Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft at the Tipover Point
David Gerard writes "In the wake of Microsoft's first flat quarter, The Inquirer brings us The IT Industry Is Shifting Away From Microsoft - Linux is being taken seriously, Microsoft is not trusted and our favorite monopoly is finding it harder and harder to compete with 'free.'"
On one hand, I'm breaking out the wine for a little celebration. On the other, this is the Inquirer we're talking about guys. I might save the bottle for when a reliable source follows up this story.
i see what you're saying about possibly breaking out the Wine a little too early...
the article was a little ruthless if you ask me.. of course i want opensource to prevail.. but i don't see it happening anytime soon.. companies will only need to HIRE more Linux guru's which will cost them money.. when the could just buy something like MS 2003 server.. its sad but true... they dont give a fuck about opensource movements.. they just want to save money... licensing is a bitch though with that MS 2003 server.. the only downfall really.. and plus the fact that its MS.. haha
- Hi I'm Linus Torvalds and I pronounce Linux, Lih-nix..
On the web server this may be true. In Germany it is even > 89% Apache.
But Microsoft still is strong in the Desktop market. Soon KDE 3.2 will be released and as Linux quickly matures on the desktop I don't see a reason why it will not be the default plattform in the enterprise desktop market.
Only software patents can stop Linux now, but today software patents and patent privateers harm Microsoft (eolas, SPX ecc.). But Microsoft performs well in the armsraise.
Sure, Microsoft will die away. It's only a matter of time.
Microsoft has been plugging away at the set-top box market for years, and for a year or so has sold a media center edition intending to hit the Tivo type market (convergence).
Does more, is more secure and costs less. At least that's the argument that I have been pushing at my military contract where I work and lo and behold we are now switching to Zope (OSS CMS system). The fact that Oracle recommends Linux as it's platform has resulted in us installing a fair number of Linux boxes.
Government agencies have been feeling the pinch and they really have no choice but to consider it.
I think I may have been the only person at my contract to be REALLY excited about the fact that we needed a lot of new functionality without having much money.
Microsoft looks like a disconnected, clumsy bethemoth from the outside, but the fact is that they have quite a lot of power and skill. They just don't use it 90% of the time.
Microsoft does exactly what is necessary to hold on to power, and nothing more. They're like the satan character in C.S. Lewis' Perelandra (however it's spelled); they are capable of intelligence, but when acting as an intelligent creature does not directly serve their goals, they simply choose to shut it off and become a mindless, dumb beast. Right now, Microsoft is in big, dumb beast mode. They aren't updating their product line except in superficial ways, their entire product line is bloated, unusable crap, and their every action seems merely designed to extract as much money from those persons they have roped into being customers.They are, however, capable of creating good (although perhaps not secure) products and pricing themselves competitively. They merely choose not to because at this moment they do not have to. It does not serve their goals.
The problem is that still at this point, Linux to a great degree is succeeding less on its own merits than it is because of Microsoft's flaws. This is not to say that Linux does not have the merits needed for success; only that those merits are not enough on their own to cause a mass migration. What is enough to cause a mass migration is the constant bullshit that must be put up with constantly from Microsoft. This means that Microsoft has the power to stem a mass migration when they choose, merely by expending some effort [money] to lessen the flow of bullshit which they output.
We are, indeed, nearing a tipover point. However, the Linux community will be badly burned if they expect Microsoft's behavior to remain the same once that tipover point comes. This is a false sense of security. Once that tipover point does, in fact, come, expect Microsoft's behavior to change radically, probably overnight. At that point is when the real fighting will begin. And both the amount of PR jockeying (or "FUD", if you absolutely must call it that) and the amount of actual competition the open source world are currently facing are nothing compared to what it will see then.
-- Super Ugly Ultraman
"They'll keep reducing, keep producing the same stuff people dont want"
If this is true, why is *nix bending over backwards trying to make compatible software and companies not switching over because only Windows can run the software they need?
The only reason I don't have all Linux in my house is because I need MS to run half of my software.
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.
Anyone who installed one of the earliest versions of Windows 95 (look, I crave forgiveness, I was younger and being paid to do it, OK!) will remember that it didnt come with MSIE, instead it came with the Microsoft Network. Back in the early '90s (so went the script) the internet wasnt going to happen, instead we were all going to use paid online services like AOL and Compuserve. MSN was on the roadmap as Microsoft's entry into the market and in the MSdream it was going to sweep aside AOL and Compuserve lust like MSIE swept aside Netscape a few years later.
Of course, we know it didnt happen that way. If MS had been IBM we'd have seen them soldier on with the MSN dream and suddenly have to backpedal in about 2000 just in time to miss the dotcom thing and lose loads of cash. As it was they dropped the idea like a hot potato and changed the direction of the entire company in record time to embrace the Internet. It's an overused phrase, but the rest is history.
My point? Dont write off Microsoft. They've stayed where they are by flexibility and they wont have lost that flexibility. It could be different this time of course because the flexibility of the OS movement is what makes it so cool, but I'll start dancing on Microsoft's grave when I see the headstone.
