surprisingly found no pesticide residue on the conventional samples [of produce] or the organic" -- thereby contradicting one of organic food's primary selling points.

The report was aired twice before Stossel was forced to retract the statements which were patently false because the group that supposedly did the tests kept complaining that the tests described had never been done.

The first actual study of the issue was completed in May and showed that organically grown produce contained a third as many pesticide residues as conventionally grown foods.

Stossel knew there was no study to support his ridiculous claims, but it meshed with his political beliefs and he didn't think anyone would call him on it.

More details about the real study are here. More about Stossel's junk science can be found here.

Microsoft's Worst Enemy:

[Kizzle]

Deez nuts

ALL CAPS TITLES WILL I SUPPOSE?

[theolein]

Fear that no one's listening to you?

IE != XBox

[SerpentMage]

They gave away IE and used the OS to subsidize the costs of IE development.

In XBox this is not entirely possible since there are actual costs. If you skip on the hardware costs then the games are more expensive. If you make the hardware more expensive then the games could be cheaper.

The problem that I see in the XBox market is that it has turned mature and I would even think that it will begin to collapse again.

I read how certain toy chains are starting to stop carrying the games because the games are for 16+ year old only. Now before one says, oh this is different because there is more penetration, please remember Atari and others who had console games as well. And likewise once people got over the initial hype it died off.

The problem with gaming these days is that it has become dull. Online gaming is a new and interesting twist, but that will carry the games only so far. Who knows what that will be....

Apple ][ forever, baby !

[UnknownSoldier]

Although that Mac OS X is starting to look pretty sweet ...

Re:LINUX WILL NEVER WIN IN THE DESKTOP WAR...

[miffo.swe]

Linux can very well win the desktop. Not diretly but if it makes even limited success in creating open standards it will open up the OS market for other players. Imagine what would happen if all applications was written in platform independant form? Applications and the barrier to entry is the single and only thing that is holding other OS from competing with MS Windows. Open standards steaming from linux could change that.

Why do you think MS was so afraid of JAVA?

Lose Your Geeks and You're Dead

[serutan]

The article focuses on the impact on customers, but I think the most serious effects of the tech-vs-business strain within Microsoft will be on the company itself. As the company is controlled more and more by lawyers and financial people rather than technical people, it is becoming less and less a geek-friendly place. Many valued techies who used to feel a real passion for working at Microsoft are probably already saying Screw It and walking away. And that's the poison pill that will kill Microsoft.

May be a little more complicated

[einhverfr]

First, I disagree that Microsoft's biggest enemy is themselves. I think Microsoft's biggest enemy is Moor's Law, and computer power is outpacing people's general needs. This means that computer lifecycles are increasing, and Windows market size hence is likely to decrease. I think there are people in the sr. management who understand this, and I think there are many who don't. But the attempts to move into emerging embedded markets has been severely hampered by Linux and so you have a lot of people trying to figure out what to do.

Enter Microsoft's Enemy #2-- .NET Development Environment and Framework (i.e. Microsoft). Here is where I think the culture split occurs. Many people at Microsoft see the major competitive threats to be Java and Linux because on some abstract level they reduce Windows' market share. The problem is you end up with two cultures-- one who wants to beat Linux by all means necessary and the other that wants to beat Java by all means necessary.

These are mutually exclusive goals. The anti-Java camp wants to see the .NET framework be a Java killer and knows that it can only do that if Mono, Portable.NET etc. succeed. So they vocally support all third-party attempts at interoperability, etc. Blinded by their attempt to kill Java and hence dominate the intermediary language world with technologies that Microsoft initially developed (but would likely no longer control) they don't see that this would bring to Linux/FreeBSD/[favorite os] all the RAD tools that Windows now has. Hence the OS market is commoditized, and Windows falls to Linux ;)

The other camp is the one currently pressing for subscription licensing of Windows, Office, etc. They believe in the market power (i.e. monopoly) of Microsoft and believe that few people can turn to competing products successfully. Most fo them don't understand the .NET framework idea well enough to realize what it might do, but they try to reinvent Windows adding many truly advanced features (like 3d UI, RDBMS-based file-system, etc) that no one really needs and eat upway too much performance...

The real problem is that Bill has not tried to reconcile these camps, and this is a serius problem, but the root cause is from external economic factors.

It's not the products, it's the customer abuse.

[zerofoo]

I've dealt with Microsoft products for a very long time. Dos, Windows 3.1, NT....etc. have served my clients well for a very long time. Later I became a network admin for a school and again, MS products fit the bill very well.

Recently Microsoft has not been happy with billions of dollars in profits (none paid to stockholders as a dividend). And started licensing schemes to ensure continual "subscription" revenue. Consider that their server software (costing thousands of dollars) does not come with ANY support at all; this adds insult to injury. (Server support is a pay-per-incident model.)

These greed driven licensing pracitces are the last straw. Microsoft must realize that treating its customers like dirt will only ensure that the customers look at other offerings. I am currently evaluating OS X and linux as eventual replacements for the total MS environment we now live in.

MS better start treating it's customers nicely if it wants to keep them. They aren't the only game in town any more.

-ted

Marketing paranoia

[theolein]

Microsoft's real secret to success will be their downfall: Microsoft's so-called embrace and extend is not the real secret to their success. The strategy of complete and utter marketing paranoia in which Microsoft will attempt to kill any competitor in any market, no matter how small, to avoid the remote possibility of the competitor ever being a threat to Microsoft. This doesn't apply to Mac OSX because MS has needed them as a token competitor in the past. MS has lost any trust they ever had amongst independant developers because of this.

Re:Linux and OSS vs. Windows, or?

[Chris Johnson]

It is a requirement for Linux to be impossible to kill or neutralize in the Operating System (or any) business.