Oxford Dictionaries Online
Your crazy if you think that open source is now being adopted as the solution to MS. This is a trial period. Open source better deliver or MS will come back strong.
These things take time, and Linux has a ways to go. You have a lot of CTO's that are looking at linux for sure, but if they can't get done what the need for their bottom line, they'll run from it.
Kevin
As a Linux user/advocate and recent Mac "switcher", the issue of free software was not the one the deal maker for me when I decided on a PowerBook instead of an x86 lappy (i.e. Dell, Acer, Toshiba, etc). I didn't appreciate Dell, and many other reputable laptop makers telling me, "We're tacking an extra $200 to the bottom line for software you don't intend to use, you have no choice in the matter, and you have to agree to some arcane license just to take it off". The Microsoft Tax is what finally pushed me in the direction of the Mac. I use Linux exclusively at work, and had been running Windoze at home simply because I didn't feel like teaching my family how to use Linux systems. The last virus that hit our intranet was the straw that broke that camel's back and we went to a strictly 'Nix shop at home. So no, free was never an issue for me, reliability and integrity (both of which M$ has displayed less and less of IN SPITE of recent Anti-trust findings) is what sealed the deal for me.
The english language is in beta. It's evolving but has not yet reached a level of usability.
While I have always admired MS's marketing (they normally figure out what is going to hurt them and address it), Gates will never allow this to happen. Their monopoly depends on Windows being everywhere. This will go down the same way that Sun is going down; Screaming that they are growing and making headway while units decrease and profits increase until it is over in a flash.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I have a feeling that Microsoft's slide won't be quick, nor complete... remember when IBM was supposedly going to fall into the ocean because they weren't able to compete with Sun, SGI, and HP in the UNIX market?
Functionally, the company can continue to generate revenue and remain "profitable" for a long time. If you look at Microsoft's strongest competitors in each business, how many of them can retain a lead on M$ for another 3-5 years while Microsoft tries to reinvent itself to boost profits?
IBM and HP each half-compete with Microsoft while shipping their products to their enterprise customers.
Sun and "The Linux Distros" (Red Hat, SuSE, etc...) all nudge Microsoft at the desktop level... although none of them may have the resources to survive a sustained competition with Microsoft. That said, Apple seems to thrive despite having a small market share because it has a loyal userbase.
Sony may have a real battle on its hands with the next generation consoles given that Nintendo's weakness and Microsoft's marketing muscle (and deep pockets) may give them a big boost to narrow the gap in marketshare.
And how is Palm weathering the Micro$oft assault on handheld operating systems?
Perhaps the most interesting thing will not be anticipating the inevitable downturn Microsoft will face, but to consider what form a "new" Microsoft will take when they try to claw their way back to the top? I have this gut feeling that X-Box and PocketPC create a new "low-end" strategy in markets where being the provider of an OS and a reference design can be very profitable.
I'll take the moderation hit in agreement.
.NET makes a lot of things a lot easier, and it makes some things more difficult. The Visual Studio IDE still blows away anything and everything Linux offers and developing world class web apps can be done with .NET faster than in Linux.
Yes,
Will is lead once again to MS growth? I don't know, it certainly could, but it just seems like too little...
--
Use Vobbo for Video Blogs
They'll learn to improve, and we'll once again have the good microsoft we did in the pre-1999 days
At least as far as I can tell, the "old" Bill Gates Microsoft is pretty much gone. That's the MS that valued universal adoption over vertical lock-in. That MS commoditized technology, priced things cheap, let people pirate them like crazy, and used it's muscle to get it's stuff everywhere possible.
(Whether or not the old MS was "good" is debatable. They certainly seemed like it coming out of the war with IBM in the early 90s, not so coming out of the war with Netscape.)
The "new" Ballmer Microsoft is trying to go Up Market and become a new mini-IBM. They don't really try to compete on price, they compete on a the level of integration they provide. Their new tier of products really only have value add when combined with other MS products.
Microsoft probably no longer cares if Office has a 95% marketshare or not. They are probably only really interested in Office customers that use all the network groupware, collaboration, and security functions. Much like IBM in the old days, if you aren't interested in becoming an end-to-end "Microsoft Shop", you aren't a very valuable customer anymore and you can go use StarOffice.
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
But... Then... (Shaking voice) What are we going to do when there is no more Microsoft ?
In the meantime...
Perhaps is time for shorting the stock. Bill certainly thinks it's, he has been selling stock like crazy. Check this site and ask for a insider report on MSFT (no direct link possible to the report).
Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
For thirty years, Microsoft competed in a market that had essentially zero competition.
Actually, they had a tons of competition. However MS usually was usually off creating new markets for their products, while the competition was maximizing profits in the old markets.
Despite the fanboyism of the editorial, it's a real point that now Microsoft is the one playing profit maximization, and others are off blazing new markets.
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
I and many other people here on /. have said it over and over again:
Mickeysoft will generally have to shift away from inhouse all-in-one lock-in concepts only to a more service oriented businessmodel if they want to stay numero uno for another decade.
The problem Mickeysoft has, is that it clearly underestimated it's power, clutching to that now deprecating classic businessmodel of theirs instead of seeing what was coming up with the rise of Linux/E/KDE/Gnome/uNameIt. Every single one in the industry I know is gonna switch to OSS when their current stuff isn't sufficient anymore. Everybody, exept for some Mac oriented designers. And they have 'switched' with OS X allready. In this part Steve Jobs is still the entepreneur he was 20 years ago, seeing the light befor the majority of his customers do. Whilst Billy G. just seems to feel a little overconfident in Windows and not grasping a clue about the rest.
Now there are to much people out there that have heard of Linux and OSS. 3 years ago that would have been different and MS could have incorperated a Unix/OSS concept of business themselves and everyone would have thought Linux is a new M$ thing. I guess it's to late for that now.
So much for being a big, bloated, inflexible and greedy corp. I couldn't care less if M$ shrinks to a normal company due to it's own bloat and blind self-confidence. On the contrary. That's the best that can happen to humanity.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
You know not of what you speak. My work is in highly-distributed enterprise server systems. We also develop a large number of client pieces and not a single one has been ported to Linux because there is ZERO interest out there; we've even asked our customers if they would be interested and not a SINGLE ONE said yes... EVERY customer said they were only interested in Windows clients.
They actually don't cost that much. Take you M$ reps out to lunch when they visit. Tell one of the interns to walk by the cube at around 3:10 and casually mention something about the "linux server" banter with the reps mindlessly for another hour discussing your problems things you'd like to see etc, then ask for some software licenses, chances are they will give them too you. We do this every year or so, we call it our "M$ shake down", it works.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
With $50 billion in the bank comes political clout that no open source project can hope to counter. MS, along with their industry lackys, will push for, and we will have enacted legislation making it illegal to use software that doesn't have "content protection" built in at the hardware level. Of course only "approved" software will have any real access to the hardware, and any thought of truely open source operating systems will be lost. Major hardware vendors will produce motherboards, processors, and mass storage devices for sale in the USA that can only be accessed by approved software with proper digital ids and signatures. Of course this will be able to be hacked, but it will relagate open source back into a hobby! No amount of GPL'd code can overcome the fact that it will be a crime(as in DMCA) to break the "trusted computing" layer in hardware to allow code not certified "acceptable" to have free access to the CD/DVD/network/RAM/processor/video card etc.... Just a nightmare that Orwell would be proud of!
cheers, ben
Never miss a good chance to shut up -- Will Rogers
Microsoft may have been slowed by Linux, but if history has taught computer users anything over the last twenty-odd years, it's that Microsoft is exceptional adept at re-tooling itself and resuming it's domination of the software industry.
.NET and Longhorn product cycles. Then, of course, armed to the teeth with their own patent portfolios and unique proprietary technologies, their customer base will remain (they hope) safely in the Microsoft fold.
...And when Longhorn comes out and ties it all together, the One Evil Ring will very possibly remain firmly on Bill Gates finger.
Their doom has been forecast many times, yet it seems that they always rebound stronger and more profitable than ever before. Until they have shown YEARS of decline, I for one refuse to believe any reports of their death, much less serious injury.
To wit, they seem to have a palpable strategy in place to combat Linux. Basically, it is their hope that the questions of IP will slow adoption long enough for them to lock their corporate customers into the Windows 2003 server,
Remember that Office 2003 is actually a salvo in the Embrace, Extend and Extinguish strategy -- their XML formats are just proprietary enough to make that so, given the inertia that they have with the largest installed office-suite base as well as (frankly, like it or not) the most functionally integrated package on the market. Add to that the B2B interaction of sending Word, Powerpoint and Excel files and their strategy very well might work once again.
Windows Server 2003 and it's embedded technologies promises much of the same.
I say all this not as a Microsoft apologist but simply as a realist. While I strongly prefer Linux both on the server and on the desktop, the fact remains that there is much to be done, very much indeed, before it will topple the likes of a Microsoft.
They won't make a BSD derived OS. Ignoring the fact that there is competition in that field..
The geek crowd would howl. The Mac crowd would crow. Consumers would see MS stray from Windoze and may decide to explore alternatives themselves. Their apple cart would truly tip then.
Still, they in a bind: The Inq does have an anti-MS edge to it, but the underlying problem for MS is true. Linux/OpenOffice hit hardest where their 90% profit ratio exists. Even it it doesn't translate into any actuall wins, it will hit their books b/c their customers can finally negotiate. How would any company negotiate when they know their supplier's products have a 90% profit ratio???
I wonder if there exists a market for the Linux techie that will provide negotiation support?? = )
Cheers,
-B
Please, if you are going to rewrite history, don't do it with a hunk of crap like OS/2.
To anyone familiar with Unix systems (most people here), OS/2 really looks like the retarded bastard-twin of Windows that it was. No security, input queue lockups, mystery INI files, retarded CONFIG.SYS configuration, poor stability compared to anything but Windows 3.1. Bleck Bleck Bleck.