There's no kind of guarantee that it'll succeed, but that does permanently leave open the possibility of succeeding in the long run.

Free Software (to a lesser extent Open Source, which is more business-goals-identified) is specifically about guaranteeing access to everyone who wants it, without exception. No business mistake or IP shift can stop that, no change in underlying hardware platform can marginalize the Free Software- worst comes to worst, you abandon a closed hardware platform, take your Free Software and go make a computer that you can use it with. There isn't a situation where it can be taken away from you.

So, by being based on Free Software, Linux cannot be taken OUT of the Operating System business. That's not a guarantee of success but it's worth a hell of a lot... there's a value to that kind of availability.

Re:Nothing that is so, is so

[Chris Johnson]

Invisible hand? Is that somehow related to the famous Invisible Pink Unicorn of story and song (well, maybe someone sang about it once)? :)

Know your history

[mabu]

First off, all this talk about "Microsoft Technology" is a farce. From the very beginning when Bill Gates weaseled his earliest software licenses from real coders, Microsoft was more a marketing machine than a development company. It amuses me that anyone ever thought of them differently. The company's modus operandi hasn't changed one bit since day one: take other peoples' technology and leverage it for your own gain and garner as much control over the environment as possible.

The saddest part of all this is the new generation of "programmers" who don't really seem to understand that stability and performance have NEVER been platform or hardware dependent. The new breed of developers as well as users has been conditioned to accept failure and mediocre performance as the status quo. Microsoft, Oracle, and other companies have shifted their business model to exploit the instability of their own products to create entirely new (support) industries from which to profit. It's like they're selling you tainted food and offering health insurance at the same time.

With few exceptions, Microsoft puts out crap. They don't even spray it with perfume any more.. The computing public has learned to enjoy the taste of crap, and they'll serve you a bigger pile of crap each season and you'll love it. What else are you going to do?

I would really like to see OSS take over, and I do my part, but I see an increasingly lazy, uneducated and unmotivated public that is becoming more and more difficult to reason with. I am at a loss how to knock some sense into the public without an ad budget of less than many millions of dollars. Welcome to the new millennium. It looks like it will have to get much worse before it gets better.

The Greatest Gamble

[m1a1]

This is a little offtopic, but it is at the bottom, so nobody will read it anyways.

I look at the tech industry, that I am preparing to enter, and I see my life ahead of me as a great gamble. I have to pick what platform to develop for, who to develop for, and where to develop at. All of these choices will seriously affect my life, my earning value, and the future of my family. This is scary! Five years ago, I was still in high school. If someone asked me then what platform I would develop on I would say, "The newest Win32 of course!" In a perfect world I would have wanted to work for my MS. Now though, there is no guarantee. I honestly believe linux is the future of computing, but I have no idea what business model is best to use with it! OSS is new territory in the business world. The GPL is a big question mark! I am pretty damn good at poker, but I don't enjoy the prospect of gambling with my life. Oh well, here it comes.

Re:LINUX WILL NEVER WIN IN THE DESKTOP WAR...

[miffo.swe]

I was merely using Java as an example of a cross platform technology. There are numerous others that could emerge. The only company afraid of this is Microsoft. The applications barrier is thanks to linux and open source quickly eroding. If you make a new OS today that will compete against MS Windows it is highly beneficial to make it able to compile linux applications. Having the source code is a step towards x-platform. Now if the source was written with platform independance in mind, then open source would completely wipe out the barrier to entry,

What is the most common complaint against new OS?

Yep, can it run application x?

Looking at what they do, not what they say...

[Kjella]

The EULA could say "all your base are belongs to us" and noone would care. Nobody will start bothering until Microsoft actually uses the power granted by those EULAs, like automatic forced updates, or prevent you from playing certain songs/movies, or something.

As for linux being easy to learn, I just had to explain to my boss why the photo scanned on one machine couldn't magically appear on his machine along with the digital photos from his digital camera. "You have to store it on the network, and then get it from your own machine" (no direct sharing, goes through server). Try explaining him Linux and well, lol....

Kjella

Agreed.

[Moderation abuser]

IBM boxes == rock solid.

And I can't emphasise strongly enough how important that stability is. I can get actual work done instead of fighting fires.

e.g. average AIX box:
#> uptime
10:15AM up 368 days, 42 mins, 2 users, load average: 0.17, 0.12, 0.12

Everyone's on holiday at the moment, so all the systems are idle.

Our Linux boxes are quite good but the AIX boxes still beat them easily in terms of stability and flexibility and it's not as if IBM's Unix systems are their most stable platforms. Windows is comparatively shite.

We could argue all day about the relative merits of the various operating systems and hardware platforms, but I would have no qualms about spending a bit more cash up front and spec'ing an IBM box for an application.

Wrong infrastructure

[TheConfusedOne]

The infrastructure that MS has is the OEM's and the Corporate IT heads.

It doesn't matter how many people you have pushing your product by word of mouth. If it doesn't appear "auto-magically" on that new PC that John Q. Public gets from CompUSA/Best Buy/Circuit City/etc. then your chances of making any significant inroads versus MS are essentially zero.

The next best thing we can do is have "convert a newbie" day and everyone rebuild a friend's PC with Linux or other non-MS OS of choice. You will of course have to commit to coming back multiple times when they buy their new camera, printer, scanner, etc. Also, you'll need to make the system dual boot if they're a serious gamer.

MS may have made huge mistakes and continue to "squander opportunities", but as long as people like Michael Dell live in Bill Gates' back pocket then there's not a whole heck of a lot that can be done.

OT:SLASH Journal

[red5]

Hey GG Your Journal is rather interesting it's to bad comments aren't enabled.