The only "good" thing about OS/2 by any modern standard was the object desktop, but even that was a mess of ugly icons, mysterious & confusing folder organization, and a filemanager that made baby jesus cry. It was clear that it was designed by programmers and even the people at IBM had no idea what it was supposed to to do.
It's too bad IBM didn't have Bill Gates in their marketing department.
Don't think they didn't try to buy him out. It would have been the only way OS/2 would have gotten off the ground.
Pardon me, but the article seems like a bunch of half-assed opinions with no facts to back them up, mixed in with a little bit of good old fashoned flaming/ranting.
/. talking about Microsoft are nothing but a bunch of half-assed opinions with no facts to back them up. Nothing new here, and certainly not unexpected.
Well to be honest, most articles on
Licensing 6.0 is a disaster, and so is Product Activation. At least we know that much.
Microsoft certainly took a hit with Licensing 6.0, they've admitted as much.(Which, BTW, is the secret to Microsoft's success... admitting failures and trying to correct them)
But Product Activation? Hasn't impacted Windows XP sales at all. In fact, one could point to it as evidence that Product Activation can work if done correctly.
Now Product Activation with Intuit's tax program, that was a disaster, and Intuit admitted as much.(again, another sign of a sucessful company) But then that's because they didn't implement it correctly.
One thing I don't get is the myth that if I operate a MS OS I'm locked into Microsoft software and paying MS eternally for updates etc. I just went through the software I use daily and while most of it runs on Windows XP, none of it's by Microsoft. Here's the list:
Acrobat (Adobe)
Agent (Forte)
Eudora (Qualcomm)
Ghostscript (AFPL/OSS)
GSView (Ghostgum)
Mathematica (Wolfram Research)
MikTeX (OSS)
Mozilla (OSS)
Octave (OSS)
Paint Shop Pro (JASC)
PuTTY (OSS)
Winamp (Nullsoft)
Notice especially how many great open-source or otherwise free packages there exist in fields that Microsoft haven't got anything to offer. Then why do I constantly read on /. that MS have a complete monopoly on software like nothing else was available?
Note also the complete lack of Office of any kind. I rarely need a word processor, and if I do there's Wordpad or KOffice and whatever spreadsheet it comes with on Linux. Oh, I guess I use WMP or RealPlayer (blegh) occasionally.
It doesn't really matter if Microsoft is competing against Linux or old Microsoft releases. Their current releases are losing market share. Shit, I still use Visual C++ 6.0 at work.
Their business on a whole may be flat, but some parts of their business doing AMAZINGLY well.
Their two big profit makers are Windows and Office. Since 1/3 of their existing customers didn't sign up to their new Office licensing scheme, that means they are obviously planning to switch to something else (or they would have signed up for the new licensing since it would be cheaper if they weren't going to switch). Linux has already pretty much won in the server space. Goverments, schools, and businesses continue to chip away at the Windows desktop market share. Microsoft's last customers will be home users who buy their computers at the mall, but how much growth is in this market (does grandma really need a 3Ghz pentium to browse the internet)? IMO, the only thing holding back total Linux desktop domination are lack of games, and maybe some polishing. I predict MS to start selling off some of their unprofitable businesses and to start laying people off.
That said, there are still a great many IT people and users who still believe that Microsoft defines IT these days, and it will take years for the views expressed in the Inquirer article to catch up with them. I view this as a normal process, and I often see that perception lags progress by 18 months or more.
My most serious problem with this article is that I cannot show it to any serious business clients; the article shows almost nothing but contempt for them as a whole, and they will (wrongly) take that as a reflection on the Linux community; the editorial choices made indicate that the author is very blatantly pro-Linux. This tends to reinforce the perception that Linux and OSS folk are rather anti-business, playing into the hands of FUD spreaders.
We need this message delivered, but with better packaging, primarily since it will be more effective. Note that packaging and presenting is perhaps Microsoft's greatest strength, and we would do well to improve our packing as much as possible, although we certainly don't need to follow Microsoft in this regard.
Its likely that a group of hackers would crack it, and allow Linux to open the "secure" content, but that would be illegal, which kinda kills the idea of Linux as an OS for the masses.
It would only be illegal in the USA. The rights the DMCA tries to protect are intellectual rights in the binary realm. The approach avenue in this specific case is the access rights to the data.
Internationally, these rights are protected by treaties. Non of these treaties (yet!) works in a way the DMCA works. The treaties attempt to regulate using and copying (mainly) the works, not accessing the information.
One example is the regio coding of DVD's. Circumventing the regio encoded on a DVD probable is illegal in the US, but it most certainly isn't in most countries.
the pun is mightier than the sword
It's perhaps ironic that China might become the beacon of freedom in computer software, when corporate America tries to tighten it's stranglehold around American (and even European) courtrooms...
I just hope they are far enough in the road to general freedom, that even if the "regime" of China decides they want to go back to hard line Communism, they can't any more...
There are untapped markets, however in two high profile instances (Brazil, and China) they have chosen to go open source.
There are also a lot of markets that software with any significant initial cost and that may require powerful hardware that cannot yet tap. In the developing world a low software cost system based on a server with thin clients makes the best of second hard hardware, and admin costs. Microsoft would do well to have effective and cheap products ready to tap into the thin client market. Maybe a low footprint (Windows CE?) version of Windows and a link up with the likes of Citrix?
Your stupid DRM laws won't apply to us, the rest of the World. We don't care for them.
What if big multinational corporations strong-arm governments to give in? This is why some countries have accepted large parts of the stupid US software patent system.
It will be an interesting fight.
Table-ized A.I.
As someone else pointed out, there's a ton of win9x out there. There are also tons of other computers out there, not just Linux, also BSD, AIX, Solaris ... Microsoft does not have so much power that they can make all of them illegal. Especially Linux, it is simply too widespread. If Microsoft were so foolish as to try to use DRM to make Linux illegal, they would find themselves in a world of hurt from the competition and from legislators and prosecutors alerted by the competition and users.
It simply will not happen.
Infuriate left and right
I'm not trying to start a war or anything but I wonder how those surveys work? I think it would be interesting to see some sort of "non-casual" statistics. Meaning what do most of the bigger companies/developers run on?
.NET camp for a while and have now begun learning java jsps/servlets/J2EE because of news related to .NET not exactly taking off... Don't know what to believe.. If none of this works out I guess I'll go into a trade... Electrician anyone? At least they can't be outsourced...
I'm thinking apache would be more popular with virtual hosts because there are no licensing fees. I can see people with less serious development needs going more for the cheaper solutions (not saying they can't run anything serious). Would this result in "mom and pop" type sites raising linus/apaches apparent popularity? Is apache really crushing Microsoft's server solutions by that much in the web developer world?
I've been playing in the Microsoft
MS webservers wouldn't serve to a non-trusted computer, movies, sounds, and images built with "trusted" packages won't open on non-trusted OSes.
Suicide. Considering the american monopoly, people are NOT going to run out and buy more computers at the tip of a hat. Effectively breaking the internet for a few million people is not a good business move.
If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
Linux has almost no penetration desktop, non-server applications. Evidence? Coming right up. Note Google's usage breakdown.
Maybe, maybe not. Google numbers are likely biased strongly towards home users. But Linux is moving onto corporat desktops first. Home users will be the last to adopt it.
Why do geeks take pride on how austere a user interface they can tolerate?
I dunno--why do Windows and Mac users take pride in how many useless and tedious dialog boxes, buttons, and mouse clicks they can tolerate?
I looked into switching over to SUSE, but they offer no developer support. This is critical because as an ISV, we need someone we can go to if we run into Linux problems that we can't figure out or that we don't have the experience to solve. We can't possibly sell a product to customers and then have them go to the internet to figure out how to solve their problems
Figured I'd respond to one of your comments as I went through porting some software to Linux on the zSeries this summer. If you are an ISV, SuSE has a lovely technology partner program that gives you what you need - ISO's of all the platforms, developer support, training - for a very reasonable EUR 1580 per year. A fabulous deal even if you only have three or four developers as this is not a 'per box' fee.
The rules for ISV's are not the same as those for 'normal' customers trying to run your apps in production land....
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
"Now that Phoenix has signed on to "Trusted Computing" we are facing the very real possibility that the next generation of hardware (and MS OS) will have a very difficult to break content lock in. I doubt they'd do anything as blatient as making Linux impossible to run, but it'd have to run in "Non-Trusted" mode, MS webservers wouldn't serve to a non-trusted computer, movies, sounds, and images built with "trusted" packages won't open on non-trusted OSes.
Its likely that a group of hackers would crack it, and allow Linux to open the "secure" content, but that would be illegal, which kinda kills the idea of Linux as an OS for the masses... "
Ok, a bit of background. I wrote that story on the Inq that is the topic here, and as part of my job, I have been following the Trusted Computing/Palladium/whatever very closely. It isn't that bad. The technology is not evil, and it won't lock you out. The technology simply is.
Before you go blathering on and on about how linux won't run on it, or it will be a bitch for the average user to port, I hate to tell you, but Linux was up and running on a 'trusted' platform at IDF this fall. Intel wants it, IBM wants it, and so does everyone else. It is already there, don't lose any sleep over this any more.
That said, the whole idea is stupid, unworkable and won't achieve anything that they are aiming for, but that is for a totally different reason. If you want a great example of how people don't get it, go watch the fall '03 IDF keynote, it is probably on the Intel web site somewhere. You will understand how they missed the mark (A big wet kiss to the first person to link it in a comment).
Now, if you want evil, and I do mean evil, that IS meant to lock you out, look to EFI and the new bootloaders. That is where MS is going to try to cut linux off at the knees, or maybe already has. I am working on this story, but it is slow going. Be very afraid of EFI people.....
-Charlie
I don't think he was talking about fair vs unfair. He seemed to be talking about free markets vs artificially created monopolies. If there was no copyright then there would definitely be a free market. I agree it would not be fair to the company that originally wrote the software, but free markets aren't always fair.
Copyright is a government-enforced artificial monopoly. It exists for the primary goal of encouraging authors to produce a greater number of works. The idea was always to promote intellectual growth by providing an incentive to the authors. The governments recognised that a free market is unfair to creators of IP and copyrights are their attempt to restore the balance.
So while I can agree that copyrights are more fair than anarchy, I also believe that copyright is inherently anti-free-market. Not that I think that's a problem; I'm not a big believer in fully free markets. I think copyrights have their place though the current copyright extensions are maybe a bit excessive.
I actually do have an issue with software copyrights. The copyright acts (in the USA) were drafted when books and maps and poetry were the popular IP that needed protection. These works expose their "blueprint" to the general public. So when the copyright term expired (which was an acceptable 14 years back then) the public could freely copy the work. The publicly available IP wealth of the country was increased.
Fast forward to modern copyright. Not only is the term ludicrous (up to 140 years!) but software upsets the balance. The public only ever receives the binaries, not the source code! The source is kept hidden as a trade secret. Surely you can see the problem with this: when the term expires the intellectual wealth of the country will not be increased. The intellectual property stays with the company indefinitely (or until the trade secret is leaked).
So I think software companies are rorting the original intention of copyright. They get copyright protection for their software and they don't have to give anything of value to the public when their copyright term expires. That's not what the drafters of USA copyright intended. I would think a suitable remedy would be that all software binaries must come with source code. That would restore the balance.
Of course, any closed-source vendor will claim that opening up their source code would destroy their company. "The pirates! The pirates!" they'd cry. Of course, the pirates don't care about the source code, they just copy the binaries and sell them for $10 a disc in the Hong Kong blackmarket. The "evil hackers" might care about source code, but I'm fairly sure they already have it anyway. The only half-valid argument is to prevent other (unscrupulous) companies from reusing copyrighted code in their own products; but if all companies were required to open-source their products then such violations would be easily discovered.
Bear in mind I'm talking only about releasing the source code... NOT about forcing all companies to release their software with no fees or licensing. Microsoft can continue to charge $259 for XP and send in goons to audit companies who aren't paying their licensing fees. There's no change in their copyrights just because the source is out there. They wouldn't even have to change their licensing!
I am a severe skeptic of every technology company around, but have found myself engulfed by Microsoft as a Windows Geek because they just keep surprising me by not going totally braindead. (in spite of The Inquirer's article) Is it just me or didn't MS servers go from 10 percent of the market (LAN Manager on DOS or OS/2), to 20 percent (Novell ignored this), to 38 percent (where I thought they would peak), to 55 percent now? These Windows 200X Servers are pretty impressive examples of how the Borg has expanded through embrace and extend. In the meantime, Linux has been killing off the NIX'es and Novell to become the other big kid on this block. All the while, I have seen boneheaded move after boneheaded move by MS that tempted me to write them off, learn Java and Linux, and start looking for a job with "The Rebel Alliance". The phenomenal price hikes, the horrific defense they put on against David Boies and the Justice Department, SQL Slammer, Blaster, the refusal to backport Active Directory's Group Policies to pre-Windows 2X (Windows 2000, XP, 2003) machines, the forcing of Exchange customers wanting Exchange 2000 to deploy Active Directory (on Windows 200X Servers only), MSN, losing their lawsuit with Sun over Java, the threatened arbitrary defrocking of Windows NT 4.0 MCSE's (Microsoft Certified Sales Engineers :) )that was only averted four months from the deadline, and more. This company has committed about a zillion errors and it keeps coming back from them all smiling, profitable, and supremely confident like some sort of liquid metal-based Terminator soaking up shotgun blasts. Sixty billion in the bank will do that for you, I suppose.
What to make of this? An old friend long ago advised me that whatever IBM is doing, do the opposite. He has long been an MS guy and it has paid off for both of us. Will it go on forever? Extremely unlikely. When twenty year olds come to me these days asking for long-range IT advice, I recommend Open Source. You will learn more, you have the time to learn it, and it's not going away. If they need to learn MS later, it will be easy after Open Source. MS won't be going away any time soon, but eventually we will ALL perceive that IT is not just about desktops, servers, and mainframes. When it comes to money, we need to remember those cell phones, Blackberry's, PDA's, gaming consoles, set top boxes, supercomputers, Distributed.net, manufacturing control systems, routers, firewalls, and dozens of things that don't come to mind. When viewed in its' totality, this market has MANY big players. The winds of change are blowing and the devices are bypassing MS's chokehold on innovation in its markets. Adam Smith's invisible hand will crash right through MS discounts, Justice Department inaction, and legions of lawyers to bring us the computing solutions we need. A pox on Darl McBride!
In principio erat Verbum.
A few years ago, I worked at HP on EFI firmware for IA-64 machines. Like all technologies, it can be used for good or evil.
EFI, short for External Firmware Interface can be described as BIOS on steroids, combined with MS-DOS. It's a programming API in firmware used specifically for low-level hardware configuration and bootstraping of OSes. It comes with a command shell that looks much like MS-DOS - it reads FAT filesystems, runs a TCP/IP stack, lets you manipulate files from the command line, set up scripts and execute programs. For the most part, these programs do things like boot OSes (from disk or network), splash screens & hardware configuration. I personally have seen Linux boot through a version of LILO hacked for EFI (though that was three years ago). It's much more flexible than the PC-style BIOS for such things. For those of you with Unix backgrounds, it's somewhat like the firmware in PA-RISC workstations that normally bootstraps HP-UX.
It isn't much of a stretch to suggest EFI can be used to set up Trusted Computing software or DRM, and even to lock out software that the Powers That Be consider to be undesireable, by running an initdrm program in the boot script just before it executes the hwconfig, splashscreen or bootos programs. As I said, EFI can be used for good or evil. EFI can be used for this, but doesn't have to be.
I personally doubt EFI will be used to cut off Linux, since a lot of the big players like HP and IBM have too much at stake to let themselves be shut out.
Meldroc, Waster of Electrons
Ever wonder what all those uppity protesters were up in arms about in Seattle a few years back? They're protesting against NAFTA, FTAA, GATT, WTO, and MAI because these groups and agreements allow investors to override laws.
To quote from a recent article "NAFTA: North American Deal Dismal After a Decade"
NAFTA rules also limit each country's domestic policies to deal with issues ranging from environmental health and food safety to banking and truck safety regulation.
Under the unprecedented investor rights sewn into the deal, investors are allowed to demand compensation for "indirect expropriation", which has been interpreted to mean any government act -- including those directed at public health and the environment -- that diminishes the value of a foreign investment.
Following one such suit, the Mexican government was ordered in August 2000 to pay nearly 17 million dollars to a California firm that was denied a permit from a Mexican municipality to operate a hazardous waste treatment facility in an environmentally sensitive location.
Yeah, that's what everyone was so up in arms about it. Too bad the media only told you about some dumb kids who threw some bricks at a Starbucks. If you want to understand the sort of societal structures that underly this situation, I recommend the book Understanding Power.
I was just reading through some of the EFI docs on Intel's site. EFI can be used for cryptographic authentication of boot images.
I can see Microsoft arm-twisting PC manufacturers into writing EFI code that will cause the PC to only allow authenticated, pre-specified boot images, Microsoft-approved Windows boot images, to be executed. Of course, this is only done for the best of reasons (for Microsoft) so viruses (and Linux kernels) can't run amok on your systems.
Yes, that's evil. But still, EFI is capable of lots of useful stuff as well.
Meldroc, Waster of Electrons
"The Inquirer's article is interesting, but the underlying forces have little to do with open source, and have been building for years." ...
"What happens when your company hits the limits of its growth? The dilemma MS faces is its own success. They own 95% of the desktop world. Almost everyone who _can_ use Windows and Office _does_ use it. They won't get continuing double-digit increases in revenue and profit from their core business, because they've saturated their market."
Good point, but you are only partially right. MS has saturated the US market for sure. The world market is just starting up in many places, and if MS could count on similar success in China, Brazil, India and so on they would be able to run their ponzi scheme a lot longer. The existence of Open Source, finally has presented a barrier through which they will not pass unchanged. Had Open Source been more prevalent back in the OS/2 vs Windows days I'm not sure we would still have a Microsoft any more. As it is, thanks to their war chest, they still have an opportunity to mutate themselves into something else.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to see them do a merger with someone like Dell to get into hardware and with one of the remaining big consulting companies to try and become a body-shop powerhouse. That is, of course if the government will allow them to do it. They will lose to Sony and friends if they keep pounding on the consumer electronics door. With margins like they are used to they just don't have a chance. Really, with the exception of the dirty tricks they pulled to create the Windows and Office monopolies Microsoft's history reads like a comedy of errors.
Basically Microsoft needs to once again go head to head with IBM. If they can't manage to do so they will simply start to evaporate. I'm not too sure they will be able to change fast enough to make a difference. That $40B will go fast.
Don't forget...the USA has more people in prison than China. Your odds of going to prison in China are much lower than your chances for going to prison in the USA. Does that mean you actually do have more freedom in China if your chances of going to prison for doing something are so much lower?
(as of 2001) China has 111 people in prison per 100,000 people, USA has 686 per 100,000. China has 1,428,126 people in prison, USA has 1,962,220.
I'm thinking "freedom" is an extremely relative term.
I attended a physics lecture some years ago, given by an engineer from 3M and a local scientist who had developed a high-tech plastic film being marketed by 3M. The 3M guy mentioned something along the lines of your comment in his presentation. I forget the exact numbers now, but it was something like that the company's policy is that 50% of their sales revenue in any given year should be from products developed in the last three years. Pretty daring for the company that makes Scotch tape and Post-It Notes.
"...companies as a whole cant put their trust into Linux. Microsoft is a face. It has an address and everyone knows that address. There are phone numbers to call and people to threaten should things break. You cannot call a kid in a garage and threaten him."
I've seen companies exhibit that same mentality, and I've never been able to understand it. The license scheme attached to windows gives you no recourse when (not if) it blows up. No matter how much you swear and bluster at Microsoft they have no obligation to support you in any way, shape, or form. So what exactly is it the tiny little minds of management are convinced Microsoft is providing for them?
Some defections were headed off, like the Thai government, which pays $36 for Office and Windows XP comes with a 95% discount if you compare it to list.
This kind of glosses over the fact that this price was available only for government program offering low-cost computers to Thais. These computers were set to come with the government's own version of Linux and other programs localized for Thai. One million computers with Linux pre-installed scared MS enough that the program put the first crack in the "One Price Around the World" dam that MS had erected to that point.
Prices for regular software dropped somewhat shortly after, but not to the level quoted in the article. Despite this, the MS initiative seems to have succeeded because the Thai gov't has signed at least one huge contract with MS since then and has all but ceased the open source propoganda that it was pushing before.
Put identity in the browser.
You describe a situation where IE would refuse non-trusted content. That's not how MS would use the system. They know where their money is coming from. What they'd do is go the other way around - have their servers refuse to give content to clients running on systems not privy to their DRM methods. That doesn't get *all* the servers, but it gets a lot of them. I remember back in the day where Unix server programmers in a company I was working for were getting Windows computers on their desks - the company's rationale was that since UNIX is remotable and Windows isn't (or at least wasn't very good at it yet at the time), then you need the OS that only works locally to be the one sitting on your desk. The OS that works remotely can exist just in the server room and everything will work fine for you. The really frustrating thing about this is that it's *TRUE*. It's completely unfair, but totally logical - the system with the crappier network functionality is the one that wins the most sales. And what really irked me about it was how the MS advocates would point this out as a "strength" of Windows. UNIX networkable technology was *too* good - it reduced the need to buy as many UNIX machines.
This is similar. If MS's servers refuse to speak to unix clients, then with MS clients you could visit all servers, and with unix clients you couldn't. Thus, just like with X-windows, the better technology loses, not just as a coincidence, but specifically BECAUSE it's better.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
2. It will be avaliable to everyone
While Microsoft will continue playing typical Microsoft-games, Trusted Computing itself is "available to everyone". Someone can even make a Trusted Computing version of linux, open source code and all. That source code is ABSOLUTELY USELESS however - Trusted Computing defeats/destroys the GPL. If you try to change a single line of that code then it no longer works.
where copyrights are enforced in digital media and all related media.
No. DRM restrictions have some resemblance to copyright rules, and they are motivated by copyright intrests, DRM restrictions do not equal copyright restrictions. For one thing it exterminates Fair Use. For another thing DRM enforces any restriction the publisher cares to impose, restrictions with absolutely no coneection to copyright law, restictions such as DVD region coding and blocking out the fast forward button on certain parts of DVD's.
we will also get a completly trusted computing environment for banking...
Imagine two identical computers. One is "new hardware" and you are given a printed copy of your Master Keys. You put that peice of paper in your safety-deposit box in a bank vault. The second computer is Trusted Computing. The only difference is that Trusted Computing FORBIDS you to know YOUR OWN MASTER KEY. Both machines have identical hardware and identical capabilities. I defy you to tell me how "new hardware" (where you know your key) is any less able to protect you than the Trusted Computer.
The mere fact that you know something CANNOT reduce your computer's ability to protect you from viruses or worms or trojans or hackers or anything.
What Trusted Computing really does is take away your ownership of your own computer. If you know your master Keys then no one could use your computer as a weapon against you. They cannot lock you in, they cannot lock you out, they cannot enforce DRM restrictions - in particular they cannot enforce DRM restrictions which have absolutely no basis in law like blocking Fair Use and enforcing DVD region coding.
That is the central design feature of Trusted Computing - that you are forbidden to know your own Master Keys. You could get all of the claimed benefits of Trusted Computing with a system that lets you know your keys, but they don't want to let you have such a machine. The real purpose of Trusted Computing is to deny you ownership and control your your own computer, they will only give you a version carrying this poison pill.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
100 years of FLAT would mean that their profit stays the same .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
for 100 years
It would be like saying that because they only make $1 billion USD
net, they cannot possible survive unless they make more
Flat performance is the same as you not getting a raise all year
If they want a raise they will just trade Visa workers for citizens,
like the other corporate scum bags
M$ is not going anywhere , anytime soon, just like you said
I am just saying this to clarify to ppl that flat performance
just means they did not increase their revenue rate
If you wanna see M$ go, take an active hand in doing so, promote
deployments of it, get the word out
I think a special on the History Channel, Discovery Channel,
or other shows would go a long ways to getting the word out
to the masses . The OSS movement could use the exposure too
All the ppl I know have little to know idea about linux or how
far it is has come because they don't see much on TV about it,
or read much in the mainstream news about it
Hopefully something major will happen to change this
Peace,
Ex-MislTech
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"